Now that Guzzardi isnt running and my two publications have appeared [Kurdistan & Gun-Control],

there remains a smattering of loco-regional/statewide news of-interest [her words on sting could haunt
AG-Kane?, Last of S. Philly's rowhouse synagogues being preserved, Applaud Eagles for unique draft
strategy]. Thus, the major action-item that re-emerges is the need not only to lambaste BHO, but also to
be wary if Biden becomes POTUS [following BHOs putative resignation]; this isnt far-fetched, for
rationalizations to deny the import of BenghaziGate among Dems appear to have transcended
desperation, and even BHO is conveying a sense of impotence [even as he continues to act imperially].
This blast e-mail is focused on these concerns, along with providing a spate of additional articles about
how much info has been willfully ignored by BHO and his apologists regarding Iran; extended-quotes are
intended to emphasize analyses that are behind the headlines that customary are dominant herein.

Although the glut of new material usually precludes repetition in these blast e-mails,
recapping the essence of the problem BHO faces, as he now lawyers-up, is desirable:

Benghazi-Gate is hot, with the issues having been broken-down into five components:
[1]Why were the CIA personnel @ the Annex [Iran-Contra violation?]?; [2]Why
didnt Hillary provide more security or evacuate?; [3]Why wasnt a military response
launched?; [4]How did the idea of a video arise?; and [5]Why wasnt the Rhodes-
memo released to Congress in 13? Of-interest is the fact that Eileen McCann [Mrs. Dick
Morris] discovered that, 36 Hours Before Rhodes Email, Hillary Used the IDENTICAL
Cover-Up Script; other facet of the scandal have been elucidated [2
nd
Set Of Benghazi
Talking Points; Republican Presidential Candidates Usually Lose Before They Win;
Benghazi Subpoena Scandal; and Benghazi: Everybody's Following The Wrong Talking
Points. Morris theorized that Hillary initiated the idea of blaming the video, and it is
anticipated that discovery of the security-briefing provided during that entire week will
confirm the fact that there WAS evidence [almost immediately] that this has been a
planned military assault [despite Presser-Carneys absolute denial that there was any
evidence of any etiology other than the video].

Ponder this example of the lameness of the Dem/Lib defense: ELEANOR CLIFT: CHRIS
STEVENS NOT MURDERED, DIED OF SMOKE INHALATION; BLAMES YOUTUBE VIDEO.

Although some claim the Benghazi Select Committee should be perceived as 'Very Dangerous Political
Waters' for the GOP [recalling, for example, the Clinton impeachment], the sequence-of-events during
recent days suggests the Dems are in disarray:

Boehner Announces House Members of Select Benghazi Committee
Supercut Video: Trey Gowdy Fights for Truth in Benghazi Investigation
Pelosi Calls Gowdy's Remarks on Benghazi 'Circus-Like'
Jay Carney: Benghazi Committee 'Blatantly Political and Partisan'
Pelosi: People Are Tired of Benghazi
Pelosi: Boehner's Rules for Benghazi Select Committee 'Unfair'
'Grumpy' Nancy Pelosi Not Happy With Democrats Who Supported Benghazi Panel
DEMOCRATS NOT SURE THEY'LL PARTICIPATE IN BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE
Dem Rep: GOP 'Using Death of Ambassador' for Sham Benghazi Committee

Recalling that Presser-Carney repeatedly said [initially/throughout] that there was NO evidence of
anything other than the video, ponder how he will evade recognition of an explosive intelligence report
concluding that officials knew it was a terrorist attack that killed four Americans on September 11, 2012,
that they knew right away, and that the lapse in security was preventable, based on intelligence the U.S.
already had about the area. {My training in having been a Watergate-freak prompts me to conclude
as have many othersthat this set of scandals [and their ripple-effects] will be found to be is far worse
[in terms of fanciful-ideology; malice-aforethought, and relentless-implementation.] In lieu of being able
to hear Oval-Office Tapes, an e-mail paper-trail will be buttressed by testimony from any of the dozens
of CIA-agents who were @ the Annex [and whom BHO has scattered around the globe to minimize the
risk they would suddenly appear in a D.C. Hearing Room].} Also, one wonders if BHO can keep the video-
guy silent forever [Nakoula-Scapegoat-Nakoula-Weighs-In-From-His-Halfway-House], although one can
imagine that an Islamist could be recruited to eliminate this risk; what he just said is instructive.

