Archive for State Department

Hillary: The Facts

I’ll try not to use any of the twelve words you can’t say about Hillary (“honest”, “direct”, “likable”, etc.), and just stick to what we know:


So sick and tired of it all

Hillary Clinton wiped her email server “clean,” permanently deleting all emails from it, the leader of the House committee investigating the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Gowdy said in a statement. “Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest.”

Those “wedding plans” and “funeral arrangements” were none of your beeswax, Mr. Senator-man.

What we know is that Madame Secretary set up the private server when she was nominated to be Madame Secretary and she took Windex to it when first asked to turn over relevant material. And she asks us to trust that she did the right thing.

Besides, says her lawyer, you can always ask her old employer:

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place. Instead of asking Clinton for the emails, Gowdy should look to the State Department, which is “uniquely positioned to make available any documents responsive to your requests,” Kendall said.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

“The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton’s work-related emails from the (personal email) account,” Kendall wrote.

Those which she deigned to share.

We are left with many unanswered questions and only a back-of-the-hand answer. How confident are you that a John Kerry-led State Department will give a full accounting of a Hillary Clinton-led State Department?

Not-[bleeping]-confident.

With apologies in advance, I must say I find her “calculating, disingenuous, insincere, entitled, secretive” and anything but “inevitable”.

Comments

State Department, Obama Tried To Throw Israeli Election

and “non-profit” group in charge of interference applied to new tax status as soon as Congress began investigation

We knew this, but here is further proof. The slimes filed for a different tax exempt status as soon as Senator Cruz began asking questions:

The American nonprofit OneVoice Movement – under scrutiny by a U.S. Senate panel over possible links to a campaign to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – quietly filed paperwork that would allow it to engage in political activism after two leading Republican lawmakers questioned its use of government funds, FoxNews.com has learned.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter Jan. 29 to Secretary of State John Kerry asking whether the group ­– as a recipient of almost $350,000 in recent grants from the Obama administration’s State Department – had violated its tax-exempt status when it began backing the virulently anti-Netanyahu Victory 15 campaign in Israel earlier that month.

Cruz also publicly asked whether Obama – who’s had a well-documented adversarial relationship with Netanyahu – had “launched a political campaign against” the Israeli leader in the run-up to the election which was held on Tuesday.

“What does it say about the President of the United States when he’s more concerned about undermining and attacking the prime minister of Israel than he is standing up to the mortal threat a nuclear Iran poses?”- Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-Texas)
OneVoice, which until November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administration, quickly bushed off claims from critics that its backing of V15 meant it was targeting Netanyahu. Such an effort would be illegal under its tax-exempt status, which falls under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Just five days after the public dispatch of the Cruz-Zeldin letter, a “corporation service company” registered a new funding entity in Delaware called PeaceWorks Action, Inc. under a section of the tax code that still governs nonprofits, but allows them to engage in a limited amount of political activity. Listed under section is 501(c)4 of the tax code, PeaceWorks Action, Inc. is now featured on the OneVoice Website as one of OneVoice’s funders, alongside PeaceWorks Foundation, whose name has long been present, and which holds 501(c)3 status like OneVoice itself.

Critics are likely to see the registration as tacit admission that it had indulged in political activity alongside V15, which itself has been advised by former Obama campaign aides, including his top field organizer, Jeremy Bird.

Critics will see a tacit admission? How about people in possession of a brain will see it as an admission of wrong-doing? How can you not see this?

– Aggie

Comments

Clear as Mud

Good think Josh Earnest is so succinct:

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: Okay. And specifically, did the White House know that Secretary Clinton had her own server?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: I don’t know the answer to that.

Good. This is of her making, Clintonian in extremis. Let her twist slowly in the wind.

No Josh, stop!

I think the extent of knowledge about Secretary Clinton’s email was her email address. And she used that email address that, as we all now know, was not at state.gov, but that she was in — but that she was emailing White House officials — that’s something that I acknowledged from the beginning and it shouldn’t be a particular surprise that the Secretary of State is emailing senior White House officials…

HENRY: So you’re acknowledging for four years she did not use a State Department account and, to Major’s question, every senior official here at the White House just deferred and said, that’s okay.

