Failed novelist Ben Rhodes defends Iran after attack

Ben Rhodes has an MFA in creative writing from NYU but has failed as a novelist because publishing houses obviously didn't think he had talent. His brother David is a former president of NBC News. Those were all the qualifications former President Barack Obama felt he needed for his National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications [emphasis on felt], a position created for him because of his talent as a failed novelist.

Rhodes tweeted:

Yesterday, massive explosions rocked a Saudi Arabian oil field, shutting down 5% of the world’s production. As my colleague streiff shared earlier today, we didn’t have to wait long to find out who did it. If you had Iran as the aggressor, congrats, although that’s not a difficult guess these days. It appears cruise missiles, possibly fired by Iranian backed militias in Iraq, were used in the attack.

Well well well… pic.twitter.com/bPgY6J67JE

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed that Iran was the backing for the operation. The cruise missiles belong to them and only their proxies use them.

Pompeo tweeted:

We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks. The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 14, 2019

But Ben Rhodes [I misspelled Butt] knows better than all of us. He is telling us that Sec. Pompeo is wrong and he knows better. [Is it possible he is having an affair with Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett?]

In an incredibly dumb, dishonest and dangerous tweet, Rhodes posted:

The Houthis are not the same as Iran and the Saudis are fighting a war against them in Yemen. This is an incredibly dumb, dishonest and dangerous thing to say. https://t.co/Ij5haLdzQr
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) September 14, 2019

The likelihood that Iran isn't involved in the attack and Rhodes is correct has the same probability of finding a Mars chocolate bar on Mars. The Secretary of State is privy to the intelligence that Rhodes is not, therefore Rhodes lacks intelligence in more ways than one.

Suffice it to say, Rhodes invariably tends to side with Iran and the Mullahs and it makes one wonder if there isn't something in it for him. Maybe Jarrett really is influencing him with promises to keep.

Fun Fact: Valerie Jarrett is 5% Native American, which means she is more Native American than Elizabeth "Throwing Bull" Warren.

The fact that the Houthis are controlled by Iran and are financed by them challenges the notion that Ben Rhodes should be taken more seriously than a village idiot.

Several tweets challenge Rhodes' credibility:

Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah trains the Houthis. Iran backs the Houthis including by supplying them with advanced weaponry. You can keep pretending the Islamic Republic in Iran is not behind these destructive proxies. But facts are stubborn things. https://t.co/7XnUMtYmjU
— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) September 14, 2019

Every time Ben Rhodes opens his mouth, I have to remind myself that yes, this man actually served as a Deputy NSA in the Obama White House. https://t.co/5Umi2BPHio
— capitalist ghoul 🦅 (@m0ve_im_gay) September 14, 2019

But the best rebuttal of Rhodes' idiocy came from Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX):

The frightening irony is that when Rhodes was in the Obama administration, none of the media challenged his qualifications. Even with the horrible Arab Spring which set off Middle East fireworks, nothing was said to challenge his ability to be in an important advisory position.

And let's face it, the dude went along with the Iran nuclear deal.

Yet today, the media refuses to call him out for being unqualified to be taken seriously about foreign affairs.

Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.

Tweet

Dan Crenshaw blasts Ben Rhodes over his doubts Iran blasted vessels in Gulf of Oman

Iran evidently blew up two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and the predictable knee-jerk reaction from the left-stream media is to blame Trump, if Iran actually did the deed, idiots like Ben Rhodes say.

As seen in intelligence video and reported by U.S. officials, an Iranian vessel removed an unexploded mine that had been attached to a Japanese-owned oil tanker which suffered serious damage after an explosion in the Gulf of Oman early Thursday.

At least one other mine attached to the hull detonated, causing the blast which forced the crew of 21 to abandon ship. It happened near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key route for oil shipments in the region.

Ben Rhodes, the former failed novelist and aide to former failed President Barack Hussein Obama, said he questions U.S. claims that Iran attacked the oil tankers. ["After all," he might have said to himself, "why would they do such a mean thing after President Obama sent them $1.9 billion on wooden pallets and they cheerfully accepted it? It was Trump's fault that it happened anyway."]

Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas bashed Rhodes for questioning the United States' claim that Iran was responsible for the attack, in spite of visual confirmation of an Iranian-style military craft removing an unexploded mine on the damaged Japanese vessel, the Kokuka Courageous.

