March 2-4, 2015
Mar 02 02:07 Iran agreement: utterly worthless Mar 02 05:09 President Obama's pro-Iranian Air Force Mar 03 00:15 Our first delusional secretary of state Mar 03 00:37 Potter's disappearing act? Mar 03 01:38 Attribution, plagiarism and MnSCU Mar 03 08:03 The Constitution-hating Party Mar 04 03:29 SCSU's students getting younger Mar 04 04:09 Bibi's game-changing speech Mar 04 12:29 Franken's 'partisan debacle'
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Iran agreement: utterly worthless
This NYTimes article is totally farcical. Check this paragraph out:
Asked whether the accord would guarantee that Iran would remain at least a year away from being able to produce enough fuel for a single nuclear weapon, a senior official said that the agreement was still under negotiation and that it was not yet clear how long the accord might last. He noted that some 'transparency measures' that might provide insight into the inner workings of Iran's nuclear activities might be in effect for an 'extended period of time.'
The thought that the mullahs' word is worth anything is utterly laughable. Trusting them is like trusting Bernie Madoff with the password to your retirement account. Nobody in their right mind would trust them. Thinking that President Obama would call out Iran if they violated the treaty is just as laughable.
If this is part of the administration's 'prebuttal' to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress, then they're a laughingstock. They'll be ridiculed by serious news organizations.
The officials were also vague about whether, and how quickly, Iran would have to answer a dozen questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency about research it is suspected of carrying out on nuclear designs, what the agency calls the 'possible military dimensions' of Iran's program. The I.A.E.A., the United Nations' inspection agency, said again last week that Iran stonewalled inspectors on answering most of its questions, which the Iranians insist are based on fabricated evidence.
The treaty still hasn't been signed and Iran is already attempting to shroud its nuclear program in secrecy. Israel shouldn't trust Iran at this or any other point. Israel shouldn't trust President Obama either. He's clearly undermined Israel's ability to protect itself from the existential threat known as Iran.
This is either red flag city or it's entirely predictable. Saying that "officials were also vague about whether, and how quickly, Iran would have to answer a dozen questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency" is essentially the same as saying that this administration won't take this part seriously. If this administration was serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, they'd back this provision up with the option of military force and harsh sanctions.
The fact that the Obama administration and other Democrats support this is frightening. The fact that Hillary hasn't spoken out about this is telling, too. Hillary's silence is deafening. She's as dovish as President Obama.
President Obama's PR campaign isn't working:
This week, Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress that Mr. Netanyahu was wrong when he predicted that the interim agreement reached with Iran would fail and would result in the collapse of the sanctions regimen against Tehran, and administration officials suggested that his opposition to a comprehensive agreement was also wrongheaded.
But the concerns voiced by Mr. Netanyahu are also shared by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that are regional rivals of Iran. Mr. Kerry plans to meet with King Salman of Saudi Arabia and other Arab officials over the next week to try to reassure them about the agreement.
When the Saudis agree with Israel's prime minister and disagree with our president, that's a PR disaster for the Obama administration.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2015 2:07 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Mar-15 09:03 PM
Gary:
You might have just explained the problem that President Obama has. Since you pointed out that nobody in their right mind will believe Iran yet Obama seems to believe that they aren't a threat I guess that implies that he is no in his right mind.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Steve A. at 07-Mar-15 04:56 PM
I'll take 10 years of a 20%less the chance of a nuclear Iran. How about you?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-15 08:37 PM
Forget the 20% chance. There's zero chance Iran doesn't break treaty when it's to their advantage.
President Obama's pro-Iranian Air Force
According to this article , President Obama has turned the US Air Force into a pro-Iranian Air Force:
According to the report, Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff Beni Gants to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.
The sources added that Gants and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.
However, an Israeli minister "who has good ties with the US administration revealed Netanyahu's plans to Secretary of State John Kerry" and as a result Obama then threatened to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
It's simply stunning that President Obama would threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they tried destroying Iran's uranium enrichment plants. Has President Obama gone totally insane? The thought that President Obama would shoot down Israel's jets to protect Iran's uranium enrichment facilities is like hearing President Obama lifting protection from Poland to tell Putin he was a trusted ally.
President Obama's foreign policy has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel to it. It's like we're being told that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west. Nothing about President Obama's foreign policy makes sense.
