Why is a Republican Senator Defending Issa for Outing Libyans?

Why is Senator Graham making a fool of himself over Libya by defending Issa?  First of all there is later data out to confirm what Susan Rice said that confirms the video was part of this but why let facts stand in the way.

October 16: News reports begin to indicate that while the Benghazi attacks may not have grown out of a protest against an anti-Muslim film Rice said in her Sept. 16 remarks, the assault may have been both an act of terrorism and carried out in response to the video.

Anyone who has ever been around the Intelligence Community knows that initial reports may not be the whole story.  That is nothing new but to declare the video had nothing to do with the attack isn't facing reality as the demonstrations started in Egypt due to the video and were spreading so a logical conclusion is that some terrorists took the opportunity to go after the consulate.  Did they know the Ambassador was in residence that night or were they after another facility on the compound?

The very idea that any sitting Senator would approve of what Issa did by releasing these documents to the public that contained names of Libyans who have been helping us is outrageous.  It just proves that these Republicans in Congress will do anything they can to defeat Obama when it means going against their core values in order to support a dishonest and corrupt Mitt Romney.  Also proves that Fox News will do anything to support Republicans by changing subjects like Chris Wallace did.

Durbin: Issa endangered Libyans with document dump to get ‘toehold’ for Romney (via Raw Story )

By David Edwards 

Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:37 EDT 

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Sunday ripped House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-IL) for exposing the identities of Libyans who were working with the U.S. government in an effort to politicize the recent deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and get a foreign policy “toehold" for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. 

During an interview on Fox News on Sunday, host Chris Wallace repeatedly ignored Durbin’s efforts to point out that Issa had dumped 166 pages of sensitive State Department documents without redacting the names of Libyan civilians.

“Let’s ask the honest questions, let’s gather the evidence, let’s make sure we understand actually what did occur,” the Democratic senator told Wallace. “But jumping to conclusions — I mean, Darrel Issa does a documentary dump on his website of sensitive information about those in Libya who are helping to keep America safe. It shows the lengths many will go to try to politicize this tragic situation.”

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, praised Issa and Fox News for continuing to attack President Barack Obama for his handling of Libya before and after the attacks. 

“Thanks God for media that will ask questions, thank God for some Republican control of one branch of government,” Graham opined. “If you left it up to this administration to inform the American people, we would still be believing this was a spontaneous riot spurred by a video.” 

“I am totally convinced that this is going to go down in history as one of the most major breakdowns of national security in a very long time,” he insisted. “It’s exhibit A of a failed national security strategy.”

For his part, Durbin said that it was “always easier to say the day after how you could have won that football game.”

“This idea of Chairman Issa, saying that he’s going to dump the names in public of Libyans who are risking their lives to support America and keep us safe in an effort to get a political toehold in this election is unconscionable, it is unacceptable,” Durban observed. “I’m sure that Sen. Graham doesn’t support that.”

“Well, let’s move on to the shifting story after the attack,” Wallace replied, declining to press Graham on the question of Issa’s document dump.

Fox Tabloid News pundit Wallace refused to press Graham on his answer preferring to 'move on' so Graham didn't have to answer whether he supported outing the Libyans or not.  By his silence and support of Issa, he has answered that question that he agrees or he would have spoken out.  Shame on Senator Graham for putting Party over our Country and National Security.  He joins a long list of Republicans who have been obstructing and attacking the President for over 3 1/2 years but this is reprehensible out of someone with access to classified information and has been a member of the military.

What country would want to work with the CIA if we are going to out their people?  Or is that what Graham and others want -- do away with the CIA and bring intelligence under the military which is bad idea.  They don't have the resources and the DoD is headed by a political appointee that leaves his job when a new President takes over while the CIA Director is a 10-year appointment like the FBI Director.  The CIA operates independently from the military but so many times they have reached the same conclusions from different avenues which is necessary to have an intelligence community that works.  I have no faith left in today's Republicans in Congress or in the flawed candidate representing the Republican Party.

The obstruction and House Republicans cutting the budgets of security for the embassies should make everyone cringe at what they would do if Romney was President.  

---

Patton: Thank You, Mr. President

This article is one of those gotcha articles -- headline of the article leaves you wondering what happened to Doug Patton and then you read the story finding out it is President Bush not Obama.  Now you can breath a sigh of relief that you world has not turned upside down.

What would have happened if Obama had not kept a lot of the Bush foreign policy in tact?  Reminder it is same foreign policy he relentlessly attacked during the 2008 Presidential campaign.  The Obama foreign policy has been a disaster for the Middle East as we now we are facing the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt.  The same Muslim Brotherhood who Obama's people said we didn't have to worry about.  Slowly a sense is growing in Egypt that they may end up having more freedoms under President Mubarak then what they are starting to see under the new regime.  Good chance the Muslim Brotherhood will be running Egypt with Shariah Law implemented.  In Libya we chose the side of the rebels without bothering to check them out with some rebels coming from Al Qaeda.

Patton: Thank You, Mr. PresidentBy Doug Patton May 9, 2011 7:14 am
The world's foremost terrorist is dead, and it seems that thanks are in order. When a leader is deserving of praise, it is only right that those of us who opine on the nature of such things should give credit where credit is due. So I would like to say thank you, Mr. President. Yes, that's right. I would like to say thank you to the man responsible for getting Osama bin Laden. That man is George W. Bush.
....
As for the foreign policy decisions Obama himself has made, they have all been wrong. He has tried appeasement with the mullahs in Iran, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, turned his back on Israel, insulted our closest ally in Europe — Great Britain — and cozied up to dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
....
All politicians use the advantages handed to them for political gain. They would be foolish not to exploit those things that enhance their reputations. But the double-standard applied to this president versus his predecessor is staggering.

On May 1, 2003, President Bush copiloted a Lockheed S-3 Viking aircraft onto the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln as it returned from combat operations in the Persian Gulf. After posing for pictures in his flight suit with members of the ship's crew, the president gave a speech with a banner behind him that read "Mission Accomplished." The Left and their dutiful lackeys in the media went crazy. They called it a stunt.They said Bush was using it to get re-elected; and to this day they will not let go of that image and the message they believe it conveyed. 

Fast forward exactly eight years to the day — May 1, 2011. Osama bin Laden is dead, which is good news for civilized people everywhere. After calling Bush to give him the news, it was all photo-op time for Obama in a week calculated to maximize the perceived PR victory he thought he had just won for himself. 

These shameless "look at me" plugs for the reelection of Barack Obama culminated in an odd, wreath-laying ceremony at Ground Zero, as if it were suddenly September 11th again and it was vitally necessary that he be there. He tried to get former Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton to join him, but to their credit, they declined. 

Then, to cap off his week in the limelight, Obama flew to Fort Campbell, KY, to incorporate the troops into his campaign efforts. 

All this after telling us he would not release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden because "we don't spike the ball." Uh huh. 

So as Barack Obama basks in the sunshine of his imagined personal victory, I say to George W. Bush, "Thank you, Mr. President. You protected our country during your tenure and you put us on the trail of the biggest human cockroach on the planet. Your successor, wearing your large shoes, just happened to step on him." 

Excerpt: Read More at GOP USA

The double standard by Obama knows no end.  A lot of people in this Country are getting fed up by the I, I, I of Obama when he speaks and the adoring Obama media members who cover for him over and over again.

When are members of the Mainstream Media going to start questioning Obama on why it took him from August 2010 when CIA Director Panetta told him they were sure Bin Laden was in the compound where he was found until May 1st to take him out?  CIA put the compound  under surveillance waiting months for orders to take out Bin Laden.  All these months of dithering on the part of Obama could have led to Bin Laden going back into the mountains again. If Panetta had not issued the order to execute the raid on Sunday was there a possibility Bin Laden with cash on hand could have disappeared again.  Why was Obama on the golf course when this mission was going commenced?  It seems like such a simple question that should be asked by the media but we hear crickets.

It was very telling that Presidents Bush and Clinton refused to participate in the Ground Zero wreath laying in front of 50 specially chosen 9/11 families.  This was all about Obama this past week and no one else.  The White House media could very easily question the picture of Obama watching the raid when it was a blank screen, but we have our doubts they will say a word choosing to continue to cover for Obama.

Will someone please tell us why Obama went to Fort Campbell instead of to Norfolk NAS to meet with the SEALS?  It is Navy SEALS not Army SEALS.  How can one President and his White House Staff get so many facts wrong in such a short period of time?  

CIA had Bin Laden residence under surveillance for months

This excerpt from the NY Times article about the CIA and information that is being gleaned from the data the SEALS recovered is giving total credence that Obama kept dithering when they knew where Obama was located. We were not expecting to see this first paragraph below from the NY Times:

The C.I.A. had Bin Laden’s compound under surveillance for months before American commandos killed him in an assault on Monday, watching and photographing residents and visitors from a rented house nearby, according to several officials briefed on the operation.
The documents taken at the Abbottabad compound, according to American officials, show that Bin Laden was in touch regularly with the terror network he created. With his whereabouts and activities a mystery in recent years, many intelligence analysts and terrorism experts had concluded that he had been relegated to an inspirational figure with little role in current and future Qaeda operations.
Excerpt: Read More at the New York Times

Now even the Times is saying the CIA had Bin Laden under surveillance for months, but yet we hear the statements that Pakistan didn't say a peep about him to the United States. We find that hard to believe just like we find hard to believe that the CIA was not an active participate in this whole mission since our resources in Pakistan had him under surveillance.
This Obama White House will do anything to make Obama look good but in the end he dithered for months. For once the NY Times is putting the information out there for all to see. What other news organization is going to pick up the fact that the CIA knew where he was at but Obama would not approve any type of raid for months?
Is the real reason Obama fired McChrystal is because McChrystal wanted to go after Obama as soon as the CIA confirmed he was there? Beginning to make sense because little else has made any sense. What took Obama so long that CIA Director Panetta had to issue the order? Obama said he didn't want to do an air raid as they couldn't identify if it was Bin Laden, but Obama had him buried at sea in less than 24 hours and talks about how DNA was confirmed right away when anyone with an ounce of brains has googled how long it takes to get a 99% match. Is Obama ever going to tell the truth or are we going to have to listen to 21 more months of lies and spin?

9/11 Relative: Obama Turned his Back on Me

Here is one 9/11 Family member who Obama and Jarrett are probably sorry was invited to the event at Ground Zero. Most of those invited were the Bush haters that went after Pres Bush at every little turn including getting mad at him for taking 7 minutes to continue reading to children so not to upset them on 9/11. Same people have said nothing about Obama taking 16 hours to decide.  Today more and more people are now of the mind Obama never made the decision -- Panetta did. Word for these Bush haters is 'hypocrite' as just like Obama they have been using 9/11 to make a political statement against President Bush which the mainstream media loved.  We have not forgotten how Obama trashed President Bush first when he was an Illinois Senator and then a US Senator.

Once again Fox News has brought us the facts.  Have any of the other national broadcast news organizations bothered to show Debra Burlingame and learn how Obama turned his back on her and why?  Probably doesn't fit their narrative they have for Obama as the Obama media goes into campaign mode right with Obama.

9/11 Relative: Obama Turned His Back on Me
Thursday, 05 May 2011 05:01 PM

By Newsmax Wires

Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon) told Fox News Thursday that President Barack Obama turned his back on her during the 9/11 memorial when she attempted to engage him about the prosecution of the men who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Burlingame said she confronted Obama about Attorney General Eric Holder's prosecuting the men, who probably produced intelligence leading us to bin Laden.

Burlingame describes the encounter with Obama: "As a former attorney, I know you can't tell the attorney general what to do, he said, 'No, I can't.' But I said 'we — that shouldn't stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done their jobs. Can't you at least give them your opinion.' And he said 'no I won't,' and he turned around and walked away."




Source: Fox News via Newsmax

Cannot understand how Obama and his Attorney General Holder, who serves at his pleasure, can even consider charging our CIA/military for interrogation of terrorists using various techniques. Those techniques including waterboarding led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden according to CIA Director Panetta. This is one site that you will also never see us spell Osama with a "U" like the mainstream media are now doing to separate it from Obama. Might say something about having a President with a Muslim name -- did he ever get it officially changed back from Barry Sorento that was his adopted name?  You might think the mainstream media would have checked on that as well instead of being the lapdogs for Obama.

Byron York: Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sent our military into a wartime situation on the side of the rebels when  they had no clue who they were. Senator Inhofe needs to keep pressing this issue because if Gadhafi falls, the chance of Al Qaeda supporters taking control in Libya seems very high.

In 2007, after a military study of the The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG), it was determined that they had become an Al Qaeda affilitated terrorist organization and put on the State Department list of terrorist organization.  All the Administration had to do was google in 'libyan terrorist group' to find plenty of sites about the LIFG, including their own State Department site. Various sites detail when the LIFG joined Al Qaeda and the fact some of their leaders were in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting against the United States.

Now we have an Admiral saying there are "flickers" of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who are part of the rebels. Well according some embed reporters with the rebels, it is more than a "flicker" and one of the heads of the rebels fought against the United States in Afghanistan after 9/11. Senator Inhofe asked the question in the hearing on Libya and gets a weasel word answer that there are "flickiers" and they are still investigating. Why didn't they bother to investigate before this wartime effort was launched? What was the rush to war?

Can any terrorist group can now call themselves rebels and expect support from the United Stateswith no checking into who they are? Have witnessed first hand ineptness out of the Government but this is beyond inept, this is negligence at the highest level.

What an absolute mess this Administration has gotten this Country in and all those people on both sides of the aisle that rushed in that we needed to be in Libya seems to have no clue just who the rebels are in Libya.  Looks like our military or the CIA doesn't have a clue about that either.

When did our intelligence agencies become so inept? Starts at the top and putting Leon Panetta at CIA has been a disaster. In fact, putting so many Clintonites in the Obama Administration in addition to Obama Czars and their staffs has been an imitigated disaster.  No one has yet to determine who Gadhafi was after with his march on certain cities. Gadhafi said it was against Al Qaeda and the drug smugglers. What if Gadhafi was right? Who provided the intelligence on Libya and Gadhafi -- Al Qaeda informants still on the side of Al Qaeda? Wish someone would ask that question!


The United States has no vested interest in Libya and it is not a threat so why was anyone for going into Libya without checking out the rebels? Why aren't more members of the mainstream media asking just who are these rebels. If they are indeed Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbolla as many are now saying openly, why are we or NATO in the skies of Libya helping out the rebels?

This is the reason all Administrations need to go to Congress for approval before launching any attack for any reason except for immediate retaliation when we have been attacked. No President has the right to commit to military action when we have no vested interested like Obama did with Libya. His speech last night certainly did not change my mind that he violated the War Powers Act plain and simple.

Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf
By: Byron York 03/29/11 11:37 AM
Chief Political Correspondent http://twitter.com/ByronYork

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Stavridis was asked by Republican Sen. James Inhofe to comment on "reports about the presence of al Qaeda among the rebels, among those with whom we are associated." "As you can imagine, we are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders in these opposition forces," Stavridis responded. "The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership I am seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi. We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we've seen different things, but at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say that there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We'll continue to look at that very closely. It's part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship."

Stavridis' testimony raises two questions. One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker? The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"

"I think that from the moment this crisis unfolded, there has been a great deal of intelligence applied to this," Stavridis responded.

The lack of knowledge about the Libyan opposition has become a major question in the Libya conflict. At Monday's Pentagon briefing, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin asked another top official, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, a very simple question: "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?" "We're not talking with the opposition," Gortney responded. "We have -- we would like a much better understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So yes, it does matter to us, and we're trying to fill in those gaps, knowledge gaps." Gortney's answer was another suggestion that the U.S. is doing critical due diligence on the fly in Libya.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

When you read that Fox News Reporter Jennifer Griffen asked a Vice Admiral "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?  She gets a reply that they are not talking with the opposition and would like a better understanding.  As I said before he can google in 'libyan terrorist group' and find out who some members of the opposition are who took advantage of unrest of the younger people in Libya and now have taken over.

Bottom line is Obama and Clinton sent our military into war without knowing who the rebels were and with NO approval from Congress as there is no vested interest for the United States in Libya as stated by the Secretary of Defense.  This Administration violated the War Powers Act and when are they going to be held accountable? 

The Administration claim that NATO is in charge has to be the biggest spin yet as the United States is providing most of the weapon systems involved and even more with the C-130 gunships and A-10's now being into Libyan skies.  That doesn't even include that the United States funds NATO costs more than France and Great Britain together.  The NATO person in charge reports to two Americans including the American who heads NATO.  So who is really in charge?

America needs a restart in January 2013 with a new Administration who puts America first!

Chicago flight too costly for al-Qaida bomb suspect

Reading this sent chills up the spine because the Yemen al-Qaida group is not attacking symbolic targets but is looking for targets of opportunity.

It shows that al-Qaida's Yemen branch does not share Osama bin Laden's desire to attack symbolic targets, preferring instead to strike at targets of opportunity. Like the plot that nearly blew up U.S.-bound cargo planes last year, the cities themselves didn't matter. It's a strategy that has helped the relatively new group quickly become the No. 1 threat to the United States.

This group could strike anyplace, anytime but fortunately they don't look to be well financed if Abdulmutallab, the bomber, chose a cheaper air fare to Detroit versus Chicago or Houston. How long is their lack of big money going to last after they were almost successful with the Detroit Northwest flight being brought down by a bomb?

Why was a non-CIA man, Leon Panetta, chosen to head the CIA? With him and his political appointees at the top of the CIA, the agency has been going through a lack of credibility. It is just one more agency of Obama appointees that are some of the worst we have ever witnessed. While Panetta may be experienced in Government, he never was involved in the workings of the CIA and it shows when he testifies to Congress or makes statements.

In 2012 when the question is asked do you feel safer now then when President Bush was in office, the answer is a resounding NO!!! At times it is like the keystone cops are in charge. How one Administration can have so many inexperienced, incompetent people in high government positions is beyond me except you look at the top of the leadership and see a huge vacuum -- plenty of rhetoric, short on experience even today, and an incompetent whose ideology doesn't match the majority of the American people.

This bomber almost pulled it off but then the Administration botched the questioning by reading him his Miranda rights ASAP on the orders of Holder and his incompetent group of political appointees. The bomber was cooperating and then AG Holder stepped in and the bomber shuts up. Why did Holder step in? It is hard to tell who is the worst in this Administration but Holder is right near the top.

Twenty-two more months to go! The clock is ticking away but not soon enough.

Chicago flight too costly for al-Qaida bomb suspect --------------------
Associated Press

March 24 2011, 8:08 AM CDT

When an admitted al-Qaida operative planned his itinerary for a Christmas 2009 airline bombing, he considered launching the strike in the skies above Houston or Chicago, The Associated Press has learned. But tickets were too expensive, so he refocused the mission on a cheaper destination: Detroit.

The decision is among new details emerging about one of the most sensational terrorism plots to unfold since President Barack Obama took office. It shows that al-Qaida's Yemen branch does not share Osama bin Laden's desire to attack symbolic targets, preferring instead to strike at targets of opportunity. Like the plot that nearly blew up U.S.-bound cargo planes last year, the cities themselves didn't matter. It's a strategy that has helped the relatively new group quickly become the No. 1 threat to the United States.

After the failed bombing and the arrest of suspected bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the question of why Detroit was targeted had gone unanswered. It was previously reported that Abdulmutallab did not specifically choose Christmas for his mission.

Abdulmutallab considered Houston, where he attended an Islamic conference in 2008, current and former counterterrorism officials told the AP. Another person with knowledge of the case said Abdulmutallab also considered Chicago but was discouraged by the cost. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

While the target and timing were unimportant, the mission itself was a highly organized plot that involved one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists and al-Qaida's go-to bomb maker, current and former officials said. Before Abdulmutallab set off on his mission, he visited the home of al-Qaida manager Fahd al-Quso to discuss the plot and the workings of the bomb.

Al-Quso, 36, is one of the most senior al-Qaida leaders publicly linked to the Christmas plot. His association with al-Qaida stretches back more than a decade to his days in Afghanistan when, prosecutors said, bin Laden implored him to "eliminate the infidels from the Arabian Peninsula."

From there he rose through the ranks. He was assigned the job in Aden to videotape the 1998 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and injured 39 others, but fell asleep. Despite the lapse, he is now a mid-level manager in the organization. Al-Quso is from the same tribe as radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had an operational role in the botched Christmas attack.

In December, al-Quso was designated a global terrorist by the State Department, a possible indication that his role in al-Qaida's Yemen franchise has grown more dangerous.

Al-Quso was indicted on 50 terrorism counts in New York for his role preparing for the Cole attack and served more than five years in prison in Yemen before he was released in 2007. On the FBI's list, al-Quso ranks behind only bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri among the most sought-after al-Qaida terrorists.

After meeting with al-Quso, Abdulmutallab left Yemen in December 2009 and made his way to Ghana, where he paid $2,831 in cash for a round-trip ticket from Nigeria to Amsterdam to Detroit and back.

Abdulmutallab, 24, is charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiring with others to kill 281 passengers and 11 crew members aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. After his arrest, he admitted to the FBI that he intended to blow up the plane and later surfaced in an al-Qaida propaganda video.

Excerpt: The complete article can be viewed at:
Chicago Tribune

Report: CIA Chief Leon Panetta Based Congressional Testimony On Mubarak Departure On ‘Media Broadcasts’

The CIA Director Leon Panetta testifies yesterday using the media for his source but didn't tell members of Congress that was his source which put the CIA.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.

Panetta needs to resign as CIA Director today. He had no intelligence background when he was named and looks he has none today. You cannot hide the fact that his source was the media which the CIA tried to spin after the hearing that everyone 'misunderstood' which is typical of this Administration -- what we hear is not what was said even though it is on video.  Why let a little video tell the real story when you can spin?

You add in Intelligence Chief John Clapper's fairy tale of the Muslim Brotherhood which was also spun after his comments hit the internet, and you have a prescription for an intelligence nightmare where you have two high ranking people testifying who should not be anywhere near any intelligence organization.

What effect did the testimony of Panetta have on what was happening with the protesters in Cairo? Not every day the CIA Director goes public that the President of a Country is stepping down in this case Murbarak when it is not happening. Using the media for a source in testimony should be grounds for removal. Will it happen? Doubt it because Obama would have to choose someone else and don't think he is up to the task. Maybe he can ask Bill Clinton who to pick since he seems to be choosing all new staff for Obama.

Report: CIA Chief Leon Panetta Based Congressional Testimony On Mubarak Departure On ‘Media Broadcasts’by Colby Hall | 10:30 pm, February 10th, 2011

CIA Director Leon Panetta testified to Congress today of a “strong likelihood” that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would step down by the end of the day. The report of his impending resignation was only eclipsed by the news that Mubarak would NOT be stepping down as Panetta had indicated to congress. The worse part isn’t that Panetta was basing his statement on on media reports (and not intelligence.) No, National Intelligence Director James Clapper outdid Panetta with his erroneous claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular” organization.

Certainly the current upheaval unfolding in Egypt is a fluid situation, best described as a leaderless revolt that has put the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all on their heels. As it turns out, the true diplomatic stars so far in this story has been the media, who’s on the field reports have not only created compelling visuals for cable news outlets around the world, but also, strangely, informed the CIA director in his statements to Congress.

According to a report by Mark Landler and Mark Mazzetti for the NY Times (emphasis mine):

Mr. Obama watched Mr. Mubarak’s speech on board Air Force One, returning from a trip to Michigan, the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said. As soon as he arrived at the White House, Mr. Obama huddled with his national security aides. The administration appeared as taken aback by Mr. Mubarak’s speech as the crowds in Tahrir Square. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.

American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee. But a senior administration official said Mr. Obama had also expected that Egypt was on the cusp of dramatic change. Speaking at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, he said, “We are witnessing history unfold,” adding, “America will do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.”

Wait, what? The head of the CIA was giving information to congress that he was getting from the “teevee”? Hmmm…I could have done that.

Panetta was only outdone by the strange claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular.” It is true that that the many media outlets and commentators have mischaracterized the group as a “terrorist” affiliated group when they are among the more moderate factions in Egypt, it’s factually incorrect to claim that they are secular.

According to FoxNews.com:

The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said.

But the DNI later issued a statement to “clarify” that claim.

“To clarify Director Clapper’s point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.

While the Brotherhood has renounced violence, one of its goals is to pursue the creation of an Islamic state. The CIA’s own website lists the Brotherhood as a “religious-based” party.

 All in all not a proud moment for American intelligence efforts.  Click on the Link to watch Clappers comments, courtesy of Fox News.

Smoking Gun? What is the Obama Administration Hiding with the Rapid Swap of 10 Russian Agents?

Update, 07/14/10, 7:04 p.m. now we have a 12th spy who was arrested and then sent to Russia yesterday -- how many more and why the quick transfer?

(July 14) -- The 12th person detained in connection with the Russian spy ring investigation was a software tester at Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, the company confirmed today in published reports.

Alexey Karetnikov, 23, worked at Microsoft as an entry-level software tester for about nine months, the company said. Microsoft did not comment on when Karetnikov began employment at the company. The news of his job at Microsoft was first reported by Bloomberg Businessweek.
Karetnikov was deported to Russia on Tuesday, following his arrest in Seattle on June 28.

"He was present in the United States in violation of immigration law and voluntarily agreed to deportation in lieu of further court proceedings," Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, told KOMO-TV.
___________________________________________

The following paragraph says it all and flies in the face of any denials by this Administration that this wasn't about politics:

The swap of the 10 "illegals," or deep-cover agents, last week — 12 days after their arrest — also prevented trial disclosures of other potentially embarrassing details, like the identities of what an FBI criminal complaint described as a "former legislative counsel for the U.S. Congress" and "former high-ranking United States government national security official" both of whom provided information to two Boston-based Russians in the case. Both officials' names were omitted from the complaint.

One thing we can be certain is that both the former legislative counsel for the U.S. Congress and a former high-ranking US government national security official are Democrats because if they were Republicans it would be above the fold headlines on the front page. That's how the Democrats and media work hand in glove. If it is a negative about a Democrat don't bother to say the party but if it is a Republican plaster it all over.

Since they arrested an 11th spy as part of this ring, it makes one wonder how many there are all total. Odd deal about the 11th spy as he was arrested by Cyprus authorities as he was trying to leave the island and then released. What are these people hiding that they are released so fast or swapped very quickly? Maybe they know where Obama was born as no one else seems to be able to determine that with 100% accuracy.

If there were 11 spies, you can take it to the bank that there are a lot more operating in the United States. Some reset button by Obama and Hillary with Russia's
leadership who knew all along they had spies in this Country. Russian leaders must have been laughing inside at Obama and Hillary and their reset button.

Obvious that this Administration is not going to give the details of why the swap of spies took place so rapidly which leads to even more speculation that something is being covered up. Yet, we are supposed to take the CIA spokesman word that there was nothing political involved. If any political appointee from the CIA said the sky was blue today, we would have to check for ourselves. They have the credibility of a gnat. In fact probably less than a gnat.

Spy swap puts halt to fact findingPublic trial of 10 Russian agents could have led to revelationsBy Bill Gertz
9:10 p.m., Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The Obama administration's rapid release of 10 Russian intelligence officers removed the prospect of a public trial revealing embarrassing facts about Russian influence operations, like the targeting of a key Democratic Party financier close to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Current and former national security officials critical of the speedy exchange with Moscow also said trading the 10 spies for four Russians less than two weeks after their arrest also limited U.S. counterspies from learning important details of Russian espionage and influence operations.

Questions about the handling of the case were raised Tuesday during a closed-door briefing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, questioned the unprecedented speed used by the administration in moving the spies out of the country.

"We gave up the opportunity," he said. "Now that these people are out of the country, it's game off, not game on. We will get no additional insights or information from them."

Mr. Hoekstra said the House intelligence oversight panel will be briefed on the case this week and "tough questions" will be raised about the swap. "Right now, it looks like this is one time the government should have been a little more deliberate and taken its time before acting in haste," he said.

(snip)

The Russian SVR foreign intelligence service also asked its spies to provide information on the new strategic arms treaty, the war in Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear program, indications that Moscow is working covertly against U.S. efforts on those issues, despite efforts by President Obama and Mrs. Clinton to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations.

Law enforcement and intelligence officials close to the case said politics did not play a role in the decision to quickly swap the spies for the four Russians held on intelligence-related charges by Moscow. They also dismissed the idea that more information would have been gained from holding the spies longer. The exchange took place Saturday in Vienna, Austria.

Read More at Washington Times

Post story bolsters Cheney

Politico

The Washington Post leads today with an extraordinary story cutting against the conclusions of a series of recent government and media reports to cast as straight news -- with a few hedges and qualifications -- that waterboarding and sleep deprivation worked like a charm to turn Kalid Sheik Mohammed from an enemy into an "asset."

The story -- which seems sure to provoke an intense reaction from the many critics of President Bush's interrogation policies, and comes just before Dick Cheney's appearance, taped Friday, on Fox News Sunday -- bears all the marks of some complicated internal discussions over at the Post, which has been on the defensive since its reporting in the run up to the Iraq war. A sign of the internal focus on the piece: The story -- appearing as the paper's top story on an off day, a Saturday -- has three major bylines and just a tagline from national security reporter Walter Pincus.

The story begins:

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

EXCERPT: Read more at politico.com

NOTE: When the Washington Post gets it, Attorney General Holder and Obama are in trouble. Would say all but the far left support the CIA and what they have been doing to keep us safe. Why would this Administration want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Can you imagine an agent of the CIA being subjected to prosecution by his own President's Administration over tactics that have kept America safe? That's what we are talking about with the Obama Administration as we agree with others that Holder would be fired if Obama really disagreed with the action. Another campaign promise to look forward not back has been tossed under the bus by Obama. It is getting very crowded under the bus.

OBAMA GOES AFTER CIA TO GAIN COVER ON THE LEFT

UPDATE:

KARL ROVE: Well and that’s another thing, rather than taking responsibility upon his own shoulders and saying there will be a Justice Department investigation led by people that I name who will be responsible to me, he’s putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor so he can wash his hands of it and not be held responsible for it. Again I do not use the word “cowardly” loosely, I use it advisedly, but this is cowardly on both the part of the White House and on the part of Attorney General Holder and its irresponsible o the part of both.

Excerpt: Read More at Hot Air

OBAMA GOES AFTER CIA TO GAIN COVER ON THE LEFT

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on August 27, 2009

After vowing not to become involved in recriminations over the Bush anti-terror policies, President Obama has allowed his Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to dig up all the dirt he can find on the CIA and the anti-terror investigators whose aggressive questioning saved us from countless attacks.

Why the switch? Because Obama needs to do something to appease the left that elected him. After refusing to pull out of Iraq and deciding to follow the Bush timetable for withdrawing and staying in Afghanistan and likely having to beef up our presence there, liberals might be wondering why they elected Obama. After all, his opposition to the war in Iraq and his criticism of the Bush anti-terror policies were the hallmarks of his campaign in 2008.

And, on the domestic front, Obama likely realizes that he may have to pull in his horns on health care and accept some sort of compromise which may not endear him to his constituency.

So he has decided to throw a few CIA interrogators to the wolves.

The report that Holder released to accompany his decision to name a special prosecutor itself showed the trivial nature of the charges against these patriotic anti-terror investigators.

Among the allegations prominently featured in the report is that the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole was scrubbed with a rough brush in the bath so as to cause him pain. Our heartless interrogators also threatened that they could bring in his family and parents for questioning. How do these "tortures" compare with the deaths of more than a dozen American sailors roasted to death in flames or drowned in the sea?

The CIA report, also released on Monday, demonstrates, within the limits that secrecy allows, how these very interrogations thwarted serious terrorist plots against our country.

Would the public agree that if we had bin Laden in custody that it would be wrong to scrub him with a harsh brush? Or to threaten to involve his family? Or to press his carotid artery until he was on the verge of passing out? If such techniques could have averted the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11, would we not all have sanctioned them?

But Obama needs political cover so he is creating a three ring circus for the media by naming a special prosecutor to conduct a likely leaky investigation designed to throw dirt at the CIA. The exposures he is likely to make will dominate the headlines even as Obama disingenuously retreats from his campaign commitments on Iraq and on foreign policy in general. And, the investigation may even make enough noise to permit a retreat on health care. We hope so.

NOTE: Check out Dick Morris' Blog/ to see more articles like this that tell the truth about this Administration and the Democrats. No one knows the inside of the Democrat Party and how they work better then Dick Morris. Obama is following the Democrat Playbook when you are losing on one agenda item throw in something with a little, very little, red meat. Once again, Obama has misjudged the American people especially in Middle America who appreciate the CIA and what they have done to keep us safe. Obama pandering to the far left has been duly noted.

Cheney Statement on CIA Documents/Investigation

Former Vice President Dick Cheney gave The Weekly Standard a statement Monday night about the CIA documents and the coming Justice Department investigation:

"The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cheney_statement_on_cia_docume.asp

Obama White House v. CIA; Panetta Threatened to Quit

Update - 8/26/09 - Red State is Reporting that Panetta will be resigning as CIA Director from reliable sources.

Late Breaking News! ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER WILL APPOINT PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED CIA ABUSES

Tensions Lead to CIA Director's "Screaming Match" at the White House

By MATTHEW COLE, RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS
August 24, 2009

A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

"You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

Since 9/11, the CIA has had five directors or acting directors.

A White House spokesperson, Denis McDonough, said reports that Panetta had threatened to quit and that the White House was seeking a replacement were "inaccurate."

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture."

Excerpt: Click for Full Article

NOTE: This is what you get when you elect someone who has Zero experience. From the time Obama won the Senate seat he was running for President and not learning about about how our Government works. His Constitutional Law classes were more about sports then the Law.

Thank you Director Panetta for standing up to Attorney General Holder.

Holder had charges dropped of voter intimidation and threats by the New Black Panther party but now wants to go after our CIA officers? They go after CIA agents doing their job and let the thugs go free. This Administration is spirraling out of control.

Is this one of those "Follow the Money?" Who is behind Holder going after the CIA agents and dropping charges against the New Black Panthers?