Uhhh, I feel sick. I’d rather watch an ISIS snuff film.

PS: A sequel:

QUESTION: Do you have anything further on whether there’s going to be a comprehensive review of the contents of these emails or how it is that you’ve reached the, I guess, decision that there was no classified information included?

MS. [MARIE] HARF: Well, obviously – and part of this is coming up because 300 of her emails were provided to the select committee, so somebody obviously had to go through all 55,000 pages and determine if there was anything that was deemed responsive to the select committee’s request. So that process for that request was undertaken. If other requests come in the future, they will be gone through as well, to see if there’s anything responsive and appropriate to be provided. She and her team has said that it was not used for anything but unclassified work. We don’t undergo scans of everyone’s unclassified email to make sure they’re only doing unclassified work, so I don’t think there was any indication she was doing anything but here, so I don’t think it’s really a pertinent question.

Believe it or not, it got worse.

Imagine how much they must hate her. It’s like sunshine on a cloudy day.

Comments

Curiouser and Curiouser

As did most of the non-mainstream media, yesterday we reported on Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account for all her State Department business. If I had known MadSec@state.gov was available, I would have taken it, dammit.

The plot, much like her midriff, thickens:

The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22(at)clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton’s home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

But homebrew email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.

I’d like to believe Madame Secretary replicated those safeguards on her home account. But I don’t. I think it likely if not certain that China was reading her nocturnal transmissions to and from everyone from Sidney Blumenthal to Sergei Lavrov (and Bill, when they weren’t speaking).

It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton’s $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.

The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton’s email server. The former president’s full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

In theory but not in practice, Clinton’s official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can’t already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.

The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn’t possess all her emails.

Clinton’s private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.

This is just the sort of bizarre behavior that lends credence to some of the crazier tales emanating from the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. Reading this, I have to believe everything I’ve ever read about the Rose law firm, commodity futures, Whitewater, bimbo eruptions, and the execution-style killing of Vince Foster. Loony Tunes.

PS: At bottom, it’s about politics. Obama could do this, and he would be broadly defended against the racist nature of email. But Hillary is getting blasted from both the left and the right. Bloodthirsty liberals (present company excluded) want her politically dead so that Betty Buckskin can lead the tribe. Makes me almost feel sorry for her. Almost.

Comments

DQ’d

Not Dairy Queen—disqualified.

Stick a spoon in the Oreo® Cheesecake Blizzard® Treat: she’s done.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal e-mail account to exclusively conduct official business during her time at the State Department, a move that raises questions about access to the full archive of her correspondence, as well as the possibility that she violated federal law requiring official messages to be retained for the record.

The existence of the account was discovered by the House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and was first reported by The New York Times.

Clinton did not even have a government e-mail address during her tenure as America’s top diplomat, which lasted from 2009 to 2013, and The Times reports that her aides took no action to preserve her emails on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Madame Secretary was conducting the nation’s most sensitive business with brutes and thugs like Sergei Lavrov and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under an email handle like HillsBills@hotmail.com? I can’t tell you how illegal that is. Massively so. Gargantuanly.

And hardly accidental:

Instead, the paper reports, Clinton’s advisers selected which of her emails to turn over to the State Department for archival purposes after going through tens of thousands of pages of correspondence.

Records officials interviewed by The Times expressed grave concern over Clinton’s practice, saying it represents a severe ethical breach and noting that personal e-mail accounts are far less secure than official ones.

Jason Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, told the paper he found it “very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private e-mail communications channel for the conduct of government business.” Baron added that the use of private e-mail accounts is meant to be reserved only for emergencies, such as when a department’s server is not working or compromised.

That’s hard to square with the defense, desperately offered in the story, that every other Secretary of State did the same.

This is not merely a technical violation. This fits a pattern of evasion and deception—from her and the entire administration (hello Lois Lerner). That is the difference at this point that it makes.

