Obama: Killing of Bin Laden wasn't top priority/ was top priority

WH dismissed Warnings - from Al Qaeda allies & foes - about Yemen vulnerability

The Obama administration dismissed warnings about a potential uprising in Yemen from friends and foes of Al Aqaeda alike, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

'Hamid al-Ahmar, a wealthy Yemeni businessman, warned an unnamed U.S. embassy official in August 2009 that a massive movement to oust President Ali Abdullah Saleh would erupt unless the ruler guaranteed free and fair parliamentary elections due in 2011.'

Various leaders in the Middle East also warned the Obama administration about the situation in Yemen, but the motivation behind these warnings varied, depending on who had issued the warning.

Hamid al-Ahmar is a member of Yemen's Islamic Party, Islah [Al Islah]. U.S. officials reportedly view the Islah Party as a dangerous force, with links to al-Qaeda Yemen's Muslim Brotherhood runs the political apparatus of Al Islah.

A prominent spiritual leader of the Islah party, Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, has been designated by the U.S. Treasury Dept. as a terrorist. Al-Zindani’s ties to al-Qaeda include recruitment and weapons procurement. According to the Treasury Dept., al-Zindani has a"long history of working with bin Laden, notably serving as one of his spiritual leaders."

Sadeq al-Ahmar, a Sunni religious scholar, is also among the party's leaders. Hamid al-Ahmar, the aforementioned wealthy Yemeni businessman, is Sadeq's younger brother. Thus, it goes without saying that, Mr. Ahmar, in warning U.S. officials about a potential uprising in Yemen, was essentially seeking to prod the Obama administration to push President Ali Abdullah Saleh out of power, so that a more radical government could assume the reigns of power - which would clearly be a boon for Al Qaeda and its ally, the Al-Islah Party.

In October 2009, Qatar's Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani, reportedly told US Ambassador Joseph LeBaron that his nation was "frightened" by what could happen in Yemen. Al-Thani is a major financial backer of the Qatar based Al Jazeera network. Al Jazeera has been fueling some of the current uprisings. However, the Al Qaeda sympathizer network, for the most part, has remained conspicuously silent in the face of the violent government crackdowns in Iran.

Thus, al-Thani's warning to the U.S. ambassador in '09, like Hamid al-Ahmar's warning, was clearly an attempt to cajole President Obama to push President Ali Abdullah Saleh out of power.

On the flip side, Saudi Arabia and Oman, who also warned U.S. officials about the situation in Yemen, were, no doubt, hoping that President Obama would act quickly to bolster the Yemeni President and subsequently, to prevent the extremist elements from taking over the reigns of power. While it is true that President Ali Abdullah Saleh has not confronted Al Qaeda to the full extent necessary, he has, nevertheless, taken them on.

But apparently, the White House did not feel a sense of urgency to heed the aforementioned warnings..

It should also be noted that while the administration initially supported President Saleh, it has since changed its tune, and is now supporting the opposition...

Osama is beaming......

Intelligence Expert projects lengthy engagement in Libya, discusses the Al Qaeda, Rebels quandary

Bruce Riedel, a Senior Fellow for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and a former CIA officer and former adviser to President Obama on Afghanistan, told the Washington Examiner on Monday that the U.S involvement in Libya will likely be a protracted one. "Mission creep" is almost a certainty, he said.

"We have to recognize, whether we like it or not, we own this problem now," said Riedel. "The notion that you can intervene and walk away from it is very disingenuous. Half measures are likely to produce failed outcomes. As much as the administration wants to reassure this is no major operation, it is. Once you're in it's very difficult to get out."

Riedel also stated that the U.S. should stipulate to rebel leaders that they must weed out al Qaeda militants from their ranks, if they want to be supplied with weapons and aid from allies.

Appearing on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on Monday, Riedel opined that if two percent of the Libyan rebel forces are affiliated with Al Qaeda, "we can live with it, if it's more than that, we've got a big problem."

Experts have assessed the number of Al Qaeda militants in the rebel ranks to be significantly higher than two percent - which means, we're in deep doo-doo!

And, while the White House insists that Europe's involvement in the Libyan conflict will enable the U.S. to engage in a more limited role, Bruce Riedel made the following observation:

"The more the Europeans get drawn into a protracted conflict in Libya, the more likely they're going to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan, which makes the President's decision" to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan "in July even harder, because there are going to be fewer NATO boots on the ground in Afghanistan even if there starts to be NATO boots on the ground in Libya. It's a trade off... What we're going to see is... Europeans saying, 'we've now got this new mission, it's closer to home, it's more vital to us, and anyway, we wanted to get out of Afghanistan..., here's our excuse to start drawing down, which makes this an even more American operation in Afghanistan."

Which means the Obama administration's ongoing search for an exit strategy in Afghanistan - including on-and-off talks with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban - will only increase as Obama seeks to secure his core base for the 2012 Presidential election, while simultaneously, and paradoxically, using the Libyan conflict to bolster his claim to fame and his credentials as a genuine Commander-in- Chief.

