DOJ is Closing In on Spygate...and Biden Is In The Middle Of It

 

 

 The Department Of Justice Is closing in on Spygate, probably the worst election scandal in American history.

Basically, here's what happened. Former DNI Richard Grenell who had access to everything explains it quite well here in a great speech at the Republican National Convention. While the whole speech is a gem, the part on Spygate  starts at 5:40

As former DNI Grenell points out, Biden came up with the idea of targeting General Flynn, the incoming National security advisor  weeks before the inauguration. Declassified notes written by Peter Strzok proved that Joe Biden was the one who suggested going after General Michael Flynn using the Logan Act.

And exactly as Richard Grenell said, they came up with totally bogus 'evidence' from a dossier paid for by the DNC to get a FISA order to spy on the Trump campaign during the election itself. They also lied to judges and conducted secret surveillance on the Trump campaign beyond what FISA's rules call for. And the FBI, CIA and members of the Obama Administration were all part of this. 

U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is leading the investigation into the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign has already gotten a guilty plea out of former former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to altering evidence that the FBI used to get a FISA warrant extension for another 90 days to continue spying on the Trump campaign.

The FBI even admits they acted wrongly. FBI Director Christopher Wray has agreed there was illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign.

Think about that for a moment. Here we have the lame duck administration of a Democrat president spying on the candidate of the opposing party during an election. And using the American people's national security apparatus to do it.

This has never happened before in America's history. And it's worth  asking why this happened. Who would have given the orders for this? Would high government officials and the then vice president have done this on their own? 

Doubtful. The orders for this came from someone at the top. And it's worth recalling that this is an administration whose President was willing to weaponize the IRS,  the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, ICE and other government agencies for partisan political reasons, something else unprecedented in American politics.

It gets better. In May, declassified Department of Justice (DOJ) documents showed clearly that President Obama was aware of the illegally wiretapped conversations of then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as far back as December, 2016. Joe Biden was also aware, and was present at a White House meeting where the bogus Flynn investigation was discussed. So yes, they knew.

Also, U.S. Attorney Durham is also investigating whether Obama’s former CIA Director, John Brennan, pressured the Intelligence Community into pushing the theory that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump win in 2016. That of course was bogus as well.

Actually, Putin was really hoping Hilary Clinton would win. Aside from  fact that Russian intelligence, along with Iran and the Chinese among others had already hacked into her unprotected and illegal  server and retrieved classified documents ('Come now Mrs. President. We wouldn't want to release these to the American public, now would we?') Putin had already dealt with Hillary Clinton before and knew she was easy to bend. Among other things, during her Russian 'reset', Mrs. Clinton gave the Russians full details of America's most secret anti-missile defenses, known as 'hit to kill.'

Also, Fred Fleitz,a former CIA analyst who also worked on the House Intelligence Committee accused  then-CIA Director John Brennan of suppressing the truth in a report in 2017 that alleged that  Russia backed Trump over Clinton, which contradicted a House committee report from March 2018 showing that it did not. 

As it turns out,  newly declassified intelligence of the kind former DNI Richard Grennel accused the Obama administration of classifying to hide exactly how spygate was pulled off. In this case, Flietz revealed that his sources inside the House Intelligence Committee told him “the actual drafting of the intelligence community assessment was done by three close associates of former CIA Director John Brennan who refused any evidence, even high quality evidence that suggested that Putin would have preferred dealing with the venal and self centered Clintons. This is contrary to the usual practice which makes these things a community effort of all 14 US intelligence services.

What we maybe seeing here as this gathers steam is a criminal prosecution of John Brennen for lying to congress. Of course, as a Muslim, he's allowed to lie to infidels.

Brennen has been a very interesting CIA head. As The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes reported, Brennan directed the CIA to hide most of the documents seized in the Osama bin Laden raid, because that information contradicted the Obama administration’s narrative of a “decimated” al-Qaeda, a moderate Iran, and success in fighting radical Islamist terror.

 Brennan also had the CIA force survivors of the Benghazi attack to sign non disclosure documents to silence them...at the funeral service  for the victims. 

 As I said, an interesting CIA director. Here's hoping John Durham's investigation reveals the truth.

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications

CIA Agents Cheer Trump - 'Feud' Is Just Another Fake News Story

 


President Trump's very first stop on his first full day in office was at CIA headquarters, where a capacity crowd of 400 agents, analysts and other personnel were there to here him speak. Remember, According to the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and other fake news purveyors, the CIA rank and file hates the new president like poison.

So here we have VP Mike Pence and President Donald Trump talking to them directly, telling them about their new Chief Mike Pompeo, commending them and letting them know that they can expect full backing in doing that vital job they do for the American people from him, as only Donald Trump can. As the CIA Assistant Director who introduced him remarked they could only accommodate 400 people, and there were many more who wanted to come to hear Trump's remarks. This is a new chapter for our intelligence services.

This was simply a commanding general rallying the troops, letting them know how important they were and the great things they were going to accomplish together. And they loved every minute of it.



Needless to say, outgoing CIA head John Brennan (salaam aleikum!) was given a platform to try and rip Trump's speech apart by the usual suspects. We can only imagine how poorly and PC the CIA was run with him in charge. The the CIA's rank and file cheering a new change in command like this tells us how bad it really was and how frustrating for them it must have been.

The new broom sweeps clean indeed..

Fake News? How About 'Wa-ah, Putin Got Trump Elected!'

Ah yes, fake news, the latest gambit by the Left to marginalize and ban everything as 'fake' except for the Leftist propaganda their trained seals in the media put out.

The latest example is yet another attempt to rationalize their losing an election they thought they had in the bag, and of course, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and their media presstitutes have latched on to it desperately. Of all people, Cenk Uyger, host of the ultra Left Young Turks show gets it exactly right:



Oh, and Mrs. Clinton? Speaking of fake news, no it wasn't a riot over a video that got the four brave men you left to die in Benghazi killed.

In the latest use of this tactic, fake new promulgated by the Left's media sycophants, President Barack Hussein Obama ordered a quickie review by the CIA, who came to the conclusion from 'sources' that it was Russia who hacked the DNC e-mails and caused poor Mrs. Clinton to go down in defeat.

Let's examine this from several angles.

First of all, Julian Assange, who ought to know, has been adamant that the Russians were not the source of the DNC e-mails. And at this point, he has nothing to gain by lying about it. Assange has already done two interviews on who what and when these hacks took place.




Second, no matter what the sources, were the e-mails fake? Did Vladimir Putin instruct the DNC to send e-mails revealing what corrupt, double dealing prog-facists they were? Did he tell them they had to detail how they rigged the primaries so only Hillary could win? Or to reveal their collaboration with their media allies, who sent articles to the campaign for their approval before running them? Did Putin tell them to take Donna Brazile  at CNN up on her offer to feed Hillary debate questions?

None of the players, not even serial liar John Podesta had the nerve to say these e-mails were fake...the most anyone said to their sympathetic media interlocutors is that they were 'unverified,' which is hilarious considering that everything else matched up and DNC heade Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to end up 'resigning' over them.

Another point worth noting is how many of these e-mails likely wound up on Hillary's illegal unprotected server or Huma Abedin's unprotected laptop she shared with her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, a number of which Hillary thought she deleted.  Did the Russians or whoever actually hacked into their e-mails somehow make  Mrs. Clinton and her chief aide break the Official Records Act by doing that?

And finally, lets look at the source of all this, John Brenner's CIA.


 

Brenner's an interesting guy. He was, at one point Bill Clinton's intel briefer and then  the chief-of-staff to no less than Clinton's CIA head George Tenet. The CIA under former President Clinton was noted for pretty much ignoring the threat to the country from Islamist terrorism and totally missing the boat on Osama bin-Laden,Afghanistan and 9-11. The same team totally misinformed President Bush on Iraq, and Tenet and his team - including Brenner- were actually eviscerated by their own CIA in an Inspector General's internal report for their conduct during this time, particularly when it came to the period before 9/11 and the aftermath. In particular, the report says that CIA ties to Saudi Arabia limited the agency's ability to understand and stop al Qaeda.

And more particularly, guess who was CIA station head in Saudi Arabia for a good chunk of that time? Why yes, it was none other than John Brenner, who among other things was caught giving bogus intel to President Bush in 2003 that resulted in an "Orange Terror Alert", over Christmas 2003 intel that was later totally discredited by Brenner's own CIA.

There are a number of people whom claim that Brenner converted to Sunni Islam during his time in Saudi Arabia, but while there's no verification of that except rumor, one of the reasons Brenner likely got the job of CIA head from President Barack Hussein Obama is because he's a noted Islamophile, with a view of jihad that, shall we say, might be said to contradict not just the views of all four major Muslim fiqhs but the events we seen unfolding during the last 15 years.

