CNN wants you to believe that Trump was lying about injuries during the recent missile atack by Iran.

CNN:

US troops were injured in Iran missile attack despite Pentagon initially saying there were no casualties  —  (CNN)Several US service members were injured during last week's Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad airbase in Iraq despite the Pentagon initially saying that no casualties had taken place.

 

Editor: Turms out that no one was disabled or killed during the missile attack.   BUT,  a couple of days after the attack(s),  11 soldiers were diagnoised with concussion trama.  No one was lying.  

While CNN was pushing the fantasy that Trump lied,  it missed the larger story:  that a missile attack causing concussion is evidence that Iran was actually trying to kill Americans.  The fact that there were no serious casualties is proof of Iran's ineptness when it comes to waging war against a super power such as the United States. 

For the record: 15 missiles fired with zero casualties - clearly a face saving effort from Iran and now . . . .?

Update:  The official count is now 16 missiles fired at US forces.  Again,  none scored any casualties.  If intentional,  the missile "raid" was a face saving event.  If the strike was a real effort to kill but failed,   it demonstrates the stark inetness of the Iranian Military.

For the record:  15 missiles fired with zero casualties  -  clearly a face saving effort from Iran and now  . . . .?

What remains?  For starters,  the Iranians will continue to pretend (to its people) that their attack was substantive.

Secondly,  expect to see headline after headline causing concern and driving up Media profit.  It appears that the threat of war with Iran is over.  Profiteering is all that remains.  To say it differently:  the ensuing headlines are all about bleeding this story for Media profit and nothing more  . . .   as is the case with most headline creations, especially "follow-up" headlines.

Is the "mother of all wars" over?

A tweet from Javad Zariff: tells us the "revenge" attacks from Iran are over.  Damage was done but no lives were lost and no one (American or Iraqi) was injured.   

Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens and senior officials were lauched.  We do not seek escalation or war but will defendourselvesd against any agression.

So much for the "end of the world" BS coming from Democrat House leadership.   

Understand that when Trump allowed for attacks on cultural sites within Iran,  he was sending a message to the effect that he would not be limited in future military responses.  Clearly, the tactic worked.

In the end,  we have an Irainian attack that was more about saving face than about any serious retaliation.  "They" are afraid of Trump and for good reason.  All that remains is a cloud of extreme rhetoric.  This editor does not believe that our President will continue with a second round of strikes.  If he does,  he has our support but,  we seriously believe that the "mother of all wars" is over.  Nothing remains but more traitorous talk from the Democrats and a lot of bluster from Iranian Leadership.  

Obama says he can walk away from the Iranian talks. Of course, we all know that is not true.

Bloomberg reports:  As negotiations with Iran enter the closing phase, President Barack Obama said he’s still prepared to walk away from the talks if the Islamic Republic can’t meet the terms set out by the U.S. and its partners.

Editor's notes:  The key, here, is the word "terms."  They should be non-negotiable but they are not,  if we can believe recent reports.  What I have in mind is the requirement to have unannounced inspections of all nuclear facilities in Iran including military installations.   It goes without saying that this particular "term" for agreement,  is an absolute necessity.  

Obama has proven to be as inept a diplomat as he is a failed moral leader.  And that is why so many are concerned that this requirement seems to be "up for grabs."  My problem in reporting and making comment,  is found in the extreme and growing partisanship with reporting networks,  including Right leaning services.  

The Left has been unreliable as a matter of strategy.  Not on all issues,  of course,  but when they deem it to be necessary.  As Chris Matthews said years ago,  "Times are too important for us to be purely objective in our reporting."  Unfortunately,  I see the same extremist tactic as a growing phenom on the Right.  

This particular story,  the Iranian talks,  produces a number of obstacles.  You have not seen much on this subject,  from me,  because of these difficulties.  

In addition to the naked fact that the talks failed, today,   for the fourth time in 20 months,  we have France walking away from the talks,  a couple of days early,  voicing serious doubts as to the outcome.   These are red flags for me and add confidence to the notion that Obama has no "non-negotiables,"  despite claims otherwise. 