Certainly, uncertainties persist [Is the fact that Schumer logged into the White House at
5:30 p.m. on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012 and logged out at 11:59 p.m. indicative of the
possibility BHO was AWOL because he was engaged in debate-prep?], but its clear that
BHO has relentlessly rewarded [Victoria Nuland Confirmed as Chief U.S. Envoy for
Europe Without GOP Objection] those who have helped him engage in the cover-up [the
video], the cover-up of the cover-up [the delayed release of the Rhodes memo] and the
cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up [per Eileen, the necessary existence of more
suppressed e-mails].

The complacent/compliant media have also been impugned by Peggy Noonan ['Voxsplains' Media's
Motives for Joining Obama's Benghazi Cover-Up], to wit: Now the media is in a deep dark hole and as
desperate to protect themselves as they are Obama and Hillary. The fabricated two-year myth that
pretends Benghazi and the ensuing White House cover-up are all part of a partisan nothingburger, must
survive. So much is at stake for the media: their need to lie to themselves, the hope of another Clinton
presidency, and the legacy of Obama, who they assured us was up for the job.

Exemplifying efforts of the media to rehab themselves is this essay [Seven
lessons Tommy Vietor taught us] based on the unbelievably enlightening interview he
inexplicably provided to FNCwhich merits repeat-viewing, if only because of the overt-
conflicts between simple-declarative-sentences therein and sworn testimony of others.

In any case, when Tommy [who recalls Eddie Haskell of Leave it to Beaver fame] said that they were
able to invoke the videos impact on worldwide demonstrations due to newspaper reports, he was
both ignoring intelligence and perhaps presaging what was published subsequently; note the content
and import, for example, of this mis-step by BHOs Grey Lady [c/o Caroline Glick, annotated]:

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its
Middle East policy.

Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper
even realizes what it has done.

Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000 word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing
the terrorist strike against the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on
September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack
Obamas counter-terrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.

Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim
world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counter-
terror strategy and US Middle East policy.

Obamas first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a
consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims
are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to
appease the radical Muslims).

Obamas second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a
bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al Qaida directly subordinate to Osama
bin Ladens successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must
be destroyed through force.

The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al Qaida core al Qaida. And
anyone who operates in the name of al Qaida, or any other group, that does not have
courtroom certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al Qaida, and therefore,
not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.

These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They
are the rationale for the USs embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are
the basis for Obamas allegiance to Turkeys Islamist government, and his early support
for the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian opposition.

They are the basis for the administrations kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.

Obamas insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its
nuclear weapons program is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So too, the
USs current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the
administrations conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a
potential US ally.

From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya,
it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was comprised of jihadists aligned
if not affiliated with al Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized
by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al Qaida recruitment.

Obama and his advisors dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al Qaida,
they claimed was not involved in the anti-Qaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists
were fighting Qaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.

In other words, the two core foundations of Obamas understanding of terrorism and
of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar
Qaddafi. With Kirkpatricks report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.

Kirkpatrick showed the mindset of the US-supported rebels and through it, the
ridiculousness of the administrations belief that you cant be a terrorist if you arent
directly subordinate to Zawahiri.

One US-supported Islamist militia commander recalled to him that at the outset of the
anti-Qaddafi rebellion, Teenagers came running around[asking] Sheikh, sheikh, did
you know al Qaida? Did you know Osama bin Laden? How do we fight?