Meanwhile, Pajamas Media informs us that "while American intelligence experts search for “flickers” of jihadist involvement in the Libyan rebellion, a French reporter on a brief visit to eastern Libya had no problem finding numerous jihadists on the front."

Good luck, Mr. President!

Blagojevich, Balanoff, Obama - extortion attempt revisited

Attorneys for Rod Blagojevich on Monday asked a federal judge to turn over FBI notes from an interview with President Obama, in 2008, pertaining to the ousted Illinois governor's corruption case.

The Presiding Judge rejected a similar request before Blagojevich's first trial last year.

Blagojevich's defense team say the notes could "go directly to the heart of testimony of several government witnesses," including that of Illinois SEIU State Council President and longtime Obama ally Tom Balanoff, who previously testified about a telephone conversation he had with Obama - on the eve of the 2008 presidential election - concerning Valerie Jarrett, a long time Obama friend.

"Tom, I want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama said to Balanoff, "I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria."

Balanoff told Obama: 'Thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."

A report released by the Obama Presidential transition team in 2008 stated as follows:

The President-Elect had no contact or communication with Governor Blagojevich or members of his staff about the Senate seat... The accounts support [Obama's] statement on December 11, 2008 that he had never spoken to the Governor on this subject [or] about these issues, [and] that [he] had no contact with the Governor's office.... These accounts were communicated to the Office of the United States Attorney in interviews that were conducted last week.

The report goes on to say that Dr. Eric Whitaker, a family friend, was approached and asked for information by a member of the [former] Governor's circle..., Deputy Governor Louanner Peters.

[The Deputy Governor asked Whitaker] 'who spoke for the President-Elect with respect to the Senate appointment..., and who, if anyone, had the authority to speak for the President-Elect?' Dr. Whitaker said he would find out.[Whitaker, subsequently contacted the President-Elect]. [Obama] told Dr. Whitaker that no one was authorized to speak for him on the matter. The President-Elect said that he had no interest in dictating the result of the selection process, and he would not do so, either directly or indirectly through staff or others. Dr. Whitaker relayed that information to Deputy Governor Peters.

However, contrary to Obama's statements and the aforementioned report, Obama did communicate - via Mr. Balanoff - his endorsement of Valerie Jarret. It goes without saying that Mr. Balanoff had clearly been authorized by the President to speak on his behalf. To infer otherwise, is simply an outright prevarication.

Another important point - which received scant media coverage - is something the New York Times reported in July of 2010, specifically, Mr. Balanoff's attempt to extort Rod Blagojevich. The New York Times' article resolved a nagging question that had been bothering me: Why did Obama specifically choose Balanoff, of all people, to be his emissary to Blagojevich?

Mr. Balanoff’s testimony [at the Blagojevich corruption trial] suggested he had mixed apple-polishing of Blago with tough love. The apple-polishing included telling Blago that his off-the-wall notion about exiting office to run a union-sponsored, tax-exempt nonprofit to lobby on health care was a good one...

The unionist acted with a sense of entitlement and highlighted another reality, namely how money talks. The S.E.I.U. was a huge contributor to Mr. Blagojevich. If Mr. Balanoff wanted a meeting, presto, he got it. And if Mr. Balanoff didn’t like what he heard, he raised the prospect in at least one conversation with the former governor of withholding his union’s ample purse in the next election — in this case, if Blago didn’t quickly pick Valerie Jarrett as Mr. Obama’s successor.

Mr. Balanoff..., initially desired Representative Jan Schakowsky for the seat. Yanking his union’s contributions would be perfectly legal, of course, but it also constituted a slice of the realpolitik that has Blago sitting at the defense table.

I noted at the time:

Hmmm. So, Tom Balanoff, who just happens to be an emissary of Barack Obama, threatens to withhold campaign contributions from Blagojevich if he didn’t choose Valerie Jarrett as Obama’s successor; even though Balanoff's preferred choice was Jan Schakowsky and he wasn't even keen on Valerie Jarrett, Obama's preferred choice.

Oh my! Chicago-style politics at its worst, with Obama right smack in the middle of the corruption, and the extortion attempt.

The question that really needs to be examined, is not whether Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama's senate seat, but whether Balanoff, as an emissary of Obama, tried to purchase the seat from Blagojevich by means of extortion with the abetment of Obama!

And now it is crystal clear why Obama chose Balanoff as his emissary: Money talks!

One can posit that Obama did not explicitly tell Balanoff to threaten Blagojevich with withholding his union’s contributions, but ultimately Obama knew the deal, and so did Balanoff.

One thing is for certain, Balanoff was clearly Obama's emissary, which contradicts both the reports' findings and Obama's statement, specifically, that he did not have any "interest in dictating the result of the selection process, and he would not do so, either directly or indirectly through staff or others", and that he did not have any communications with the Governor's office.

Additionally, the President's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, spoke with Blagojevich's staff about the vacant senate seat on several occasions. Emanuel is purported, by the Obama team, to have acted on his own behalf. However, he told the FBI in 2008 that one conversation he had with Blagojevich's former Chief of Staff, John Harris, took place [on December 8, 2008] one day after Obama had expressed concern, to Emanuel [on December 7], that a certain candidate might be appointed to the senate seat.

