'Another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe'

President Barack Obama did the right thing when he condemned the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran on Tuesday. The sovereign soil was violated "by thugs acting at the behest of the Iranian regime."

There was some concern, seeing as how the president "has been notoriously slow in the past to criticise the brutal actions of the Iranian government after initially extending the hand of friendship to it."

Unfortunately, his comments were marred by yet "another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe while doing so.

"In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the 'English Embassy' in Iran instead of the British Embassy. (See video below.) In case the president is unaware, England forms part of Great Britain, which also includes Scotland and Wales, though not Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. There is no such thing as an 'English' embassy anywhere in the world, and there hasn’t been one for several centuries."

Can you imagine what kind of jokes David Letterman would have been telling over, and over, and over, and over, and over again had George W. Bush said that? Can you imagine the embarrassing YouTube video that would have been released to the world had a GOP candidate said that during an editorial board meeting of some newspaper?

This error doesn’t rate as “disastrous,” but it does prove -- again -- two things: 1.) the so-called “greatest orator,” ain’t; and, 2.) the president has never seemed to care one bit about our long-standing, "special" relationship with Britain.

The president had a golden opportunity...and he managed to snag defeat from the jaws of victory -- again.

(h/t: The Foundry)

Gee...ya think?

The headline says it all:

FBI Said to Be Probing Solyndra for Possible Fraud

In a story from Seth Stern and Jim Snyder at Bloomberg, we see the beginnings of the federal government's case against executives from the company that is becoming increasingly synonymous with government waste, incompetence, politicization, wishful thinking and - perhaps - outright fraud.

That company is Solyndra.

Following is Stern and Snyder's story moving on today's wire:

The FBI is investigating Solyndra LLC for possible accounting fraud and the accuracy of financial representations made to the government, according to an agency official.

The FBI is examining possible misrepresentations in financial statements, according to the FBI official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

Solyndra, which made cylindrical-shaped solar panels, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and fired about 1,100 workers with little notice, about two years after winning a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee from the Energy Department.

The company’s offices in Fremont, California, were raided by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on Sept. 8. The Justice Department hasn’t said why Solyndra is being probed.

“The company is not aware of any wrongdoing by Solyndra officers, directors or employees” related to the Energy Department loan guarantees or other actions and “is cooperating fully” with the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco, according to a Sept. 20 statement from Solyndra. David Miller, a company spokesman, didn’t immediately return a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment today.

Solyndra’s collapse has prompted congressional scrutiny of President Barack Obama’s administration, which issued final approval of the loan that also won support from officials in the administration of George W. Bush.

White House Pressure

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has investigated the loan since February, have said the administration pressured federal loan officers to expedite the review of Solyndra’s application so it could be promoted as a stimulus success story.

The company was the first to receive a guarantee under the stimulus act and was the largest award given to a solar manufacturer under the program.

Democrats, who dispute claims politics played a role, joined Republicans in criticizing Solyndra Chief Executive Officer Brian Harrison for what they said were misrepresentations of the company’s finances in meetings with lawmakers.

“When Mr. Harrison was in my office in July, he said that Solyndra’s future was bright, with sales and production booming,” Representative Henry Waxman of California, top Democrat on the Energy committee, said at a Sept. 23 hearing on where Harrison was a witness. “I’d like to know why he told me that in July, and then filed for bankruptcy one month later.”

Harrison, Stover

Harrison and Chief Financial Officer Bill Stover invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions at the hearing.

Harrison joined Solyndra in July 2010, after Solyndra had received its loan guarantee and its auditor had warned its financial difficulties were deep enough to raise questions about how long it could survive.

Companies seeking guarantees were required to estimate project costs, list private investors and provide a model detailing cash flows for the life of the project, according to the 2006 Energy Department solicitation for loan guarantees.

Solyndra submitted an application in 2006 and added details in October 2007 after the company was identified by the Bush administration as a potential candidate for a guarantee.

It is unlawful for applicants for federal loan guarantees to make untrue, misleading or incomplete statements, according to James F. Bowe Jr., an energy regulatory lawyer with Dewey & LeBoeuf in Washington, who isn’t involved in the Solyndra case.

IPO Withdrawn

The company withdrew a planned initial public offering in June 2010, citing adverse market conditions. A month earlier, Obama toured the new manufacturing factory that U.S. aid helped to build and said Solyndra was a testament to “American ingenuity and dynamism.”

By December, the company was almost out of cash and sought to restructure the loan agreement with the Energy Department. The department at the time knew the company had failed to set aside $5 million in the first of six payments into a reserve fund, Damien LaVera, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. The new deal eliminated the payments, he said.

The agreement made the government’s debt subordinate to $75 million in private investment in a last-ditch effort to save the company, Energy Department officials have said.

Harrison replaced Solyndra founder Chris Gronet as chief executive. Gronet remained chairman until Aug. 19, when the company announced his departure, 12 days before it halted operations on Aug. 31.

Gronet, a former executive at Applied Materials Inc. (AMAT), expressed anger when action on the loan guarantee was postponed in January 2009, Energy Department e-mails show.

“I was appalled to learn on Friday that our application is being delayed yet again,” Gronet wrote in an e-mail to Steve Isakowitz, the Energy Department’s chief financial officer, in the early morning hours on Jan. 12, 2009.

He later spurned an apology from David Frantz, director of the loan program under Bush, according to an e-mail sent later that day.

“I find the response completely unacceptable,” Gronet wrote. “An apology from David is not enough.”

Don't make too much about all these bits of breaking Solyndra news - at least not yet. We're early in the process and there is sure to be much, much more coming over the transom before this show closes.

But it also is worth noting that the feds - and the news media - have bitten into this...big time. And the feeling (and the word from sources) is that these "pit bulls" aren't going to let go until they finish their respective jobs investigating and - perhaps - prosecuting those behind this growing scandal.

Stay tuned...

When all else fails...

...blame someone else.

President Barack Obama is asked about the "frustration" people are feeling when it comes to the unfulfilled promises of "change" dating back to his presidential campaign. In this television interview, Jerry Revish from Columbus, Ohio's WBNS-TV's puts the question to the president.

The video is here - the Blame Game starts at about the 6:27 mark. The transcript of the question and the president's answer follows (key portion underlined):

Revish: "There's still a lot of frustration from people continuing to wait for that change that you promised, they don't feel better off now than they were 3 years ago. How do you convince them we're headed in the right direction?"

Obama: "Well, look there's no doubt that we've gone through the toughest economic situation that we've seen since the Great Depression. I think the vast majority of people understand that this is something that we inherited and that when I came into office we'd already lost 4 million jobs and the few months after I got sworn in we lost another 4 million. We've created 2 million jobs, over 2 million jobs in the private sector over the last 15 months, the problem is that we got in such a big hole right at the start there in 2009 and we're still digging our way back. But what I think the American people want to know is there's a game plan for the future and what we've said is, if we're getting our fiscal house in order, if we're investing in the infrastructure of the future, not just roads and bridges but also broadband lines and a smart grid that makes sure that we don't waste energy, if we're developing a clean-energy and alternative energy future for ourselves so that we're not dependent on foreign oil, if we're making sure that every one of our kids is the best educated in the world so that they can compete in this new world economy, if we take those basic steps, I'm absolutely confident that America's going to not just bounce back but we'll be stronger than ever, what people want to know is that we're moving in the right direction even if they're frustrated with how fast we're moving, we need to speed it up but I think the trajectory's a good one."

So did you get all that? Whatever hasn't gone right isn't his fault. Apparently, the buck doesn't stop with him...

A word of thanks...

...is due.

"Moammar Gaddafi’s decision to voluntarily surrender his nuclear-weapons program made the US significantly safer as a direct result of the Iraq War. Had we not invaded Iraq in 2003 and captured Saddam Hussein in December of that year, Gaddafi would hardly have felt compelled to protect himself from similar American action at the time. We found out shortly afterward that Libya had succeeded in making weapons-grade plutonium, and oh by the way also had 44,000 pounds of mustard gas. In fact, Gaddafi’s rush to demonstrate his good citizenship only ended in 2007, when domestic opposition to Bush’s efforts in Iraq emboldened Gaddafi back into defiance." (h/t: Hot Air)

Biden calls for president's impeachment for military action without Congressional approval*

“Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.”

Back in 2007*, Vice President Joe Biden (then U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) gave a couple speeches regarding the possible impeachment of George W. Bush -- if he conducted military strikes against Iran without Congressional approval.

Today, President Barack Obama is presiding over a conflict he not only didn't get Congressional approval for...heck, he didn't even give Capitol Hill a hint he was going to let loose the dogs of war on Libya's Muammar Ghadaffi (or however you spell his name). So where's Joe?

Here in his own words, Biden...

"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes!"

Funny, as the Libyan rebels battle forces loyal to Moamar Gaddafi, they're not asking for President Barack Obama's help.

Maybe it's because they know it would never come...

An old dog's old (and tired) trick...

Pelosi Playbook Play #435: When all else fails, blame Bush...

The class of '62...

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tells CNN's John King she blames George W. Bush for the recent Democratic loss.

You know you're in trouble (as a Democrat) when even CNN is calling you on it...

"A Tale of Two Houses"

This isn't new - it's just awesome. (And it's true, too!)

House #1

A 20-room mansion (not including eight bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (four bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tenn,; It is the home of the 'Environmentalist,' Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas ; it is the residence of former President George W. Bush.

That might be a good definition of "An Inconvenient Truth."

(h/t: Tom H., who passed along this Internet nugget, which has been vetted by Snopes.com)

Questions to ponder...

This one was passed to me by Mom! As my friend/colleague Larry Johnson (proprietor of the noted blog, No Quarter), "Way to go mom." (And as Mr. Johnson notes, "If anyone has the original link, let me know, we want to credit the originator.")

--If George W. Bush had proposed to double the debt within 10 years, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

--If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

--If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

--If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

--If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

--If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

--If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

--If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

--If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

--If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

--If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

--If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

--If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

--If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

--If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans (due to Katrina), would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

--If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.

--If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

--If this these incidents did not occur under George W. Bush's watch, I wonder who was at the helm when they did...?

"We can absorb a terrorist attack"

Veteran journo Bob Woodward's latest book, "Obama's Wars," won't be released until Monday, but it's already raising eyebrows.

Among the revelations in the book (according to the Washington Post):

-- [President Barack] Obama told Woodward in the July interview that he didn't think about the Afghan war in the "classic" terms of the United States winning or losing. "I think about it more in terms of: Do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?" he said.

-- The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.

-- Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA's worldwide covert operations.

-- A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. "They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally," then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president.

-- A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes."

-- Afghan President Hamid Karzai was diagnosed as manic depressive, according to U.S. intelligence reports. "He's on his meds, he's off his meds," Woodward quotes U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry as saying.

--By the end of the 2009 strategy review, Woodward reports, Obama concluded that no mission in Afghanistan could be successful without attacking the al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens operating with impunity in Pakistan's remote tribal regions. "We need to make clear to people that the cancer is in Pakistan," Obama is quoted as saying at an Oval Office meeting on Nov. 25, 2009. Creating a more secure Afghanistan is imperative, the president said, "so the cancer doesn't spread" there.

Bob Woodward...

The part that bringing the most attention/criticism has been this: "Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, 'We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.'"

So, is this about "acceptable losses" or is it justifiable pride in the nation's strength and resiliency? The biggest criticism against this line of thinking is that "the best defense is a good offense." Chiefly, there are those at the Pentagon, Langley, Foggy Bottom - heck, even in the administration - who think there is no such thing as "acceptable losses."

The quote does ring a familiar bell...

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

(via IMDB)

Rearranging the deck chairs...

Well, the Democrats had a “major announcement” today. Was it news about the president? No. Maybe they dug up some dirt on a GOP official? Nope. A plan to revive the economy? Nuh-uh. The big news? A new logo! Only this one isn’t all that inspiring – especially since it looks like they’re giving themselves a “D” (which some folks think is being generous).

Meanwhile in the well of the Senate: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday predicted to The Hill that Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons will safely win the Nov. 2 general election against GOP nominee Christine O'Donnell. But Reid said Coons would have won even if Rep. Mike Castle (R) had prevailed over O'Donnell. 'I'm going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate,' Reid said." (The Hill) My pet? Really? The senate majority leader said that? On the other hand, it is Harry Reid...

From our lips to God's ear...

Whistling through the graveyard? According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Pelosi Island), recent Tea Party primary victories were "very positive" for Democrats. Pelosi also listed as "positives" - tax audits, water boarding and root canal surgery (without anesthesia)...

Nancy Pelosi and the power of "positive" thinking...

"Elizabeth Warren To Be Appointed to Help Create Consumer Finance Protection Bureau" - because, you know, it's good to put added regulations and other burdens on the backs of businesses during times of economic woe...

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire: "Former President Bill Clinton said the Republican Party is embracing 'ideology over evidence' and even questioned whether former President George W. Bush would fit in among the party's candidates this year, the AP reports. Said Clinton: 'A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal.'" This from the guy who ran left and snapped back to the right so quick he gave his base whiplash...

If at first you don't succeed (at bludgeoning the electorate) with ObamaCare™, try, try again...

"Recovery Summer" or "Summer of George?" - 'nuf said...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Faces of Debt
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party