Friday, October 12, 2012

It's Bush's fault..yeah right!


ACT! for America

Embassies Should have Been on Alert Before Benghazi Attack, Former Official Says

By Jennifer Scholtes, CQ Staff Homeland Security

 
A former CIA analyst and congressional aide said this week that the absence of warning from intelligence officials before last month’s attack in Libya highlights a dangerous culture that has spread throughout the intelligence community over the last decade.

The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi cannot altogether be blamed on a failure to share threat information, said Fred Fleitz, who served at the CIA starting in the 1980s, went on to work for the State Department in 2001 and then spent five years as a House Intelligence Committee adviser. But he added that he believes the CIA should have known to issue an urgent advance alert to U.S. embassies throughout the world, even if there was no definitive intelligence suggesting an attack on the consulate.

“It was common sense this was a dangerous day, and this is something the intelligence community should have jumped on,” Fleitz said during a panel Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Since analysis about the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved faulty, analysts have been hesitant to predict threats that aren’t first suggested by evidence, Fleitz said. The George W. Bush administration used that analysis as a justification for invading the country, and the work was later pilloried in the media and in Washington.
Fleitz said that when he joined the CIA in 1986, agents were “told to look beyond the evidence, dare to be wrong.”

“Today, intelligence is strictly evidence-based,” he said. “This makes it difficult to look over the horizon and to make a call that you know in your gut is right, even though the evidence isn’t there yet. And in my view, that’s the job of the intelligence analysts, to dare to be wrong, to make their best call, even when they don’t have all the pieces.”

Fleitz left the House Intelligence Committee last year to be managing editor of a website that provides intelligence analysis. During his time working for the panel, he said, it became clear managers are discouraging analysts from making those kinds of calls.

“There is an effort in the intelligence community that has made it gun-shy, that has made some analysts less willing to stick their necks out and dare to be wrong,” he said. “And there has been a political correctness imposed on intelligence analysts that has made it more difficult for them to think outside the box.”

The terminology used at homeland and intelligence agencies exacerbated those issues, Fleitz said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s effort early on in her tenure to refer to “man-caused disasters,” rather than always saying “terrorist attacks,” affected the thinking of people working within the nation’s intelligence agencies, he said. Napolitano said she hoped the term would help promote an all-hazards approach at her department, but she soon began referring to terrorism.

Fleitz also cited the example of a threat report the intelligence community presented to the Senate and House intelligence committees this year, which used the term “homegrown radical extremist” rather than “homegrown terrorist.”

“This sort of reflected a politically correct effort, pressuring this government, pressuring intelligence analysts to think within a certain box, to not make certain calls,” he said.

Although he argues the lack of threat warning before the Benghazi attack constitutes an intelligence failure, Fleitz said the incident was ultimately the State Department’s fault for underestimating the threat and “misinterpreting consequences of the Arab Spring and the seriousness that radical jihadists still pose to this country and to our diplomats.”

'Oblivious' Obama not behind Osama raid

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely reveals name of leader who authorized operation


bin-laden-target-crosshairs

The decision to raid Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and kill him was made without President Obama – and actually was kept from him until after the helicopters already were in Pakistani airspace – according to a new report from a retired major general who cites a senior intelligence source.

The raid was handled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta and others in this way because Obama had vetoed multiple earlier opportunities to attack the man behind the 9/11 terror attacks, the report said.

The report comes from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who retired in 1993 as deputy commanding general, Pacific Command, and has served as a senior military analyst for Fox News. He is now chairman of Stand Up America, which calls itself the standard bearer for the conservancy of the U.S. Constitution.

The group has briefed the FBI, Congress, law enforcement and other agencies on terrorism and “anything that affects the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of our citizenry and way of life.”

In a column published today by WND, Vallely said a “senior and sensitive intelligence community source” affirmed to a Stand Up America research team that Obama “did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, until after the helicopters with SEAL Team 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.”

The source said Obama was notified “at the golf course … which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operations room event.”

The source told Stand Up America that Panetta “was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid.”

“He signed the ‘execute orders’ with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.”

The source explained the White House “was closed out of the decision because the president, through Valerie Jarrett, had turned down two or three other earlier proposals.”

Panetta, Vallely’s source reported, “and his covert planning team were extremely frustrated at all the denials, so saw the opportunity slipping away, as implausible as it seems.”

The report said Panetta convinced his other principals to make the decision and received their full-fledged support but the president, according to the official, “remained clueless on the mission.”

“This tremendously serious and sensitive information was relayed by a source who has been very frustrated with the continued dishonesty within the White House,” Vallely reported.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, previously has called for “We the People” to stop the nation’s “progressive socialist, treasonous death march.”

He graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961. He served in theaters in Europe and the Pacific Rim and saw two tours of combat duty in Vietnam.

CBS has reported that “Obama’s decision to send operatives after Osama bin Laden” was described by White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as “one of the most gutsiest calls of any president.”

However, the Mail Online in London reported a book by Richared Miniter documented that three “kill” missions were canceled by Obama in January, February and March of 2011.

The SEAL mission was in May 2011.

Miniter reported it was Jarrett who kept urging Obama to cancel plans to get bin Laden.

The Ulsterman Report blog earlier said Obama did not make the attack decision.

That blog said, “He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander-in-chief so his secret is safe.”
The U.N. Tries To Become A Global Government
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com



The United Nations was founded to provide a forum in which the world’s nations could negotiate their differences to avoid armed conflict.  Its administrative role was restricted to policing peace agreements after they were concluded and providing humanitarian assistance around the world.

But now, the U.N. is trying to become the world’s government, superseding national sovereignty and making of the world, one nation.  And who is to run this global government?  The unelected bureaucrats who staff the U.N. will.  And who will set policy for them?  The corrupt, undemocratic nations that comprise the U.N. General Assembly will.

The U.N. is an inherently undemocratic institution.  Only 45% of its members are deemed to be “free” nations by the Freedom Institute which rates such matters.  And about one-third of the world’s population -- including notably China -- are governed (and represented in the U.N.) by totally dictatorial governments.

When the nations of the world sit augustly in the General Assembly chamber behind name plates for each country, the spectacle is deceptive.  The delegate from Russia should not be called the representative of the “Russian Federation”.   He is the representative of one man -- Vladimir Putin.  The Chinese delegate should frankly be called the representative of the handful of members of that country’s Politburo.  The delegate for Venezuela represents only Hugo Chavez.

To give the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Japan and the other democracies on the planet the same one vote each as the U.N. gives dictatorships is a travesty.

When the U.N. was a forum for negotiation to avoid war, it made sense to take the nations as they come, treating free and not free equally.  In avoiding war, it doesn’t matter if the Russian representative only speaks for Putin because it is on Putin’s say-so that a war could be launched.

But if we are talking about a global government, how can we accord one man the same power as the elected leaders of democracies elected by hundreds of millions of voters?

And, in the U.N., size should matter but it doesn’t.  In Here Comes the Black Helicopters, we note that the U.N. is run by a Lilliputians who would tie up the world’s Gullivers. A voting majority of the General Assembly -- 97 countries -- have populations of less than eight million (smaller than New York City).  These 97 nations have a combined population of 241 million -- much less than the United States by itself. Forty have fewer than one million.  Some have fewer than 100,000 populations.  Monaco (33,000), San Marino (33,000), Palau (20,000), Tuvalu (20,000), and Nauru (10,000) each cast the same vote as China (1.3 billion), India (1.2 billion), and the United States (310 million).

Our democracy was redefined by the Supreme Court as requiring “one man, one vote.”  But how can we join a global government in which a majority votes are cast by countries with less than 5% of the world’s population?

And are these nations, who would constitute a kind of global Congress to rule over us, honest?

Transparency International found that only fifty of the 182 nations rated were “honest.”  Ninety-two (half the countries) were rated as highly corrupt (three or less on a one to ten scale).

So we are being asked to subject ourselves to the rule of tiny, corrupt, autocratic nations.  And to them we are being asked to cede our precious sovereignty.

A cartoon that says it all...


Op-ed:
Joe Biden...arrogance personified 
By: Diane Sori


"The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs," VP nominee Paul Ryan said. "Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years."

And that my friends is what this election is really all about...the economy.

But sadly during last night’s Vice-Presidential debate, lost in a sea of scoffing, eye-rolling, smirking, disrespect, and mocking laughter, VP Joe Biden turned what should have been a serious discussion on the critical issues into a divisive, deliberately interruptive attack not only on Paul Ryan but on Mitt Romney as well.

And Martha Raddatz’s constant interruptions didn’t help either, and showed her to be yet another biased liberal journalist in Obama’s pocket.

While Ryan tried to keep focusing on the Obama/Biden failed record of the last four years, pointing out with facts how this administration's domestic and foreign policies were counter-productive to both economic recovery and weakened our nation's standing in the world, all ‘Uncle Joe’ did was snicker at him (with those overly glaring newly whitened chicklett teeth of his), and make it appear that Ryan was nothing but a newbie trying to play with the big boys.

And he failed and failed badly.

Setting a very aggressive tone, interrupting Ryan 82 times, Biden was obviously trying to make up for Obama’s disastrous performance last week, as he spouted off the usual Obama rhetoric that all is now well and fine because of this administration...after all Obama got Osama.

Yeah right (insert sarcastic laugh here).

But Paul Ryan was able to counter all those attacks in a calm reassuring voice of logic and reason.

Hitting back on Biden’s bloviating about how wonderful ObamaCare is, Ryan clearly let the fact be known that non-medical people will now comprise the 15 person panel that will be making medical decisions, thus countered Biden’s scenario that seniors have nothing to fear.  

Truth be told, seniors especially should fear ObamaCare, because when you have non-medical people making medical decisions based on cost that sure sounds like the infamous death panels and rationed medicine that is the ‘secretive’ hushed part of ObamaCare.

And with this memorable line, “They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning Medicare into the piggybank for ObamaCare” seniors most definitely need to fear for their future healthcare and their pocketbooks, because remember, ObamaCare is the mother of all taxes that we ALL, seniors included, will be paying for.

And with Biden trying to make this election a choice between ‘differing directions for the country,’ and saying the Romney/Ryan ticket would ‘hurt the middle class and move the nation backward on social issues such as gay rights and abortion,’ he again tried to deflect his and Obama’s failed economic policies and bring to the forefront issues that need to be put on the backburner for now.

On the backburner for now...because along with the economy the issues of Benghazi and Iran need to be put front and center.

With Biden blaming the Benghazi attack and murders on a lack of communication between the intelligence gatherers and the White House, he’s done nothing but play the Obama blame-game yet again...and LYING too for he knew, as did Obama, that help was needed and proof of that came out at this week’s Libya hearings which highlighted Ambassador Stevens’ communiques for help.

"Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again." Biden lied through his teeth about the fact that this administration, specifically the State Department, had been told again and again that security on the ground in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular, was inadequate at best.  Former Libya security director Eric Nordstrom even described his frustration with having those requests turned down by this administration, saying, "For me the Taliban was on the inside of the building."

Paul Ryan shot off a good one as he countered Biden with this statement, "what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.”

How right he is.

Also, Joe Biden had the audacity to say that if Iran was close to possessing a nuclear weapon we’d know it...hello Joe...we do know it and you must have been sleeping when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly pointed that out for all to see at the UN last month.

With Biden’s obnoxiousness, contentiousness, and definite unlikeability factor during this debate between the career politician and the next generation of leaders, this helped to remind us all of just how bad last week’s presidential debate was for Obama.  And with Paul Ryan reiterating Mitt Romney’s rational, logical, and workable scenario for policy change, he clearly came out on top as a man who has solutions to problems NOT a man who “should know that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth quite right.”

Last night VP Joe Biden was all about arrogance and last night Joe Biden proved just how arrogant this administration really is and that will be their downfall.