BEIRUT — Insurgents seized control early Tuesday of most of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, including the provincial government headquarters, offering a powerful demonstration of the mounting threat posed by extremists to Iraq’s teetering stability.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants.
In Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced a “general mobilization” and asked parliament to declare a state of emergency, saying the government would not allow the area to fall “under the shadows of terror and terrorists.”
Iraq’s speaker of parliament, Osama Nujaifi, said Mosul, the effective capital of northern Iraq, is now entirely in insurgent hands.
[video]
“When the battle got tough in the city of Mosul, the troops dropped their weapons and abandoned their posts, making it an easy prey for the terrorists,” he told a televised news conference in Baghdad.
All key facilities are now controlled by the insurgents, including the airport and the prisons, said Nujaifi, who is from Mosul.
“Everything is fallen. It’s a crisis,” he said, appealing for international and government help to retake the city. “Having these terrorist groups control a city in the heart of Iraq threatens not only Iraq but the entire region.”
In declaring the state of emergency in a televised speech, Maliki called on “all powers — political, financial and popular — to stop the terrorism and bring life to normal in the areas controlled by the terrorists in Mosul or any other city.”
He said his government has created a special Crisis Unit to deal with the situation and warned that punishment would be meted out to “those who were reckless and those who did not rise to the challenge” of the attack on Mosul.
The speed with which one of Iraq’s biggest cities has fallen under militant control is striking and suggests the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces are even more vulnerable than had previously been thought.
The collapse of government forces in Mosul echoed the takeover earlier this year of the town of Fallujah in western Anbar province, where U.S. troops fought some of their fiercest battles of the Iraq war in an effort to quell the insurgents.
Mosul, however, is a far more important city, the capital of northern Iraq and a key commercial and trading center. It had also been an important focus of the U.S. military’s effort to stabilize Iraq.
The capture of the airport, which had served as a major hub for the U.S. military, could not be independently confirmed, but Nujaifi said it had been seized and that all of the aircraft there also were captured.
Thousands of civilians had already fled Mosul after an initial assault Friday in which ISIS fighters captured a number of neighborhoods. But the government appeared to be holding its ground in the rest of the city, until late Monday.
Thousands more fled overnight, most of them seeking refuge in the nearby autonomous region of Kurdistan. Among them was the governor of Nineveh province, Atheel Nujaifi, who is the brother of the speaker of parliament. In a telephone call with the Al Jazeera television network, he described a “massive collapse” of the Iraqi security forces.
As the Iraqi security forces unraveled, the insurgents advanced and rapidly seized control of key facilities in the city, including two television stations, two prisons and several police headquarters, according to Iraqi news reports. The Twitter account of the Nineveh province branch of ISIS claimed that the group had seized large quantities of arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces. It also said the prisoners at the facilities had been freed.
It was unclear whether ISIS fighters had managed to cross the Tigris River, which bisects the city, and were also threatening the eastern bank, which is mostly Kurdish. But it appeared clear that the western bank, which represents the original heart and commercial center of Mosul, was in insurgent hands.
There was no immediate response from the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but Nujaifi said he had appealed to the government in Baghdad as well as the international community for support to retake the city.
“This will reach every corner of Iraq if it doesn’t stop,” he said. “We need a fast reaction to stop this terrorism.”
The capture of Mosul demonstrates that the insurgents now have the capacity to seize strategically vital territory, positioning them to threaten other important areas of Iraq, said Charles Lister of the Doha Brookings Center based in Qatar.
It also raises questions about the continued utility of sending U.S. military support to Maliki, whose security forces seem simply to have crumbled. Maliki is urging the United States to deliver more advanced weaponry, but ISIS fighters have already been seen riding round in U.S.-supplied Humvees in other areas they control, and much of the weaponry captured in this latest battle is likely to be American, Lister said.
“Washington will be questioning how to move forward in terms of supporting the Iraqi army in its fight against terrorism,” he said. “Every time ISIS captures territory, it’s a reminder that it does so using weapons that have fallen into the hands of the forces the U.S. is trying to counter in the first place.”
ISIS is an expanded and rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that the U.S. military claimed it had tamed, though not defeated, ahead of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.
ISIS has since significantly rebounded, aided in part by the rebellion in neighboring Syria, which created a vacuum of authority and enabled the militants to gain a foothold beyond Iraq’s borders.
