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!

1/30/10 Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Delivers Weekly GOP Address On National Security Policy

After viewing the Sen Susan Collins video and reading the transcript, ask yourself "Why this happened?" It makes no sense why the DOJ rushed in and declared this foreign terrorist a criminal and read him his Miranda Rights. But then we are still waiting for answers on Attorney General Holder dropping charges against the New Black Panthers on voter intimidation caught on tape in Philadelphia.

The first thought that enters a person's mind is what is this Administration trying to cover up by placing this terrorists immediately into the criminal court system thus stopping the experts from continuing to question him about other possible plots? When you stop to think about it, we are still asking that same question.

Collins nails the Obama Administration with her GOP Address this morning. We applaud her for continuing the demand answers to the same questions on the minds of many Americans.

TRANSCRIPT:

“Less than one hour. That’s right, less than one hour.

“In fact, just fifty minutes.

“That’s the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day.

“Then, he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer, and, not surprisingly, he stopped talking.

“How did we get to this point? How did the Obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist, who had tried to murder hundreds of people, as if he were a common criminal?

“On Christmas Day, the skies above Detroit became a battleground in the War on Terrorism.

“That day the bomb being carried by Abdulmutallab failed to detonate. Thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew, nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane and more lives were spared on the ground.

“The government’s security system, a front line in the war against terrorists, failed long before Abdulmutallab boarded his flight to the United States.

“It failed when his visa wasn’t revoked, even though his father had warned our embassy in Nigeria about his son’s ties to Islamic extremists.

“It failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots that would have placed Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watchlist.

“It failed when this terrorist stepped on to the plane in Amsterdam with the same explosive used by the ‘Shoe Bomber,’ Richard Reid, more than 8 years ago.

“But, today, I want to discuss another failure – a failure that occurred after Abdulmutallab had already been detained by authorities in Detroit – an error that undoubtedly prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country.

“This failure occurred when the Obama Justice Department unilaterally decided to treat this foreign terrorist as an ordinary criminal.

Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense.

“Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist ‘lawyered up’ and stopped talking.

“When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nation’s top intelligence officials.

“The Director of National Intelligence was not consulted.

“The Secretary of Defense was not consulted.

“The Secretary of Homeland Security was not consulted.

“The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted.

“They would have explained the importance of gathering all possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation. They would have explained the critical nature of learning all we could from Abdulmutallab. But they were never asked.

“President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration.

“The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

“And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.

“There’s no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. There’s no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal.

“This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such. The safety of the American people depends on it.

“I’m Senator Susan Collins from Maine. Thank you for listening.”

Source: GOP.com

DNC: If you laugh at Obama’s Nobel, you side with terrorists

posted at 11:37 am on October 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Oh, and the Taliban too, which must be news to Mark Halperin, Ruth Marcus, Richard Cohen, and Ezra Klein this morning. George Bush got a lot of heat when he used the “you’re with us or against us” for the war on terror, but he specifically meant nations that had to decide whether to help us fight terrorist networks or choose to hide them or hinder justice. Politico reports that the DNC now posits that anyone ridiculing Obama is a terrorist sympathizer:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.

Even in a political environment where the two major parties send out ridiculous ding-dong reactions to events, this takes the cake. Woodhouse argues (almost assuredly uncomprehendingly) for a fuehrerprinzip where the head of state must never be questioned or criticized, lest one become a traitor to the fatherhomeland. Will Woodhouse also start labeling late-night comedians like Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien terrorist sympathizers for their (very) occasional ridicule of His Reverence? Does Janet Napolitano plan to open a file on Saturday Night Live for last week’s prescient dig?

Clearly, the DNC needs a smarter class of public-relations flacks. Given this evidence, it should not be difficult at all to find them. (image courtesy HA reader Mehokie)

Update: Did Woodhouse miss a memo? Isn’t the White House about to argue that the Taliban pose no threat to us? Twitterer VJMorton reminded me that the DNC is either a few days behind, or maybe signaling that Obama will dump that rather idiotic notion. Actually, it’s probably just Woodhouse’s own idiocy at work…

Update II: Don’t tell the DNC, but the Huffington Post has apparently sided with the terrorists:
As the world responded with a mixture of surprise and amazement to the announcement of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel insiders revealed that the President’s “beer summit” at the White House put him over the top. …

But, according to Ms. Valle, “someone brought up the beer summit, and we all agreed that that was awesome.”

SOURCE: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/09/dnc-if-you-laugh-at-obamas-nobel-you-side-with-terrorists/

NOTE: Want more of a laugh for the evening, follow the link above and read the comments -- some of them are really good!

Thought the Democrats had a few loose cannons running around at the DNC but Woodhouse takes the cake. To think the DNC is run by the Governor of VA who the VA Governor Democrat candidate Deeds keeps touting. I think Virginians have finally woken up and are going to tell the Democrat candidates to go to the back of the unemployment line. After how their Democrat Governor has handled the DNC makes one wonder how much ACORN voter fraud helped Democrats win in Virginia because it sure wasn't intelligence if this is an example from the DNC.