This is a quandary.
Shorter Hillary: Free Speech by Americans can transform adherents of Religion of Peace into Monsters Who Cut Off the Heads of Children.
//But there’s something else, too: in Hillary’s “ISIS uses Trump to recruit” claim, isn’t Clinton really saying that all it takes to turn a significant number of Muslims into murderous barbaric ISIS recruits is the idea that a US presidential candidate might want to bar them from visiting or immigrating to this country? Isn’t that a powerful condemnation of the religion and its adherents—by Hillary? Are they so ready to kill that just a few words indicating they’re not allowed to come here would be enough to ignite them and inspire a lot of people to join the ranks of the murderous terrorists of ISIS?
Seems awfully Islamophobic to me, not to mention bigoted. And furthermore, does that mean she’s saying that we have to make nice to them and welcome them into this country, or more of them will want to kill us?//
Showing posts with label War on Terror - 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror - 2015. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Hmmm....maybe we should stop...I don't know....immigration...of some kind...until we can figure out WHY THE HELL OUR SCREENING SYSTEM ISN'T DOING FARGING BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!...
...or something.
Because I don't think that Americans need to die just so that we don't offend people with "anti-American sentiment."
From James Taranto:
//The New York Times had an important scoop over the weekend:
Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide—that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.
She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it. . . .
Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.
That is a dramatic understatement, a whistleblower later told ABC News. The DHS’s ignorance of Malik’s social-media policies was the result of a strict policy:
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.
“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis.
In the fall of 2014, the department began a few “pilot programs” to screen social-media postings, “but current officials say that it is still not a widespread policy. A review of the broader policy is already underway, the DHS said.”
“Already.” After one attack on America and 14 American civilians killed.
DHS appears to operate under the assumption that nonresident aliens applying for admission to the U.S. enjoy the full range of civil liberties under the U.S. Constitution. That Times report ends with an odd observation that points in the same direction.
On social media, Fehda Malik [the dead terrorist’s sister] has made provocative comments of her own. In 2011, on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, she posted a remark on Facebook beside a photo of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center that could be interpreted as anti-American.
Social media comments, by themselves, however, are not always definitive evidence. In [Malik’s native] Pakistan—as in the United States—there is no shortage of crass and inflammatory language. And it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States. At the time Fehda Malik’s comment was posted, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was particularly high; four months earlier, American commandos had secretly entered Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden.
The first sentence of the latter paragraph verges on tautology. When Malik entered the U.S. last year, it would have been impossible to find “definitive evidence” that she was a violent jihadi—because she had not yet committed acts of violent jihad. Although the Times report avoids overt editorializing, it seems to imply that it would be wrong to exclude aliens who merely express “anti-American sentiment.”
But why? Such expression would be protected under the First Amendment if made by a U.S. citizen. But then so would speech advocating violent jihad, assuming it did not rise to the level of incitement or true threat. Tolerating citizens who hold such views is a reasonable price to pay for freedom. Inviting in aliens who do is not.
And as we noted last week, there is no legal basis for the DHS’s supposed civil-liberties concern. The Supreme Court has held Congress’s power to regulate immigration to be plenary, and in 1972 it rejected out of hand a Belgian communist’s claim that the U.S. could not constitutionally refuse him admission on account of his otherwise protected political speech.
As for the concern about “bad public relations,” it will suffice to say it’s called the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Good Public Relations.
The DHS’s putative rationale is in keeping with the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism—specifically, with the president’s politically correct but theologically and intellectually vapid assertions to the effect that “ISIL speaks for no religion.”
Last week Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” There are good arguments that the Trump solution is too sweeping. But it’s hard to fault his description of the problem. Not only have top administration officials failed to figure out what’s going on, it is their policy not to know. Earlier this month 14 Americans in San Bernardino paid the ultimate price for their government’s willful ignorance.///
...or something.
Because I don't think that Americans need to die just so that we don't offend people with "anti-American sentiment."
From James Taranto:
//The New York Times had an important scoop over the weekend:
Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide—that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.
She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it. . . .
Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.
That is a dramatic understatement, a whistleblower later told ABC News. The DHS’s ignorance of Malik’s social-media policies was the result of a strict policy:
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.
“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis.
In the fall of 2014, the department began a few “pilot programs” to screen social-media postings, “but current officials say that it is still not a widespread policy. A review of the broader policy is already underway, the DHS said.”