It is now channeling its efforts toward the creation of an Islamic state modeled on the 7th century Islamic caliphate, the system of governance that prevailed after the death of the prophet Muhammad. Over the past year, ISIS has consolidated its hold on a swath of territory in Iraq and Syria that stretches from the eastern outskirts of the Syrian city of Aleppo to Fallujah west of Baghdad, where it has asserted authority by imposing a harsh version of Islamic law.
Mosul, located on the northeastern edge of the territory, is the group’s biggest prize to date, underscoring the extent to which its expansion has gone unchecked since the U.S. military left.
Earlier this year, the leader of ISIS, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, publicly fell out with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was harshly critical of some of the group’s extreme methods. Though no longer directly affiliated with al-Qaeda, however, the group shares essentially the same goal of establishing a global Islamic state.
We have troops decades later in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia and elsewhere. It's normal and stabilizing to keep a presence in these countries, even decades after the combat has ended.
Obama's motive to withdraw troops for purely political reasons in Iraq and Afghanistan is now bearing its fruit.
As are his actions (or lack thereof) in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Korea, and the less defined borders of the war on terror. We are losing and withdrawing on every military and diplomatic front.
The Economist magazine recently asked a provocative question: "what would America fight for?"
In the body of the analysis The Economist editorialized quote, "Mr. Obama still made a difficult situation worse in two ways. First, he has broken the cardinal rule of super power deterrence -- you must keep your word. In Syria, he drew a red line he would punish Bashar Assad if he used chemical weapons. The Syrian dictator did and Mr. Obama did nothing. [Second, ]In response to Russia's aggression he threatened fierce sanctions only to unveil underwhelming ones. The cumulative message is weakness."
And there's little doubt about it. In Iraq, the al Qaeda offshoot ISIS is 60 miles away from Baghdad. President Obama has done little if anything to degrade the ISIS army. And now, it is taunting the President. In a series of videos of ISIS, shows the jihadists on the move, telling the world they are not afraid of America or anyone else.
[Video of ISIS Jihadist shown: ] The translation of this video says, quote: "The Islamic Caliphate has been established and God willing it will not stop until we raise the flag of Prophet Mohammed in the White House."
Again, the U.S.A. has taken no military action against that group when it could have easily bombed their movements from Syria into Iraq and used drones against its leadership.
President Obama told us weeks ago he was studying the ISIS situation. We have not heard anything since, and that's the pattern. The president studies, discusses, analyzes, then does nothing. Again, this shows America's weakness.
You all know about Putin's aggressive moves, China is now threatening to take islands it doesn't have possession of in the Far East -- just take them. And all over the world, there is fear in the air.
Back home, weakness is being shown in two vital areas. First, the earning power of the American worker continues to decline. Median income down more than 7 percent since President Obama has been in office. Meantime, cost of gasoline has nearly doubled and food prices in the U.S.A. are at their highest level in history.
This weakens the average American home, causing millions of Americans to turn to the federal government for financial support. That, of course, raises the debt, which is now projected to be more than $20 trillion by the time Barack Obama leaves office. The combined economic weakness, the debt, and America's diminishing earning power is a devastating story that the media has been derelict in telling.
And then there is social weakness. We are now living in a society that's largely secular, where selfish pursuits and narcissistic behavior are on the rise. Millions of Americans are now addicted --addicted!-- to the Internet, spending vast amounts of time texting, tweeting and watching dubious entertainment on their machines.
The crusade to legalize marijuana is almost hysterical. Pot proponents almost making it a constitutional issue that we Americans have the inherent right to inebriation by using drugs, because alcohol is legal. Coupled with that is the incredible sympathy some on the left have for drug dealers of all kinds, wanting to classify their conduct as nonviolent, so they can avoid harsh punishment.
When a society goes soft on evil doers, it becomes weak. And people who sell narcotics are evil. They bring harm to other human beings and they don't care.
How about American children? In many public schools they are getting an inferior education. American test scores compared world wide are mediocre at best. We no longer teach children discipline, values or perspective. Instead the kids are immersed in cyberspace, subjected to all kinds of pernicious behavior that in the past they could not access.