PS: I’ve been saying all along that Hillary is vulnerable to a raiding party from Lieawatha’s rogue tribe. I’m beginning to wonder if MadSec will fold up her tent and disappear into the night.

Comments

Must-See TV

Democrats may boycott the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech before Congress, but there’ll be another demographic bloc who will be all eyes and ears:

Arab governments have been privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential nuclear deal with Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

According to the report, the direction of American diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat.

The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years.

Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,” an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks told the newspaper.

Arab governments have steered clear of aligning their statements with Israel, but share many of that country’s fears, U.S. and Arab diplomats said.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been perhaps the most vocal critic of the deal with Iran, said last week that Israel knows the details of the planned nuclear deal with Iran and warned that it is a bad one.

“I think this is a bad agreement that is dangerous for the state of Israel, and not just for it,” said Netanyahu, adding, “If anyone thinks otherwise what is there to hide here?”

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki later questioned whether Netanyahu indeed knows “more than the negotiators” about the talks, saying “there is no deal yet.”

Many years ago, Mrs. BTL and I were in discussions with our school system about the proper education of the heirs to the Bloodthirstani throne. We were at loggerheads. The school psychologist asked, with pain and exasperation, “Why don’t you trust us?” The sirens and flashing lights that followed were not from a school fire drill, but from the BS alert system hardwired into our brains. The question was either irrelevant or it answered itself. Either we had a disagreement over the facts of the case—in which case trust did not apply—or the facts were not in dispute—in which case something else explained the disagreement.

But mostly it was the manipulative nature of the question that so pi**ed us off. It’s not about you, we answered.

It’s the same tone I hear from Jen Space Cadet. She implies that we should trust the regime. But it’s not about the regime, or not just. It’s about the Islamic Republic of Iran that has compared the “Zionist entity” to a “filthy microbe” and has sworn to wipe it off the map. Israel is not a disinterested party in these negotiations.

And who is Jen Psaki that we should trust?

Psaki began her career in 2001 with the re-election campaigns of Iowa Democrats Tom Harkin and Tom Vilsack. Psaki then became deputy press secretary for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. From 2005 to 2006, Psaki served as communications director to U.S. Representative Joseph Crowley and regional press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[7]

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator Barack Obama, Psaki served as traveling press secretary.[7] After Obama won the election, Psaki followed Obama to the White House as Deputy Press Secretary and was promoted to Deputy Communications Director on December 19, 2009.[8][9] On September 22, 2011, Psaki left that position to become senior vice president and managing director at the Washington, D.C. office of public relations firm Global Strategy Group.[10][11]

In 2012, Psaki returned to political communications as press secretary for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.[12] On February 11, 2013, Psaki became spokesperson for the United States Department of State.[12]

She’s a Democrat political flack—which is fine; she’s obviously successful. But when one’s very existence hangs in the balance, as Israel’s does, does she inspire trust? She—and trust—are irrelevant.

Oh yeah, what about her second in command, Marie “Jobs for Jihadis” Harf?

Harf began her career at the Directorate of Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency as an analyst focusing on Middle Eastern leadership issues. She later became the media spokesperson of the CIA.[3]

During the 2012 presidential election, Harf helped craft President Obama’s national security and communications strategy, and also served as campaign spokeswoman on national security issues.[2][3]

In June 2013, Harf was appointed Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, where she currently serves as deputy under Jen Psaki.[2][3]

Better: she at least earned a job in the field of her expertise. But she too exists largely as a mouthpiece for others. And I seriously doubt her former colleagues at the CIA who have studied ISIS and its ideology agree that all we need to do to defeat it is find them positions as stock clerks at Walmart. At least I pray not.

Why don’t we trust you? The question answers itself.

Comments (2)

Scoot Over, Israel

Make room in the woodshed:

The Obama administration was given multiple chances Wednesday to endorse a longtime ally’s airstrikes on America’s biggest enemy at the moment, the so-called Islamic State. Over and over again, Obama’s aides declined to back Egypt’s military operation against ISIS. It’s another sign of the growing strain between the United States and Egypt, once one of its closest friends in the Middle East.

