Mexico says Tahmooressi's honest mistake unacceptable, but Mexico's 300 dishonest mistakes acceptable?

Mexican authorities arrested U.S. Marine sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi three months ago after he mistakenly took a wrong turn and crossed the Mexican border. However, with President Obama unwilling to make the minimal effort necessary to obtain Tahmooressi's release, the hapless US Marine sergeant is still languishing in a Mexican jail.

It was an honest mistake on Tahmooressi's part, but apparently the Mexican authorities believe that only they are entitled to make honest mistakes, even nearly fatal honest mistakes, despite the fact that, over the last decade, Mexican authorities have made at least 300 of these dubiously "honest mistakes":

From the LA Times:

Mexican law enforcement helicopter crossed over into U.S. airspace [on Thursday] and fired two shots near U.S. Border Patrol agents, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The incident prompted a quick apology from Mexican authorities in what is the second incursion this year of Mexican forces into U.S. territory, officials said.

The incident occurred about 5 a.m. Thursday in southern Arizona about 100 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border, officials said, while Mexican authorities were tracking and trying to apprehend about 45 people in a drug operation as the suspects were attempting to cross into the United States.

No one was injured after the shots were fired near the town of San Miguel, Ariz., the officials said.

According to a statement by U.S. officials, Mexican authorities quickly apologized and said the shots were a “mistake.”

In January, two heavily armed Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona near the same spot and drew their weapons on U.S. Border Patrol officers there. No one was injured in that incident.

And while Mexican authorities claim that the incident on Thursday was an honest mistake, Newsmax reported on Friday as follows:

This is not the first time members of Mexican law enforcement crossed the U.S. border without permission.

In a written response to a request from Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Department of Homeland Security stated that there have been a total of 300 documented incursions by Mexican military and law enforcement authorities since Jan. 1, 2004. Of those incidents, 152 involved armed subjects.

Hunter, a California Republican, believes the number misrepresents the actual number of incursions and criticized the DHS for "a clear lack of consistency among DHS in handling these incidents, especially in cases of unauthorized incursions with armed authorities."

300 documented incursions by Mexican military and law enforcement authorities can not possibly be honest mistakes!

Rep. Hunter - who has been working tirelessly to obtain Andrew Tahmooressi's release - was quoted by Fox News on Friday as saying:

"It's ironic that Mexico says it acted accidentally in this case, and they ask we accept an apology, when they refuse to acknowledge an authentic mistake on Andrew's part."

"There are mistakes and there are excuses," Hunter added. "Andrew's actions were the result of a wrong turn, a simple mistake. Mexico is just making an excuse and no different than the border incursions that are too regular, U.S. officials should approach this incident with absolute seriousness."

US Economy Shrank 2.9% in first quarter, worst drop since '09

The U.S. economy shrank at a steep annual rate of 2.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014, the fastest rate of decline since the first quarter of 2009, the US Commerce Department said on Wednesday.

The agency initially reported in April that the economy had expanded at a 0.1 percent rate in the first quarter of this year. The Commerce Department later revised that estimate in June and said that the economy actually shrank by 1 percent. But today the agency revised that number a second time and said that the US economy had actually taken a 2.9 percent nosedive.

The difference between the agency's second and third revision was the largest on records since 1976.

Obama could swap some more Gitmo detainees for the Nigerian hostages

President Obama, last month, cunningly advanced his goal of emptying out the Guantanamo Bay detention center by using the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban custody as a pretext to release five senior Taliban Gitmo detainees as part of a prisoner swap. Likewise, the President has another opportunity and pretext right now to free some additional Gitmo detainees by offering them up in exchange for some of the hostages who've been kidnapped in Nigeria by the Boko Harem terrorist group.

Breitbart reported on Tuesday that Boko Harem has once again gone on a kidnapping spree:

Militant Islamist group Boko Haram abducted 91 individuals during raids into several Nigerian villages over the weekend. Witnesses told the AP that married women were taken along with their children, who range anywhere from three to fifteen years of age...

A local official said on condition of anonymity, "More than 60 women were hijacked and forcefully taken away by the terrorists.”... Others said as many as 30 were killed in the mass abduction...

On April 15, members of the radical Islamist group abducted over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls at their boarding school in Chibok.

Clearly, these kidnappings provide the President with a new pretext, and another golden opportunity, to free some additional Gitmo detainees in exchange for the Nigerian hostages. And, while it may be true that Boko Harem, in all likelihood, has little interest in the Taliban detainees, nevertheless, even the most remote effort to facilitate both the closing down of Gitmo and the release of all Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees is worthwhile. It's worth the effort!

Bottom line: While it is true that U.S Navy admiral and commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, William McRaven, believes there is a strong need for a long-term detention & interrogation facility, like Gitmo, the President must nevertheless seek out all avenues - even the most remote and unlikely avenues - to empty out, and close down Gitmo, for good.

I repeat once again on behalf of the President: By hook or by crook, all Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees must be released from Gitmo as soon as possible!

Also, it is imperative that Michelle Obama stay persistent in her #BringBackOurGirls twitter campaign; for ultimately only a successful twitter campaign has the power to defeat the terrorists!

A couple of twitter posts and instagrams from Michelle Obama and her political PR advisers is certainly not enough! Michelle definitely needs to put a lot more heart into this thing. And, if she needs more money to purchase additional placards for her instagram tweets, there are plenty of people who would be willing to chip in for the expenses......

Boehner: Wheels are coming off the Obama Presidency - Video Parody

During his weekly press briefing on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner sharply criticized President Obama on a number of issues, including the administration's proposed energy tax, the missing IRS emails, the VA debacle, the dramatic increase in the number of unaccompanied minors that are crossing the US' borders, the terrorist surge in Iraq and the recent prisoner exchange in which five senior Taliban commanders were released from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Mr. Boehner started out by saying, "The American people are still asking the question, ‘where are the jobs?,’ while the administration’s working on their national energy tax that’s going to destroy American jobs."

Addressing the latest revelations concerning the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, the House Speaker said that, "The White House promised to cooperate" in the IRS investigation, "but did nothing."

Mr. Boehner added that the President called the IRS scandal a phony scandal, "yet who could possibly believe" that the White House "lost two critical year’s worth of email" that is critical to the IRS investigation.

On the recent Taliban prisoner swap, Mr. Boehner asserted that, "The White House thought the American people were going to cheer when the president released these terrorists. I think [the President's] misreading of the American people is fairly shocking."

