Category Archives: Foreign Policy
UNREAL: Democrats Walk Out of House Hearing Before Parents of Benghazi Heroes Testify – Update: List of Dems Who Walked Out Added…
Darrell Issa tweeted this pic of Democrats excusing themselves as the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods prepared to testify.
Update: The list of shame.
Carolyn Maloney Danny Davis Eleanor Holmes Norton Gerald E. Connolly Jim Cooper John Tierney Mark Pocan Matt Cartwright Michelle Lujan Grisham Peter Welch Stephen Lynch Steven Horsford Tammy Duckworth Tony Cardenas William Lacy Clay
The only Democrats with the decency to stick around are Elijia Cummings and Jackie Speier.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Via Weekly Standard:
At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City by terrorists. Eleven years later on September 11, 2012, events unfolded in Benghazi, Libya, that would ultimately leave a U.S. diplomatic facility gutted and four Americans dead. As of 8:46 AM today, the U.S. State Department had not acknowledged either anniversary.
Up until yesterday, as noted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD, neither the White House or the State Department had mentioned the upcoming anniversary of the Benghazi attack. Then Tuesday night around 8 p.m., the White House issued a statement by the press secretary noting a preparedness meeting the president held on Tuesday in anticipation of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. [...]
The silence from the State Department, however, continues. There is nothing on Wednesday’s public schedule of the State Department regarding any observance, memorial, or remembrance of either 9/11 or Benghazi. There are no mentions of 9/11, Benghazi, or Ambassador Christopher Stevens any time recently on the State Department website, the Facebook page, or the Twitter account.
Here’s what the State Department felt was more important than honoring the thousands of Americans killed on this date:
Obama: “To My Friends On The Right,” You Should Support Bombing Syria Because Of “Your Commitment To America’s Military Might”…
So dumb I don’t even know where to begin.
OBAMA: [M]y fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.
And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Posted on | September 10, 2013
You’re not supposed to say that The Syrian Crisis has been manufactured for domestic political purposes. The underlying situation is legitimately serious enough — a two-year civil war in which the dictatorship has allegedly used sarin nerve gas against civilians.
The problem is that this administration is so dishonest and cynical, so committed to campaigning and so inept at governing, that whatever they do, our natural suspicion is that they’re playing politics.
Serious People therefore cannot say what a lot of people suspect: When Congress returned from their August recess, they were due to have hearings on a series of Obama administration scandals — IRS, NSA and especially, Benghazi. By ginning up an international crisis over Syria, Obama was basically shouting: “Look! Squirrel!”
If Syria is the Big Story that all Serious People are supposed to be talking about, all the scandal investigations — IRS, NSA, Benghazi — became by definition Small Stories for Unserious People.
SYRIA SAYS IT ACCEPTED RUSSIAN WEAPONS PROPOSAL – Associated Press
Obama Backs Idea for Syria to Cede Control of Arms – New York Times
OK, there’s the requisite Syria News Headline Stack, and I can therefore say I’ve done my quota, so all you Serious People who have been running around on the Syrian Squirrel Hunt can stop mocking my unseriousness for ignoring the Big Story.
Tomorrow? Yeah, the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attack, and all anyone will be talking about is the president’s Syria speech.
Tell me again how serious you are, Serious People.
You just got played.
From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/
In a shocking turn in these hallucinogenic times that the Obama era has heralded, the Obama administration is throwing British military chiefs out of US meetings about Syria, and uber leftist Fisk has turned his knife on Obama.
Yes here we are. Pigs are flying when Robert Fisk calls the Obamessiah the “silly man in the White House.”
British military chiefs are being ejected from US meetings about Syria in the first direct consequence of David Cameron’s refusal to join military action. The role of senior British officers based at US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, has been downgraded because they cannot be trusted with high-level intelligence about a conflict with which they are no longer involved, military sources say. Behind a paywall, but you can read most of it here.
Bonus, Robert Fisk: Watershed. It’s the only word for it. Once Lebanon and Syria and Egypt trembled when Washington spoke. Now they laugh. It’s not just a question of what happened to the statesmen of the past. No one believed that Cameron was Churchill or that the silly man in the White House was Roosevelt – although Putin might make a rather good Stalin. It’s more a question of credibility; no one in the Middle East takes America seriously anymore. And you only had to watch Obama on Saturday to see why.
For there he was, prattling on in the most racist way about “ancient sectarian differences” in the Middle East. Since when was the president of the United States an expert on these supposed “sectarian differences”? Constantly we are shown maps of the Arab world with Shiites and Sunnis and Christians colour-coded onto the nations which we generously bequeathed to the region after the First World War. But when is an American paper going to carry a colour-coded map of Washington or Chicago with black and white areas delineated by streets?
But what was amazing was the sheer audacity of our leaders in thinking that they could yet again bamboozle their electorates with their lies and trumperies and tomfooleries.
“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” [Vladimir] Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.
“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”
Putin did not give any more details.
In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect”.
Things have come to a pretty pass when a Russian strongman is more likely to be telling the truth than the American Secretary of State and the POTUS he represents. But if the Obama Regime admitted that we were going to war at least partially on behalf of al Qaeda, people might actually wake up and resist.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
At this point, it is beyond obvious that America’s government is not on America’s side. The question is, just how consciously treasonous is the Executive Branch, including not only Obama’s ideologically grotesque administration but the massive bureaucracy behind it. For example:
An estimated one-fifth of a subset of all applicants for Central Intelligence Agency positions had significant ties to the terror groups Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, a newly released document from NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s collection revealed Monday.
Given the Affirmative Action mentality that saddled us with Obama, it is likely an advantage when seeking government work to have a Muslim background.
Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center, Shadi Hamid, tweets out about the Egyptian media depicting
Obama as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Newspaper also claims that son of MB leader threatened Obama w- release of “papers” revealing his MB membership: pic.twitter.com/x4lV2JdS91
At least this would finally allow us to make sense of Obama’s foreign policy.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
The purpose here is less to come to their defense and more to thumb his nose at Putin. How far our relationship with Russia has fallen. Yes, the “reset” was a reset to complete animosity, and Russia not the only country with whom Obama has harmed relationships.
In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”
While in Moscow, Obama plans to meet with human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid non-governmental-organization director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out.
Russia and the United States have been at odds over myriad issues over the past few months, including Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Russia’s law against “gay propaganda,” and Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in support of Iran and Syria.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Catastrophic for who? — Ayman al-Zawahiri?
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday that it would be “catastrophic” if a use-of-force resolution against Syria fails to pass Congress.
“A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States,” McCain said after meeting with President Barack Obama.
Yet McCain said he has not yet been persuaded to support Obama’s Syria proposal because the president has yet to outline his plan of attack against the Assad regime.
“I’m already talking to a lot of my colleagues, but before I can persuade them to support this, I have to be persuaded,” McCain said. “I’m saying that I think the president made sense in a lot of things he had to say, but we are a long way from achieving what I think would be a most effective strategy.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Slouching towards Armageddon
I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked.
Making it even more complicated is that with Syria, we don’t even know what our “will” is. All we really know is that, as usual, pResident Gutsy Call no doubt feels it’s something that we need to be apologizing for.
It does mark another historic first for him, though: this will be the first time the country has been dragged into war merely to keep the Dimwit In Chief from looking bad because he couldn’t stop his big mouth from writing checks his dumb ass couldn’t cash.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Just one of many such quotes popping up all over from various double-dealing, opportunistic, fork-tongued liberals. And lest we forget:
Remember how Barack Obama was going to unite the world and build coalitions and finally respect the authority of the UN?
Remember how going it alone in matters of war used to be a bad thing, even when you went it alone in a coalition of 40 countries?
Well, hey, why should they? How does that help them do their job, which is propping up their stumbling, bumbling Dreamy Dreamy Dreamboat?
From Cold Fury: http://coldfury.com/2013/08/31/slouching-towards-armageddon/
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2013
The death and destruction of the Syrian Civil War is beyond disturbing. There is a humanitarian crisis of Biblical proportions happening on all sides of the Syrian borders as combat drives hundreds of thousands of refugees into sprawling camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. International intervention – whether in the name of peacekeeping or peace enforcement – or even a simple no-fly zone such as we imposed in Libya during the toppling of Ghaddafi, is challenging due to the fact that there are no good guys here, and Assad’s anti-aircraft defenses are formidible.
On the one hand we have Assad, who despite Liberal endorsement has shown himself to be a ruthless thug dictator, a butcher.
Democrats never met a dictator they didn’t fall in love with.
As recently as February 2011, at the cusp of the Arab Spring, Vogue magazine published an article which was no less than a slobbering tongue-bath of admiration for the Assad family focusing on the wife of the Butcher of Damascus.
And on the other hand there are the Syrian rebels, co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. They have proven willing to conduct ruthless war crimes to further their agenda.
In order to understand the conflict in Syria, it is necessary to understand the nature of tribal war. As the traditional center of Arab culture, Syria is of course a tribal society, led by the Assad family of the Alawite tribe. When a tribal society devolves into civil war, the ruling tribe will fight tooth and nail to remain in place, because the alternative is genocide.
This explains the savagery we are seeing in Syria. Assad and his side are fighting for more than to just remain in power; they are fighting for their families lives, the lives of their extended families, their towns, villages, farms and land holdings, and for the very existence of the Alawite way of life.
The humanitarian crisis alone is reason for some kind of international role. On top of that, the stability of the region is at risk. If Syria falls to al Qaeda, Jordan is next. And yet the dilemma remains; whose side to take? In other words, there simply are no good guys in this mess.
Out of some kind of desperate sentiment to impose constraint on Assad, President Obama pronounced his famous “red line”: the use of chemical weapons would be the trigger for US military intervention against the Assad regime. The rebels heard him say it, of course. In the wake of the Damascus chemical attacks of 21 August, there remains uncertainty regarding who actually conducted the attacks.
In other words, are the rebels capable of releasing chemical weapons on their own people, in order to bring international military force against the dictator Assad’s forces?
Secretary of State John Kerry referenced the above photograph when making his speech yesterday, trying to drive home how awful the Syrian chemical attack was as he tried to convince us why we should go to war. One problem. The picture isn’t even from Syria. It’s from Iraq in 2003. The photographer, Marco di Lauro, said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw it was being used to promote a war in Syria.
The rules of carrying a firearm include: you NEVER draw the weapon unless you fully intend to use deadly force. Obama displayed his weaponry when he tossed his “red line” out there. Somebody called him on it, and now it looks like the President of the United States has been called on a bluff.
Planning 101 demands that for any endeavor, there should be a quantifiable objective. So far I haven’t heard discussion of any possible objectives in Syria. Apparently there are NO objectives to an internationalist military intervention in Syria – or that any desirable outcome would be extremely costly – our usual allies the British and the French are in no hurry to wade into this briar patch.
The foundation of US foreign policy is Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine: “Walk softly and carry a big stick,” not “Shoot your mouth off and then back down when the bad guys call you out.” That’s three big mistakes by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
Amateur hour, if you ask me.
- STORMBRINGER SENDS at: http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/
Posted on | August 29, 2013
Could be the most unintentionally funny headline of the year: “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling. Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.
‘Rodeo clown’ is the new cowboy, no? After around 6 years of anti-Bush Adventurism arguments (and the bulk of a year spent in Afghanistan helping carry out one of Obama’s rare promises kept) the skepticism has kind of settled in. Also, one cannot possibly fathom what strategic interest the U.S. even has in the Levant. Maybe standing by our ally, Israel. It is a cheery thing to see the occasional greeting on YouTube from Bibi Netanyahu. But is the refreshment of hearing from an actual leader of the non-rodeo-clown variety of sufficient value to justify throwing blood and treasure at Damascus?
Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.
Morality, or ethics? I’d argue, against the dictionary, that the two are not synonymous. There really isn’t any moral case in favor of disregarding law. Law is a human product, and therefore may be incomplete, or out of sync with the times. There could be ethical reasons for disregarding a law. I wish the author, Hurd, had provided a link to this famous movement, though. Maybe the “humanitarian intervention” community could help us track down the elusive anti-war movement that flourishes during Republican administrations, whenever those corporatists are out to drive up profits. Perhaps the anti-war movement is cryogenically suspended in Jane Fonda’s basement. I’ve got to emphasize this closing bit:
Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.
This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.
Anybody who thinks that Russia isn’t fomenting unrest to drive up oil prices is clueless. President Rodeo Clown should know that peace, prosperity, and a Keystone XL pipeline are the best ways to stick it to the Russian bear. At least in DC, no one uses the phrase “it’s the right thing to do” without a disdainful eye roll. In DC it means: sure, we’re jacked up to high heaven, but isn’t everything else, too?
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Leaving Afghanistan Just Like the Soviets – With our Ass Handed to Us. (Don’t blame our Fine Troops)
Tail: between legs
This is what defeat looks like:
As the months march toward the end of the major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, the stresses on units will grow. Life becomes increasingly austere at the end: creature comforts vanish, food quality worsens, mail stops. Tactically, the focus alters. Yesterday’s top priorities — defeating the enemy, building up the indigenous forces — become less important than leaving with each soldier safe. It becomes clearer by the day that, barring some deus ex machina, the U.S. endeavor will make no strategically significant gains, though the potential for significant losses increases by the week.
As troop densities diminish, soldiers take on new tasks, each of which constitutes a distraction from combat missions. Accounting for the detritus accumulated through a decade of war is not simple, nor is packing up and preparing for departure. As a result of these tasks, gradually decreasing combat power and the desire to avoid rankling local civilians, soldiers will confine their patrols to areas close to the base and directly linked to U.S. force protection. Challenges will increase toward the end, as surveillance equipment, interpreters and weapons systems disappear. U.S. units will need to transfer security responsibilities to Afghans as we did to Iraqis and they will need to pray those forces hold their ground.
If the situation in Afghanistan mirrors ours in 2011 Iraq, U.S. troops will find themselves in a quickly changing relationship with their host nation. For years, the Iraqi security forces were the recipients of U.S. largesse, which both outfitted them with needed equipment and supplies and obligated them to support the U.S. mission. The situation changes as the flow of materiel slows. At some point, U.S. forces in Afghanistan will have no more to give their counterparts, and it will be time for the Afghan national security forces to work through their own systems for repair parts, construction materials and medicine. The Afghans, like the Iraqis, will do without some vital provisions. And they will no longer be compelled by their reliance on us to cooperate.
Goodwill and trust became the keys to our survival in Iraq, and they will be central again in the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Oh. So our guys are screwed, then. Again, I mean.
As we left Iraq in 2011, we worried about the Iraqis’ dependability. Were they proficient enough to prevent attacks? Were they committed enough to want to? The recent spate of green-on-blue violence in Afghanistan complicates an already complex relationship between Afghan national security forces and Americans. The challenge for U.S. forces will be to navigate between trust and distrust of Afghans so their transition, like ours more than a year ago, will be uneventful.
The best outcome for the U.S. departure from Afghanistan? A safe exodus and a slow news day.
How very sad that that is our sole “achievement” after ten futile years managing that sour, brackish backwater, although of course my fingers will be crossed for them. But it was inevitable, I guess.
We probably ought to consider not fighting any more wars for any reason, unless and until we decide that “victory” will no longer mean “overextending our stay so as to be able to present barbarian savages a pre-cooked democracy that they are neither capable nor inclined to appreciate on a silver platter, and hoping to civilize a country that isn’t remotely civilized and only barely qualifies as a country.”
Get home safe, boys, each and every one of you. The fault for the debacle was in no way yours, and not one more of you should have to die for such hopeless folly.
From COld Fury: http://coldfury.com/
“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Al-Assad!”
Experts to Obama: Here Is What to Do in Syria A letter in which “66 Experts” hover between knowing “jack” or “shit” about Syria:
“We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship’s military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons.”
“Now the bricks lay on Grand Street Where the neon madmen climb. They all fall there so perfectly. It all seems so well timed. An’ here I sit so patiently, Waiting to find out what price You have to pay to get out of Going through all these things twice. Oh, Mama, can this really be the end, To be stuck inside of Mobile With the Memphis blues again?”
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
You’ve Got Questions. You’ll Get No Answers.
Here’s a small Syria question collection:
Exactly what chemical was it?
Who made it, or what is the guess of who made it?
Who ran the tests.
Were there tests?
Why didn’t we hear about these simple issues?
The video looked real, but Kerry started ranting about morality when the question would be answered by technical analysis, not morality.
Obviously if it’s real, and Assad did it, the points are true.
Did Assad do it?
Did the rebels?
How do we know?
By Jed Babbin on 8.5.13
A congressional select committee could offer immunity to the CIA’s dispersed, intimidated survivors.
You can always tell the depth of an event’s illegality by the measures people take to cover it up. By that measure, the conduct of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and David Petraeus leading up to the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on 9/11 2012 must be must be so sufficiently wrongful that, if revealed, they could lead to the president’s impeachment.
How else can we gauge what is apparently the most energetic coverup in modern history? We know, from several sources, that the survivors of the attack — not on the consulate, but on the CIA annex — number a few dozen or more. We also know from those sources that almost all of their names have been concealed from Congress in the course of the coverup.
Those sources also reveal that the CIA has required those survivors to sign confidentiality agreements binding them to never disclose what they were doing in the days or months leading up to the 9/11-12 attack. Keep in mind that good old Joe Wilson —the former ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to “learn” what Iraq had done to acquire uranium — wasn’t required to sign any confidentiality agreement, hence his ability to become a Democratic political attack dog instantly after Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage leaked his wife’s CIA employment to reporter Robert Novak.
The Joe Wilson episode and the CIA requirement imposed on the Benghazi survivors is entirely consistent with the political conduct we’ve seen from the CIA in the past dozen years.
And it gets worse. Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) disclosed that the CIA’s involvement in covering up the Benghazi scandal goes much further. He said that the CIA was not only requiring the Benghazi survivors to change their names, it is also spreading them around the country in a CIA version of a witness protection program. In this case, the witnesses are being protected from ever telling the truth to the media or testifying before Congress.
We now also know that the CIA’s Benghazi veterans are being required to submit to monthly polygraph tests to check on their behavior: they are being required to answer if they’ve leaked to Congress or the press every time they are polygraphed.
Why is there such blatant intimidation of these people? We’ve all seen and heard the reports that the Benghazi CIA annex was the locus of a gun-running operation. If it was, the only likely recipients of the arms would be either the Syrian opposition —which is largely made up of al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadis — or the Turks who might have been serving as a pipeline for the arms to those same Syrian opposition guys.
In either case, the president — whose approval had to have been obtained for any such operations — would be directly implicated. He was either acting without congressional authority or in violation of laws on the books that are supposed to block those actions.
Either way Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus would be in the dock personally for having broken the law.
It would be enough to make Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean green with envy. Except for the fact that nobody died in Watergate. And the fact that the other facts of the day don’t just call into question Obama’s Middle East policy: these facts demonstrate that this policy is quite bizarre.
Read the entire article at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/05/desperation-in-the-benghazi-co
See all of the pictures that the American Media does not want you to see at Doug Ross: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/15-photos-from-tahrir-square-protests.html
Funny how that works.
Via Weekly Standard:
As President Obama and his family continue their tour of Africa, the White House put out a Fact Sheet entitled “U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa.” One of the first items highlighted by the White House is a $53 million program in Kenya that helps young people ”obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration.”
Civil society and independent media play a critical role in any vibrant democracy. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the United States supports efforts to ensure civil society organizations and independent media can organize, advocate, and raise awareness with governments and the private sector to improve political processes, transparency, and government performance. Examples include:
• In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants. [emphasis added]
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The world, especially Red China and Fascist Russia, have been humiliating The United States at will since this whole Snowden incident began.
Over at the New York Post, S.A. Miller reports on the latest round of ridicule:
Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday told President Obama to take a flying leap by refusing to turn over spy-secrets leaker Edward Snowden — who for a third day remained lounging in a Moscow airport.
“Snowden is a free person,” Putin proclaimed during a news conference in Turku, Finland, where he feigned annoyance at getting dragged into the closely watched incident.
“I’d prefer not to deal with this issue at all,” he said. “It’s like shearing a piglet — too much squealing, too little wool.
“The sooner he chooses his final destination, the better it is for him and Russia.”
Putin rubbed Obama’s nose in the international mess, saying that Snowden “had not committed any crime” in Russia, because Snowden hadn’t passed through customs and remained in a transit area inside Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport, which technically isn’t designated as “Russian soil.”
In another humiliating slap, Putin defended Snowden and even Julian Assange, the founder of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, who has aided Snowden’s quest for asylum.
“Assange and Snowden consider themselves human-rights activists and say they are fighting for the spread of information. Ask yourself this: Should you hand these people over so they will be put in prison?” the former Soviet KGB colonel mused.
Snowden has requested political asylum in Ecuador, but apparently hasn’t yet settled on where exactly to run next.
Before flying to Moscow, Snowden spent his birthday munching pizza and fried chicken in his Hong Kong hotel room.
Now he’s kicking back in an airport lounge mulling his next move, with Russian police just a few feet away but not posing a threat to his on-the-run freedom.
Putin claimed there was nothing Russian authorities could do to nab the 30-year-old fugitive or expel him, despite US espionage charges against Snowden and White House demands for his immediate return.
“I hope this won’t affect the cordial nature of our relations with the US,” said the Russian president, who just last week met with Obama on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland.
Putin said Russia and the United States lack a relevant extradition treaty and called US accusations that the Kremlin failed to nab Snowden or that it provided him refuge “ravings and rubbish.”
He also claimed that Snowden’s arrival from Hong Kong “came as a surprise” to Russian officials.
“He arrived as a transit passenger, and didn’t need a [Russian] visa or any other documents,” Putin said. “As a transit passenger he is entitled to buy a ticket and fly to wherever he wants.”
And Obama doesn’t care.
He doesn’t give a flying f–k as he wends his way to Africa on his $100 million dollar trip to nowhere for nothing.
Luckily for us [/sarc], his Administration is carrying-on in his stead, sucking-up to the Russian Tyrant:
But Secretary of State John Kerry backed off from an embarrassing confrontation with Putin, appealing for “calm” and trying to stop the dispute with Russia from boiling over.
“I would simply appeal for calm and reasonableness in a moment where we don’t need to raise the level of confrontation over something as, frankly, basic and normal as this,” Kerry told reporters traveling with him in Saudi Arabia.
“We’re not looking for a confrontation” he said. “We’re not ordering anybody. We’re simply requesting, under a very normal procedure, for the transfer of somebody.”
The weakness, it reeks.
No point in upping the old blood pressure over this — it’s who the Left In America are; it’s what they do.
