Chapter Thirty-Seven of Keeping Score In America: The Big Red Line-Up!

By: Michael Moriarty

The only major face missing in this Big Red Line-Up?

Vladimir Putin’s.

Marx To Engels To Lenin To Stalin To Mao
The Obama Nation
… to …
where’s Vladimir Putin?!?!

Putin should actually come before President Obama.

It ain’t brain surgery.

They’d like to make it look like a private meeting of Rhodes Scholars and Nobel Prize Winners… which, with Clinton and Obama, it is… which just goes to show you what a Mythic Con Game both the Rhodes and Nobel Prizes are!

This recent “precipice” the human race is perched on in the Ukraine?

Obama and Putin are putting on a clear display of the Real, New World Order, profoundly Marxist Intent behind Henry Kissinger’s Real Politik.

It looks like they don’t agree when in reality they are pushing the entire human race further and further into Communist tyranny.

Individual freedom?!

Not if it doesn’t agree with The Central Committee of whomever has the Biggest Red Stick!!

Hitler and Mussolini tried that New World Order caca with The Thousand Year Reich!

Stalin helped them… since they were all Socialists of one depraved sort or another!

Until, of course, Hitler went true to form… all of which made our destruction of him and his Thousand Year Reich a certainty!!

These two clowns are most certainly going to drop themselves into similar hot water.

Mao and Stalin have fallen out?!?!

I don’t think so.

Putin, like Stalin, will get what he wants.


‘Cause Obama secretly wants it that way… for now!

In a way, Red China set the scene and, so to speak, painting the portrait… setting the whole thing up… to make it look like there’s still a Free World.


It is now all about Theatah!

Marxist Theatah!!

Brechtian Alienation?!

A Whodunit as a Leninist Mystery and a Stalinist Melodrama… when the reality is, “There are no good guys on either side!”

Not in power at any rate.

I know a little about Theatah!… and, I must say, nothing on Earth or in human history will quite compare with this Five Act Marxist Epic with real blood and real, gigantic villains playing war games as if they were the chess pieces accidentally falling onto The Universe’s Monopoly board!

Not a single accident about it.


If there’s one thing Marx promised: “No more accidents!!!”

“Accidents were all the product of a delusion called God!”

“Freud, one of the greatest undercover Communists, blasted that Judeo-Christian daydream!”

“Ah-ha-ha-ha!!” cry the Marxist Bobbsey Twins!!

Putin and Obama are holding back the champagne from their staff until Neo-Soviet Russia reclaims the entire Ukraine.

Until then?

“Theatah, Theatah and more Theatah!!” ESR

Michael Moriarty is a Golden Globe and Emmy Award-winning actor who starred in the landmark television series Law and Order from 1990 to 1994. His recent film and TV credits include The Yellow Wallpaper, 12 Hours to Live, Santa Baby and Deadly Skies. Contact Michael at [email protected]. He can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/@MGMoriarty.



Arlene from Israel

That’s the diplomatic, political charade called “the peace process.” And it is only growing more outrageous with every passing week.

I would like to begin with a superb article – “The Palestinian narrative: The missing link in the ‘peace process’ – by Eric R. Mandel, Founder of the Middle East Political and Information Network. It clearly and cogently identifies underlying fallacies inherent in current attempts to arrive at a “two state solution” (emphasis added):

”Secretary of State Kerry’s well-meaning attempt to forge a framework agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian governments is based on the conventional Western perspective of conflict resolution. Western democratic nations that sign treaties overwhelmingly respect the words on the paper they sign.

”But what happens when western democracies ask a democratic nation to sign a western- style treaty with an adversary that values tribe and clan over the nation-state? What happens when one party’s narrative is almost totally based on the negation of the other? While the media look through conventional glasses at the prospects for an Israeli- Palestinian framework agreement and pose certain questions, the view for those truly interested in a lasting peace should be through a more nuanced lens. Such an analysis raises questions that are more difficult.

”Is a lasting Israel-Palestinian peace achievable if only one side accepts the legitimacy of the other’s narrative? To begin to resolve the conflict, American and Israeli negotiators should consider a western-style treaty only with concurrent recognition of the narratives of both parties. Diplomatic maneuvering, no matter how well meaning, can not lead to a lasting peace in this region without addressing the fundamental narratives of the adversaries.

”…It is essential to understand how Palestinian Arabs think and what they believe. The Palestinian Arab national identity is almost exclusively defined by negating the Israeli narrative, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist as a Jewish state, with precious few positive Palestinian nationalistic qualities.