Concerning the dire situation in Iraq, the House Speaker said that, “The White House has known for months about the situation in Iraq. When you look, it’s not just Iraq, the spread of [global] terrorism has increased exponentially under this president’s leadership.”

As I noted in the previous post, in the five years that Barack Obama has been President, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased by more than 150%!

“And," Mr. Boehner concluded, "as you may recall, after the last election, I said that I hoped that the president would seize this moment and take the lead. And here we are, a year and a half later, you look at this presidency and you can’t help but get the sense that the wheels are coming off.”

Islamic State in Iraq, Ukraine, Rise of Global terrorism, Is this "Change We Can Believe In?"

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] is currently making significant inroads in Iraq as a result of President Obama's stubborn refusal, in 2011, to leave behind a residual force of US troops in the country. In Ukraine, the situation is also steadily deteriorating. And all across the globe, terrorism is on the rise.

The number of terrorist attacks around the globe has rapidly increased in just five years, according to the IHS Jane's 2013 Global Terrorism & Insurgency Attack Index. "In 2009, a worldwide total of 7,217 attacks were recorded from open sources. In 2013, that number increased by more than 150% to 18,524." There was a 40% increase in terrorist attacks worldwide last year compared to 2012. Which begs the question: Is this the kind of "Change" that Barack Obama promised to bring about during his 2008 Presidential campaign? Is this "Change we can believe in?"

Abu Khattala and the cowardliness of Obama; What took so long?

Abu Khattala, a senior member of the Benghazi branch of the terror group Ansar al-Sharia, and one of the terrorists who participated in the deadly attacks in Benghazi in 2012, was apprehended by U.S. forces on Sunday, nearly two years after the attacks.

Mr. Khattala's involvement in the Benghazi attacks had become public knowledge shortly after the attacks.

The New York Times reported in October of 2012 as follows:

Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said Wednesday. Witnesses at the scene of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi have said they saw Mr. Abu Khattala leading the assault.

And yet, despite the public knowledge of Mr. Khattala's involvement in the Benghazi attacks, for nearly two years after the attacks, Mr. Khattala roamed the streets of Benghazi freely and conducted interviews with the New York Times, Reuters, CNN and other news outlets without fear of retribution from the Libyan government or the Obama administration.

In October of 2012, the New York Times interviewed Mr. Khattala, and reported as follows:

Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping [mango juice] on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

The Times later issued the following correction:

An earlier version of this article misidentified the beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at the hotel. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

Heh....

That same month, Reuters also interviewed Mr. Khattala, and reported:

Abu Khattala told Reuters he... was surprised that officials had told journalists he was at large.

"These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding," he said. "But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I'm even going to pick up my sister's kids from school soon."

Sitting with a friend in the restaurant of a Benghazi hotel, the 41-year-old, sporting a red felt hat and a full salt-and-pepper beard, laughed gently."

The obvious question arises: If Mr. Khattala was roaming the streets of Benghazi both freely and openly, why did it take so long for the Obama administration to apprehend him? According to CNN, US officials claim that Khattala "went into hiding last year after a flurry of media interviews that seemed to mock any U.S. manhunt for him." However, that excuse rings hollow because as late as October 29, 2013, The Times of London interviewed Mr. Khattala, which means the Obama administration had, at the very least, 13 months to apprehend him.

So why didn't the Obama administration nab him?

The answer in a few short words: Obama is a coward who knows only one thing: Appeasement.

The more detailed answer, however, is as follows:

In the October 2013 Times of London interview with Mr. Khattala, The Times reported as follows:

Libya's most wanted man is 1.88m tall, has a grey beard, wears a long brown sheepskin abaya coat, has a thin scar on the left-hand side of his temple. He appears to have the flu.

Given his status as a fugitive and the gravity of his alleged crime - involvement in the killing of the US ambassador - it might be expected Ahmed Abu Khattala would go to ground in a safe house.

Yet, as Abu Khattala, 42, pours a cup of green tea and offers me a tray of biscuits, he gazes thoughtfully from the sofa in his home in a street barely 10 minutes' drive from the centre of Benghazi...

Despite his "wanted" status, the manner of our meeting could scarcely be more blatant... There is no go-between, no guide waiting at a midway rendezvous to escort me to a clandestine meeting place.

Instead, Abu Khattala steps from his home on to the street in broad daylight and leads me inside his house...

"The Lord knows what would happen in Libya if I was taken away," he muses. "This act would win the Americans more enemies, and they would fall."...

Wanis Bukhamada, the head of Libya's special forces appointed as chief of security in Benghazi a fortnight ago, confirmed Abu Khattala's claim the two men regularly talk, an admission that articulates the rift between Washington and Tripoli. "I often meet with Abu Khattala," he said. "We call each other. We have no problems with one another. There is nothing issued against him by the state, no warrant, no information concerning a crime, so why should he be my enemy?"

Instead, Mr Bukhamada expressed concern at the prospect of a US raid to snatch Abu Khattala... A "US raid would cause things to go out of control," he added. "There would be a lot of retaliation. You couldn't tell what might happen."

And therein lies the answer: President Obama's reluctance to arrest Abu Khattala was due to the fact that he feared, in typical cowardly fashion, that such a move would upset both the terrorist groups operating inside Libya and the terrorist-infested Libyan government that Obama helped put in place.

The New York Times repored on Monday:

Officials briefed on the investigation have said for more than a year that a plan to capture Abu Khattala was on Obama’s desk awaiting approval. But the administration held back, in part for fear that a U.S. raid to retrieve him might further destabilize the already tenuous Libyan government.

In October of 2013, I noted that U.S. officials [Obama administration cronies] told CNN that, "the White House became worried any raid in Benghazi [to apprehend Mr. Khattala] could destabilize, and potentially bring down the fragile Libyan government."

Hence, for nearly two years after the Benghazi attacks, Mr. Khattala and his Ansar al-Sharia buddies roamed the streets of Benghazi freely. Why? Because Obama feared that the chaotic situation that he helped create in Libya would only get worse if he dared to apprehend the bad guys.

Which begs the following questions: Why did Obama finally decide to arrest Mr. Khattala? And, from where did Obama get the courage to apprehend him?

Answer: In recent weeks, a renegade and retired Libyan general by the name of Khalifa Haftar has declared war against Ansar al-Sharia and the February 17 Martyrs Brigades - the group that was tasked with guarding the US consulate in Benghazi, but ultimately colluded in the deadly attacks - and other militant groups in Benghazi. Mr. Haftar and several volunteer army units are waging a fierce offensive against the militant groups, and they are acting in defiance, and without the authorization, of the Libyan [terrorist-infested] government.