Admittedly, there's no way of proving whether Emanuel spoke to Blagojevich on Obama's behalf or not. But Balanoff is a different story, and that's where the FBI notes come in handy: Since Balanoff was Obama's emissary to Blagojevich, the FBI notes are indeed relevant, not only to Blagojevich, but also to the American people, who have a vested interest in knowing whether the President did or did not lie to the FBI: Lying to the FBI is a criminal offense - and presumably, an impeachable offense.

Conclusion: The FBI notes should be turned over to Blagojevich's defense team forthwith.

Did the WH leak covert information about CIA Operatives in Libya?

Last week Reuters quoted U.S. government officials as saying that American "intelligence operatives were on the ground in Libya before President Barack Obama signed a secret order authorizing covert support for anti-Gaddafi rebels."

The CIA personnel were sent in to contact opponents of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and assess their capabilities, two U.S. officials said...

One U.S. government source familiar with Libya policy said the Obama administration is considering plans under which U.S. special forces personnel experienced in training anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan would work with CIA officers in efforts to organize and train Libyan opposition fighters.

Likewise, the New York Times [on March 30] quoted U.S. officials as saying that "small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military..."

American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities.

Some intelligence experts are questioning why the aforementioned classified information was leaked to the press:

They question whether the Obama Administration was putting the President’s political ambitions ahead of America’s national security.

A former senior CIA official speculated that “there was not one but a multitude of sources that leaked this information and it was done to prove they were tough.”

Another former CIA official went further and stated that, “They should have kept their big flapping mouth shut, and they said exactly the wrong thing. They said the CIA is there to collect information on the opposition to determine who the rebels are which makes the operatives job harder.” A former operative angrily noted that those officers on the ground have been compromised and now have to explain to the rebels that they are not collecting information about them...."

[One] former CIA official sarcastically noted “what part of covert doesn’t the administration understand?”

Incidentally, the New York Times, also reported the following eye-opener:

Several weeks ago, President Obama signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels, American officials said Wednesday. But weapons have not yet been shipped into Libya, as Obama administration officials debate the effects of giving them to the rebel groups.

Obama, Libya, Bologna & Pick-Up Basketball

During a private session for members of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper compared rebel forces in Libya to a "pick-up basketball team". Clapper said intelligence officials have identified a few questionable individuals within the rebel ranks.

Well, I'm a bit confused. President Obama is a pretty decent pick-up basketball player. He should be able to discern which rebels are truly worthy of dribbling the ball for the rebel team. What's more, several weeks ago, while Japan and Egypt were mired in chaos, Obama found time to fill out his bracket for the NCAA basketball tournament. And, although his NCAA picks were way off the mark, I'm sure he's fully capable of discerning which members of the rebel basketball team are legitimate Al Qaeda rebels, deserving of U.S. military assistance, and which ones are fake rebels...

During the same briefing on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected lawmakers' contentions that President Obama should have obtained Congressional authorization before launching military attacks on Libya. Clinton said the War Powers Act does not require Congressional approval.

Well, maybe Hillary needs to tell that to the President. It was Obama, after all, who insisted George. W. Bush needed congressional authorization to launch attacks on Iran, despite the fact that Mr. Bush never even authorized military action against Iran.

Nevertheless, Rep. Dan Burton vehemently disagreed with Clinton's assertion.

Mr. Burton also questioned who would lead Libya if and when Gaddafi is deposed.

“Who’s going to be in charge over there?" he asked. "Is it going to be people who have been against us from the outset? Are we supporting people like the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda or the Taliban?... It sounds to me like they jumped into this thing and they’re saying, ‘What do we do now?’”

Concerning the U.S military involvement in Libya, Mr. Burton said, "This is, in my opinion, bologna."

Well, Mr, Burton, there's a small child who has expressed similar sentiments about President Obama. You might want to talk to him.

Obamacare & the Arab Uprisings: The Common Denominator

The Arab uprisings and Obamacare - what do they have in common?

Well, before we answer that question, we must first answer the following question:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

If you answered, "To get to the other side", you're correct.

But 'what could the Arab uprisings and Obamacare possibly have in common?' you ask.

The common denominator between Obamacare & the Arab Uprisings is that they both share a common goal, namely, getting to the other side, instead of merely reaching the curb.

Democrats have long indicated that Obamacare is merely a means to an end, a stepping stone to achieve single payer health care. Hence, Obamacare, for single payer advocates, is a step in the right direction. Whether Democrats eventually achieve their goal of enacting single payer health care remains to be seen. Only time will tell whether the chicken reaches the other side of the road or whether it simply reaches the curb and languishes there indefinitely.

The notorious Al Qaeda preacher, Anwar al-Awlaki - whose been linked to the Times Square car bomber, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, the Fort Hood gunman, some of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks, and who has called for the assassination of Molly Norris, a U.S. cartoonist - published an article in the latest issue of Al Qaeda's online magazine. Al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also published an article in the aforementioned issue, as well as various other Jihadist luminaries. Zawahiri, in his article, praises the current uprisings, and like President Obama, he refers to Ghaddafi as a tyrant, and warns that victory in Libya will not happen overnight.