”Palestinian Arabs mark their historical time by memorializing what others perpetrated upon them. The quintessential narrative marked in time is the ‘Nakba,’ the catastrophe of the creation of the State of Israel.

”Delegitimizing Jewish historical connections to the land extends from mosques to school textbooks, from the PA press to the PA leadership.

”…On a recent trip to the Middle East, I interviewed members of the PA, PLO, Hamas, the Jordanian Parliament, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

”They all shared the same talking points about the Jews living in Israel. Uniformly, Israel is considered a colonialist enterprise – illegally imposed, and populated by foreigners with no legitimate right to the land. Almost all believe that Israel continually commits ‘war crimes,’ targets Arab civilians, and oppresses defenseless native Palestinians.

”Violence committed against Jewish civilians is rationalized as the only legitimate avenue available to an oppressed people.

”This troubling narrative is not confined to Hamas, but is part of the DNA of Palestinian Arabs whether they reside in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Judea, or Samaria.

”Compounding the problem is the western belief that all peoples of the world share its universalistic perspective. It is certainly true that Palestinians want to feed their families and prosper, but the West simply cannot comprehend that any people in the 21st century would choose self-defeating options over economic opportunity.

”If choosing a better life means giving up on the goal of erasing Israel from the map, then unfortunately too many would choose ideology over prosperity.”



I urge you to share this broadly.

The failure of the West to understand the mindset of Muslim/Arab culture and perspectives is an on-going problem. And this problem extends to far more than what is alluded to in this article. There is, for example, the precept in Islam that permits lying and deception for the sake of a larger religious purpose (taqiyya). This behavior, which the Muslim Arab considers fully acceptable within certain parameters, sends a Westerner’s mind into a tailspin. There are still reasonably sophisticated Westerners who do not understand that it is what Abbas says in Arabic to his own people, and not what he says in English for the Western media, that matters.

What the author alludes to regarding ideology trumping prosperity is also significant. There are justifications offered for Muslim Arab violence based on their presumably intolerable situation, which is said to lead to a state of desperation. But studies show that it is not those in despair who are motivated to perpetrate violence, but these imbued with a radical ideology.

And lastly, with regard to cultural perceptions, there is the author’s brief allusion to an adversary that values tribe and clan (hamula) over the nation-state. This carries ramifications that are poorly understood by many. It may, for example, be in the strategic best interest of the PA to take out members of Hamas who foment trouble in Judea and Samaria. But members of the PA security forces will not go after members of Hamas who are in the same clan. It is to that clan and not to the concept of the developing state that they have first loyalty.


Mandel suggests that for the sake of real peace Israelis are willing to show understanding for at least some of the Palestinian Arab perspective – for example, by exhibiting compassion for “the descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees who have been used as pawns by autocratic Arab regimes.” (More on these so-called refugees below.)

I would carry this further. Unfortunately, within our Israeli society there are those on the left who have so thoroughly assimilated the Palestinian narrative, post-Oslo, that they have lost their sense of Jewish entitlement in the land. This is a situation to be mourned, and corrected.


And what of that “peace process”?

I am weary almost to the point of tears with the conflicting rumors in the media: Kerry has already released his framework but the parties have pledged not to talk about it; Kerry is having trouble putting together the framework and it might not be ready by late April; the framework will simply advance American ideas and both parties will be able to voice reservations; Kerry may simply settle for a verbal understanding without anything written. And on, and on.

In the end, it will all come to nothing.


As time goes on, what we are seeing is that Abbas continues to harden his positions. Not only is there no compromise, he adds more red lines.

Please see this video from MEMRI of Abbas speaking, just five days ago.


Among the the positions he advances:

[] No Israeli presence over the 1967 line. Not a single settlement bloc to remain – every stone placed on the land since 1967 is illegal.

[] No recognition of Israel as the Jewish State.

Mandel, in his article, above, makes the case that the Palestinian Arabs cannot accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state because it flies in the face of their narrative. And he is correct. But there is also another reason: It would make it impossible to push on the issue of “Right of Return” (see the next point).

[] “Right of Return” for all five million Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants, with Israeli citizenship. A good way to destroy Israel from within.


That “right of return,” in point of fact, does not exist, even though the Arabs refer to it as an “inalienable” right.

The reference point they use for this is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. This was adopted before the War of Independence was over, and it was opposed by the Arab states because of its implicit recognition of Israel – which the Arab states were still in the process of trying to destroy militarily.

After the war, the Arab states returned to one article of the entire resolution, as “proof” of the “right of return.” Actually, only one clause within that article.