I will offer one bit of advice to all the Stock Market players out there: buy Laughingstock.
Kudos to the Post for their front page today:
From Bob Belvedere: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Courtesy of Fox News, here is a photo comparing the crowd size at Obama’s 2008 speech in Berlin, and the crowd size at his speech today. (John Nolte)
n 2008, then-Senator Obama had no record and our corrupt media had no interest in vetting him. Therefore, he was a cipher; a thing upon which the world could gaze and pour their hopes and dreams into. With his empty prose and sketchy rhetoric about hope and change, Obama positioned himself to be whatever you wanted him to be.And our compliant, biased, irresponsible, and dangerous media willfully aided and abetted that deception.
In 2008, The Cipher brought in a crowd estimated at 200,000.Wednesday, The Reality pulled in only around 4,500.
Russia schooling the West on jihad. It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic and deadly.
He is right. They have the same ideology, the same belief system, the same goals. Obama must know this. And he must not care. “Vladimir Putin tells Cameron at G8: ‘Syrian rebels are the same as those who killed Lee Rigby,’” by Joe Churcher for the Belfast Telegraph, June 18:
Arming the Syrian rebels could deliver weapons into the hands of the sort of people who killed Drummer Lee Rigby, Vladimir Putin warned.The Russian president drew a direct parallel with the “violent assassination” of the soldier in Woolwich as he set out his hostility to Western efforts to aid the opposition to Bashar Assad’s regime.
Mr Putin spoke out at a press conference marking the close of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland which produced a joint position from world leaders that could pave the way for a peace conference to find a way out of the deadly struggle for control of the Middle Eastern country.
Resistance from Russia meant the final statement made no reference to Assad’s future.
But Mr Putin insisted that he had not been isolated in the talks with the other seven leaders – claiming that some agreed with him that there was not yet proof the regime had used chemical weapons.
It was the discovery of what the US said was convincing evidence that led President Barack Obama to say Washington could arm the rebels.
Britain and France – both in the G8 – led efforts to lift an EU arms embargo but Prime Minister David Cameron insists no decision to do so has been taken amid a political backlash at Westminster against any such escalation of British involvement.
Asked about the issue, Mr Putin, speaking through an interpreter, defended his decision to continue supplying weapons to the regime, which he said was no more than completing legal contracts.
And in a direct message to Mr Cameron, he added: “Recently the British people suffered a huge loss. It was a tragedy next to his barracks on the streets of London. A violent assassination, a very brutal killing of a British serviceman.
“Clearly the opposition is not composed all of this but many of them are exactly the same as the ones who perpetrated the killing in London.
“If we equip these people, if we arm them what is going to control and verify who is going to have these weapons, including in Europe as well.
“So we call all our partners, before making this dangerous step, think about it very carefully.”
No chance of that.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Can anyone name even one constitutional purpose
of American foreign policy that is being satisfied by an intervention into the Syrian pesthole? Did We the People grant our Powers and wealth to our government so that they could succor the grinding misery that foreigners, hoisted by their own deluded petard, have put themselves into? We never did. The powers We the People granted to our government were to be used for the benefit of Us, only us, and not some Levantines forever in thrall to both secular and religious tyranny.
Syria can live, can die, be glassed, anything, and it won’t make one single bit of difference to the United States. i’m sorry all you Syrian people, but in the calculus of the United States your value is zero; and to even mess with you brings nothing but your misery and delusion to our shores. Be off with you, and save yourselves!
If the Usurper does this, and our Armed Forces professional officers do not resist this to the last man, then I will know we are well and truly f’ed. Who will be left to defend us against our enemies foreign and domestic? If the Usurper does this, It will be clear, that his aim is to destroy our Armed Forces. May God have mercy on us, because we don’t have His Blessings anymore.” Commenting on There’s A Storm Coming: Syria. Because Afghanistan Just Isn’t Enough @ AMERICAN DIGEST
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/