RUTHFULLY YOURS

Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, has been offering a reassuring view of the Iranian nuclear deal in the face of some Arab skepticism. “If you can diplomatically and peacefully resolve the nuclear issue in a way that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters last week, “we believe that will lead to a much more stable region.” Mr. Rhodes also contends that with a deal “there will be no need to see [a] regional arms race.”

So what’s more frightening: That Mr. Rhodes believes what he’s saying? Or that he does not?

Just for Mr. Rhodes’s benefit, here’s a refresher course on stability and the arms race in the Middle East since April 2, 2015, the day Mr. Obama announced his framework nuclear agreement with Iran.

“I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”

So spoke Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on “Fox Sunday” on November 14, 2005, who at the time of his trip was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is now its vice chairman.

Please read the first paragraph once again, digest it (if your stomach can handle it), and consider its immense — if not treasonous — implications.

By himself and fully armed with America’s most sensitive intelligence, Sen. Rockefeller decided to go to three Arab countries — including Syria which is on the State Department’s list of terrorist regimes and a close ally of Saddam Hussein — and literally alert them to what (“in my view”) might befall a neighboring Arab state.

When Jordan’s Arab Legion seized half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed the city– the only entity to recognize the annexation was the United Kingdom which had provided the officers and the training that made the conquest possible. Officers like Colonel Bill Newman, Major Geoffrey Lockett and Major Bob Slade, under Glubb Pasha, better known as General John Bagot Glubb, whose son later converted to Islam, invaded Jerusalem and used the Muslim forces under their command to make the partition and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem possible.

Since then, the annexation and ethnic cleansing has become an international mandate. It would be absolutely inconceivable for the international community to denounce an ethnically cleansed group which survived attempted genocide for moving back into a city where they had lived. It is, however, standard policy at the State Department and the Foreign Office to denounce Jews living in those parts of Jerusalem that had been ethnically cleansed by Muslims, as “settlers” living in “settlements,” and describe them as an “obstruction to peace.” Peace being the state of affairs that sets in when an ethnic cleansing goes unchallenged.

As my weekend column indicates, I am not as down as Patrick, Eliana, and some of my other colleagues on the hypothetical Iraq question the media is pressing on GOP presidential candidates —​ viz., Was it a mistake to invade, knowing what we now know? It’s a very fair point that the question should not be asked solely of Republicans – Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who supported the war should be grilled, too.

Maybe I come out differently on this because I don’t accept the narrowing of the question to a matter of whether Saddam had a WMD program and stockpiles to the degree foretold by intelligence we now know was faulty. If that were all there was to it, I’d concur that there is nothing to be gained about this line of inquiry —​ as Patrick says, if President Bush was right to think Iraq had the WMDs but “almost certainly could not have known” it did not, then it is pointless to try to corner Republicans into admitting Bush made a mistake.

But I don’t think, and never have, that the WMD were the most significant part of the equation. That’s why I argued repeatedly that too much emphasis was placed on them.

According to Official Documents Government documents reveal the U.S. administration lied to the American people about Benghazi and believed ISIS would evolve into a caliphate.

Confidential documents obtained from the U.S. government appear to confirm that the American public was lied to repeatedly by this U.S. administration regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on an American government compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Documents obtained through legal channels by the watchdog organization Judicial Watch and discussed on Fox News revealed several significant facts about what government officials knew and when they knew it.

One fact revealed by the legally-obtained documents is that within days of its occurrence, the U.S. intelligence agencies knew that the attack in Benghazi was planned to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This information was contained in a September 16 memo which was sent to the National Security Council, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

There are many things I do not like about the Environmental Protection Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to justify programs that have no basis in fact or science and which threaten the economy.

Currently, its “Clean Power” plan is generating its latest and most duplicitous Administer, Gina McCarthy, to go around saying that it will not be costly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Power” is the name given to the EPA policy to reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is requiring each state to cut its emissions by varying amounts using a baseline established by the EPA.

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

For a number of years, China’s military has increased its military spending by higher annual percentages than either the USA or the USSR at the height of the Cold War. It now must be considered a military and economic superpower with aggressive tendencies that threaten not only its neighbors but the interests of peace throughout the globe.

Beijing’s forces have nearly twice the manpower of the U.S. (2,285,000 vs. 1,429,995). It will have more ships than the U.S. navy by 2020 (351 vs. 250) and more tanks than the U.S. (9,000 vs. 8,725.) The U.S. has a two to one lead in aircraft. However, that lead in quality and quantity may shrink rapidly as budget cuts in the U.S. and continued double digit increases in the PLA budget come to fruition.

When one of our governments – state or federal — takes a life it does so pursuant to the Constitution as filtered by its statutory authority. But the debate on whether the death penalty is a remedy society should ever impose will never end.

Everyone in the media seem to assume that our federal government knows what it’s doing and applies its authorities exactly as they’re supposed to be applied, but that’s not at all clear. When the media consider – and too infrequently condemn — other nations’ decisions on the death penalty, they seem to forget our standards entirely and judge those actions on grounds that are entirely political. Consider the cases of ISIS commander Abu Sayyaf, Boston Marathon bomber Dzokar Tsarnaev and former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin met recently in what they euphemistically described as a kumbaya moment. Presumably there was a pledge to work together to resolve crises in Syria and the Ukraine, Secretary Kerry said neither side was seeking a “major breakthrough,” but instead they seek to keep “communications open,” this is “diplospeak” for resolution isn’t in the cards.

Before meeting with Kerry, Putin called for a continued buildup of Russian forces. He also contends that Russia should “retool its military industry to replace foreign suppliers…” If there was concession on Putin’s part, it is “continued talks.” Of course, there was consensus on one issue: unity on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Concluding the Camp David Gulf Cooperation summit, President Obama promised to help secure the Gulf States from cyber attacks by Iran and ISIS. He announced that a working group will be formed to “consider methods to better secure their military and critical infrastructure networks “against potential terrorist-launched cyberattacks” The U.S. would also help setting the Gulf States to up to creating “national policy workshops, and improve information-sharing.”

Earlier this year, in his closing remarks of the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama acknowledged al Qaeda’s and ISIS expert-use of the Internet to recruit “young people online, in cyberspace.”