Clinton claims US is ‘where we need to be’ in ISIS fight, takes heat

Hillary Clinton claimed during Saturday’s Democratic debate that the U.S. is “where we need to be” in the fight against the Islamic State, a comment that drew ridicule from Republicans and seemed to take some of the steam out of an earlier slam against Donald Trump.
The Democratic presidential front-runner addressed the anti-ISIS strategy after taking heat from primary rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley for backing “regime change” in places like Libya and Syria. She countered that these are “complex problems” and said:
“We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS which is a danger to us as well as the region, and we finally have a U.N. Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”

Republicans seized on the comments, with the Republican National Committee circulating a clip of the moment and Jeb Bush tweeting: “No @HillaryClinton – We are not ‘where we need to be’ in fight against ISIS.”

Clinton's campaign stood by the comments after
the debate ended, arguing that the U.N. resolution is a positive step. 
But the claim is at odds with public skepticism about the current strategy for confronting ISIS, and marked an uneven moment for the candidate during an otherwise aggressive performance that saw her take on the Republican front-runner. Making an extraordinary claim early in the debate, Clinton alleged that ISIS is circulating videos of Trump’s comments about Islam to recruit more radical jihadists.
“He is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter,” Clinton said.
The Democratic front-runner did not offer evidence on the debate stage to back up her claim, but it was just one of several attacks from the former secretary of state against the Republican front-runner. While the three Democratic candidates sparred often over gun control and taxes and national security at the debate in New Hampshire, Clinton clearly endeavored to make the billionaire businessman her top target.
With the debate coming after Trump stirred controversy with his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack, Clinton argued his remarks about Muslims are fanning the flames abroad for radical Islam.
“Mr. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people,” Clinton said. Of ISIS, she said, “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.”
Vermont Sen. Sanders and former Maryland Gov. O’Malley also took shots at Trump, with the latter urging the country to ignore the “fascist pleas of billionaires with big mouths.”
Trump, who normally responds to his critics with lightning-fast speed on Twitter, has not yet fired back at Clinton over her ISIS claim. FoxNews.com has reached out to the campaign for comment.  
The debate, hosted by ABC News, is the third of the Democratic primary season. It comes at a time when Clinton seems to be cementing her lead over the slim field – though not in the debate host state of New Hampshire, where Sanders leads in some polls.
With Sanders – and O’Malley – trying once again to challenge Clinton’s dominance in the race, her two rivals criticized her foreign policy approach. Sanders blasted her vote in the Senate for the Iraq war, and accused her of being too fond overall of pursuing “regime change” abroad.
O’Malley was even tougher on that front, accusing Clinton of being “gleeful” when Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi was toppled and saying that in Syria, “We shouldn’t be the ones declaring that Assad must go.”
O’Malley also took a seeming shot at his rivals’ age when he prefaced his criticism by saying, “Can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this?”
The Democratic candidates also battled over gun control. O’Malley prompted the dispute by elbowing his way in and accusing his higher-polling rivals of being soft, or disingenuous, on the issue.
He blasted Sanders for voting against the landmark “Brady bill” and other measures, and added, “Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election season, it seems.”
After complaining about “flip-flopping,” both Sanders and Clinton interrupted him.
“Let’s calm down a little bit, Martin,” Sanders said. “Let’s tell the truth,” Clinton added.
Sanders argued that he showed “courage” by standing up to gun interests in his state of Vermont, by voting to ban assault weapons and other actions. Clinton said she applauds O’Malley’s pro-gun control record but, “I just wish he wouldn’t misrepresent mine.”
She continued to suggest Sanders has not embraced gun control as much as he could. Earlier, Clinton also suggested guns are not the answer to the mounting terror threat.
“Arming more people to do what, I think, is not the appropriate response to terrorism,” Clinton said.
She and Sanders also tussled over a range of other domestic policies, including the potential cost of Sanders’ many entitlement program proposals – which Clinton argued would lead to taxes on the middle class. She pledged there would be no such tax hikes on her watch.
And Clinton again confronted questions about her ties to corporate America and Wall Street. Asked if corporate America should love her, she quipped, “Everybody should.”
She then added, “I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.”
Sanders put some space between them on that issue.
“They ain’t gonna like me,” he said.
O’Malley also brought up a controversial moment from the last debate, when Clinton invoked 9/11 to explain her ties to Wall Street. O’Malley said she “very shamefully” tried to downplay her relationship with the financial sector by doing so.
An issue that surprisingly did not spark major fireworks at the debate was the developing controversy over Sanders’ staff improperly accessing Clinton voter files on a Democratic National Committee database.
At the very beginning of the debate, Sanders publicly apologized to Clinton for the episode -- even as he continued to blast the DNC for what he described as its heavy-handed punishment imposed against his campaign.
“I apologize,” Sanders said. He added, “I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run.”
With the apology, Sanders seemed to de-escalate the tensions between the two candidates over the issue. At the same time, he continued to blast the DNC for initially locking down his camp’s access to all voter data.
“That is an egregious act,” he said. He also needled Clinton’s campaign for sending out “many press releases” criticizing him for the breach.
Clinton, in response, said all should “move on” from the dispute.
The DNC had already restored Sanders’ access to the voter files late Friday after a round of legal threats and accusations. But the episode stirred up long-simmering complaints from Clinton’s rivals that some in DNC leadership are trying to boost her campaign.
The debate Saturday fell at a time when the Democratic race has been overshadowed by the intense sparring on the Republican side and the shifting dynamics in that race. By contrast, Clinton has mostly held a steady lead on the Democratic side. She leads nationally by a wide margin and has restored a consistent lead in most Iowa polls, after a period this fall where Sanders had closed the gap.
In the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, however, the Vermont senator continues to trade the lead with the Democratic front-runner.
The campaign itself has shifted in part to focus more on security issues in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks, a development seen by some analysts to put the economy-focused Sanders at a disadvantage. Sanders also has eased off criticism of Clinton’s personal email scandal, though it remains a major line of attack on the Republican side.

Obama digs in on plan to close Guantanamo prison camp

Bernie Cartoon

New York lawmakers call for Donald Trump's name to be taken off shuttered state park

Sen. Daniel Squadron and Assemblyman Charles Lavine, both Democrats

ALBANY, N.Y. –  An undeveloped, languishing New York state park named after Donald Trump should be renamed, two state legislators said Thursday, citing what they say are discriminatory proposals from the Republican presidential candidate.
Sen. Daniel Squadron and Assemblyman Charles Lavine, both Democrats, said they will introduce legislation they're calling the "Anything but Trump Act" and want Gov. Andrew Cuomo to remove signs for the 440-acre site in Westchester County. The legislation comes after Trump proposed banning Muslim immigrants from the U.S.
Trump donated the land to the state in 2006 after plans for a golf course fell through. Budget cuts prompted the state to close the park in 2010, though signs for it remain.
Lavine, of Long Island, suggests the state rename the park for Peter Salem, a Muslim Revolutionary War soldier from Massachusetts who fought in battles in New York state. Other suggestions include folk singer and activist Pete Seeger.
"The rhetoric and discriminatory proposals we've seen from Mr. Trump don't belong in the presidential election, and don't belong in New York state parks," said Squadron, of Brooklyn. "He has dishonored the state, and should not be honored with a state park named for him."
A spokeswoman for Trump's campaign responded by calling the park "a $100 million gift to the state."
"Mr. Trump is the front-runner for president of the United States of the Republican Party," spokeswoman Hope Hicks said. "He is a proud resident of New York who employs thousands of people. The state cannot remove his name."
Hicks also provided a statement from Trump in which he said, "If they want, they can give me the land back."
A spokesman for Cuomo declined to comment on the matter. On Monday, the Democratic governor said Trump's comments and his proposal to ban Muslim immigration do a "disservice" to the country and could actually encourage terrorist recruitment efforts.
"He is fanning the flames of hate," Cuomo said on CNN. "One billion Muslims were just alienated with one sentence. At this point we don't need more Muslim enemies. We need more Muslim allies."

Republicans are using the language of war in terror fight; Is that what Americans want?

Tough talk on terror is playing very well right now, particularly in the Republican primaries.
Every candidate is using dramatic language in vowing to destroy ISIS. In the wake of Paris and San Bernardino, each contender wants to project an image of strength.
Donald Trump says he will bomb the S out of ISIS. Ted Cruz says he will carpet-bomb until the sand glows in the dark. Chris Christie says he'll declare a no-fly zone in Syria and shoot down any Russian planes that violate it.
At the same time, it's been pretty clear for years that most Americans are weary of war. After a decade of military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, the prospect of another Middle East quagmire is daunting.
At the Las Vegas debate, says the Washington Post, the Republican Party’s “strikingly hawkish response to threats at home and abroad” was on display, “with the candidates vividly channeling the alarm and fear coursing through the GOP base.”
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. For one thing, the sense of fear and anxiety is palpable. For another, even President Obama’s supporters admit he misjudged the mood of the country in his initially tepid responses, though even the president has used a series of do-overs to employ more aggressive language.
And it was no coincidence in Vegas that time and again, the contenders kept referring to “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,” almost like a mantra, to tie the former secretary of State as closely as possible to her leader.
Clinton, who has been a bit more hawkish than Obama, said Tuesday that “shallow slogans don’t add up to a strategy. Promising to carpet-bomb until the desert glows doesn’t make you sound strong — it makes you sound like you’re in over your head. Bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming commander in chief.”
Wonder who she’s referring to with that last line.
There’s little question that the new focus on national security and terrorism has helped Trump. At the same time, Trump frequently touts his early opposition to George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion.
Chris Christie has been talking about the ordeal of 9/11 and his experience as a federal prosecutor who’s handled terrorism cases.
The campaign’s shift should be helping Jeb Bush, but perhaps his family ties are too stark a reminder of the roots of the current Mideast mess.
Marco Rubio has hammered Cruz on his vote to limit NSA surveillance, which was popular in some circles as a blow for civil liberties but now can be assailed for surrendering an anti-terror tool. 
Even Rand Paul, an outspoken opponent of GOP hawks who keep pushing war as a solution in the Middle East, has toughened his rhetoric. But it was the Kentucky senator who took a shot at Christie and his no-fly plan during the debate, saying, “If you’re in favor of World War III, you’ve got your candidate.”
The New Jersey governor fired back on CBS, saying Paul is “unfit” to be commander-in-chief and that “folks like Senator Paul…don’t realize that we’re already in World War III.”
We are indeed in a war against terrorism. But prosecuting that war without a major commitment of American ground troops is a daunting challenge that requires nuanced answers—not the kind of sweeping declarations that play well on a debate stage.

Cruz challenged on immigration flip-flop

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was challenged Wednesday by Fox News on his immigration stance and his role in a failed Senate bid at immigration reform.
Fox News’ Bret Baier pressed Cruz on the claims the GOP presidential hopeful made in 2013 -- when he supported a measure granting a pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants -- to his current position, which is the opposite.
During Tuesday night’s Republican debate, Cruz denied that he has ever supported legal status for undocumented workers.
“I’ve never supported legalization. I do not intend to support it,” Cruz said at the fifth GOP debate, in response to claims by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Baier then rolled a May 2013 clip of Cruz saying he wanted immigration reform to pass.
“I do not want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass,” he said. “And so I would urge people of good faith from both sides of the aisle that if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together.”
Cruz tried to clarify his comments during an appearance on “Special Report with Bret Baier” and said his support of the amendment would not have provided legal status but instead said that he was “leading the fight against amnesty.”
Baier pushed back, citing other news outlets where Cruz said the amendment he backed would increase the chances of the bill becoming law.
Cruz’s campaign has said in the past that the amendment was intended to be a poison pill to the overall bill and was created to illustrate that those pushing for immigration reform only cared about granting illegal immigrants citizenship.
Baier again pushed back and pointed to other interviews where Cruz said he didn’t want to kill the overall bill and specifically that the Cruz amendment wasn’t intended to be a poison pill. 