And with a new head coming in to take his job whose view on that matter is 180 degrees opposed to his own and that of his boss, Brenner has a real motive to put something like this out to discredit the results of the election and try to delegitimize the new, incoming administration. It wouldn't be the first time he's pulled something like that. There's a reason the FBI, which had the same data considers the CIA's report 'vague' and 'contradictory'...or in other words, sheer horse manure.

Oh, and did I mention that John Brenner's also an extremely partisan Democrat?

That of course cuts to the heart of the matter.  The idea is to jackhammer this in the media  ad nauseum to taint the incoming administration, because of course Hillary would have won except for Putin, right?

And while we're at it, shall we look at some real efforts to manipulate democratic election? President Barack Hussein Obama directly and illegally intervened with scads of money and high level campaign operatives in the 2013 election in Israel to try and get Netanyahu out of office. He intervened successfully in Nigeria's election to replace Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian and a friend of Israel and America with Islamist and former dictator Muhammadu Buhari, who is neither. He also stuck his nose into the last UK elections, endorsing David Cameron and then campaigning against Brexit, as well as providing cash and operatives to the Trudeau campaign in Canada that successfully removed Stephen Harper.

Did anyone in the Democrat media have anything to say about this? Did any of the Democrats and their Republican ponies like Lindsay Graham and John McCain who claim now to be such passionate advocates of democracy and free elections make a sound? Hell, no.

The hypocrisy would be embarrassing to anyone but a Leftist prog-facist and their useful idiots. Never mind how bad it is for an already divided country to spread this crap just now, right after an election. To the Left, it's always about power by any means necessary.

Obama's CIA Head Lies, Endorses Clinton, Shows How Trump Will Be Attacked At Debates

 

Mike Morrell, President Obama's handpicked choice to head the CIA in 2011 and again from 2012-2013 is a lifelong Democrat in spite of his claim to be 'non-partisan'. Today, he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and called her “highly qualified.” He claims during the four years he worked with her, he found her -don't laugh-  to be "prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.”

Donald Trump? "Dangerous to America's national security, unprepared and an unwitting Russian Agent."

Morrell put this out in an editorial in Pravda-on-the -Hudson, and then hit the Sunday shows, most notably with Martha Raddatz on the Clinton News Network (CNN).

This is actually a very telling endorsement. Here we have the man who was Obama’s pick as head of the CIA who backs Mrs. Clinton’s claim that Benghazi was ‘about the video’ and  oversaw the intel in Obama and Hillary’s illegal Libya war which helped destabilize the entire Middle East and led to deaths in Libya, Syria, Algeria, Mali and Nigeria (yes, Boko Haram got a lot of Khaddaffi’s arms too). This is the man who was in command of the agency that trained the Syrian Free Army members who later became ISIS, like these guys and many more just like them. While the article talks about this being a State Department program, the agency that did the hands on work was the CIA, in connivance with Qatar, Turkey and the Saudis as PBS revealed. And it that isn't enough to call Morrell's judgment into question, he's also willing to disregard Mrs. Clinton’s trafficking of confidential material for ca$h.

Just to show you how bogus this all is, on the one hand, Morrell claims that while he hasn't seen any evidence, he's 'pretty sure' Russia was behind the DNC hacking. Yet, he's willing to ignore (and Martha Raddatz, of course would never mention) that if  he's  right about Russia being responsible,, Putin has tons of blackmail material ready and waiting  if the  corrupt candidate  he's  shilling for, Hillary Clinton, becomes president.

Speaking of Russia, Morrell also conveniently forgets that Mrs.  Clinton, under Obama’s direction was responsible for giving Putin top secret intel on our Missile defense system as part of the ‘reset,’ In particular our state of the art Hit-to-Kill technology. And that wasn’t ‘unknowing’, but deliberate. Talk about a risk to national security!

On the other hand, Morrell's 'evidence' that Trump is 'an unwitting Russian agent' is that the two men have spoken respectfully about each other, with Trump saying that Putin is a much stronger leader than Obama, something that's undoubtedly true from the perspective of looking after his country's interests.

None of this is accidental,by the way. In the NBC commander-in -chief forum, Trump came across strongly as a strategic thinker and presidential to the overwhelming majority of viewers  while Mrs. Clinton was revealed  as the corrupt, incompetent and dishonest creature she actually is in spite of Matt Lauer's best efforts.

Again, since the Democrats can't sell Hillary, their only recourse is to demonize Donald Trump and hope enough of it sticks thanks to constant repetition on the media they control.

The choice of Martha Raddatz for Morrell's interview is no coincidence. She'll be 'moderating' the 2nd presidential debate and rest assured, this will be her attack line, to ignore Clinton's serious foreign policy errors and national security breaches and concentrate on 'Trump, the Russian agent.'