Understand that Obama wants to say,  "I was the first President to get this Iranian deal,  finished."   And you can be certain that he will make this brag,  even if the deal is without substance. 

Time will tell,  and it is hoped that Congress will have the last word on this matter. 

Obama stalls for more time but we know the truth of his Iranian intentions.

Some say this news story is Obama preparing the American populace for, yet,  another classic/disgusting failure on hgis part.  Most say that this news item foretells Obama’s decision to allow,  even facilitate,  a nuclear Iran.  If that is the case,  and it was apparent after his second year in office,  that he was working for that end,  he has single handedly,  done more to destroy the balance of power in both a regional sense as well as a world wide sense.  To imagine that no one is talking about impeachment,  much less imprisonment,  is the most disgusting aspect of his presidential term. 

WASHINGTON — In a much-anticipated speech delineating his foreign policy for the remainder of his term in office, US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that his administration’s refocus toward international cooperation provided a new opportunity to resolve tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. While warning that the odds of success are “still long” in getting Iran to give up its nuclear weapons development, he said that “for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement.

“Despite frequent warnings from the United States, Israel, and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years,” Obama recalled, explaining why his new policy emphasized cooperation rather than unilateral American action. “But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government.”

Obama said that the US-led international coalition has afforded “an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully” with Iran.

Iran's peace talks with Obama is a sham and here is proof.

“Testing the missiles was a clear response to the U.S. officials’ worn-out phrase ‘the military option is on the table,’” Dehqan was quoted as telling the state-run Fars News Agency on Tuesday.

They made this statement on Feb 11. 

Question:  who in this world believes Obama's threat to use military force (as in wage war)?  He is all talk and no show,  and fives years of Hussein doing just that, proves my point.  Sadly,  the Iranians,  the Russians,  al Qaeda in America, N Korea and Karzi in Afghanistan,  and Pakistan all know just how phony this man who would "lead from behind" really is.  

Obama's betrayal of Israel is becoming far too obvious . . . . and, he has secretly been making deals with Iran for months.

Headline Explanation:  The conclusion that Obama has been secretly working to soften restrictions against Iran,  that he has been doing so for months,  is not a blog conclusion or a Right Wing assertion.  Rather,  this comes the Left Wing's The Daily Beast.  See the story here.   

Understand that while Hussein Obama has been playing president,  the Iranian nuclear fuel supply has grown from 5,000 centrifuges in early 2009 to 16,000, today.  You should know that  "20,00" is a unit estimate many believe to be necessary before Iran can develop a nuclear bomb  . . . . . .   and,  Obama has sat around on his proverbial and watched this happen.;  I believe he has done so on purpose and not because he is simply "inept."    

He is a typical but smooth talking street black who hates the Establishment White Community,  its system of governance (the Constitution   the Amendments and that sort of thing) and the Jews.  There is nothing that makes my point more clearly,  than this news story.  Israel is on its own and with the US as its "friend,"  it does not need anymore enemies.  

"I met Secretary Kerry right before he leaves to Geneva," said Netanyhau. "I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. That the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal--a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community." 

\

We have good reason to disbelieve all of Iran's military claims.

From the loony regime that just figured how to shoot a monkey into space: Iran now claims it has its own homemade, radar-beating stealth fighter jet.

But aviation and defense experts say the tiny one-seater looks like a toy and might not even be able to fly — calling it a “laughable fake.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled the Qaher F313 at a Tehran hangar last week and called it “one of the most advanced” aircraft in the world.

But the experts said it was too small for a human pilot — and the controls and wiring looked too simple for a real jet. (from the New York Post)

Understand that Iran may not be the terrible threat some in this world think it is.  Certainly,  its goals of regional dominance and the destruction of Israel are real,  but just how advanced is its military complex,  remains to be seen.  

Some say Iran is not working for nuclear weaponry. Here is why that is not ture.

Iran and even some of our most respected military minds are telling us that Iran is not working to build "the bomb"

Question:  if that is true, why are they building bomb proof bunker and refusing to allow their nuclear facilities to be inspected?

International Atomic Energy Agency

IAEA Expert Team Returns from Iran

22 February 2012 | A senior IAEA expert team is returning from Iran after two days of discussions with Iranian officials held on 20 and 21 February 2012. The meeting followed previous discussions held on 29 to 31 January 2012.

During both the first and second round of discussions, the Agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place.

Intensive efforts were made to reach agreement on a document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions. Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document.

"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said. "We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."

There is simply no reason for this continuing subterfuge.  How do I know that Iran is building the bomb?  Because they are part of the anti-Israeli Jihadist movement,  period.   

Midknight Review discusses the critical nature of the Obama retreat from the Middle East.

Midknight Review discusses the critical nature of the Obama retreat from the Middle East.

2387 share

since 9/1/2010 to

4/3/2014. 

We have rewritten parts of this article and posted the updated version on a.m. 12/3/2010. This is one of our "most read" articles. nearly 2,000 hits on this post, with a registry of readers each and every day - 8/28/2011.

Click on image to enlarge.

Update: 8/28/2011 - You should know that since this post was initially written, the Obama doctrine for the Middle East has not changed, dramatically. He says he wants out of Iraq by the end of 2012, but he promised to out by July of 2010. His reluctance to leave is due, in part, to the fear that Iraq, a war "won" by George Bush, might re-ignite should Obama leave the region, entirely. George Bush intended to keep a military presence in the region for some time. Obama ran against that strategy. In the end, he may have to pull out, entirely, in order to draw in the radical Marxist crowd that put him in office in 2008. He promised the closing of GITMO. That is not going to happen. He promised full troop withdrawal by the Fall of 2010 (from Iraq and Afghanistan - again, that seems very unlikely). He promised a civilian trial for KSM and his henchmen, a subtle effort at putting Bush 43 and Dick Cheney on trial. Of course, that blew up in his face last year and there are no plans to try KSM before the elections. KSM is going to GITMO, however, but, to take him there before the elections would be a huge political/public defeat in the eyes of the radical Leftist crowd. I do not anticipate this happening, for that reason. While he has had modest success in the killing of bin Laden and the demise of Gidafi in Libya, the national aspect of his foreign strategy has failed, miserably, and may be a deciding influence in his bid for re-election. End of update.

Because of the Commander's surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan this morning, and the popularity of this article, we have decided to repost the essay. While in Afghanistan, Obama visited the military hospital there, and presented at least 5 purple hearts. All in all, the visit was a very good thing and appreciated by the troops.

The country of Georgia, to the north on our map, has become a critical issue as relates to the developing geopolitical - circumstance that is the Middle East.

One of the first actions taken by Obama after becoming president was to unilaterally cancel agreements with Georgia and Poland (not shown) for the construction of missile defense systems in those countries. The Bush Administration made these agreements in the last year of its term, making Russia angry enough to threaten an invasion of these nations. Obama took the position that the expressed anger of the Russians was evidence of a diplomatic breakdown between the US and Russia, one that he proposed to "fix" with an initial offering of a toy/plastic "reset" button. In the end, all that was accomplished by Obama was to humor the Russians (emphasis on "humor") and anger both Georgia and Poland. The Obama action, unilateral and capricious, sent a message to those countries standing in opposition to the likes of Russia that the US is no longer concerned with the national security of those European nations standing in the shadow of their one time Soviet oppressor. Worse yet, it tells the qualified observer that the new Administration does not understand the importance of a European/American presence to the very security of the United States, itself !!

Now that Iran has been allowed to become a nuclear power, the Obama action may prove to be catastrophic to the stability of the region. America is a nation of peace but, peace through strength. Its presence in Georgia and Poland would have helped to insure a peaceful stability in the face of an advancing and imperialistic Russia, not to mention the mind numbing aggression of Iran. Understand that Georgia and Poland WANTED partnership with the United States. They wanted the missile defense systems Obama so glibly dismissed. And what did Obama get for this escapade into forensic idealism? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Understand that an American retreat from this part of the world opens the doors to a critical advancement of Russian and Iranian concerns. The United States is the only world power capable of standing against these two aggressors.

Obama's Middle Eastern strategy includes an aversion to being in the region at all. If things go his way, we -- the United States -- will have no strategic place in the area by end of 2012. He is taking the influence of the States out of the region as fast as he can. Our troops are not coming home so much as they are running home.

The only remaining question has to do with the role of the military's opinion in all this. The military mind fully understands the critical nature of the Obama Mid East Strategy and does not agree with it as is evidenced by the public discussions of two of our generals (i.e. General McChrystal and Gen. James Conway ). As maddening as this is for his Marxist base, it is safe to say that the military does have some influence with the Novice Commander.

He did not close GITMO. He followed the battle plan of Bush for Iraq. He ultimately listened to the generals seeking a residual force in Iraq, i.e. the 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq. (9/27/11 Note: it is now clear that Obama will leave no residual force in Iraq. He has begun a troop reduction that will leave just 3,000 to defend themselves and help as military advisers for a time. How long they will stay is unclear but what is clear is the danger in which this force finds itself. Obama, as the Commander In Chief, is clearly putting out remaining troops in grave danger. It is a well guarded secret that the larger military force has a very low opinion of their commander - some reports have Obama with only a 20% approval within military ranks). He was seen as "caving" to military demands for a surge in Afghanistan and his rhetorical insistence that all troops will be out of the region (Afghanistan and Iraq) by the middle of 2011 is full of equivocation. Our point, here, is that Obama is listening to his commanders at some level, contrary to popular belief.

While Obama is listening, it is not clear as to the final outcome in the Middle East. Will he surrender to pressure from his Leftist base and leave the entire region before the 2012 elections? We have his decision with regard to Georgia and Poland, a decision that seems to argue for an unforgiving political action on his part, repercussions be damned. The concessions listed above cannot be considered "minor," and may indicate an evolving opinion on the part of Obama. Is he really a pragmatic liberal, as some claim or a "poll driven," self centered politician ? We may not know the answer for some time to come but there is hope that in matters military, he is more a pragmatist than not at least as relates to the military's role in the Middle East "solution." If so, the wars of the Middle East just might be successfully prosecuted. But than again, maybe not.

Point of post: to present a predictive summary of the mess that is the Obama Middle East strategy; to put his catastrophic and unilateral decision to violate missile defense agreements with Georgia and Poland into context; to allow for a growing (?) military influence in the Obama strategy; and to define our response to developing concerns for the region as relates to Russian and Iranian intentions.

Update 9/27/11: understand that Obama is doing nothing about the developing circumstances borne of the rebellions we know as the "Arab Spring." In the early months of 2009, he ignored the "green revolution" in Iran and closed his eyes to the evolving nuclear threat that is Iran. In fact, he went on vacation the day Iran fired up the first of their nuclear plants.

Without any diplomatic "advance notice," Obama called for revolution in Egypt. The aftermath of which has presented a new government entity that is being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, a government that may be more antagonistic to Israel than the governmental dictatorship just overthrown.

We were unilaterally drawn into Libya, by Obama, without seeking any degree of congressional consensus; a wartime situation that was to last "days, not weeks," according Obama. We are still there nearly six months later and no one knows the final outcome - a Libya that is "friend" or "foe."

Understand that before next summer, there is the distinct possibility - bordering on "probability" -- that the Middle East will be in flames and Israel fighting for its very life. In fact, the current Palestinian push for statehood is because Obama has lost any opportunity to pursue a diplomatic solution, in the eyes of the Palestinians. His policy of befriending Palestine and negotiating out of a trust generated because of that friendship has proven to be nothing more than an Obama fantasy. The Novice tried to maintain a certain "status quo" with Israel while demonstrating to the Palestinians that he could be tough on their life-long foe, an impossible task, one bordering on the unintelligent. Turns out, the divide between the two people is so great that only a well strategized diplomacy can work, ala the previous efforts of the Carter and Clinton Administrations. Say what you will about both men, their foreign policies were much more their forte than were their domestic plans.

Funny. Both Administrations were Democrat, the same party as Obama. The 1979 Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel remains in force to this day. Bill Clinton's foreign policy efforts, beginning in 1993, shaped the foreign policy of our country for more than a decade, well into the Bush Adminstration. When we contrast the successes of both Carter and Clinton with Obama's "do next to nothing" foreign policy approach, it is almost as if Obama was/is completely unaware of his predecessors and the successful strategies they used in dealing with [especially] Middle East affairs. Could that be?

We know that he does not believe in "protocol." Could it be that he does not give a hoot about history, either, unless, of course, it is the history he is writing??

Here is a list of those who support the mosque in New York.

We have asked the question [implicitly] in our headline. Here is the answer:

Syria, Lebanon, Cair, Hamas, Iran, nearly all of the American Muslim population and all those Muslims who were filmed dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell. Add to this list Mayor Bloomberg whose ratings have taken an about-face, Bill Ayers and the pinheads who support this terrorist, Jeremiah Wright, the Black Caucus and the Louis Farrakhan and you have quite a collection of Leftist wingnuts.

Did we make our point ??

Iranian Muslims - Religion of peace and love killes another woman because of the way she was dressed.

26 Year Old Woman Raped and Murdered by Basij Members for “Bad Hijab”

Midknight Review wonders if Obama will express disappointment over this story. He deserted the freedom fighters in Iran and has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to effectively stop Iran's march to nuclear power -- and "no", we are not talking about nuclear energy -- we are talking about Muslim wacko's being given the opportunity of destroying the world in the name of allah. --- jds

July 11, 2010

According to sources, this was the last picture Elnaz Babazadeh uploaded as her Facebook profile picture.

According to HRANA, Elnaz Babazadeh, a 26 year old woman was raped and murdered by Basij forces in the city of Tabriz (northwestern Iran) last week. According to the reports, Basij forces stopped Babazadeh in her car for not following the Iranian regime’s dress code. Elnaz resisted the forces and ignored orders given by the Basij forces.

Then the Basij forces who had initially stopped her jumped into her car and threatened her with a gun. Two other Basij members joined in and all together they beat and raped her. They murdered Babazadeh and dumped her body close to Emamiyeh cemetery.

After local investigation was conducted by HRANA members in Tabriz, it was confirmed at Babazadeh’s funeral that the person who killed her was the son of a high-ranking Revolutionary Guards member.

The intentions of the savage Basij members was to put a stop to the “improper” way women in society dressed. Basij members believe this is their duty to God.

Elnaz Babazadeh’s family filed a complaint against the murder of their daughter to regime officials, but the IRGC is attempting to take over the case.

Translation: Freedom Messenger

Monday's big story of the day was completely ignored by the Minion Media

Editor's notes: On Monday, a total of 87 Senators signed and presented a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel. In the letter, they encouraged Obama to partner with them in showing support for the besieged nation. A similar letter was circulated in the House. At last report, the letter had 310 signatures. Understand that there are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

The support for Israel is both bi-partisan and substantial. Many congressmen on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern for the direction or misdirection Obama has taken over the course of the past year with regard to Israel. He has allocated 1.3 billion dollars to Hamas in Gaza in two gifts. He has publicly snubbed Netanyahu, refused a recent "photo-opt" with the Prime Minister, and has yet to step foot in Israel since his election. In fact, he is working behind the scenes to rid Israel of its nuclear capability while doing absolutely nothing -- in a meaningful way -- to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran.

A critically important story but with no mention in the evening televised Minion Media.