Hence, with Mr. Haftar and his allies already waging a steady, and heavy, barrage of attacks against Ansar al-Sharia, President Obama, who loves to lead from behind, was able to muster up the courage to defy Ansar al-Sahria, and to arrest Mr. Khattala. Moreover, with the country currently engulfed in fierce fighting, and with Mr. Haftar and his allies already openly defying the Libyan government, the prospect that Mr. Khattala's capture might destabilize an already destabilized country, and weaken, and cripple, an already weakened and crippled government, was no longer a factor.

Hence, Obama suddenly summoned the courage to apprehend Mr. Khattala.

And, it is quite possible that, under the current turbulent circumstances, Obama might also muster up the courage to apprehend some of the other terrorists who were involved in the Benghazi attacks.

Mr. Khattala, no doubt, must be unhappy with Mr. Haftar's recent offensives, which ultimately facilitated the apprehension of Mr. Khattala. On the flip side, however, during the two-year period following the Benghazi attacks, Mr. Khattala was able to roam the streets of Benghazi freely, without fear of retribution - and for that, he owes a huge debt of gratitude to President Obama - because I can't think of any other US President that would have allowed Mr. Khattala the same kind of freedom.

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Americans dissatisfied with Obama administration's handling of Benghazi attack; believe the administration has been dishonest about Benghazi; oppose the President's efforts to close down Guantanamo Bay prison

In a new CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday, poll respondents were asked the following question:

"As you may know, in 2012, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in a town in Libya named Benghazi and killed the U.S. ambassador to that country and three other U.S. citizens. Based on what you have read or heard, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled this matter?"

60% of the respondents said they were dissatisfied, while only 37% said they were satisfied. 4% had no opinion.

The poll respondents were also asked the following question: "When it comes to providing information about the Benghazi attack, do you think the Obama administration has generally been honest or dishonest?"

61% of the respondents said the administration has been dishonest when it comes to providing information about the Benghazi attack, while only 37% said the administration has been honest . 2% had no opinion.

H/T to Guy Benson who also points out that, in a Gallup poll that was conducted between Jan. 5-8, an overwhelming majority of the respondents expressed opposition to President Obama's efforts to close down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The poll respondents were asked the following question:

"As you may know, since 2001, the United States has held people from other countries who are suspected of being terrorists in a prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Do you think the United States should - or should not - close this prison and move some of the prisoners to US prisons?"

66% of the respondents opposed the President's plan and said that, no, the United States should not close the prison and move some of the prisoners to US prisons, while only 29% supported the President's plan and answered the poll question in the affirmative. 5% had no opinion.

Bear in mind that the aforementioned polls, which reflect negatively on Obama, were conducted by CNN and Gallup, two organizations that lean heavily to the left..........

Kerry: US 'open' to working with Iran over Iraq, despite thousands of US troops who were killed in Iraq by Iranian-backed insurgents

Despite the role that Iran played in prolonging the US military mission in Iraq, and despite the thousands of US troops who were killed in Iraq by Iranian backed insurgents, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would not rule out possible military cooperation with Iran to counter the current Sunni insurgency inside Iraq which was created as a result of President Obama's irresponsible and inept policies.

Asked on Monday about possible military cooperation with Iran, Kerry said, "I would not rule out anything... We are open to any constructive process here..." We are "open to discussions" with Tehran, Kerry said.

U.S. and Iranian officials in Vienna reportedly discussed the crisis in Iraq on Monday during separate negotiations about Iran's nuclear program.

The Washington Free Beacon noted on Monday:

As far back as 2007, Iran was accused by U.S. military officials of “training Iraqi insurgents to attack coalition forces in Iraq,” according to reports at the time...

Iran was then caught in June 2008 facilitating the passage of grenade launchers and bomb-making material to Iraqi insurgents.

That same year the Justice Department indicted a cohort of foreign nationals for funneling weapons to Iran. These arms were traced to deadly attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.

In May 2009, a large weapons stockpile was discovered along the Iran-Iraq border. The weapons cache, which included explosives and rocket launchers, was tied a Shiite militia purportedly trained and armed by Iran.

Similar reports of Iran arming Iraqi insurgents and attempting to destabilize the government emerged in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Nevertheless, when asked on Monday about possible military cooperation with Iran, Sec. Kerry said: "I will not rule out anything..." "We are open to any constructive process here..." We are "open to discussions" with Tehran.

However, later in the day, the White House and Pentagon Press Secretaries insisted that there was no plan to coordinate military activities between the United States and Iran.

But of course, the phrase "coordinate military activities" is a tricky one, for it is possible for the Obama administration to support Iran's military activities without the US and Iranian militaries technically coordinating with one another. Moreover, most Iranian combatants, terrorists and militants are not typically official members of the military, hence coordinating with them would not technically be the same as coordinating with the Iranian military, if you catch my drift...........

Federal Student Loan Debt increased over a half trillion dollars since Obama took office in '09, a 517% increase

From CNS News:

Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the cumulative outstanding balance on federal direct student loans has jumped 517.4 percent.

The balance owed as of the end of May was $739,641,000,000.00. That is an increase of $619,838,000,000.00 from the balance that was owed as of the end of January 2009, when it was $119,803,000,000.00, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Earlier this month, Obama announced new executive actions to allow five million student-loan borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10% of their income...

During President George W. Bush’s time [eight years] in office, the amount of outstanding loans increased from $67,979,000,000.00 in January of 2001 to $119,803,000,000 in January of 2009, an increase of 76.2%. This means that under President Obama - [in the five years plus that Obama has been in office] - the amount of federal direct student loans increased 579% more than under [eight years of] President Bush

Obama administration released al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq

The current chaos in Iraq can be attributed to President Obama's inaction and to his actions.

As I noted last week, President Obama refused to retain a residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 when the country was mostly calm and peaceful, after the US military had routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. The end result of the President's decision, and his inaction, was the emergence of the insurgency that is currently strangling the country.

However, it is President Obama's actions that have actually created the current insurgency in Iraq, as Front Page Magazine aptly notes.

Front Page starts off by elaborating on the point I had made last week:

On October 22nd, 2007, Osama bin Laden admitted in an audio tape, entitled “Message to the people of Iraq,” that al Qaeda was losing the war in Iraq because it had made mistakes and no longer had the allegiance of Sunni insurgents who had switched sides. When Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009, the war in Iraq was essentially won. The al Qaeda-backed insurgency was reduced to smoldering embers. George W. Bush’s surge had succeeded.

