Obama’s Lies about Bush and Iraq

The president’s speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama’s speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of “a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book“Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

It was a report, despite years of Democratic lying, that ultimately turned out to be correct. Twoseparate reports revealed the existence of large stocks of chemical weapons contained in the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex that was overrun by ISIS last year. And in 2008, after Democrats had campaigned for years on the slogan, “Bush Lied, people died,” the New York Times reported that “hundreds of tons of natural uranium” had been removed from Iraq’s main nuclear site and moved to Canada.

As Horowitz and Johnson explain, none of it mattered to a Democratic Party intent on undermining Bush and the war, an effort driven by pure partisan politics arising from the reality that anti-war Democrat Howard Dean vaulted to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders in the 2004 campaign. Without missing a beat, presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry suddenly decided they were against the same war they had previously supported, and their Democrat colleagues embraced that defeatist change of heart with all the gusto they could muster. No one more so than Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Even before the surge that turned the tide of the Iraq war decisively in America’s favor was completed, Reid declared the war to be “lost.” Less than six months later, Clinton, with an eye towards her own 2008 presidential ambitions, attacked the integrity of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, insisting reports on that success “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Obama is no profile in courage: James Robbins

President Obama visited American University today to deliver what was billed as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. The topic was the proposed nuclear deal with Iran that is currently under consideration by the Congress. The venue was significant; Obama invoked history, namely President John F. Kennedy’s June 10, 1963 commencement speech in which he announced that the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom would begin formal negotiations seeking a limited nuclear test ban. But Kennedy’s diplomatic success 52 years ago only underscores Obama’s poor showing in selling his nuclear deal with Iran.

Kennedy sought a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing, which both sides had undertaken extensively and which created nuclear fallout problems. He negotiated the test ban as a formal treaty, and presented it to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution dictates. It sailed through in September 1963 by a vote of 80 to 19 with strong bipartisan support. By contrast, the Obama administration never sought to do the hard work of negotiating and ratifying a formal treaty with Iran, and the proposed pact faces strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. President Obama invoked the later SALT agreements with the Soviet Union, but his proposed Iran deal has lowerpublic approval than the SALT II treaty did before Jimmy Carter withdrew it from the Senate in 1980.(

President Kennedy's speech was publicly addressing Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev (who notably said “We will bury you”) in an attempt to get him to the negotiating table. President Obama's speech today targeted a small group of undecided members of his own political party who could mean the difference between his deal being rejected with a veto proof majority, or simply being rejected.

Kennedy was also not afraid to continue his pointed criticism of Soviet communism even while he sought détente. Two weeks after the American University address, Kennedy delivered his more famous, more combative “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. “There are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists,” Kennedy said. “Let them come to Berlin.” Kennedy’s muscular tone prompted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remark during his own speech in East Berlin two days later that "one would think that the speeches were made by two different Presidents." Obama made passing reference to Iran’s Islamic regime being repressive, but it hardly amounted to the soaring indictment of communism President Kennedy made in Berlin.

Kennedy was concerned that the Soviet Union might possibly start a senseless conflict, but Obama believes that his domestic political opponents are the ones threatening to start a senseless conflict. He characterized his deal as a peace agreement, because there is “no other option” than a U.S.-initiated war — even though no American leaders are advocating an immediate attack.

Obama is manufacturing a crisis that his pact does not solve. The agreement does not address Iran’s expansionist aims, its support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program or grim human rights record. Even if the proposed deal worked, which is doubtful, it would amount to a speed bump for Iran’s nuclear program that will simultaneously reward Tehran with tens of billions of dollars to invigorate its terror networks and missile programs.

President Obama quoted Kennedy saying that “the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war.” But Obama's argument that war is the only alternative is what is creating drama. There are many better alternatives to his Iran pact that do not involve armed conflict. The stakes are much lower than they were in 1963. This is not the height of the Cold War. Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Barack Obama, is no John F. Kennedy.

James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA TODAY and is the author of The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero.