"We ask our brothers and sisters in Libya to continue standing up against the regime and to show patience in the face of [Gadaffi's] tyranny until he falls," writes Zawahiri.

Awlaki's article - which is the cover story for the current issue of the magazine - is entitled, "The Tsunami of Change."

Ah yes, "Change", that good ol', nefarious catchphrase.

Awlaki asserts, in his article, that America. "trashed" Hosni Mubarak. He refers to Muammar Gaddafi as a "lunatic", and says the current Arab uprisings are a blessing to al Qaeda and to Islamic militants.

"Our mujahideen brothers [i.e. Jihadist] in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he writes. "For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen."

"The mujahideen around the world are going through a moment of elation," he writes. "I wonder whether the West is aware of the upsurge of mujahideen activity in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, [Saudi] Arabia, Algeria and Morocco?"

"We do not know yet what the outcome would be," he adds, "and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction."

Ah yes, a step in the right direction....

Indeed, Obamacare and the Arab uprisings are both viewed, by their supporters, as steps in the right direction. For they are merely a means to an end, stepping stones to achieve much larger goals - namely, single payer, universal health care, and, a single, universal caliphate encompassing the entire globe.

Yes, they are steps in the right direction and blessings in disguise.....

Meanwhile, Bashar Al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remain safely ensconced in their seats of power, because unlike Hosni Mubarak, their deposition is not in Obama's best interest.....

Conclusion: The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. Likewise, the President's chickens - at home and in the Arab world - are crossing the road to get to the other side. They are likely to arrive at their final destination in the not-so-distant future.

Yes, it is true, Obama's chickens are coming home to roooost!

Sawyer, Obama, Kentucky & the NCAA

President Obama sat down for an interview with ABC News' Dianne Sawyer on Tuesday to discuss the U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Toward the end the interview, Diane Sawyer noted that "it's going to be a rough ride ahead" in Libya, to which Obama responded, "I think on Libya, we've gotten it right. That doesn't make it easy. It just means that we've made the right decision for that moment. It means that on situations like Egypt -- you know, we've got to continually follow through and not take our 'eye off the ball'..."

Diane Sawyer followed up with the following question: "Just a final question. How much do you think Kentucky will win by (in the NCAA basketball tournament)?" [Sawyer was born in Kentucky.]

Obama laughed and said: "You know, a lot of folks focused on the fact that I filled out my bracket [On the ESPN sports network, while the world was engulfed in crisis]. Obviously, I hadn't been spending that much time studying it since I don't have anybody in the Final Four."

Ironically, Sawyer's [NCAA] basketball question came right after Obama had stated that, "on situations like Egypt... we've got to continually follow through and not take our 'eye off the ball'..." Which inevitably reminded me of a video I posted about two weeks ago:



[Incidentally, you might have noticed that the Obama/NCAA footage, in the video above, is not from 2011. I extracted the footage from a source who mistakenly posted the 2009 or 2010 ESPN video, instead of this year's video.]

Obama: Gaddafi is a "Tyrant" - Libya Speech

President Obama delivered an address to the nation on Monday pertaining to the US military involvement in Libya.

"For more than four decades," said Obama, "the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -- Muammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world."

Obama praises the constitution, and all its flaws

President Obama praised the U.S. constitution - with all its flaws and imperfections - during a speech, in 2009, at the National Archives Museum in Washington D.C.

Is Hosni Mubarak really worth $40-$70 Billion?

The $40-$70 Billion estimate, promulgated by the drive-by-media in early February, intensified the fury of the Egyptian protesters who ultimately deposed Hosni Mubarak.

The Guardian UK and ABC News were among the primary sources of this estimate.

An article in the Guardian UK, entitled "Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts" and an ABC News article [Feb. 2] entitled, "Mubarak Family May Have as Much as $70 Billion Stashed Away, Experts Estimate", sized up Mubarak's worth to be anywhere between $40-$70 billion.

On March 25, however, the Guardian amended its headline to read, "Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, says expert." ["Expert", in the singular form]

An editor with Guardian-UK conceded on March 21 that the aforementioned article had given "the misleading impression that that figure was a widely held view."

"Why did you publish a story that said Mubarak's family fortune was $70bn?" an Egyptian reader asked me in a face-to-face encounter in Cairo last week. For him it was not an academic question: "Some people thought it was part of a plan to encourage the revolution." He was one of a group of journalists discussing the merits and difficulties of self-regulation of the press and the role of in-house ombudsmen in a two-day training session at the Egyptian Journalists' Syndicate in Cairo...

The figure for his fortune came from a political science professor at Princeton University [an Arab political science professor]... The problem with this story was that, of the sources relied upon, only the Princeton academic was prepared to put a figure on how much the fortune might run to – $40bn-$70bn. In the headline and the introductory paragraph one "expert" became "experts", giving the misleading impression that that figure was a widely held view. Our Egyptian colleagues were right to pick us up on that failing.

On February 11, however [coincidentally, the same day that Mubarak had decided to step down, wink, wink], CBS News reported that the $70 billion estimate was highly exagerated:

There are no hard figures on Hosni Mubarak's wealth - only widely divergent estimates from $2 billion to $70 billion based on few facts. Experts and government officials say the $70 billion often cited by protesters is likely overblown.

Why? $70 billion would make Mubarak the richest man on the planet, richer than Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim or Bill Gates. One government source said it was hard to believe that a man who was never known for being among the most wealthy would suddenly emerge as the richest man in the world.

"I would be very, very surprised if it was 70 billion," said Kerry Dolan, a Forbes Senior Editor who oversees Forbes Magazine's World's Billionaires list.

Dolan says the Forbes list only looks at capitalist billionaires yet she finds the $70 billion estimate "exaggerated and unproven". Dolan says measuring dictators' wealth is extremely difficult, "You've got to get really lucky or you need some serious authority," she said...

Nevertheless, in 2008, Forbes estimated Saudi King Abdullah's net worth at $21 billion, which - if the Guardian's estimate is correct - makes Mubarak considerably wealthier than the world's number one oil exporter, which seems highly unlikely.

ABC News - which also gleaned its initial $70 billion estimate from the aforementioned political science professor, [and from one other professor who offered a nod of approval to the $70 billion estimate], changed its tune and wrote as follows on February 11 [coincidentally, the same day that Mubarak had finally decided to step down - wink, wink]:

Newly deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his family have a fortune of $1 billion to $5 billion stashed in foreign banks, according to U.S. intelligence estimates.

Some experts have estimated that the Mubarak family has a net worth as high as $70 billion, while others have reported $40 billion, but U.S. intelligence sources told ABC News that the real number is probably much lower.

A senior U.S. official said she "had no clue" why estimates circulating in the media in recent weeks were so much higher. "Maybe they're counting in dinars," she said.

Maybe, or maybe the drive-by-media simply felt obligated to inflate the numbers.

As the old adage goes: "The ends [always] justifies the means."...

Karzai & Talabani cozy up to Ahmadinejad

The presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai and Jalal Talabani, arrived in Tehran on Saturday to partake in the country's Nowruz holiday celebrations.

During a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Karzai expressed gratitude for Iran's assistance to Afghanistan.[Assistance to the insurgents? Heh...]

Mr. Ahmadinejad also met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Saturday. The Iranian President extolled the newfound relationship between Iran and Iraq, and said the increased cooperation between the two countries was beneficial to both sides.














Mr. Talabani, for his part, said that his country was seeking a strategic, long-term relationship with Iran. He noted that both Iran and Iraq had endured great hardship to establish Democracy in their respective countries. [Ahem]

The two leaders also discussed the latest developments in the region and emphasized the crucial roles that both countries would play in the new political structure of the region.

Related Post: Obama's abandonment of Iraq compels Iraqi leaders to turn to Iran for guidance

Why were Sadat's assassination plotters released from prison?

Why did Egyptian authorities release from prison, Abboud and Tarek El-Zomor, two individuals convicted in plotting the assassination of former Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat?

Well, if you read my previous post, you would know the answer.

As I noted earlier via the New York Times:

The Muslim Brotherhood... has transformed into a tacit partner with the military government [in Egypt] that many fear will thwart fundamental changes... There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on....

With the Muslim brotherhood running the show, is it any wonder why the Egyptian military government released Abboud and Tarek El-Zomor?

Muslim Brotherhood takes lead role in Egypt

From the New York Times:

The Muslim Brotherhood... has transformed into a tacit partner with the military government [in Egypt] that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists... are no longer the driving political force...

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst... “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”...

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

P.S. As I note in my latest post, this would explain why Sadat's assassination plotters were recently released from prison?

Obama introduced Senate resolution asserting Bush didn't have Congressional authorization to attack Iran

In November of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution stating that President Bush did not have Congressional authorization to use military force against Iran.

The resolution was drafted in response to an amendment passed in the senate in September of 2007 which designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama argued that the amendment could be used by President Bush to justify war with Iran.

Joe Biden's spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, said at the time that Mr. Biden also believed the amendment could be used to justify military action against Iran.

The spokeswoman added, "[Sen. Biden] has also made clear many times his view that the president lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress."

Here's a small snippet of Obama's 2007 Senate resolution:

Mr. REID (for Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations...

Whereas any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that nothing in the... resolution [amendment] previously adopted, or any other provision of law.. shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran.

It should also be noted that while Obama asserted in a 2007 interview that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he stipulated that "the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States" and that "in instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act" unilaterally.

Since Iran is arming and training Iraqi and Afghan insurgents to murder U.S. troops abroad, an attack against Iran, clearly, can be construed as an act of self-defense. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities can also be defined as such, especially if and when Iran reaches the threshold of nuclear weapons capability - if it hasn't already reached that point.

Conversely, attacking the Libyan regime is clearly not an act of self-defense, even if this was the case in the days of yesteryear.

This is not to suggest that Gaddafi is a kind-hearted and benevolent man, who is undeserving of punitive measures, nor is this an attempt to address the question as to whether the U.S. should or should not be bombing Libya. The point being made is that the President should have obtained congressional authorization before launching attacks on Libya, if he wished to abide by his own resolution and previous statements.

If the President, however, wished nothing more than to remain true to his hypocritical, flip-flopping ways, then the path he chose was undoubtedly the correct one.

Related Video: Obama to Bush: You do not have congressional authorization to attack Iran

Obama to Bush: You do not have congressional authorization to attack Iran - (Libya?)

President Obama launched military strikes on Libya, on Saturday, without Congressional authorization, and yet, during a Presidential campaign speech in Clinton Iowa - on September 12, 2007 - he warned George. W. Bush and Dick Cheney not to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.

"We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the President and the Vice President talk about Iran. Well, George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American People and Congress, 'You do not have our support and you do not have our authorization to launch another war'!"

Oh, well....

Rumsfeld on why Obama didn't seek congressional authorization on Libya

Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, told the Politico on Wednesday that the the U.S. mission in Libya has become muddled because the White House has been unable to define the mission and is letting coalition partners in Europe determine "what the mission is."

“I’ve always believed that the mission should determine the coalition,” said Rumsfeld. “You decide what it is you want to do and then you get other countries to assist you in doing that. And, in this case, it looks like just the opposite was done, that the coalition is trying to determine the mission and it’s confused. … If peoples’ lives are at risk and you’re using military forces, you need to have a rather clear understanding as to who’s in charge and who’s making the decisions.”

Rumsfeld stated that the reason President Obama did not seek authorization from Congress before ordering military strikes on Libya is because he didn't have a clearly defined goal of what it was he wanted to accomplish.

“When people criticized [the President] for not going to Congress, criticizing the administration for not going to Congress, going to the United Nations and the Arab League instead, I kind of could understand why he didn’t,” he said. “If you went to Congress and asked for authorization to do something, you’d have to know what it was you wanted to do and you had to have decided before the fact with some precision and some clarity, as to what the mission would be.”

Biden, NH, '07: President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran

Speaking at a campaign stump in New Hampshire, in November of 2007, then-Senator Joe Biden stated that he would move to impeach President Bush if he ordered military strikes on Iran without congressional authorization:



Related: Joe Biden speaking to his aides shortly after the 9/11 attacks: "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran."

Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, in October of 2008: "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational."

And, from the Boston Globe - February, 2005:

"Some believe that nuclear weapons have become an emotional necessity for Iranians.

"Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact."

Related Posts: Is Senator Biden Sympathetic Towards the Iranian Regime and it's Nuclear Ambitions?

The Biden, Iran Connection - The Saga Continues

Obama enjoys a drink or two as Libyan Crisis ensues

The President offers a toast to the First lady during an official state dinner in El Salvador on Tuesday a few days after he had ordered air strikes on Libya.

Obama, Hezbollah, Hariri & Mixed Messages

According to recent media reports, the Obama administration is considering whether to open a dialogue with Hezbollah. This is fully consistent with the thinking of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism czar, who stated in August of 2009, that “Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization." The Obama administration, however, is denying these reports.

The White House also denied, in 2009, that a meeting between two senior Hamas officials and a U.S diplomat had been coordinated and promoted by the U.S. State Department, despite a report in an Arab weekly that stated otherwise.

It is also worthy to note that in 2009, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem stated that the Obama administration had been reaching out to Hezbollah.

"Several US officials at different levels and more or less close to the [Obama] administration have asked to speak with [us]," he said.

Sadly, the Obama administration continues to send out mixed messages on matters of foreign policy, which is effecting the decision-making processes of foreign leaders, who can't help but be befuddled by the administration's incoherent policies.

Former Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, once a staunch critic of Syria, began taking a softer tone toward Syria after Barack Obama ascended to the Presidency and re-established US/Syrian ties: With Obama befriending the Syrian regime, Hariri was powerless and he was unable to maintain a strong opposition toward the Syrians.

After Hezbollah toppled the Hariri government several weeks ago, Mr. Hariri, who believed the Obama administration was firmly opposed to Hezbolla's power grab, began issuing harsh statements critical of Hezbollah. Various factions within Lebanon sided with Hariri. However, with the latest reports suggesting that the Obama administration is considering whether to open a dialogue with Hezbollah, Mr. Hariri may feel compelled to soften his position, as he did with the Syrian regime.

Clearly, the Obama administration is in way over its head; it is alienating U.S. allies and strengthening America's adversaries.

The mixed messages emanating from the White House is partly due to Obama's pacifist nature and his benign, and somewhat favorable view toward terrorists and rogue elements around the globe. The President's pacifist nature is pushing him in one direction, while the harsh realities of the world are pushing him in another direction: Obama knows full well that a foreign policy which ignores the caustic reality of evil will have severe consequences upon the entire free world and will consequently make him a one term President. Hence, he is totally confused as to which direction to take.

And sadly, all this confusion is having a profound effect upon foreign leaders the likes of Saad Hariri, who are completely befuddled by Obama's mixed messages and his in-cohesive foreign policy.

On the flip side, leaders of Hezbollah, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are quite content with Obama's foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter - A "Wimp"? A "Headless Chicken"?