Front Page then goes on to say:

Safely behind bars at the time was Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, an al Qaeda-linked point man who was imprisoned at Camp Bucca in Iraq, after being captured by U.S. forces in 2005. According to a Pentagon assessment at the time, al Baghdadi “would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.”

However, the Obama administration decided to shut down the Bucca prison camp and hand over its prisoners to the Iraqi government, including Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, in 2009. The Iraqi government later released him. Al Baghadi boasted to the U.S. soldiers who had held him prisoner, “I’ll see you in New York.”

The release of al Baghadi and other jihadist insurgents from the Bucca prison, coupled with President Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 rather than follow the military’s advice to leave a residual force behind, turned the smoldering embers of the once defeated al Qaeda-backed insurgency into a raging out-of-control conflagration.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi has re-emerged to become the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)... ISIS in recent days has taken control of large portions of northern and western Iraq including Iraq’s second largest city Mosul. ISIS freed at least 1,000 militants held in prisons in Mosul, adding more jihadists to its swelling ranks. It has looted hundreds of millions of dollars from northern Iraqi banks and taken sophisticated military equipment left behind by fleeing Iraqi soldiers...

That's right, Obama's actions, namely his decision to hand over al Baghdadi and his fellow prisoners to the Iraqi government - which subsequently freed the thugs - in essence, created the current insurgency in Iraq.

But Obama apparently has a penchant for transferring terrorist detainees to other governments, despite the inherent danger entailed in such handovers. He also has a penchant for freeing terrorist detainees, especially Gitmo detainees.

Earlier this year, the Afghan government released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison that had been transferred over by the Obama administration to Afghan control. The release of the fighters came despite the objections of US military personnel who said that the terrorist detainees were "directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel", and that the terrorists would likely return to the battlefield to kill even more NATO and Afghan troops.

And, last month, the Obama administration freed five senior Taliban commanders from Gitmo in exchange for US army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. I noted at the time as follows:

The President has sought all avenues, pretexts and excuses to free all detainees currently held in Gitmo, so that he could fulfill his pledge to close down the facility... President Obama's zeal to shut down Gitmo is well-known. Hence, it is no surprise that the Obama administration... released 5 "high-ranking", senior terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for the release of US marine Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl..

A senior administration official told CNN, "The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

The senior administration official - perhaps unwittingly - revealed the truth, namely that the release of the five terrorists from Gitmo was not a concession on Obama's part. Quite the contrary, Obama has desperately sought any pretext to free any and all Gitmo detainees so that he could eventually close down the facility and boast that his campaign pledge to shut down the facility was not an empty promise. Bergdahl's release allowed the President to free 5 more Gitmo detainees and avoid scrutiny. Hence, there was no concession on the President's part; quite the contrary, releasing the five Gitmo detainees, pretext and all, was a wish, and a dream, come true for Obama...

Sadly, many detainees who've been released from Gitmo in the past have rejoined their terrorist comrades and have gone on to kill even more US and NATO troops.

Many Gitmo detainees have been repatriated to other countries where they've been placed either in a prison or a rehab facility for a brief period of time before being released to the wild to inflict more human casualties...

Likewise, the Obama administration handed over Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and his fellow prisoners, to the Iraqis who subsequently released them into the wild, where they are now wreaking destruction upon the entire country.

Boehner: Obama taking a nap while Insurgents take over Iraq and march to Baghdad

"They're 100 miles from Baghdad, and what's the president doing? Taking a nap."
House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday commenting on President Obama's Idleness as al-Qaeda-inspired insurgents continue to take over major cities in Iraq while vowing to march on to the capital, Baghdad.

ABC News reported on Thursday:

As al Qaeda-linked terrorists wreak havoc across Iraq, House Speaker John Boehner unloaded on President Obama for ignoring the escalating crisis there, contending that the president has been “taking a nap” while the situation rapidly deteriorates.

“It's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months these terrorists moving in, taking control of Western Iraq. Now they've taken control of Mosul. They're 100 miles from Baghdad,” Boehner, R-Ohio, fumed. “And what's the president doing? Taking a nap!”

Earlier this year, on Jan. 9, Boehner publicly urged Obama to “maintain a long-term commitment to a successful outcome” in Iraq, and called on the president to “get engaged.”...

Criticizing President Obama for negotiating an unprecedented prisoner exchange of five ranking Taliban for POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Boehner said the trade “has encouraged” U.S. enemies and increased risk to military and civilian personnel serving around the globe.

“Those who would argue the opposite, I think, are incredibly naïve,” Boehner said.

On Thursday, Boehner said the administration’s failure to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq “continues to have serious consequences for Iraq and American interests in the region...”

Boehner cited the administration’s “failed policies” in Syria, Libya and Egypt... “He continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies,” Boehner said. “We need to elect a Congress that not only has the will to stop the president, but the power to do so, as well.”

Hagel reassures Congress: Freed Senior Taliban commanders merely directed deadly operations against US, but, like Bin Laden, they did not actually pull the trigger

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel assured lawmakers on Wednesday that the five senior Taliban commanders who were freed from the Guantanamo Bay prison last week in exchange for US military deserter, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, merely directed deadly operations against US forces, but like Osama Bin Laden, they never actually pulled the trigger that killed Americans.

We appreciate that comforting thought, Mr Hagel. Thank you.

From Fox News:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel [during a House Armed Services Committee hearing] on Wednesday sought to ease concerns about the controversial swap of five hardened Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl...

Hagel... tried to downplay the risk inherent in the exchange, claiming the former Guantanamo detainees were planners, and had not directly participated in attacks on Americans.

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., quickly pointed out that Osama bin Laden was also a planner. "Bin Laden didn't pull a trigger...," McKeon said....

[Hagel] said there was "no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the United States or any of our troops," though they were combatants and "part of planning."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, asked him to clarify.

"So your point was they didn't pull the trigger, but they were senior commanders of the Taliban military who directed operations against the United States?" he asked.

"That's right," Hagel said.

"That's right." Heh....

It's sad, but comical nonetheless....

Gateway Pundit noted on Tuesday:

In remarks this weekend when asked to defend the release of five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay as part of the Bowe Bergdahl deal, Secretary of State John Kerry pushed back on the idea that the Taliban leaders who were released would make any difference to the fight.

“We are ending our combat role. Our combat role in Afghanistan is over.”