Rhodes, who usually fails at most things he tries, pushed for the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and later admitted publicly that he lied about Iran's subsequent bellicose behavior after promising us that they would cease all nuclear ambitions.

Rhodes suggested that the U.S. official assessment of the tanker attacks shouldn’t be taken for granted, [i.e., believed] saying only an international investigation can get to the bottom of the incident and he would love to help with that undertaking.

“This definitely feels like the kind of incident where you'd want an international investigation to establish what happened. Huge risk of escalation,” the weasel said in a tweet.

If Iran sent an ICBM to Los Angeles, Rhodes would tell us to wait and see if it was loaded.

Rhodes' self-serving remark prompted a strong rebuttal from Crenshaw, the freshman congressman and former U.S. Navy SEAL officer. He blasted Rhodes for downplaying the danger posed by the Iranian regime and doubting the intelligence community with his own lack of intelligence.

Crenshaw tweeted:

“So, do or don’t believe the Intel community? And you’re not really a trusted source to weigh in on Iran. You sold the public the falsehood of a moderating Iranian regime - using your media ‘echo chamber’ (your words)- & ignoring the true danger Iran presents in the region."

He added:

“I’ve been watching for years as Iran moves weapons to proxies around the region, looking for opportunities to destabilize & wreak havoc, and then claim innocence. This is not new. And the Administration is right to strengthen our regional presence as a deterrence.”

Crenshaw refers to Rhodes’ now-infamous comments that the administration’s foreign policy team built an “echo chamber” of experts to help sell the horrible Iran nuclear deal.

“We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes told the New York Times Magazine in 2016 when asked about arms-control experts that appeared at think tanks and were then used as sources for hundreds of reporters – whom the article described as “clueless.”

Of those experts, Rhodes said: “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

If you take Ben Rhodes seriously and believe his bullcrap, you've got to be a liberal and get your news from MSNBC or CNN.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former military officer and who graduated first in his West Point class, blamed Iran for the "blatant assault" on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman earlier Thursday.

Pompeo said at a news conference: “This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.”

He said that Iran was working to disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and that it's a deliberate action to escalate tension. He also made it clear that the U.S. would defend its forces and interests in the region, but did not elaborate.

U.S. officials released a video Friday showing what clearly appears to be Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in a gunboat removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the vessels. This was the same type of vessel used when our U.S. sailors were taken prisoner by Iran and Obama paid them off.

According to a U.S. official (who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive information) other Iranian small boats have remained near the stricken oil tanker since the attack early Thursday. The official explained that this type of limpet mine was the same type used to damage four other tankers in the Gulf of Oman last month. And the vessel carrying the Iranian military crew is a fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) and is the same type used by Iran in the past to harass American warships in the Persian Gulf.

Make no mistake, Ben Rhodes has his personal credibility riding on the notion that Iran is innocent of these crimes, but like his failed novela, he is full of empty words.


Please consider following Brain Flushings and also visit the ads on the pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey
Thanks







Tweet

Aha! Khashoggi was a Qatari asset

It has now floated to the surface, like something you never want to see in your child's kiddy pool, that Jamal Khashoggi (who was murdered at the hands of the Saudis in their consulate in Turkey) was a Qatari asset, most likely being paid and handled by Maggie Mitchell Salem, an executive at the Qatar Foundation International.

Following the disappearance of Khashoggi, the Saudi-born reporter was billed as an unflinching proponent of democracy, a Washington Post journalist who was exposing the myriad and horrible human rights abuses by the government of his native Saudi Arabia.

While this balderdash of a narrative was being spun by Turkey and Qatar (which are both fierce rivals of the Saudis and now know was working behind the scenes in the days after the murder), the Obama-era “echo chamber” was being used by them to undermine the stability of the Saudi government itself.

That “echo chamber,” named as such by Obama’s National Security Council Communications Director and former failed novelist Ben Rhodes, was famously exploited by Rhodes to support both Obama’s engagement with the Iranians (culminating in the crappy Iran nuclear deal) as well as Obama’s shift towards the Sunni Islamists (including Egypt’s former Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi) and away from America’s former Sunni allies (most prominently, Saudi Arabia).

Which makes one wonder about Obama's thoughts on Islamic global domination.