This shouldn’t be a complete surprise; Cairo, after all, didn’t tell Washington about its strikes on the ISIS hotbed of Derna, Libya. Still, Wednesday’s disconnect was jarring. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest passed on a reporter’s question about an endorsement of Egypt’s growing campaign against ISIS. So did State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

“We are neither condemning nor condoning” the Egyptian strikes, is all one U.S. official would tell The Daily Beast.

“The Egyptian military, in particular, is very frustrated with us,” one U.S. government official explained to The Daily Beast. “It is mutual frustration.”

At a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby called the relationship with Egypt “complicated.”

The Obama regime hates Egypt for opposing ISIS, and hates Israel for opposing Iran. I’m pretty good at describing what this cabal does, but I haven’t a clue as to why. What’s “complicated” about bombing the [bleep] out of ISIS? What’s not to condone? Should Egypt have dropped the want ads with its bombs?

The only logical answer is that they are literally anti-American.

Comments

Jobs for Jihadis

Everybody’s all over that State Department ditz, Marie Harf, for suggesting that all ISIS terrorists need to give up their wicked, wicked ways is a regular swing shift at the old Packard plant.

“We can not win this war by killing them. We can not kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs–“

But it’s been tried before. And not just by Bush:

“I’m not the first person to say something like this. Military commanders that we’ve had throughout many years here fighting this war on terrorism have said the exact same thing…

President George W. Bush talked about poverty being one of the drivers leading people to extremism.

I didn’t think appealing to Bush was how these people rolled.

But it’s been tried even before that.

Wernher von Braun ring a bell?

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which over 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers from Nazi Germany and other foreign countries were brought to the United States for employment in the aftermath of World War II.[1] It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning Cold War. One purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific expertise and knowledge to the Soviet Union[2] and the United Kingdom,[3] as well as inhibiting post-war Germany from redeveloping its military research capabilities.

Although the JIOA’s recruitment of German scientists began after the Allied victory in Europe on May 8, 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman’s order expressly excluded anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism”. However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a “menace to the security of the Allied Forces”.[4]

They don’t look too scary. Maybe it’s one thing to de-Nazify the odd rocket scientist or medical researcher, but another to de-Islamify an ISIS savage.

Read about Strughold or Rudolph and von Braun at Mittelbau-Dora, and see if you still feel that way.

But it can be done. If we can just find out what these ISIS boys are good at, we can make them respectable contributors to society.

No one seems to be able to carry out a decent death penalty sentence these days. Just a thought.

Comments

#screamaboutourgirls

AAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

That work for you?

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Joining me now, Jen Psaki, State Dept. spokesperson. I know you read the intelligence and know what is going on there. Richard has now brought this home to us just in the powerful stories of these children who are being raped and traded as chattel by ISIS.

JEN PSAKI, US STATE DEPT: Andrea first I really want to thank you and thank Richard for bringing light to these types of stories. It is something we don’t talk about enough: the horrific atrocities that women and children are becoming victims of at the hands of ISIL. This is an untold story about what’s happening in Syria, what’s happening in Iraq and something that we really all need to be talking about. It’s something we’re very focused on here at the State Department. We have a whole office on international women and girls. They talk about this frequently but we should all be screaming about how terrible this is.

ANDREA MITHCELL: I know you point out that the State Dept. has a whole office that we don’t pay enough attention to here in the media, thank you.

So, is the State Department saying it has binders full of women?

But I’ve got the modern solution for any problem, large or small.

With Ukraine settled, the raping and chattel-trading will cease shortly.

Comments

The Holocaust: When a Bunch of Zealots Randomly Gassed a Bunch of Folks

So, it was just bad luck—is that the regime’s story?

Since US President Barack Obama’s controversial comments during a recent interview, in which he downplayed the anti-Semitic nature of the deadly shooting attack at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month, government spokespeople have been falling over themselves to explain what exactly he meant. And failing pretty miserably.