Netanyahu had to abort the operation and since then relations between Israel and the United States have been declining, according to the sources quoted in the report.
President Obama is the most anti-Israel president in US history. Whoever's in second isn't close. The thought that a US president is willing to protect the biggest state sponsor of terrorism while shooting down our best ally in the region's planes indicates President Obama's priorities aren't America's priorities.
President Obama is an historic president ... for all the wrong reasons.
Posted Monday, March 2, 2015 5:09 AM
No comments.
Our first delusional secretary of state
After watching this video, it's safe to say that John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State that's delusional:
Here's a partial transcript of what he said:
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: OK, let's -- let's move back, then, to Israel and Iran. You're headed over for further negotiations. While you're gone, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be addressing Congress. Susan Rice said it was destructive to U.S.-Israeli relations. Do you agree with that?
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well, look, we're not -- the prime minister of Israel is welcome to speak in the United States, obviously. And we have a closer relationship with Israel right now in terms of security than at any time in history. I was reviewing the record the other day. We have intervened on Israel's behalf, in the last two years, more than several hundred -- a couple of hundred times in over 75 different fora in order to protect Israel.
I talk to the prime minister regularly, including yesterday. We are not -- you know, we don't want to see this turned into some great political football. Obviously, it was odd, if not unique, that we learned of it from the speaker of the House and that an administration was not included in this process. But the administration is not seeking to politicize this. We want to recognize the main goal here is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And on that, Israel and the United States agree. And the testimony, in fact, to the efficiency with which we've been able to pursue that is the interim agreement that is in place today.
Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created. The 20 percent enriched uranium has been reduced to 0. We have stopped the centrifuge production. We are inspecting inside of their facilities. We have stopped the Arak plutonium reactor in its tracks. Israel is safer today and that is the standard that we will apply to any agreement going forward. It is to guarantee that we will know that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon under the procedure that we're putting in place.
Other than the times we've threatened to blow Israeli military jets out of the sky, Kerry's thinking, Israel has never been safer than now. Except when President Reagan let it be understood that the United States wouldn't tolerate Yassir Arafat's intifada's. Except when President George W. Bush sided with Israel in the latest intifada.
Shooting an allies' planes out of the sky isn't how we make Israel safer, especially when Israel's planes were planning on destroying Iran's centrifuges. Iran isn't bashful about saying it wants to destroy Israel. How can Israel feel safe when its greatest ally, the United States, is negotiating with its most dangerous enemy to make it easier to wipe Israel off the map?
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:15 AM
No comments.
Potter's disappearing act?
Where's Earl? Part 2
by Silence Dogood
Last October, I was looking up someone on campus. After I found what I was looking for, I did a search for Potter just to see what would come up. I was surprised to see the response that came back:
Just for fun I recently went to the other six MnSCU universities to see what would come up if I put the name of their university President into their directory search engine. The results are shown below.
At Bemidji:
At Metro:
At Mankato:
At Moorhead:
At Southwest:
At Winona:
As you can see, all of the websites look very different. However, each one of them found the university's president. A phone number was listed for each of the presidents. For five there was an office address and for five there was an email address.
It is surprising that the president at SCSU, a person who has been president for more than seven years, couldn't be found then and still can't be found now by the university's search engine. Based on the results from the other six MnSCU universities, this makes Earl H. Potter something of an outlier. Clearly, he doesn't want to be found.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:37 AM
No comments.
Attribution, plagiarism and MnSCU
Nicole Helget's blog is getting attention. It's getting under MnSCU's skin, not to mention under Annette Parker's skin :
On Thursday, a group calling itself Minnesotans United for Higher Ed, published similar allegations against another college president, also unnamed, with numerous examples of what it calls 'intellectual fraud.' 'We've uncovered two academically dishonest presidents, and there are more,' said Nicole Helget, a former South Central teacher and spokeswoman for the group. If the pattern continues, she said, 'MnSCU will be the national laughingstock of higher education.'
MnSCU issued a brief statement Friday, saying: 'We fully support all our outstanding presidents. It is disappointing that people with unknown motivations and a blog can repeatedly level baseless and reckless accusations against people they don't like until they get the attention they seek.'
Others say that the allegations should be taken seriously. 'It is an understatement to say that Annette has 'borrowed heavily' from our work,' said University of Richmond professor Jeffrey Harrison, co-author of an article Parker is accused of plagiarizing, in a written statement after reading the blog. 'Nobody with her background and training could have engaged in such gross misconduct innocently.'