“When complete, the successful information operation would depict Khashoggi a heroic martyr to independent journalism and freedom, while Saudi Arabia would be the embodiment of evil and callousness,” writes the Security Studies Group (SSG), an Australian think tank, which added, “It is clear now that, not only was Khashoggi transmogrified in death into a major front in Qatar’s war on its Gulf neighbors; in life, he was Qatar’s asset in that war, as well.”

As SSG noted, “American elites and policymakers have been soft targets for Qatari influence and information operations. Information operations use media and traditional tools of public relations to advance policy interests through narratives.”

This was abundantly apparent in the narrative put forth by the mainstream media shortly after Khashoggi’s death. As details began to emerge about the Khashoggi’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden (which we now know were important in his work on behalf of Qatar, one of the world’s largest sponsors of the Brotherhood), the media downplayed these facts as conservative conspiracy theories.

“No outlet did more in the service of cementing that symbolism than the Washington Post and its news and editorial staff,” wrote SSG. “Since October, that outlet has functioned unofficially as the most relentless and influential anti-Saudi lobbying shop in the nation’s capital. Indeed, the successful campaign of hagiography spearheaded by The Post prompted Time Magazine to name Khashoggi and other members of the oft fake news media ‘Person of the Year.’”

Propaganda camouflage

They were attempting to make Khashoggi into some kind of Muslim saint; no pun intended.

As details are still surfacing about Khashoggi being a Qatari “agent of influence,” even The Washington Post realized they were vulnerable, and agenda-driven fools.

In a piece obviously written for damage control, The Washington Post revealed, “Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to The Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government.”

The newspaper also wrote about Khashoggi’s Brotherhood friends in the U.S., including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding case. They also mentioned his ties with senior officials in the Turkish government, as well as the rumors that documents from wire transfers from Qatar were found at his homes in Turkey and in Virginia.

Yet, in spite of the Washington Post article downplaying these “details,” the article “is crucial because the campaign to lionize Khashoggi and to destroy the US-Saudi relationship was built on the fiction that the Saudis had killed a mere journalist,” notes SSG.

Wow. Talk about fake news and secrecy.

While the brutality of Khashoggi's execution at the hands of the Saudis is horrifying, it should be clearly understood that the Saudi’s viewed Khashoggi essentially as a foreign agent who threatened the very existence of the current regime, and he had to be eliminated.

Indeed, as seen by the chorus of screeching voices and finger-pointing from the political Left who attempted to use the murder to sever U.S.-Saudi relations, end U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, depose Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman as successor to the kingdom’s throne and force the Saudis to surrender to Iran in Yemen, that assessment was quite on the mark.

“This, of course, was the Qatari policy aim and the conclusion of a successful information operation,” write SSG.

Turkey, of course, skillfully used the events to further position itself as the natural heir to the Sunni Islamic world, and kick Saudi Arabia to the side of the road.

There was a lot more to the story than we initially saw, and whether by accident or baffling brilliance, Trump apparently made the right move not to turn our back on the Saudis.


Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do.




Tweet

Ben Rhodes: idiot savant, or just an idiot?

According to the self-proclaimed geniuses on the left, everything that's wrong with the world can somehow be blamed on President Trump, no matter how tortured the connection.

Former failed novelist and Obama's failed Deputy National Security Advisor [see: ISIS, Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria and China] Ben Rhodes, is claiming that President Trump's rhetoric meant that "journalists everywhere are less safe."

Ben's brother, David, is president of CBS News.

Rhodes made that silly comment Tuesday on Morons Speaking Nothing But Communism's [MSNBC] "Morning Joe." When asked/prompted about Trump's response to the likely killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Rhodes bloviated: "What you have to realize is, there's nobody else who can play the role of the United States to hold people like this to account. We are the world's oldest and most significant democracy [actually, we're a republic]. And if we're not doing this, if we're not setting up for this, there's not somebody else who will do that."

But Rhodes wasn't finished objurgating. "The consequences of that are journalists everywhere are less safe. And let's face it, we have a president of the United States who says journalists are the enemy of the state. So values like freedom of speech and dissent suddenly are very endangered around the world. [How he makes that giant leap remains a mystery.] And that's a trend line that I think is getting worse. This vacuum [not unlike the one between his ears] of any advocacy for any democratic values is putting people at risk and there's nobody else who will fill that vacuum if the President of the United States and the United States of America is not doing that." [What? Now there are two countries with similar names?]

Blah, blah, blah.

Blaming Trump for all the ills of society is not only a lie, but it's going to come back and bite Democrats on their collective . . . collective.

