Congress officially gives the green light to President Obama’s trade agenda

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

June 24, 2015

Rare:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a triumph of divided government, the Republican-controlled Congress passed major trade legislation Wednesday that was long-sought by President Barack Obama but vehemently opposed by most lawmakers in his party.

The measure to strengthen Obama’s hand in global trade talks cleared the Senate on a vote of 60-38, and will go to the White House for his signature — less than two weeks after it was temporarily derailed in the House in an uprising of Democratic lawmakers.

A second bill, to renew an expiring program of federal aid for workers disadvantaged by imports, was on track to pass the Senate in short order. It would then go to the House, where a final vote was expected on Thursday.

The rapid sequence of events capped the end of a back-and-forth struggle that played out slowly over months, with Obama, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on one side, and the union-backed Democratic leadership of the House and Senate on the other.

The pace accelerated dramatically less than two weeks ago, when House Democrats prevailed in an early showdown that sent the White House and congressional GOP leaders into a rescue operation.

On Wednesday, McConnell, a frequent Obama antagonist, praised the president and Democrats who joined the GOP on the bipartisan measure vigorously sought by the nation’s chief executive.

“We were really pleased to see President Obama pursue an idea we’ve long believed in,” McConnell said. “We thank him for his efforts to help us pass a bill to advance it.”

The measure would allow Obama to negotiate global trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not change. The administration was seeking the “fast track” as it works to complete a round of trade negotiations involving 12 nations along both sides of the Pacific Ocean, including Japan.

Obama’s victory comes at a pivotal juncture in his second term. He is bracing for a Supreme Court ruling on his landmark health care law, and next week’s deadline is approaching for reaching a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hailed the measure as “the most important bill that will pass the Senate this year,” and one that will prove to be an aid to the economy.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, countered shortly before the vote that it would be nothing of the sort. He said it would lead to “corporate handouts, worker sellouts,” as he said had been the case with the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals across the past two decades.

The issue of global trade had opened the most striking breach between a Democratic president and the lawmakers who overwhelmingly backed him on health care and other hard-fought issues. But the White House tried to cast a soft light on the division.

“We have Republican majorities in Congress working closely with Democratic minorities in Congress to build bipartisan support for legislation that then arrives on the desk of a Democratic president,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. That’s how policy should be made “in an era of divided government,” he told reporters.

Boehner, the Republican House speaker, called the trade votes “a big win for the American people. Trade is good for American farmers, for manufacturers and small businesses.”

The 12 participating nations in the current Pacific-based talks account for 40 percent of the world’s economy, and include Japan, Malaysia, Australia, Canada and Mexico. China is not a member, and Obama says a ratified Pacific-rim pact will reassert the United States’ muscular role in international standards for commerce, treatment of workers and the environment.

House Democrats dealt Obama a humiliating rebuke on June 12, when they derailed his trade package only hours after he traveled to the Capitol to personally ask for their help. Republican leaders, with White House support, restructured the legislative package and passed its key elements with big GOP margins, plus modest Democratic support.

A final potential hurdle in the House crumbled Wednesday when Democratic leaders said most colleagues would support a job retraining program that Obama wants.

More at Rare

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

US Might Deploy Missiles In Europe To Counter Russia

June 5, 2015

Stars and Stripes: By ROBERT BURNS

The Obama administration is weighing a range of aggressive responses to Russia’s alleged violation of a Cold War-era nuclear treaty, including deploying land-based missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons.

This “counterforce” option is among possibilities the administration is considering as it reviews its entire policy toward Russia in light of Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and other actions the U.S. deems confrontational in Europe and beyond.

The options go so far as one implied – but not stated explicitly – that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.

It all has a certain Cold War ring, even if the White House ultimately decides to continue tolerating Russia’s alleged flight-testing of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty.

Russia denies violating the treaty and has, in turn, claimed violations by the United States in erecting missile defenses.

It is unclear whether Russia has actually deployed the suspect missile or whether Washington would make any military move if the Russians stopped short of deployment. For now, administration officials say they prefer to continue trying to talk Moscow into treaty compliance.

In public, administration officials have used obscure terms like “counterforce” and “countervailing strike capabilities” to describe two of its military response options, apparently hoping to buy time for diplomacy.

The Pentagon declined to make a senior defense policy official available to discuss the issue. A spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, said, “All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing in February, Defense Secretary Ash Carter noted his concern about Russia’s alleged violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, treaty. He said disregard for treaty limitations was a “two-way street” opening the way for the U.S. to respond in kind.

The standoff speaks volumes about the depths to which U.S.-Russia relations have fallen. And that poses problems not only for the Obama administration but also for the NATO alliance, whose members in eastern Europe are especially leery of allowing Russian provocations to go unanswered.

More at Stars and Stripes Associated Press contributed to this report.

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Silent Soldier.

Feds Investigating ‘ISIS Kill List,’ Military Spouse Says Families Warned To Be ‘Vigilant’

(Screenshot Credit, FoxNews.com)

March 24, 2015

FoxNews.com:

An Islamic State “kill list” with the names, addresses and photos of American military members has triggered a federal investigation, the White House confirmed — and one military spouse told Fox News she’s already heard from someone, who said they were with NCIS, urging her family to be vigilant.

The military spouse, who was willing to discuss details on the condition of anonymity because she says her family fears for their safety, said the information posted by ISIS sympathizers is accurate — and she knows several other families identified on the web by the terror group. The original posting listed information for dozens of American servicemembers and called on ISIS sympathizers to kill them. 

“We had a call from an NCIS agent on Saturday who said we were on the ‘ISIS kill list,'” the military spouse told Fox News. “The agent wanted to verify our name and address as accurate. He said the threat should be considered. We need to be vigilant, but there was no guidance on what to do and no meeting in person to do a security assessment of our home.” 

Based on conversations with other families, the spouse said at least a handful of names are directly connected to the U.S.-led air campaign over Iraq and Syria targeting ISIS. Their husbands are pilots or are connected to the aircraft carriers. They believe the photos were pulled from open source material and media reporting about the campaign and the military. 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at Monday’s briefing that it doesn’t appear any information system was breached. He said it appears the information was taken from social media. 

 

He confirmed the FBI is the lead investigator here, and said the Obama administration is in touch with branches of the military to ensure steps are taken to notify personnel.

“We obviously take the safety and security of our military personnel very seriously,” Earnest said. 

The military spouse who spoke with Fox News, however, disagreed with the White House claim that the images were from social media, telling Fox News that “the way it is being presented implicates the service members when, in fact, many of these photos were published by the Navy PR machine.” 

She also said there was no immediate contact from the FBI, and the family has not heard what the bureau and NCIS may be doing to verify and thwart any threat directed toward military families. She said an in-person meeting is now expected from the FBI and NCIS, but it comes several days after the “ISIS kill list” was posted. 

“I don’t know whether to let our kids play basketball out front of the house,” she said of her family-friendly Virginia neighborhood. “I don’t know if we can get housing on base. But moving onto base would be letting ISIS intimidate us and win.” 

A defense official told Fox News that “each service is doing notifications for service members whose IDs were posted by ISIS/ISIS affiliated hackers,” adding that Twitter and YouTube agreed to take down the posting. The U.S. Cyber Command is also investigating. 

“The safety our service members is always a concern. We always encourage our personnel to exercise appropriate [operational security] and force protection procedures,” the defense official explained. 

A Navy official said every effort is being made to meet with the families in person but confirmed they did have to make some phone calls when in-person meetings were not possible. 

“NCIS is actively evaluating this threat reporting and working with law enforcement and U.S. intelligence partners to address this incident,” the official said. “NCIS has met with almost all named Navy and Marine Corps service members to notify them of this threat and discuss their concerns.”

More at FoxNews.com

Disclaimer: This article was not written by SilentSoldier.

Iran deal: A treaty Or Not A Treaty, That Is The Question

March 12, 2015

CNN: by, Stephen Collinson

Should Republicans have sent a letter to Iran?

Washington (CNN)If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?

According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.

That’s infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

“This is clearly a treaty,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. “They can call it a banana, but it’s a treaty.”

Kerry denounces GOP letter to Iran leaders

The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party’s newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.

It’s that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a “nonbinding agreement” rather than a “treaty,” which the Constitution requires Senate “advice and consent” on.

Can the White House avoid Congress?

The distinction — and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress — turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding plan.’ We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement,” he said at a Senate hearing.

That doesn’t sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate’s constitutional role is being bypassed.

Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration’s argument: “Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It’s a treaty and should be treated as such.”

Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?

Republicans see criticism of the administration’s maneuver as a way to gum up the works on the current deal, and to push their larger assault on the White House’s exercise of power.

At the Senate hearing Wednesday, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul explicitly tied the administration’s bid to keep the deal away from Congress to other accusations of White House overreach.

“This is an administration that seeks to legislate when that is not in their purview, whether it be immigration, whether it be health care,” he charged, noting that he had joined 46 other GOP senators in signing a letter to the Islamic Republic informing them of Congress’s role in approving binding agreements.

“I signed the letter to Iran. But you know what? The message I was sending was to you,” he told Kerry. “I signed it to an administration that doesn’t listen, to an administration that, every turn, tries to go around Congress because you think you can’t get your way.”

But legal experts say that though a court challenge along the lines of pending GOP cases on immigration and health care is possible in theory, it would be a long shot.

Legal challenges

There is no currently no suit on the issue being discussed on Capitol Hill, and it’s far from clear that Republicans would be standing on firm legal ground with such a challenge. The debate, rumbling for decades, has yet to be definitively resolved in case law.

“It is a very interesting question,” said Nicholas Burns, a former senior U.S. diplomat, arguing that it is essentially up to the administration to decide whether it is negotiating an agreement that formally binds the United States to commitments under international law; i.e., a treaty, or a less stringent arrangement.

More at CNN:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Netanyahu blasts Iran in address to Congress

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 3, 2015

Associated Press: Rare:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a speech that stirred political controversy in two countries, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on Tuesday that negotiations underway between Iran and the United States would “all but guarantee” that Tehran gets nuclear weapons to the detriment of the entire world.

“And lots of them,” he added in an appearance before a packed House chamber that drew loud applause from Republicans and a more restrained reaction from Democrats.

“Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted,” no matter what it says about permitting verification of the terms of any accord designed to prevent it from getting such weapons, he said. “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu spoke in English shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry met for more than two hours in Switzerland with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in hopes of completing an international framework agreement later this month to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The Israeli leader’s appeal also came two weeks before tight elections in which he is seeking a new term — and after the invitation to address Congress extended by House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, triggered a political furor in the United States. More than four dozen House and Senate Democrats said in advance they would not attend the event, a highly unusual move given historically close ties between the two allies.

Many of Netanyahu’s comments were greeted by loud applause from U.S. lawmakers, but not everyone was persuaded by his rhetoric.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California conspicuously refrained from applauding on several occasions. And when the Israeli leader called for holding out for a better deal with Iran, she held her hands wide and shook her head in disagreement.

The White House expressed its displeasure with Netanyahu’s appearance by word and deed, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden on an overseas trip that meant he did not fill his customary seat behind the House rostrum during the speech. Nor did the Israeli leader meet at the White House with Obama on his trip to the United States.

The prime minister was greeted with a roaring welcome as he walked down the same center aisle of the House chamber that presidents tread before their annual State of the Union speeches.

He also sought to smooth over any political unpleasantness, thanking Obama lavishly for the help he has given Israel since he became president. In a grace note, he took a moment to mention Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who is back at work after suffering an eye injury in an accident at home.

At the same time, Netanyahu was unrelenting in his condemnation of the negotiations the administration is conducting with Tehran.

He said that with the concessions the United States was prepared to make Iran would not only gain nuclear weapons, but also eventually would become free of international economic sanctions. As a result, he said, it would be emboldened to finance even more terrorism around the Middle East and the world.

The result for Iran, he said, would be “aggression abroad and prosperity at home.”

Instead, he said that if Iran wants to be “treated like a normal country, it ought to behave like a normal country.”

“We’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal,” he said.

He said the deal being discussed offered two major concessions to Iran. One would leave intact the country’s vast nuclear infrastructure, and the other would lift restrictions on that program in about a decade, the “blink of an eye in the life of a nation,” he said.

He also said that the world needs to insist that no restrictions are lifted on Iran’s nuclear program until the country stops aggressive actions against its neighbors in the Mideast, stops supporting terrorism around the world and stops threatening to annihilate Israel.

Netanyahu singled out Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel, a world-renowned author.

