SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (62260)2/10/2013 8:36:57 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Good for SEnator Graham. Someone needs to hold up Obama's socialist actions somehow.



To: sandintoes who wrote (62260)2/11/2013 10:30:35 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The secret war behind Benghazi
A stealth campaign of assassinations, run by CIA nominee John Brennan, resulted in the death of the US ambassador, a new book claims
By KYLE SMITH
Last Updated: 8:49 AM, February 10, 2013

What really happened in Benghazi?

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on the US consulate because of a secret low-level war in which American hit squads took out leaders of al Qaeda militias, which retaliated in Benghazi. There was never a protest at the consulate over the infamous anti-Islamist YouTube video.

So says the new 80-page e-book, “Benghazi: The Definitive Report” (William Morrow) by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb, two military veterans who specialize in reporting about clandestine operations at the website SOFREP.com. Their book, which they say is based on interviews with well-placed security types but contains virtually no checkable sourcing, is loaded with explosive allegations.

The fall of Moammar Khadafy presented a tricky situation for us: Khadafy, though a despot to his own people, had nevertheless been cooperating with the US, which among other favors was granted the right to use Libyan territory for CIA black sites.

Moreover, the opposition to Khadafy wasn’t exactly led by a gang of Libyan George Washingtons. Many of the rebel leaders were sharia-loving members of al Qaeda who had come from jihadist strongholds in the cities of Derna and Benghazi, which are so tied up in Islamist fundamentalism that they were major exporters of guerilla warriors who fought the US in Iraq.

Having helped to engineer the ouster of Khadafy with air strikes left Obama with the problem of a revitalized al Qaeda springing up to fill the void.

Obama gave his chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, who is now the nominee to be the next leader of the CIA, a blank check. Brennan could do just about whatever he needed to do in North Africa and the Mideast, contend Murphy and Webb. Brennan chose to conduct a dangerous classified war without looping in Stevens, who paid with his life for his ignorance, according to the book.

The Joint Special Operations Command, which Brennan controls, is a collection of special forces outside of the regular military command originally formed as a hostage-rescue team. But in the middle of last summer, say Murphy and Webb, troops operating clandestinely under JSOC began infiltrating Libya.

“With the first phase of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) all but over,” say Murphy and Webb, “JSOC was starting in on ‘GWOT Season 2,’ as it were, where North Africa was seen as the most dangerous hub of terrorist activity.”

Murphy and Webb go on to make a shocking charge: “The nature of these operations remains highly classified. They were never intended to be known to anyone outside a very small circle in the Special Operations community and within Obama’s National Security Council. Ambassador Stevens, the CIA chief of station in Tripoli and then-director of the CIA, Gen. [David] Petraeus, had little if any knowledge about these JSOC missions.”

Secret missions being conducted behind the back of the nation’s spymaster? The fog of war is one thing. Blindfolding members of your own team is something else. Especially if some of those who were kept ignorant wound up dead.

With the tacit backing of a minimally involved Obama, Brennan conducted paramilitary operations that were “ ‘off the books’ in the sense that they were not coordinated through the Pentagon or other governmental agencies, including the CIA,” contend Murphy and Webb.

Brennan’s hit squads were assigned to take out individual al Qaeda chiefs within Libya without drawing too much attention to themselves. The Benghazi attack was “blowback” from these covert operations, say Murphy and Webb. Stevens and the others were pawns in a mini-war they didn’t even know was happening.

The authors present a detailed account of the events of the night of Sept. 11, 2012 that they say they got from unidentified people with first-hand knowledge.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, as he revealed in his diary, was well aware of jihadist dangers in the area: Some 50 “security incidents” ranging from failed homemade bomb attacks to rocket-propelled grenade strikes on Western institutions had taken place in the city between mid-2011 and mid-2012.

But Stevens was unaware of the extent to which Brennan’s secret campaign had stirred up the al Qaeda militias, the book alleges.

The defenses at the consulate (actually a temporary mission facility, the authors point out, meaning it wasn’t meant to be a permanent diplomatic home) were light, considering the long string of violent incidents that had taken place in the area that year.

Around 9 p.m. came an attack that would carry on through the night. The consulate’s first line of defense was four locally hired security guards and another man on the front gate. All five of these rent-a-cops, who were armed only with baseball bats and no firearms, immediately fled when the attack began. One of them, Murphy and Webb say, may even have opened the gates for the dozens of armed al Qaeda fighters who came swarming into the compound.

That left Ambassador Stevens and IT worker Sean Smith defended only by five inexperienced Diplomatic Security Service agents. When Stevens and Smith fled to a safe room, the attackers smoked them out by lighting up diesel fuel. Smith and Stevens eventually choked to death on the smoke.

Meanwhile, DSS agents called for help from the nearest Americans, at a CIA compound defended by much more experienced security men. Team leader Ty Woods, who had spent 20 years in the Navy SEALs, in minutes put together a plan in which he and five others would load up their weapons in a pair of armored Toyota Land Cruisers. Woods had a heated discussion about his rescue mission with his CIA boss, who opposed the idea, though the authors say it’s unclear whether Woods simply ignored orders or persuaded his superior to change his mind.

The plan was to park outside the consulate, climb over the walls and ambush the attackers with a machine gun, rifles and grenades called “golden eggs.” At first, it worked beautifully. Many of the jihadists were killed and others were confused and scrambling for cover. The authors estimate more than 100 attackers were killed in total.

Woods took the opportunity to evacuate the DSS agents at the compound, putting them in a Land Cruiser and directing them back to the local CIA building.

Woods told them to turn right outside the consulate: “Do not go left into bad guy land,” he said. Confused, they turned left anyway and took on heavy gunfire, though the vehicle’s armor held up and they eventually made it to the CIA hideout.

At the consulate, Woods entered the blazing building in which Smith and Stevens had hidden when the terrorists’ assault began. Woods found Smith, who was unconscious and would shortly die.

Al Qaeda forces were regrouping. Rifle shots and rocket-propelled grenades tore into the walls around Woods, so he led his team out without ever finding Stevens. They shot their way back to their other Land Cruiser, then raced out of the compound under fire. “Their tires flattened and windows filled with the spider cracks that come with embedded lead,” the authors write. Woods and company made it back to the CIA building at 11:50 p.m.

The CIA location, unlike the consulate, was well-defended, with fighting positions, heavy weapons, skilled paramilitary personnel, floodlights designed to blind any attackers and high-paid local security. But the al Qaeda militias pressed the battle through the next day. The CIA “would rack up dozens of enemy KIA,” or killed in action, write Webb and Murphy.

“The intensity would never get to the point where the CIA thought they were at risk of being overrun; however, that would change as the sun came up.”

Meanwhile, 400 miles away, in Tripoli, Woods’ old Navy SEAL buddy Glen Doherty was rounding up the cavalry. The authors say that it’s a “media myth” that the diplomats’ cries for help were denied; in fact, at every stage of the game, aid was vigorous.

Doherty gathered up six other hard-charging warriors, found a plane and gave a pilot $30,000 cash to fly them east to Benghazi. When they arrived at the CIA compound, the gates opened for them and Doherty quickly joined Woods on the roof, where the latter was manning the MK46 machine gun with two others. Woods and Doherty “embraced like brothers,” and Woods began referring to Doherty by his call sign, “Bub.”

As Woods was thanking Doherty, though, the attackers were adjusting their mortar fire, and getting closer with each volley. A French 81 mm round ended Woods’ life, though as he fell, his body shielded another security agent, saving his life.

Doherty was killed instantly by a direct hit on his position from another mortar round.

From below, several other agents rushed up to the roof and put themselves in the line of fire while they saved the other two men’s lives. They lowered the bodies down with rope they had cut down from their gym. One JSOC agent strapped a wounded DSS man to his back, then climbed down a ladder under fire.

Everyone at the CIA compound might well have been killed if they had remained, but an unmanned intelligence drone overhead signalled, by tracing heat signatures, that a much larger hostile force was gathering.

Some 30 Americans loaded into vehicles and evacuated the area. They were fired on again during the drive to the airport, but made it and escaped to Tripoli on two flights, at 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. Sept. 12. Stevens’ body was finally recovered when a local was sent to the Benghazi morgue and “there was likely a money exchange,” the authors say, to release the remains, which were on the 8:30 plane.

So, who is to blame for Benghazi? The authors are withering on the subject of John Brennan, our likely next CIA director.

“The overrunning of the consulate and the killing of the two [Navy SEALs] must have come as a shock to” then-CIA chief David Petraeus, Murphy and Webb say. Petraeus had been cut out of the loop as Brennan passed up to Director of Central Intelligence James Clapper “the bare minimum of information needed to keep these secret missions legal.”

Since the CIA didn’t know about the secretive hit squads targeting al Qaeda, the agency and the consulate personnel were caught off guard: “They had no idea that the Special Operations missions would be kicking the hornet’s nest in Libya and therefore could not prepare for the fallout that would result.” Petraeus, the authors say, “was furious about being left in the lurch by the Obama administration.”

Either Murphy or Webb was present, they say, at a Veterans Day parade in New York in 2011 during which Petraeus’s personal security detail lost contact with him for an hour. The authors suggest that such shoddy treatment was a sign that other leading CIA figures wanted him out and “cashed in their chips” by allowing details of the general’s affair with Paula Broadwell, which the FBI had known about for months, to become public. Petraeus’ fall was a “palace coup,” Murphy and Webb claim.

“Ambitious bureaucrats like John Brennan need to be reined in or fired,” say Murphy and Webb. “Or we will see plenty more Benghazis happen. This occurs on a fairly regular basis in Afghanistan, where JSOC will raid a terrorist compound and kill the enemy, and the conventional units who patrol the area end up paying the price. Long after JSOC takes off in their black helicopters, the conventional forces are getting IED-ed along the roads by angry jihadists who are retaliating against any Americans they can find.

“This is what really happened in Benghazi, and this is why the Obama administration is more than happy to have the media fixated on red herrings at the consulate or wound up in an intellectual Gordian knot about some YouTube video.”

How much of Murphy and Webb’s version should we believe? Given that they don’t tell us who their sources are, not to mention the conspiratorial tone to some of their insinuations, skepticism is in order. They tell us not to trust the mainstream media, which is fine, but their utter opacity about sourcing should be taken with a truckload of salt.

Nevertheless, Murphy and Webb raise important questions about the unintended consequence of America’s covert wars, and unless they are peddling sheer Tom Clancy-ish fiction, we need to know more. The Benghazi story isn’t over.

kyle.smith@nypost.com

nypost.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (62260)2/15/2013 9:03:11 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
New Hagel horrors
What will Chuck Schumer do?
By JOHN PODHORETZ
Last Updated: 11:28 PM, February 14, 2013

Yesterday’s Senate stunner — a filibuster blocking President Obama’s nominee to head the Defense Department — isn’t the final act in this drama. At least two Republicans say they’ll let Chuck Hagel’s nomination go through later in the month — provided no new shoes drop.

But that’s not such a good bet.

The case against Hagel is coming together like a pointillist painting, with data points like tiny dots that join to form a distressing overall portrait of a disreputable whole.

The latest dot is a talk he gave at Rutgers University in March 2007, uncovered by Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon. A friendly blogger covered the talk the next day, noting — with approval — that Hagel had said the State Department was under the control of Israel.


“The State Department,” the blogger quoted Hagel as saying, “has become adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office.”

This should be disturbing for two reasons. First, like many other data points emerging since Hagel’s nomination, this one emits a faint but distinct odor of a classic anti-Semitic stereotype — Jews as secret marionetteers, pulling the strings of unsuspecting Gentiles.

Second, it should trouble everyone who must vote to confirm Hagel — because the remark is spectacularly stupid.

The notion that the State Department, of all places, might be a servant of Israel is among the most bizarre and ludicrous statements any notable American politician has ever uttered. Historically, as anyone who knows anything knows, State has been unfriendly toward Israel.

There are many reasons for this bias, so I’ll go with the least offensive: Our diplomatic corps must deal with 22 Arab nations and one Jewish state that angers its 22 neighbors. So it’s not much of a surprise that State would have an institutional bias in favor of the region’s supermajority.

In the George W. Bush administration, which was unquestionably the friendliest to Israel in history, it was the State Department’s leaders who expressed the greatest degree of skepticism about Israel’s intentions and the need to rein in Israel’s responses to the terror war launched against it by Yasser Arafat in late 2000.

At the time Hagel made his gobsmacking remark about State and Israel, Condoleezza Rice had taken charge at State. She’d first served as Bush’s national security adviser — but the move to Foggy Bottom actually led her to adopt her new institution’s bias against Israel — as her former White House deputy, Elliott Abrams (my brother-in-law), details in his remarkable new account of those years, “Tested By Zion.”

The news of Hagel’s 2007 remark is also a direct challenge to the New Yorker who, more than anyone, made it appear that Hagel’s journey to the Pentagon was a sure thing.

I’m referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer, whose endorsement of Hagel after a 90-minute meeting seemed to take the wind out of the sails of those who thought the nominee’s various offhand comments over the decades about Jews and Israel and the United States might disqualify him.

What will Schumer do now?

In February 2010, at a New York event sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, I heard Schumer give a rather extraordinary speech. In Hebrew, he told the crowd, his name would be “shomer,” or “guardian.”

A shomer, he noted, was a watchman guarding the gates of ancient Jerusalem and the Temple. And that was his mission: defending the Jewish people and Israel from those who’d attack it or wish it ill.

It’s a few weeks since Schumer gave Hagel the thumbs-up. Give him the benefit of the doubt; maybe Hagel told him the things he wanted to hear. Schumer supports the president, who wants Hagel; the president should have the Pentagon nominee he wants. (That is a view, by the way, with which I agree almost all the time.)

But Schumer’s support came before this poisonous pearl (and others) surfaced. And before Hagel’s disastrous confirmation hearing, when it appeared the trouble with his nomination wasn’t only some problematic views, but also his intellectual fitness for this crucial job.

That was then, this is now.

Schumer’s job, as we know, is to serve the Constitution and the people of New York. A man who could say something as stupid as Hagel did about Israel controlling the State Department is not fit to be defense secretary.

Schumer’s personal mission, or so he told 2,000 people at the Marriott Marquis in February 2010, is to serve as a guardian of the Jewish people. Mind you, this is Schumer’s claim about himself; I’m not imposing it upon him. Assuming he wasn’t just, oh, blowing smoke for campaign contributions, one must ask: How does such a guardian vote for a man who traffics in anti-Semitic cliches?

Nu, Shomer?

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

nypost.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (62260)2/24/2013 5:15:22 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
Hagel: Open Your Archive
By DANIEL HALPER
6:16 PM, Feb 22, 2013

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has written a letter to Chuck Hagel to ask that he open his Senate archive at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. Graham, who also asks Hagel to authorize the release of past speeches organized by the Washington Speakers Bureau, believes interested parties should have access to the former Nebraska senator's record.



Graham first reminds Hagel, who has been nominated as secretary of defense, that he promised disclosure at his Senate confirmation hearing. He writes, "During your appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, you committed to fully cooperating with Senate requests to disclose information about your record. 'Everything that is out there that we can find we'll make every effort to get it and provide it,' you told Chairman Levin."

"The Washington Speakers Bureau has confirmed that it will not transfer to the Senate any video recordings of your past speeches without your authorization. The University of Nebraska-Omaha is stonewalling Senate staff and journalists seeking access to your Senate office archive, which is filled with past speeches, videos, letters and notes," Graham adds.

The senator concludes: "Sen. Hagel, given the threats we face in the world and the public confidence level needed to be an effective Secretary of Defense, I believe the airing of your views and record is critical to the confirmation process. Will you give the interested parties access to the archives at the University of Nebraska and the Washington Speakers Bureau?"

Also, in the same letter, Graham reminds Hagel that he's still waiting for a response to his last letter.

"Meanwhile," writes Graham," you have not responded to my letter on the accuracy of a contemporaneous report or remarks you delivered at Rutgers University in April 2010. On top of your previous comments accusing Israel of keeping Palestinians 'caged up like animals,' justifying Palestinian suicide bombings and alleging that a 'Jewish lobby intimidates' Senators into doing 'dumb things,' the 2010 contemporaneous report claims you said that Israel is becoming an apartheid state, that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a radical, that the Hamas terrorist organization should be brought into negotiations and that Israel stands in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions."

weeklystandard.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (62260)3/26/2013 8:52:22 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
John Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
March 26, 2013

Obama's choice to be Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was approved by the Senate on a vote of 63-34, with thirteen Republicans voting to confirm him. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) created quite a stir with his 13-hour filibuster against the Brennan nomination. Not until he received written assurances from Attorney General Eric Holder that U.S. citizens would not be targeted for killing by drones on U.S. soil would the doughty Kentuckian stand down. Good for him.

John Brennan then proceeded to take the Oath of Office, as administered by Vice President Joe Biden. Director Brennan then did something no other officer has done, something that occasioned its own measure of controversy. Brennan was sworn in on an original copy of the Constitution. It was a very august occasion, to be sure, but it was also a mysterious one.

For the man who will be America's spymaster, it was an odd move for him to stir up trouble. If spies are said to be "spooks," our top spy's action was, well, "spooky."

Civil libertarians left and right were quick to point out that the 1787 Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Critics were right to be vigilant , especially when our spymaster has been so intimately associated with choosing targets for drone attacks. The Fifth Amendment says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That guarantee should certainly apply to Americans here at home. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be underscored.

But there was little notice of the fact that the First Amendment provides for No Establishment of Religion. This was conspicuously not a part of the Constitution that Brennan chose to swear to uphold.

The Constitution of 1787 did not afford that guarantee, but it did give all Americans protection from religious tests for office. Thus, even without a Bill of Rights, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides that: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

As a result, Brennan's opponents on Capitol Hill scrupulously avoided questioning him about his religion. That was as it should be. We have consistently opposed such religious tests when applied to men and women of our faith.
Still, John Brennan fueled rumors when he defended jihad as a legitimate expression of Islam. He has spoken of "our Saudi partners." If they are our partners, then he should have been asked why the Crown Prince Abdullah refused Vice President Al Gore's personal request in 1998 for U.S. access to al Qaeda's financial chief, Madani al Tayyib. According to the official 9/11 Commission Report, "U.S. never gained this access" to the man who might have unraveled the plot against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Here's something else very spooky about the Brennan Oath: How can you take an oath on the Constitution to defend the Constitution? Normally, one takes an oath with his hand on a Bible, or a Koran, on some other Scripture one holds sacred. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution by putting your hand on the Constitution is a skyhook. It is supported by nothing else. It neatly avoids the central question: Is this a valid oath? Can we rely on a person who creates such a stir by the simple act of taking an oath of office?

John Brennan speaks eloquently of "the Majesty of the Hajj." This is the pilgrimage taken by devout Muslims to Mecca. It is a pilgrimage in which no non-Muslim is allowed to take part.

Paging Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) During a series of judicial confirmation hearings nearly a decade ago, Schumer pursued Catholic and Evangelical nominees of President Bush. He wasn't subjecting them to a religious test forbidden by the Constitution, he averred. He was simply probing the nominees' "deeply held personal convictions" which he said might disqualify them from sitting as federal judges.

Where was this constitutional watchdog during the Brennan hearings? The watchdog didn't bark. If any Catholic nominee had spoken of the Majesty of a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, where millions of Catholics believe the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared, if any Evangelical nominee had spoken of his feeling of spiritual renewal from attending the Washington, D.C. "Stand in the Gap" revival of Promise Keepers in 1997, we might have expected Sen. Schumer to be grilling those candidates under oath about "deeply held personal convictions."

Not this time. Schumer joined other normally alert liberals in confirming Brennan. No wonder Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor of terrorists, took alarm at the Brennan choice:

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan's career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us.


McCarthy has written Willful Blindness, The Grand Jihad, and Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy to alert Americans to the dangers we face.

What binding force can this Brennan oath have, anyway? Although millions of us would agree with James Madison and George Washington that Providence guided our drafting and peaceful adoption of the Constitution, few of us would contend that the document itself--whether the 1787 original version, or the 1791 version with the Bill of Rights included -- is Holy Writ.

George Washington warned us about the loss of faith that can undermine a republic: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

George Washington knew something about oaths. He took the first presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" with his hand firmly placed on the Bible. In front of a cloud of witnesses in New York City, he kissed the Bible.

This strange episode gives us no sense of security. Can we trust our property, our reputation, our lives to such a man and such a spooky oath?

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

americanthinker.com