The cold truth is American society is growing weaker. And anyone who challenges that trend, anyone who points it out, is demonized by the liberal media. Politically we are a divided nation; Congress rarely solving vexing problems because both parties are trying to destroy the other.
The right sees President Obama as the devil, a man bent on destroying America --very personal. The left screams about income inequality when its own policies are downgrading job development and failing to help the poor.
That means more dependence on big government which is only too willing to provide excuses for individual failure. Thus, the have-nots demand more from the haves because somehow they are entitled to other people's money. And the Obama administration stokes that fire. Rather than laying out a road map of self-reliance, liberal politicians and the media encourage "social justice" and income redistribution.
Millions of American workers are buying into that, signing up for disability payments at a record level even though some, if not many are far from disabled. The nation's motto "out of many: one" might soon be changed to "If I don't have mine, I want yours." That is weakness.
So summing up, President Obama ran on a platform of prosperity, uniting America and a bold new progressive vision that would provide for the poor and ensure a permanent, level playing field.
None of that, none of it, has come to pass.
What we have now is declining power overseas that has emboldened those who attacked us on 9/11, an enormous debt that is not being controlled, and a porous southern border that the feds cannot or will not solve. A population of 320 million Americans, many of whom are apathetic and ill-informed stimulated only --only-- by individual pursuits. Even if those pursuits harm them.
I have been in the media business for about 40 years now, I have never seen America weaker than it is today.
That's a bit longer than O'Reilly's usual opening editorials. But he really snapped it all in perspective, how each of these separate crises are all symptoms of the same destructive ideology. And a vast swath of voters who are either part of the problem, or too preoccupied, indifferent, or uninformed to stop it.
Under Bush with the surge (which Obama opposed every step of the way) Iraq was won! All Obama had to do was leave a residual force there, just as we have previously in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other places around the world. Iraq only splintered when our complete departure left president Maliki the opportunity to purge his government of all Sunni and Kurd representation. Anyone who has followed the situation in Iraq understands that the collapse of Iraq is a direct result of Obama's policy there. And of Obama's weakness on every other front worldwide.
President Obama is being called out this morning for heading immediately to a golf course in Martha's Vineyard after speaking Wednesday afternoon about the gruesome beheading of American journalist James Foley by ISIS terrorists.
White House correspondents said the president was on the golf course a mere eight minutes after finishing his speech.
Even the New York Daily News is pointing this out, with many on social media highlighting the paper's cover:
Karl Rove said this morning that Obama's words on Foley were "passionate" and appropriate, but noted that people are still asking today what Obama's strategy is for destroying ISIS.
Bill Hemmer asked Rove for his reaction to the criticism over the president's golf outing, pointing out that George W. Bush also took heat for the amount of time he spent at his Texas ranch.
Rove, Bush's senior adviser in the White House, recalled that Bush once regretted delivering a statement about an attack on Israel while he was vacationing in New England.
"This really caused President Bush to examine his behavior in a time of war. And it ultimately caused him to decide to give up golf for the balance of his presidency because he just couldn't square the visual gap between having to make statements like the statements that President Obama had to make and being on the golf course," said Rove.
Rove said Obama's advisers "made a mistake" by not realizing how the timing of the golf game would look.
Hemmer asked for Rove's take on why the White House or the president himself didn't see that beforehand.
Rove argued that the White House has been making a lot of "gaffes" in recent months, though he isn't sure exactly why.
"I just think they're off their game. I don't know whether it's August. Maybe the White House staff needed a break. Maybe they're getting worn out. Maybe the communications mavens over there have just lost their mojo. But something recently the last couple of months has been going on with their ability to handle situations," said Rove.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Top U.S. military brass and former administration officials are publicly pressuring the White House to consider taking the fight against the Islamic State into Syria, warning that the terror organization poses an unprecedented threat to the United States.
"ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday, adding that the U.S. will have to take a "cold, steely hard look" and "get ready."
Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey spoke in ominous terms as they addressed the growing danger posed by the organization that aims to form a caliphate across northern Iraq and Syria, and possibly beyond.
Their comments suggested something more than a "limited" military mission -- as the White House says is being pursued in Iraq -- is ultimately needed to blunt, and defeat, the Islamic State.
Dempsey, speaking after IS militants beheaded American journalist James Foley, tackled the sensitive topic of whether the organization can be dealt with without uprooting their foothold in Syria.