“I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned,” he said in a reference to the Nazis, who killed 6 million Jews.

A few moments later, he added, applause swelling, “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies are over.”

“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” he vowed, although he quickly added that it does not, and “American stands with Israel.”

The Obama administration has complained that congressional Republicans injected destructive partisanship into the U.S.-Israel alliance by inviting Netanyahu to speak. But the White House played down the controversy in the hours before the address.

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett called it “a bit of a distraction” but told MSNBC the dispute wouldn’t undermine Obama’s commitment to Israel.

“We share a common goal of ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons,” Jarrett said, and disagree with Netanyahu only over “the tactics of how to get there.”

The U.S. and Iranian sides met for two hours on Tuesday morning in the Swiss resort of Montreux, according to U.S. officials.

“We’re working away, productively,” Kerry told reporters.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read more at Rare:

WHITE HOUSE: OBAMA VERY INTERESTED IN TAKING EXECUTIVE ACTION ON CORPORATE TAXES

March 3, 2015

We The People:

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

There he goes again, showing his ignorance on the simple law of physics, as in “What goes up must come down.”

The same is true in economics.

Is Obama so completely dense that he doesn’t grasp that as he raises taxes on corporations they will pass them down as they always have to their customers, thus leaving John Q. Public less money to spend in the private sector thus stimulating the economy, creating wealth and more private sector jobs.

Oh yes, the above question was rhetorical!

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama is “very interested” in the possibility of using executive action to hike taxes on corporations.

“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 on whether Obama would consider executive actions on taxes.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for the Obama administration to close $100 billion in tax loopholes through executive action with the Internal Revenue Service. Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, pointed to areas he said the IRS could act without Congress regarding corporate tax loopholes.

Earnest said Obama is “very interested” in looking into the possibility of executive authority, but was noncommittal on the issue.

“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 said. “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.”

Obama wants Congress to pass corporate tax reform, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said the proposal would not go anywhere.

Thus the advantage of having tax and spend democrats removed from both houses of congress as majority parties.

More at We The People:

Watch: SPECIAL REPORT: NOTES ON ANOTHER CLINTON SCANDAL: WAS VINCE FOSTER KILLED? – OF COURSE, HE KNEW THE CLINTON SECRETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 26, 2015

Arlin Report: (If you haven’t checked out his site, you should!)

The same night that Foster died, White House staff working for Hillary raided Foster’s office. Hillary may have been upset by the news of Foster’s death, but, as claimed by Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) in the comments related to the Whitewater scandal, Hillary’s chief of staff Margaret Williams removed certain files from Foster’s office (from rense.com).
Many believe Vince Foster may have been killed in the White House, his body moved to a park. 3 men in red vest were seen running from the scene where the “suicide body” was found. A suicide victim does not move, obviously…….killers move bodies, would especially from the White House.

Originally posted on Buffalohair Gazette International:

More at Arlin Report:

Obama Will Not Attend 70th Anniversary of Auschwitz Liberation, Will Not Join Heads of State

(Screenshot Credit, Atlas Shrugs)

January 26, 2015

Pamela Geller:

Remembering the Holocaust, just like supporting cartoonists, is an insult to Islam.

The mullah in the White House did not join heads of state in Paris to stand against terror and stand up for freedom of speech. So why should we expect him to join the heads of state of France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands and Denmark to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz, the factory of mass death?

Every day, he shows us who and what he is. Obama’s Paris absence, his snubbing of Egypt President al-Sisi’s speech, and now this. The message Obama is sending to the devout Muslim world is, “I am with you. Allahu akbar.”

 

Obama Will Not Attend 70th Anniversary of Auschwitz Liberation,” By Daniel Wiser, Free Beacon, January 24, 2014 (thanks to Armaros)

Heads of state from France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark will be present

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will represent the United States at the 70th anniversary ceremony for the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp on Tuesday—rather than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden—while other countries are slated to send their heads of state.

 

 

Tuesday’s ceremony will likely be the last major anniversary where a significant number of survivors of the Nazi camp are present. About 300 are expected to attend, and most of them are in their 90s or older than 100. Nazi authorities killed 1.1 million people at the camp, mostly Jews, which was liberated by the Soviet army in January 1945.