That clause resolved that, “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…”

There immediately followed a host of questions regarding what is a “practicable” date, and, more significantly, whether the refugees would live at peace with their Jewish neighbors – a dubious proposition to say the least. Given that requisite for return, very few would qualify – especially today, as they have been subjected to decades of incitement against Israel.

But that’s just the beginning, because another clause within that very same article instructed, “the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees…” Resettlement? Then clearly this resolution was offering alternatives besides “return” (repatriation) – i.e., “return” was not a “right,” but rather one alternative for resolving the problem of refugees.

Last and most significantly, there is this: This was a General Assembly resolution. The General Assembly makes recommendations only, which are without enforceability or weight in international law.

There are still “refugees,” or the descendants of those refugees – also classified as refugees – almost 65 years after Arabs fled from the newly founded Israel, because UNRWA has vigorously perpetuated this political charade and kept the “refugees” in limbo rather than helping them to resettle.


Given his full set of stipulations, it is clear that Abbas is not going to sign on to a final agreement with Israel, and most likely not on to Kerry’s framework agreement, should he ever produce one. At this point, Abbas has received the backing of the Arab League, which is telling him to “stand firm,” make no concessions, and continue to refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish state.

To exacerbate the situation, there is the Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, who recently declared that “No of us, especially not in Fatah [Mahmoud Abbas’s party], has ruled out the military option. We have not forgotten our principles and goals…” He refers to “our entire legacy of struggle which can be resorted to when the time is right.”


And just days ago, a former PA negotiator, Mohammed Shtayyeh, told AP that “the gaps between the sides are growing rather than shrinking…We don’t have terms of reference, which means we and the Israelis are reading from different books.”



And so, you may ask, Nu? What’s happening on Israel’s part.

Well, our prime minister, who forthrightly and properly tells the world to stop deceiving itself with regard to Iran and face the truth, will not take his own advice in this context.

What Netanyahu is doing – and this continues to be his MO – is to bend over backwards to show the world that he is trying his best to work on possible plans that might succeed.

No point in belaboring it here, but he spoke about how we will have to relinquish some settlements, and then, following a backlash from the right wing of the coalition, said that no, not a single settlement would be dismantled. Most recently he proposed some obscure plan modeled on the very complex border arrangement that exists between Belgium and Holland, with each having enclaves within the other nation; totally inapplicable to our situation.

I do not believe that he believes for a second that any of this will ever materialize, and I find myself with an inclination to run my head into the wall.

I do understand that he anticipates that the PA intends to blame us for the failure of the talks and head for the UN. What he is trying to do is mitigate the negative world responses – both legally and in terms of BDS – that we may have to contend with. But we’re going to get smacked no matter what he does, and I long for him to call a press conference and say, “Enough! Look at the evidence of the failure of PA cooperation.”

There is a great deal more to day, and I will continue in my next posting…


Benghazi and the Politicization of Intelligence

By: Clare Lopez
Accuracy in Media

As we now know, within about 15 minutes after the start of the attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, top U.S. civilian and uniformed officials were informed that it was a terrorist attack. The information was clear, unambiguous, and remained consistent over the chaotic hours that followed. It did not change. If anything, the exceptionally accurate final mortar strike on the CIA Annex that took the lives of former Navy SEALs Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, and gravely injured others, provided conclusive evidence of a carefully pre-planned attack. There is simply no room for equivocation on this: it was a well-organized, military-style assault by terrorists armed with assault rifles, RPGs, and eventually a mortar.

Mike Morell, then-head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center (CTC), had the task of helping to prepare talking points for then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who was slated to appear on five Sunday morning talk shows a few days later. Morell was personally responsible for “cutting some 50 percent of the text,” including all “references to Al Qaeda” and the many earlier terror attacks against U.S. and other Western targets in Benghazi. When the Senate Intelligence Committee finally succeeded in prying loose the emails that had flowed back and forth to the CIA, State Department and the White House during the talking points editing process, it was clear that Morell not only had misrepresented his own role, but also had been less than forthcoming about the close oversight role played by the White House in ensuring that all references to al-Qa’eda terrorism would be scrubbed. Morell also made sure to scrub from the talking points the honest assessment that “We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

With the President in a close re-election race and touting the obviously inaccurate meme that al-Qa’eda was on the run and close to defeat, it wouldn’t have helped to admit that Islamic terrorists, after what was likely weeks of planning and rehearsal, had just overrun a U.S. diplomatic post in North Africa and killed four Americans. Better to obfuscate until the election was safely behind them. Besides, “What difference does it make?” that the most senior officials of the U.S. government deliberately subverted the intelligence process as long as it helped ensure the President’s re-election?