In the interview with Vox, published earlier this week, the US President asserted that the media was “overstating” the threat from terrorism to garner ratings, but admitted terrorism was still a problem. In so doing, however, he provoked a storm of controversy with the following comment: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

First, White House official spokesman Josh Earnest made a valiant but cringeworthy attempt to tidy up after the President, justifying Obama’s claim that climate change was more dangerous than terrorism, as well as attempting to explain how ISIS terrorist Amedy Coulibaly was simply “shooting random folks” without paying any attention to their background at the Hyper Cacher store.

“Folks”. You know this whole rotten bunch is passing gas in your face when they start talking about “folks”. Is that in the White House style manual?

Later Tuesday evening it was the turn of State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who similarly struggled to rationalize Obama’s strange comments.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee began the exchange, asking: “Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?”

Psaki’s response to the straightforward question was perhaps even more evasive than Earnest’s.

Psaki: “Well, as you know… I believe… if I remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is… I don’t know if they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store… but (rather) the individuals who were impacted.”

If you enjoyed that, you probably like watching dog fights. That was brutal.

And it wouldn’t stop:

When Lee pointed out that Secretary of State John Kerry’s own actions, by meeting specifically with members of the Jewish community to pay condolences after the attack, suggested otherwise, Psaki struggled to formulate a coherent response.

Psaki: “Naturally given that is… the grocery store is one that, uh…”

Lee: “But don’t you think the store itself was a target?”

Psaki: “That’s different from the victims being…”

Lee: “Does the administration believe that this was an anti-Jewish… an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

Psaki: “I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

Lee: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?

“Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)…? An attacker going into a store that is clearly identified with one specific faith – I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say that this was a targeted attack!”

Psaki: “I don’t have more for you Matt, it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

What’s going on here? Are they just covering up for another imbecilic thing their boss said? Or is it worse? Do they hate Israel (apparently) and Netanyahu (absolutely) so much that they would deny a narrative that makes Jews sympathetic?

What exactly did he say again?

It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama said.

What did I tell you about “folks”?

This is the administration’s story, and they’re sticking to it. A bunch of “zealots” “randomly” shot a bunch of “folks”. We don’t have to hold it up to ridicule: it ridicules itself. I almost feel sorry for Jen Psaki for being pimped out like that.

But I soon get over it. At least she called them victims and not folks.

Comments (1)

EXACTLY How Stupid Is The State Department????

Can you believe this stupid?

The year began on a rough note for the U.S. State Department’s Think Again, Turn Away anti-terror program. On January 1, the State Department used the program’s official Twitter account to tweet a photo collage accompanied by the message, “Entering 2015, taking time to honor some of terror’s many victims of 2014 and their families – RIP.” However, none of the individuals appearing in the photos are believed to be dead, but rather held captive by terrorists.

The tweet, since deleted, appeared as follows, and is archived here

Dolts, Twits, Nitwits… I’m looking for a word to describe these lazy jerks.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Department of Clarification

“Let me be clear,” as Obama likes to say:

The United States is not considering sanctions against Israel in response to its construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified on Monday.

“I can set the record straight and be clear that reports that we might be contemplating sanctions against Israel are completely unfounded and without merit,” She told reporters, according to The Blaze.

Psaki was asked if perhaps the Obama administration had been considering sanctions against Israel and now is not, adding she thinks her statement “has been consistently true” over time.

However, she indicated that the government may in fact have been mulling sanctions against Israel at some point. For example, she was asked explicitly if sanctions were ever under consideration, and refused to say more, “I just am not going to have any more for you on it.”

Moments later, she said sanctions against Israel are nothing something that will be “moving forward,” a possible indication that the option did exist. She then quickly corrected herself to say they were never being contemplated.

“We put sanctions in place around the world for a variety of reasons,” she said. “This isn’t a situation where obviously moving forward with that, or were contemplating that, as my comments made clear.”

They did? I mean, they did!

Late last week, dozens of Republicans demanded that President Barack Obama answer clearly whether he is considering sanctions against Israel, a move that the GOP would have hotly opposed.

The letter, published Friday, further warned that “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the Administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome. Such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

If you have to ask, don’t you already have your answer?

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »