Posts Tagged ‘Middle East’
Benghazi Hearing Obama Admin Lied & People Died
View on YouTube
Joel Pollack breaks down the five key points made by the Benghazi whistleblowers in the congressional hearing:
1. Two “stand-down” orders were given while the Benghazi attacks were in progress.
2. The “protest” about a YouTube video was a complete fabrication by the Obama administration.
3. Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s lawyer at the State Department, told witnesses not to speak to House investigators.
4. The diplomatic personnel on the ground acted with incredible, unheralded heroism.
5. Democrats came to rebut the eyewitnesses with talking points.
Other important points…
They knew from the first moment that it was a terrorist attack, not a protest.
The Obama administration blocked a rescue effort after the attack began, knowing American lives were in danger:
Eyewitnesses to September’s deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya told a congressional committee Wednesday that State Department officials had blocked efforts to aid Americans under fire and later tried to conceal al Qaeda’s involvement.
Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, told the politically charged hearing that on the night of the attack he was stopped from mobilizing a foreign emergency support team that was specially equipped and trained to deal with emergencies like the one in Benghazi.
Former deputy chief turned whistleblower Gregory Hicks was demoted after he challenged the State Department over their bogus talking points.
The media is already going into overdrive in an attempt to smear and discredit the Benghazi whistleblowers.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood government that Obama arms, funds and supports is violently persecuting religious minorities, using our tax money to do it:
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’s governing majority, is not actually crucifying the nation’s Christians. But they are nonetheless actively persecuting Coptic Christians who are said to be one-tenth of the population of the largest Arab country. A photograph of two young men set afire during recent demonstrations is pretty striking.
Demonstrations have turned into riots as Egypt’s police cracked down on the Copts. The Copts were protesting against increasing sectarian violence directed at the country’s Christian minority.
Typically, what has been happening is the Copts protest against Islamist violence directed at them and their churches. St. Mark’s Cathedral has been the target of Muslim extremists in recent week. When the Copts face police, they get tear gassed. And then they are the ones arrested. The Muslim Brotherhood authorities will pick up Coptic youth—hopefully the ones not yet set on fire—and jail them.
Then, the police grab some of the Islamists perpetrators and jail them. Later, following a much-ballyhooed “reconciliation,” the authorities release all—perpetrators and victims alike.
In Syria, the rebels that the U.S. is supporting – who are trying to overthrow Assad – are Islamic extremists who are threatening to exterminate any Christians left behind who don’t convert to Islam:
Syria’s Christians fear an Islamist takeover should the current government be overthrown. During the ongoing civil war there has been a well-documented rise in the number of salafi-jihadist groups operating in Syria that pose a direct threat to Syria’s Christian community. These militant opposition forces espouse an Islamist ideology, which incorporates elements of Wahhabism and Salafism and whose stated goals and objectives are by definition hostile towards Christians. Firsthand accounts from Syrian Christian refugees in Lebanon reported by award winning investigative journalist Nuri Kino detail the horror in which they described kidnappings, rapes, harassment, theft and other violent reprisals at the hands of Islamist groups.
Those who survived reported “just being Christian is enough to be a target,” disproving theories that violence and kidnapping directed towards Syrian Christians is purely incidental or for economic reasons.
Once again, our taxpayer money is going towards funding Islamic extremism and the suppression of religious liberty.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit.
At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
President Obama on Tuesday said he is unaware that anyone has been blocked from testifying on the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
“There are people in your own State Department saying they have been blocked from coming forward,” said Fox News’ Ed Henry, “that they survived the terror attack and they want to tell their story.”
He is referring to recent reports that at least four officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have been warned by unnamed Obama administration officials about testifying on the Benghazi terror attacks.
“Will you help them come forward and say it once and for all?” Henry asked.
“Ed,” the president responded. “I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying. What I’ll do is I’ll find out what, exactly, you’re referring to.”
Where have we heard this tune before?
“I am not a crook.” ~ Richard Nixon
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” ~ Bill Clinton
“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying.” ~ Barack Obama
Try to contain your shock and amazement.
House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.
The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.
In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.
Looks like lying under oath has become a Clinton family tradition.
The sad part is, she’ll never be held accountable for their deaths, and it probably won’t even be much of a speed bump for her campaign in 2016.
The Moral Relativist Left in Canada isn’t outraged by the practices of murdering women and sexually mutilating children. But they are outraged if someone dares to call these abuses “barbaric”:
Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.
A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”
[...] Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”
“Neutrality” on murder and sexual mutilation? Are you kidding me???
Recently, I penned an article about an Amnesty International initiative: an art project for which the organization had commissioned artists and designers to address the devastating problem of female genital mutilation, or FGM – using 8,000 paper rose petals. The petals had been gathered as part of a petition action to bring attention to – and to end – the practice of FGM, and were each signed by a member of the public who participated in the petition. It was a laudable project, and I said so.
Amnesty responded with great appreciation for my story – but took exception to one detail. I had called FGM “barbaric,” and, said an Amnesty official, “we try not to use this word.” In an e-mail, she explained, “The use of the word ‘barbaric’ suggests that the people who do this are less than human, which isn’t so because they are being led by social pressure which is what needs to be fought. So we avoid using this word to not judge the people.”
Overlooking the fact that “barbaric,” which means simply “uncultured,” “uncivilized,” or “uneducated,” does not quite suggest “less than human,” I could not help but wonder about the “not to judge them” part. After all, if you set out to change a thing – a behavior, a place, a custom (and especially if you set out to end it) – haven’t you already implicitly expressed a judgment? And how is calling a custom, a practice, “barbaric,” conferring a judgment on the people who perform it?
[...] If, say, a Park Avenue Protestant family carried out FGM on their daughter, that, too, after all, would be barbaric. And anyone would be right to say so. But barring the use of that word, should we use another one, like “different?” But wait – isn’t “different” somewhat alienating, as well? Does it not imply a judgment?
And so on. At this rate, the only workably acceptable term would seem to be “normal” or “okay.”
And it is not.
These are the times I worry that we stand upon a precipice, and fear for the ideas and the ideals that form the fundament of civilization and democracy. We censor words and language, as Howard says, bending our knee to the tyranny of political correctness, concerning ourselves more with the sensitivities of the perpetrators than the lives and safety of the victims.
Some things are just EVIL, and SHOULD be called “barbaric!” There’s no other way to describe them! But according to the Left, the only thing that’s “barbaric” is criticizing the EVIL practices of an EVIL “religion” that glorifies misogyny and child abuse!
Grieving Benghazi Mom Seeks Answers, Obama Admin. Tells Her To ‘Shut Up,’ Says She’s ‘Causing Problems’
Mother of Benghazi victim demands answers from Washington
View on YouTube
Back in November, the mother of one of the victims in Benghazi, Sean Patrick Smith, said she held Obama responsible for her son’s death:
“I believe that Obama murdered my son,” she said Thursday from the living room of her Clairemont home. “I firmly believe this.”
On the day she came to collect her son’s body, the administration promised to investigate the attack and get back to her with the truth of what happened. They never contacted her.
Since then, it has been revealed that Obama watched the attack live from the situation room, but refused to send reinforcements to intervene. We’ve learned Ambassador Stevens begged for help and that special forces were in position with painted targets, but were told to stand down. It is suspected that Obama was gun-running to Syrian jihadists through Benghazi.
No wonder Mrs. Smith is demanding answers. Instead, she says, she’s being told to “shut up”:
They don’t tell me much. They want me to shut up…. I was told, and I really would rather not say by who, [though] I can if you need it, but I was told that I’m causing a lot of problems and to shut up…. I told them ‘I will not! I will not shut up until I find out what really happened!’
In Europe, “green” policies to eliminate nuclear and coal power for “green” alternatives worked so well that desperate Greeks and Germans resorted to stealing firewood from local forests to keep warm this winter.
Sadly, it doesn’t appear that Obama’s nominee has learned from their mistake. He insists that skyrocketing energy prices are just what we need to force people away from fossil fuels towards a gloriously “green,” utopian future:
President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.
“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniz told the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”
Moniz position is not far from that of Energy Secretary Steven Chu before he took a job in the Obama administration. “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. Last year, gas hit $9 a gallon in Greece.
As if poor and middle class families aren’t hurting enough trying to make ends meet as it is.
Terrorists attack an American compound (which is technically American soil) on the anniversary of 9/11. Four Americans are killed. There are over 30 survivors, but we don’t even know their names, much less their stories. Not a single media interview. Barely an acknowledgement that they even exist. The State Department refuses to answer letters from lawmakers demanding to know the truth.
You’d think the media would be beating down their doors in the search for that “exclusive” first-hand account – even if they needed a shadow screen and voice changing technology to protect their identities. But no. The media doesn’t seem even the least bit interested in their stories. Could it be because the tale they have to tell proves that Obama botched it big time, and lied to cover it up?
More than six months since the deadly attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Republican lawmakers say they are still looking for answers and are frustrated that the White House is blocking access to an unknown number of survivors.
The Washington Times learned Friday that the State Department has failed to respond to a letter written nearly three weeks ago by two House Republicans seeking answers about the survivors, as many as seven of whom are believed to still be at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center recovering from injuries sustained in Benghazi.
As news trickled out this month that newly confirmed Secretary of State John F. Kerry had made a secret visit to one of the injured survivors at the hospital in Bethesda, frustration mounted in the office of Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, who co-wrote the March 1 letter to Mr. Kerry with Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.
“If somebody’s still being treated six months after the attack, I think the American people need to have the truth,” said Mr. Wolf, who voiced his frustration Friday that Mr. Kerry could have made such a trip to Walter Reed while ignoring a letter from Congress seeking answers about the survivors.
[...] “We need to talk to anybody that was involved that wants to come forward and tell what happened,” said Mr. Wolf, who has for months called for Congress to create an independent, bipartisan and multijurisdictional committee to probe more deeply into what transpired in Benghazi.
“I’m not satisfied,” he said. “I don’t think the American people are satisfied.”
Sen. Graham has his own theory about why the survivors remain relegated to the shadows:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.
The South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.
I have a feeling that when Obama’s out of the White House and these people finally feel free to speak, their stories will prove that Obama should be brought up on criminal charges.
The Republicans had the power to stop this, but they once again cowered and caved, allowing Obama to appoint the most radical, left-wing, anti-Israel Secretary of Defense in American history. This is what “bipartisanship” and “moderation” look like in reality: compromising with evil.
Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Defense, ending a long seesaw battle over his nomination. The Senate moments ago voted 58 to 41 in favor of confirming Hagel. Hagel now replaces Leon Panetta at America’s top defense spot. (A full roll call of the Senate vote is at the end of this article.)
[...] Despite this opposition, the Senate earlier today easily voted to end its filibuster on Hagel, with a 71 to 27 cloture vote in which 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats to bring Hagel’s bid to a vote. Although the Democrats have 53 seats in the Senate and caucus with two Independents, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) and Mark Udall (Colorado) missed the cloture vote.
If preventing the nomination from getting to the floor for a vote was the only way to stop it, that’s what the Republicans should have done. There is NO REASON why the Republicans should not use every strategy available to prevent radicals from gaining power. The GOP is continually cooperating the the cutting of their own throats, and the destruction of the nation they claim to love. The minority is under no obligation to compromise with the majority in an area that they know to be wrong and destructive.
Their willingness to allow Hagel to be confirmed has set the stage for a massive war in the Middle East, if not world-wide. The blood of the innocent will be on their hands.
Hagel’s qualifications and ideological views were the source of controversy. Though he had voted for the Iraq War in 2002, Hagel had spent much of the subsequent decade criticizing the war and the foreign policy doctrines he believes to be responsible for it. Along the way, Hagel adopted or reinforced views that came back to haunt him: his opposition to sanctions against Iran; his support for aggressive nuclear disarmament; and his belief in negotiating with anti-Israel terror groups such as Hamas.
[...] Aside from its effects on policy at the Pentagon, where Hagel will start his job with a diminished stature, the enduring legacy of the Hagel confirmation fight will likely be increased division between the two parties on Israel policy. Many of Hagel’s professed views about Israel would, until very recently, have been unacceptable to Democrats as well as Republicans. Yet during the Obama era, and under the influence of left-wing groups within the party, Democrats have shifted significantly on the issue.
Sentimentally, both parties are pro-Israel, but Democrats’ policy views place them sharply in opposition to the policies of most Israeli governments, and somewhat at odds with the strong pro-Israel policy preferences of the majority of Americans, as well as the preferences of the peace-seeking yet security-conscious Israeli public.
When the 3am call came, both Obama and Clinton refused to answer it.
Nothing. That is what President Barack Obama did on the night of September 11, 2012, as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, among them Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama’s inaction was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with President Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither the president nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.
Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts President Obama’s own claim to have issued “three directives” as soon as he learned “what was going on” in Benghazi.
[...] Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.
[...] In sum: President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.
While giving Senate testimony regarding Benghazi on Feb. 7, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said Obama was not present nor did he communicate with the Sec. of Defense during the Benghazi attack.