A caller to the Rush Limbaugh program on Thursday assailed Mr. Limbaugh for labeling former President Jimmy Carter "a wimp." Mr. Limbaugh replied that he had merely quoted journalist Michael Ledeen, who referred to Mr. Carter as "a wimp". The Conservative radio icon went on to say that although he had quoted Mr. Ledeen, he couldn't recall whether he himself had actually used the term "wimp". But the unnerved caller wasn't satisfied, he insisted that Mr. Limbaugh had indeed called Carter a "wimp", and he couldn't fathom that anyone would dare use the aforementioned term to describe the former President.

It should be noted, however, that even the late Ayatollah Khomeini viewed Mr. Carter as the ultimate wimp.

Khomeini's late son, Ahmad, wrote in his memoirs that after the raid on the U.S. embassy in Iran and the seizure of American hostages, his father, the late Ayatollah, had expected a "thunder and lightning" response from the Carter administration, but instead, according to Ahmed, Jimmy Carter behaved "like a headless chicken."

Rather than excoriate the Iranian regime for taking American diplomats hostage, it appeared to the Mullahs in Iran as if the Carter administration had been offering apologies for America's past injustices and asking forgiveness for its past sins.

Apparently, the late Ayatollah Khomeini - who dealt with the Carter administration during the hostage crisis - believed that the former President had behaved "like a headless chicken", i.e. "a wimp". But the aforementioned caller [to the Rush Limbaugh program] vehemently disagrees with the Ayatollah.

In truth, according to many experts, it was Mr. Carter's egregious policies that facilitated both the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the Ayatollah's reign.

To paraphrase a popular quote from President Obama's esteemed mentor : "America's 'headless' chickens are coming home to roost!"

P.S. It should also be noted that a dire hostage crisis has already been brewing in Iran for quite some time. Several hostages, including former FBI agent, Robert Levinson and the American
hikers who inadvertently drifted into Iran, are being held captive by the Mullahs. Sadly, President Obama - like Jimmy Carter in '79 - is behaving like a "headless chicken". The President, fearful of alienating the Iranian despots - i.e. the kidnappers - has decided it's in his best interest not to agitate them.

Perhaps, the day will come - some time in the distant future - when Obama decides to use both his diplomatic skills and his proficiency in the art of appeasement to win their freedom. In the meantime, it goes without saying that America's 'headless' chickens have, clearly, come home to roost!

Obama: "We took our eye off the Ball"???

Obama attends non-fundraising events, although they look, smell and feel like fundraisers

From today's Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama’s re-election fund-raising effort kicks off — unofficially — on Wednesday when Democratic donors pour into Washington for a two-day meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s national advisory board, featuring appearances by the president, his chief of staff, his 2008 campaign manager and the man who will head his 2012 re-election campaign.

Democrats familiar with the event at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington’s toney Woodley Park neighborhood stress it is not an official re-election effort. That would mean the president would have to jump through a series of legal hoops, including fund-raising reporting requirements. The speeches will be sufficiently broad and generic to not count as election stumping. There will be no OVERT requests for cash...

"There will be no OVERT requests for cash..." Wink, Wink...

But make no mistake, this is no ordinary DNC meet and greet.

The president will be introduced by White House senior adviser David Plouffe, who guided his 2008 campaign. Chief of Staff Bill Daley will address the monied crowd on Thursday. White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, who will manage the re-election campaign, will give some variation of the presentation he’s been delivering all over the country, laying out the challenges facing the 2012 campaign, especially on fundraising. Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine will also speak.

On Monday night, the president did some glad-handing with prospective Democratic donors at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington.

"Glad-handing", hmmm....

From the AP - Monday, March 14, 2011:

President Barack Obama is meeting with about 50 donors and potential donors to the Democratic National Committee as he gears up to raise money for the approaching 2012 campaign.

Party officials said Monday night's gathering at Washington's ritzy St. Regis Hotel isn't a fundraiser...

Monday evening's gathering sets the stage for fund-raising for his own re-election. The meeting will give the president face time with past supporters and potential supporters.

Obama raised a whopping $750 million for his 2008 presidential bid. His re-election campaign could raise in excess of $1 billion.

Monday evening's gathering wasn't a fundraiser for Obama's re-election campaign, it merely set the stage for fund-raising Obama's re-election campaign. It was 'broad and generic'; there were no OVERT requests for cash! PERIOD!

And just to confirm that all the above is accurate, we'll conclude with the following report from the Chicago Sun Times on Monday:

President Obama makes his first major fund-raising pitch for his 2012 re-election on Monday night when he meets with about 50 backers---some involved in his 2008 campaign and others who are considered potential major supporters.

Obama meets with the group at the St. Regis Hotel at 7:30 p.m. est at an event organized by the Democratic National Committee, which is the political arm of the Obama operation for now since "official" Obama re-election papers have yet to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. No money for the 2012 re-elect can be collected until Obama files with the FEC. Any pledges obtained at the DNC reception Monday night--it is a DNC event--goes to the DNC. But since the main purpose of the DNC at this stage is to support Obama's programs and re-election--it is a difference without a major distinction.

Okay, you got it now?: Obama is attending events - with his campaign manager, advisers, chief-of-staffs etc. - that look, smell and feel like campaign fundraisers, but they're not really fundraisers. That's right! He's simply setting the stage for funding his re-election campaign, but "these events are not really fund-raisers."

And although, non-overt [wink, wink] cash transactions, are likely to be transpiring at these gatherings, the collected money goes to the DNC first, and only then, does it find its way into Obama's campaign coffers. Hence, these events are not REALLY fundraisers - even if they may look, smell and feel like fundraisers.

And while we're on the subject of fund-raisers, there's an additional matter that needs to be clarified:

Although Bill Ayers [in 2008] wrote in a new afterword to his book, Fugitive Days, that "[Obama and I] knew one another as neighbors and family friends, [he] held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign...,” it was not really a fund-raiser. As the Obama campaign explained at the time, it was a "neighborhood gathering" and a "coffee" event - defintely NOT a fundraiser - despite Mr. Ayers' claim to the contrary.

After all, who is more reliable and trustworthy? Bill Ayers, founder of the notorious Weather Undergound? Or, Barack Obama, the President of the United States - who, by some strange coincidence, just happens to be a friend of Mr. Ayers?

Hmmm?

U.S. Commanders Want More Troops as Afghan Withdrawal Date Nears

ABC News - Field commanders in Afghanistan are asking for more troops, ABC News has learned. Some are openly challenging the wisdom of withdrawing any U.S. forces by the July 11 date set by the administration... It's possible, says one source, that after the July withdrawal date there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than the president authorized in 2009...

Related Post: Gates to U.S. Allies: Don't withdraw your troops, even though we're withdrawing ours

Chris Matthews: Obama, Carter Gaffe - Twice!

For the second time in less than a year Chris Matthews referred to President Obama as "President Carter".

Calling Dr. Freud! Calling Dr. Freud!

U.N. Sanctions failing to slow down Iran's Nuclear Enrichment Program: DIA Chief

U.N. sanctions against Iran have had zero affect on the nation's nuclear enrichment program, says Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In a recent statement prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee, Burgess said that Iran already possesses “more than enough” low-enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, and that it simply needed to further enrich and process the material to create a nuclear bomb.

Iran is installing more and more centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels at a pace completely unaffected by U.N. sanctions, he said.

The DIA Director also stated that Iran's space launch missile program is steadily progressing toward technology that could eventually be used to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Sadat assassination plotters released from prison

Sending a clear signal that Democracy has finally arrived in their country, Egyptian authorities have released from prison, Abboud and Tarek El-Zomor, two individuals convicted in plotting the assassination of former Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat.

Prisoners like Abboud and Tarek El-Zomor are typically referred to as 'Political Prisoners' & 'Human Rights Activists':

Gates to U.S. Allies: Don't withdraw your troops, even though we're withdrawing ours

From the LA Times:

Gates warns U.S. allies about 'precipitous' exit from Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' discouraged European allies from pulling out large numbers of their troops as the U.S. begins a July drawdown:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Friday warned allies against "ill-timed, precipitous or uncoordinated" drawdowns of their troops from Afghanistan that could harm gains made against Taliban militants.

Gates aimed to discourage allies in Europe from using the Obama administration's plans to withdraw some troops beginning in July as a pretext to bring out large numbers of their own forces.

The planned withdrawals [in July] are expected to be a small percentage of the overall U.S. force, but if allies with only a few thousand soldiers or fewer bring out similar numbers it could cause problems, officials said.

"Frankly, there is too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right," Gates said in remarks to defense ministers from the 47 other countries that have troops in Afghanistan...

"We will not sacrifice the significant gains made to date, or the lives lost, for a political gesture," he said. "In return, we expect the same from you," he told the other ministers.

Journalist Bob Woodward, in his 2010 book, Obama's Wars, quotes the President as saying at various White House meetings: "I have two years with the public on this [the war in Afghanistan]... I want an exit strategy. I can't let this be a war without end. I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Question: Did Mr. Gates, last year, convey to President Obama the same message that he delivered to the aforementioned ministers? Did he tell the President that "we will not sacrifice the significant gains made to date, or the lives lost, for a political gesture [to the Democratic Party]. In return," Mr. President, "we expect the same from you?"

Or, does Mr. Gates believe that what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander?

O'Keefe, NPR, Liley - video REMIX - "$5 Million Dollars!!!"

As I noted in my previous post: James O'Keefe, the man behind the recent NPR video-sting, released a second video on Thursday. In the new video, Betsy Liley, NPR's 'Senior Director of Institutional Giving', is overheard telling a fake donor - an undercover operative and a colleague of O'Keefe - that, by accepting a proposed $5 million gift anonymously, NPR would be able to shield the donor from a government audit of NPR's books.

NPR previously claimed that the aforementioned undercover operative[s] "repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached..., but we repeatedly refused to accept" the check.

Hmmm....

Betsy Liley was placed on administrative leave on Tuesday, after the first video was released.

The video below is a remix of Mr. O'Keefe's video: