Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Rendezvous with Disaster

 

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com          

Rendezvous with Disaster

November 15, 2012 4:00 A.M.

The United States has endured a dumbed-down, hideously expensive election that retained gridlock and showcased the modern enfeeblement of its political process. The only previous time the U.S. had three consecutive two-term presidents, they were the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Monroe Doctrine. Now, 192 years later, a less accomplished trio has taken America’s current-account deficits from $80 billion to over $400 billion under Bill Clinton, on to $800 billion under George W. Bush, where it has generally held under Barack Obama. Accumulated federal gross debt had accumulated to $6 trillion in the 216 years of American history prior to Bill Clinton, moved up to $10 trillion after George W. Bush, and has burst out like the Incredible Hulk under Barack Obama, to $16 trillion just four years later.

When George Washington handed over command of the Continental Army in 1783, and when he convened the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and again when he retired as president in 1797, he enjoined the legislators and statesmen of the future to create and preserve an indissoluble Union, ensure that it was adequately defended militarily, and give it a strong currency issued by a reliable treasury. The conservation of the Union appears to have been determined in Lincoln’s time. And the U.S. now spends 44 percent of the world’s entire military outlays but the wars that it has engaged in since Korea haven’t accomplished much. (The pseudo-wars against poverty, crime, and drugs have been lost.) President George H. W. Bush very efficiently evicted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, but President George W. Bush returned a decade later to remove him from Iraq. In the interim, President Clinton underreacted to the Khobar Towers, East African embassy, and USS Cole attacks, which helped incite the terrorist onslaughts on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

There is no doubt that the second President Bush inherited a very serious terrorist threat, though not such a threat as had been represented by the totalitarian Great Powers, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Terrorists cannot threaten the survival of a great nation. Guerrilla wars, and even more so terrorist assaults, are conducted only by forces with insufficient strength to carry out a real war. Since the 9/11 attacks were conceived in Afghanistan, the U.S. led the civilized world into that country, ejected the primitive theocrats who ruled the capital, and deployed the allies to bring civilization to that ancient, poor, mountainous, and unremitting land, before abruptly decamping to Iraq and leaving the allies undermanned to carry out an ambiguous mission in Afghanistan.

In one of the greatest military blunders in American history, the 400,000 men of the Iraqi armed forces and state police were disbanded: rendered unemployed and without income, but permitted to keep their weapons and ordnance. The easily foreseeable bloodbath ensued, and America’s deterrent influence on the neighbors was lost. Pakistan was paid billions in assistance for heavily qualified support on the ground, while it harbored fugitives from the American anti-terrorist drive, including Osama bin Laden, architect of 9/11 and a tedious sequence of subsequent belligerent videos. And Pakistan parceled out a sizeable part of its aid from the U.S. to the Haqqani Taliban in Afghanistan, which was busy killing NATO forces in that country. The U.S. was effectively on both sides of wars in the Middle East in which it has lost over 7,000 dead, around 40,000 wounded or seriously affected, and has spent $2 trillion.

It has been accused of chasing oil, but has not received, either in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, nor from Iraq since 2003, one free barrel of oil, or even one at a discounted price. In 1957, President Eisenhower warned of the national-security dangers of importing 10 percent of America’s oil needs. President Nixon raised the same concern, and started “Operation Independence” to reduce such dependency when it passed 20 percent of needs. It crested at 60 percent under President Obama, in four times as big a national demand at 40 times the 1957 price, before fractional-recovery methods and natural-gas conversions reduced the import total to about 45 percent, and it should continue to decline. But here too, as much of America’s payment for petroleum imports goes to states that finance militant Islamist activity, the U.S. is on both sides of its self-proclaimed war on terror (and the Obama administration resisted increased domestic production for environmental reasons).

The U.S. has nothing to show for its Iraq effort and that country could break up, or into strife, at any moment. The upshot of the second Bush administration’s holy crusade for democracy is the victory of the Hamas terrorist organization in the Palestinian elections, the Hezbollah terrorists in the Lebanese elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood (which murdered Anwar Sadat, the modern Arab world’s greatest and most pro-Western statesman) in Egypt.

Barack Obama had no such romantic ideas about democracy. He cold-shouldered the Iranian Green Revolution as he tried to “engage” with the ayatollahs (i.e. appease them), ignored the anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya until shamed by the French and British into acting in a support capacity, and has wobbled irresolutely over Syria as tens of thousands have died trying to dispose of a U.S.-designated terrorism-supporting state that Secretary Clinton initially claimed was led by a “reformer.” Successive administrations have warned that they would not tolerate Iran’s becoming a nuclear military power and Obama has given great lip service to arms control, but there is no reason to believe that the U.S. will stop this program, which it certainly has the military power to do by air interdiction. If it does not, it will once again leave it to Israel to do the world’s dirty work for it, and if Israel does not act, Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia will acquire nuclear arms also and America’s value and credibility as an ally will excavate a new low point, other than as a provider of anti-missile defenses.

America will leave Afghanistan next year, undefeated certainly, but not victorious either (against a bloodstained gaggle of goat-herders). The full-time terrorists have moved on to other sanctuaries in other failed states. NATO has become a relic almost beyond mobilization, and the famous “reset” with Russia is a fiasco. The pivot to Asia may be marginally useful to the states that China is now trying to bully in the usual manner of immature, self-asserting powers. But America’s relevance and status as a superpower, after all these inconsistencies and false starts, are now fuzzy. Again and again President Obama and Secretary Clinton have declared the conduct of other states to be “unacceptable” and then meekly accepted it. Accept it or stop it; there is a case for prudent retrenchment, but not for a self-authored rout.

In the last 40 years, as many as 20 million unskilled peasants have illegally entered the U.S. while 60 million low-paying jobs have been outsourced from it. An economy geared entirely to consumption and instant gratification has become more and more dependent on service industries that add little or no value, such as the legal industry, which consumes nearly 10 percent of GDP and strangles the country in laws and regulations. The luxury-goods industries of France and Italy and the engineered-products industries of Germany and Japan have been carried on America’s back. Trillions of dollars were borrowed from China and Japan to buy, largely from China and Japan, goods that America formerly made for itself.

No country has ever been as broke as the U.S. is now. Its reelected president has promised to reduce the annual deficit (in a country that had a basic money supply of $900 billion when he was inaugurated) to about $1 trillion per year. Most of the bonds issued to pay for these deficits are sold to the Treasury’s subsidiary, the Federal Reserve, which pays for them with cyber-notes e-mailed into existence as virtual money. Federal-government debt is piling up at $188 million per hour. It is a shell game with nothing under any of the shells. This is what has become of President Washington’s reliable treasury and strong currency.

In the late election, the Republican challenger was not one of the four strongest candidates his party could have put forward, but the others declined to make the race. This president could not run on his record and just smeared his opponent as a rich asset-stripper, and frightened women voters with fatuous red herrings about “reproductive rights.” It was an inane $3 billion election campaign that confirmed a failed president and inept leadership in both houses of Congress and the continuation of a dysfunctional system. For the first time, a coalition of pigmentational minorities and government employees and other benefit recipients outvoted the bulk of the traditional white majority. If this is the template for America’s electoral future, strains unimaginable since the Civil War will result.

Where library shelves are crowded with the elegant prose of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, the current trio have given us memorable phrases of a rather different kind. Bill Clinton had “I feel your pain” and “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”; George W. Bush had “Yo Blair” (as he greeted the British prime minister with his mouth full of food), “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” (the Katrina debacle), and “This sucker could go down” (in reference to the economy under his stewardship). We will have to await Mr. Obama’s second term for similarly lapidary phrases from him.

American exceptionalism is dead, except as a matter of scale. It is still a monster country; in fact, just 40 years after Mr. Nixon’s warning, it is perilously close to becoming “a pitiful, helpless giant.” Its foreign, economic, and national-security policies have been incoherent since the end of the Cold War. America can do better, but last week, it didn’t. These next four years will be very difficult.

Saudi Arabia: King's Rumored Death and the New Line of Succession

 

Image001

Saudi Arabia: King's Rumored Death and the New Line of Succession

November 27, 2012 | 1859 GMT

Summary

Image002

FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/GettyImages

Saudi King Abdullah on Aug. 14

Saudi King Abdullah, 88, reportedly has been placed on life support after having undergone spinal surgery the week of Nov. 18. His death could mark the end of the second generation of princes. Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz will succeed Abdullah, but the key issue is who will replace Salman as crown prince. The odds are now high that Salman's successor will come from the third generation of princes. 

Analysis

Since the 1960s, Saudi Arabia's kings have appointed a second deputy prime minister that serves as a de facto crown prince-in-waiting. The previous two crown princes, former Defense Minister Sultan bin Abdulaziz and former Interior Minister Naif bin Abdulaziz, died in October 2011 and June 2012, respectively, and on neither occasion was a second deputy prime minister appointed. After Naif died, his younger brother Salman, who had take over as defense minister, was informally designated crown prince.

Naif, Sultan and Salman hail from the Sudairi clan. In theory, Salman could appoint Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, the next in line in the Sudairi clan, as crown prince. However, appointing Ahmed is problematic for several reasons. His appointment would break the tradition of having two brothers as king and crown prince. The Sudairis have held a disproportionate amount of power since the 1970s, and other clans want some balance. Salman would not want to upset the balance of power within the royal family at such a critical moment in Saudi Arabia's history. Moreover, Ahmed is technically unqualified for the position of crown prince: Naif's son Mohammed bin Naif recently replaced Ahmed as the interior minister.

In fact, there are only a few second-generation princes alive who have the qualifications to become crown prince. Former intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz appears to be a suitable candidate. He is the youngest surviving son of the founder of the modern kingdom, was recently named a top adviser to the king and reportedly is in good health. However, the fact that his mother is Yemeni renders his appointment questionable.

Another possibility is Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz, a longtime deputy governor of Riyadh province, who became governor when Salman took over as defense minister in October 2011. But Sattam is too uncharismatic and too inexperienced to be heir apparent. 

Available Options

With so few options from the second generation, third-generation princes now have a greater chance to become crown prince -- a critical evolution in the Saudi dynasty. Stratfor sources have reported that someone from the al-Faisal clan could be appointed as crown prince. Among the options are Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, his brother Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was the kingdom's longest serving intelligence chief, and their half-brother Prince Khalid al-Faisal, the governor of Mecca.

Saud is very ill and is unlikely to be appointed. Turki's career ended when he resigned as ambassador to the United Kingdom after a spat with King Abdullah. That leaves Khalid, who is considered a strong contender for the position. He shares a lineage with the founder of Wahhabism, and his tenure in Mecca has endeared him to the religious establishment. Considered a pragmatic official, Khalid is well respected within the kingdom.

Khalid's appointment is far from assured. Also in contention for the post is Prince Mitab bin Abdullah, one of King Abdullah's sons, who heads the Saudi Arabian National Guard. But one likely trend is emerging amid all the uncertainty: The next crown prince could very well come from the third generation, and he will become king of Saudi Arabia when Salman is dead.

What this means is that the number of potential crown princes -- and therefore, kings -- has grown, and the old ways of huddling together and deciding succession no longer work. This is why Abdullah decreed a succession law in 2006 that created the Allegiance Council, which is supposed to elect the king and the crown prince. The problem is that this system assumes a basic democratic tradition among the royal family; such a tradition has never existed, and there is no reason to assume that one will exist in the near future.

As a result, there will be an added potential for rifts among the various al-Saud clans and with them the risk of instability in the world's biggest oil exporter. Given the uncertainty brought on by the Arab Spring, that risk could spread throughout the region.

Image004

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Saudi diplomat shot dead in Yemen, al Qaeda blamed

Saudi diplomat shot dead in Yemen, al Qaeda blamed November 28, 2012

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/saudi-diplomat-shot-dead-in-yemen-al-qaeda-blamed/

SANAA, Nov 28 - Unidentified gunmen shot dead a Saudi diplomat and his Yemeni bodyguard in Yemen's capital Sanaa today in an attack a local security source said appeared to be the work of al Qaeda.

The killing was the latest attack on security officials and politicians in the US-allied state, where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and other militant groups have grown in strength since an uprising which began last year and toppled President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Attackers in a four-wheel drive vehicle opened fire on a car carrying Khaled al-Enizi, an aide to the Saudi military attache, near his house in a southern neighbourhood of Sanaa, a Yemeni security official said. The diplomat and his Yemeni guard died instantly.

No one has claimed responsibility but the security official said authorities were "assuming that al Qaeda was behind it".

"If this is the case, it would be the first time al Qaeda has used a car to carry out an assassination," he said. The official said previously militants have used motorbikes, often without license plates.

AQAP, regarded as al Qaeda's strongest regional wing, has mounted operations in Saudi Arabia and tried to launch attacks against the United States.

Restoring stability in Yemen is an international priority because of its strategic position adjoining not only oil exporter Saudi Arabia but also major shipping lanes.

President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi took over as head of state in a Gulf-brokered power-transfer deal in February, and later Yemen's army drove Islamist fighters out of southern strongholds in a military operation backed by the United States.

Washington has also stepped up drone strikes on suspected militants.

A Saudi official at the Foreign Ministry in Riyadh confirmed the Enizi's killing, the state news agency SPA said.

The Saudis are a major donor to their poor neighbour and hosted the signing of the deal for Hadi to take power.

In October, masked gunmen shot dead a Yemeni man who worked in the security office of the US Embassy in Sanaa, weeks after Abdulilah Al-Ashwal, a senior intelligence official, was killed in a drive-by shooting in the capital.

Islamists linked to al Qaeda are still holding the deputy consul at the Saudi mission in the southern city of Aden, whom they seized in March. They have demanded a ransom and the release of women prisoners held in the kingdom. - Reuters

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Obama the Blundering Commander

Obama the Blundering Commander

Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief

Posted: Nov. 1, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.

The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.

Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn't want to "offend the sensibilities" of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.

The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.

An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies - theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi

By Karin McQuillan

The burning question is why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi.  The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

To the president's surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver.  On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Obama's answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing.  The most damaging part of Obama's evasive answer is this:

... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.

This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar.  The president says here that immediately, "the minute I found out what was happening," he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do "whatever we need to."

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done.  We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room.  Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down.  He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too "risky" to send in reinforcements or air cover.  It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done.  The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily.  All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi.  And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn't happen.  No one believes that; the president is lying.  He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to "secure our personnel" and "do whatever we need to do."

We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate.  The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi.  A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:

No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.

On October 18, General Ham resigned.

Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do "whatever we need to."

Panetta admitted we did nothing.  He says the military had the readiness and capability to help.  He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding "to any contingency."

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region.  We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed.  He says the top leadership of our military didn't want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm's way.  It was too risky.  Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama's supposed directives to do "whatever we need to" to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack.

"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support.

Panetta's statement that we didn't have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible.  We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail.  We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest.  When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations?

Max Boot writes in Commentary:

Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.

We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if  President Obama had given orders to do so.  There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead.  The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests.  They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended.  This is what Navy SEALs do.  We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy.  According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available.  Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.

If there weren't a manned drone and a gunship sent out -- it was now six hours into the battle -- that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary.  If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances.

Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. "Stationed at Sigonella," he notes, "were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft - a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy."

President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."  It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.

Why would our president not come to the defense of our consulate under attack?  This is an attack on American soil.  This was a 9/11 attack by an al-Qaeda branch in Libya.  Therein lies the answer.

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy.  This was Obama's 9/11, not Bush's.  He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil.  He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video.  He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal.

The other answer is directly political.  It would be damaging for Obama's already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring.  Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama's foreign policy all too evident.  An American military response would have undercut one of Obama's main campaign slogans: "GM is alive and Osama is dead."

Treating Benghazi as a spontaneous mob attack inflamed by an offensive, Islamophobic video was a flimsy story, but the liberal media was quite willing to accept it without question.  Our politically corrupt media not only went along with that nonsense, but so crucified Romney for daring to comment on what happened that Romney shut up.  The story of the offensive video played to Obama's progressive base, which believes that there is no war on terror -- just bad behavior by bigoted Americans that causes Muslims to attack us.

Obama's ideology blinded him to the need to defend American lives under al-Qaeda attack on 9/11/12.  He put his ideology and his politics ahead of Americans lives.  He let four brave men serving our country fight without help and die.

This decision will doom Obama's chances of re-election if widely known.  That is why our politically corrupt media is censoring this news as hard as it can.  They do not want the majority of Americans to know.  But they cannot keep the lid on.  It is too big, and too awful.  The only question is one of time before Election Day.

__,_._,___

Surveillance and Security Lessons From the Petraeus Scandal

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/surveillance-and-security-lessons-petraeus-scandal

FREE FUTURE

When the CIA director cannot hide his activities online, what hope is there for the rest of us? In the unfolding sex scandal that has led to the resignation of David Petraeus, the FBI’s electronic surveillance and tracking of Petraeus and his mistress Paula Broadwell is more than a side show—it's a key component of the story. More importantly, there are enough interesting tidbits (some of which change by the hour, as new details are leaked), to make this story an excellent lesson on the government’s surveillance powers—as well as a reminder of the need to reform those powers.

Metadata is king

Ms. Broadwell apparently attempted to shield her identity by using anonymous email accounts. However, it appears that her efforts were thwarted by sloppy operational security and the data retention practices of the companies to whom she entrusted her private data.

The New York Times reported that “[b]ecause the sender’s account had been registered anonymously, investigators had to use forensic techniques—including a check of what other e-mail accounts had been accessed from the same computer address—to identify who was writing the e-mails.”

Webmail providers like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft retain login records (typically for more than a year) that reveal the particular IP addresses a consumer has logged in from. Although these records reveal sensitive information, including geo-location data associated with the target, US law currently permits law enforcement agencies to obtain these records with a mere subpoena—no judge required.

Although Ms. Broadwell took steps to disassociate herself from at least one particular email account, by logging into other email accounts from the same computer (and IP address), she created a data trail that agents were able to use to link the accounts.

The Wall Street Journal similarly revealed that “agents spent weeks piecing together who may have sent [the emails]. They used metadata footprints left by the emails to determine what locations they were sent from. They matched the places, including hotels, where Ms. Broadwell was during the times the emails were sent.” NBC added further details, revealing that “it took agents a while to figure out the source. They did that by finding out where the messages were sent from—which cities, which Wi-Fi locations in hotels. That gave them names, which they then checked against guest lists from other cities and hotels, looking for common names.”

Based on these reports, it seems that Ms. Broadwell did at least avoid the common mistake of sending sensitive emails from her residential Internet connection. However, she did not, it seems, take affirmative steps to shield her IP address (such as by using Tor or a privacy-preserving VPN service). Instead, she apparently logged in to her email accounts from public WiFi networks, such as those in hotels. Had she sent just one email, she might have been able to at least maintain plausible deniability. However, each new hotel (and associated IP login record) reduced the anonymity set of potential suspects. By the second or third hotel, it is likely that the list of intersecting names from the various guest lists contained just a single name: Ms. Broadwell’s.

While the details of this investigation that have leaked thus far provide us all a fascinating glimpse into the usually sensitive methods used by FBI agents, this should also serve as a warning, by demonstrating the extent to which the government can pierce the veil of communications anonymity without ever having to obtain a search warrant or other court order from a neutral judge.

The guest lists from hotels, IP login records, as well as the creative request to email providers for “information about other accounts that have logged in from this IP address” are all forms of data that the government can obtain with a subpoena. There is no independent review, no check against abuse, and further, the target of the subpoena will often never learn that the government obtained data (unless charges are filed, or, as in this particular case, government officials eagerly leak details of the investigation to the press). Unfortunately, our existing surveillance laws really only protect the “what” being communicated; the government’s powers to determine “who” communicated remain largely unchecked.

Digital “dead drops” don’t protect you from government surveillance

For more than a decade, a persistent myth in Washington DC, fueled by several counterterrorism experts, has been that it is possible to hide a communications trail by sharing an email inbox, and instead saving emails in a “draft” folder. This technique has been used by Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), the 2004 Madrid train bombers, terrorists in Germany, as well as some domestic “eco-terrorists.” This technique has appeared in federal court documents as early as 2003, and was described in a law journal article written by a DOJ official in 2004. It is hardly a state secret.

Apparently, this method was also used by General Petraeus. According to the Associated Press, “[r]ather than transmitting emails to the other's inbox, they composed at least some messages and instead of transmitting them, left them in a draft folder or in an electronic ‘dropbox,’ the official said. Then the other person could log onto the same account and read the draft emails there. This avoids creating an email trail that is easier to trace.”

The problem is, like so many other digital security methods employed by terrorists, it doesn’t work. Emails saved in a draft folder are stored just like emails in any other folder in a cloud service, and further, the providers can be compelled, prospectively, to save copies of everything (so that deleting the messages after reading them won’t actually stop investigators from getting a copy).

Ironically enough, by storing emails in a draft folder, rather than an inbox, individuals may be making it even easier for the government to intercept their communications. This is because the Department of Justice has argued that emails in the “draft” or “sent mail” folder are not in “electronic storage” (as defined by the Stored Communications Act), and thus not deserving of warrant protection. Instead, the government has argued it should be able to get such messages with a mere subpoena.

Get Involved

It's Time to Modernize Our Privacy Law

I hope that this scandal will finally kill off this inaccurate myth about hiding emails from the government. General Petraeus should have known better—placing documents in an email “drafts” folder is not an effective way to hide things from the government. It wasn’t 10 years ago, and it certainly isn’t anymore.

More broadly, this scandal centers around email, and it’s a reminder that the legal protections for email fall far short of what they should be. We need to modernize our privacy laws—for example by passing the proposal that is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee—and we need protections that cover metadata of the kind that was apparently so central in this scandal.

Boston Tea Party Was Act of Terrorism Says New School Lesson Plan

Really?  And who was terrorized?  The British Empire?  Yeah, sure.

B

·         The left identifies the Boston Tea Party as a group of terrorists but can't identify the "killers" of four Americans in Benghazi as terrorists!

o   

  • Image001

The original 13 states ( Blue States) are now a disgrace to the rest of the nation.

This is just pathetic. The dishonesty of the left knows no bounds and that includes lying to our children about our roots. The history redactors are busy at work writing their brainwashing tomes.

I guess the lesson for us here is that WE MUST be the teachers of our children. If you can home school your kids, do it. Make the sacrifices necessary because it will be worth it.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8273/boston-tea-party-was-act-of-terrorism-says-new-school-lesson-plan/

 

 Boston Tea Party Was Act of Terrorism Says New School Lesson Plan

posted on November 27, 2012 by Giacomo

54 Comments

One of the single most important events leading up to our declaring independence from Great Britain was the Boston Tea Party. The event was an act of rebellion against the British taxation of the American colonists without having any representation in Parliament. It was a protest demonstration designed to send a message to the British crown that we were not going to just do nothing while they levied undue taxes on us.

At least that is what I was taught and have always heard. However, history revisionists who have been doing their best to re-write American history are portraying the Boston Tea Party as an act of terrorism and not a political protest.

A lesson plan now available to school teachers in Texas is being promoted by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative. This collaborative is a non-profit K-12 curriculum provider in Texas who received $25 million from the state funding last year.

According to a report, part of the lesson plan reads:

“A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities.”

“It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.”

If the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, then so was the entire Revolutionary War which would make George Washington the leading terrorist. All of our nation’s early leaders would also be considered terrorists instead of patriots and liberators.

Groups like the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative are constantly trying to re-write history to take out any Christian and patriotic references and influences. Revisions like the Boston Tea Party help undermine American exceptionalism that used to be taught. Instead, it makes everything about America to be evil and vile to the rest of the world.

So many public school textbooks and lessons plans today are geared on teaching our children all about globalism and one world economy and so on. The same text books teach that American capitalism is bad and responsible for many of the problems in our nation and the world. They no longer teach patriotism or national pride. I just found out that my granddaughter who is in the fifth grade in public school has never been taught the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem at school.

By the time this generation finishes school, America, if there is an America left by then, will certainly become part of the one-world globalism effort. America, land of the proud will become land of the enslaved and our children and grandchildren will never get to experience the greatness we once were.