Nearly as troubling as Morell’s misleading congressional testimony was the overwhelming silence from senior Defense Department officials, who also knew full well that Susan Rice’s talk-show narrative was false—and yet remained silent. Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers (MI) indicated on 27 February 2014 that Morell likely will be called back to clarify his testimony.

There is no doubt that top officials at the Defense Department knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack—and given the stream of reporting about al-Qa’eda’s increasingly aggressive behavior during the months leading up to the 11 September 2012 final attack, also should have had few doubts about who was responsible. According to closed door classified testimony on 26 June 2013 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham (who happened to be in the Pentagon that night) immediately told Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Gen. Martin Dempsey about the attack, saying that it was unambiguously a terrorist attack. The two of them—Panetta, and Dempsey—then departed from the Pentagon together for a previously-scheduled meeting with President Obama at the White House.

Even as these Defense officials were briefing the President on what was happening in Benghazi, telling him that the U.S. Ambassador to Tripoli, Christopher Stevens, was missing, the same information about the attack was reaching the Pentagon and key combatant commands, all of which were told the same thing: it was a terrorist attack. Later that night, Greg Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli, spoke by phone with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top State Department advisors, telling them that he feared Ambassador Stevens might be in the clutches of terrorists at a Benghazi hospital and that he was concerned about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli as well. He soon learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead, and relayed that information to the State Department at around 9 p.m. Washington time. But there was still nothing about a video. Nothing at all.

Then came the 10 p.m. phone call from the President to Secretary of State Clinton—the person that almost no one (except Andrew McCarthy here) mentions. This was the 10 p.m. phone call that White House spokesman Jay Carney reluctantly mentioned on 20 February 2013 in response to questions from the press corps. According to CNS News, the President called Clinton “to get an update on the situation.” It was right afterward that Clinton released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to “The Innocence of Muslims” YouTube film trailer. As it turned out, that deliberately duplicitous initial reference to a video that had nothing to do with the attack on the Benghazi SMC presaged a full two weeks of false statements from President Obama, Secretary Clinton, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and others about the film clip.

Neither Morell, nor any other top Obama administration official, has any excuse for not knowing the attack was a terrorist attack, or for thinking somehow that a demonstration or protests had preceded it. According to FOX News journalist Catherine Herridge, a report from the CIA’s own senior officer on the ground in Tripoli, Libya confirmed in a 15 September 2012 email that the attack was “not/not an escalation of protests,” but rather a coordinated terror attack. That email was received by Morell, CIA Director David Petraeus, and other senior CIA officials a full day before Susan Rice was sent out to broadcast false information to the American people on the 16 September Sunday talk shows.

But Morell still wasn’t coming clean on everything. In November 2012, Morell was once again before the House Intelligence Committee, along with Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and CTC Chief Matt Olsen. When asked who had been responsible for the talking points, Clapper said that he had no idea, while Morell remained silent. In another meeting that took place in late 2012, Morell again seemed to have trouble telling the truth. He and Rice met with Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Under questioning from the senators about the talking-points editing process, Morell tried to blame the FBI for cutting the reference to al-Qa’eda terrorism; he said the FBI didn’t want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. When Graham called the FBI and told them what Morell had said, “they went ballistic,” Graham said in an interview with Fox News. Confronted with this, Morell changed his statement and admitted that he, and the CIA, had been responsible after all.

Confusion in the early hours, and even early days, following a chaotic situation such as that which confronted U.S. leadership on 11 September 2012 would be understandable. But it is the certain knowledge that our most senior civilian, intelligence, and military officers deliberately and repeatedly lied, including before Congress, about what they knew at the time to be a terrorist attack on our mission by al-Qa’eda jihadis that so corrodes Americans’ trust in their leadership. This is particularly damaging because there is the appearance of a coordinated cover-up staged to ensure the re-election of a President who’d staked his campaign on the repeated assertion that al-Qa’eda had been “decimated,” or was on “the path to defeat.”

In July 2013, Mike Morell joined the consulting firm of Beacon Global Strategies LLC, which had been founded not long beforehand by four others with close ties to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Michael Allen, Jeremy Bash, Philippe Reines, and Andrew Shapiro (who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs from 2009-2013, with responsibility for security relationships with U.S. Middle East partners).

Clare M. Lopez is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy and also the Clarion Project and London Center for Policy Research. She is also a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.