The Real Torture Is The Lies,Selective Amnesia And Scramble For Political Cover

The Democrat-dominated Senate Intelligence committee finally made public its report on the CIA’s interrogation policy during the Bush years. There was no credible reason to make this report public,since the Justice Department has already investigated this not once but twice and failed to file any charges.

These incidents of enhanced interrogation - which hardly constitute torture in any case,given the circumstances - occurred over a decade ago. Members of America's security establishment, including Democrats Leon Panetta and former CIA Director George Tenet were emphatic in their opposition to this report being released publicly because of the danger to national security. Releasing this and allowing the Professional Left and the media to go crazy has provided what amounts to a primer for jihadis in what to expect from American interrogators and what to claim was done to them in the future. It intimidates those men charged with interrogating known terrorists and makes them less effective and it endangers personnel serving overseas as well as to American prisoners in and the hands of Islamic State and elsewhere. As Colonel Ralph Peters and others put it, it amounted to aid and comfort to America's enemies..or would if we were actually in a declared war.

So why release this publicly now? Simple, really. It accomplishes three things. First it provides political cover for Democrats who were fully briefed about the enhanced interrogation techniques at the time and who now claim they knew nothing, particularly Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, wielding the gavel for the last time and Senator Jay D. Rockefeller IV from West Virginia who is now leaving the senate. The second reason is to afvance the narrative beloved by the Left, that America is always guilty. And that leads to the third reason, score settling with the CIA, and crippling it so that it no longer can function. The rest of the Democrats on the committee are either lame ducks on their way out who no longer care or hard edged members of the Left like Ron Wyden and Barbara Mikulski, who have always hated things like the CIA as a matter of principle.

Senator Rockefeller has been known to try this sort of thing before, and as it happens, there's a clear record he was fully briefed on all of this at the time. Senator Feinstein's record of selective memory on this is almost as laughable as her California colleague Nancy Pelosi's.

Yes, they knew, and just picked a convenient time to drop the bomb.

None of the Republicans on the committee participated in this dangerous nonsense and exercise in political thuggery,not even Susan Collins. This committee report was exclusively a Democrat project.

NBC's chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was fairly blunt about this, to the point where I'm surprised it got on the air:

I think this is really about changing the narrative of American history. This process went on, it was a brutal process. It was legal at the time, whether it should have been legal or not, I think, is highly debatable. It was legal at the time. The CIA was asked to do it. The CIA was passing on its intelligence to the President. So everyone in the world knew what was going on, including by the way, the Senate, which is now pretending to be a bit of a babe in the woods. They knew what was going on at the time and in many cases were quite happy with the intelligence they were getting.

I think this is about rewriting the narrative of history. When we look back, how are we going to remember the period? Are we going to remember a period in which the rogue evil CIA was beating people, in some cases to death, and the politicians didn't know about it? Or are we going to look back and say the politicians were plenty aware of this, the CIA beat people to death, and then Senate tried to come out and say, "Well, you know, we didn't know anything about it," and trying to wash their hands of the situation? And to be honest, I think it's a little bit of the latter.

Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., a 31-year CIA veteran who ran the program reiterated this in an outspoken editorial today in the Washington Post. Not only was congress fully briefed, but they actually urged the Agency to do whatever it took to defeat al-Qaeda in the days after 9/11.

Like most essentially disloyal and self serving politicos, they were more than willing for far braver men and women to do what was needed to protect them..just as they are now willing to disparage their efforts and put the lives of others at risk for their own personal gain and false narrative.

Not only that,but a bi-partisan group of former CIA heads and intelligence personnel, in anticipation of this nonsense have actually put together a response and a website to give a true picture of what actually went on, and to rebut the more egregious of the report's accusations.

The allegations themselves? A lot of them are second and third hand accounts of supposed misdeeds that remind me a lot of the sort of 'evidence' used in failed attempts to try to court martial and imprison the Camp Pendleton 8 or those three Navy Seals who performed a hazardous mission to capture the terrorist in charge of murdering four Americans in Falluja. But briefly, what the media frenzy is about here is that in order to save American lives, our CIA interrogators and others (of course, the report only mentions and attacks the CIA) water boarded known terrorists, kept them in stress positions for long periods of time, subjected them to sleep deprivation, and at times allegedly threatened their loved ones to induce them to give intelligence on what were imminent threats to American lives.

Oh, the humanity!

I've actually explored the subject of torture before, back when Attorney General Eric Holder released the so-called 'torture memos' which came to nothing except to seriously lower the morale and efficiency of the men tasked with interrogating America's enemies and to inform al-Qaeda and other jihadis about our interrogation techniques and the limits placed on our interrogators:

The problem with most physical torture is that it can be incredibly inefficient much of the time. Given an individual with a sufficiently strong will, it can take hours, days, months or even years to accomplish the desired end.

Combining the administration of drugs like sodium penathol, baradanga, and sodium amytal with a skilled interrogator is normally quicker, more efficient and easier on the basement janitorial crew afterwards. It also eliminates the nasty problem of false confessions and information that sometimes tends to go with the territory when you get your answers by using an electric drill on somebody's hands. However, there's no doubt that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques can work quite well, especially when a threat is imminent and time is of the essence. And they're useful tools as psychological threats to promote cooperation, even if the techniques themselves aren't used.

I'll even go a step further and let you know that if I thought a jihadi had knowledge of an imminent attack (which turned out to be the case with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and probably with others)and I was in a position to make the call, I'd have done exactly the same thing and perhaps even gone a bit further. American lives matter, to use a slightly different version of a popular slogan out there these days.

When I wrote that five years ago, I suggested that what was really needed was a covert, clear policy that could be invoked in situations when information is needed quickly and American lives are at stake as well as suggesting a few other non-violent but effective psychological techniques that could be used in such cases.

Of course, this being the era of Obama, nothing like that has even been considered, let alone implemented.

For now, this sordid attempt at revisionism and political kabuki theater will of course be front page news,pushed by the usual suspects. Of course, none of those usual suspects is going to blame these senators and their accomplices - I can think of no more appropriate word - when and if we get hit with a major terrorist strike in the future.

Nor will they want anyone to make the connection that it happened because we missed out on operational intelligence because our CIA was handcuffed in how it gathered information, or because our interrogators were too intimidated to question jihadis in custody with sufficient vigor to save American lives.

Instead, they'll be looking to blame someone else. Anybody else.

UPDATE: The Committee's Republicans were unanimous is disputing this report's findings. In fact, they have filed a minority rebuttal disputing it in detail.

Deadly Incompetence: White House Leaks Identity of CIA head Of Station For Afghanistan

President Obama's Memorial Day trip to Afghanistan was a well-executed propaganda coup, especially with the VA scandal still in the news.

And then somebody screwed up. Someone at the White House accidentally leaked the name of the CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan on a list of people the president was going to meet with to some 6,000 members of the press, and there's no telling whom it could have gone to from there.

This is dangerous not only for the individual involved, but for anyone he talks to, as this person's movements are are likely one of a number of others being monitored by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Only NBC out of the three major alphabet networks even mentioned this story, although they found considerable air time to devote to stories on Michelle Obama's school lunch program.

And as you'll notice, the NBC reporter, Peter Alexander mentioned the leaking of part-time agent Valerie's Plame's identity by "Bush administration officials" and took care to equal the two.

Actually, there's not much of a comparison except in one major detail...in both cases, it's a felony. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes revealing the name of a covert CIA agent a crime.

In the Plame outing,the story became a major firestorm and made national headlines after the late columnist Robert Novak published a piece revealing that revealing that prominent Democrat Iraq War critic Joseph C. Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA employee. The dinosaur media were all over the story. A Special Counsel was appointed to investigate the leak, and charges of political retribution by the Bush White House over Wilson’s opinions on the Iraq War (and as it turned out later, his wholesale lies) were the story for months. Figures within the Bush administration including Karl Rove were targeted and investigated.

Eventually, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libbey was charged, mostly because in the months between his first statements to the FBI and subsequent ones and his later testimony under oath some of his details weren't correlated and didn't match up. He became the Official Designated Victim,and got 30 months in federal prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release, including 400 hours of community service. He was spared prison but remains a convicted felon because President Bush commuted only his 30-month prison sentence and left his conviction and the rest of his punishment intact.

And in the end, the person who gave Novak the leak was not a 'Bush Administration official' but Colin Powell's deputy Richard Armitage, who readily admitted that he was the source but claimed he didn’t know Plame was covert. He,of course, was never punished, most likely because it would have reflected on Colin Powell, who sat back, said nothing and let Libbey take the rap.

Now as bad as releasing Valerie Plame's name was, let's remember that she was essentially a clerical employee who worked in Washington DC, not in Kabul, one of the most dangerous posts in the world. Yet there's no media frenzy, no call to investigate Obama appointees in the White House, no calling for a special counsel, nothing.

It remains to be seen if members of Congress and the dinosaur media are going to go after this story, report indignantly about this latest example of the Obama White House's sheer incompetence and insist that whomever leaked this CIA station head's name be punished.

SecDef Panetta Admits Enhanced Interrogation Works, Led Us To Bin-Laden

Well, well.

Remember all of the noise from Democrats about waterboarding being torture? Remember how President Obama released confidential memos after the entire intelligence community begged him not to,because it would tell our enemies exactly the techniques we'd be using to interrogate them? Remember how Attorney General Eric Holder and the president were going to prosecute the CIA interrogators involved and the government attorneys who wrote legal opinions for the Bush Administration used to authorize waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques?

Remember how President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a slew of other Democrats used this issue to play partisan politics and the media amplified it?

Today on NBC's Meet The Press, ex-SecDef Leon Panetta admitted that those techniques provided the intelligence that led the U.S. to Osama bin-Laden.

(h/t, Jim at Gateway)

Of course Panetta was quick to try to qualify it with a quick remark that 'we worked out most of it without resorting to those techniques', but he admitted that waterboarding and enhanced interrogation got the results we needed. And it's not the first time he's said it.

This is the same man who, at his 2009 CIA confirmation hearing conformation hearings called waterboarding "torture" and said it was something he would never use. Until he needed to, I suppose.

These same people demonized President Bush for making the same decision, one that, according to then Vice President Cheney, prevented subsequent al-Qaeda attacks and saved American lives. After all the obscene noise from the Left, no one has ever provided any evidence whatsoever that Cheney was wrong.

And of course, you're never going to hear Panetta, Mrs.Clinton or the president admit they were badly mistaken.

In other remarks in today's interview, Panetta touted Chuck Hagel's appointment as the new Secretary of defense, saying he had no doubt Hagel was 'ready to take over his job.'

If by that he meant being a clueless sycophant with no understanding or appreciation of national defense who would cheerfully carry out the orders for the hollowing out of America's military, Panetta might be right.

Obama's CIA Nominee Brennan: "Islam Helped To Shape My Worldview"

That's the problem nowadays.When you speak, nothing goes away or is forgotten.

 The man Barack Obama wants to head the CIA is an admitted Islamophile, as evidenced by a Feb. 13, 2010 address to a meeting at the Islamic Center at New York University, sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood front the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA):

 Travels around the world over more than three decades had taught him about “the goodness and beauty of Islam,” said Brennan, whose 25-year career at the CIA until 2005 included a stint as station chief in Riyadh. “Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to see Islam not how it is often misrepresented, but for what it is – how it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.” 

In the speech, during which he drew applause after speaking in Arabic for more than a minute, Brennan used terms evidently designed to appeal to his audience, such as “Al-Quds” for Jerusalem, “Palestine” and “as the Qur’an reveals” – in keeping with the Muslim belief that the Qur’an was “revealed” directly by Allah to Mohammed through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). 

He condemned what he said were negative stereotypes in the U.S. about Muslims and hostility towards Islam, adding that government actions and policies had contributed to the problem but saying this would change under Obama. “Ignorance is a threat to our national security, prejudice is a threat to our national security, discrimination is a threat to our national security. And those who purport to be religious are frequently the most egregious purveyors of ignorance, prejudice and discrimination – and it must stop,” he said.

 “We must also acknowledge that over the years the actions of our own government have at times perpetuated those attitudes,” Brennan continued. “Violations of the Patriot Act; surveillance that has been excessive; policies perceived as profiling; over-inclusive no-fly lists subjecting law-abiding individuals to unnecessary searches and inconvenience; creating an unhealthy atmosphere around many Muslim charities that made Muslims hesitant to fulfill their sacred obligation of zakat [an Islamic tithe or tax] – these are challenges we face, we face together as Americans, and President Obama and his administration are pursuing a comprehensive approach to address them,” he said.

 Let's put some additional context into these remarks. Mr. Brennan's speech took place in an Islamic center noted for its hardline wahabi views and jihadist literature, sponsored by a Muslim Brotherhood front group indicted in the Holy Land Foundation trial whose leaders only escaped prosecution because the Obama Justice Department filed Declination of Prosecution motions in what amounted to an open and shut case.

Brennan's tenure as CIA Head of Station in Riyadh during th eBush Administrastionwas also marked by a complete lack of pressure on the Saudis to investigate Saudi nationals known to be financing jihadi terrorism or to stop jihadis from transiting Saudi Arabia to fight in Iraq against our troops.

This is the man whom President Obama wants to head our CIA.As an additional benefit for this president's agenda, Brennan is 'Mr. Drone', on record as favoring the use of unmanned drones for domestic surveillance.

The Obama Administration has been marked by its empowerment and support of the Muslim Brotherhood overseas and here in America, and there are a number of people with this worldview as well as people with significant ties to the Brotherhood within the Administration.

The rot goes deep indeed, and it will cost us in the future.

Benghazi: 'Who Are You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Lying Eyes?"

 

Former CIA head General David Petraeus testified behind closed doors before Congress Friday, and what he had to say not only differed from what he told Congress back on September 13, but it raised new questions about the Benghazi debacle.

Back on September 13th, General Petraeus pretty much parroted the Administration line that this was an out of control mob incensed by a YouTube video. At that time, as we now know, the Obama Administration had full knowledge of the General's extramarital affairs and it's not out of the realm of possibility at all that he was promised his indiscretions would not be trumpeted publicly in exchange for his cooperation.

As I mentioned previously, the General is not the first high ranking DC figure to have been caught with an inappropriate part of his anatomy caught in the cookie jar, but this kind of public outing is quite rare.

If it was done after he cooperated and the election was safely over, it could only have been done with the idea of totally discrediting anything he had to say about what really happened, which gives what he had to say Friday an added kick.Especially if he was given private assurances by Congress that no charges would be filed for perjury.

The General is now claiming that he and the CIA knew from the very beginning that Benghazi was a terrorist attack primarily staged by al-Qaeda militia Ansar al Sharia, and that he issued a memo containing talking points to that effect that somehow got changed after they were distributed to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

No one seems to know exactly how that happened, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who were also questioned.

It's also leaked out now that the President was formally notified within 72 hours that this was a terrorist attack with al-Qaeda involvement.

He almost certainly knew this before then, because a drone was overhead and providing a live, real time feed shortly after the attack was reported, both the consulate and the CIA annex were in live phone contact with the White House and the president was personally briefed by SecDef Panetta at 5PM DC time.

Yet Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the president and White House spokesperson Jay Carney all pushed the narrative that this was a spontaneous protest over a video that just got out of hand:

Petraeus' testimony both challenges the Obama administration's repeated claims that the attack was a "spontaneous" protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to (Rep. Peter} King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.

"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a "different recollection."

Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.

"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."

King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line "was taken out."

A congressional source familiar with this week's testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from "Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations" -- which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack.

"It really changed the whole tone of it," King told Fox News.

The White House, of course is denying that anything was changed, and sticking to the new narrative that Susan Rice and other Administration figures were merely repeating info they were given 'based on the best assessments at that time'.

Which leaves us with this question: why, when President Obama knew within 72 hours (at the very latest, and almost certainly before then) that this was a terrorist attack did he and members of his administration continue to talk about a riot sparked by a video for over a week?

And if they really believed it was merely a riot, why not send in military assets we had readily available to rescue our people?

We had helicopter gunships within easy reach, and a unit of the Commander's In-extremis Force (CIF), a unit specifically designed for exactly these kinds of situations already deployed at our base in Sigonella, Sicily, less than a two-hour plane ride away.

There was even an ex-Navy SEAL with a laser sight in the CIA annex that was in live communication with the White House phoning in exact coordinates of targets.

Why weren't they sent, if the White House and this president really believed it was just a mob?

The obvious lies and outright misrepresentations to the American people about what did and did not happen in Benghazi r4esemble the way Fast and Furious was handled.

It remains to be seen whether either of these fiascos is going to be pursued in any meaningful way.

Ahmadinejad's Personal Cameraman Defects to US

 

It's been confirmed that Hassan Golkhanban, Iranian President Ahmadinejad's personal photographer has defected to the U.S., after sending his family out of the country to Turkey to ensure their safety.

Golkhanban and his family are now in an undisclosed location.

Golkhanban's U.S. attorney Paul O’Dwyer told CNN that Golkhanban is seeking asylum because “He’s perceived as not being a supporter, or being an opponent of the Iranian regime… somebody who has betrayed the regime and who can no longer be trusted by them.”

According to O'Dwyer, Golkhanban's application for asylum has been filed with the State Department.

It's worth noting that Golkhanban is no ordinary photographer. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's personal photographer, he followed the president everywhere, quite likely including a number of Iran's secret nuclear facilities.

There are a number of unconfirmed reports that Golkhanban  brought with him a treasure trove of up-to-date photographs and videos of top Iranian leaders showing up-to-date details of those facilities. 

I wouldn't call these sources especially reliable, but it's quite possible, in fact, almost certain that Golkhanban did bring something valuable with him to trade.Or to be accurate, something that at first look appears to be valuable.

Given that Golkhanban was considered a fairly solid member of the Iranian regime until he jumped ship, it's highly doubtful his request for asylum would even have been considered as a mere defector under ordinary circumstances unless  he brought some kind of information or material with him that would have made it worthwhile for the feds to consider letting him stay in America. Since this is his second time in America, it's also possible that he was turned then and he has been an American agent since last year.

What's likely happening right know is that whatever information or materials he's brought with him are being vetted and tested to the degree they can be for accuracy and value.He's also likely being questioned by our CIA to see if his story holds together and if the intel he brought with him seems accurate and holds together.

If Golkhanban is an actual defector and not just a  U.S. agent coming in from the cold. his situation is a dicey one. There are three possibilities.  (a) he's a real defector who brought something valuable  with him and will be allowed to stay as an intelligence asset, (b) he's a real defector but what he brought with him is worthless or doctored or (c) he's a double agent who knowingly came here as a 'defector' with the full knowledge of the Iranian regime to spread disinformation.

That's the call the CIA will have to make.Again, it usually involves checking whatever information was brought with other sources to see how accurate it might be and how it holds together.  And it also involves going over the person's story over and over again, looking for inconsistencies.

If the CIA determines that Golbakhan is a real defector who brought something worth having, his application for asylum will be pushed through, and he'll be assigned a CIA 'manager ' to continue his debriefing.

If he's a real defector but brought something with him that's essentially worthless,  he'll either  be sent home or allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds depending on what the consensus is on how likely he is to be a double agent.It's unlikely that  it can be proved he definitely is a double agent unless some additional intel pops up,  but if that happens, he'll likewise be assigned a /manager' and interrogated.

I may have more for you on this later.

Pakistan Arrests CIA Informants Who Assisted In Bin-Laden Raid

Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency has arrested a number of Pakistanis who acted as CIA informants in the bin-Laden raid.

Five informants are being held, including a Pakistani Army major who reportedly copied and forwarded the license plate numbers of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan on CIA instructions in the weeks before the raid.

Leon E. Panetta is said to have raised the issue of the jailed informants on his trip to to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers. If he did, they apparently paid no attention. The arrests are obviously meant as a warning to other informants thinking about cooperating with the US.

The Pakistanis are in an uproar over Osama bin-Laden being discovered by the US living in comfort in a specially built secure compound within walking distance of Pakistan's military academy, and they are expressing their anger of the US raid that killed him by refusing to cooperate in US anti-terrorism activities, being unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A, granting visas for American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and threatening to put greater restrictions on the unmanned drone flights over Pakistani air space, a major component in the war against the Taliban.

The Pakistanis are caught between their support for groups like the Taliban and Lashkar-e--Taiba and the Haqqani network and their desire to keep the billions in baksheesh we pay them coming in, the bribe we pay Pakistan keep the supplies coming to landlocked Afghanistan.

At this point, it appears that a tipping point has been reached, and the current regime is having difficulty balancing the two agendas. If Pakistan cuts off the supply route to Afghanistan via Karachi and the Torkhum Pass, there will be no way to keep the NATO forces there adequately supplied.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama's Next Move - Petraeus To The CIA And Panetta As SecDef

Well, this is interesting. President Obama is reportedly going to take General David Petraeus out of Afghanistan and have him take over Leon Panetta's chair as head of the CIA, while making Panetta Secretary of Defense to replace Robert Gates.

Fascinating...the CIA will once again be run by someone from outside the agency with no direct experience in the business of spycraft, something to remember the next time you start damning the CIA as incompetent. And Leon Panetta, a Democrat political hack who got his job as head of the CIA with no experience in intelligence whatsoever moves to head the Department of Defense, where he also has no experience at all with military matters or national defense!

Panetta's chief value, of course, is that he is a loyal Democrat with a fairly typical attitude towards our military. On President Obama's order, SecDef Gates came up with $400 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next 10 years and that was only about half of what the president wanted. Panetta can be expected to deliver what Obama wants in terms of cuts to the defense budget,so the money can be spent in domestic spending President Obama sees as more worthy.

These changes are likely to take effect this summer, with Lt. General John Allen taking General Petraeus' place in Afghanistan. Allen is obviously an administrator whose chief responsibility will be to start pulling our troops out of AfPak starting in July of this year.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!