Our combat role is over? But what about the 9,000 plus US troops who will remain in the country until 2016? And what about the Afghan security forces? Is their combat role over? And, while it's true that the combat role of the Afghan forces might eventually come to an end when they desert their posts and hand over their weapons to the Taliban, nevertheless, that scenario could still be a few years away.

Mr. Hagel also conceded to lawmakers on Wednesday that, "We didn't handle some of this [prisoner exchange] right... We could have done a better job of keeping you informed."...

Heh, of course they didn't inform congress of the decision because President Obama's sole purpose in this prisoner exchange was to further his goal, and to fulfill his pledge, to close down Gitmo by freeing every last detainee. And, the only way to do reach that politically-mired goal is to find any pretext, like the release of Bowe Bergdahl, that allows the President to bypass congress and to release the Gitmo terrorist detainees, by hook or by crook!

Related Post: Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Conclusion: As sad and pathetic as the comments from Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel might seem, there is no denying that these two clowns are an incredibly hilarious duo and that they represent the very best that comedy has to offer. It's simply undeniable.

A residual force of US troops in Iraq, and in Afghanistan - there's a huge distinction between the two

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued the following statement on the Al-Qaeda splinter group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seizing control of the Iraqi city of Mosul today:

“Our worst fears about Iraq are being realized today. The black flags of Al-Qaeda are flying over Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, just as they do over Fallujah.

"Al-Qaeda affiliated militants are now pressing their offensive into other parts of western Iraq and possibly beyond. This growing threat to our national security interests is the cost of President Obama’s decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq in 2011, against the advice of our commanders and regardless of conditions on the ground.

“Unfortunately, the President is now making the same disastrous mistake in Afghanistan, increasing the risk that Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies will return there just as they are in Iraq. It is not too late for the president to reverse this catastrophic decision and instead make any withdrawal of U.S. forces after this year contingent on conditions on the ground.

"At the same time, we call on the president to explain to Congress and the American people how he plans to address the growing threat to our homeland and our national security interests posed by the rapidly expanding Al-Qaeda safe haven[s]."

President Obama is planning on retaining a residual force of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, until 2016, when all US troops will be withdrawn from the country except for a military advisory group.

In 2011, the President refused to leave behind a residual force of US troops in Iraq; he even boasted about it and proclaimed triumphantly that he was withdrawing every last soldier from the country.

It should be noted, however, that there's a huge distinction between leaving behind a residual force of US troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and retaining a similar force of troops in Iraq back in 2011.

In 2011, the country of Iraq was mostly quiet after the US military routed Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed insurgents. A residual force of US troops could have prevented a reemergence of the insurgency because, after all, it's a lot easier to prevent an insurgency from reemerging than it is to squash a full blown insurgency already in progress. But Obama stubbornly chose not to retain such a presence in Iraq.

However, unlike the sense of calm that existed in Iraq in 2011, the current situation in Afghanistan is much different. Violence in Afghanistan has not subsided at all; on the contrary, it has increased. Hence, there is no reason to assume that a residual force of US troops will have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation.

That's right, Afghanistan in 2014 is not Iraq in 2011.

A residual force of US troops in Iraq in 2011 could have maintained the calm and the peace. In Afghanistan, however, as US troops continue to facilitate the Obama-mandated pull out, i.e. the President's "exit strategy", no such calm exists, hence a residual force most definitely will not have the ability to create a peaceful and calm environment. A huge difference.

And, in 2016, when the residual force of US troops packs up and leaves Afghanistan, the situation will only get worse.

Obama: "The Bear is loose", Freudian Slip or unintended truism?

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticized President Obama's weak posture toward Russia. Mr. Romney's criticism later intensified after the President was caught on an open mic telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more "flexibility" to make [even] more concessions to Russia after the November 2012 election. Mr. Obama, however, responded mockingly to Mr. Romney's critique by asserting that the latter was "stuck in a Cold War mind warp."

The President also derided Mr. Romney during a debate in October of 2012, and told him: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

But sadly, Mr. Romney's critique of the President was spot-on, for ultimately, on a whole host of issues, including missile defense, arms reduction, Syria and Crimea, Obama has given his Russian counterparts plenty of flexibility, and plenty of room for them to make a mockery out of US foreign policy.

And, on Monday, President Obama inadvertently conceded that Mr. Romney was right.

Call it a Freudian slip, or an unintended truism if you will, nevertheless, for once in his life, Obama actually got it right!

The President and his chief of staff Denis McDonough slipped out of the White House on Monday and sauntered off to a nearby Starbucks where the President ordered a cup of tea to take back to the White House.

During his "Tea Party" excursion [pun intended], the President jokingly told one of his aides: "The bear is loose." Ostensibly, Mr. Obama was joking about his life in the so-called White House "bubble" and how he had managed, during his tea break, to escape briefly from the "bubble". But upon deeper reflection, the aforementioned "bear is loose" remark aptly describes Russia's status during the Obama Presidency and the extreme flexibility which has been given to Russia during the Obama Presidency. Bear in mind [pun unintended] that the bear is a symbol that has been widely used to represent Russia.

"The bear is loose," indeed.

A Freudian slip? Or an unintended truism?

No matter. The President deserves credit where credit is due, and, for once in his life, he actually got it right: "The bear is loose."

Bergdahl & Obama the Perfect match? Bergdahl, a perfect spokesman for Obama?

A number of of US soldiers who served with Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl - the US soldier who was released in a prisoner swap on Saturday - are calling Bergdahl a "deserter" whose "selfish act" resulted in the deaths of better men who previously tried to rescue him.

If Bergdahl did indeed desert his comrades, and, if reports are true that the Army Sgt., in a letter, once expressed a sense of shame for being an American, it would help explain why the Taliban kept him alive all this time.

Of course, the opportunity to obtain the release of five senior, "high-ranking" and "high-risk" terrorists from Gitmo might be enough of a reason for the Taliban to keep Bergdahl alive, however, the latter was held captive for nearly five years, and, for the Taliban, five years is an awful long period of time, and energy, to expand on keeping an American infidel alive.

It may seem ironic, but in truth, it is befitting for Obama that the one American captive, out of many, that he has managed to extract from enemy soil - albeit with a prisoner swap consisting of "high-ranking" and "high-risk" terrorists - might very well be a "deserter" who has bad feelings about this country. Befitting indeed...:

Many of those who served with [Bowe Bergdahl] -- veterans and soldiers... - call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men...

Former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009, said "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."...

Said Bergdahl's former squad leader, Greg Leatherman: "I'm pleased to see him returned safely. From experience I hope that he receives adequate reintegration counseling. I believe that an investigation should take place as soon as healthcare professionals deem him fit to endure one."...

According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.

At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.

Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops... told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored...

Emails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl's fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: he told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

"The future is too good to waste on lies," Bowe wrote to his parents. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

Bergdahl wrote to them, "I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.".

CNN has not independently verified the authenticity of the emails...

[An American] platoon went to the village where [some] children said the American [Bergdahl] had gone.

"Villagers said an American did come through the area and was wanting water and someone who spoke English," [said, Cody, a former member of Bergdahl's squad]. "Wanted to meet with Taliban."

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company, and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."...

While searching for [Bergdahl], ambushes and IEDs picked up tremendously. Enemy knew we would be coming. IEDs started being placed more effectively in the coming weeks. Ambushes were more calculated, cover and concealment was used," Cody tweeted.

On August 18, 2009, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED in the search for Bergdahl. Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss was killed on August 26; 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek were killed after being attacked in Yahya Khail District on September 4; Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey was killed September 5 by an IED at the Forward Operating Base, Sharana.

Moreover, other operations were put on hold while the search for Bergdahl was made a top priority, according to officers who served in Afghanistan in that time...

One soldier with the 509th Regiment, a sister unit of the 501st, told CNN that after Bergdahl disappeared, the U.S. Army essentially was told to lock down the entire province of Paktika. He described sitting in the middle of a field with his platoon, vulnerable, with capabilities and personnel mismanaged throughout the region. Different platoons ran out of water, food, and ammunition.

Two mortarmen -- Pvt. Aaron Fairbairn and Pfc. Justin Casillas -- were killed in a July 4, 2009, attack.

"It was unbelievable," the soldier said. "All because of the selfish act of one person."

Befitting, indeed.....

One US soldier writes the following account:

"We search everywhere, and can't find [Bergdahl]. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are... We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban… to join them...

His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities...

The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it....

Bergdahl is not a hero... He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday."

Bergdahl & Obama, the Perfect match? Bergdahl, the perfect spokesman for Obama? Should Bergdahl be appointed the new White House Press Secretary?

Befitting, indeed....

Previous Post: Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Gitmo prisoner release, and pretext, a dream come true for Obama!

Despite the assertion of U.S Navy admiral and commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, William McRaven, that there is a need for a long-term detention & interrogation facility, like the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, to gather vital intelligence information, President Obama, in his zeal to fulfill a campaign pledge to close down Gitmo, has made the claim that there is no need for such a facility.

Hence, the President has sought all avenues, pretexts and excuses to free all detainees currently held in Gitmo, so that he could fulfill his pledge to close down the facility.

Sadly, many detainees who've been released from Gitmo in the past have rejoined their terrorist comrades and have gone on to kill even more US and NATO troops.

Many Gitmo detainees have been repatriated to other countries where they've been placed either in a prison or a rehab facility for a brief period of time before being released to the wild to inflict more human casualties.

In February of this year, the Afghan government released 65 Taliban fighters from a former U.S. prison that had been transferred to Afghan control. The release of the fighters came despite the objections of US military personnel who said that the terrorist detainees were "directly linked to attacks killing or wounding 32 U.S. or coalition personnel and 23 Afghan security personnel", and that the terrorists would likely return to the battlefield to kill even more NATO and Afghan troops.

In any case, President Obama's zeal to shut down Gitmo is well-known. Hence, it is no surprise that the Obama administration on Saturday released 5 "high-ranking", senior terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for the release of US marine Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who had been languishing in captivity since 2009. The 5 Gitmo detainees were handed into Qatari custody as part of the deal. Some additional info on the 5 detainees at the end of this post.

The AP reported that the five terrorists detainees were being "transferred into the custody of Qatari officials. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year."

CNN reported:

A senior administration official told CNN, "The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

The senior administration official - perhaps unwittingly - revealed the truth, namely that the release of the five terrorists from Gitmo was not a concession on Obama's part. Quite the contrary, Obama has desperately sought any pretext to free any and all Gitmo detainees so that he could eventually close down the facility and boast that his campaign pledge to shut down the facility was not an empty promise. Bergdahl's release allowed the President to free 5 more Gitmo detainees and avoid scrutiny. Hence, there was no concession on the President's part; quite the contrary, releasing the five Gitmo detainees, pretext and all, was a wish, and a dream, come true for Obama.

However, as the AP noted, the Gitmo detainees are being "transferred into the custody of Qatari officials. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year," which means that it won't be long before these terrorists are back in business.

Moreover, House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers opined on the prisoner swap that, "This fundamental shift in US policy signals to terrorists around the world a greater incentive to take U.S. hostages... I believe this decision will threaten the lives of American soldiers for years to come."

What's more, the stakes have now been raised with regards to other US citizens who are still languishing in captivity in various countries abroad. The price to obtain their release has now been upped because the bad guys now realize they can demand, and receive, a hearty ransom from Obama and company.

[Related Post: Abandoned American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, severely beaten in Iranian hospital; Iranians trying to extract more concessions from the Appeaser-in-Chief?]

Here's a teeny bit of info on the five detainees:

According to Fox News, the detainees "are believed to be the top five Taliban leaders at the prison." According to documents from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, all five prisoners were high-ranking Taliban officials, and some were deemed high-risk and "likely to post a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies." Two of the detainees are wanted by the UN for war crimes. One of the detainees was "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden.

The documents from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo also noted the following tidbit about one of the five detainees: "Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, detainee represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and Coalition forces."

The last paragraph should also come as no surprise, as Iran's assistance to the Taliban - arming and training the Taliban insurgents - is well-known. I've also noted on previous occasions the close ties between Iran and al Qaeda.

In a blog post earlier this year I noted:

According to the [2004] 9/11 Commission report, many of the 9/11 hijackers were known to have traveled in and out of Iran prior to the 9/11 attacks. The report also noted that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda operatives to travel back and forth between Iran and Afghanistan [to their training camps], and that Iranian border agents were ordered not to stamp the passports of al Qaeda operatives, which thereby facilitated their travel, and also helped conceal their whereabouts and their identities.

In 2011, members of the 9/11 Commission testified that Iranian border agents refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 commission report also noted that al-Qaeda operatives had long maintained contact with Iranian intelligence officials.

Additionally, the Telegraph-UK reported in 2008 that a letter "signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, [then]-al-Qaeda's second in command - [which was] written after the American embassy in Yemen was attacked by simultaneous suicide car bombs - thanked the leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for providing assistance to al-Qaeda to set up its terrorist network in Yemen."