Taking Rhodes seriously as someone who knows what he's talking about is a mistake. In a blistering article about Rhodes' lack of experience while in the Obama administration, it's clear that he was just a political operative, not a real pundit, and certainly not a journalist.

It sounds like a cliché to say that it's imperative for all conservatives to vote in the impending midterm elections. If we lose the House and/or Senate, we will have only ourselves to blame. This is really a time when every vote counts. So vote, and vote often--just kidding about the last part.


Please click the "Subscribe" button at the top and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Obama minions desperate to discredit Israel's intel on Iran deal

Former President Barack Obama's national-security team of minions are throwing everything they can against the recent Israeli intelligence presentation to see what folks believe regarding the Iran nuclear deal.

His former national-security spokes-dude Tommy Vietor said, "After years of bashing U.S. intelligence agencies for getting Iraq WMD wrong, Trump is now cooking up intel with the Israelis to pus us closer to a conflict with Iran. A scandal hiding in plain sight."

Dude, get over yourself.

Another Obama administration deputy national-security adviser and failed novelist and short story writer Ben Rhodes said, "By reminding everyone of the well-known pre-Iran Deal history, Netanyahu inadvertently made the case for why the Iran Deal needs to stay in place. Without it, all the restrictions on Iran's program and the inspections regime that verify compliance go away."

Clever use of bad logic.

If inspections were to be announced a month in advance to Iran, and our not being allowed to inspect military facilities for nuclear proliferation, how can the deal be any good? 

The idea the Iran said if we pull the deal, they'll go back to enriching their uranium and develop nukes, proving they lied about using the uranium for energy generation rather than weapon production.

Ironically, both Vietor and Rhodes contradict each other in their arguments for keeping the deal. Vietor says that Netanyahu can't be making stuff up with Trump to get us into a war with Iran,. While Rhodes reminds us of the undisputed facts known to all of us about "the pre-Iran Deal history."

You can't have it both ways.

Trump is absolutely right saying the Iran deal is the worst deal he ever saw. Perhaps it's the worst deal in the entire history of the world and even the galaxy.


Tweet

Former Obama advisers tell Trump how to handle Iran protests

Some key advisers to former "Lead from Behind" President Obama have attacked President Trump for supporting the Iran protests taking place for the past week. 

Valerie Jarrett, who left her heart in Tehran, Iran, was mute on the subject. That may be due to perverted allegiances to the Islamic Republic of Iran and her fear of being uncovered.

In 2009, the "Green Revolution" threatened Iran's theocratic regime, and Obama along with his administration lead from behind by not leading and not supporting the protesters. In effect, the Obama "behinders" supported the regime by not taking a stance. In fact, Obama said "we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran."

So of course, Obama's pussyfooting allowed the regime to consolidate power and put the revolution down. This was done selfishly, for Obama's crappy nuclear deal, which he believed was more important than the human rights of Iranian citizens. 

Proof that Obama is an immoral, self-serving megalomaniac.

President Trump is openly and vigorously supporting the protests and is 'attack-tweeting' against the regime:

Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime's corruption & its squandering of the nation's wealth to fund terrorism abroad. Iranian govt should respect their people's rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching! #IranProtests

The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most...pic.twitter.com/W8rKN9B6RT

--Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2017

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. The world is watching! pic.twitter.com/kvv1uAqcZg

--Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2017 

Big protests in Iran. The people are finally getting wise as to how their money and wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism. Looks like they will not take it any longer. The USA is watching very closely for human rights violations!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2017

Iran, the Number One State of Sponsored Terror with numerous violations of Human Rights occurring on an hourly basis, has now closed down the Internet so that peaceful demonstrators cannot communicate. Not good!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2017

Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2018

But some of Obama's people reject Trump's thinking and evidently think the former failed president's approach was better. And they're correct--if you're will to pray toward Mecca or die.

Former National Security Advisor Susan "It-Was-A-Video" Rice tweeted a New York Times op-ed by former Obama aide Philip Gordon, "How Can Trump Help Iran's Protesters? Be Quiet." 

Gordon contended that supporting the protesters and taking steps to end the Iran nuclear deal will delegitimize Iran's internal opponents.

How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet. https://t.co/w0MNlWMkxG"— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) December 31, 2017

John "Hair-plugs" Kerry had to pontificate his two cents tweeting:

With humility about how little we know about what’s happening inside Iran, this much is clear: it’s an Iranian moment and not anyone else’s. But the rights of people to protest peacefully and voice their aspirations are universal and governments everywhere should respect that.— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) December 31, 2017 

Ben Rhodes the former Deputy National Security Advisor who majored in English in college and an aspiring novelist, had nothing new to add in attacking President Trump. He criticized Americans who think the U.S. should encourage the protests:

The Iranian people are rightfully demanding dignity, less corruption, more opportunity, and greater control over their lives. In looking at US twitter, it seems lost on too many that this is about what Iranians want for Iran, and not about us.

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) December 31, 2017 

Tommy "Dude" Vietor, a former cool guy spokesboy for the National Security Council went to his default mode of sarcasm:

Trump loves protestors as long as they’re not American.— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) December 31, 2017

Former UN Ambassador and closet Communist Samantha Power, criticized Trump's immigration policy in this clever tweet:

We stand with the Iranian people so much that we won't let them come here. https://t.co/fzbv8idiiJ

       --Samantha Power (@SamanthaJPower) January 1, 2018

But not every Obama minion was on board with the anti-Trump sentiment. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted, in his 2014 book "Duty:  Memoirs of a Secretary at War," that while he had to be persuaded that "too powerful an American voice on behalf of the protesters might provide ammunition for the regime," he later rejected his words and said, "In retrospect, I think we could and should have done more, at least rhetorically." (328)

Maybe it's Obama's turn, along with his former administration, to just shut up.


Tweet

Ben Rhodes slammed for tweeting about GOP leaders' 'obits'

Ben Rhodes has an MFA in creative writing and he's the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS. There is an interesting article written last year about him in ForeignPolicy.com. It should tell you a lot of what you need to know about this guy.

Rhodes a former Obama adviser and aspiring novelist (writing for Obama gave him lots of practice) was awakened to a boat-load of condemnation from people who found it disgusting and distasteful that he joked about "obits" for top Republican leaders. 

But he has an excuse: he's a schmuck.

The Rhodes tweet made reference to a photo posted of President Trump's Instagram account showing him, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell smiling and evidently celebrating the passage of the GOP tax reform bill.

Dan Pfeiffer, another Obama adviser, first tweeted of the photo: "I hope this is the photo they use on the front page of the Times on the day Trump is indicted."

Rhodes followed up seven minutes later:

"And alongside the obits for Ryan, McConnell, and Pence."

Yes, that scum-crumpet Rhodes actually wished for the deaths of Republican leaders. 

He may have possibly meant their political obituaries, a common term used in Washington, but without making it clear, we can assume the former based on the wording.

Paul Ryan's press secretary, AshLee Strong fired back:

"Really? Obits? Irresponsible and dangerous tweet. Hope you see fit to delete this."

She was being too kind, albeit a consummate professional in the way she handled Rhodes.

Then Rep. Steve Scalise )R.-La.) the congressman seriously wounded in the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., last June tweeted:

"You may want to reconsider your rhetoric." 

Sick responses from the masses followed. One schmuck buckler wished that Ryan "dies" and another of sadistically sick thinking wished for an "excruciating, torturous death in public so we can all watch and cheer."

Strong responded, again with thought and insight tweeting: 

"And if you have any doubts about what rhetoric like @brhodes' inspires, just look at the responses here.

Ben Rhodes is truly a disgusting person and diminishes all he has served.


Tweet

Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber: counting on stupidity

Both Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber seem to believe that the American people are stupid and deserve to be fooled, as long as it's for what they consider to be the greater good.

Gruber talked about how Obamacare depended upon the stupidity of the American voter in order to become a law, and because it was for Obamacare, it was for the greater good, in his mind. The administration knows best what's good for us.

Rhodes, on the other hand, bragged to the New York Tomes Magazine about the Obama administration's success in selling the Iran deal to the American people. He explained that they built an "echo chamber" to sell the plan and made fun of the young reporters who got their information from him.

The House Oversight Committee hearing was to called to look into White House "narratives" regarding the Iran deal after Rhodes shot off his mouth. 

Several senators tried to get Mr. Obama to fire Rhodes and a House committee looking into his braggadocio went forward with their hearing in spite of him not showing up to testify. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) called on him but Obama shielded his appearance in order to conceal their embarrassment over getting caught with their pants down, much like Bill Clinton did on many occasions, but under different circumstances.