Whether or not Obama was present, the fact remains that he neglected as Commander-in-Chief to act when American lives were at stake. He knowingly abandoned them in harm’s way. In the morning, four Americans were dead, and Obama was on a plane to his next fundraiser.
Why is our military imposing the intolerant demands of Secular Humanism on our troops? How is it any different than Sharia law, which seeks to suppress all religious expression at odds with its own ideology?
Religious liberty advocates are denouncing the U.S. military’s order to remove a steeple and dismantle Christian crosses from an Army chapel in Afghanistan.
“We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel,” said a spokesman for the ISAF Joint Command. “These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths.”
The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that cross-shaped windows on the chapel were boarded up – until they can be replaced with non-offensive doors. Click here to read our original story.
The chapel, located at Forward Operation Base Orgun-E, became the subject of controversy after an atheist soldier complained and the president of American Atheists sent a letter to the Pentagon.
“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.”
A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.”
[...] Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way.
“I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.”
Boykin said he fears that the attacks on the Christian faith of soldiers could destroy the morale and the readiness of the military.
“In the long term, the greatest casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan is probably going to be the First Amendment rights of the American soldiers and the faith upon which America was founded,” he said. “I’m very concerned what the administration is doing to the military on a number of fronts. This is another indicator of how we are trying to impose a liberal agenda upon the people that are protecting the very rights of all Americans to be able to worship freely.”
Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Counsel, wondered why Christian soldiers must hide who they are.
“Why are we ashamed of one of the major reasons our Nation is the most generous and self-sacrificing for the benefit of others that the world has ever known – our inherently Christian benevolence,” he told Fox News. “We have freed the oppressed, fed the hungry, and restored nations throughout the world without anything in particular to show for it other than the satisfaction of making the world better than we found it for the sake of goodness and doing the right thing. Why should we hide a major motivation that compels Americans to do this?”
Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, told Fox News he was extremely disappointed to hear the news.
“I’m so concerned that the military is caving in to an organization that does not understand the First Amendment,” Crews said. “Christians have every right to exercise their faith in the military.”
If these Atheists were as tolerant and “respectful of other faiths” as they claim, they wouldn’t have a problem with a Christian chapel being designated with a cross symbol.
Pastor Saeed: An American Citizen Imprisoned in Iran
View on YouTube
An Iranian court on Sunday sentenced Iranian-born American pastor Saeed Abedini – a convert from Islam to Christianity – to eight years’ imprisonment for “threatening the national security of Iran” by leading underground house churches, according to a U.S. religious organization closely involved in the case.
The 32 year-old from Boise, Idaho was convicted four months after being arrested while visiting family in Iran. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) says Abedini has been assaulted and mistreated while in custody in Iran’s notorious Evin prison.
The State Department and ACLJ have also raised concerns about the conduct of his trial, saying Abedini’s lawyer was given little time to prepare and was excluded from some of the proceedings.
ACLJ executive director Jordan Sekulow called the case “a mockery of justice.”
[...] Tehran’s treatment of a U.S. citizen is a brazen challenge to Washington as President Obama begins his second term and Sen. John Kerry prepares to assume the helm at the State Department.
So what does Obama’s State Department have to say about the fact that an American citizen is being imprisoned and tortured for his faith in Iran?
“We condemn Iran’s continued violation of the universal right of freedom of religion and we call on the Iranian authorities to respect Mr. Abedini’s human rights and release him,” State Department spokesperson Darby Holladay said.
No statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not the slightest recognition from the President. Knowing that real international pressure could be brought to bear through media coverage and strong statements from the White House, they choose instead to trot out an obscure spokesperson in the hopes that demands for a stronger response will die down.
If the media pressure goes away, there is NO WAY this American citizen will ever see his family again.
Sen. Rand Paul Questions Secretary Clinton at SFRC Benghazi hearing
View on YouTube
After endless stonewalling, the woman at the heart of Whitewater and the White House Travel Office firings today testified before Congress about Benghazi.
The woman whom the late New York Times columnist William Safire referred to as a “congenital liar” finally came forward without being forthcoming.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and a pair of Navy SEALs. She uttered words so stunning in their heartlessness that even some liberals may have trouble white(water)washing them.
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson noted the falsehood of the “film-maker as instigator” narrative. After four months, nobody will answer “who pushed the video?” Regarding the motive for the murders, Clinton went into full righteous-indignation mode and bellowed “What difference at this point does it make?”