The NSA reads everyone's emails, did they read the emails that Snowden sent them? Or were Snowden's emails intercepted by the NSA before the NSA had a chance to read them?

Both the NSA and White House on Thursday rebutted claims made in a recent interview by NSA leaker Edward Snowden in which he asserted that he had expressed concerns about the Obama administration's surveillance programs, via email, to his NSA superiors before leaking classified documents to the news media, CBS reported on Thursday.

The NSA released a statement saying that Mr. Snowden, in his email communications, "did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse, but posed a legal question" about whether an executive order supersedes federal statute, or vice versa, CBS reported.

The NSA responded to Snowden's question in an email, and told him that "Executive Orders (E.O.s) have the 'force and effect of law.' That said, you are correct that E.O.s cannot override a statute."

It should be noted, however, that the NSA's assertion that "executive orders cannot override a statute" is clearly incorrect with regards to Obama's executive orders, which, no doubt, are not subject to the laws of the land. Ahem....

The NSA, in its rebuttal to Snowden's claims that he had expressed his concerns with the agency, asserted that Snowden was merely “asking for an explanation of some material that was in a training course he had just completed," News media outlets reported.

The CBS report goes on to say:

Beyond that brief discussion, the NSA said it could not uncover any further attempts by Snowden to express concerns.

"There are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used to raise other concerns or whistleblower allegations," the agency explained. "We have searched for additional indications of outreach from him in those areas and to date have not discovered any engagements related to his claims."...

And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney similarly said on Thursday that Snowden "did not raise allegations or concerns about wrongdoing or abuse but posed a legal question that the office of general council addressed. There was not additional follow up noted."

“There are avenues available to somebody like Mr Snowden to raise those kind of concerns,” added Carney.

However, if indeed the NSA never did receive any additional emails from Snowden, the agency might want search through its huge trove of data mining collections because some of Snowden's emails might be sitting in one of those data mining repositories. In fact, it is quite feasible that the NSA inadvertently intercepted the emails that Snowden sent them, before the NSA could read them, and then stashed them away in a secret vault. Or, perhaps an independent NSA contractor intercepted Snowden's emails before they could reach the NSA's headquarters, in the hope that he, or she, could one day sell them to the media and rake in a huge profit. The NSA definitely needs to check into those possibilities.

Nevertheless, if, as the NSA claims, Snowden never expressed any concerns to the agency via email, there might be a reason for that: Since the NSA has been known to read other people's emails, Snowden might have been reluctant to express his concerns to the agency via email, for fear that the email would be read......

The NSA and Jay Carney claim that there "are numerous avenues that Mr. Snowden could have used" to communicate his concerns to the agency. But what other avenues did he have? Snowden likely ruled out placing a landline telephone call to the NSA for fear that the agency would place a permanent tap on his phone, and eavesdrop on all his private conversations.

Using a cell phone was also out of the question for the very same reason. Moreover, all of Snowden's private text messages would become an open book for the NSA.

And, while Snowden could have easily dropped by the NSA's headquarters to express his concerns about the surveillance program, who's to say the agency wouldn't have placed a tapping device inside his clothing, or implanted a bugging device into his skin?

The only other option available to Snowden was to communicate his concerns with the agency via carrier pigeon. However, had Snowden gone the carrier pigeon route, PETA might have had him arrested for abusing an animal for personal use.

Conclusion: Working for the NSA can be an extremely taxing experience, nevertheless, because of Obama's expanded use of executive orders, and because Obama's executive powers override all statutes, laws, apprehensions and misgivings, the lives of NSA employees, and contractors, have been made a little bit easier........

Kerry says Snowden engaging in Kerry-Like Betrayal - [Vietnam War] - Video Montage

During a round of morning interviews with several of the major television networks on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry accused NSA [National Security Agency] leaker Edward Snowden of engaging in the same kind of betrayal and traitorous activities that Kerry once participated in.

When Kerry returned from the Vietnam War in the early 70's, he accused his fellow American soldiers of committing war crimes. Kerry's accusations provoked the ire of countless Vietnam War vets who said that not only was Kerry falsely maligning them, but that he was guilty of betrayal and that he was harming American POW's in Vietnam, and that he was essentially advocating on behalf of the North Vietnamese, and strengthening the enemy. Vietnam War vets labeled Kerry a traitor.

Likewise, Secretary of State Kerry said on Wednesday: "Edward Snowden is a coward. He is a traitor. And he has betrayed his country... What he's done is hurt his country."

Mr. Kerry's comments are a clear substantiation of the old adage: "It takes one to know one."

Video Montage below:

Some Libyans are profoundly unhappy with the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the terrorist group hired to protect the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012

Reuters reported on Wednesday:

Libyan warplanes bombed militia bases in Benghazi on Wednesday as part of a renegade former general's campaign to purge the chaotic North African state of Islamist militants, witnesses and officials said.

Two jets attacked a base belonging to the February 17 brigade, one of the Islamist-leaning armed groups operating in Benghazi, and an Ansar al-Sharia militant base in the west of the city, a Reuters witness and an air force official said...

There were no immediate reports of casualties.... A Reuters witness at the February 17 base said there were no casualties and only structural damage.

Libya's Ansar al-Sharia [is] a militant group, listed as a terrorist group by Washington...

The AFP noted that, "The powerful" February 17 "brigade is made up of Islamist ex-rebels, including radicals, and is suspected of links with Ansar Al-Sharia, a group classified as a terrorist group by Washington."

But the February 17 Islamist brigade, which was tasked by the Obama administration to provide security at the US consulate in Benghazi - which later came under attack - apparently, has not been classified as a terrorist group by the administration. After all, how would it look if Obama and company labeled the very group it had hired to protect the consulate as a terrorist group?

I noted in May of 2013 as follows:

Eric Nordstrom - the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya - testified at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing earlier this month that the [February 17 brigade] militia - which was hired to guard the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - issued threats, in July of 2012, against former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and Senator John McCain.

Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified that the aforementioned militia was complicit in the Benghazi attacks - which begs the question: Why did the Obama administration allow these terrorist thugs to guard the consulate?

Newsmax reported last year that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade "had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page some months before the deadly attack."

Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia...

The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”...

On June 28..., the brigade posted a... graphic [which featured] two rows of pictures... The images include some of the leading figures of modern-day jihadism, including al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden and the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Earlier this month four Libyan protesters were killed while demonstrating against the February 17 Martyrs Brigade.

