And just who are these Democratic pollsters, one might ask? Well, Patrick Caddell, for one, and Douglas Schoen for another. Now, I admit right up front that I am a bit partial to Patrick Caddell. Not only is he from a city in SC, close to the NC border, but he tells it like it is whether it is beneficial to his party or not, a rare find in today’s political exceedingly partisan world. Schoen is no slouch in that department, either, and I respect him as well.

And now to their headline-grabbing claim:

[snip] “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

[...]

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – see what I mean? Telling it like it is. I happen to think they are 100% correct in their conclusion. Obama is the most partisan president I have ever seen, and his use of the Super Committee as a campaign talking point makes the case. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the time to play party politics. This is the time to work to save the nation, and we all have to work together toward that end. Yet, Obama refuses to accept any recommendations of the very committee he put together (Simpson Bowles), and the Democrats refuse to hear plans based on those recommendations because they come from – the horror – a Republican (Toomey). Sheer insanity.

One interesting twist to this drumbeat for Obama to step down from a re-election campaign is who the pollsters mentioned above think should take his place: Hillary Rodham Clinton. From their piece in the Wall Street Journal:

[snip] He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Interesting, no? But in the same breath as why she should be the nominee, is why many of us would have problems with this successor: Clinton is a loyal member of the Obama Administration. Uh, yeah…

Now, most of us also know that Clinton should have been, and would have been, the 2008 Nominee had the DNC and Obama Campaign not engaged in a tremendous amount of well-documented shenanigans, some illegal, and others unethical and immoral. Not only did the DNC violate the law in 13 states (see jbjd’s excellent report on this), but their machinations 5/31/08 to steal lawfully cast votes from Clinton to give to Obama was the last straw for many dyed in the wool, yellow dog Democrats, like myself.

But that was then, and this is now. Though I have to say, I do like the idea of not having to hear Obama continue his Us/Them attacks for another freakin’ year. I would be MORE than happy for him to just throw in the towel now. And he can take Michelle “I Pay $15,000 A Day For Makeup” Obama with him. Oh, wait – SHE doesn’t pay it. WE pay it. And that is a helluva lotta coin for MAKEUP. IMHO, that is.

So, yeah – I agree with Caddell and Schoen that it’s time for them to take their leave from DC. How about you?

Mrs. Rodham lived with her daughter and son-in-law. Huffington Post reports:

When asked to describe her most defining moment, Clinton said in 2007, “I owe it to my mother, who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind to.”

Dorothy Rodham was born and raised in Chicago, but she left home at 14 to work as a nanny. In Clinton’s 2003 autobiography, “Living History,” the secretary of state said of her mother, “I’m still amazed at how [she] emerged from her lonely early life as such an affectionate and level-headed woman.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I would like to offer this poem to Secretary Clinton as she mourns her loss:

watch?v=pfjbfgliffY&feature=fvsr

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Secretary Clinton and her family on this sad day.

Again, CBS News is leading the way in investigating this program:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday denied having any advance knowledge of a controversial program run by federal officials that allowed thousands of guns to be smuggled from the U.S. to Mexico in an effort to trace them to leaders of drug cartels before the program’s existence became public.

She said the Justice Department did not “request coordination” or give “any kind of notice or heads up” about “Operation Fast and Furious,” the ATF operation which put thousands of guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The weapons may have been used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

During the hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) asked Clinton at what point did the State Department learn about Operation Fast and Furious.

“My recollection is that I learned about it from the press, that’s my recollection,” Clinton said.

That sounds like a definitive answer that State was NOT involved. When pushed further by Rep. Mack about the existence of a waiver from the State Department for the DOJ program, which would have been required, Sec. Clinton said she would investigate the matter. Let’s hope she does. I, for one, would like to know the answer to that question.

And the drumbeat for Eric Holder to resign grows ever louder. Now, a total of 17 US House members are calling for Holder’s resignation:

(Rep. Dan) Burton, who once chaired the House oversight committee that is currently investigating the Justice Department over Operation Fast and Furious, said he has always opposed Holder and didn’t believe he should be confirmed as attorney general in the first place, based on his record of deceiving Congress.

“I think he’s been a mistake from the very beginning,” Burton told TheDC in a phone interview.

“When I was chairman of government reform and oversight during the Clinton administration, we had Holder before my committee a number of times and he misled the committee. In fact, he lied. During his confirmation in the Senate, I sent a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy, and I sent it to the other members of the committee as well, and I cited specific cases where Holder had not been straight with the committee and I said he should not be confirmed.”

It also appears Holder misled Congress on May 3 when he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had known of Operation Fast and Furious for only a few weeks. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley told TheDC he personally handed Holder a letter on the topic while the attorney general was in his office months earlier. Senior aides sent Holder numerous briefing memos on the subject, including the name and intimate details of the failed operation, as early as July 2010. (Click here to read the rest.)

I want for Holder to be brought up on charges, and have to testify in public for this insane program. Will that happen if he resigns? If he resigns, will it let him off the hook? In any event, it is clear that he is a conniving liar who has no place anywhere near the DOJ.

Secretary Clinton appears to be in the clear on this whole issue, though I look forward to the answer regarding a waiver for the DOJ. But Holder continues to look guiltier and guiltier. He cannot get his comeuppance soon enough for me, and I trust for the families of the federal agents lost, and those families in Mexico who lost loved ones as a result of these weapons. Yep, his comeuppance cannot come soon enough…

What do you think?

They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. What Ms. Attkisson said in a recent CBS radio interview with Chris Stigall is really startling, shocking, infuriating, and disconcerting. No, really, it is. Check out these excerpts from the interview:

“Since the very beginning, those who knew a lot more about this case than I did, including officials who work for the Obama Administration – this is nothing particularly against him or anyone else who happened to be in charge – they have said this is bigger than Iran Contra. They have said this is bigger than Watergate.” Attkisson replied.

The CBS investigative reporter also noted, “The idea that this started as one whistleblower that pretty much all the officials were painting out to be a liar – an ATF agent in Phoenix. And to see where this has moved over the months to officials admitting, okay this program was going on but it was isolated to Phoenix, Arizona. Then saying, okay people did know about it at ATF headquarters, but that’s where it stopped. To saying, ok the White House and DOJ did know about Fast & Furious but they didn’t know about the details.”

Doesn’t that just make you so angry? The lies, lies, and more lies to cover up what this Administration did while casting false aspersions against the whistleblower. And that is just the start of it.

Attkisson discusses the issue of Holder and his testimony, and there is lots coming out about that now (again, Holder has been subpoenad), but this part of the interview really caught my eye:

The Philadelphia radio host then queried, “Do you believe Sharyl that this goes beyond the Department of Justice because of the international nature and the homeland security nature? I have read people surmising that this has to involve almost by definition it must involve the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“Congress is trying to find that out, they’ve been asking for documents from the State Department and other departments and haven’t always gotten – well, they haven’t gotten a lot of what they asked for, so they don’t know yet.” Attkisson replied. (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, I had not thought about the potential State Department component of all of this. It makes sense, of course, considering the involvement with another nation. Naturally, any discussion of the State Department cannot be had without mentioning the head of the Department, Sec. Clinton.

I know this is going to sound silly, but it honestly choked me up to read this. I am just so disheartened by Clinton’s participation in this tainted Administration, and all of the ways her carrying out Obama’s flawed policies affect her. With hindsight being 20/20, I wish she had never sullied her name by going to work for this man. Now, she is connected to this incredibly short-sighted program which cost the life of a border patrol agent and numerous Mexicans, giving support to the TALIBAN opening offices in Qatar, even as they are attacking our embassies and military bases, and validating the Muslim Brotherhood. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Never mind her going to work for a man who was abusive to her, and women in general, a reality that overshadows her work for women and children.

Indeed – all I can think of is the old adage, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

As for Holder, despite his whining and complaining, he is in the very midst of this whole thing. I love this excuse from the head of the DOJ:

On Friday, Holder sent a letter to congressional investigators stating that he does not read every document addressed to him and that they are reviewed by members of his staff. Holder went on to say that none of the reports mentioned the controversial tactics used in Fast and Furious.

Ah, the “I didn’t do my job by reading these critical reports” defense. Good one! Except Issa is not buying what Holder is selling (thank goodness):

On Monday, Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the scandal, replied to Holder in a letter saying, “Operation Fast and Furious was the department’s most significant gun trafficking case. Whether you realize yet or not, you own Fast and Furious. It is your responsibility.”

Issa told “Fox News Sunday” that he was going to issue the subpoena to find out why the top Justice officials are “denying knowing about something that they were briefed on?”

“We want to know what and when they knew it,” he said. “But more importantly, we have to understand — at what level of the authorization really come? It wasn’t an ATF operation. They were part of that. It was a joint operation in which DEA knew more than ATF.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, we DO want to know what, where, how, why all of this came to be, as well as the involvement of the State Department, and any other government departments that may have had a hand in this poorly conceived program.

So, let the subpoenas fly, Rep. Issa. Let’s get tot the bottom of this no matter where it leads or who it takes down. Watergate was big, HUGE, in fact. If this is bigger, then let the hearings begin…

Oh, wait – I know. Obama was NOT great on women’s issues, he did not treat women well and his sexism was in evidence frequently on the campaign trail, his wife, too. Seriously, do I need to provide evidence to support that after all this time, and the numerous links/examples? Seriously? Okay – here is one more, with some bonus coverage of how misogynistic the media was:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And then comes this report from the Washington Post in a review of the new Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President. To say it is not glowing about how women – upper level women – were treated in the Obama Administration is putting it mildly:

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

Uh huh. But that is not the full story. It wasn’t just that some of these women weren’t involved in the campaign. This isn’t about one group being outsiders trying to get into the inner circle, no, not at all. It was women-specific:

[snip] One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn, who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Dunn says she was quoted out of context and told The Post on Friday that she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House was not a hostile work environment.

On Monday, Suskind allowed a Post reporter to review a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which took place over the telephone in April. In that conversation, Dunn is heard telling Suskind about a conversation she had with Jarrett.

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” [snip]

So first, Dunn tells the truth, then tries to lie to cover up for Obama, but her own voice confirms this quote, “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” That is mighty damning, indeed (and honestly, Anita, STOP COVERING FOR THIS MAN! Good grief. Have a little self-respect already.).

But Dunn was not the only one:

Other episodes were relayed to Suskind by Christina Romer, former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, whose disputes with Summers have been widely reported, including in an earlier book on Obama’s White House by journalist Jonathan Alter.

Romer is quoted by Suskind saying, after being excluded by Summers at a meeting, “I felt like a piece of meat.”

Holy smokes. These two women were not some underlings who resented not being higher up in the chain. No, these two women had pretty prominent positions. Wow. That is an incredible statement. And it goes on from there. Click here to read the rest of the article.

I might add, what makes that statement so striking is that most women know how incredibly difficult it is to prove that kind of “workplace” hostility. Too often, the perpetrators are defended, and circle the wagons to protect them. Heck, as noted, even Dunn tried to protect Obama from the charge. So it is telling indeed that she used that phrase in her conversation with Jarrett. Telling, indeed.

I wish I was surprised. I am not. When Obama made Jon Favreau the Head White House Speechwriter, and allowed him to retain that position even after the following photo came to light, I knew that was the kind of ship Obama would be running:

And that was AFTER then-Senator Clinton had been named as Obama’s Secretary of State choice.

Yeah. That sums up how things were going in the Obama Administration perfectly, don’t you think? Just how much do you think has changed now? Let’s hear it!

In the midst of commemorations for 9/11/01, a day on which we remembered those who were killed, and reaffirmed the commitment to keep our nation safe, the Taliban was busy in Afghanistan. Our officials were concerned about a 9/11 attack – but we thought it would be on our shores, in an area already hit.

And in a way, it was. The Taliban attacked our soldiers at a military base:

The massive Taliban truck bomb that exploded outside an American military base in a restive eastern district injured nearly 80 U.S. troops and killed five Afghans, Western and Afghan officials said Sunday.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place Saturday evening in the Sayedabad district of Wardak province. That is the same district where insurgents last month shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter, killing 30 American troops, the majority of them Navy SEALs, including some from the unit responsible for killing Osama bin Laden.

The Chinook crash, which remains under investigation, was the worst single loss of American military lives in the nearly decade-long war.

Although no Americans died in Saturday’s blast, it appeared to be one of the biggest casualty counts in an insurgent strike on a Western military installation. The bombing also carried symbolic weight, coming on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. [snip]

Thank heavens none of our soldiers were killed, but for almost 80 of them to have been injured, is significant enough. That said, it is very sad that others did die in this attack on our base. And, thank heavens that the base was so fortified that more damage was not done to our troops or the base.

The article continues:

[snip] Hours after the attack, a solemn ceremony was held at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul on Sunday morning to remember the victims of Sept. 11. Before an audience of several hundred embassy employees, military officials and Afghan dignitaries, the American flag was lowered to half-staff and a lone bugle sounded taps. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It was that very embassy in Kabul that the Taliban attacked on Monday. Though the New York Times seems loathe to cloak the attackers with that moniker:

Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday, pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

[...]

It was unclear precisely how many assailants were behind the assault or whether they were attacking from a single or multiple locations. The attackers were holed up on several floors of a tall, partly built concrete building that offered a bird’s-eye view of the secured diplomatic and military compounds about a half mile away. Flashes from gun barrels could be seen as the militants fired from their perch. Afghan security forces returned fire from the ground, sending puffs of concrete dust into the air as bullets slapped the building. [snip]

So far, no Americans have been killed, but the Taliban is taking credit for this assault, which the Times has not yet verified, hence their hesitancy to label it as such. Other news organizations are claiming this is indeed the continuing actions of the Taliban insurgents.

Regardless who is responsible, these attacks, the third since June, cannot stand:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. will do everything it can to combat those who committed a “cowardly attack” on the U.S. Embassy and other buildings in Kabul.

Clinton said the U.S. was moving to secure the area in Afghanistan’s capital and “ensure that those who perpetrated this attack are dealt with.”

I would certainly hope so. For live updates of the situation in Kabul, click here or here.

I suppose this shouldn’t be a big surprise, considering what happened outside our embassy in England on 9/11:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am pretty sure they were chanting, “Burn, Burn, USA.” We are mourning the loss of life and liberty in our country, and on that very day, this group is marching against us in England. Wow. It is all a matter of degrees.

Meanwhile, rioters attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, Egypt over the weekend. Yikes. This is not good. Especially since these rioters then turned on some of those who were reporting this attack, notably, CNN:

An angry crowd lingering near the Israeli embassy in Cairo after an attack on the building a day earlier turned on journalists reporting the incident Saturday, accusing at least one of being an Israeli spy.

As a CNN crew filmed the embassy from across the street, another crew from American public television — led by Egyptian television producer Dina Amer — approached the building.

[...]

“There was this older lady who decided to follow me and rally people against me,” Amer recalled. “She said ‘you’re a spy working with the Americans.’ Then they swarmed me and I was a target.”

A growing crowd surrounded Amer and her colleagues, as they tried to leave the scene. Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, a producer working for CNN, rushed to help escort Amer through the angry crowd. But suddenly the two reporters were pinned against the railing of an overpass by young men who were accusing Amer of being an Israeli spy.

Yelling “I’m Egyptian,” Fahmy managed to pull Amer another 10 meters down the road, until the pressure from the mob overwhelmed the pair. Amer screamed as she and Fahmy were knocked to the ground and the crowd started to trample them.

[...]

“I was thinking, how powerless I was because there was no police to save us,” Fahmy said. “I was worried that they were going to rape her.”

[...]
Amer had few words to describe the terrifying ordeal. “They were animals,” she said.

I would say that sums it up. But the CNN reporter and crew were not the only ones:

[snip]

Other Egyptian journalists told CNN they were also attacked Saturday while trying to report near the Israeli embassy.

Ahmed Aleiba, a correspondent with Egyptian state television, said he was pursued by civilians and soldiers. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow, that must have been terrifying, especially for Amer. I cannot help but think of Lara Logan and her ordeal as she tried to report on the uprising in February. This is all just disturbing as hell, especially now that the soldiers are joining in with the civilians.

I hope and pray that those inside these embassies in both Afghanistan and Egypt remain safe, but that those who are trying to report on these attacks do, as well. These are uneasy days, to be sure, and highlight that the lessons of 9/11 cannot be forgotten. Uneasy days are ahead, no doubt…

UPDATE: My buddy, Nunly, provided the link to this story, which is disturbing in light of the recent attacks: U.S. Backs Move To Let Taliban Open Headquarters In Qatar In The Hope Of Ending War In Afghanistan.

Draw your own conclusions.

Hillary Clinton salutes the delegates at the Democratic National Convention in 2008

Like most of our long-time regular readers, and nearly all of our writers, I was drawn to No Quarter in 2008 because it was supporting Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the presidency.  NQ was one of several blogs I was reading as I scoured the Internet for people supporting her.  As the primary season wound down in May, we were brought closer together as a community by the our outrage at the machinations of the Democratic National Committee.

Even as far back as February, many Democratic leaders were screeching that she should admit defeat and endorse Obama, but she fought on, winning many important primaries.  But the delegate count was going in Obama’s favor because of the Chicago-style tactics used by the Obama camp at the caucuses. Bus in a bunch of hooligans and overwhelm the locals.  Caucuses that used to be like PTA meetings were turned into events more akin to grudge-match high school basketball games.

Then, on that fateful day in May, the DNC awarded some of Hillary’s Minnesota Michigan delegates to Obama, delegates that she had won in her primary victory.  They did this on the ridiculous premise that “he would have won those delegates if he had been on the ballot.”  That whole affair was too convoluted to write about in any condensed form, but it was the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party as we knew it.

Most of us know this history, and I’m not trying to preach to the choir, but I do want to remind some of you, and to inform our newer readers, of what brought No Quarter together as a community in 2008.  We were a community mostly comprised of pissed off Democrats and Independents who supported Hillary Clinton as the best candidate for president, and who knew that Obama was unqualified for the most important job in the world.  Not only was (is!) he unqualified, but he was a complete unknown.  He is still a man hiding his past, a man with unsavory associates and unproven credentials.

We, as a community, were horrified at the unfairness of the way the Democratic Party treated Hillary in that primary season, doing their best to force her out so they could “unify” the party long before the official nomination at the convention.  That was a major part of what brought people together here at NQ and some other pro-Hillary blogs.  Some of those other blogs folded when she conceded the race, but we hung together, and NQ is still going, although I barely recognize it sometimes, compared to what we were in 2008 and 2009.

After that wretched DNC meeting at the end of May, 2008, when the committee members basically told Hillary to concede in the name of “party unity,” a small group of her backers coalesced under the banner of P.U.M.A.

On Monday, August 22, 2011, HelenK posted this in the comments of my piece “Lady Lynn Speaks Out”:

“My only problem was her [Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild] being advertised as the original PUMA.
She was not.  That title belongs to a commenter at the Confluence.
on May 31 2008  SM77 posted this

P party
U unity
M my
A ass

No one has ever thanked her for that, but many have used the title.”

To which the lovely oowawa replied:

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

The whole message of PUMA folks was to tell the DNC that we intended to defy Party Unity and continue to support Hillary’s campaign against Obama.  The intention was to show Hillary and her campaign team that she had a support group that wanted her to take her fight all the way to the National Convention, and to insist on a delegate count to decide the nomination.

The whole PUMA thing was unorganized, and even had a secondary branch that used different words for the acronym of PUMA, but we saw ourselves as more powerful than we were.  We assumed that we spoke for millions of Hillary Clinton supporters when we insisted that the Democratic Party follow the rules that were always followed by tradition at the national conventions of both major parties up until that time:

• That all candidates have the right to continue campaigning until the Convention decides the nominee;
• That delegates are the ones who decide the nomination, not the DNC;
• That delegates cast their votes on the Convention floor;
• That Super Delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose; and
• That pledged delegates can change their votes if there is no winner on the first ballot.

We wanted Hillary to fight to the end, to demand the delegate votes, and then if she lost the vote,  TO JUMP UP ON THAT STAGE AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT A CRIMINAL JACKASS, WORTHLESS PIECE OF EXCREMENT, RACIST KNOW-NOTHING, NARCISSISTIC COMMUNIST ASSHOLE OBAMA IS!!!

Well, we didn’t want her to give up without a fight.

But, let’s get realistic here.  We were a very small faction, and we were only observers to the political process.  If all of the people who ever thought of considering themselves PUMAs had gathered together in one place at one time and presented ourselves as a unified political bloc, we still would have been too small a group to have any real impact on Hillary’s decisions.

We know she appreciated our support, and a few PUMAs made the news a few times that summer as a “curiosity” (translation: fringe lunatics), but Hillary had BIG considerations that went far beyond her support groups.  She had to think about the Big Picture, and consider her future, as well as Bill’s legacy as a former President.

Let’s try to look at things from her perspective.  We can’t walk a mile in her shoes, but just try to think about what she had to consider in making her decisions that year.

1. She is a Democrat, and given that this is a 2-party country, and 3^rd party candidates have never come close to winning the presidency, she was not about to desert the Party that elected her husband to the presidency twice, and her to the Senate twice;
2. Historically, when one of the two major political parties has a floor fight for the nomination, they go on to lose the general election (exceptions are few);
3. In politics, as in sports or other competitions, we expect winners to enjoy their victory but also to speak well of their “worthy opponent” – and losers are expected to congratulate the victor and be a “good sport” about their loss, because in our society we hate “sore losers”;
4. If she expected to continue to enjoy the respect of her peers in the Senate and the voters who supported her, she had to accept that she did not have enough delegates to win the nomination — regardless of how unfairly the process had played out that year — and therefore, she had to concede graciously, which she did in grand form;
5. If she had decided to challenge Obama’s candidacy on the basis of the Natural Born Citizen controversy, she would have had to have irrefutable proof (which may not even exist), and even with such proof in hand, it would have been challenged in court and in the court of public opinion, which would have split the party enough to lose the general election, and possibly split the party into two parties, giving the Republicans a lock on winning all future elections;
6. The same applies to any other allegations the Clintons may have made against Obama, in that the potential damage done to the party and the future of American politics would far outweigh any potential gain for Hillary and/or Bill, which would have probably made them political pariahs – they would be perceived as “dirty fighters, “ “mudslingers,” “racists,” “traitors to the Party,” and “self-serving spoilsports,” at the very least.

Now think back again to what we were saying at NQ, what the PUMAs were saying, after she conceded the nomination to Obama and began to campaign for him.  Some were saying, “Well, he’d BETTER offer her the Vice President slot!”  Others, like myself, thought VP to be a meaningless and powerless position, and wanted something better for her.  Various members of our NQ writers and readers tossed around different positions that would be a fitting reward for her.  Some thought Supreme Court justice, a lifetime position, would be the best fit for her.  Different Cabinet positions were discussed, but seriously, the best possible Cabinet position of all is Secretary of State, and that’s what she got.  It’s almost like being co-president in its stature.  And it turns out to be an extremely good fit for her talents, her nature, and her abilities.  After serving as SOS and the rest of her history, nobody could ever challenge her qualifications for the presidency again.

Now, honestly, I ask those of you who say she should have turned down a position in this administration, even the prestigious and mostly-independent position of SOS, what were her real options?  Sure, she could have gone back to her Senate seat, like John Kerry and John McCain did.  It’s relative obscurity after running for Prez, but yeah, she could have just said “no thanks” and gone back to her Senate office.

But what if she was genuinely concerned about what would become of U.S. foreign policy under a naïve novice like Obama?  What if she considered who else there was to take that position… and recoiled in horror at the thought of Valerie Jarrett or John Kerry in that highly important position?

Can you imagine, or at least TRY to imagine, what her private conversations would have been like with her husband, Bill Clinton, 2-term President?  Don’t you think he would have advised and encouraged her to take the appointment to Secretary of State?  Don’t you think she would have felt that taking the position of SOS was not only a huge promotion from Senator, but that she could help prevent diplomatic disasters?

Don’t you see how becoming SOS has allowed her to gain literally “a world of experience” and that it’s the highest point in her personal and professional life thus far?  I just don’t see how she could have turned it down.  Why should she?  Just to appease some of her hard-line followers?

Lately,  I see people on this blog who once supported her, praised her, defended her, and fought for her, who now have turned against her.  Some even use the same vilification and innuendos the Republicans have used against her and Bill for two decades.  And frankly, it ties my stomach in knots.

OK, look folks, let me lay it out in personal terms.  I’m an independent voter, and sometimes I like third parties and I truly wish we had a 3-party system of Progressives, Moderates, and Conservatives.  I could then spread my votes between those three with a clear conscience.  But I still have some deep grievances with the Republican Party.  Ken Starr and Dick Cheney anyone? Although I may support any Republican against Obama, I will never be a Republican supporter in general, and at this point, I don’t even see an electable Republican candidate that I like.

I cannot forget the many years that I fought for old-fashioned Liberal causes.  I was a Kennedy devotee as a teenager.   I have always been left of center, and I always will be, although I have become more conservative in some ways, now that I’m an old man who calls 50-year-olds “kids.”  I have always been a Clinton supporter, both Bill and Hill.  I have rarely supported Republican politicians, although I’ve voted for some when the Democrat was no good.