Only an ice queen with total indifference to the truth could ask why the truth matters. Only a woman who spent her entire life sacrificing others around her as chess pawns could ask why the motives for terrorism matter.
What difference does it make, Hillary? To the families of four dead Americans, and those who were duped by your lies, it makes a LOT of difference!
It’s embarrassing that a sitting Secretary of State lost her cool over a simple question she had to know in advance was coming, because let’s face it – she LIED. Condoleeza Rice faced far harsher criticism over Iraq, and always firmly stuck to her guns, but always spoke respectfully and professionally. Liberals resent that they have to be accountable to ANYBODY for their words and actions. They think they are above it all.
And sadly, the mostly weak line of questioning from Republicans at this hearing is part of the reason why Democrats have grown accustomed to getting away with murder – literally – and expecting not to get called on it! If Republicans were smart, they’d nail Hillary’s hide to the wall and destroy any chance of a 2016 presidential run. Unfortunately, they’re too worried about looking “fair” so that propagandist media won’t crucify them. It won’t work. The media is determined to make Republicans look bad no matter what, so they should make sure it’s for something that they can be proud of, and actually do their jobs!
Thank God! Netanyahu is one of the few leaders in the world who takes the threats from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah seriously!
In a stunning setback, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line bloc fared worse than expected in a parliamentary election Tuesday, exit polls showed, possibly forcing the incumbent Israeli leader to invite surprisingly strong moderate rivals into his government and soften his line toward the Palestinians.
TV exit polls showed the hard-liners with about 61 seats in the 120-seat parliament, a bare majority, and the counts could change as actual votes are tallied.
The unofficial TV results had Netanyahu winning only 31 seats, though he combined his Likud Party with the far-right Yisrael Beitenu for the voting. Running separately four years ago, the two won 42 seats. He expected to increase that total by running together, but the combined list’s poll results dipped steadily throughout the three-month campaign.
Netanyahu was also expected to receive stronger backing because his fragmented opposition did not post an agreed candidate against him.
If they hold up through the actual vote counting, the unexpected results could be seen a setback for Netanyahu’s tough policies. The coalition-building process could force him to promise concessions to restart long-stalled peace talks with the Palestinians.
Lets hope he can put together a strong coalition that will not negotiate with terrorists!
How do you deal with Barack Obama? Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have found one reasonably successful way: stand tall and don’t back down, and your people will rally around you.
Obama, believing Netanyahu would win reelection despite trying to damage him with remarks leaked to Jeffrey Goldberg, sent a handwritten note to Netanyahu reading: “Looking forward to continuing working with you in the new year.”
That, of course, is certainly a different approach than the constant attempts by Obama to bully Netanyahu at the White House or through the press. How was Netanyahu able to elicit this nicety from Obama that the GOP never gets?
He didn’t back down. Israelis may differ on many issues, but when they perceive an outside threat, they unify quickly. Many Israelis perceive Obama as a threat, possibly even a mortal one, to their continued existence. His coddling of Islamic regimes, his refusal to aid the rebels in Iran, his leaking of Israel’s plans for a possible strike against Iran, and his desire to legitimize terrorist groups, all of these are signs that Israelis can read easily.
Words with Obama mean nothing; his promises are generally meaningless. Yet the fact that he felt it necessary to offer a token of good-will to a man whom he openly lambastes because of his independence is a lesson for the GOP: stand tall, stand firm, and don’t back down against this man. Cave and you get nothing.
Take notes, Republicans!
Millions of loyal Democrat Jewish voters are about to discover that they’ve been played.
The election is over, President Obama has just been sworn in for a second term, and cold treatment of Israel is already firmly in place. Mr. Obama has signaled during the past two months what lies ahead for U.S. relations with Israel through several actions.
[...] Mr. Netanyahu’s likely re-election on Tuesday as Israeli prime minister will mean continuity of leadership in both countries. This does not imply continuity in U.S.-Israel relations, however. Mr. Obama, freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Israel views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government.
Recall what Mr. Obama said privately in March 2012 to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: “This is my last election and after my election, I have more flexibility.” There is every reason to think that having won that re-election, things have now “calmed down” and, after a decade of caution, he can “be more up-front” to advance the Palestinian cause against Israel.
Mr. Obama has won his second term, and Israel’s troubles have really begun. Jerusalem, brace for a rough four years.