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Obama invokes Iraq war debate in push for Iran deal, amid Dem defections

President Obama vigorously defended Wednesday his nuclear agreement with Iran as one "the world unanimously supports," reaching back to blame America's invasion of Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- for emboldening Iran, while labeling Republican opposition as "knee-jerk partisanship," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticism as "wrong." 

Speaking at American University in Washington, Obama described the congressional debate over the Iran deal as the "most consequential" since the Iraq invasion. The president called the agreement a "very good deal" that -- despite critics' claims to the contrary -- forbids Iran from building a nuclear weapon. 

In anticipation of a barrage of advertising against the deal, Obama likened those arguments to the case for war in Iraq more than a decade ago. 

"Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal," Obama said. 

The stark comparison dovetails with the president's central claim that the alternative to an Iran deal may be war -- "maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," he said Wednesday. And his appeal to lawmakers comes as he tries to stem defections from his own party. 

He spoke after Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, of New York, told Newsday he will oppose the Iran plan. Spokeswoman Caitlin Girouard confirmed his opposition to Fox News. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Obama dismisses IRS targeting of conservatives: ‘They’ve got a list, and suddenly everybody’s outraged’

President Obama rejected the notion that the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups was illegal — or even improper — during his interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Thursday.

Obama was at American University to sell his flailing healthcare law to the young people upon which the insurance exchanges heavily rely. As promised, Matthews allowed him to make his pitch with no tough questions or pushback.

But the interview became interesting when the Hardball host asked why Americans were growing increasingly skeptical of government. Obama noted that the media never seems interested in government success stories. “When we do things right, they don’t get a lot of attention,” he said.

OBAMA: That’s not — that’s not something that’s reported about. If, on the other hand, you’ve got an office in Cincinnati, in the IRS office that — I think, for bureaucratic reasons, is trying to streamline what is a difficult law to interpret about whether a nonprofit is actually a political organization deserves a tax exempt agency. And they’ve got a list, and suddenly everybody’s outraged.

MATTHEWS: 501(c)(4) is tricky to begin with, how to define it.

OBAMA: To begin with.

The president even appeared annoyed that liberal commentators once dared to challenge him on the point:

OBAMA: And by the way, Chris, I’ll point out that there are some so-called progressives and, you know, perceived to be liberal commentators who during that week were just as outraged at the possibility that these folks, you know, had — had been, you know, at the direction of — the Democratic Party, in some way — discriminated against these folks.

One of those so-called progressives was Obama himself, who in May called the targeting of conservative groups “outrageous” and “something that people are properly concerned about.” (Related: Obama steps up criticism of IRS targeting)

Also in May, the Obama Justice Department pledged to investigate the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. As of last week, none of the affected groups had been contacted by any federal investigators. (Related: Federal investigators still not contacting conservative groups targeted by IRS)

President Obama later passed blame for his failures onto his cabinet agencies — claiming that “somebody somewhere at this very moment is screwing something up” — and repeated the nauseating platitude that “government’s not somebody else. Government’s us.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

ObamaCare site glitches run risk of turning off millenials

The prolonged glitches with the ObamaCare website are frustrating many of the president’s most high-valued customers -- the young, tech-savvy generation that helped him win two terms and whose participation is critical to the success of the health care exchanges.

“You see this situation especially with college students,” Michael Cipriano, a student at American University told FoxNews.com on Friday. “They get frustrated, which creates a disincentive to sign up."

President Obama is depending on young people being the backbone of his signature, 2010 health care law. Typically among the mostly healthy Americans, their premiums were supposed to help finance coverage for the elderly, poor and others with long-term illnesses and more frequent emergency-care visits.

However, the glitches and other problems that have plagued the exchanges since they went online Oct. 1 could put the plan in jeopardy. The administration runs healthcare.gov for the 36 states that chose not to have their own sites. The 14 other states and the District of Columbia run their own site but are still part of ObamaCare.

“Based on what I’ve seen, people were really excited at first, then turned away,” said Cipriano, who tried successfully to navigate the site and is a junior who writes for the conservative-leaning, online college publication The College Fix.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....