“Already.” After one attack on America and 14 American civilians killed.
DHS appears to operate under the assumption that nonresident aliens applying for admission to the U.S. enjoy the full range of civil liberties under the U.S. Constitution. That Times report ends with an odd observation that points in the same direction.
On social media, Fehda Malik [the dead terrorist’s sister] has made provocative comments of her own. In 2011, on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, she posted a remark on Facebook beside a photo of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center that could be interpreted as anti-American.
Social media comments, by themselves, however, are not always definitive evidence. In [Malik’s native] Pakistan—as in the United States—there is no shortage of crass and inflammatory language. And it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States. At the time Fehda Malik’s comment was posted, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was particularly high; four months earlier, American commandos had secretly entered Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden.
The first sentence of the latter paragraph verges on tautology. When Malik entered the U.S. last year, it would have been impossible to find “definitive evidence” that she was a violent jihadi—because she had not yet committed acts of violent jihad. Although the Times report avoids overt editorializing, it seems to imply that it would be wrong to exclude aliens who merely express “anti-American sentiment.”
But why? Such expression would be protected under the First Amendment if made by a U.S. citizen. But then so would speech advocating violent jihad, assuming it did not rise to the level of incitement or true threat. Tolerating citizens who hold such views is a reasonable price to pay for freedom. Inviting in aliens who do is not.
And as we noted last week, there is no legal basis for the DHS’s supposed civil-liberties concern. The Supreme Court has held Congress’s power to regulate immigration to be plenary, and in 1972 it rejected out of hand a Belgian communist’s claim that the U.S. could not constitutionally refuse him admission on account of his otherwise protected political speech.
As for the concern about “bad public relations,” it will suffice to say it’s called the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Good Public Relations.
The DHS’s putative rationale is in keeping with the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism—specifically, with the president’s politically correct but theologically and intellectually vapid assertions to the effect that “ISIL speaks for no religion.”
Last week Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” There are good arguments that the Trump solution is too sweeping. But it’s hard to fault his description of the problem. Not only have top administration officials failed to figure out what’s going on, it is their policy not to know. Earlier this month 14 Americans in San Bernardino paid the ultimate price for their government’s willful ignorance.///
America - Now with even more Hope and Change.
Nice of Obama to have a Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the trade of 5 dangerous extremists for this deserter.
Now, what's the deal with not sending aid to Americans in Benghazi?
//Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to face most serious kind of court-martial in Army desertion case
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court-martial in connection with his 2009 disappearance from his base in Afghanistan, service officials said Monday, raising the possibility that the soldier could face life in prison after being held captive by the Taliban for five years.
The Army has chosen a type of trial that could yield a more severe sentence than what an officer recommended earlier this year. Bergdahl, 29, has been charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, and the court-martial could touch off even more scrutiny of what has become a bizarre and controversial case.//
Nice of Obama to have a Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the trade of 5 dangerous extremists for this deserter.
Now, what's the deal with not sending aid to Americans in Benghazi?
//Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to face most serious kind of court-martial in Army desertion case
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court-martial in connection with his 2009 disappearance from his base in Afghanistan, service officials said Monday, raising the possibility that the soldier could face life in prison after being held captive by the Taliban for five years.
The Army has chosen a type of trial that could yield a more severe sentence than what an officer recommended earlier this year. Bergdahl, 29, has been charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, and the court-martial could touch off even more scrutiny of what has become a bizarre and controversial case.//
Monday, December 14, 2015
Worse than terror?
//Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the climate agreement reached this week in Paris did not contain any enforcement provisions because Congress would not have approved them.
"It doesn't have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn't have an enforcement, compliance mechanism," Kerry said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
Kerry said such mechanisms were not included because Congress would have refused to greenlight the deal.
Binding legal requirements would have made the Paris agreement a treaty, requiring approval from two-thirds of the Senate. Because no climate change measure could close to the high bar in the chamber, the Paris deal was written to avoid it.//
Monday, November 30, 2015
Apparently, the Left hates it when trifling matters like organized quasi-military attacks on civilians resulting in mass murder overshadow more important issues like non-existent Global Warming.
Shorter version: The Left is totally locked into delusion.
Violence erupts in Paris as climate protesters trash memorial for terror victims [photos] #COP21
Shorter version: The Left is totally locked into delusion.
