I keep hearing the words of Charles Woods as he speaks of his son Tyrone. Tyrone was a Navy SEAL – who did what Navy SEALS have been doing for as long as they have existed – he went to the aid of his fellow Americans. For 7 hours, he fought terrorists at the American consulate in Benghazi. He and Glen Doherty managed to hold them off, managed to kill 60 of them, according to some reports. And in all that time, no Americans arrived to help them, to save them. No one came to their aid despite repeated requests, despite available assets.

During a recent interview, Charles Woods said:

They watched my son die. As far as I’m concerned, there are people, in the White House, whoever it was that was in that room, watching that video of my son dying, their cries for help, their order ‘don’t help them at all, let them die,’ whoever that might be, it might be numerous people, you have the blood of my son, you have the blood of an American hero on your hands. I don’t know who you are, but one of these days the truth will come out. I still forgive you, but you need to stand up.

I don’t want to point any fingers, but obviously, people in the White House were watching this happen. Real time. They – someone in the White House, or many people in the White House, watched the events unfolding, and knew that if they gave the order to stand down, that my son would die. They watched my son die.

“They watched my son die.” Those words haunt me. I cannot imagine the pain this father feels – not only having lost his son, but having been betrayed by his government. President Barack Hussein Obama is the Commander-in-Chief – even if he did not give the order to leave these heroes behind…and I believe he did give that order – but even if he did not, the one thing we agree on is that this was his responsibility. It is his hands that carry the blood of these men.

Elie told me the story of one of his commanding officers. While the officer was off-base, at meetings or whatever, there was a training exercise and a nagmash (an APC) turned over and a commander was killed. There was another officer, of lower rank in charge of the exercise but Elie’s commanding officer was the commander above that officer and so he took responsibility; he took the demotion; he took the punishment.

His advancement in the army was delayed for several years because ultimately, he felt that what happened under his command, was his to answer for. There was never a question that it was a tragic accident; there was no order that could have been given to save the soldier who died and certainly there was nothing anyone nearby could have done to prevent it from happening. You train and you train hard because in war, you’ll have to scale those hills and drive over rough terrain. That time, it went wrong.

What happened in Libya was not a training exercise and according to several reports, there was aid that could have been sent in – drones filming it, ships within range. It was not an accident but an attack. And unlike Elie’s commanding officer, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces did leave a man behind, two good men, in fact…and even four if you count the diplomats.

They watched his son die – and for the rest of his life, that image, that reality, that horrible truth will forever be his reality. The blood of American heroes cries out to all who will listen. Responsibility must be taken – and it starts at the very highest address in Washington down to the sewers and  streets of Benghazi because no parent should ever have to say those horrible words ever again.

Visit A Soldier’s Mother.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections a National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said following the publication of a New York Times report saying the White House and Iran agreed to hold direct negotiations over its nuclear program after election day.

According to the New York Times, secret exchanges between US and Iranian officials began early in President Barack Obama’s term, but Iranian officials stalled, wanting to wait until after upcoming presidential elections so Tehran would know if it could count on agreements made with Obama, or if Obama would be replaced.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Michael Oren said Israel had not been informed of these plans by the White House.  “We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Oren said.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman told Army Radio on Sunday “I want to believe the White House’s denial, and I want to believe that they learn from experience,” Liberman said. “All the Iranians want to accomplish through direct negotiations is the lifting of sanctions.”

FoxNews reports that White House computers were breached by Chinese hackers. The report says that the breach may have included sensitive military related computers. The breach occurred in early September, and the White House confirmed the breach on Monday.

The breach occurred after a White House staff member opened a legitimate looking email attachment which contained malicious code. This type of attack is call a spear-phishing attack.

The White House claims the infected system was isolated and no classified data was compromised.

A senior member of President Harry Truman’s own administration secretly gave American Zionist lobbyists advice in 1946 on how to pressure Truman to support creating a Jewish state.

According to a documents I recently found at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, when Zionist lobbyists needed advice on how to use the 1946 midterm elections as leverage on the White House, they turned to Truman’s own Solicitor General (the official who represents the administration before the Supreme Court), J. Howard McGrath.

A lawyer by profession, McGrath rose quickly in the ranks of the Democratic Party in his native Rhode Island. He was vice-chairman of the state party by 1928 and chairman two years later. After a four-year stint as U.S. district attorney in Providence, McGrath was elected governor in 1940. In 1944, he was one of the organizers of the Democratic National Convention and helped line up the votes to replace Vice President Harry Wallace with Senator Harry Truman. In the process, McGrath forged close ties with both Truman and President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Yet at the same time, he was straying far from the party line on Jewish issues. Starting in 1942, McGrath’s name began appearing among the endorsers listed on newspaper ads by the Bergson Group, a political action committee that criticized the Roosevelt administration on the issues of Jewish refugees and creating a Jewish state. He also served as a sponsor of Bergson’s 1943 Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe.

Associating with Jewish critics of President Roosevelt was a risky move for a rising Democratic politician. Certainly McGrath would need to maintain good relations with the White House to advance his political career.

Why McGrath took an interest in Jewish affairs is not clear. Perhaps his Irish heritage and resentment of British control of Ireland created a sense of solidarity with the Jewish struggle to oust the British from Palestine. Other Irish-Americans who were active in the Bergson Group, such as attorney Paul O’Dwyer and Congressman Andrew Somers of Brooklyn, cited their resentment of the British as a factor. The feeling was mutual: in one internal British government memo I located, a Foreign Office staffer slurred Somers as “the less happy type of Irish-American Catholic demagogue.”

It is unlikely McGrath was motivated by pursuit of Jewish votes, since Jews comprised barely three percent of Rhode Island’s population. But McGrath had plenty to say on the subject when Benjamin Akzin, a senior lobbyist for the American Zionist Emergency Council (precursor of AIPAC), came seeking advice on “the Jewish vote.”

Akzin, who in later years would found and chair Hebrew University’s political science department and would serve as president of Haifa University, met with McGrath on March 14, 1946. He began by expressing his distress at “the lag between promise and performance” in the Truman administration’s Palestine policy. “Friendly statements” about Zionism were not matched with deeds.

“I came to ask what he could advise,” Akzin reported afterward to his colleagues, “and what he could do to help us in order to obtain some action.”

McGrath responded that “not being in the Cabinet, he could not raise the Palestine issue.” Moreover, “he has to stick to his own job, and any attempt by him to influence the policy of other Departments would be strongly resented.”

Then he turned around and proceeded to advise Akzin on how best to influence those other departments.

The Zionists’ “technical arguments” about rights and history would not succeed, McGrath said. They needed to adopt “a political approach” that would highlight the likelihood that Jewish voters would turn away from the Democrats in the upcoming midterm congressional elections. “He was very emphatic on this point.”

McGrath suggested organizing “a group of Democratic congressmen in threatened areas” to “take up the [Palestine] matter collectively with the Administration…After all, the real issue in the coming elections concerns the control of the House, rather than that of the Senate.” The administration might take heed if warned that the Democrats could lose control of the House over the Palestine issue.

Another “effective means of pressure on the Palestine issue, McGrath said, would be for the Zionists to contact “the Democratic candidates for governorships and for the Senate in the key states with a considerable Jewish population.” Each of those candidates “is going to have several talks with the President, with [national Democratic Party chairman Robert] Hannegan, and with the other key persons of the Administration.”

Benjamin Netanyahu’s relationship with President Obama has been strained, but they met on all but one of his visits to the U.S. since 2009. The one exception was in November, 2010, when the president was on a foreign visit when Netanyahu came to the U.S. Which is why the reported snub on Tuesday, together with Netanyahu’s doubling down on his demands for U.S. redlines on Iran, could create a real crisis between the two allies – certainly not a good thing less than 60 days before a tight presidential election.

By refusing a meeting with Netanyahu, the president was going alienate Jewish and other Israel-first voters. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has already said Obama was too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran.

So on Tuesday the White House denied reports of such a crisis, adding that Netanyahu and Obama have reaffirmed their mutual commitment to stopping Iran from going nuclear.

According to the released statement, the two leader spoke over the phone for an hour Tuesday night. They agreed to continue “close consultations going forward” on Iran’s nuclear plans.

Remember the Haaretz story that made every red blooded Jew irate, about how the White House declined the Prime Minister’s request on Tuesday to meet Obama during a U.N. conference in New York at the end of the month?

According to that story, White House National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor said they won’t meet because of a scheduling conflict. “The President arrives in New York for the U.N. on Monday, September 24th and departs on Tuesday, September 25th. The Prime Minister doesn’t arrive in New York until later in the week. They’re simply not in the city at the same time.”

This was when Netanyahu doubled down on his Let’s Bomb Iran campaign, rebuking Obama and Secretary Clinton for refusing his call to set a clear “red line” for Iran’s nuclear program.

“The world tells Israel, ‘Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’” Netanyahu said during a press conference with Bulgaria’s prime minister.

He added: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Them’s fighting words, indeed.

So, in an unexpected, late-night announcement, the White House denied the reports that Obama had rejected Netanyahu’s request for a meeting – in Washington. According to White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, no such request was made—or rejected.

And the meeting in New York was just an honest scheduling thing, so, really, no crisis, honestly.

The State Dept. is also fast and furious at changing its official tune. You’ll recall that on Monday DOS spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that “it is not useful” to declare “red lines” as Netanyahu had suggested.

On Tuesday, Nuland said the Iranian situation is a matter of “intense discussion” with Israel.

You have to give it to Bibi non being as unabashed as he is at utilizing the political terrain, no holds barred (mixed metaphors, I know and apologize). While his supposed “master,” the U.S. government, is desperately shushing him about the Iranian threat, Bibi hollers his defiant message into a megaphone connected to Woodstock-size speakers. He is improving on Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite political slogan, making it: Speak loudly and carry a big stick.

And wave the stick on the White House lawn until they invite you in and pretend they weren’t snubbing you.

President Obama recently rose to the defense of Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when a handful of congressmen alleged that close relatives of Ms. Abedin had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (which is on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations) and implied that the State Department had, as a result of the supposed connection, cut some members of that group slack in terms of gaining entry into the U.S.

At a White House iftar dinner marking the end of the fasting during the Ramadan holiday, Mr. Obama said Ms. Abedin has been “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.”

He referred to her as an “American patriot” and added that America owes her “a debt of gratitude.”

That’s all fine and good, but consider the following:

Well over a year ago, The New York Times carried what can only be described as a hatchet job on longtime foreign policy adviser and diplomat Dennis B. Ross.

In the May 21, 2011 piece, written by Times reporters Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, Mr. Ross was essentially painted as disloyal to the administration (and by extension to the country) because he had the temerity to support some Israeli positions in his advice to the president.

The inference is that such advice is so self-evidently against American interests that it could only have been offered by someone whose pro-Israel agenda trumps U.S. interests.

The article started off with a description of an administration meeting “over how far to push Israel on concessions for peace with the Palestinians.” King Abdullah II of Jordan, who, curiously, was an invitee, is quoted five lines into the article about his serious problems with Mr. Ross:

From the State Department, “we get good responses,” the Jordanian king said, according to several people who were in the room. And from the Pentagon, too. “But not from the White House, and we know the reason why is because of Dennis Ross” – President Obama’s chief Middle East adviser. Mr. Ross, King Abdullah concluded, “is giving wrong advice to the White House.”

The article continued:

By almost all accounts, Dennis B. Ross – Middle East envoy to three presidents, well-known architect of incremental and painstaking diplomacy in the Middle East that eschews game-changing plays – is Israel’s friend in the Obama White House and one of the most influential behind-the-scenes figures in town.….His friends and associates say he has long believed that peace negotiations will succeed only if the United States closely coordinates its efforts with the Israelis.

….[Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel’s backers in the United States view Mr. Ross as a key to holding at bay what they see as pro-Palestinian sympathies expressed by [Obama Middle East adviser George] Mitchell; Mr. Obama’s first national security adviser, General James L. Jones; and even the president himself.

A regular one-man fifth column is Mr. Ross, as portrayed by the Times. Yet we looked and looked and looked and saw nothing from the president or anyone else in his administration defending Mr. Ross, who has served this country and three presidents with great distinction. Apparently, what’s good for the goose, in this case Ms. Abedin, isn’t quite so good for the gander, Mr. Ross.

If you are already bored with the US presidential campaign rhetoric, do we have a debate for you!

Tonight’s debate in the swing state of Florida will not be the standard snooze, and you can watch it on your very own computer screen.  Among the players are one vegetarian, animal rights, nuke-the-terrorists rabbi; a Christian Zionist whose opposition to Islamic terrorism has placed his group on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups; a dyed in the wool Democratic Party leader; and a former high school teacher who debates as if his life depends on it.  He thinks it does.

Florida is one of the key swing states in play in this year’s US presidential campaign.   President Obama made a personal visit to  Century Village in Boca Raton, Florida last month, and newly-annointed Republican vice presidential candidate Cong. Paul Ryan (R-WI ) made one of his first official campaign visits there.  Ryan appeared with his Wisconsin-based mom, who lives part of the year in Florida.

Within the swing Sunshine State,  Florida’s 639,000 Jews are attracting a lot of the campaign attention.  According to a Boston Globe article this week, President Obama is losing some support amongst Jewish Floridians.   Although Jews constitute only 3 percent of Florida voters, their high voter turnout means they may account for as much as 7 or 8 percent of the vote.

Which brings us to tonight’s debate.

Rabbi Barry Silver is the religious leader of the 200-family Reform congregation L’Dor Va-Dor in Lake Worth, Florida.  His shul has been holding the Rabbi Sam Silver Controversial Issues Series for years.  Topics they have addressed include: “Which branch of Judaism is the most authentic?” and “Is vegetarianism consistent with Jewish law?”

On May 15, 2012, the Controversial Issues Series held the first debate in this year’s election series.  The question debated then was: “Is President Obama Good or Bad for Israel?”

Tonight’s question is a slightly broader one: “Should Jews Vote for Obama or Romney?”

The same quartet from May is back for tonight’s rematch.  In the blue corner, representing the pro-Obama vote, is Mark Alan Siegel, chair of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party, and Rabbi Barry Silver.  In the red corner, speaking for the pro-Romney vote, will be Alan Bergstein, a transplanted Brooklynite, currently a South Florida pro-Israel activist and Tom Trento, president of The United West.  The United West describes itself as a counter-jihad organization.  It is adamantly supportive of Israel, which Trento describes as America’s beacon of light in the Middle East.  Siegel, however, described Trento and Bergstein as anti-Islamic extremists.

In the earlier debate, Trento seized on Siegel’s statement, that “there is more to this election than merely Israel.” To which Trento responded: “no, there isn’t, there’s one issue – it’s Israel.  It isn’t abortion, it isn’t healthcare, it’s Israel.”

This afternoon, speaking by phone to The Jewish Press, the Palm Beach County Democratic Chair said that in tonight’s debate he “will be presenting a drash, based on traditional Jewish sources, which make clear that Jews should vote for Democrats, because that party is more consistent with traditional Jewish values.”  Siegel especially focused on “the Democratic party being more representative of the Jewish belief in communal responsibilities, such as for education, than is the Republican party,” which he said “focuses on individual responsibility, in other words, everybody for himself.”

In contrast to Siegel, who is a party line supporter of President Obama, Rabbi Silver is less enthusiastic.  Silver told The Jewish Press that the president “speaks well, but what he does doesn’t match up with the rhetoric.”  The Republican challenger, however, fares even worse.  In Silver’s estimation, “Romney doesn’t even say the right things, and unlike Obama’s baby steps in the right direction, Romney is taking huge leaps in the wrong direction.”

But just when you start to chalk up the Reform Rabbi’s positions as predictable of a solid left-leaning Democrat, he shatters that stereotype.

“Israel and the US and the rest of the western world should declare war on terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and also Ahmadinejad,” Silver explains.

“How does the world expect Israel to achieve peace with those terrorists?” asked Silver.   “Just as during World War II we didn’t try to find a way to live with the Nazis, we defeated them militarily, and then we found friends with whom we could make peace.”  According to Silver, “the same has to happen with the Islamic fundamentalists.”

Leaders of two Jewish social action groups addressed a White House forum on faith-based social innovations.

Shawn Landres, the founder of Jewish Jumpstart, and Jon Rosenberg, the CEO of Repair the World, were among 13 leaders of faith-based groups and three government officials who participated Wednesday in a Faith-Based Social Innovators Forum convened by the White House.

Landres described a generational shift from Jewish social action advocacy addressing Jewish needs to cultivating Jewish activism in the wider community.

“The primary engine for innovation no longer is found in centralized communal institutions working to meet collective Jewish needs,” he said in his address. “Today, that energy has shifted outward to independent grass-roots initiatives, many of which seek to express Jewish values through service, education, and social and civic advocacy.”