U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was caught on open mic speaking to one of his advisors on Sunday, saying sarcastically "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation," referring to Israel's operation in Gaza.
"We've got to get over there," he said, just before an interview for Fox News Sunday. "We ought to go tonight. I think it's crazy to be sitting around."
Click here for latest updates on IDF operation in Gaza Strip
Earlier it was reported that Kerry was set to arrive in the Middle East on Monday to promote efforts for a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza. Kerry was slated to land in Cairo, and head for Israel on Tuesday.
In an interview for NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry said Israel "has every right in the world to defend itself" from attacks by Hamas militants in Gaza, but the U.S. is working diligently to get an immediate cease-fire in place.
Kerry said Israel long has endured rocket attack by Hamas, and no nation "would sit there while rockets are bombarding it."
Kerry also cited tunnels constructed by Hamas in what he said was "an obvious effort" to try to kidnap Israelis.
Kerry told NBC's "Meet the Press" that it's "unacceptable by any standard anywhere in the world" and that Israel must protect its citizens.
What he says off mike is really his true feelings. Phoney over and over.
Roomer mill in DC is that Harry Reid thinking seriously of running for President. Guess anything would be an improvement.
Yes, of course he has a couple faults, but what do you guys really think of Craigie? Boards be so boring without him, you think?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday that the Southern border is secure, despite the massive surge of undocumented minors crossing over into the U.S.
“The border is secure,” he said after the Senate Democrats’ weekly policy lunch, according to The Hill. “[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He’s a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.”
According to the Hill, Reid then added that lawmakers should worry less about securing the border and instead focus on approving President Barack Obama’s $3.7 billion request to process the thousands of children who have flocked to the U.S. illegally from Central America.
Reid’s comments were met immediately with criticism from the right. Prominent conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer even questioned his mental health on Fox News.
“When you hear Harry Reid saying the border is secure you got to wonder, you know, whether he’s on his medication or not. That is so detached from reality,” Krauthammer said.
The Obama administration ignored a report to the Department of Homeland Security last year which predicted that a large number of unaccompanied children would arrive at America's southern border in the coming months, according to a published report.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that a team of experts from the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) submitted the 41-page report in August of 2013 after discovering a makeshift transportation depot manned by Border Patrol agents at the Fort Brown station in Brownsville, Texas. The report detailed how thirty agents were assigned to perform such tasks as washing the children's clothes, driving them to offsite showers, and making them sandwiches.
The report said that an average of 66 children were taken into custody each day and more than 24,000 cycled through patrol stations in Texas alone in 2013.
The study's leader, a former Border Patrol agent named Victor Manjarrez Jr., told the Post that the government had little reaction to the report's warning and viewed the situation as a "local problem." Manjarrez added that a crisis on the scale of what has developed over the past several months was "not on anyone's radar [even though] it was pretty clear this number of kids was going to be the new baseline."
Cecilia Munoz, President Obama's chief domestic policy adviser, told the Post that federal officials only realized this past May that the number of children crossing the border would exceed the Border Patrol's original estimate of 60,000 for the year. The Border Patrol has since revised that estimate to 90,000 children by the end of September.
However, one former senior federal law enforcement official told the Post that Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement had warned the White House of the potential for a significant surge of migrant children at the border as early as 2012.
Clinton Says He Warned Bush of bin Laden Threat
Thursday 16 October 2003
NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."
The U.S. government has blamed bin Laden's Al Qaeda network for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Time magazine reported last year that a plan for the United States to launch attacks against the al-Qaeda network languished for eight months because of the change in presidents and was approved only a week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
But the White House disputed parts of that story, which was published by the magazine in August 2002.
"The Clinton administration did not present an aggressive new plan to topple al-Qaeda during the transition," a White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at the time.
The White House was clearly irritated by the report, which appeared to suggest that the Bush administration might not have done all it could to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
At Wednesday's luncheon, Clinton said his inability to convince Bush of the danger from al Qaeda was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."
Total BS on Clinton's part, not that he was ever a proven lair, over and over! He had several chances to take BL out and passed.
When a New York Times article cast doubt on the accusation Usama bin Laden had a hand in the 1998 bombings of African embassies, President Clinton questioned his own CIA, according to a note he scrawled to his national security adviser.
The memo, part of a 1,000-page release of documents Friday afternoon by the National Archives, was written after the president apparently read an article in the self-professed "paper of record" casting doubt on the U.S. Justice Department's case that the Al Qaeda mastermind was involved in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Some 224 people were killed in the twin attacks, including 12 Americans.
Two months later, a federal grand jury in New York indicted bin Laden and 20 others for participating in a terrorist plot to kill Americans. But the Times article, entitled “U.S. Hard Put to Find Proof bin Laden Directed Attacks,” and written the following April, raised doubts about bin Laden's involvement, at least with Clinton.
“Sandy, if this article is right, the CIA sure overstated its case to me — What are the facts?”
- President Clinton, in '99 memo
The Times article came just two-and-a-half years before Al Qaeda mounted the 9/11 attacks. But even though the Saudi terror boss would become Public Enemy No.1 until a U.S. Navy SEAL team killed him in a raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011, the Times suggested there was little proof he ordered the truck bombings in Africa.
“Capturing Mr. bin Laden alive could deepen the complications,” read a line from the Times article. “American officials say that so far, firsthand evidence that could be used in court to prove that he commanded the bombings has proven difficult to obtain. According to the public record, none of the informants involved in the case have direct knowledge of Mr. bin Laden's involvement.”
Not to worry!!!
The federal unfunded liabilities are catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth. At usdebtclock.org, federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.
Forbes look it up! Just Google 'Federal unfunded liabilities'.
With your self proclaimed 'brilliance' of politics it would seem your wasting your talents staying home all your life. I do agree with you that living in ones Ivory tower is much better than a basement or closet.
Your saying they flew airplanes all the way from Saudi Arabia to New York. Here all the investigations seem to prove they personally got into this country then hijacked the airplanes. Have you shared this new and Craigie factual information with the Government yet?
" It is a peculiar trait of those on the right that they must demonize folks they disagree with"??? What a joke you are!!! This is what you do with all of your posts "moron"!!
The 'FED' gets all the credit for this weak recovery!! Obama has done nothing but spend like a drunken sailor. Even today, the Fed is worried if they take away the punch bowl everything goes south again. Cheap money, feeding the money supply has always been what is holding the Obama's house of cards from crashing. As for Clinton, he had the Republicans to thank for controls on the Dems spending. At the least, he found his way to start working with them, unlike this polarizing President. Harry Reid is blocking over 200 passed bills from the house and one of the main reasons good things can't get done. Such a road blocker like Reid makes it even harder for the house to pass bills on to the Senate when they know they are DOA.
You know, with all the tech today, one would think some sort of warning on the blades would be effective is saving most birds lives.
I also noticed today cvrr drop .30 too. Sort of interesting, but I expect we should see some up action next week. Your right, nti does have a strong move to ex. I might try to catch some nti this week just for the push.
The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is still holding onto at least 12 chemical weapons production facilities it was supposed to destroy by June 30, and the Obama administration is supporting a proposal to obliterate initially only seven of them in the interests of a breakthrough deal.
The remaining five, apparently all underground facilities, must be dismantled, but the compromise would allow further negotiation over how that would take place, and how the destruction would be verified.
The U.S. position, hedged with stern warnings to the Syrians, was revealed this week in remarks by Robert Mikulak, the top American diplomat at a meeting of the executive council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague.
Mikulak said the deal was only available “this week” during the executive council’s session—but neither the State Department nor the OCPW answered questions from Fox News about whether any deal had been reached.
Even so, a spokesman for OPCW said there would likely be a “lapse of some days” before the records of the council meeting and its outcome would be revealed.
A number of other questions from Fox News about the nature of the facilities, and the compromise proposal first put forward by OPCW’s Technical Secretariat, were not answered by the State Department before this article was published.
According to Mikulak, “while this proposal requires serious compromises and is not entirely in keeping with the extraordinary decision this council took in September”—a reference to sweeping demands for the total destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons capability on a defined timetable—“the United States is prepared to support that compromise solution in the interests of reaching a council decision this week, as long as Syria also accepts it. We are not, however, prepared to go further or engage in further haggling.”
Everyone knows chemical weapons are not WMD's, so who really cares?
President Obama's call back in 2009 for a "new beginning" between America and the Muslim world -- a relationship defined over the prior decade by 9/11 and the Iraq war -- has descended into a foreign policy sandstorm that has left Washington dizzied by ever-changing powerbrokers, and its closest ally in the region more isolated and threatened.
The deadly conflict between Hamas and Israel, which is intensifying and widening by the day, is just the latest symptom of the Middle East mess.
The "Arab Spring," which the Obama administration roundly cheered, has resulted in only one full-fledged and stable democracy taking hold, in Tunisia. Syria remains gripped by bloody civil war, Egypt and Libya have struggled to establish stable governments, and Islamic extremists wreaking havoc in Iraq have declared their own "caliphate" in territory across a wide swath of land across both Syria and northern Iraq.
And now reported rocket strikes out of Lebanon into Israel are raising concerns of a renewed conflict with Hezbollah.
Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the environment now is "much worse" than it was during Israel's war with Hezbollah in 2006, noting Syria is in chaos and nearby Jordan -- a U.S. ally -- is feeling the strain.
"You can really see why what's happening now has the potential for much wider conflict," Bolton said.
He added: "And another significant fact, the United States is almost absent here."
With no end in sight to the rocket fire and airstrikes between Gaza and Israel's interior, President Obama did get personally involved on Thursday, speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- backing Israel's "right to defend itself" and offering to help broker a cease-fire. He urged both sides to de-escalate and protect the lives of civilians.
But his administration is being accused in some corners of losing its way in the Middle East, with the peace process in disarray and the administration allegedly struggling to articulate its own policy toward the current conflict.
Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. "appears out to lunch on Middle East challenges."
The administration's message on Israel got murkier earlier this week when White House adviser Philip Gordon delivered an address in Tel Aviv that was highly critical of the key U.S. ally.