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
The Obama Administration once again treating an American ally badly … I guess this is one way of making Hillary Clinton look good.
The Daily Beast is reporting that Sec. of State John Kerry said during a closed door meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. That’s the way John Kerry, piss off one of America’s greatest allies, that will win them over. Hey Kerry, I must have missed which one want to eradicate Israeli’s? And who did Fatah just embrace last week … can you say Hamas. This is unbecoming of a Secretary of State and usually a president would be asking for a resignation, but not when they are doing Obama’s foreign policy bidding.
So Barack, then I told them if they do not accept our all or nothing peace solution, Israel could become ‘An Apartheid State’.
I see John, you do realize that was not meant to be repeated publicly, right?
The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.
If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.
Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry’s use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.
It wasn’t the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement-building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share the blame for the current impasse in the talks.
NY Times Columnist David Brooks States: “Obama Has a Manhood Problem in the Middle East … Is He Tough Enough …?”
OUCH, Obama has a manhood problem in the Middle East, subtitled … Obama wears mom jeans.
New York Times columnists David Brooks went there this past Sunday on Meet the Press, questioning whether Barack Obama has the “co-jones” to deal with tough situations like in the Middle East and against a leader like Russia’s Vladimire Putin … “[L]et’s face it. Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a, I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin?” NBC’s Chuck Todd said during the round table, “Internally they fear this”.
David Brooks: “And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East,” Brooks said. “Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or Putin? A lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East, there’s an assumption he’s not tough.”
Chuck Todd: “Internally they fear this. It’s not just Bob Corker saying it, questioning whether the president is being alpha male — that’s essentially what he’s saying, he’s not alpha dog enough, his rhetoric isn’t tough enough. They agree with the policy decisions, but it’s the rhetoric. Internally, this is a question.”
Obama’s Chickens coming home to roost means American’s goose is cooked …
I would add it is more than a mere coincidence that everything that Obama has done in his six years in office has made the United States of America a weaker nation. whether it be domestic or foreign policy, Obama has done what many believe is irreparable damage to the US. One would almost say, it would be impossible to get so many things wrong. One might even say it was intentional.
It is impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence the Russian Bear’s invasion of Ukraine and the continuing mayhem of the Affordable Care Act. In their own ways, each reflects the full flowering of the policies of Barack Obama.
His chickens are coming home to roost, and what a mess they are making.
Obama’s sixth year in the White House is shaping up as his worst, and that’s saying something. He’s been in the Oval Office so long that it is obscene to blame his problems on George W. Bush, the weather or racism. Obama owns the world he made, or more accurately, the world he tried to remake.
Nothing important has worked as promised, and there is every reason to believe the worst is yet to come. The president’s casual remark the other day that he worries about “a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan” inadvertently reflected the fear millions of Americans have about his leadership. Not necessarily about a bomb, but about where he is taking the country.
My name is Barack Obama, “Welcome to Fantasy Island” …
A scorching OPED from the not so conservative Washington Post … President Obama’s foreign policy is based on Fantasy. What, you mean its a bad thing to have a foreign and domestic policy based on Unicorns and Pixie dust? Hey Barack, how are those rose-colored glasses fitting these days?
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”
That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.
The Heritage Foundation reminds us that this is exactly what Heritage’s James Carafano and Kim Holmes warned about early in the Obama presidency.
“The tenets of the Obama Doctrine… do not reflect history or the threats we face,” said Carafano, the E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Holmes, author of Liberty’s Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century. “They will serve to undermine America’s strengths and make it more difficult for friends and allies to figure out where we stand or how we might act in critical times.”
Carafano and Holmes predicted in 2010: “The Obama Doctrine, by seeking to remake America to please others, will fail because, in the end, no one will like the instability, vulnerability, and economic stagnation that follow from a weaker America.”
As the Jawa Report opines, “When you’ve lost the Washington Post, you’ve pretty much lost all foreign policy credibility.”
Hey Liberals, Remember When Sarah Palin Predicted in 2008 That If Obama was Elected President, Putin and Russia Would Invade Ukraine … SHE WAS RIGHT!
HEY AMERICA, HOW’S THAT “HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF” WORKING OUT FOR YA?
Remember in 2008 when then GOP Vice Presidential nominee said during a campaign rally in a Reno, Nevada, “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” Palin was mocked profusely for her comments by the Left and the liberal MSM. Flash-forward to present day … GUESS WHO WAS CORRECT? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now saying “I told you so” from her Facebook page following reports of a Putin – Russian “military invasion” in the Crimean area of Ukraine.
Um, I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did …
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
With special thanks to JWF, they found this liberal gem from the past where Sarah Palin was mocked for her foreign policy comments regarding what would happen between Russian and Ukraine if Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
So where are all those Democrats, Libs and liberal media types with their apologies? Doesn’t it just crush liberals that Sarah Palin was more correct on Russia than their Obamamessiah.
UNREAL … Barack Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia and Ukraine, But He Declares “Happy Hour” for Democrats
This president is just not serious about anything unless it has to do with Obamacare … God Help Us!
As reported at The Weekly Standard, President Obama’s team met the other day to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine as Russia is invades the and Barack Obama was no where to be found. But don’t worry, Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security adviser, briefed him. Yes, the same Susan Rice. Former Democrat President Bill Clinton played the sax; however, it looks like
Nero Obama is playing the violin.
A White House official emailed some reporters to say that President Obama’s team met today to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine. It appears President Obama did not attend.
According to Time magazine’s Zeke Miller, Obama skipped the meeting. “Obama did not attend the meeting, but WH official says he has been briefed by Susan Rice and his national security team,” says Miller.
But wait, on Friday after the Russians sent troops in Ukraine, Barack Obama completed his “Russian Speech”, he did find the time to declare an official ‘happy hour’ with Democratic Party. What is wrong with this guy? He finds the time to go on ‘The View’ and do NCAA Basketball bracketology, but foreign policy meetings as the Russians invade is off limits.
WITH BARACK OBAMA AS PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN AS VP AND JOHN KERRY AS SECRETARY OF STATE … GOD HELP US ALL …
Twitter – @CBSNews
Twitter – @ZekeJMiller
Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?
Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …
Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your
Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?
Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:
“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”
Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?
Russian President Putin Laughs at Obama’s Weak Statements as Russian Troops Invade the Crimea Region of Ukraine (Update: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine)
Elections do have consequences, especially when you elect a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a Golfer in Chief, rather than a serious Commander in Chief …
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to bring back the footprint and prestige of the former Soviet Union while Barack Obama makes the United States less influential and respected in the world. President Barack Obama issued a stern warning to Putin that Russia’s actions were a “clear violation,” “breach of International law” in Ukraine. Obama also went on to say “that he was deeply concerned” and “there would be costs” and the U.S. would stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5. Obama said in an unscheduled statement from the White House briefing room, “Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe.” I am guessing that Putin has made a cost/benefit analysis that it is in the best interest of Russia. Who honesty thinks that Putin is afraid of anything Obama says?
As the rest of the world watches Ukraine, so does the White House.
Amid reports of Russian military and paramilitary presence in Ukraine, President Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for 90 minutes today, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces.
Obama “expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” according to a White House readout, warning that Russia’s activity “would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community” and “will lead to greater political and economic isolation,” according to the White House’s paraphrasing.
The U.S. will also stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5, the White House said.
UPDATE I: Charles Krauthammer: ‘The Ukrainians – and I Think Everybody – Are Shocked by the Weakness of Obama’s Statements’.
Some were astonished by Barack Obama’s comments as being incredibly weak, present company included. If you watch the above video and Obama’s statements you can see that this president does not get it. The weak, naive president’s statement sounded in more of a professorial lecture of a laundry list of feel good items like Obama was at a State of the Union speech rather than facing down a ruthless individual. Putin is KGB, he is merely laughing at Obama’s weak response and wanting no part in confrontation.
The Blaze reports on Charles Krauthammer’s comments from Fox News ‘Special Report’. Welcome to what 1980 would have looked like had the voters of the United States not had the common sense and where with all to elect Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.
Syndicated columnist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer on Friday said President Barack Obama’s statement on the alleged Russian invasion of Crimea, Ukraine, was so weak it was “staggering.” In fact, he argued the president “could not have issued a more flaccid statement.”
Krauthammer told Bret Baier that the “Ukrainians — and I think everybody — are shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statements.”
“I find it rather staggering,” he added. “What he’s saying is we’re not going to really do anything, and we’re telling the world.”
But the request appeared likely to go unheeded as the Kremlin issued a defiant-sounding statement saying Putin stressed to Obama that the situation in Ukraine poses “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who live in Ukrainian territory.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.
Russia Invaded Ukraine: ‘Invasion’ by Russian Soldiers
Russia invading Ukraine … Looks like a scene from ‘Red Dawn’
Putin’s War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine And nobody—not the U.S., not NATO—can stop him, Welcome to 1979 and Jimmy Carter.
Why is Putin doing this? Because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know. The situation in Kiev—in which people representing one half of the country (the Ukrainian-speaking west) took power to some extent at the expense of the Russian-speaking east—created the perfect opportunity for Moscow to divide and conquer. As soon as the revolution in Kiev happened, there was an unhappy rumbling in the Crimea, which has a large Russian population and is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It was a small rumbling, but just big enough for Russia to exploit. And when such an opportunity presents itself, one would be foolish not to take it, especially if one’s name is Vladimir Putin.
UPDATE III: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine, even after Russians had already invaded the Crimean peninsula.
Russia’s parliament approved a motion to use the country’s military in Ukraine after a request from President Vladimir Putin as protests in Russian-speaking cities turned violent Saturday, sparking fears of a wide-scale invasion.
The motion follows President Barack Obama’s warning Friday “there will be costs” if Russia intervenes militarily, sharply raising the stakes in the conflict over Ukraine’s future and evoking memories of Cold War brinkmanship.
“I’m submitting a request for using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country,” Putin said in his request sent to parliament.
I cannot reiterate more the words from The Lonely Conservative … “Elections have consequences. Not just for us here in the US, but for the world. Mission accomplished.” Amen Sister!!!