Washington Whispers: SEALs Angry at Attention, Want it Stopped

From the beginning we have been shocked at the amount of information leaked to the media from Obama and his staff in the White House.  Obama and every person in that situation room agreed to Secretary Gates' demand that nothing be leaked about the operation.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said President Obama's national security team initially agreed to keep details of the bin Laden raid secret, but that didn't work out so well. 

"Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden," Gates said during a town hall with Marines at Camp LeJeune, N.C. "That all fell apart on Monday -- the next day."

Took less than 24 hours and the Counterterrorism Chief Brennan was out shooting off his mouth along with the Press Secretary Carney, and Vice President Biden about details of the operation followed by a some info from Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA).  CIA Director Panetta has been giving the facts to counter misinformation that Obama and his minions keep providing the media in their rush to prop up Obama during the week after Bin Laden was killed. The amount of information leaking including now showing the helmet cams of the SEALS where you can make out who they are is beyond disgusting.  Believe now that some members of the Obama media will write and print anything without one thought to who it might harm if it makes Obama look good.

Obama and his minions exposed how our special operations operate, have not protected the location of our SEALS along with their identity with releasing video from the helmet cams, or the data they risked their lives to retrieve from this operation.  This Administration has put the NAVY Seals and all other special operations people at risk with their leaking details of the operation to boost Obama politically.

It goes from the disgusting to the bizarre as Disney is now seeking to trademark "Seal Team Six."  What right did they have to trademark that name?  Then we have the Hero Makers Obama SEAL doll complete with a machine gun for the man that wants gun control.  That action figure may backfire on Obama if the comments on various websites are any indication.  Everyone knows he was playing golf on Sunday afternoon and they had to bring him in from the golf course not to mention he had been dithering on taking out Bin Laden since August 2010 when CIA Director Panetta told him of Bin Laden's whereabouts.

This was a special ops mission that our people could have been killed and Obama, his minions, and now toy makers treat it like it is a movie not reality.

Sad of state of affairs when you cannot trust the occupant of the White House to keep secrets.  Why is Obama so quick to leak what is obvious classified information in violation of his agreement to Gates but keeps anything about himself secret.  He is the most secretive President ever with the biggest mouth when it comes to other people.  He quit protecting the SEALS when he had them fly to Fort Campbell, an Army, base to meet with him and all the leaks have added to the worry about their safety and that of their families.  Obama and his people are providing the Islamic terrorists with a blueprint on how our special operations forces work.  WHY?

Obama has always been about politics and his reelection from day one but this time he has crossed the line putting our military and their families at risk.  If this leaking from the White House keeps up, then we can safely assume Obama and his people could care less about protecting our military who he had such disdain for before he was elected.

SEALs Angry At Attention, Want It Stopped 

By Paul Bedard

Posted: May 13, 2011 

U.S. Navy SEALs, like the teams that killed Osama bin Laden, are grateful for nation's show of support but are growing angry with the continued focus on their operation, tactics, and tools, claiming it could jeopardize future raids and their safety. 

"My friends in the community tell me they're very glad for the bit of attention they got," said former Pentagon deputy undersecretary Jed Babbin, "but at some point the best way to help them is to stop. You guys in the press have done a good job, but stop for God's sake, stop." 

[See photos of the reaction to bin Laden's death.] 

The latest straw came when CBS revealed that the members of Special Warfare Development Group, formerly SEAL Team Six, wore helmet cams into bin Laden's lair. For many, that was a detail too far and could lead those being targeted by the military to somehow deploy countermeasures. 

And Washington Whispers this week reported on two blogs that identified the type of gun the SEALs likely used to kill bin Laden, the HK416 . 

"Anything further that comes out," added Babbin, a sponsor of the Special Operations Warfare Foundation, "could damage their operational security, maybe reveal tricks of the trade or even endanger their families."

Rob Curtis, who writes the Gear Scout blog for Military Times, said that there are concerns that the focus on the bin Laden raid has distracted the special operations world. "There are still plenty of HVTs [high-value targets] out there that Joint Special Operations Command is hunting and according to my sources close to and inside of SOCOM this story has become a huge distraction for the community."

[Check out political cartoons about the War in Afghanistan.] 

What's more, he adds, "It's my feeling that the administration has aimed a spotlight into one of the darkest corners of our national security apparatus without regard for the damage it might do to its ongoing operations."

Of course, President Obama led the SEALs parade, even visiting with many after the killing in Pakistan. What's more, the public has a huge appetite for what some call "SEAL porn," stories about every little detail on how the special operations warriors operate. 

Source: US News and World Report

Once again Paul Bedard of US News and World Report has brought the facts that Obama and the leakers from his Administration along with the Obama media have put these men and their family at risk with their big mouths.  Because they have also revealed the details of how this operation went down including with the choppers, they are putting other special operations forces at risk as well.

The more we read from various sites the more we find other people share our opinion about all the leaking harming our special ops missions by telegraphing how missions go down and what tactics are used.  Is it all to prop up Obama for his reelection or is it something more sinister?  We frankly don't know.  What we do know is that it is time for this White House led by Barack Obama to quit playing political games when it comes to the safety of any of our military.

Frank Gaffney: Peace Despite Weakness?

Everyone in this Country with a computer needs to start reading what Frank Gaffney and others have to say at the Center for Security Policy starting with members of the Senate who foolishly ratified that START Treaty in the lame duck without all the details.

Secretary of Defense Gates looks foolish himself touting the Obama 'can't we all get along' ('kum by yah') agenda in China no less  -- Gates acts like we don't have anything to be afraid of from the Chinese or the Russians.  Excuse us if we take the Dick Cheney approach and don't trust them.  (NOTE:  Before anyone goes over the edge on our use of 'kum by yah' to describe Obama and Carter, we know the origin and learned the song at Church camp, but it is used by pacifist and the anti-war movement and has taken on a meaning of  'can't we all get along?'  (appeasement) in our opinion which we feel describes the Obama and Carter Administrations.)

Electing someone with almost zero experience like Obama with a leftist agenda is hurting our national security more and more along with the people he chose for his cabinet and National Security Team. Gates is not our favorite Secretary of Defense but hate to think who Obama is going to choose next. Here is a snippet of what happened with Gates in China:

We better not kid ourselves. Secretary Gates’ China visit – in which he was reduced to pleading for improved military-to-military communications (as though they would actually mitigate the danger posed by PRC’s steadily increasing offensive power) and for Beijing’s “help” in containing North Korea (as though the latter poses a threat to the United States, but Communist China does not) – is but a taste of what is to come.  (Center for Security Policy)

Frank Gaffney is not a doom and gloom person but someone who isn't afraid to speak the truth. For years we have been strong following President Ronald Reagan's election and his agenda of 'Peace through Strength' which now that looks to be tossed out the window as Gates has offered up $178B in defense cuts. Reminds us of the Carter years where they kept cutting defense and his 'kum by yah' approach to national security was a huge failure which not only hurt our military but countries were not afraid of the United States and their kumbyya President shown by Iran and their taking of hostages at the American Embassy.

What is with some of these people in the White House and Congress with their failure to stand up and be strong on national security?   We are not dealing with 'kum by yah' countries but countries who are our enemies not our friends. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of States scares us almost as much as Obama because she wants so bad to be at the top, we believe she would sell out just to say she brokered an agreement.

Somewhere along the line with the fall of the Berlin Wall too many people assumed the Cold War was over and that we had nothing to fear from the Russians including a lot of Republicans.  Even when Putin was put in charge, President Bush refused to acknowledge that maybe he was not what he portended to be.  He came from the ranks of the KGB who are not exactly our friends.  For years it has been Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who were not willing to become even a little kumbyya -- we need people like that in office who put America first so the bullies know that America is not an easy mark.

Scary times we live and more attention needs paid to national security in our opinion. Without a strong national security, most other issues don't matter. Hard to figure out people who don't understand that national security also means border security. With part of our borders still open including the northern border who knows who enters the United States.

If you get a chance, visit Center for Security Policy to learn more about what is happening in the world.  Armed with the information provided, we can start contacting our members of Congress to remain vigilant and not be swayed by a 'kum by yah mentality that we are seeing out of this Administration.

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.

When Frank Gaffney says non-partisan, he means it as we have seen him take after both sides. We believe his Center for Security Policy has all of our backs even when the politicians refuse to see a problem. He doesn't quit on all of us and keeps right on putting out the truth and facts. He is a true American Patriot.

Frank Gaffney: Peace Despite Weakness?
January 11, 2011

Two recent episodes offer an insight into a world in which the United States deliberately adopts a policy of pursuing international peace despite weakness, rather than practice what Ronald Reagan called “peace through strength.”

First, prior to and during Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ present trip to Communist China, his hosts lifted the veil of secrecy on a brand new, “fifth-generation” stealth fighter aircraft. This “J-20” is clearly intended to compete with, and perhaps defeat, America’s inventory of such planes – the F-22, whose production Mr. Gates insisted on terminating prematurely, and the F-35, whose production he is now slowing.

U.S. intelligence evidently was taken by surprise that the Chinese have made such progress in so sophisticated an area of military design and manufacturing. In part, faulty estimates about the likelihood of “peer competitors” fielding stealthy air superiority fighters and the like have been used to justify – or at least rationalize – the sorts of unilateral-disarmament-measures-via-budget-cuts that Bob Gates is affording President Obama the political cover to make.

As it happens, a further pall was cast on the Pentagon chief’s visit to the Middle Kingdom by another revelation: Just after Christmas, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Robert Willard revealed that Beijing had achieved “initial operational status” on a new ballistic missile designed to destroy aircraft carriers at sea at ranges up to 2,000 miles from China.

The technical term for these sorts of developments is “game-changers”: They are clearly meant to threaten access to and freedom of operation in the Western Pacific for the United States’ most important power-projection forces.

Second, the Washington Times’ Bill Gertz revealed last week that the chief of the Russian armed forces staff had just made a no-less-portentous announcement: General Nikolai Makarov declared that his country would have by 2020 an “impenetrable” defense against missile attack: "The state will have an umbrella over it which will defend it against ballistic missile attacks, against medium-range missiles, air-based cruise missiles, sea-based cruise missiles, and ground-based cruise missiles, including missiles flying at extremely low altitudes, at any time and in any situation."

....

History suggests that when bullies, etc. perceive this sort of opening, it does not conduce to peace. As one of Secretary Gates’ predecessors, Donald Rumsfeld, put it: “Weakness is provocative.” And what it provokes is not peaceable impulses, but warlike ones, on the part of freedom’s foes.

To those who say we can no longer afford to be strong and must make at least the $178 billion in cuts in defense spending sought by Messrs. Gates and Obama, there is a time-tested reality: We can pay now for peace through strength, or pay later and vastly more in lives and treasure for the costs of failing to achieve that peace through our provocative weakness.

Excerpt: Read More at Center for Security Policy

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

WikiLeaks on Twitter said they released the documents to El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel, Guardian & NYT. Some websites are going after the NY Times but in this instance if they didn't release the information, foreign papers would have gone ahead without them. Looks like they worked together to release the information at the same time.  We believe the NY Times made a smart move to get the information out here in the States and not be filtered through foreign newspapers. Most of the documents released cover the last three years although a few are said to go back much earlier.

What a coincidence in that forty years ago Daniel Ellsberg who was a military analyst released the "Pentagon Papers" which sent shock waves through the military community and the White House.  We didn't believe those should have been released as he took an oath to never divulge security.  He broke that oath because he was part of the anti-war crowd who would do anything possible to embarrass the Government including breaking the law.

In late 1969 - with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague, Anthony Russo — Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. As an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance". They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed the government had lied to Congress and the public. (Wikipedia)

There is no excuse for someone getting these State Department documents and releasing them or the earlier documents on Afghanistan this summer or the "Pentagon Papers" all of which were released for some one's agenda with no thought to the harm it might cause. It is troubling that security can be broken that easily at the State Department  to allow access to documents that were classified for a reason. If this group, Wiki Leaks, founded by Julian Assange who is also their spokesman, didn't have someone on the inside at the State Department, would be shocked. We find it hard to believe that the person arrested for the original leak of documents from Afghanistan, Bradley Manning, US Army intelligence analyst who is being court martialed, would have access to the State Department documents.

The fact that this correspondence has been leaked doesn't speak well of the Department of State.  Cannot believe over the years what people have put in correspondence, but then most figured the documents were classified and would not be released. We agree with Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) that the greatest harm is the loss of trust by governments dealing with the United States. How many countries trust us anyway after the last few years with the Obama Administration? One thing the documents do show is that Obama was not interesting in furthering relationships with Europe but preferred to work with the Far East which should send chills up your spine.

"I think the greatest harm ... is the loss of trust that other governments will have in dealing with the United States of America," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told "Good Morning America" today. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange "is putting into danger our foreign policy and perhaps the lives of certain Americans around the world." (ABC News

Agree 100% with Senators Lyndsey Graham (R-SC) and Clare McKaskill (D-MO) that the leakers of these documents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Releasing classified documents is against the law, but will the Holder Department of Justice step in to help. Frankly the DOJ couldn't even win a case in civilian court against a terrorist so we have little faith they will do anything now.

Having worked around classified, find it so hard to believe that any organization would be so careless about their security. Think it is time to clean out the State Department and start over. For years leaks have been happening from the State Department against our own Department of Defense (DoD) as they did their power plays when they sensed that the DoD and National Security Advisor were getting more power.

The arrogance shown by many of our Secretaries of State has been mind boggling over the years. The people get that appointment and it goes to their head in most instances. Maybe if the Secretary of State would stay home more and concentrate on making the State Department a functional organization, we would be better off. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has logged countless miles on AF planes traveling around the world and what is there to show for all the travel? She doesn't even travel with the President on his foreign trips which is strange. Career diplomats who are firmly entrenched in the State Department hierarchy since the Carter years have not helped the perception of arrogance and power plays out of this group.

Leaking the material is deplorable," Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, told Fox News. "The people at WikiLeaks could have blood on their hands ... People who do this are low on the food chain as far as I'm concerned. If you can prosecute them, let's try."

His Democratic colleague Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri agreed with him and said she hoped "we can find out where this is coming from and go after them with the force of law". She added that "the people who do these document leaks need to do a gut check about their patriotism".

Representative Peter King of New York, a life-long supporter of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, called on Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to designate WikiLeaks a "Foreign Terrorist Organisation" outlawed in the US.

"WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. I strongly urge you to work within the Administration to use every offensive capability of the U.S. government to prevent further damaging releases by WikiLeaks," he said in a statement.

The Pentagon blasted WikiLeaks for its "reckless" dump of classified documents and said it was taking steps to bolster security of classified U.S. military networks. (London Telegraph

When reading the article from the NY Times, we are aghast at some of what was written. Anyone with an ounce of brains should know not to put some of these comments down on paper. These cables/messages speak poorly of the leadership at the State Department and in the Administration. Would fire Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat after this release of documents. Always thought she was over her head at the State Department and this proves that fact. We don't believe that Obama has the nerve to fire her over these leaks because he is afraid she will run against him for President.

Wonder who is going to be asked to fall on their sword for this failure of security?

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels
By SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: November 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

The disclosure of the cables is sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk. The statement noted that reports often include “candid and often incomplete information” whose disclosure could “deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.”

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

Excerpt: Read More at NY Times

Frank Gaffney: Is Petraeus Going Native?

It seems to be a daily occurrence that we learn our National Security is threatened in some way by Obama or someone from his Administration. Our latest is John Brennan who he is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. With people like Brennan in the Obama Administration, terrorist organizations seem to have a supporter who is trying to justify their existence. Hard to believe someone like this is an advisor to the President. If you are judged by the people you keep around you, then Obama's outreach to terrorist organizations fits perfectly with the Brennan or Obama agenda.

"White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan speaks to reporters in the White House Jan. 7. (AP Photo)


The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

Finding out where Brennan stands as the Counterterrorism Advisor on Homeland Security to Obama sheds light on how far out of touch this Administration is with the American people who view these terrorists organizations as terrorists not some middle of the road religious organization. These people are fanatics that want to destroy the infidels of the West in the name of Allah which includes the vast majority of Americans in this country.

Once again we go back to the upbringing of Obama who in early years was schooled in a Catholic school in Indonesia. Since he was enrolled in school as a Muslim, he took lessons in Islam during the day and attended a mosque with his stepfather. When his mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, he was tutored by Franklin Marshall Davis, a known Communist who arranged his entry into Chicago politics through friends of his. Obama never has been mainstream in his formative years and it shows in his ideology and outreach to enemies of the United States. His contempt for most of his fellow countrymen (whites) is duly noted along with his contempt for Great Britain and Israel.

This outreach to terrorists organizations run by Islamic radicals, is mind boggling and frankly scary. What next? Invite them to live in the United States and mainstream them into American life?

The notion that Hezbollah can be weaned from its client relationship with Tehran – either on the basis of appeals to its nationalist ardor or because of Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan’s stated willingness to engage with its so-called “moderate elements” – is unsubstantiated by any material facts.

You don't have to be a genius to know that Hezbollah is NOT moderate in any way shape or form but yet we have the advisor to the President advocating willingness to engage with terrorists. What is going on? These people want to kill us and change the way of life in America to that of a Muslim Nation and a National Security advisor in this Administration thinks there are moderates in Hezbollah?

Gaffney's final analysis of this leaked document sums up what has been happening with our military leaders who rose through the ranks thanks to Bill Clinton. Part of it is due to the fact that a lot of our young military leaders retired or resigned during the Clinton years and Clinton generals have rose up to positions of power. Whatever it is, we sure do miss Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks. Cannot imagine any of them putting up with this nonsense out of CENTCOM.

If there is any glimmer of good news in Mark Perry’s portrayal of the leaked Red Team analysis it is that, even though “There is a lot of thinking going on in the military and particularly among intelligence officers in Tampa [the site of CENTCOM headquarters] about these groups,” according to an unnamed senior CENTCOM officer familiar with the report, “senior military leaders are [not] actively lobbying Barack Obama's administration to forge an opening to the two organizations. ‘That's probably not in the cards just yet,’ he said.”

The bad news is that, given the determination of the Obama administration to isolate and undermine Israel, it is not clear that much “active lobbying” on the part of Central Command will be necessary to egg it on. But the political cover provided by General Petraeus, or at least by his CENTCOM staff, will surely come in handy for Team Obama when the chickens of the war that such policies will inevitably encourage come home to roost.

There used to be a campaign commercial "Do you feel safer today?" The answer is a resounding NO! When President Bush was in office along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, they took a lot of heat from the news media and the American people after 9/11 when the President declared War on Terror and named the Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Today only one of those, Iraq, is not a threat because we took out Saddam before something could happen to him and his lunatic sons took over Iraq. Did we feel safer when President Bush was in office -- ABSOLUTELY!

President Bush strengthened our ties with Israel who is our closest ally (or was before Obama) and is our eyes and ears in the Middle East. Israel has suffered greatly at the hands of the terrorist and now Obama and his people seem willing to toss Israel to the thugs of the Middle East who run the terrorist organizations.

Hope this Country has learned a lesson about electing someone as President with zero experience, no background in American culture, and whose best friends in Chicago were domestic terrorists and black liberation supporters. That was a prescription for disaster which the mainstream media should have reported but chose to hide the ties. The United States is paying for that blantant bias news reporting making Obama out to be a savior of the Country when Obama was far from that. Obama is a radical leftist any way you want to portray him who wants to destroy out way of life.

This article from Frank Gaffney, paints a portrait of an Administration that should scare all freedom loving Americans.

Is Petraeus Going Native?
Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010 10:54 PM Article Font Size
By: Frank Gaffney


Hamas Diplomats
It was bad enough when, two months ago, word got around that U.S. Central Command’s commanding general, David Petraeus, had embraced the meme that Americans were being killed in his theater of operations because Israel had refused to make peace with its Palestinian enemies.

Now comes word that elements within his command – including many of its “senior officers” and “intelligence personnel” – believe the United States should abandon its longstanding policy of “isolating and marginalizing” Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to an article entitled, “Red Team: CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah” by Mark Perry published today online by Foreign Policy magazine, a Red Team at Central Command is recommending “a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams.” The justification for treating these designated terrorist organizations as though they were part of the solution is to be found in the following, astounding remarks by unidentified CENTCOM officers:

“Putting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida in the same sentence, as if they are all the same, is just stupid,” [one] said. “I don't know any intelligence officer at CENTCOM who buys that." Another mid-level SOCOM [Special Operations Command] officer echoed these views: “As the U.S. strategy in the war on terrorism evolves, military planners have come to realize that they are all motivated by different factors, and we need to address this if we are going to effectively prosecute a successful campaign in the Middle East.”

The contention that Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida are “motivated by different factors” is pure Brotherhood taqqiya – dissembling for the faith. Its embrace by anyone, let alone by intelligence personnel and senior military officers, constitutes an appalling dereliction of the “professional duty to know” the facts.

The reality is that all these groups absolutely, positively are the same in one respect, at least: They all share a commitment to the theo-political-legal-military program authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

As adherents to Shariah, they are all pursuing the same goal: the global triumph of Shariah under a theocratic Caliphate. Their tactics may differ from time to time, depending on circumstance. But what is really “stupid” is the notion that such differences or even structural differences actually preclude these groups and many others promoting Shariah (notably, the Taliban) from being kindred spirits – and unalterably our enemies.

Further evidence of the defective nature of the CENTCOM Red Team analysis can be found in the emphasis it reportedly places on “a quote from Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, stating that if Lebanon and Iran's interests ever conflicted, his organization would favor Lebanese interests.” According to Perry, the Red Team concluded that “Hezbollah's activities increasingly reflect the movement's needs and aspirations in Lebanon, as opposed to the interests of its Iranian backers.”

The notion that Hezbollah can be weaned from its client relationship with Tehran – either on the basis of appeals to its nationalist ardor or because of Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan’s stated willingness to engage with its so-called “moderate elements” – is unsubstantiated by any material facts. Random quotes, particularly those cited out of context, are of course not at all the same thing as an established pattern of behavior on Hezbollah’s part that demonstrates the proxy’s actual independence from its Iranian masters. No such pattern can be discerned. The same dependency on Iran is operating with Hamas, as well, to say nothing of Syria.

(snip)

Welcome to Washington, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Read More at: Newsmax

Obama renounces military force to secure our national interests and says he will rely on "cooperation and partnerships

On this bright, warm, sunny Sunday morning, we decided this article was worth a full read. The author has done an excellent job in pointing out the failures of the Obama foreign policy and how Obama was received by the cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. We are seeing more and more where local papers are doing a much better job of covering what happens at events than our MSM who are out to cover for Obama. You want the truth -- read your local editorial pages in Red State America.

The last comment in this article about the United Nations as Obama seems bored being President made us start thinking. First of all, he would have to go through Bill Clinton who has always wanted to head the UN but his health could be an issue now. Then there is the "slight" problem of his being an "American" from one of the five permanent members of the Security Council which will most likely disqualify him.

Then it hit -- is this when he comes forward and tells the American people that he is not a native born citizen of the United States but was born a citizen of Kenya so he can become the head of the United Nations? Would he tell us that he didn't know he wasn't qualified to become President until after he was elected and didn't know what to do? Some people would probably swallow that especially most of the national news media. If you are going to put a tin foil hat on, might as well put it on all the way!

Maybe this is our chance to get the UN out of the US and move it to Kenya!

Food for thought on this lovely Sunday morning.

Obama renounces military force to secure our national interests and says he will rely on "cooperation and partnerships

"U. S. Military Academy cadets give him a cool reception"
May 24, 2010

In what some observers, including this one, see as a return to the national security strategy of the Jimmy Carter administration President Obama, in a commencement address at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point, told the graduates that he believes America must rely on its allies, expressing faith in "cooperation and partnerships to confront economic, military and environmental challenges of the future according to the Washington Post report on the speech.

"Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds..." he said is what he sees America must be about.You can listen to a portion of the speech at the link above.

You will note the very weak applause and response to his remarks by the cadets. Some will recall when he visited the Academy last year to make his announcement of what he was going to do about Afghanistan that the faculty had to warn the cadets that they would be taking names of those who did not applaud when signaled to do so. Apparently the same "rules of engagement" were in operation this time also.

He did not mention the recent "trial balloon" the Pentagon released saying they are considering awarding a "medal for restraint" by soldiers, marines and sailors in the face of enemy action if responding threatens collateral damage, or something like that.

Nor did he mention the lack of success his strategy has produced in the Middle East, where some observers, including this one, believe the world is closer to war there than it has been since World War II. And he did not explain how his overtures to the Islamic world have not thwarted terrorists attacks on America. They still hate us. And he failed to explain how his idea of diplomacy has not succeeded in slowing Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. He did not mention his lack success in getting Russia, Turkey and Brazil (or anyone else for that matter) to not feed Iran's ambitions. And certainly he did not explain how his approach pulled the rug out from under those who tried to overthrow the Iran theocracy. And he failed to how, in his new world order, North Korea can feel immunity to sink an ally's ship.

In fact, he had nothing to offer as an example ow how his "vision" has produced any positive outcomes in 17 months.

Is it little wonder the cadets were quiet. One has to wonder how they feel about the commitment they made five years ago when they applied for admission to West Point.

Commentary

Our "in-house" Obama expert, Jim Bispo, has a theory about all this. He postulates that Obama has already tired of being just President of the United States, as he tired of doing other gigs he's had all his life, and is setting himself up to become the head honcho at the United Nations. Kind of makes you wonder does it not?

Source: Beaufort Observer

Frank Gaffney: "False START"

This is one time was hoping we were wrong. Had a feeling the United States would get the short end of this treaty and sure enough it is as the facts come out.

Sending Obama and Hillary to discuss nuclear weapons disarmament is like sending two little kids as neither one of them has a clue or seems to care about National Security. While Obama will go down in history as the worst President who kept trying to sell out America, Hillary, as Secretary of State, will be right there with him.

Do we know who negotiated this Obama treaty which favors the Russians or are we supposed to guess which members of the Administration sold out the United States?

When is the United States going to upgrade our nuclear weapons? From the article, it doesn't look like any time soon. Russians are upgrading theirs while we have a President who could care less if we fall behind in the nuclear race.

Fortunately for the United States, Obama needs 67 Senators to approve a treaty and we have 41 Senators on board saying NO! You are not going to ram a treaty through the Senate like they did healthcare and the House has no say. This treaty favoring the Russians will be going no where in the future.

National Security Brief: Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Frank Gaffney: "False START"

President Obama announced last Thusday that he had concluded a follow-on to the 1989 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. He characterized the cuts that it would make in the two nations’ nuclear arsenals as a major step towards his goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. In practice, however, the so-called “New START” accord will contribute primarily to the denuclearization of the United States and to making the world a more dangerous place. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to call it “False START.”

The first thing to note about the Obama treaty is that it confers real advantages on the Russians. For starters, the Kremlin will have to make essentially no cuts in the numbers of its deployed strategic launchers, whereas the United States will have to destroy several hundred of ours.

It is unclear at this writing whether such reductions by the U.S. will, as a practical matter, make it difficult – if not impossible – for America to preserve its strategic “Triad” of land- and sea-based ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. If so, there could be serious implications for strategic stability as the confidence of friends and foes alike in the robustness of our deterrent declines markedly.

What is clear, though, is that we will be obliged to cut back our arsenal to match the lower levels that the Russians can afford to maintain at the moment. The advisability of such a step would be debatable even if it produced a genuine equality between the two parties.

Unfortunately, the seeming equality thus established is deceptive in at least three respects.

Continue Reading...

Is Homeland Security Too Large or Incompetent?

We ask that question because there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer with this Obama Administration. We were part of the group that from Day One didn't think it was a good idea to put all the agencies under one head because you could get an Administration that would appoint someone that couldn't handle the job. That didn't take long as Obama appointed former Arizona Governor Napolatono to head Homeland Security. Her rhetoric has always been more then her actions and it looks like that is still true today. Only good thing to come out of that appointment was the citizens of Arizona didn't have to continue to have her as Governor which was a plus.

After the recent terrorist event that almost brought down a Northwest Airlines plane, the President comes out 'after' he got back from his vacation and declared the Intelligence Community didn't do a good job of understanding what they were reading. Yet, he is firing no one.

Looks to us that since all the agencies were brought under Homeland Security it has become more dysfunctional under the current Secretary of Homeland Security Napolatono. Her first reaction to the attempted terrorist attack was that all the systems worked which was far from the truth. The people Obama and Napolatono have put in charge are not seasoned intelligence people but are people who received a political appointment as a payoff for their support of Obama. CIA Director Panetta was nothing more then a lawyer who was always defending Clinton and his Administration especially in front of the cameras. Now he is the CIA Director?

No wonder the Democrats in Congress didn't want John Bolton as the UN Ambassador. He should have been put in charge of the State Department to actually make it work unlike the dysfunctional place it is today and getting worse under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton seems more interested in traveling around the World instead of cleaning up the State Department and making it a functioning organization. The State Department is in charge of visas which they cannot seem to handle if this latest terrorist incident is any indication. Clinton is the person who gave Russia a reset button on US/Russia relations which was tacky to say the least.

This idea of putting people in jobs with no experience has turned into a nightmare and even then Obama won't fire a soul. He refuses now to meet with the media and let them ask questions while he also whitewashed the security report on the airline bomber. We are still waiting for the shock we were promised.

Since Obama wanted to grade himself, we would like to give our grade of his handling of national security which he ignored to try and get Obamacare passed at all costs. We believe he deserves an "F" as he has played up to our enemies and dissed our allies. Then he decided to do away with the War on Terror and declare it an overseas contingency. That doesn't even account for bringing terrorist into the criminal judicial system where a judge recently threw out a lot of evidence already on one of the terrorist. Then the DOJ decided to charge the airplane bomber so he quit talking.

Thinking about it, this whole administration deserves that "F" grade for failure on national security.

Interagency gaps let bomb suspect retain visa

Bush adviser says system OK, but 'lack of focus' is to blame
By Nicholas Kralev

U.S. visa-revocation procedures broke down in a welter of interagency uncertainty in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a failure that current and former officials say allowed the Nigerian Islamist known to U.S. intelligence to board an airliner with a homemade bomb on Christmas Day.

However, the visa shortcomings were not the main focus of President Obama's recent comments on the security and intelligence failures related to the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.

"The system isn't broken, but what failed fundamentally in this case was the lack of focus on the potential threat threads tied to attack-planning directed at the United States," said Juan Zarate, who was a counterterrorism adviser to President George W. Bush. He is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"That's not a technological problem — this was a failure of forcing the existing system to concentrate on the potential reality of that threat," he said.

While some critics blame the State Department, which has full authority to cancel visas without permission from other agencies, others say the intelligence community should have recommended revocation based on information it had — but the State Department did not.

John R. Bolton, who in the Bush administration was undersecretary of state for international security and later ambassador to the United Nations, said the "allocation of responsibilities on visas between [the Departments of] State, Homeland Security and [the National Counterterrorism Center] has not worked out, although different people blame different agencies."

Mr. Obama conceded that an interagency problem exists when he said Thursday that he had directed "our embassies and consulates to include current visa information in their warnings of individuals with terrorist or suspected terrorist ties."

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

National Security -- Not a Priority in 2009 by Obama Administration

The United States and especially passengers aboard the Northwest flight 253 to Detroit almost paid dearly by this Obama Administration's lack of concern about national security and his downplaying the threat of terrorism against the United States. If you remember, Obama didn't consider terrorism a major threat after taking office. Excuse us, but Obama is being proven wrong as al Qaeda seems to be growing.

"A wing of al Qaeda based in Yemen said it was behind the failed bombing to avenge U.S. attacks on the group, according to a web statement.
Did Obama actually think he could speak and terrorist would just go away? The more he caved on terrorism even renaming the War on Terror, the more he made the United States vulnerable to terrorism." (Source: Reuters)

Changing the name from War on Terror to Overseas Contingencies did not change the fact that terrorists want to harm Americans. Why was that so hard for Obama and his Administration to fathom? The lack of experience in this Obama Administration is coming out more by the day. Why choose so many inexperienced people to had up agencies.

The head of Homeland Security, former Arizona Governor Napolitano, talked tough as Arizona Governor but her records says otherwise. This except about a border fence says it all:

The border fence is another issue on which Napolitano talks tough but presents a weak record. In the same speech before the Press Club, she opposed the border fence, our most practical line of defense, flippantly saying, “[S]how me a 50-foot wall, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.” It’s a great soundbite, but the fact is that the fence does make it much harder for illegal immigrants to enter the country. (Source: Human Events)

Napolitano who came out and said the system worked has proven to be less then truthful. Where was Obama for several days while on vacation in Hawaii before making any comments? We almost had a catastrophe but he continued on with his vacation like nothing had happened. When 9/11 happened, President Bush was roundly criticized by Democrats and media alike for continue to read a story to young children for a 'few minutes' not days. Something is wrong with this picture.

Now the Press Secretary Gibbs says there were failures in connecting dots. What a brilliant deduction (sarcasm) that was readily apparent to the average American citizen who follows national security. The failure is in the people that Obama picked to head the agencies involved in National Security along with his and Congress lack of focus on providing security for this Country. Getting healthcare passed has been the only issue they have cared about for months allowing everything else to be pushed aside.

Obama had plenty of time to fly to Copenhagen for the Chicago failed Olympic bid but no time to review National Security to make sure everyone was working together. It seems it was more important to take CIA agents to look into global warming then National Security.

January 05, 2010
The CIA takes on global warming
Clarice Feldman

Buoyed perhaps by the brilliance of its recent National Intelligence Estimates - including a recent one which suggested Iran had given up its nuclear weapon efforts, the CIA is adding global warmng to its portfolio:

The nation's top scientists and spies are collaborating on an effort to use the federal government's intelligence assets - including spy satellites and other classified sensors - to assess the hidden complexities of environmental change. They seek insights from natural phenomena like clouds and glaciers, deserts and tropical forests. The collaboration restarts an effort the Bush administration shut down and has the strong backing of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The effort is not without its critics:

Controversy has often dogged the use of federal intelligence gear for environmental monitoring. In October, days after the C.I.A. opened a small unit to assess the security implications of climate change, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said the agency should be fighting terrorists, "not spying on sea lions."

Now, with the intelligence world under fire after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day, and with the monitoring program becoming more widely known, such criticism seems likely to grow.

Clarice Feldman

Source: American Thinker

Great Britain refused Airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab VISA request in May over security concerns per the Sunday Times, 27 Dec 2009. Why did it take the United States until after the incident on Christmas to revoke his VISA and that of others? Source: Miami Herald

This morning while looking for follow-up news on how the Obama Administration handled this terrorist attack and their lack of attention to national security we found this from the 9/11 Commision Vice Chair from Jake Tapper of ABC:

9/11 Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton: Obama, Other Leaders, Too Complacent About Protecting Nation From Terrorism
January 07, 2010 7:00 AM

“I just think what’s pervasive through the country, and has been now for a number of years, is the complacency, an inertia, a business-as-usual attitude ... that I think is harmful,” former 9/11 Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton told ABC News. This, he says, includes the entire political leadership of the United States -- President Obama, leaders of Congress and the “many, many people that have had a part in Homeland Security.”

"You can’t put all the responsibility on the president, but obviously he shares a major part of it,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman. "His speech yesterday suggested he's going to bear down on this, I hope that's the case."
Hamilton spoke to us for the Political Punch Podcast, which you can listen to HERE or download it on iTunes.

Excerpt: Read more at: ABC News

We thought these were pretty strong words coming out of a fellow Democrat.

Then we have this Gem out of the Obama Administration:

White House national security adviser James Jones says Americans will feel “a certain shock” when they read an account being released Thursday of the missed clues that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day bomber from ever boarding the plane.

Our guess is that Americans are not going to be shocked but even more disgusted. Will this wake up Obama and his Administration that we are still fighting a War on Terror? We have our doubts as we expect this to blow over and Obama will be back to normal playing golf and ignoring national security like he did over Christmas.