Violence erupts in Paris as climate protesters trash memorial for terror victims [photos] #COP21
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Why do liberal Democrats hate Free Speech?
John Kerry's Freudian Slip:
//As Charles Cooke puts it:
In essence, the American Secretary of State just announced before the world that he could grasp why the woman in the short skirt was raped but that he had been left scratching his head by the attack on the woman in the pantsuit and the overcoat. “Sure,” he said, “I get why they knocked off the hate speakers, but why would they go after progressive kids at a concert? Now things are really serious.”
Kerry would have been off-base even if he had said only that there was a rationale for the Hebdo attack but not the ones last weeks. The rationale for both is essentially the same — the radical Islamists want to undermine our freedoms and impose their ideology on us. They are at war with those who reject their religion/ideology, whether or not they draw cartoons of “the Islamic Prophet.”
Kerry acknowledges this at the end of his rant. What’s criminally stupid is his apparent amazement at this state of affairs, which has been evident since at least 9/11. What’s intolerable is the certainty that Kerry will promptly go back into denial within days, if not hours.//
John Kerry's Freudian Slip:
//As Charles Cooke puts it:
In essence, the American Secretary of State just announced before the world that he could grasp why the woman in the short skirt was raped but that he had been left scratching his head by the attack on the woman in the pantsuit and the overcoat. “Sure,” he said, “I get why they knocked off the hate speakers, but why would they go after progressive kids at a concert? Now things are really serious.”
Kerry would have been off-base even if he had said only that there was a rationale for the Hebdo attack but not the ones last weeks. The rationale for both is essentially the same — the radical Islamists want to undermine our freedoms and impose their ideology on us. They are at war with those who reject their religion/ideology, whether or not they draw cartoons of “the Islamic Prophet.”
Kerry acknowledges this at the end of his rant. What’s criminally stupid is his apparent amazement at this state of affairs, which has been evident since at least 9/11. What’s intolerable is the certainty that Kerry will promptly go back into denial within days, if not hours.//
What was this idiot thinking?
Obviously, John Kerry wasn't thinking:
//There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.
And:
//When I first saw the key line here — “there was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale” — I thought that Kerry had likely been misquoted. Alas, he had not. In fact, his words are even worse in context.
There really is no way of reading these comments other than as a craven ranking of outrages. Forget Kerry’s brief flirtation with the word “legitimacy” and assume that he said “rationale” from the start. That changes precisely nothing. The top diplomat in the United States just publicly argued that because the victims at Charlie Hebdo had spoken risqué words but the victims at the Bataclan had not, the violence against the former was more comprehensible than the violence against the latter. Has he lost his mind?
Even if Kerry’s assumptions were all correct, the moral problem here would be obvious. We hear a great deal about “blaming the victim” in our domestic debates, especially as it relates to sexual assault. Does this not apply to other realms? In essence, the American Secretary of State just announced before the world that he could grasp why the woman in the short skirt was raped but that he had been left scratching his head by the attack on the woman in the pantsuit and the overcoat. “Sure,” he said, “I get why they knocked off the hate speakers, but why would they go after progressive kids at a concert? Now things are really serious.”
In and of itself, this assessment is abhorrent. But he also screwed up the facts. Implicit in Kerry’s reasoning is the assumption that the perpetrators of the attacks against Charlie Hebdo had a clear purpose whereas the perpetrators of last week’s abomination did not. Or, as he put it, that in one case the killers were “really angry because of this and that,” but that in the other they were not. But this isn’t true. In fact, both set of attackers gave reasons. With Charlie Hebdo, the killers’ purported motive was revenge against ”blasphemous” expression; in Paris last week, it was disgust at Paris’s reputation for “obscenity.” In consequence, there are only two choices here: Option 1) That John Kerry believes that killing people for speaking rudely is more understandable than killing them for being secular; or Option 2) That John Kerry doesn’t actually know what the most recent attackers used as their justification (and also doesn’t remember that at the same time as the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, associated gunmen targeted a market simply because its owners were Jews).
Despicable.//
Obviously, John Kerry wasn't thinking:
//There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.
And:
//When I first saw the key line here — “there was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale” — I thought that Kerry had likely been misquoted. Alas, he had not. In fact, his words are even worse in context.