In the days and weeks following the September 11, 2012 attack on the US installations
in Benghazi in which US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and four {three} other
Americans were killed, the administration claimed that the attacks were not carried out
by terrorists. Rather they were the unfortunate consequence of a spontaneous protest
of otherwise innocent Libyans.

According to the administrations version of events, these guileless, otherwise friendly
demonstrators, who killed the US ambassador and four {three} other Americans, were
simply angered by a YouTube video of a movie trailer which jihadist clerics in Egypt
had proclaimed was blasphemous.

In an attempt to appease the mob after the fact, Obama and then secretary of state
Hillary Clinton were filmed in commercials run on Pakistani television apologizing for the
video and siding with the mob against the movie maker, who to date is the only person
the US has imprisoned following the attack. Then ambassador to the UN and current
National Security Advisor Susan Rice gave multiple television interviews placing the
blame for the attacks on the video.

According to Kirkpatricks account of the assault against the US installations in
Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the administrations description of the assaults was
a fabrication. Far from spontaneous political protests spurred by rage at a YouTube
video, the attack was premeditated. US officials spotted Libyans conducting
surveillance of the consulate nearly 15 hours before the attack began.

Libyan militia warned US officials of rising threats against Americans from extremists
in Benghazi, two days before the attack.

From his account, the initial attack in which the consulate was first stormed was
carried out not by a mob, but by a few dozen fighters. They were armed with assault
rifles. They acted in a coordinated, professional manner with apparent awareness of
US security procedures.

During the initial assault, the attackers shot down the lights around the compound,
stormed the gates, and then swarmed around the security personnel that ran to get
their weapons, making it impossible for them to defend the ambassador and other
personnel trapped inside.

According to Kirkpatrick, after the initial attack, the organizers spurred popular rage
and incited a mob assault on the consulate by spreading the rumor that the Americans
had killed a local. Others members of the secondary mob, Kirkpatrick claimed were
motivated by reports of the video.

This mob assault, which followed the initial attack and apparent takeover of the
consulate, was part of the predetermined plan. The organizers wanted to produce
chaos. As Kirkpatrick explained, The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road,
adjacent to the [consulate] compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass
anyone trying to join the mayhem.

According to Kirkpatrick, the attack was perpetrated by local terrorist groups that
were part of the US-backed anti-Qaddafi coalition. The people who were conducting
the surveillance of the consulate 15 hours before the attack were uniformed security
forces who escaped in an official car. Members of the militia tasked with defending
the compound participated in the attack.

Ambassador Stevens himself, who had served as the administrations emissary to the
rebels during the insurrection against Qaddafi knew personally many of the terrorists
who orchestrated the attack. And until the very end, he was himself taken in by the
administrations core belief that it was possible to appease al Qaida-sympathizing
Islamic jihadists who were not directly affiliated with Zawahiri.

As Kirkpatrick noted, Stevens helped shape the Obama administrations conviction that
it could world with the rebels, even those previously hostile to the West, to build a
friendly, democratic government.

The entire US view that local militias, regardless of their anti-American, jihadist
ideologies could become US allies was predicated not merely on the belief that they
could be appeased, but that they werent terrorists because they werent al Qaida
proper.

As Kirkpatrick notes, American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the
agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to
al Qaida. The fixation on al Qaida might have distracted experts from more imminent
threats.

But again, the only reason that the intelligence failed to notice the threats emanating
from local US-supported terrorists is because the US counter-terrorist strategy, like its
overall Middle East strategy is to seek to appease all US enemies other than the parts
of al Qaida directly commanded by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Distressingly, most of the discussion spurred by Kirkpatricks article has ignored the
devastating blow he visited on the intellectual foundations of Obamas foreign policy.
Instead, the discussion has focused on his claim that there is no evidence that al Qaida
or other international terrorist group had any role in the assault, and on his assertion
that the YouTube video did spur to action some of the participants in the assault.