The White House used the old ploy, "executive privilege."

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, (they'll pick you up) a guy who is not known to smile or ever crack a joke, accused Rhodes of creating a "propaganda operation."

Ben Rhodes is a journalist like Kim Kardashian is an actress.

Of course, the Democrats could always count upon the committee's top liberal Rep. Elijah-Black-Lives-Matter-Cummings (D-Md.) to to after Republicans with the only arsenal in his quiver--the ad hominem attack--as he criticized the analysts they called while not inviting military generals who support the agreement.

The truth is, Obama fired all of the military generals who didn't agree with him and left a bunch of "Yes Men" in uniform to validate his views.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that at least Cummings could question the witnesses who showed up, but Rhodes, he said, "didn't bother to show up."

Several GOP-ers wrote to Barack asking him to dump Rhodes, "before he further tarnishes the Office of the President," but we all know that it's too late for that.

The truth is, it's probably foolish at this point for the GOP to make a big fuss over this--the administration looks like lying idiots all by themselves. Just let Trump talk about this with Hillary when they throw down on the debate stage.

Gruber and Rhodes think they've pulled a fast one on the American people, but in fact, the only people who buy their bull are progressive liberals and they're not so American when you get right down to it. If they had their way, they would get rid of the Constitution and replace it with "Rules for Radicals."



Tweet

Benghazi: Bumps in the Road

Now that John Boehner (R-OH) has finally caved to GOP pressure and decided to have a House Select Committee investigate what really happened at Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the press is finally asking questions to Jay "Con" Carney. Of course, Carney is answering those questions the way he does (when Fox News asks them) by avoiding an answer or lying through an arrogant smirk.

It appears the Democrats are afraid to defend Obama et al, and some have even suggested boycotting the committee, like they often boycott things such as the truth. 

To boycott the committee would be "terribly arrogant" and "wrong," said Rep. Peter King (R-NY). 

But Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) thinks boycotting the committee would be a way to remove all credibility and discredit the investigation, thereby relegating it to a witch hunt. He believes a committee investigation would be a "colossal waste of time," just like he might have thought sending help to the four Americans fighting for their lives would have also been a colossal waste of time.

It seems perplexing that even Democrats, for however unpatriotic, uncaring and uninformed they are, seem totally uninterested in getting to the truth about Benghazi. You would think that they would have at least some doubts about the video, and why no help was sent to the compound when it was under attack.

But let's face it, the truth is hardly more than an afterthought with liberals.

Some of the questions the committee should get answered are:

1. Where did Susan Rice get the idea to blame the video? Was she told directly or was it merely the e-mail from Ben Rhodes?

2. Several days later Hillary Clinton blamed the video, and later still told the families of the dead that the person who made the video will be punished. From whom did she get the talking point of the video?

3. What is the timeline for Obama from the moment the attack started to the next day?

4. Where did Ben Rhodes get the talking points?

5. Why was the "smoking gun" e-mail redacted the first time it was produced but not so when it was demanded via court order? What were they trying to hide?

6. Why did President Obama say it was clear that the attack on Ukrainian forces was obviously not spontaneous, based on the weaponry and militia-like precision used by the militants, but it wasn't obvious  that the Benghazi attack, which also used sophisticated weaponry and militia-like precision, was not spontaneous?

7. If the attack had occurred during a presidential visit to the Benghazi compound, what efforts would have been made by the military to save Obama's life? Why was it different for the 4 men who died there?

There are more questions that need to be asked; these are but a few that come to mind. If you have questions of your own that you'd like to express, please feel free to comment.

In my latest novel, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here e-book version

Tweet

Benghazi's E-Smoking Gun

When is a scandal, not a scandal? When the Obama administration is involved in it.

The scandal reappeared with the release of White House e-mails sent by Ben Rhodes to UN ambassador, Susan Rice, regarding her 5 appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows in which she blamed an anti-Islam video on the September 11, 2012 attack that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi. The Obama administration declared it was a non-scandal and old news, so let's forget about it, okay?

But the e-mails clearly show that the White House prepped Susie, yet Press Secretary, Jay Carney claimed the "prep call," as one e-mail put it, wasn't even about Benghazi. He said it was about demonstrations in the Muslim world, not including Benghazi. "It is not about Benghazi--it is about the protests around the Muslim world," the White House Press Liar said.