Pentagon proposing big release of Gitmo detainees

The Obama administration may be moving toward one of the biggest transfers of Guantanamo Bay prisoners in years, as part of the president’s slow-moving and still-controversial push to empty the camp. 
A congressional aide confirmed to FoxNews.com on Thursday that the Pentagon has floated to lawmakers the possibility of transferring another 17 detainees. The aide said lawmakers will be briefed on the plan Friday -- while voicing concern that the strategy is to reduce the prison camp population to "as low as they can get," even if it involves "a good deal of risk."
Who is on the apparent short-list for transfer and which host nations might receive them is not publicly known, and could be reviewed at Friday's briefing.
The proposal was first reported by The New York Times, which said Defense Secretary Ash Carter has told Congress he’s approved the 17 proposed transfers. If this moves forward, it reportedly would be the largest number of transfers in a single month since 2007 and could bring the number of detainees at Gitmo down to 90. Officials described the 17 to the Times as lower-level detainees.
The White House would not comment on the particulars of the plan when asked about the report at Thursday’s briefing – other than to say 107 detainees remain at the camp, and “security professionals” have deemed 48 of them can be “safely transferred.”
“But I don't have any announcements about any planned transfers at this point,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said.
The administration has faced a rocky path in trying to draw down the final batch of Guantanamo prisoners.
There were reports in November that the administration had to delay releasing its plan to close the U.S. military prison, but administration officials stressed that they were still working on the proposal.
This is complicated by a congressional ban on bringing the detainees to any U.S. prison.  The congressional aide, speaking to FoxNews.com, noted that the administration is trying to reduce the number in the camp now, in order to minimize the remaining number officials may try to bring to the U.S. in the end. 
In the meantime, the administration is trying to find other nations to at least take the 48 detainees -- including the first 17 -- cleared for potential transfer.
“The U.S. government is working diligently to find countries who will work effectively with our national security professionals to put in place the appropriate security precautions to allow those individuals to be transferred,” Earnest said Thursday.
Each round of transfers, though, is closely scrutinized and some have raised security concerns. 
In November, the Defense Department announced that five Yemeni detainees were released and sent to the United Arab Emirates.
Four of them had been recommended for transfer by the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force, as of January 2010. But the same task force recommended continuing detention for the fifth -- Ali Ahmad Muhammad al-Razihi -- saying he had been a bodyguard for Usama bin Laden and probably fought against the rebel Northern Alliance prior to the U.S. invasion. The task force also described al-Razihi as a "medium [security] risk [who] may pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies."
However, the recommendation was overruled by a parole-like review board that recommended him for transfer.

DNC reportedly punishes Sanders campaign for accessing Clinton voter data

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign reportedly has been punished by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for improperly accessing voter data compiled by Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The Washington Post reported late Thursday that Sanders' campaign manager had acknowledged that a low-level staffer had viewed the information and was fired as a result. The Post reported that the DNC has told the Sanders campaign that it will not have access to the party's master list of likely Democratic voters until it provides an explanation and destroys any copies of Clinton campaign data that it posesses.
The DNC rents out the master list to national and state campaigns, which add their own information compiled by volunteers and field workers.
Being shut out of seeing the list for any length of time would be a major blow to Sanders, who is attempting to cut into Clinton's sizable lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
A Fox News poll released Sunday shows Clinton with a 14-point lead over Sanders among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, while a poll of New Hampshire primary voters released Thursday shows the two in a statistical tie.  
The software vendor that handles the DNC master list told the Post that the breach occurred Wednesday while a patch was being applied to the software. The process briefly disabled the firewall surrounding the Clinton campaign's data.
Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs placed the blame for the incident in large part on the vendor, NGP VAN.
“Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC's voter file program continues to make serious errors. On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns,” he said in a statement to Fox News. While saying it was “unacceptable” for a campaign staffer to access “some modeling data from another campaign,” he also said they want to work with the DNC and vendor to fix the “software flaws” that could make Sanders’ records vulnerable as well.
Another campaign official told the Post that the Clinton data was never downloaded or printed.
NGP VAN describes itself on its website as "the leading technology provider to Democratic and progressive campaigns." Stu Trevelyan, the company's CEO, told the Post the breach was an "isolated incident that was fairly short in duration ... By lunchtime, it was resolved."
The Post reported the DNC was likely to initiate an outside audit to determine what exactly happened and whether any additional information was improperly accessed. Criminal charges were unlikely to be filed.