Kirkpatricks claim that al Qaida played no role in the attack was refuted by
theTimes own reporting six weeks after the attack. It has also been refuted by
Congressional and State Department investigations, by the UN and by a raft of other
reporting.

His claim that the YouTube video did spur some of the attackers to action was
categorically rejected last spring in sworn Congressional testimony by then deputy chief
of the US mission to Libya Gregory Hicks.

Last May Hicks stated, The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya. The video was
not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya. We saw no demonstrators
related to the video anywhere in Libya.

The reason the Kirkpatricks larger message that the reasoning behind Obamas entire
counter-terrorist strategy and his overall Middle East policy is totally wrong, and deeply
destructive has been missed is because his article was written and published to
whitewash the administrations deliberate mischaracterization of the events in
Benghazi, not to discredit the rationale behind its Middle East policy and counter-
terrorism strategy. This is why he claimed that al Qaida wasnt involved in the attack.
And this is why he claimed that the YouTube video was a cause for the attack.

This much was made clear in a blog post by editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal who
alleged that the entire discourse on Benghazi is promoted by the Republicans to harm
the Democrats, and Kirkpatricks story served to weaken the Republican arguments. In
Rosenthals words, The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making
it seem as though Mr. Obama doesnt take al Qaida seriously.

So pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats,
the Times published a report that showed that Obamas laser like focus on the Zawahiri-
controlled faction of al Qaida has endangered the US.

By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups even if they have participated
in attacks against the US and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama
has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama
has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.

Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel
to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues
continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in
Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.

The massive database regarding Bidens crazy-uncle-in-the-attic image belies his still coveting the job
of POTUS; Biden Delivered an 'Elizabeth Warren-Type Speech' at a Fundraiser although BIDEN FIBBED
AGAIN ABOUT PLAYING COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Perhaps the most startling insights about how BHO has
perceived his performance [contrasted with his adoration of Hillary, which is now easier to appreciate in
light of BenghaziGate revelations] emerged from a book published by Robert Gates [noting that he also
attacked BHO in a fashion that is consistent with sequelae manifest in Benghazi-Gate]:

Slams Biden, Reveals He Nearly Quit he has been wrong on nearly every major
foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.
OBAMA TO MEET WITH BIDEN 5 TIMES AFTER GATES ACCUSATIONS


The Quiet Fury of Robert Gates - Bush and Obama's secretary of defense had to wage
war in Iraq, Afghanistanand today's Washington [book excerpt]
GATES THROWS THE BOOK AT O
Too Soon? New Republic Jumps to Defend Obama over Gates Memoir
Says Obama, Hillary Opposition to Iraq Surge Was 'Political'
Memoir Could Haunt in 2016
The Quiet Fury
Gates: Obama Was Always Suspicious Of Our Military Leaders Motives
Gates: Reids Iraq War 'Is Lost' Remarks 'Disgraceful'
Gates: Obama Browbeat Petraeus for Afghanistan Withdrawal Criticism - Obama was
not as concerned with winning the war in Afghanistan as he was with pleasing anti-war
advocates by withdrawing U.S. troops.
That criticism from former defense secretary Robert Gates seems kind of important
now, doesn't it?
Gates writes that, unlike Bush, Obama lacked "passion, especially when it came to the
two wars."
"I worked for Obama longer than Bush and I never saw his eyes well
up," Gates writes. "The only military matter, apart from leaks, about
which I ever sensed deep passion on his part was 'Don't Ask, Don't
Tell,'" the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military that
Obama successfully pushed to repeal.
Remember, "Bin Laden is dead and Detroit is alive"? Detroit is bankrupt and al-Qaeda
now controls more territory than ever.
NBC'S LAUER TO GATES: 'DANGEROUS OR DISHONORABLE' TO CRITICIZE OBAMA?
CHOKED: Gates says his book praises Obama, only '10 pages' are critical
robert-gates book-timing-helped-obama
gates-book-harry-reid-asked-pentagon-to-research-irritable-bowel-syndrome
GATES, REID SQUABBLE OVER NEW BOOK - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
fired back at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday night, quipping that 'it's
common practice on the Hill to vote on bills you haven't read, and it's perfectly clear
Sen. Reid has not read the book.' Reid faulted Gates's book in an interview with The
Associated Press earlier in the day, charging Gates had denigrated him, Vice President
Joe Biden and others 'just to make a buck.' But Gates said he plans to donate most of
what he makes to charities that work with wounded troops, and encouraged Reid and
others to actually read his new memoir."