"To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border," Dempsey said.
On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby would not elaborate when asked whether a broader campaign was under consideration. He stressed that Dempsey and Hagel were referring to the need for a "regional approach," and said both the Pentagon and president understand this won't be over in a "matter of weeks."
Military analysts, though, say the comments Thursday are a clear sign that Pentagon leaders are pressing President Obama to approve an expanded campaign, potentially in Syria.
Whether such options might include airstrikes in Syria, or lesser measures, is unclear. Dempsey said airstrikes are not necessarily required, but Hagel said "we're looking at all options."
Dempsey pointed to the need for a "coalition in the region" to take on the terror group.
But retired Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff and Fox News military analyst, said "the air power campaign must be applied in Syria ... as well as in Iraq."
Keane said it's "pretty obvious" that Dempsey and Hagel are pushing the White House and said they are likely putting new military options before the president.
Former high-level military and diplomatic officials are applying similar pressure from outside Washington.
Retired Gen. John Allen, who led the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, penned a column on Defense One saying the Islamic State "must be eradicated." He wrote that the U.S. and its allies should operate against the organization "from Mosul in the east across its entire depth to western Syria." As for the question of sovereignty in Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Allen called Syria a "failed state" not deserving the respect of a sovereign entity.
Former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford also said on NPR that there "absolutely" is a case for considering U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Speaking on Fox News on Friday, Ford echoed the comments, while saying "airstrikes alone do not solve the problem."
Airstrikes, though, raise the question of whether the U.S. would partner with Assad, the dictator whose ouster the White House previously sought amid the regime's bloody civil war with opposition groups, including IS.
Ford said Assad cannot be a "reliable partner," blaming Assad for boosting the Islamic State and its predecessor in Iraq in years past -- and questioning whether the regime is doing enough now to stop its advance.
Keane predicted that if the U.S. launches attacks against the Islamic State in Syria, "I don't think [Assad] will engage us."
Keane called for simultaneously boosting military support and funding to moderate opposition groups in Syria. But he said the incremental increases in airstrikes and advisers in northern Iraq do not constitute a military strategy.
Retired Maj. Gen. Bob Scales, a Fox News military analyst, said Congress is going to ultimately have to get involved if this becomes a broader military effort.
"What the military is trying to do is get ahead of it," he said. "I think Dempsey understands very clearly this is a multiyear campaign that is going to have to eventually involve Congress, the administration and the American people. He's trying to set the conditions and tell the American people, get ready. This is all starting over again."
Outrageous, that president Obama has to be pressured by a large bipartisan group of military, diplomatic and political officials to do the right thing. So much for "I swear to preserve, protect and defend..."
Remember how Senator Obama used to blame George W. Bush for rising Anti-Americanism in Europe? Remember Obama hectoring Bush for lecturing rather than listening, and for acting unilaterally without compunction? Remember Obama promising to heal the breach between the United States and our European allies by acting “in partnership” and showing “humility?”
That promise has vanished into the same ether as the president’s assurances that Americans could keep their healthcare plans if they wanted to. Five years of the Obama administration should make European statesmen yearn for President George W. Bush.
Liberal New York Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen labels the current state German-American relations the worst since World War II. President Obama contributed enormously to this downward spiral. In 2009, he offended many Germans by skipping the 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In the fall of 2013, the administration provoked outrage in Germany with revelation the NSA spied on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the most pro-American leaders in the country’s history.
In July 2014, German-American relations sank even lower, when the German government requested the top representative of America’s secret service in Germany to leave the country. A spokesman for the Merkel government explained that the Obama administration’s “failure to cooperate on various” spying allegations prompted this drastic measure usually reserved for adversaries rather than allies.
Similarly, the Obama administration has badly damaged the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain — the bedrock of American alliances since FDR and Winston Churchill forged it in the early days of World War II. Multiple [Obama] administration officials have even denied the existence of an Anglo-American special relationship.
Reversing Ronald Reagan’s unwavering support for British Margaret Thatcher during the Falkland War of 1982, President Obama has declared the United States neutral in the dispute between the U.K. and Argentina. Various State Department spokesmen have revealed Obama’s pro-Argentinian tilt referring to the islands as the Malvinas rather than the Falklands.
Without consulting its staunchest ally, the Obama administration also provided the Russians with secret information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to entice them to sign a new START nuclear arms control treaty.
The administration’s reversal on missile defense in Eastern Europe demoralized and antagonized the constituency in Europe [who are] most sympathetic to the American point of view on a wide range of fundamental issues, like deterring an authoritarian Russia seeking to re-impose its dominance across East Central Europe; keeping the EU pro- rather than anti-American; acting decisively with coalitions of the willing rather than being hostage to UN gridlock or the lowest common denominator of a lax EU consensus.
Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorwski has accused President Obama of “betraying Poland” by canceling missile defense President George W. Bush promised. Hero of Solidarity and ex-Polish President Lech Walesa named Obama as the world leader who “has disillusioned him the most” by abdicating America’s indispensable role as the world’s sole superpower. In 2012, Walesa endorsed Obama’s Republican opponent Mitt Romney because “we are waiting for a president who understands that a strong America has always provided a balance of power in the world.”
Obama’s feckless reset with Russia and supine reaction to brazen Russian aggression in Ukraine has greatly added to Eastern Europe’s apprehensions. The president’s June 2014 trip to Europe failed utterly in its intended purpose of reassuring America’s Eastern European allies of America’s commitment to their security. Eastern European leaders dismissed Obama’s verbal assurance and a modest $1 billion spent on joint military exercises as a “smokescreen” for retreat.
I'm again reminded that Obama is a lifelong far-Left radical, and (as Allen West has said) if Obama were appointed to any position below president, Obama's radical ties would bar him from security clearance. This is Obama, the pupil of Saul Alinsky, who taught Alinsky tactics of infiltration and Marxist agitation to classrooms full of ACORN "community organizer" trainees. Who was described by others in the organization as the "master" of Alinsky tactics.
Obama, whose first political fundraiser was sponsored by William Ayers, in Ayers' own home. And for a decade after, Obama and Ayers had joint book signings, and wrote cover-quotes for each others' books, and who Ayers personally selected as the lawyer to disburse funds for Ayers' $50 million Annenberg grant, where they attended monthly meetings together for years.
From this shared history, it is no surprise that Obama would be destroying our relationship with our greatest allies in the world. Would that the mainstream media would report it. And would that they gave us the facts before the 2008 and 2012 elections, to prevent Obama's election in the first place.
Last edited by Wonder Boy; 2014-08-265:50 PM. Reason: initially rushed, posted link only, without article or comments.
It's come out that Obama delayed the hostage rescue mission, and by the time he finally OK'd the mission, the intelligence swas no longer good and the hostages had been moved.
Egypt and the United Arab Emirates launched secret airstrikes against Islamist militias in Libya twice over the past week according to senior U.S. officials, without consulting the United States.
The officials said the UAE supplied warplanes, pilots, and refueling planes while Egypt provided bases from which the strikes were launched. Egypt has denied involvement and the UAE has not commented.
The United States is concerned external involvement in Libya could escalate violence. Officials said Qatar has already been supplying weapons to Islamist militias.
According to the United States, strikes targeted Islamist-held positions in Tripoli on August 18 and early Saturday. Nonetheless, Libya Dawn, an alliance of militias including Islamist groups and militias from Misrata seized Tripoli's international airport on Saturday from rival Zintani militias.
Following the move, the General National Congress, the Libyan parliament that was replaced in an election in June, reconvened and installed an Islamist-backed prime minister. On Monday, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, and Britain issued a joint statement denouncing outside interference and calling on all parties to accept a cease-fire and participate in the democratic process.
SYRIA
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his government is ready to "cooperate and coordinate" in the fight against Islamic State militants but warned that any strikes conducted without the consent of the Syrian government would be "considered aggression." U.S. officials said on Monday that they are preparing military options to combat the Islamic State "both in Iraq and Syria." The United States has begun manned and unmanned surveillance flights over Syria, a move that President Barack Obama approved over the weekend. The administration said it did not plan to notify the Syrian government of the flights.
Another sign of diminishing U.S. influence in the region. And that United Arab Emirates and Egypt no longer trust the Obama administration not to leak information and put their bombing mission at risk.
And the fact that they coordinated the bombing run without the U.S. in the first place, are defending themselves because they don't trust the Obama administration to do so.
I never heard of the Al Qaida branch Khorasan until yesterday. But they are being billed as being more dangerous than either Al Qaida or ISIS.
Even Obama's sitting generals have said that Obama's stated plan to do air-bombing of ISIS areas of Iraq and Syria, with assurance of no U.S. ground troops, with the plan to use Syrian "moderate" resistance fighters, and maybe Kurds, and on-the-fence Sunnis in Iraq who either haven't yet joined or can be courted away from ISIS, is doomed to fail before it begins.
Obama waited until Congress was out of session to take military action: (1) to avoid requesting an authorization for war from Republicans, when Obama has put no lucid plan on the table to warrant approval, (2) so that House and Senate anti-war liberal Democrats won't have to defy their base and vote in favor of war 6 weeks before the mid-term election. and (3) so Obama can posture tough as if he's actually taking decisive action, and then after the election can not follow through and quietly reverse himself after the election.
As is the Democrat way (and never more so than under Obama) Democrats rely on deceit to win elections, and then pursue their true agenda under cover of darkness, after the political spotlight is off them, if they win.
Brit Hume on the Fox Report (discussing Obama's reluctance to put U.S. troops on the ground and do all that needs to be done to eliminate ISIS, instead wanting to at most do air strikes, and arm unreliable Syrian resistance who will likely fail or even turn on us, even with the best U.S. training and arms). Hume said that Obama would prefer to do nothing, and is only taking token action because of widespread alarm among Americans over the televised beheadings and threats to attack the U.S. by ISIS. And is selecting a plan that no one in our military, congress, or average Americans has any confidence will work.
"Obama's plan is not so much to succeed, as to fail slowly."
An interesting observation by Rich Lowry on Fox's Mediabuzz media analysis program, that Khorasan is getting the spotlight as the new great threat, because Obama for years has been saying that "GM is alive and Al Qaida is dead", relentlessly downplaying the threat of Al Qaida.
So rather than admit Al Qaida is back and stronger than ever, the Obama administration has hidden Al Qaida's resurgent threat by putting the emphasis on Khorasan (undisclosed: an Al Qaida offshoot) as the emerging threat.
Add another item to the list of insults officials in the Obama administration have lobbed at Benjamin Netanyahu.
A senior Obama administration official recently described the Israeli prime minister as “chickenshit,” according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.
The list also includes descriptions such as "recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and 'Aspergery,' " according to Goldberg.
“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official told Goldberg, explaining the meaning behind calling the leader of an ally a “chickenshit.”
The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states," the official said. "The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts."
A separate official told Goldberg that the administration believes Netanyahu to be a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat, no longer believing he would ever launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration denied reports that it planned to go around Congress on a nuclear arms deal with Iran.
"The notion that we are trying to avoid congressional consultation and input on this is preposterous," White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said at the time.
Iran seeks terms that would allow it to enrich nuclear fuel for the generation of electricity.
Israeli officials have warned that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapons program.
Obama for all his "control-freak" zealotry to lock down sources and whistle-blowers, and even prosecute reporters, has made no attempt to find this leak.
If I were Netanyahu, I'd keep Israeli Defense Forces on full alert for the next two years. Because Israel sure can't rely on the United States as long as their "friend" Barack Obama remains in the White House.
Further destroying U.S. relations with one of our closest allies.
Obama has already humiliated Netanyahu by snubbing him and his ministers when they visit Washington, and by publicly badmouthing Netanyahu during a joint press conference with former French president Sarkozy.
Un-frigging-believable. I was going to start a new topic for this, but it follows Obama's consistent military/diplomatic weakness checklisted already in this topic:
The Obama administration is moving to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba, after American Alan Gross was released from the communist country Wednesday following five years in prison.
Sources say President Obama plans to announce the opening of a U.S. embassy in Havana and call on Congress to lift the long-standing embargo. Senior administration officials said Obama spoke with Cuban leader Raul Castro for more than 45 minutes on Tuesday, the first substantive presidential-level discussion between the U.S. and Cuba since 1961.
Both Obama and Castro were to separately address their nations around noon Wednesday.
Obama also plans to take several executive actions, including expanding travel and economic ties to the island.
Together, the announcements would mark the most significant shift in U.S. policy toward the communist island in decades.
The announcement comes after Gross was freed, as part of an agreement that included the release of three Cubans jailed in the U.S. A senior Obama administration official told Fox News that Gross left Cuba on a U.S. government plane Wednesday morning. "Mr. Gross was released on humanitarian grounds by the Cuban government at the request of the United States," the official said.
Already, the rapid-fire developments are drawing a mixed response in Congress.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the move to re-establish diplomatic ties would do nothing to further the goal of democracy and freedom in Cuba.
"It's absurd and it's part of a long record of coddling dictators and tyrants," Rubio told Fox News, claiming the administration is "constantly giving away unilateral concessions ... in exchange for nothing." He also said Congress would not support lifting the embargo.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who like Rubio is a Cuban-American lawmaker, said this is a moment of "profound relief" for Gross and his family. But he voiced concerns that this constituted a "swap of convicted spies for an innocent American."
"President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government," he said in a statement. "Trading Mr. Gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips."
Other U.S. lawmakers hailed the agreement, and some even joined Gross on the plane ride to the U.S. -- Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., were on that flight. U.S. officials said Pope Francis was personally engaged in the process as well and sent separate letters to Obama and Castro this summer urging them to restart relations.
The three Cubans released are part of the so-called Cuban Five -- a group of men who were part of the "Wasp Network" sent by Cuba's then-President Fidel Castro to spy in South Florida. The men, who are hailed as heroes in Cuba, were convicted in 2001 in Miami on charges including conspiracy and failure to register as foreign agents in the U.S.
Two of the Cuban Five were previously released after finishing their sentences.
Cuba was also releasing a non-American intelligence "asset" along with Gross, according to a U.S. official. Administration officials claimed that Gross was not technically traded for the three Cubans, and that his release was humanitarian.
Obama administration officials had considered Gross' imprisonment an impediment to improving relations with Cuba, and the surprise deal was quickly making way for rapid changes in U.S. policy.
In a statement marking the fifth anniversary of Gross' detention earlier this month, Obama hinted that his release could lead to a thaw in relations with Cuba.
"The Cuban Government's release of Alan on humanitarian grounds would remove an impediment to more constructive relations between the United States and Cuba," Obama said in a statement.
The president has taken some steps to ease U.S. restrictions on Cuba after Raul Castro took over as president in 2010 from his ailing brother. He has sought to ease travel and financial restrictions on Americans with family in Cuba, but had resisted calls to drop the embargo.
The release follows years of desperate appeals by Gross and his family. His wife, Judy Gross, said earlier this year that she feared for his life, saying he might do "something drastic."
Gross was detained in December 2009 while working to set up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's U.S. Agency for International Development, which does work promoting democracy in the communist country. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on setting up Internet access that bypassed local censorship.
Cuba considers USAID's programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine its government, and Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
The surprise prisoner deal has echoes of the deal the U.S. cut earlier this year to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by the Taliban. In exchange for his release in May, the U.S. turned over five Taliban prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
Obama will have an announcement later, to end diplomatic isolation of Cuba.
A policy that began two years before Obama was born! And in exchange, the U.S. gets...you guessed it!... nothing.
I hate to say it. But I'm not sure Obama is wrong on this one. Yeah, Cuba is a shitty dictatorship but we have normalized relations with a lot of shitty dictatorships. More than a half century of the embargo has not worked. Maybe it's time to try something different.
If we had kept the same exclusionary policy with China that we kept for Cuba the last 56 years, China would not have a huge chunk of our manufacturing and jobs, would not have ICBMs that can reach the United States, would not have an economy that is now larger than ours, and would not have a military that is an increasing threat to us.
My only regret with the Cuba embargo is that we didn't keep the same consistent policy on China that we've had on Cuba.
And according to former U.N. spokesperson Richard Grennell, with Russia hurting, and Cuba's other ally Venezuela hurting, the Cuban government was finally on the edge of collapse, untile Comrade Obama threw them a lifeline. Make no mistake, every dime in revenue the U.S. give them will enable the Castro regime to further rain force on Cuban dissenters. Without our fusion of cash, the people would increasingly be able to depose them.
Megyn Kelly's interview with General Jack Keane, on Tuesday, Jan 27th, on the explosive growth of radical Islam in all its forms during the Obama years due to Obama's failed leadership, and delusional unwillingness to identify the enemy as Islamic radicalism:
Keane and other experts gave an even more detailed overview of Obama's failure in the middle east, and its ramifications, on Fox News Sunday yesterday.
Homeland Insecurity: Now we know why the White House refused to provide reporters a list of participants attending its three-day "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism." Some participants are extremists themselves.
Also, now we know why Obama's summit seemed to defend Muslim extremists — rationalizing their violence as a reaction to "economic and political grievances" — not try to defeat them.
Among other radical guests, President Obama invited Iraq-born Salam al-Marayati, who heads a Los Angeles-based Islamist group founded by two Muslim Brotherhood operatives, according to former federal terrorist prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
Al-Marayati has a long record of defending terrorists and justifying violence against non-Muslims — an easy one for the White House to vet for extremism.
He once proclaimed that "When Patrick Henry said, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' that statement epitomized jihad." He's also compared Muslim terrorists to "American freedom fighters hundreds of years ago (who) were also regarded as terrorists by the British."
In 1996, al-Marayati accused Israelis of "terrorism" for shooting a Palestinian to stop him from doing more carnage after he plowed his car into a crowd of Jews at a bus stop in Jerusalem while shouting "Allahu Akbar."
In a 1999 PBS interview, moreover, he called Hezbollah terrorist attacks "legitimate resistance," doubling down on his months-earlier claim that Hezbollah's 1983 suicide bombing of more than 240 Marines in Lebanon was not terrorism but a "military operation — exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington's enemies."
That same year, during the Clinton administration, al-Marayati was nominated to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. But when organizers got wind of his pro-jihad statements, he was kicked off. A Democrat leader, Richard Gephardt, gave him the boot.
This White House no doubt figured it could prevent such a public backlash by keeping his name secret.
Al-Marayati is also a 9/11 denier. In the days after the attacks by 19 Arab Muslims, he blamed the Jews, arguing "We should put the state of Israel on the suspect list."
Later, as law enforcement arrested American Muslim leaders for financing terrorism, al-Marayati, as head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, insisted "they did nothing wrong" and that "the government betrayed us."
What possible help could this man be in a summit on combating terrorism and extremism?
Still, Obama thought enough of him to snap a photo with him and his wife at the White House.
Just as bad, Obama also gave a platform at the summit to representatives from a radical Cambridge, Mass., mosque linked to the Islamic State.
According to the New York Post, top IS propagandist and recruiter Ahmad Abousamra once attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque. IS has demanded the release of jailed "Lady al-Qaida" Aafia Siddiqui, who also attended the mosque, as did the Boston marathon bomber suspects. This same mosque has turned out several other known terrorists. In fact, it was founded by an al-Qaida-tied terrorist now sitting in federal prison.
There are more than 3,000 mosques in America. Yet Obama picked this one as "a model" of moderation and counter-radicalization.
If the White House can't even screen terrorist supporters from an anti-terrorist summit it's hosting, how in the world can we trust it to ferret it out the terrorists inside our cities?
During his three day summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama continued to reject the notion that the West is at war with radical Islam. So what does the Obama administration identify as the real threat?
According to reports leaked from the Department of Homeland Security, the real danger to U.S. national security isn't ISIS or radical Islamic terror, but domestic right-wing extremists.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka on "Fox and Friends Weekend" said he couldn't recall an instance in the last 20 years when right-wing extremists flew jumbo jets into buildings, set off bombs at a marathon or beheaded 21 Christian hostages.
"It really is the most egregious politicization of national security," Gorka stated. "We're going to be looking for right-wing extremists when ISIS prepares to attack us? It's outrageous."
"We have tens of thousands of people in the Middle East and elsewhere and here in America who have committed themselves to the destruction of this great nation. And we're going to be focusing on the small cluster of right-wingers here in the United States?" Gorka said. "This could endanger American lives."
Gorka explained that this feeds into the Obama administration's narrative that radical Islamic extremists aren't the real threat, and they just need more jobs and economic opportunities in those countries.
"It's hard to believe this is actually happening in America, when people are getting burnt alive in the name of fighting the United States and the West, when we have people being targeted because they're members of a Christian minority."
[Watch the "Fox and Friends Weekend" clip above.]
Once again, the president can't even identify Islamic terrorists as terrorists. But is more than eager to apply the "terrorist" label to patriotic and law-abiding conservative Americans.