So when I see people who used to support the Clintons and who now revile them for working for the good of the world in the only way they can – through the Democratic Administration – I feel like a kid watching his parents having a drunken brawl.  It makes me just sick at heart.

I don’t know if Hillary is preparing herself for a future run at the presidency, or if she is just excelling at the highest position she’ll ever hold, while gaining the admiration of most of the world.  Either way, I support her.

Has she said some things I wish she hadn’t?  Of course!  Do I support every decision she’s made as SOS or every position she’s taken publicly as the voice of this administration?  Hell, no!!  But do I think she is serving her country admirably and making a damn fine showing of herself as SOS?  Damn straight!!

I know some of you think that by becoming a part of the Obama administration that she is “just as bad as him.”  I’m sorry, but I will never accept that argument.  To me, that like saying that all writers here at NQ are just as bad good as Larry Johnson.  That’s just absurd!

We all agree that there is much to despise about Obama, and a whole different set of things to despise about the people who helped get him elected.  We all know what a liar he is, how lazy he is, how ill-equipped for the job he is, and how there are many things about his secret life that may legally disqualify him from being president, or should land him in prison.  We agree on 98% of those things we hate about him.

But don’t expect me, or many others here, to share your recently-acquired aversion to the Clintons, or your recent (apparent) conversion to Republican conservatism.  We have much we agree on, and we all are entitled to our opinions, but many of us here still support Hillary Clinton and think highly of her and her husband.

Most of us agree that we will vote for the Republican nominee for President this election, mostly to get rid of Obama.  Some have made the full conversion to the Republican Party, and more power to them.  Some are dabbling with Republicanism the way a pre-teen tries a cigarette for the first time.  Others will be voting for the Republican with the same enthusiasm as a pretty boy’s first day in prison.

I love reading your opinions, and we have all learned so much from each other.  We have grown together.  We have changed with time and circumstance.  One thing hasn’t changed for me:  I still love Hill and Bill.

I’ve always worked to try to be friends with everyone of you on this blog, even when I disagree with you.  I recognize that a few of you are more political than me, some are much more educated, and some of you just blow me away with your depth.  Certainly not all of you, but a few.  And I would be disappointed if we all agreed on everything!  How boring!

But please try to understand that at this point in time, there are lots of people with buyer’s remorse for having supported Obama over Hillary, and there are even people talking about her mounting a challenge to Obama and running against him again.  That won’t happen, but still, I enjoy hearing it.

There is a loud chorus of “I TOLD YOU SO!” emanating from this blog and others, as the Kool-Aid wears off and people start realizing what a disappointment Obama is to them.  People all over the country are slapping their foreheads and saying, “We should have voted for Hillary!”

Personally, I can’t see her mounting a competitive challenge to Obama.  But if he steps aside or implodes, it’s pretty clear who the Democrats will run to.  And I, for one, will be grinning ear to ear!

The first is in the State Department. This wasn’t just a wasteful decision, but an unethical, immoral, and I have to hope, illegal one. Within the State Department was a woman named Kathleen McGrade. The Daily Caller did some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting on her, and guess what they discovered? Ms. McGrade had funneled $52 MILLION of yours and my taxpaying dollars to her daughter, and her secret husband. I am not making this up, and neither is the Daily Caller:

[snip] Kathleen McGrade helped their company, Sterling Royale Group, win 43 federally funded contracts over the last few years.

McGrade acted as the Contracting Officer (CO) for awards to Sterling Royale Group. McGrade’s husband, Brian Collinsworth, serves as the company’s Vice President. McGrade’s daughter, J.L. (Jennifer) Herring, is its president and CEO.

When TheDC first reached Collinsworth for comment, he denied being married to McGrade. “She is the CO on our contracts, but we are not married in any way, shape or form. That’s kind of funny, but, okay,” Collinsworth said, adding that he and McGrade have no relationship “other than a professional one of a CO to a company.”

Collinsworth also denied that Herring is McGrade’s daughter, and his stepdaughter.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Surprise, surprise, Collinsworth is a big liar. They are indeed married.

Fortunately, the State Department quickly did the right thing – they fired Ms. McGrade:

[snip] “Upon learning of the allegations, the Department immediately relieved Ms. McGrade of her responsibilities,” Laine said in an email. “Subsequently, the Department instructed her company that her employment at the Department is terminated.”

McGrade worked as a federal government contractor, handling the disbursement of taxpayer money for the State Department to other contractors. She worked on-site at the State Department in the office of Overseas Building Operations.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, that’s just terrific, but, what about our money? And why hasn’t she been brought up on charges? Forced to pay restitution? Something? The State Department is being mum on any further action, according to the article. Oh, well, okay then. That’s fine – not.

Second, we have the ten year lease signed by representatives of the SEC. Oh, this is a doozy. The Wall Street Journal has the story:

[snip] Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has been under fire for the SEC’s decision last year to sign a 10-year lease valued at more than $500 million for 900,000 square feet of space in a D.C. office building known as the Constitution Center. A recent report on the lease by the SEC’s Office of Inspector General found that the SEC unnecessarily limited the locations it could consider because it overestimated the amount of space it needed. The report cited one employee who described the process used to calculate the space needs as a “`WAG,’ (wild-ass guess) and a ‘back of the envelope calculation.’”

The SEC made its projections based in part on the increased responsibilities related to the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law but also on budget projections that had not yet been approved. After the anticipated budget increase didn’t materialize, the SEC determined it would not need the space in the building, which is owned by David Nassif Associates.[snip]

Oops. Yep, they signed the lease, but then didn’t need the space after all, so…Good grief. These are the people running our government???

Now you see why they were called on the carpet:

In a hearing Wednesday before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management to discuss the lease, Ms. Schapiro acknowledged missteps and said she wanted to SEC to cede its authority to lease space to the General Services Administration. U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham (R., Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee, also questioned why there was an urgency to get the deal done in spite of the “collapse of the real estate industry.”

Ms. Schapiro said she had heard there were few options for space. “It was presented to me…that if we were going to have any growth at all, we had to take this space,” Ms. Schapiro said.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You’ll be glad to know that, according to the article, the Office of the Comptroller has been able to rent some of the space, but they are still looking for tenants for the other third of the sf available. Any takers? Oh, and they are considering whether to investigate this or not.

I’m sorry, but what’s the question there, exactly?? Sheesh.

And finally, last but definitely not least, is the third example of wasteful government spending I have heard of in just two days. If the second one was a doozy, this one is a wallop. It seems that two, not one, but two, Navy tankers which have yet to be completed, are now heading to the scrap heap. They only cost $300 million, so not as bad as the 10 year lease, but still, a mighty hefty amount of taxpaying dollars:

[snip] The Isherwood, stretching more than 660 feet, began its final journey this week, unceremoniously towed Tuesday from its mooring spot in the James River Reserve Fleet, also known as the “ghost fleet,” near Fort Eustis in Newport News.

Its destination: International Shipbreaking Limited in Brownsville, Texas, just above the Mexico border. There, the vessel will be cut up, its innards removed and disposed of, and its steel and other metals sold as recycled products.

The Eckford, of equal size, is scheduled to follow next Tuesday, leaving behind fewer than 20 junk ships in the ghost fleet, the smallest number since its inception during World War I.

Once the two Navy oilers have departed, “it will close one of the saddest chapters in American shipbuilding and for that matter, federal fiduciary folly,” wrote Joseph Keefe, a global maritime commentator, this week on the website MaritimeProfessional.com. [snip] {Click here to read the rest.)

This just begs the question: why were these tankers ever even authorized?

Someone asked recently what we are sending to countries that do not think highly of us, according to a recent Pew poll. We are going to give Egypt $1.3 billion this year for military aid; thanks to the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan; and the list goes on. Since the Congress has failed to provide or pass a budget for the past couple of years, this CRS report on aid to East and South Asia should provide fairly up-to-date information.

But we cannot leave out the billions of US dollars in aid to Afghanistan that has been stolen, or “lost,” there. Holy crap.

“Waste not, want not” should be our mantra. This is especially true as our Congress and president fight over how much more in debt this nation is willing to go. And at what cost to us, our reputation, and our economy, they are willing to accept on our behalf. They can begin by being a helluva lot more careful as to how they spend our tax dollars, whether for programs at home, lack of oversight of personnel who have no authority to be signing contracts, and to those who do have the authority to sign away millions and millions without doing their freakin’ homework first.

These are just three examples in the past two days that have come to my attention. I am sure you can come up with a few more. Our Congress needs to remember they work for US, and when they waste money on programs or goods they are not going to use, they must answer to US. This isn’t Monopoly money after all, it’s for real. It is well past time they started acting like it.

Nope. The Arab World. Yep, that’s right, even after Obama’s bowing and scraping to them, whether it was to Saudi King Abdullah, or the Egyptians after his Cairo speech. Yes, we have lost even more standing in the world now. (Photo found at Atlas Shrugs.)

Indeed, despite Obama’s numerous overtures to the Arab world, seems they aren’t too happy with us. Glenn Greenwald had this article in Salon, US More Unpopular In Arab World Than Under Bush:

I’ve written numerous times over the last year about rapidly worsening perceptions of the U.S. in the Muslim world, including a Pew poll from April finding that Egyptians view the U.S. more unfavorably now than they did during the Bush presidency. A new poll released today of six Arab nations — Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco — contains even worse news on this front:

The hope that the Arab world had not long ago put in the United States and President Obama has all but evaporated.

Two and a half years after Obama came to office, raising expectations for change among many in the Arab world, favorable ratings of the United States have plummeted in the Middle East, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute Foundation.

In most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration . . . Pollsters began their work shortly after a major speech Obama gave on the Middle East . . . Fewer than 10 percent of respondents described themselves as having a favorable view of Obama.

What’s striking is that none of these is among the growing list of countries we’re occupying and bombing. Indeed, several are considered among the more moderate and U.S.-friendly nations in that region, at least relatively speaking. Yet even in this group of nations, anti-U.S. sentiment is at dangerously (even unprecedentedly) high levels.

Yikes. That is not good. If we were talking Libya, or Iran, this would not be surprising news. But that some of the ones who think less of us now among our friendlier nations is disturbing on a number of levels.

Greenwald continues:

In one sense, this is hardly surprising, given the escalating violence and bombing the U.S. is bringing to that region, its ongoing fealty to Israel, and the dead-ender support the American government gave to that region’s besieged dictators. Though unsurprising, it’s still remarkable. After all, one of the central promises of an Obama presidency was a re-making of America in the eyes of that part of the world, but the opposite is taking place.

More significantly, as democracy slowly but inexorably takes hold, consider the type of leaders that will be elected in light of this pervasive anti-American hostility. When the U.S. propped up dictators to suppress those populations, public opinion was irrelevant; now that that scheme is collapsing, public opinion will become far more consequential, and it does not bode well either for U.S. interests (as defined by the American government) or the U.S.’s ability to extract itself from its posture of Endless War in that region. Given that it is anti-American sentiment that, more than anything else, fuels Terrorism (as the Pentagon itself has long acknowledged), we yet again find the obvious truth: the very policies justified in the name of combating Terrorism are the same ones that do the most to sustain and perpetuate it.

That is precisely the issue, as we have seen in Egypt already. All of the jubilation that this small band of people were able to stage a coup (still don’t know how that happened), and that democracy was coming to Egypt, downplayed the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a big part of the new government. Guess what, they are. And now, our esteemed Secretary of State would welcome dialogue with this group:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” [snip]

Um, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged jihad against the United State, which spawned Hamas`, which works to impose the law of the Quran (that would be Sharia Law), and which treats women as worse than shit. To characterize it as a “committed to nonviolence” is laughable on its face. And now we are giving it legitimacy. Great job, everyone. Wow.

Believe it or not, there is more:

UPDATE: The full report on the new Middle East poll highlights several other additional striking findings:

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France — or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation. . . . President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

While Americans are continuously inculcated with the message that Iran is the greatest threat to that region, the people who actually live there view the U.S. in that light. And as the above-referenced links to other polls demonstrate, that is a routine finding in surveys of Arab and Muslim opinion in that part of the world.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good grief. You know it is bad when Iran is thought of more highly than the United States. That just boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

Two and a half years after the president who has alienated Israel, our ally; threw former ally Mubarak under the bus; and literally bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the United States has lost standing with Arab Nations. I admit, I did not see this one coming. How about you?

Pakistan had received about $1.9 billion in military assistance from the U.S. in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, including about $300 million in grants to buy U.S. defense equipment.

U.S. officials hoped the new aid could effectively eliminate Pakistan’s objections that it doesn’t have the equipment needed to launch more operations in the tribal areas.

By July 2011, the U.S. had taken unilateral actions to kill Osama bin Laden and a number of different high level targets through drone strikes. The apparent non-cooperation or push back from the Pakistan military to attack al Qaeda operatives in the northern areas angered U.S. lawmakers. Meanwhile, relations between the two countries soured and hit all-time low — or did they?

Despite the anger expressed by Washington lawmakers, a bill to freeze the $2 billion aid package to Pakistan failed to pass Congress. Now comes news that the Obama administration, in an attempt to appear tough on the Pakistan military, has canceled $800 million of the said aid, purportedly to persuade Islamabad to do far more to combat terrorism.

This cancellation might satisfy Pakistan’s critics, most of whom pushed the administration to press Pakistan to fight militants effectively. But at some point the U.S. has to decide whether paying the Pakistan military is helpful or not. When the aid was initially approved, officials from both the U.S. and Pakistan rejected the notion that the military assistance was a quid pro quo, arguing that they are trying to build a partnership, not cut a deal.

Subtract $800 million from $2 billion and what’s left is the partnership.

The military aid was approved to pressure Pakistan to start operations against militants in the northern areas, which it did not. Now at the time when this aid is being “canceled,” the Pakistani military has already launched a full-fledged operation in central Kurram Agency.

The cancellation of the $800 million plays well in an election year. The American public has grown increasingly concerned about the deteriorating economic situation in the U.S.; add to that the perception that the Pakistan army is less than honest about its sincerity to fight terrorism. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. had no option but to cancel this military aid, which funds the military equipment and the U.S. trainers that Pakistan military refused to accept.

In simple words, the U.S. was not going to hand this amount to Pakistan in cash. The aid is being held back because of training cutbacks including intelligence, surveillance, arms and ammunition and other support equipment. The U.S. had to spend this on its own soldiers, and its own equipment. Since the Pakistan military refused to budge, the U.S. has this money as a little flag on its ledger.

This explains why the Pakistan military announced that suspension of aid would not affect its ongoing campaign against militants in the tribal areas.

The “pause in the military aid,” as the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S. puts it, or “delay” as the U.S. defense department called it, does include a $300 million reimbursement, but the Pakistan army can take advantage of this non-payment to fan the flames of anti-Americanism by claiming that the U.S. is not a reliable partner. This is an $800 million game that Pakistan played, putting the U.S. in a situation where it is left with no option but to follow.

President Lyndon Johnson once asked, “Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg?” Then answered, “It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else.” It seems that in this case, this situation has reversed and it seems hot to everyone else but to you.

You know, I really should stop being astonished at the news, the sheer upside-down-ness of the world in which we live. But, no – I suppose I still expect a modicum of sanity to prevail. Sadly, that expectation fell far short when I saw some of the following news stories.

For instance, WHO would have ever thought that North Korea – NORTH KOREA – would head the UN Disarmament Council? No one, because it is insane. Yet, that is the reality:

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body — despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

The development comes in the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran’s holding of an international “anti-terrorism” conference — which saw participants declaring that Western powers were the international terrorists.

UN officials point out that North Korean ambassador So Se Pyong takes on the presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament under rules that say the chair will rotate among all 65 member states in alphabetical order.

But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the body — whose mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament — to be led by a country that the West considers to be an international nuclear renegade.

“No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against the UN’s input at the Iranian “anti-terrorism” conference. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Who could really be surprised, though? This is the same “august” body that put Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Does it surprise anyone that IRAN is happy about this? Yeah, I didn’t think so.Yet another institution for which I have lost all respect.

Meanwhile, the US, in its infinite wisdom in Insanity Land now recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group – which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Do I really need to remind everyone of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is? You know, “The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way,” including against the United States, Hamas-spawning, and Israel hating formerly outlawed in Egypt organization? Yeah, that one. The same one Obama invited leaders from to hear him babble on in Cairo while they were still outlawed. Yeah, we saw this one coming.

And as if this is not bad enough, the United States, in its infinite insanity, has designated Israel – ISRAEL – as a country that produces terrorists (h/t Gina). Just to be clear – we are engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood, a TERRORIST organization, and calling one of, hell, our ONLY, Middle East ally, a terrorist sponsoring organization:

In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” {snip} (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, are these people out of their freaking mind? And how in the HELL can the Hillary Clinton, as head of State, support this? Don’t even get me started.

But really, what can one expect from someone like Obama, who not only plays fast and loose with the facts, but is a huge bully while doing so. I cannot go through them all, but let’s just look at Obama’s big comparison between corporate jet taxes, and student loans:

[snip] In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know it’s bad when even the Washington Post is calling Obama a liar. But hey, if the shoe fits, as they say, and it surely does with Obama.

Blech. I wish this was all, but this is all I can handle without my head exploding.

Thank heavens, though, at least there is one bright spot in the world – it is Canada Day! The newest royal couple, William and Kate, are in Canada for the big day, delighting the Canadians with their charm:

[snip] Friday also would have been the 50th birthday of William’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. In London, her admirers gathered to leave gifts outside Kensington Palace, which was her official residence.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as William and Kate are formally known, arrived Thursday to cheering crowds of thousands. Poised and confident, they thrilled crowds with warm, unscripted gestures, wading into throngs of well-wishers to shake hands and accept flowers and other gifts.

To cheers of delight, William addressed his hosts in both English and French, then cracked a joke about his language skills. “It will improve as we go on,” the prince quipped, then noted how much he and Kate were “truly looking forward to this adventure.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And this is for our neighbors to the North:

I hope the Royal Newlyweds continue to enjoy their trip, and that Canada has an excellent day of celebration.

Personally, I thank Canada for diffusing the explosion in my head from the other news of the day. How about you – what news stories hit you today?

UPDATE: In response to Obama’s chiding and bullying on Weds., insisting that others should get to work, and claiming HE had been working, the NRSC came out with the following ad:

Oh, snap!

At long last, after several weeks of revelation after revelation of way more information and images than we EVER needed of a US Representative, Anthony Weiner will be stepping down on today (Thursday). He plans on calling a press conference for 2:00 pm today, according to The Hill.

In case you need a reminder of what happened with Rep. Weiner, and oh my gosh, I don’t know how that could happen, here is a tidbit from The Hill:

[snip] Weiner has been embroiled in controversy since admitting he accidentally sent a lewd picture of himself to a woman in Seattle over Twitter. Weiner initially said his Twitter account had been hacked and did not admit he was the one who sent the photo for more than a week.

He admitted responsibility at a tearful New York news conference in which he also admitted to having had “inappropriate” correspondence with roughly six women over the internet over the past six years. Since the news conference, more embarrassing photos of Weiner have been made public. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Admittedly, that is a sanitized version of what the past few weeks have involved, since there are some mighty, um, revealing photos of Rep. Weiner, taken in the House gym (>available at TMZ, if you really want to see them). Then there was the press conference of porn star, Ginger Lee, on Wednesday, in which she detailed how Rep. Weiner asked her to lie about their conversations.

I mean, really – how much of a scum must one be to have a PORN STAR come out looking better? Apparently, according to her press conference, she was all about discussing politics, and Weiner was all about discussing his, uh, um, well, his “package.”

Yeah, Rep. Weiner definitely needs to resign.

I do feel sorry for his wife, Huma Abedin, who just returned from an overseas trip with Sec. Clinton, for whom she works as an aide. What a helluva thing to which to return, isn’t it?

Plenty of folks will be discussing this today, but IMHO, Weiner’s resignation is LONG overdue. How about you?

*UPDATE* Kirsten Powers, an old friend of Anthony Weiner, and short-term girlfriend, speaks out on Weiner’s resignation:

It really does beg the question how so many in the Democratic Party can continue to support this man after the misogynistic, and predatory, manner by which he has conducted himself. Yet, they did…

Then there is political commentator Kirsten Power’s take on this situation from her revelatory account in The Daily Beast. She was most distressed by this scandal given her long friendship with and trust of, er, Mr. Weiner…Not only had she believed his endless lies and media manipulations, but the months of his “sexting” encounters that have now been uncovered reveal something to her about the man that is far more disturbing:

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women. In referring to oral sex, Wiener tells her, “You will gag on me before you c** with me in you” and “[I’m] thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***.” This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women.

Ms. Powers is correct. The only people who wish to sublimate others, who can only feel bigger by making others feel smaller or powerless are those who feel small themselves. Double entendre notwithstanding.

But Ms. Power’s conclusion is most telling in that I fear her disillusionment with her own party will only grow over time:

Despite my disappointment in his behavior and my concerns about his capacity to be in a leadership position, my heart still aches for him and his family. We are all flawed human beings, and this is not about meting out judgment. It’s about having some sort of standard for what the Democratic Party stands for—especially regarding treating women with dignity and respect—and Congressman Weiner has fallen far short of even the low standard to which we generally hold our elected officials. It’s time for him to go.

The Democratic Party may say it stands for the respectful treatment of women, yet the 2008 and 2010 election cycles and the continued crude verbiage employed against women candidates — or any woman with whom they do not agree — leftie MSNBC host Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” for example — show that Democrats only pretend to respect women for votes. Real respect is something they do not understand. Just ask Hillary Clinton, — that she-devil-Nurse-Ratched-vaginal-American-Tonya-Harding-tea-party-having-white-bitch, who according to Senator Leahy, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid et al, should have just shut up and sat down for the good of the party.

And just how much respect has Mr. Weiner shown for his wife, long time SoS Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. Powers points out there is already a whisper campaign underway to blame the now pregnant Ms. Abedin for Weiner’s behavor. This likewise follows a longtime pattern in American culture, regardless of party, to blame the woman for the man’s indiscretions. She travels a lot, they murmured…and what else are they trying to insinuate? Hillary was blamed for Bill. And in fact, even Michelle Obama was blamed for her husband sitting in the wrong church for twenty years.

Are men adults responsible for their own behavior? Or a bunch of overgrown Peter Pan’s singularly lacking in moral compass or common sense? We do both women and men a disservice by granting oxygen to these outworn stereotypes.

Several party leaders agree with Ms. Power’s assessment that eight term congressman Weiner should resign. I am sure he has become quite the inconvenience heading into an election year:

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz, a leader of the party’s House campaign committee, called Wednesday for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign after he admitted he sent lewd photos to women and talked dirty with them via Twitter and Facebook.

Weiner’s behavior was so offensive that he has lost the ability to command respect from his constituents and brought dishonor to the House, Schwartz said.

“As Americans we have the right to expect better behavior from members of Congress, leaders of our country,” Schwartz said in an interview. “I don’t think we should accept it.”

Lastly, we have the bread and circuses aspect of this entire episode. As blogger, dbsweden, pointed out in the New York Times today:

Here we go again! If it isn’t about celebrity nits like Paris Hilton or Charlie Sheen it’s about the inconsequential sexual activities of Vitter or Weiner or Spitzer. And now we focus on Weiner’s pregnant wife. For crying out loud, when are we going to get news of significant consequence like the amazing abilities of Senators and Congressmen to do seven to eleven percent better picking stock winners than even the experts on Wall Street? University researchers in Georgia and Florida have eye-opening figures on the! investments of Washington politicians that somehow haven’t managed to make the pages of the national press.

Fellow readers, do any of you wonder why Americans remain largely ignorant of genuine malfeasances in Congress by virtue of all the soporific sex scandals? Wake up, America! Demand honest investigative reporting on why Washington is dysfunctional and almost totally corrupt, on why the rich are being coddled while the remaining 98% of Americans are being shafted. Let’s get less news from the bedrooms and more from the boardrooms. The latter are where the scandals grow like mushrooms in a dark basement.

While I disagree with dbsweden’s attempts to diminish the ramifications of Mr. Weiner’s horrid conduct, the misogynist aspect of it and his feeble attempts at a cover-up, the blogger does raise an interesting point in that we are being bombarded and infested with this scandal while distracted from other important economic, legislative and foreign policy issues of the day. They are buried in the 24 hour news cycle when they should get our undivided attention. Do I think he should resign? Yes. But it is up to Mr. Weiner’s constituents to decide whether he stays or goes. Not him or his party. He should also get help from a psychotherapist. We should place the blame for his actions squarely where it belongs — on him. It also wouldn’t hurt to note how women were and are disrespected throughout this entire process.

And we should get back to other critical issues facing this nation.

What say you?

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem – that Weiner’s “privacy” has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin’ pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, “Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite,” some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a “private matter.” They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:

We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen’s point – he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that – I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as “journalists” to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin’s response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner’s behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending “gotcha” bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some “serious concerns” over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. “That’s why it’s not an extra cost for us,” Olson said. “We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that’s what is getting Rep. Blumenaur’s goat – that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops – so much for this little “gotcha” attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another “celebrity” getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey – that’s different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin’s wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill – support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.