Gates book is heavily cited in a discussion of [and comment regarding] der Amerikanisher Juden
Frage (American Jewish Question of anti-Semitic 'dual loyalties'); the opener is a bit scatter-shot, but
the conclusion is illustrative of an aphorism-augmentation [Israel lives in a hostile world, not just
neighborhood] which, c/o BHO, increasingly encompasses America:

As to this Jerusalem Post report, about the President and Secretary of State complaining
about IsraeIi cabinet members and some "American Jews" criticizing them, I have a one
word reply: "tough." If you can't stand the heat in the political diplomatic kitchen then
take a hike. [Rumor has it that Obama was bored as a US Senator-he served for less than
one term- so he decided to up and run for the highest office in the land because he
could deliver bupkiss, slogans like- "hope and change" and get elected on the platform
of anyone but Bush.] Neither he nor Kerry supports Jews defending their hard won
sovereignty against people who would destroy it.

Yesterday, we saw clear evidence of that with the World Economic Forum interview by
Fareed Zakaria of CNN of Iranian President Rouhani saying he would neither destroy
15,000 centrifuges nor stop building or swap plutonium producing heavy water reactors
at Arak for energy producing light water ones, telling the West that sanctions were
illegal. The Obama White in reply says that was for domestic consumption. Touhani's
CNN interview was a deliberate poke in the eyes of the P5+1 and the denizens of the
West Wing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

To warn American Jews they better not defend their Jewish cousins in Israel from this
threat was both dangerous and a blatant display of ingratitude towards an ally
protecting our assets in the Middle East. Some thanks for Shin Bet saving Amb. Dan
Shapiro and his striped pants and skirts brigade in Tel Aviv at the US Embassy and the
Jerusalem conference center from Al Qaeda attacks orchestrated by Ayman al-
Zawahiri's local mastermind in Gaza. Even peace mongering nonagenarian Israeli
President Peres is now calling for a boycott of Iran. Perhaps a special tribute might be
played out by Members of Congress concerned about these White House follies, both
domestic and foreign. They could politely sit on their hands and not applaud at the
President's State of the Union Address next Tuesday, the 28th. A visual rebuke captured
on national and international TV. The more courageous among US Senate members in
the audience of the Joint Session could immediately take up the Nuclear Weapons Free
Iran Act, S. 1881 and pass it resoundingly next Wednesday.

Now, after this episode we can understand former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates'
criticism of the mind numbing political apparatchiks in the West Wing inner circle in his
memoir, Duty. Gates has been unfairly maligned by the liberal media megaphones for
betraying his trust with the Obama team while Secretary of Defense. Here is the New
York Times praiseworthy review "In Command" of Gates' memoir Duty by Thomas Ricks
from the recent Sunday Book Review supplement. Note Ricks' conclusion:

But Gates is doing far more than just scoring points in this revealing
volume. The key to reading it is understanding that he was profoundly
affected by his role in sending American soldiers overseas to fight and
be killed or maimed. During his four years as defense secretary, he
states twice, he wept almost every night as he signed letters of
condolence and then lay in bed and meditated on the dead and
wounded. He was angry and disappointed with White House officials
and members of Congress who appeared to him to put political gain
ahead of the interests of American soldiers. Fittingly, he concludes the
book by revealing that he has requested to be buried in Section 60 of
Arlington National Cemetery, the resting place of many of those we lost
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:14 AM, Stuart Kaufman <stuartk@mrgreatneck.com>
wrote:
This is dangerously close to the old anti-Semitic accusation of dual loyalty. We are now
on seriously perilous ground. The rulers of the land are beginning the effort to isolate
Jews - to set us apart. I can't stress how dangerous this is. We Jews and those who are
our friends must strike back hard. This serpent can't be permitted to grow without a
major response. Obama is crossing the line, and we need to kick him in the teeth.

Previously, an amalgamation of Iran-related articles illustrated the upcoming deadline [and how BHOs
efforts to pressure BB had failed; the only rationalization for BHOs posture is in a piece [lets-break-a-
deal] that claims Senators imperil the prospect of peace with Iran because of immaturity and a lack of
self-control without addressing any of the trenchant sources of documented worriment which
abound}. In any case, this set is from an earlier time-frame in 2014, during which efforts of Congress to
stop BHO from allowing Iran to re-arm were curtailed when the Dems lost backbone:

WOLF BLITZER SLAMS WHITE HOUSE FOR NOT MAKING LANGUAGE OF IRAN DEAL
AVAILABLE
iranian-enemy-of-our-enemy-is-also-our-enemy [in iraq, fighting al-qaeda while inviting
iran to join a meeting on the future of syria]
White House Seeks to Bypass Congress to Lift Iran Sanctions
top-iranian-military-official-warns-kerry-against-attacking-irans-nuclear-facilities
white-house-misstated-irans-position-we-wont-dismantle-anything
Rouhani at Davos: Enticing Nations With Promises of Profit - Iran wants to make
companies salivate at the thought of big profit in order to pressure the West into
accepting their nuclear program.
elders-visit-iran to promote-dialogue with west
TRUST Iran?
Netanyahu: We cant have a Palestine run by Iran
71 Organizations Warn Senate Against New Iran Sanctions
the-west-buys-irans-pr-campaign
Chuckling Rouhani bids for better ties with all, except Israel
iran-vs-israel-at-davos
If I like my Iranian centrifuges I can - and will - keep my Iranian centrifuges. Period.
Rouhani to CNN: Iran won't dismantle centrifuges
Rouhani at Davos: Enticing Nations With Promises of Profit - Iran wants to make
companies salivate at the thought of big profit in order to pressure the West into
accepting their nuclear program.
Iran DM rules out negotiations over ballistic missiles, declares they have "nothing to do"
with nuclear program
DHS: Naturalized Citizen Caught Sending Secret Info to Iran
Iranian Foreign Minister: 'We Did Not Agree to Dismantle Anything'
Congress Must Pass Sanctions Against Iran After Obama's Surrender
surrender-to-iran-begins
IRAN: 'WE DID NOT AGREE TO DISMANTLE ANYTHING'
Iran Sanctions Relief Could Fund Terrorism Against U.S.
Wasserman Schultz Ducks Iran Sanctions Questions
Rouhani: No Destruction of Centrifuges
Deal Delays Bomb by One Month
Two Thirds of Israelis Think Obama Will Let Iran Go Nuclear
Obama administration is worried that Israel Is Riling Up the Jews, as per 'US perceives
Israel as encouraging anti-Obama backlash among Jews.': "A US official close to
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry said both men are disturbed
over what is being perceived in their inner circle as 'Jewish activism in Congress' that
they think is being encouraged by the Israeli government, Israel Radio reported on
Thursday. The official has informed Israeli government figures that the president and
secretary of state are disappointed over repeated attacks made against them by leading
members of the Jewish community in the US. Israeli diplomats and foreign officers have
warned against this trend; the Israeli government is increasingly being viewed as fanning
the flames among American Jews by encouraging them to promote the official
government position while making no room for opposing viewpoints."
Wasserman Schultz Ducks Iran Sanctions Questions Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
(D., Fla.) continued to evade questions about her efforts to block new Iran sanctions
legislation in Congress when asked today about the issue during multiple public
appearances on Saturday in Florida.
Iran: We Will in No Way, Never, Dismantle Nuclear Infrastructure - Iran vowed to
maintain its nuclear infrastructure and threatened to boost its uranium enrichment
capabilities just hours after announcing that it had agreed to a deal to halt some aspects
of its contested nuclear program.
Iran Top Nuke Negotiator: Any Deal Can Be Reversed in One Day
Emergency Committee for Israel: Obama Tough on Pro-Israel Senators, Soft on Iran
Australia FM [Julie Bishop] said, Dont call settlements illegal under international law,
expressed skepticism about the peace process, and said boycott of Israel is anti-
Semitic.
Obama urged Jewish leaders not to back Iran sanctions
Iran Hanged 40 People in Two Weeks - Iran has gone on an execution binge in the past
two weeks, hanging some 40 people, including 19 in one day, according to international
human rights groups inside and outside of Iran.
Feinstein: 'We Still Occupy the Role of the Great Satan'
Cory Booker: Courage on Iran
Iran '2 to 3 weeks' from nuclear bomb
Israel to Launch 'Iron Beam' Laser Defense
OBAMA: 'Give peace a chance'
'Win' for Iran
ROUHANI: 'World Powers Surrendered to Iranian Nation's Will'...
Foreign minister lays wreath at grave of Beirut Marine barracks bomber...
'SECRET SIDE DEAL' WITH TEHRAN
Dubowitz: Iran Deal Riddled with Flaws, Loopholes
Bipartisan Iran Sanctions Bill Faces Off Against Obama Admin, Fringe Allies
France, Iran and the 'Front of Mistrust' - Tehran makes a sly offer on nuclear talks; Paris
leads the opposition.
China Is Behind the Nuclear Program of Iranand Every Other Rogue State
Wasserman Schultz Turning Her Back on Israel over Iran Sanctions
texas-congressman-says-obama-must-apologize-to-israel-on-iran
Iran's ayatollahs offered U.S. one-on-one talks on Tehran's nuclear program, which
would maximize its chances of getting a concession-laden deal from the Obama
administration.
while-obama-negotiated-with-iran, iran-cracked-down-on-christians
Netanyahu: 'No Chance' of Final Iran Deal
Lawmaker: Text of Iran Deal Kept in 'Super Secret Location'
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Blocking Bipartisan Iran Sanctions
Pro-Iran Shadow Lobby Launches Bid to Kill Iran Sanctions
Netanyahu: Only sets nuclear drive back 6 weeks
ANDREA MITCHELL CLAIMED IRAN WAS A US ALLY UNTIL BUSH 43'S 'AXIS OF EVIL'
REMARKS
difference-between-iran-and-the-ussr - Iran sanctions bill gains backers in Senate -
Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act, which U.S. President Barack Obama has threatened to
veto, currently has some 48 co-sponsors in the U.S. Senate Iran, EU to hold two-day
meeting in Geneva on Thursday to discuss implementation of interim nuclear deal.
Krauthammer: Iran Deal a 'Catastrophe,' Netanyahu 'Has to Act'
Iran Sends First Warships to Atlantic
Obama to Use Executive Powers to Ease Iran Sanctions
DNC Chair Sends Mixed Messages on Iran - Jewish community leaders in South Florida
say they are growing frustrated with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) over her
conflicting statements regarding a bipartisan Iran sanctions measure in the House.
White House Seeks to Bypass Congress on Iran Deal - The White House has been
exploring ways to circumvent Congress and unilaterally lift sanctions on Iran once a final
nuclear agreement is reached, according to sources with knowledge of White House
conversations and congressional insiders familiar with its strategy.
Majority of Americans Support Sanctions on Iran
Poll: 59% of Americans Want Stronger Iran Sanctions
us-iranian-citizen-caught-smuggling-f-35-plans-to-tehran
Iran Will 'Roll Back' Its Nuclear Program Starting January 20
Iran Celebrates American 'Surrender'; Obama Says 'Give Peace a Chance'
Iran FM Visits Grave of Terrorist Behind U.S. Marine Barracks Attack
Iran: A Bad Nuclear Deal Gets Worse
Iran Claims Side Deal in Geneva Agreement
Harry Reid Obstructing Vote on Iran Sanctions
Obama on Iran: Give Peace A Chance - When President Obama says give peace a
chance, in light of his well-established foreign policy timidity and on top of that, the
recent revelations about his partisan and selfish thinking on Iraq and Afghanistan as
revealed by Robert Gates, one has to wonder. Is his priority in dealing with Iran
protecting American lives and interests? Or is it just protecting his political legacy. For a
child of the 60s peace movement, being the President who let Iran get nukes would be
far less of a black mark than being a President who went to war.
OBAMA'S URGES SENATE DEMS TO PUT OFF IRAN SANCTIONS - President Barack Obama
implored Democratic senators Wednesday to put off new sanctions against Iran that he
warned could derail delicate nuclear talks. A six-month deal between Iran and world
powers takes effect next week, but prominent senators in both parties have balked at
the deal and want even tougher sanctions. Two senators who attended the meeting said
Democrats present seemed receptive to Obama's appeal - even some hawkish
Democrats who have vocally advocated for moving ahead with new sanctions. That
sentiment reflected a growing sense on Capitol Hill that lawmakers will likely take a
wait-and-see approach before putting new sanctions into effect."
Iran Says Russia Will Build 2 More Nuclear Plants in Bushehr
danger-of-giving-religious-leaders-power-in-iran-and-israel
'Israel, Prepare For Armageddon And Forget US Help' - EMPact America founder warns
of Iran nuclear threat, says under Obama US has turned into an 'enemy of Israel.'
The administration has switched sides, having become part of the Iranian propaganda
machine
The Obama administration has been playing hardball in its attempt to stop the Senate
from adopting a new and tougher sanctions law aimed at Iran, but it has now gone too
far even for one of its leading congressional loyalists. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the minority
whip in the House of Representatives cried foul over a statement by the spokesperson
for the National Security Council that accused sanctions supporters of pushing for war.
iran-sanctions-bill-tim-johnson

Finally, it is instructive to recall the ongoing dynamic between BHOs conceptualization of the Middle
East as being centered upon the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, vs. BBs concerns
regarding Iran; this conflict was out-in-the-open when the two sat in easy-chairs, exchanging comments,
an event that many view as the only time BHO was publicly dressed-down [in his presence, no less!].
This was revisited in a strategically-staged Goldberg-Obama Interview on the eve of BBs visit to the U.S.

Goldberg, who has been interviewing Obama on the subject of Israel for seven years,
said that several years ago Obama thought Netanyahu would leave the stage. But
"Obama's thinking about [Netanyahu] has shifted to a remarkable degree, not about his
politics, but about his staying power." {BHO has been doing everything with his power
to push-out BB, alas, in-vain, attempting to emulate Clintons success in this regard,
shortly before Camp David II.}

Goldberg described the dynamics between Secretary of State John Kerry and Obama as
a "good cop, bad cop" approach t propel the peace talks to the framework agreement.
He described Kerry's approach, which has been to note down all of Netanyahu's
concerns and try to resolve them one by one. Goldberg also saw the harsher comments
from the U.S. as a way to signal to the PA that Israel is also under pressure to make the
deal, and that the U.S. is not simply taking Israel's side.

Goldberg said that after backtracking on his "red line" for using military force in Syria,
Obama's threats to use military force against Iran are now being seen as toothless. He
said that even "our Arab allies don't really believe Obama would ever use force."