There really is no way of reading these comments other than as a craven ranking of outrages. Forget Kerry’s brief flirtation with the word “legitimacy” and assume that he said “rationale” from the start. That changes precisely nothing. The top diplomat in the United States just publicly argued that because the victims at Charlie Hebdo had spoken risqué words but the victims at the Bataclan had not, the violence against the former was more comprehensible than the violence against the latter. Has he lost his mind?
Even if Kerry’s assumptions were all correct, the moral problem here would be obvious. We hear a great deal about “blaming the victim” in our domestic debates, especially as it relates to sexual assault. Does this not apply to other realms? In essence, the American Secretary of State just announced before the world that he could grasp why the woman in the short skirt was raped but that he had been left scratching his head by the attack on the woman in the pantsuit and the overcoat. “Sure,” he said, “I get why they knocked off the hate speakers, but why would they go after progressive kids at a concert? Now things are really serious.”
In and of itself, this assessment is abhorrent. But he also screwed up the facts. Implicit in Kerry’s reasoning is the assumption that the perpetrators of the attacks against Charlie Hebdo had a clear purpose whereas the perpetrators of last week’s abomination did not. Or, as he put it, that in one case the killers were “really angry because of this and that,” but that in the other they were not. But this isn’t true. In fact, both set of attackers gave reasons. With Charlie Hebdo, the killers’ purported motive was revenge against ”blasphemous” expression; in Paris last week, it was disgust at Paris’s reputation for “obscenity.” In consequence, there are only two choices here: Option 1) That John Kerry believes that killing people for speaking rudely is more understandable than killing them for being secular; or Option 2) That John Kerry doesn’t actually know what the most recent attackers used as their justification (and also doesn’t remember that at the same time as the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, associated gunmen targeted a market simply because its owners were Jews).
Despicable.//
Monday, November 16, 2015
The most charitable thing I can say about this is that Obama is a very confused man.
Apparently, Obama's view of success doesn't involve prosaic notions of "winning" or "leaderships" or something because he is too busy at doing what he can to help Americans and people in the area...
....or something.
So, does he think that "helping Americans" involves not "winning."
Like I said, confused.
Apparently, Obama's view of success doesn't involve prosaic notions of "winning" or "leaderships" or something because he is too busy at doing what he can to help Americans and people in the area...
....or something.
So, does he think that "helping Americans" involves not "winning."
Like I said, confused.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
The Empty Suit Presidency
Hours before ISIS attack on Paris Obama declares that ISIS has been contained.
Hours before ISIS attack on Paris Obama declares that ISIS has been contained.
Obama's vacation from history is about to end.
Apparently, simply being given a Noble Peace Prize in the first 4 months of office is not a substitute for actual leadership.
//MSNBC Contributor and Washington Editor-at-Large for the Atlantic, Steve Clemons stated that French officials he had talked with criticized lack of US support against fighting terrorism, with one arguing that, “ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously” during MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Saturday.
In response to a question about his conversations “with some French officials here in the United States expressing frustration about perhaps a lack of support from the US, in terms of France’s ability to fight this jihad.” Clemons said, “Well, the discussion I — was with French officials in Paris who were communicating this, and you know, in doing so, on a background basis, and on a personal basis, saying that one of the things that they’re facing is why did this happen, why did this happen? A lot of it has looked at their relation with the United States. I got an email this morning saying that’s not why, our proximity to Syria and all things Syria is profound and big, but he said the bigger part of this is that, for a variety of reasons, directly and indirectly, ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously, and it was a direct implication that we had not done and acted in a way to take action…he recognized in his email that I have a different view of that, that that’s not my view, but that — very clearly I sensed in these emails and the exchanges, frustration, tenseness, but also confidence. He said, we will prevail in this, but there was a real frustration and tenseness over that. And a frustration that — not only about what was happening and unfolding on the streets of Paris, but where it had come from, how it had been able to metastasize and to grow over the last two years.///
Apparently, simply being given a Noble Peace Prize in the first 4 months of office is not a substitute for actual leadership.
//MSNBC Contributor and Washington Editor-at-Large for the Atlantic, Steve Clemons stated that French officials he had talked with criticized lack of US support against fighting terrorism, with one arguing that, “ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously” during MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Saturday.