MnSCU's statement shouldn't be taken seriously. Talking about "our outstanding presidents" at a time when 11 of MnSCU's institutions have to submit plans to fix their schools' finances is foolish. If these colleges have outstanding presidents, why are their colleges in such dire financial shape? But I digress.
Here's the heart of the Strib's article:
In one example, Parker wrote : 'More loosely formed partnerships also may be formed for strategic reasons such as the American Booksellers Association, a non-profit trade association that represents the owners of independent bookstores (Barringer & Harrison, 2000).'
The original source , the blog shows, appeared in the Journal of Management in 2000 with much the same wording: 'More loosely coupled alliances may be formed for similar strategic reasons. For example, the American Booksellers Association is a not-for-profit trade association that represents the owners of independent bookstores.'
Harrison, who co-authored the 2000 article, said that it's not unusual for academics to 'paraphrase a couple of paragraphs' and credit each other. 'However, in my opinion Annette has gone far beyond what is acceptable : she did not use quotations where she should have, and it appears that she did not even include citations for much of what she took from our article.'
MnSCU's statement of support is worthless in light of this specific example of President Parker's use of similar phrasing in her dissertation.
"We support all our outstanding presidents" doesn't mean anything when the accuser presents irrefutable proof of a president's plagiarism. At that point, "We support all our outstanding presidents" sounds more like spin than anything.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2015 1:38 AM
No comments.
The Constitution-hating Party
Conn Carroll's article is frightening. Check this out:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is "very interested" in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
"The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans," Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
"Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.
The thought that President Obama "has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities" on raising taxes without congressional approval is proof that he's either a scofflaw or he isn't the constitutional scholar he claims he is. Here' the text of the heart of Article 1, Section 7:
SECTION. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Article 1 of the Constitution deals exclusively with the Legislative Branch's authorities and responsibilities. Here's the only time anyone from the executive branch is mentioned in Article 1:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
If it took President Obama's team more than 15 minutes to determine "the array of executive authorities that are available to him" for unilaterally raising taxes, then they're illiterate.
A first-year law student knows that the Executive Branch doesn't have any authority to raise taxes, especially unilaterally.
The thought that a Democrat US senator sent President Obama a letter "imploring the Obama administration" to raise taxes through executive action is proof that Democrats hate the Constitution. President Obama's overreaches have repeatedly gotten shot down unanimously by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Democrats have sat quietly on the sidelines without dissenting.
The Democrats' silence is deafening.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2015 8:03 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 03-Mar-15 10:42 AM
Doesn't matter if it is unconstitutional, he is still going to do it and let the courts sort it out just like Obamacare because no one from the GOP is going to give him much of a fight. During the court battle, he will come up with some else to poke us with and move onto that. No different than what is happening with Obamacare subsidies, his amnesty plan, and on and on. The guy just keeps trying to destroy this country every chance he gets and no one will try and stop him before it gets to the courts for fear of being called a racist.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 03-Mar-15 12:55 PM
Chad:
The problem we have is in the Senate where first Mitch M and a bunch of the current Senators don't want to engage in a fight. The other is even though Mitch is called a great tech person on how the Senate works he can't get around 44 united Democrats.
Mind you if we fight hard and embarrass Democrats in their home states (there were no commercials urging Amy K and Al to vote for the Republican Homeland security bill even though I just heard one from a liberal group).
Of course the Republicans seem to ignore the clear message that their win in November was generated was to stop Obama!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
SCSU's students getting younger
Are The Students At SCSU Getting Younger?
by Silence Dogood
On the website for the Office of Strategy, Planning & Effectiveness, you can find the 30th Day Enrollment Profile for each fall semester going back to Fall 2005. A copy of the Fall 2014 30th Day Enrollment Profile is reproduced below.
The 30th day profile gives some information about the makeup of the students at SCSU. If you look back at the 30th Day Enrollment Profiles for prior years and mine the data for the percentage of students "Under 18," you obtain the following figure:
Interestingly, the percentage of students Under 18 has increased from 6.0% in Fall'05 to 16.6% in Fall'14, which corresponds to an increase of 177%! What can explain this trend?
Some New Entering Freshmen (NEF) enroll in college before they are 18 years old, so an increase in the numbers of NEF might explain the increase in the percentage of students under 18. The following figure shows the number of NEF from Fall'09 through Fall'14:
From 2,390 in Fall'09 to 1,682 in Fall'14 is a decrease of 710 NEF and corresponds to a 29.7% decline, which if anything should decrease the percentage of students under 18. Clearly, the number of NEF cannot explain the growth in the percentage of students under 18.
As part of the Post Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO), in a program called Concurrent Enrollment (CE) [or Senior to Sophomore (S2S) at SCSU], high school students can receive college credit for their high school classes. The following figure shows the number of high school students enrolled at SCSU during fall semester.
The growth from 1,501 in Fall'07 to 3,300 in Fall'13 is a growth of 1,799 students and represents a growth of 119.9%! Since most high school students are under 18 at the beginning of fall in their senior year, this likely accounts for the increase in the percentage of students under 18.
It is also interesting to note that this program is not limited to high school seniors; currently students in grades 10 and 11 are also eligible to participate. Additionally, legislation currently before the Minnesota Legislature this legislative session seeks to expand the program to include students in grade 9. It's quite likely all of the 9th, 10th, and 11th grade students would be under 18. As a result, any expansion of the CE program will likely lead to an even larger percentage of SCSU students under 18.
In the First HUSKYDATA Newsletter released last fall, one of the points made was that the enrollment is reported at three different times during the semester: The 10th Day, the 30th Day, and the End of Term. It was also pointed out that the enrollment increases from the 10th Day, the 30th Day, and the End of Term as illustrated by one of their figures reproduced below:
Here's the link for the HUSKYDATA Newsletter .
The later enrolling students come principally from three sources. Some classes only meet part of the term, some graduate classes do not start at the beginning of the semester, and some of the high school students receiving college credit for high school classes (CE). The largest of these by far is the category of high school students. The largest increase comes between the 10th day enrollment and the 30th day enrollment. Although hard to clearly see in the figure, in Fall'13, the increase from the 30th Day enrollment (orange) to the Final enrollment (grey) looks to be about 600 students. Not to be accused of inflating the numbers let's say the increase is 500 students. Assuming that all of these students were under 18, it would add 500 to the number of students for Fall'13 under 18 (2,603) bringing the total to 3,103 and increase the total number of students for Fall'13 (16,245) to 16,745. As a result, for Fall'13, the percentage of students under 18 now increases from 16.0% to 18.5%.
While this might at first seem to be a small increase, an increase of 2.5% for the percentage of students under 18 for Fall'14 would push the number over 20% of the students on campus during fall semester. Since these students are receiving college credit for courses in their high schools, many of them do not set foot on the SCSU campus. As a result, since 1 out of 5 students is really not on the SCSU campus, it is easy to understand why the growth from 6% to 20% would lead to a large number of empty classrooms on campus and triggered the administration to discuss reducing the campus's 'footprint.'
Is anyone going to argue that most 9th, 10th, and 11th graders are really doing college-level work in their high schools? When you recognize the financial incentives for parents to have their children participate in concurrent enrollment, it won't be long before almost all high school students graduate from high school with a high school diploma and a two-year AA degree. In fact, most colleges and universities finish their spring terms before the end of the high school year, these dual degree students will actually graduate with their AA degree BEFORE receiving their high school diploma!
What seems like a pretty good deal for students and parents - essentially two years of free college tuition has financial consequences for four-year universities that are devastating! Essentially, at the university, CE amounts to as much as a 90% discount in what is charged for students. As a result, parents will 'encourage' their children to take advantage of this cost savings. As a result, traditional first-year college students will become nearly extinct! Given this kind of an economic disincentive for universities, it's not likely that the traditional university will survive this kind of economic challenge.
Organisms must adapt or die. Much the same thing can be said about organizations. In SCSU's case however, since SCSU is the second largest MnSCU University participating in concurrent enrollment, SCSU is essentially hastening its own demise under the guise of "change." As a result of increasing numbers of students earning AA degrees while in high school, the traditional four-year university will be reduced to largely teaching the final two years with large numbers of 'transfer' students and a few traditional freshmen. Who says change has to be good?
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:29 AM
No comments.
