Tag Archives: Al Qaeda

A spooky pick for CIA

Michael Walsh, New York Post:

The Senate – and the nation – should think long and hard before agreeing to President Obama’s choice of veteran spook John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

As I’ll explain below, the move would finalize the militarization of the agency – but that’s only the biggest problem.

Brennan, 57, is a careerist who spent a quarter-century with the CIA and now serves as Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser. In his agency days, he was an architect of “enhanced interrogation” techniques and overseas “rendition” prisons – history that put him under fire from left and right when his name was floated for CIA director in 2008, forcing him to withdraw.

A contradictory careerist, actually – since he’s long publicly proclaimed his opposition to waterboarding and other coercive methods of information-gathering.

The Arabic-speaking son of Irish immigrants, Brennan’s also an unabashed supporter of the killer-drone program, which he’s called “legal, ethical and wise.” Yet he’s also publicly soft on Islamic extremism, opposing use of the term “jihadists” and even calling jihad “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”

Throughout the intelligence community, he’s regarded as an empire-building, credit-grabbing apparatchik who’ll stop at nothing to get to the top of the greasy pole. For example, as head of the agency’s Terrorism Threat Intelligence Center in 2004, Brennan actively undercut his counterparts in the IC and at the Pentagon as he lobbied to become head of the new National Counter-Terrorism Center. (He only got to be acting director for a time.)

The hot-tempered Brennan also blew the existence of – and then tried to grab the credit for – a joint British-Saudi operation that disrupted a second underwear-bomber plot originating in Yemen last spring. By making it public, he risked exposing sources and methods in the ongoing fight against al Qaeda.

Civil libertarians should also be nervous. As the nation’s top counter-terrorism officer, Brennan oversaw last year’s decision (approved by Attorney General Eric Holder) – to allow the NCTC to access the government files of any US citizen, even without probable cause that they’re involved in terrorist activities.

That’s right – despite the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, which was designed to prevent just such a thing – everything the feds know about you is now fair game for the spooks. (And they can keep it in their files for five years.)

Indeed, the ACLU has called for Brennan’s nomination to be put on hold; it also wants his role in enhanced interrogation and the drone program clarified.

On the right, Sen. Lindsey Graham has urged delay until the administration provides more details about what really happened in Benghazi last fall, when ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack that Brennan ought to have seen coming.

In short, despite Brennan’s on-paper qualifications for the job, it’s a nomination that ought to be stopped – and for reasons that go far beyond one man.

When the CIA was established under the National Security Act of 1947, it was designed strictly as an intelligence agency, without police or military powers. Yes, it always had a Directorate of Operations – but nothing like the warmaking force it has now.

As covert operations have expanded in the wake of 9/11, the agency has evolved into a para-military outfit capable of waging covert warfare without congressional authorization or even much oversight, and beyond the reach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the Geneva Conventions.

In effect – and especially as employed by the Obama administration – the CIA has become the president’s private army, with a classified budget, contracts with some extremely dubious operatives and under-the-table relations with thuggish and oppressive foreign governments. With its fleet of armed drones, it regularly rains death from the skies on enemies (some of them American citizens).

That’s a power that ought to be under the control of the regular military, not directly under the chief executive and his national-security henchmen.

No one epitomizes the problem more than John Brennan, who’s been overseeing the drone executions from the White House for years now. Confirming him for CIA would only ratify this extra-constitutional power grab; that’s why his nomination should be opposed on both sides of the aisle.

Al Gore profits from the stealth jihad

Let’s call it Al Goreera.  That seems a fitting title for the new network that former Vice President Al Gore is launching with the jihadists’ favorite television outlet: Al Jazeera.  The effect will be to create vast new opportunities for our enemies to propagandize the American people, a key ingredient of their “civilization jihad” against our country.

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this treachery.  Imagine the furor that would have erupted if, during the Cold War, one of the United States’ most prominent former leaders had enriched himself to the tune of $100 million by giving the Soviet Union’s intelligence service, the KGB, a vehicle for engaging in information and political warfare in some 40 million homes across this land.  If anything, the danger posed by Al-Goreera today is even greater since most of us — and especially our elites — are unaware that such warfare is even afoot.

Yet it is.  In the Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history — the government introduced into evidence the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for its operations in America. This 1991 document, entitled “The Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal of the Group,” established that the Brothers’ mission here is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within… by their hands [meaning ours] and the hands of the Believers  so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Toward this end, Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood employ various subversive techniques.  Among the most important are those aimed at achieving what the military calls “information dominance.”  Al Jazeera is used by jihadists the world over — including its Wahhabi owner, the Emir of Qatar — to promote their narratives of hatred of the infidel West in general, and Israel and the United States in particular.

The Washington Free Beacon recently identified seven illustrative examples of the network’s regular dissemination of praise for terrorists and their sponsors.  These include the likes of the late Yemini-American al Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Sudan’s genocidal dictator, Omar al-Bashir.  The virulently shariah-promoting, Qatari-based cleric Yousef al-Qaradawi even has a regular show on Al Jazeera’s programming for Muslim consumption.  He uses it to sanction murderous holy war against American soldiers and Israelis, including women and children.

Of course, those promoting the network’s penetration of the United States — among them Mr. Gore, who will get a board seat on the new network to be formally known as Al Jazeera America — tend to pooh-pooh concerns about the Arabic-language mother ship’s service to the jihadi cause.  In any event, these apologists insist that the programming in English is objective and fair, claiming that Colin Powell says it is the only network he watches.  Who knows, given their appalling predilections, it may also be the favorite of President Obama’s newest nominees, Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel and CIA Director-designate John Brennan.

The truth, however, is that over time if not immediately, the dictates of the owner and the editorial board in Doha will ensure that the content of Al Goreera helps obscure, rather than illuminate, the ominous nature of civilization jihad and promotes the shariah doctrine it seeks to insinuate into this country.

Regrettably, the Federal Communications Commission has washed its hands of this transaction claiming, in the words of a spokesman, it “doesn’t have regulatory oversight of transactions relating to ownership of cable networks.”  It’s a safe bet that the deeply Islamist-penetrated Department of Justice (see Part 9 of MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) won’t intervene, either.  In light of the stakes, Congress must inject itself into the matter.

At the very least, Al Jazeera America should be obliged to register as a foreign agent.  That term is defined by the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) as individuals or entities that are wholly owned by a foreign government, that take instruction from the owners or their agents and that attempt to influence public opinion and policy in America.  Al Goreera would certainly fit that description, and Congress should ensure that its broadcasts are identified accordingly.

The larger point was illuminated recently in an important essay by Jonathan Tobin at Commentary Magazine’s blog:

The real issue here is not a false argument about diversity [in the U.S. media]. It is instead one about what it means to be a liberal in today’s media environment….Gore refused to sell his channel to conservative Glenn Beck saying that he didn’t wish to see his vanity project fall into the hands of those who disagreed with his politics. Fair enough. But the fact that Gore sees Al Jazeera as a good match for his brand of American liberalism speaks volumes about the nature of that set of beliefs.

With his spawning of Al Goreera, the former Vice President has offered proof positive of the Left’s readiness to make common cause with our enemies. Al Gore and his ilk must be held accountable — not just for the affinity they feel for jihadists, but for enabling the latters’ undermining of America. For a man who was once a heartbeat and then some 500 votes away from the presidency to enrich himself by selling out his country in this fashion is not just contemptible.  It is a threat to the national security.

Keep Gitmo Open

Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law Calls for President Obama to Keep Gitmo Open — and Keep Its Detainees Confined There

(Washington, D.C.): The Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law – a group of military, intelligence, and security policy professionals with substantial national security experience – has sent a letter to President Obama urging him not to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (NDAA) over restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, and to instead let those restrictions stand.

The letter highlights the risks to national security and public safety associated with transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States, including: turning prisons and nearby civilian populations into terrorist targets; exposing prison staff to unique threats; radicalizing the prison population; and enabling the detainees to receive criminal trials that would afford them constitutional protections – protections that would force prosecutors to choose between revealing classified information to obtain convictions, or dropping charges against terrorists.

The letter also notes that Guantanamo Bay is humane and uniquely secure, and that there is little evidence to suggest that the facility has played a significant role in the recruitment of terrorists to al Qaeda or affiliated organizations.

Signers of the letter (the full text of which can be found below) include:

  • Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States
  • Hon. R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
  • Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN (Ret.)
  • Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.)
  • Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)
  • Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)
  • Brig. Gen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)
  • Tidal McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force
  • Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant United States Attorney
  • Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
  • Debra Burlingame, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America
  • Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:

“As President Obama has yet to withdraw from his misguided pledge to close the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, it is imperative that he hear from military and security experts who understand the risks to national security associated with keeping this pledge.  The President should put national security before politics and allow the provisions of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the transfer of Gitmo detainees into the United States to become law.”

 


 Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law

20 December, 2012

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you are aware, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 – the final text of which was agreed upon recently by House of Representatives and Senate Conferees, and will soon come to a vote before both bodies – contains a provision prohibiting the use of federal funds to transfer terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay to facilities inside the United States.

Our past experience as military, intelligence, and security policy professionals leads us to believe that the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the United States would threaten national security and public safety.  We therefore urge you not to veto the NDAA over this provision and instead allow it to stand.

Detainees transferred to U.S. prison facilities would turn those prisons – and nearby civilian populations – into terrorist targets.  Based on past experience in Guantanamo, they would expose prison staff to unique threats, physical risks and legal liabilities.  It is also likely that detainees, with help from counsel, would pressure prison officials to remove special security restrictions.  If successful in such efforts, the detainees could have opportunities to radicalize the prison population – a risk previously noted by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

To the extent that detainees would receive criminal trials if transferred to the United States, such trials would entail granting due process and other rights that may force the government to choose between revealing classified evidence to secure a conviction in a U.S. court or dropping charges against dangerous terrorists.

Some have argued that Guantanamo remains a symbol of “torture”, and therefore a recruitment tool for terrorists that must be shut down.  However, Guantanamo is not only a highly humane and – according to Attorney General Eric Holder – a “well-run, professional facility”, it is also uniquely secure in ways that cannot be replicated at detention facilities within the United States.  Additionally, there is little evidence that Guantanamo has played a significant role in the recruitment of terrorists to al Qaeda or its affiliates.

For these reasons, we believe strongly that the detainees should not be transferred to any locale in the United States or its territories, and should instead be kept at Guantanamo Bay.  The potential national and local security risks associated with transferring detainees to the United States greatly outweigh any perceived benefits for American foreign policy or national security if such closure were to take place.

 

Sincerely,

Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States

R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN (Ret.)

Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)

Brig. Gen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)

Tidal McCoy, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force

Andrew C. McCarthy, former Chief Assistant United States Attorney

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy

Debra Burlingame, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America

Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services

 

cc:  Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee

Members of the House Armed Services Committee

The Gaza Crisis and the Intellectual Left in Latin America

The recent Gaza crisis, during which Israel responded with a limited military operation to stop Hamas missile attacks against Israeli populations, unleashed a number of reactions by intellectuals in Latin America.

Some of these reactions were expected but others raise serious concerns about the direction  Latin America is taking in what is called “the battle of ideas”.

The reaction to the Gaza crisis by some intellectuals reflects the ideological power of the Bolivarian Revolution and the challenge this revolution will present for us in the future.

This time we did not hear mere pacifist statements calling to stop the bloodshed. We heard a much more aggressive discourse that accused Israel of conducting genocide on the Palestinians; promoting expansionism; committing war crimes; and nothing short of serving the devil.

These types of accusations are not new and certainly not new for the left. However, if we carefully analyze what guides the viewpoint of these intellectuals the story is hair-rising. Not for the nonsense they say about Israel but rather because of the sources they draw from and its significance in the context of the current political situation in Latin America.

For example, Eduardo Galeano is a Uruguayan writer who became famous at a young age when he wrote “The Open Veins of Latin America”, a humorous account of Latin American economic history viewed as systematic exploitation of natural resources by developed countries and imperial powers. Since the transition to democracy in Uruguay, he has become a public intellectual, mostly representing the left. He is often a guest on national TV. He comes across as having a great sense of humor and warmth and remains a popular figure. He is close to the political circles of President Jose Mujica.

In reaction to the recent events in Gaza, Galeano launched a strong and vicious attack on Israel, to which I responded here in Spanish.

Galeano not only attacks Israel’s specific action but also claims that Israel was built at the expense of the Palestinians and continues to expand. What is curious about Galeano is that he literally uses elements drawn directly from Arab propaganda and distortion. Using the most vicious Arab propaganda he claims “the persecution of the Jews has been an old European habit but in the last half century this historical debt has been charged to the Palestinians who have never been anti-Semitic. Furthermore, they are Semitic themselves.” Galeano suggests that Israelis kill civilians on purpose, “knowing exactly what they are doing”. The military industry is “successfully testing (its equipment) in this operation of ethnic cleansing”. In another passage Galeano argues that the threat of a nuclear Iran is an invention of the pro-American media and that the real nuclear threat comes from the Americans because they burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The international community is repudiated by what Galeano calls another “piece of theater put on by the United States”.

Another intellectual who follows this same line of thought is Atilio Boron, an Argentinian columnist for a major national daily, a PhD from Harvard University and a person very close to the political circles of President Cristina Kirchner.

Boron accuses Israel of being a terrorist, murderous and a “scoundrel” state. He defines Israel as being far more evil than Al Qaeda. He quotes from fanatic Arab sources that claim that Israel manipulates the Europeans, the Egyptians and the entire world community, including President Barack Obama in order to keep its stand.(I have responded to Boron in Spanish here)  )

What is interesting is that Mr. Boron accuses Israel of murdering civilians but in regard to Syria he claims that the uprising against the tyranny of President Bashar Al Assad is nothing more than an “imperialist conspiracy”. Boron implies that the Syrian regime, that has already killed more than 40,000 people, is not a murderous regime but it is a victim.  He also holds Israel responsible for increasing tensions with Iran, despite the fact that it was Iran that broke off diplomatic relations with Israel 30 years ago.  Iran has also expressed its desire to destroy Israel, and has sponsored terrorist activities against it. Furthermore, using language drawn directly from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even Neo-Nazis, Boron blasts Israel for using the Holocaust as a way to blackmail the world.

Of course, they both justify Hamas hostility against Israel because Israel is the “repressor”. Hamas is not at fault and its past suicide bombers against Israeli civilians or the bombardments of Israeli populations are not mentioned. The fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza seven years ago or offered peace concessions that were rejected altogether by the Palestinians does not seem to be important either.

What is important is that Israel is a U.S. ally. They detest American power with all their might.

But the most astonishing public figure and intellectual is the Nobel Prize laureate from Argentina, Adolfo Perez Esquivel. Mr. Perez Esquivel received the prestigious prize for his activism on behalf of human rights. He strongly opposed the Argentinean and other Latin American dictatorships during the 1970’s and 80’s and became a star during a dark time where tragic events where occurring in the Southern Cone of Latin America. Like the previous public intellectuals I mentioned he blames Israel for the conflict in Gaza, calls it a “terrorist state” and initiated a letter calling for a boycott of Israel. He drew on people like Noam Chomsky and 50 other like-minded individuals to participate in this effort.

In an article published on November 20th, Perez Esquivel wrote the following paragraph: “When will the international community stop allowing Israel to act with impunity, without attempting to limit its aggression against the Palestinian people? When will the United States and the European Union stop being part of the aggression against the people of the Middle East, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? When will they stop threatening Iran?

As the European Union received the Nobel Prize, Perez Esquivel repudiated the European countries’ intervention in the conflict in Libya and warned them of intervening in Syria, as well. Of course, this human rights activist does not mention that in both the case of Syria and Libya, we are talking about murderous dictators that launched a merciless war against their own people.

But Perez Esquivel is even more nefarious. In a letter directed to President Obama after the killing of Osama Bin Laden last year, he questioned why the U.S. didn’t capture Bin laden and try him in a court of justice. Then he answered his own question by suggesting that Bin Laden probably knew information that the United States did not want him to disclose. Thus, several paragraphs later, Perez Esquivel tells the U.S. president: “You know that there are people who have investigated the tragic events of 9/11/2001 and claim there is evidence that this was a self-coup (self-inflicted attack)”

Perez Esquivel continues “This event was the perfect excuse to launch a war against Afghanistan and Iraq and now against Libya”.  In the same letter the human rights activist and Nobel Laureate accused the United States of committing the worst atrocities in the world to keep world power. Finally, he calls the U.S. an “axis of evil”.

These three intellectuals are strong supporters of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. They also support the half -century old Cuban dictatorship. While three decades ago they were active in the struggle for democracy in the Southern cone, they now have no problem supporting Hugo Chavez, a putschist who in the name of economic and social justice subjugated the judicial power; limited freedom of the press; persecuted opponents; organized Para-military groups to intimidate people and potential opponents; who now controls the electoral council and has forced thousands of Venezuelans into exile. This is without mentioning Venezuela’s attempt to destroy the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States.

Galeano, Boron and Perez Esquivel are not just identified as bloggers or anonymous fanatics that run colorful website pages. These are opinion leaders who are respected in their societies.

But the most important point is that they are public intellectuals that not merely support the Bolivarian Revolution in its political form. They are also part of its ideology including the anti-imperialist lunacy, the admiration for tyrants and the delirious and venomous conspiracy theories that this revolution wishes to propagate.

In past writings, I mentioned how Chavismo will survive without Chavez and showed how this will most likely happen in Venezuela. I also mentioned that the Bolivarian revolution has absorbed many elements of the left, including moderate elements, and is gradually succeeding in achieving a regional unified message in what seems to be a continental movement of the left.

Now, the case of these three public figures shows that the Bolivarian Revolution has established its hegemony in the form of ideas and prejudices that will be very difficult to remove in the years to come. The Post-Chavez era will survive as a movement because it no longer depends on Chavez’s personal well-being for its ideological survival.

All this shows that ideas matter and that the intellectual left in Latin America has and continues to have an enormous impact influencing the thinking of large segments of their societies. Since the United States has retreated from communicating our ideas and values, many old notions about the U.S. as an exploitive and expansionist power still hold sway in the minds of many Latin Americans. By not taking seriously or participating in the political and ideological debate, our side will never be heard and freedom and democracy in Latin America will suffer as a consequence.

These Are the Questions Mideast Experts Want Congress to Ask on ‘Benghazigate’

During a panel held at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in the nation’s capital, author of the new book “Shariah vs. Freedom,” Dr. Andrew Bostom, author Diana West and former duty expert on radical Islam for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Stephen Coughlin, connected the dots between the botched foreign policy of the Obama administration and the terror attack that left a U.S. ambassador, two Navy SEALs and an additional civil servant dead at the hands of al Qaeda militants in Libya….

The full article, written by Tiffany Gabbay, can be read at The Blaze.

The Real Questions Are Still About Benghazi, Not the Petraeus Sex Scandal

The sex scandal is merely the diversion. Of course, everyone is fascinated by the salacious details and intriguing personalities involved in the latest scandal involving sex. In this case, people are riveted by the extramarital affair between America’s once-golden General, David Petraeus, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Since that story exploded last Friday afternoon, there has been a steady drip-drip-drip of new allegations involving another woman (Jill Kelley), an FBI agent who was reportedly thrown off the original case for “growing obsessed” with Kelley and sending her “shirtless” photos of himself to her, and the Commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who reportedly sent Kelley tens of thousands of “potentially inappropriate” emails. He is now under investigation as well.

Wonder why we’re getting a drip-drip-drip of wild new details every day? To keep us distracted. The sex scandal is a mess, but it’s not the mess that matters.

What matters is what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including two Navy SEALS, a longtime foreign service officer, and the personal representative of the President of the United States, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Here are a few of the critical questions that REALLY matter:

1. As has been reported by Aaron Klein and others, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate.  It was a “mission” of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there.  What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?

2. What were Stevens and the others doing at that CIA mission late into the evening?

3. Before he was killed that fateful night, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods rescued scores of Americans from the compound. Who were they?  What were they doing in Benghazi?

4.  Woods sprung into action to try to save the Ambassador and others despite being given the order to “stand down.” Who gave the “stand down” order? Did Obama approve it?

5.  Who repeatedly denied their requests for help as they were under attack? Who was watching the attack unfold in real time back in Washington?

6. Who dreamt up the fiction that the attack was inspired by some obscure video? And who sent out top administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, to spin and perpetuate the fiction-for weeks?

7.  MOST IMPORTANTLY: What is this administration REALLY covering up?

A)  Did this administration secretly sell or give weapons to al Qaeda and other Islamists operating under the “Libyan rebel” banner?

B) Was Stevens running a CIA operation to reacquire those weapons from al Qaeda for two purposes: to prevent it from being known that the U.S. was arming our mortal terrorist enemy, and/or to transfer those weapons to the equally odious al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist “rebels” in Syria?

C) Jennifer Griffin of Fox News-who has done outstanding investigative work on this story-reported yesterday that part of the CIA mission in Benghazi was actually a detention facility in which scores of prisoners were being kept from all across the Middle East and Africa. She reported that it was the “largest” such facility the CIA was operating. The CIA immediately issued a denial, saying that it has not operated such a detention facility since January 2009, when newly sworn-in President Obama signed an executive order outlawing such facilities. Did Benghazi, in fact, house a terrorist prison?

D)  If Griffin’s reporting is correct and Benghazi WAS a detention facility, did Obama know about/sign off on it?  Or was this a rogue CIA operation?

E)  Griffin also reported that the prisoners held there were moved 2 weeks before the attack on September 11.  Did the CIA get a sense an attack was
coming to try to free the prisoners there?

F)  In a public speech on October 26, Paula Broadwell stated that the Benghazi mission WAS, in fact, holding prisoners.  How did she get that information?  It seems to back up Griffin’s reporting.

G) If it WERE, in fact, a detention facility, were interrogations occurring? If so, what was the nature of those interrogations?

This is just the starting point for the REAL questions that MUST be asked-and answered-by this administration.

It’s not about the sex. It’s about what was REALLY going on in Benghazi and what Team Obama is REALLY covering up. If Benghazi were a terrorist detention facility-and possibly engaging in enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs)-then Obama has quite the policy scandal on his hands.

After all, Obama retained most of President Bush’s counter-terrorism programs….with the exception of detention and EITs. Could it be that Obama and/or the CIA were still carrying out those policies?

This is just the beginning. Get ready for a roller-coaster ride of epic proportions. The families of Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith deserve the TRUTH….and so do we

Silent Conquest

On September 25, 2012, President Obama astonished many Americans by declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This is a sentiment espoused by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Worse yet, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed the lengths to which the Obama administration is prepared to go to enforce this view when she told the family of a former SEAL killed last month in Benghazi that the producer of a video she falsely claimed precipitated that attack would be “arrested and prosecuted.” He was subsequently taken into custody and remains in jail.

Now, the powerful documentary SILENT CONQUEST explains why these affronts to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are part of an ominous pattern of Team Obama’s submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah and its prohibition of any expression that “offends” Islam or its god, prophet or followers.

The film features interviews with U.S. and foreign legislators, journalists, national security and other experts and Muslim, former Muslim and non-Muslim activists including:

Best-selling author Mark Steyn; Rep. Allen West, Member of Congress;Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament; Baroness Caroline Cox, Member of the British House of Lords; ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel; scholar and author Daniel Pipes; American Islamic Leadership Council founder Zuhdi Jasser; former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish; former Defense Department official Frank GaffneyLord Malcolm Pearson, Member of the British House of Lords; Naser Kader, Member of the Danish Parliament; author and financial terrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld; author Pastor Mark Durie, as well as others.

SILENT CONQUEST offers a frightening insight into the extent to which Europe, Canada and the United Nations have already succumbed to the restrictions of shariah blasphemy laws. Its stark warning about the Obama administration’s substantial efforts to accommodate them here, as well, is a wake-up call for every American.

The documentary was produced by Sanctum Enterprises, LLC. For a limited time, SILENT CONQUEST can be viewed for free at silentconquest.com.

 

 

 

For more information about the film and its subject matter or to arrange interviews with the film’s featured authorities, contact David Reaboi of the Center for Security Policy at 202.431.1948 and dreaboi@centerforsecuritypolicy.org ormedia@www.silentconquest.com.


The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
 ###

Vote for Obama to restrict free speech

As Americans go to the polls, many factors may influence how they vote for president. Among those – if not pre-eminent among them – should be the kind of country they want to bequeath to their children. It is unlikely that most voters would knowingly and deliberately opt for a candidate who appears determined to make the United States a nation that does not respect and safeguard our most foundational constitutional right: freedom of expression.

It may seem unbelievable that anyone running for the presidency would even consider such a betrayal of the oath of office governing that position, let alone work toward that end. Yet, as a new film, “Silent Conquest,” makes clear, President Obama, from his first months in office, has been enabling in this country an insidious effort by Islamic supremacists to keep us from engaging in speech, videos, training or other forms of expression that offend Muslims, their god, prophet and faith.

The documentary opens with Mr. Obama’s astounding pronouncement at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This sentiment could have been expressed as easily by the Muslim Brotherhood, theOrganization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Taliban or al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it is but one of many manifestations of an Obama policy approach that has brought U.S. diplomacy and government practice into closer and closer alignment with the demands of Islamists that such “slanders” be prohibited and criminalized.

Consider a few of the other examples “Silent Conquest” itemizes with help from an array of U.S. and foreign legislators, analysts in national security and other fields, and Muslim and non-Muslim activists (this columnist among them):

The Obama administration co-sponsored in March 2009 a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council that basically endorsed the unacceptability of any expression that offends Islam.

In Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama declared, as part of what Mitt Romney and others have called his “apology tour”: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

In July 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton launched with the OIC the Istanbul Process, a multilateral effort to find ways to accommodate Muslim demands for restrictions on free speech. On that occasion, she declared that among other means put in the service of this dubious objective would be “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Mrs. Clinton evidently has found such methods inadequate. In the aftermath of the murderous attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, she joined Mr. Obama and others in insisting – despite abundant evidence to the contrary – that it had been precipitated by a “disgusting and reprehensible” act of free expression, namely, a video denigrating Muhammad produced by a California man. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the former Navy SEALs killed while heroically defending the CIA’s annex and his comrades, Mrs. Clinton told him that the government was going to “arrest and prosecute” the filmmaker. Shortly thereafter, the American who had given offense was indeed taken into custody and will remain there, at least until after the election.

Then there’s this, just in: The man selected to perform the investigation into the Benghazi debacle for the State Department – whose results will only become available after Nov. 6 – seems committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda as well. As reported by syndicated columnist Diana West, in the course of his Oct. 23 appearance on a panel at Washington National Cathedral titled “The Muslim Experience in America,” retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering “made an ominous call for ‘strong efforts to deal with opinion leaders who harbor [anti-Islam] prejudices, who espouse them and spread them.'” He went on to endorse the characterization of another panelist, Islamist apologist James Zogby, who claimed “the racism [of U.S. soldiers] was really intense.” Mr. Pickering even seemed to suggest that the U.S. armed forces are “the enemy.”

The question is this: If given a second term, will President Obama and those he is entrusting with policymaking and advisory roles – including persons with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – redouble their efforts to restrict your freedom of expression? Or will they recognize, in this regard at least, that their efforts to appease Islamists are imperiling our country and freedoms?

Unfortunately, there seems to be little reason to expect such a fundamental and much-needed course correction should Mr. Obama be re-elected and obtain, in his words, “more flexibility.” That is especially true in light of the decline of respect for the right of free expression in other quarters that this president seems to hold in higher esteem than our own nation and its Constitution. As “Silent Conquest” powerfully documents, this trend to submit to Shariah blasphemy codes is even further advanced in Europe and the United Nations.

Before you cast your vote Tuesday, reflect on this: Are you willing to bet your country and your personal freedoms on the proposition that four more years of Mr. Obama’s efforts to emulate the euro-U.N. types in accommodating the Islamists won’t wind up “fundamentally transforming” the America we pass on to our children, to their great detriment – and ours?

Obama’s perfect storms

Barack Obama faces not one but two perfect storms.  He may actually be grateful for the meteorological one if it predictably helps obscure the political one at least for the next week.

Hurricane Sandy is, of course, a disaster no one would welcome.  Untold numbers of Americans are having their lives endangered, or at least severely disrupted, and the potential economic harm is unimaginable at this point.

The president could nonetheless see a silver lining in this horrific “weather event.”  For one thing, he gets to posture as the leader of the nation in a terrible time of testing, the doler-out of federal emergency assistance and the great consoler around whom we instinctively rally in such circumstances.

Perhaps more importantly for Team Obama, many voters are going to have many other things on their minds for the next few, critical days instead of thinking about the evidence that their Commander-in-Chief was seriously derelict regarding the murderous attack in Benghazi.  The President’s reelection bid cannot afford in the closing days of a putatively very close election to have his fraudulent claim to successful stewardship of the national security portfolio be as exposed as his dismal economic record.

It remains to be seen, however, if Frankenstorm Sandy will do more than simply defer the day of reckoning for Mr. Obama. Whether it occurs on November 6th or afterwards, the rising popular revulsion at what happened in Libya on September 11, 2012 and the Obama administration’s dissembling, deflections and outright lies in the weeks that followed should blow this presidency away.  Consider a sample of the damning information that has come to light so far:

  • As the attack was underway, the President knew what was going on. Thanks to two unmanned drones, real-time intelligence was being fed to as many as eight different critical civilian and military nodes – including the White House. Published reports indicate that Mr. Obama himself, as well as his senior subordinates, were exposed to those video feeds.
  • Consequently, it was apparent in the actual course of the event that jihadists were engaging in a murderous military-style assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission, not simply demonstrators running amok.  There had been no demonstration in Benghazi.  Period.  Yet, administration spokesmen, up to and including Mr. Obama himself, said otherwise repeatedly.
  • There had been requests for improved security at the Benghazi facilities and other sites in Libya.  There had also been requests simply to retain the security forces that had been in place in-country up until summer’s end.  The Obama administration denied those requests and then prevaricated about having done so.  Think Vice President Joe Biden in his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan.
  • Within an hour of the start of the attack, Mr. Obama met with his national security team’s senior civilian and military national security leaders.  The President has claimed he issued an order to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” It is not clear at this writing to whom that order was given.  What is clear, though, is that serial requests for supporting fire and reinforcements from some of those personnel were denied.
  • Reportedly, Ambassador Christopher Smith chose on September 11th to be in Benghazi, even though he had expressed growing concern that it and the rest of Libya were becoming increasingly dangerous.  He had a first-hand appreciation of just how dangerous since he had, for over a year, helped arm, finance and otherwise support Libya’s most aggressive Islamist elements in the interest of achieving the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.

What was so important as to prompt our top diplomat in Libya to make such a dangerous foray?  It seems the ambassador felt compelled to meet with the Turkish consul general that evening for the purpose of damage-limitation following the compromise of the secret weapons pipeline Chris Stevens was then running to Syria.  By some accounts, the Russians, Iranians and others had discovered that he was covertly providing automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and even shoulder-fired, man-portable anti-aircraft missiles to “the opposition” there, including known jihadists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

The revelation that Barack Obama was presiding over an operation involving gun-running to our enemies – including weapons virtually certain to be turned against us, later if not sooner – could have been fatal to his reelection bid.  Add to that the evidence that a serious U.S. military response to the violence in Benghazi would provide of the fatuousness and mendacity of the administration’s “Arab Spring” and “lead-from-behind” in Libya narratives.  Toss in, too, Mr. Obama’s refusal to act to save American lives and you have a perfect storm for a president.

In the crisis, President Obama was evidently paralyzed, not decisive let alone  courageous.  Regrettably, the loss of four of our countrymen that fateful night and the cover-up that followed will come to be seen by history as simply the leitmotif of a Commander-in-Chief whose record is a virtually unmitigated disaster for the United States.

It behooves all of us, and most especially the mainstream media, to stay focused – despite the devastating impact of hurricane-force winds, widespread blackouts and massive flooding – on the insights and lessons of the still-unfolding Benghazigate firestorm.