The New York Times reported on the foreign dignitaries that would be present:

A preliminary list of those attending includes President François Hollande of France, President Joachim Gauck of Germany and President Heinz Fischer of Austria, as well as King Philippe of Belgium, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. The United States delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said he would not attend because his schedule was too crowded and because he had not received an invitation. Museum officials said no head of state had received one. Mr. Putin had attended the 60th anniversary ceremony in 2005 — it was Soviet troops, after all, who liberated the camp in 1945 — but relations between Russia and Poland have soured over the conflict in Ukraine.

More at Pamela Geller:

Video: Trey Gowdy Getting Too Close on Benghazi Pressured from the Top ‘Not to Get to the Truth’

January 20, 2015

We The People:

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Another example showing Republicans trying to get to the truth while Democrats do everything to obstruct and hide what actually happened in Benghazi. 

The truth would ultimately be the last nail in Hillary’s moribund  2016 Presidential run and that of course is the way it should be. 

She belongs in prison for perjury not in the  White House. 

Jerome R. Corsi

WND

The independent Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, or CCB, has been doing its own investigation, working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to make sure Congress does the job the executive branch has failed to do: namely, to get to the truth of what happened and to hold people accountable.

 

A major step forward took place last May when Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced the creation of a House Select Committee to investigate.

After about 190 House Republicans, under the leadership of then-Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., co-sponsored legislation for just such action.

The CCB’s members include former military commanders and Special Forces operatives; former CIA and intelligence officers; well-known experts in international terrorism; and experts in media and government affairs.

In exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission, it is clear that while the CCB is still enthusiastic to work with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and hopeful that Boehner is serious about the investigation,various members of the CCB, speaking on their own behalf and not as spokesmen for the commission, are expressing concerns, wanting to make sure the Gowdy investigation is not compromised by elements within the GOP.

It was a lack of trust in the congressional investigation of Benghazi that prompted the formation of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi in 2013. The founding members of the CCB were U.S Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Navy four-star Adm. James Lyons, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (all retired) and Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff.

Entire article and complete list of high ranking individual on the case below.

Vallely told WND that he believes Gowdy “has received much pressure not to get to the truth, and we are now coming to the conclusion that there is no longer any intention in Washington, by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, to get to the truth.”

“An honest investigation into Benghazi would prove treasonous acts at the very top of the White House and the State Department, and a CONTINUING

image: http://cdncache1-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10×10.png
cover-up in Congress that now involves the Republican leadership and especially House Speaker John Boehner,” Vallely said.

Among the CCB’s most significant findings, released last April in an interim report, was that “the U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya” and that “on the day of the attacks in Benghazi, whether or not there was an official order to stand down, the result was the same.’

“There were military assets, for example, at the U.S. base in Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy, that could have been brought to bear, and perhaps could have saved the lives of the two men killed at the CIA Annex, the scene of the second attack that night,” the report said. “The failure to attempt to rescue these Americans amounts to a dereliction of duty.”

More at We The People:

Video: White House Chief of Staff Takes Blame For Paris Rally Absence

January 20, 2015

Fox News:

(Screenshot credit, Fox News)

 

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on Tuesday took the blame for the administration’s failure to send a high-level official to the rally against terrorism in Paris earlier this month.

“That rests on me. That’s my job,” McDonough said on NBC’s “Today.”

He reiterated that the administration regretted not sending a high-level representative, and lamented that the firestorm overshadowed progress they made in their intelligence partnerships with allies.

Until now, no single White House official had taken the blame for the absence.

The administration absorbed heavy bipartisan criticism after more than 40 world leaders attended the Paris rally, and the highest-level U.S. representative was the ambassador to France.

President Obama did not attend, and neither did Vice President Biden nor Secretary of State John Kerry. Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris for meetings, but did not attend the rally.

The administration has struggled to explain why no high-level official was sent to the international show of unity, held in the wake of the Islamist terror attacks in Paris.

A Secret Service official later told Fox News they were not asked or notified about a possible trip to Paris. This coincided with reports that White House aides were caught off guard by the size of the march and didn’t ask the president if he wanted to attend.

 

 

Kerry tried to make it up to France last week, visiting Paris and joined by James Taylor, who sang “You’ve Got a Friend” – a spectacle that earned the Obama administration some additional mockery.

Source