Bibi's game-changing speech
Alexis Simendinger's article shows how the Iran-US negotiations have changed thanks to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. The debate has shifted thanks to Netanyahu's speech. Here's an example of how Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech shifted things:
Here are some points that resonated with lawmakers:
Obama is misguided, or wears blinders about Iran's true ambitions and motivations. Speaking to the GOP-controlled House and Senate, Netanyahu reiterated his warning: 'Don't be fooled.' The prime minister reinforced views among conservatives and some Democrats that Obama's record of recognizing and responding to brewing threats in the Middle East and elsewhere has been less than stellar. Netanyahu argued the administration is being duped by Iran's negotiators. He believes pledges of reformed nuclear objectives will not change in Iran, no matter what Tehran may sign to win relief from the international sanctions regime. Netanyahu pointed to North Korea as an example of broken nuclear promises.
There's no reason to think that President Obama and John Kerry will negotiate a deal that doesn't sell Israel out. They're both desperately searching for a legacy item. Without that, neither will be more than a footnote in the history books.
Here's another game changer from Netanyahu's speech:
Israel advocated tougher adjustments to any pact hammered out with Iran. Although Obama dismissed Netanyahu's rhetoric as a debunked script that lacked internal logic, the prime minister did more in Washington than criticize negotiations and warn about Iran's evil intentions.
The prime minister told Congress that any pact with Iran should 'demand' that Tehran halt aggression in the Middle East, cease support for terrorism, and end threats against Israel. An agreement should require the verified destruction of all Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including centrifuges and heavy water reactors; include a longer breakout insurance period than one year; and maintain all sanctions for a decade or longer, or until Iran's behavior is demonstrably and verifiably altered, the prime minister said. 'The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal,' Netanyahu maintained.
President Obama has talked about Iran rejoining the fictional "community of nations" if they simply sign onto this treaty. That's the rose-colored glasses perspective. Iran isn't interested in changing. Whether they sign onto this treaty or not, they'll still want to continue working on getting a nuclear weapon. Whether they sign onto this treaty or not, they'll still continue supporting terrorist organizations like al-Qa'ida and Hezbollah.
These aren't transient policy positions than change from administration to administration. They're long-held positions that haven't changed since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. When they say they want to push Israel into the sea, that isn't the mullahs throwing some red meat to the partisans. It's their ultimate goal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu showed the world the difference between a mature statesman and a young, hip partisan. The difference was a game-changer.
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:09 AM
No comments.
Franken's 'partisan debacle'
Al Franken issued a statement in advance of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech that read like it was written by the administration :
In a statement earlier Monday, (Sen. Al) Franken (D-MN) described the speech as a 'partisan spectacle.'
'This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the administration,' Franken said. 'I'd be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don't believe should be happening. I'm confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.'
Franken is just one hyperpartisan Democrat who professes undying loyalty to Israel, then essentially calls Prime Minister Netanyahu a partisan. Doesn't it sound like Franken's support of Israel is conditional? In any case, the "partisan debacle" Sen. Franken worried about didn't happen.
Alexis Simendinger's fantastic article highlights how Prime Minister Netanyahu's substantive speech changed the parameters through which politicians view the issue. Here's one thing Ms. Simendinger highlighted from the "partisan debacle":
Netanyahu denounced the contours of the deal being negotiated in Switzerland as playing into Iran's hands. He warned the outcome could accelerate a path toward nuclear war in the Middle East because he believes the parameters would strengthen Iran's capabilities within a decade to create a nuclear weapon with such speed, the world could not intervene.
'Why would anyone make this deal?' Netanyahu asked. 'This is a question that everyone asks in our region.' He let the clear rebuke of the president hang in the air. 'Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?' he continued. 'Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal.'
There's no question that Sen. Franken recited the Democrats' script perfectly. Similarly, there's no question that Prime Minister Netanyahu changed the terms of the debate going forward.
The only "partisan debacle" from yesterday's speech came from the Democrats. John Yarmuth's diatribe and Nancy Pelosi's turning her back on Prime Minister Netanyahu set the Democrats' highly political tone for the event.
Sen. Franken didn't attend yesterday's speech because he's a partisan hack. He didn't know that Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech would be a "partisan spectacle." That's what he initially said but that's only because that's what the administration told him. The speech turned into a dissertation on the things Iran's leaders have engaged in, including sponsoring terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to attacking US soldiers in Iraq with Iranian-manufactured IEDs.
Had Sen. Franken attended the speech, he might've learned something. It's a shame he took the administration's word that Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech would be a partisan speech.
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2015 12:29 PM
No comments.
