Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”
HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.
Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.
As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.
What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.
But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.
House Votes To Hold IRS Official Lois Lerner in Contempt of Congress in IRS Targeting Tea Party Scandal
The House of Representatives voted to hold IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress by a 231 to 187 vote. Lerner has invoked her 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination not once, but twice at Congressional hearings. Many believe that Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights by testifying in front of a Congressional hearing by making an opening statement and then going silent. The matter will now be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the contempt charge will then be referred to a grand jury. However, it is unknown how the Eric Holder Justice Department will proceed, if at all. If ever convicted, Lerner could face between one and 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. Lois Lerner has since left the IRS, but not without being able to keep her whopping six figure pension.
Wasn’t the Obama administration supposed to be the most transparent presidency ever?
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold a former Internal Revenue Service official in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the agency’s special targeting of groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names that were seeking tax-exempt status.
On a 231 to 187 vote, the House approved a contempt citation against Lois G. Lerner, whose admission last year that the tax-enforcement agency had targeted conservative groups infuriated lawmakers in both parties, led to an overhaul of the IRS and Lerner’s eventual retirement from government service.
The House also passed a resolution Wednesday that called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. House lawmakers voted 250 to 168 to pass the resolution in which 26 Democrats joined all voting Republicans to approve it.
CBS News-DC: US Attorney To Oversee Lerner Contempt Case Appointed By Obama.
The matter now goes to Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Federal law says Machen has a “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. But a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it was unclear whether the duty is mandatory or discretionary. Machen was appointed to his job by President Barack Obama.
“We will carefully review the report from the speaker of the House and take whatever action is appropriate,” Machen’s office said in a statement.
The vote calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel was 250 to 168, with all Republicans voting in favor and most Democrats voting against.
Attorney General Eric Holder has denied previous requests to appoint a special counsel, saying it was unwarranted.
UPDATE I: Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi misses Lois Lerner vote for fundraiser.
After All These Years Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair with President Bill Clinton, “Sure, My Boss Took Advantage of Me, …” (Update: Lynne Cheney Ponders Hillary Clinton’s Involvement in Realease of Article)
Just curious, if some one is taken advantage of, can it really be consensual?
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky writes for the first time about her affair with President Bill Clinton … “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” Lewinsky says that she regrets what happened between herself and President Clinton, but insists it was consensual. However, she also pens that Bill Clinton also took advantage of her … ““Sure, my boss took advantage of me.” Which begs the question, how can something really be consensual when there is a position of authority and that individual takes advantage of it?
It’s rather comical to read responses from the MSM like CNN, Stop judging Monica Lewinsky, stating “they could learn a few things from Monica Lewinsky,” when they were at the top of the list who Lewinsky references when her abuse came in the aftermath that were able to brand her.
Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”
After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”
Karl in particular cited Lewinsky’s reaction to the Diane Blair papers, first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. Hillary Clinton, according to Blair’s documents, referred to the former White House intern as a “narcissistic loony tune” and partially blamed herself for the affair. Lewinsky wrote she found Hillary Clinton’s impulse to blame the “woman” for President Clinton’s transgressions “troubling”
Of course we all remember Bubba and his infamous statement of I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time. So in the end, Monica Lewinsky was branded and Bill Clinton is looked upon as the elder statesman of the Democrat party.
EXIT QUESTION: Who finds this a bit too convenient coming out this far away from a potential 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run in of all magazines, Vanity Fair? Why do I think this article got Hillary’s blessing before it was released to print?
With Hillary Clinton almost assuredly running for president in 2016, Monica Lewinsky‘s Vanity Fair piece today set off a lot of people’s conspiratorial alarm bells, with some suspicion anti-Clinton forces might have been behind it. But on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Lynne Cheney suggested it might have actually been pushed by Clinton’s team themselves.
“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Lynne Cheney said during an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. Would Vanity Fair publish anything of Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want in Vanity Fair?”
Guest host Laura Ingraham responded that the theory “makes perfect sense, and I’m really mad I didn’t think of it first.”
Cheney said that releasing the story in 2014 would allow Clinton to run for president and say the story is “old news” once the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Says Democrats May Not Participate in Benghazi Committee, “Colossal Waste of Time” … Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Blasts Boycott of Probe as “Terribly Arrogant” and “Wrong”
Why don’t Democrats want to get to the truth?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace that he would recommend congressional Democrats not participate in the recently announced Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) responded that by doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.” King went on to say that, “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide.” On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner said the House would vote on a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will lead a Select Committee investigation on White House Benghazi scandal.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time … I don’t think it makes sense really for Democrats to participate. It’s just a tremendous red herring, and a waste of taxpayer resources … I don’t think it makes sense for us to give this Select Committee any more credibility than it deserves.”
Imagine that, Democrats think it is a waste of time to get to the truth. As stated by Protein Wisdom, “Democrats make it clear: Obama’s political reputation more important than American lives.” I would also add, protecting Hillary Clinton’s bacon.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”
The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.
Brit Hume & Former California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman Get into Heated Debate Over Benghazi on FOX News Sunday
Democrats cannot explain away the fabricated and intentionally misleading Benghazi talking points without going into hysterics.
Fox News contributor Brit Hume and former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D – CA) went at it on Fox News Sunday after Harmon delivered an arrogant and dismissive lecture on the Benghazi talking. points. Hume pressed Harman to name a single person in the administration who credibly believed that the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-Islam video. And predictably, she could not do so. Host Chris Wallace interjected and said, “Ben Rhodes talks about the video five times in this memo, five times.” Harmon would finish by saying, “my view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.” Wrong, it was deliberate.
“You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack,” Hume said. “That’s not the question.”
“The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used,” the Fox News senior political analyst continued. “I’m not talking about the CIA talking points, I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading, that since have been shown to be false, and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.”
Harman continued, however, to insist that the administration did not deliberately craft misleading talking points.
“My view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading,” the former Democratic congresswoman replied. “It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.”
Former NSA Spox Tommy Vieto Admits … DUDE, Barack Obama Never Made it to Situation Room During Benghazi Terror Attack!
So as our US Consulate was being attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 where four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, we finally learn from former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vieto that President Barack Obama never made it to the Situation Room. Obama was in the White House but never made it to the Situation Room as events were taking place in Benghazi and Islamist terrorists stormed the US Embassy in Cairo. UNREAL.
So why wasn’t Obama in the Situation Room? Could it be because what was going on did not fit his narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run, or was he and this political spin doctors already at work making up faux talking points?
From Fox News Special Report:
Tommy Vietor: I was in the Situation Room that night. Ok. And we didn’t know where the ambassador was. Definitively.
Bret Baier: Was the president in the Situation Room?
Baier: Where was the president.
Vietor: In the White House.
Baier: He wasn’t in the Situation Room.
Vietor: Uhh. At what point in the evening. He was constantly… It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office. And he was updated constantly…
Baier: So then when Hillary Clinton talks to him by phone at 10 PM, he’s where?
Vietor: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.
Baier: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi … Why aren’t we talking about something else?”
BECAUSE THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR DEAD AMERICANS DESERVE ANSWERS …
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is a “diversion” and “subterfuge.” “SICK. Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday when asked about a new cache of recently released emails. “Why aren’t we talking about something else? Or as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would say, “What difference does it make”. I am guessing the parents, families, loved ones and friends of those murdered in Benghazi, Libya do not think it is “subterfuge.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted to talk about immigration and the minimum wage at her weekly press conference on Thursday morning — not what she called the newest Republican attack line on the State Department’s response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Asked by reporters more than once about revelations that the White House withheld certain documents from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the panel subpoenaed all relevant emails on the matter, the California Democrat threw up her hands.
“Diversion, subterfuge. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?” Pelosi asked.
“If you all want to sit around and talk about Benghazi, you can sit around and talk about Benghazi,” she said in her closing remarks. “The fact is that’s a subterfuge and they don’t want to talk about jobs, growth, immigration reform, voting rights, you name it.”
ABC’s Jon Karl Hammers WH Spokesman Jay Carney On Revisionist Benghazi Talking Points, Susan Rice Interviews & Smoking Gun Email Linked to Obama White House
Baghdad Bob Jay Carney grilled by ABC’s Jon Karl over new explosive emails linking the Obama White House over Benghazi untruthful talking points. Watch Jay twist, turn and spin … What does the Obama administration do when caught in a lie … Lie some more.
In the wake of Judicial Watch gaining a “smoking” email via FOIA lawsuit, the Obama administration is trying to explain away the obvious … they put politics over the death of four Americans, including a US Ambassador, in an attempt to distract from the truth during an election. ABC’s Jon Karl was relentless with WH spin-man Carney and just grilling him on the faux Benghazi talking points. Karl asked Carney why the Rhodes email is only now being made public? Carney actually said that the document (email) was not about Benghazi. Will the MSM finally do their job and go after the Obama administration?
Yup, not a smidgin of coverup in Benghazi whatsoever. What is being overlooked though, as Carney and Karl argue over whether the talking point email had to specifically do with Benghazi, which it did, Hugh Hewitt makes an important point in that every one of the Rhodes email goals, Not “The Truth” Every One Of Four Goals Urges A Lie.
More from Powerline on the absolutely ridiculous answer given by Jay Carney to the White House reporters regarding the email and that it was not about Benghazi.
Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.
The Smoking Email: Benghazi Email Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points … White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes
THE SMOKING BENGHAZI-GATE EMAIL … THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE … OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICANS DYING.
Yup, not a smidgen of deceit, corruption and cover up …
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that there was a coordinated effort made in the days following the Benghazi consulate terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” The documents were gained by Judicial Watch, as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State. The documents show explicitly that emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. WH adviser Rhodes also sent this email to top White House officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. Rice would then go on all five Sunday talk shows and lie to America and blame a video regarding what happened in Benghazi to protect Obama politically.
AMERICANS DIED AND OBAMA LIED … How much more proof do you need America to show that the Obama administration purposely and willfully orchestrated the Benghazi attack lies in order to distract the American public from Obama’s foreign policy failures ahead of an election? Usually the cover up is worse than the crime, but in this case four Americans died.
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
More from The National Review Online:
He wrote that the president and administration “find [the video] disgusting and reprehensible,” but said that “there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this move with violence.”
Additionally, Rhodes recommended Rice herald President Obama ahead of the upcoming elections.
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” Rhodes wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
“Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama — Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election.” It’s everything that we knew!It’s everything we suspected about Benghazi. And remember, we still don’t know where Obama was for five to seven hours. The president of the United States was off the grid. At five o’clock, in the middle of the attack, the last he says to Hillary and Panetta or whoever it was (paraphrasing), “You guys handle it, take care of it,” and he’s gone. So goes the story.
And now we’ve got these e-mails saying that the White House staff redid the talking points. They massaged everything in order to protect Obama, plausible deniability, to make it appear, running of the election, Obama had no clue what was going on. It was not his policy, this or that. He was not involved. Whatever it took, the White House did. That’s the latest from this release from Benghazi. And, yeah, it’s too late for 2012, but it’s not too late for November this year, folks.
FLASHBACK TO FEB 24, 2014 Interview on Meet the Press … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People.
Sec. of State Kerry Backpedals on Israel “Apartheid State” Comment and Tries to Blame Partisan Politics … However, There are Calls for Kerry to Resign
Hey John Kerry, why the long face? He has certainly put his foot in his mouth this time …
Secretary of State John Kerry is feeling the backlash from his ignorant comments about Israel could become an “Apartheid state”. Kerry tried to backpedal on the comments regarding one of the United State’s greatest allies; however, Kerry still found time to make excuses and blame partisan politics for his foolish comments saying, “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes. The tape of Kerry’s comments was published by the Daily Beast on Sunday, a recording of Kerry’s comments to a meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday in which he lamented the breakdown of talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Secretary of State John Kerry, under fire for warning that Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state” in the absence of a peace deal, released a statement Monday evening pushing back hard.
“I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes,” Kerry said in a release put out by the State Department. “… If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.”
Political purposes? As stated at Powerline, “Just how Mr. Pompous intends to disallow questions about his commitment to Israel is unclear. What is clear is that the questions being raised aren’t a matter of partisan politics.” The fact of the matter is that the criticism and backlash toward Kerry is coming from all sides, Democrats and Republicans alike. This is bi-partisan outrage. Last time I checked, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California was a Democrat. Boxer said on Twitter that any statement comparing Israel to apartheid “is nonsensical and ridiculous.” But wait, there is also criticism from the non-partisan Anti-Defamation League, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and by Democratic partisans like Senators Barbara Boxer and Mark Begich.
Fellow Democrat Nita Lowey of New York, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, also spoke out on Twitter against the comments, saying: “Inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel’s democracy to repugnant apartheid policy is irresponsible, inaccurate & counterproductive.”
Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska also spoke out against Kerry’s comments.
“Secretary Kerry knows as well as anyone that negotiating lasting peace in this region of the world is difficult but it’s not productive to express his frustration in this way,” Begich said in a statement Monday. “This remark also implies Israel should ignore the pact between [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and the Hamas. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorist organizations and we shouldn’t expect the Israeli government to either.”
Senator Ted Cruz (TX-R) is calling for John Kerry to resign and for Barack Obama to accept it. Cruz said in a floor speech went on to say, “Secretary Kerry has thus proven himself unsuitable for his position and that before any further harm is done to our alliance with Israel.
“Mr. President, sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds. And therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, John Kerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the president should accept it,” he added. “Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.”
Posted April 29, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Islam/Muslims, Israel, Israel/Palestine, John Kerry, Leading from Behind, Middle East, Misleader, Obamanation, Politics, Republican, Scandal, State Department, Ted Cruz (TX-R), United States, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | one comment