In response to a question about his conversations “with some French officials here in the United States expressing frustration about perhaps a lack of support from the US, in terms of France’s ability to fight this jihad.” Clemons said, “Well, the discussion I — was with French officials in Paris who were communicating this, and you know, in doing so, on a background basis, and on a personal basis, saying that one of the things that they’re facing is why did this happen, why did this happen? A lot of it has looked at their relation with the United States. I got an email this morning saying that’s not why, our proximity to Syria and all things Syria is profound and big, but he said the bigger part of this is that, for a variety of reasons, directly and indirectly, ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously, and it was a direct implication that we had not done and acted in a way to take action…he recognized in his email that I have a different view of that, that that’s not my view, but that — very clearly I sensed in these emails and the exchanges, frustration, tenseness, but also confidence. He said, we will prevail in this, but there was a real frustration and tenseness over that. And a frustration that — not only about what was happening and unfolding on the streets of Paris, but where it had come from, how it had been able to metastasize and to grow over the last two years.///
Execution of Parisian hostages unfairly overshadows more important issue of climate change.
Are these idiots for real?
Are these idiots for real?
Free Speech is Dangerous!!!
Freedom endangers everyone!!!
Salon embraces the Obama-way and blames free speech (on the part of the right-wing) as the cause of the murders in Paris.
Now, they need to find some Americans who dangerously exercised their right to free speech and arrest them in the middle of the night like the last time.
Freedom endangers everyone!!!
Salon embraces the Obama-way and blames free speech (on the part of the right-wing) as the cause of the murders in Paris.
Now, they need to find some Americans who dangerously exercised their right to free speech and arrest them in the middle of the night like the last time.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Maybe they could go golfing?
Obama reportedly snubs NATO chief as Russia makes new threats against allies
Obama reportedly snubs NATO chief as Russia makes new threats against allies
President Barack Obama reportedly will not meet with NATO's new secretary general when he is in Washington this week, despite requests from the alliance chief's staff for a get-together.Bloomberg View reported Tuesday that Jens Stoltenberg's office requested a meeting with Obama in advance of his scheduled visit, but did not receive any response from the White House. Instead, Bloomberg View reported that Stoltenberg had to settle for a last-minute meeting with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.The White House on Wednesday dismissed the report about the snub as inaccurate."Those reports are entirely false," Press Secretary Josh Earnest said.Earnest also said the White House has been in touch with Stoltenberg's office and dismissed the assertion that Carter was a late fill-in because Obama was too busy.Stoltenberg is scheduled to be in Washington through Thursday, primarily so he can attend a strategic brainstorming session involving military officials and experts from the U.S. and NATO.Stoltenberg, who replaced Anders Fogh Rasmussen as head of the world's largest military alliance in October, was able to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Monday, the day before Harper announced that Canada would expand its participation in the U.S.-led military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.The report of Obama's snub comes amid Russia's growing willingness to test NATO's military readiness. On Tuesday, NATO jets were scrambled after four Russian military planes were spotted flying over the Baltic Sea with their transponders turned off. Over the weekend, a Danish newspaper published remarks by the Russian ambassador to Denmark in which he hinted that Russian missiles could target Danish warships if Copenhagen joins NATO's missile defense system.
It is a good thing that we have that smart Nobel Prize-winning president...
..instead of that uncouth cowboy.
White House: U.S. has 'succeeded' in Yemen, as President Hadi flees count
But, wait! There's more.
Obama isn't selling the narrative to MSNBC and its 32 viewers.
..instead of that uncouth cowboy.
White House: U.S. has 'succeeded' in Yemen, as President Hadi flees count
Ernest is facing open skepticism from Obama's base - the media:A White House spokesman said American efforts in Yemen are a "template that has succeeded," even as President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the country by boat.White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Wednesday said that the U.S. still had Yemeni extremists in its crosshairs.According to media reports, Hadi fled the presidential palace in Yemen as rebels attempted an armed takeover of the city of Aden.Earnest told reporters that U.S. officials were not aware of Hadi's destination but insisted that American officials still had a level of control over the chaotic situation."We have the ability to continue to apply pressure on the extremists," Earnest told reporters. "They are still in the crosshairs of U.S. security forces."The turmoil in Yemen is particularly problematic for the White House, as President Obama has repeatedly cited the country as a model for his counterterrorism strategy.
But, wait! There's more.
Obama isn't selling the narrative to MSNBC and its 32 viewers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