All Africa reported:

Protestors... moved to the February 17th Brigade locale and demanded its disbandment, blaming it for assassinations in Benghazi.

If the Brigade is not removed from Libya, "it will spread" [like a disease] "and kill all Libyans; we'll become like Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan," a Libyan teacher proclaimed.

On Saturday, Justice Minister Salah Marghani told reporters that the brigade was ordered to leave the city within 72 hours...

Computer engineer Faraj Ali confirmed that the "February 17th brigade camp is one of the biggest military camps in Libya with all of its weapons, but all such weapons are hidden in farms..."

"Col. Wanis Bukhamada has raided their farms more than once, and has even raided al-Nayrouz resort, and directly after that, they kidnapped his son," Ali added.

Abu Omar al-Manfi, a car electrician, said, "The so-called February 17th brigade is engaged in the most horrific forms of torture and is sponsoring terrorists and those exploiting religion... They must be arrested and brought to trial."

However, as noted earlier, the State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission... After all, as Hillary Clinton is wont to say, "What difference does it make?"

It is also safe to assume that the Brigade will not be designated a terrorist group by the Obama administration anytime soon.

After all, how would it look? Lol....

Related Videos:

Benghazi hearing: Consulate guards' militia threatened Stevens & McCain - was complicit in attacks:




Benghazi: Obama administration receives 3:00 AM call from Gregory Hicks:

McCain calls on Shinseki to resign, but Obama is still getting a pass

Despite a reluctance on the part of President Obama to axe the current Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Eric Shinseki, due to the fact that the latter was an Obama appointee who was tapped to lead the VA partially because he was perceived as someone who, while serving as Army Chief of Staff, did not see eye-to-eye with the Bush administration, nevertheless, an inspector general report released on Wednesday has prompted new calls for Shinseki's resignation.

It should be noted, however, that, despite President Obama's refusal to respond to calls, nearly a year ago, "to take immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths", there have been no calls for Obama's resignation thus far.

Fox News reported on Wednesday:

The official watchdog for the Department of Veterans Affairs claimed in a scathing report that the department has a "systemic" problem with clinics lying about patient wait times, leading top Republicans to join the calls for Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who until now had held off on urging Shinseki to resign, said during a press conference... Wednesday afternoon that "it's time for Secretary Shinseki to step down" -- and that if he won't, "then I call on the president of the United States to relieve him of his duties, fire him.

The Daily Caller noted that, 'The Arizona senator — who, like Shinseki, served in Vietnam — at first was hesitant to axe the VA.'

“I have not called for it. I was going to wait until the hearing that’s going to take place here very soon," McCain told CNN. "But this keeps piling up. So I haven’t said this before, but I think it’s time for General Shinseki to — to move on.”

However, it appears as if President Obama will not be held accountable for his prolonged indifference and lack of response.

As usual, Obama gets a pass.......

Obama chicanery: "Afghanistan will not be a PERFECT place"; Heh.....

Speaking at a press briefing Tuesday about his exit strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama asserted: "We have to recognize that Afghanistan will not be a perfect place!"

Unfortunately, what the President deliberately, and cunningly, failed to mention is that violence in Afghanistan has increased significantly during his tenure in office. Hence, the question of Afghanistan's future is not about 'perfection' or lack of 'perfection', its about total devastation, terror, and the enemy abroad.

Libya: Obama administration telegraphs terrorists: Don't attack us NOW, marines arriving "in a matter of DAYS!"

Despite the latest security concerns in Libya - due to the recent escalation of violence in the terrorist infested country - and despite the recent decision by several other countries to shut down their embassies there, the Obama administration, thus far, has refrained from taking similar action, presumably because the apparent urgency to close down the embassy would reflect poorly on the administration's failed policies there.

A defense official told CNN early last week that the decision to evacuate the embassy is "minute by minute, hour by hour," which means that the safety and security of US embassy personnel there is subject to the Obama administration's "minute by minute, hour by hour," whims.

CNN also reported at the time: "Four additional U.S. V-22 Osprey aircraft "arrived overnight" at the naval base in Sigonella, Italy, to join four V-22s and 200 Marines that had been moved there last week, a U.S. defense source said."

And, today, the AFP reported:

The United States is deploying an amphibious assault ship with about 1,000 marines off the coast of Libya in case the US embassy must be evacuated, a US defense official said Tuesday.

The USS Bataan was to be in the area "in a matter of days," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Question (1): Why did the administration wait till now to deploy the USS Bataan and the 1,000 US marines to the Libyan coast, when security concerns were already heightened there at least several weeks ago?

Answer: Because, as I stated earlier, the need to deploy a thousand marines to Libya reflects poorly on the administration's failed policies there. Hence, the directive to deploy the marines was only given when it was deemed an absolute, 'can't wait any longer' necessity by the Obama administration , and not a minute sooner! As CNN noted early last week: the decision to evacuate the embassy is "minute by minute, hour by hour."

Question (2): Why did the administration, in today's statement to the media, essentially telegraph to the terrorists that it will be "a matter of days", and not sooner, before the USS Bataan reaches the coast of Libya?

Answer: Let's put it this way: If the US embassy in Libya is attacked before the USS Bataan assault ship and the 1,000 marines arrive, the Obama administration has already prepared its main talking point for the media and the American people, namely: "We told you it would take time to deploy the US Bataan and the 1,000 marines to Libya! So don't point fingers at us!"

Meanwhile, the administration has also conveyed the very same message to the terrorists, thereby telegraphing to the terrorists that, if they do decide to attack the US embassy, the best time would be now, or within the next 2 or 3 days.

Nevertheless, at least the administration has the common decency to keep the terrorists up to date on its plans and to ensure that the terrorists are not left in the dark - thereby adhering to the President's 2009 pledge, namely that, "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of my Presidency."

Transparency, indeed......

Related Post: White House blows cover of CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Afghanistan

Iran still denying IAEA access to sanitized nuclear research site, Parchin

From Reuters - May 26:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog appears no closer to finding out what happened at a military site at the center of its investigation into suspected atom bomb research by Iran... The IAEA [said on Friday] satellite images showed "ongoing construction activities" at Parchin, a finding that could add to Western suspicions that Iran has been trying to hide any incriminating evidence of illicit nuclear-related experiments there.

"It seems clear that there is more sanitization going on," one Western envoy said, noting indications of major alteration work at Parchin since early 2012, such as soil removal and asphalting of the specific place the IAEA wants to see.

"I can think of no other explanation for 28 months of cleanup and denied IAEA access at Parchin except an attempt to hide all traces of something from IAEA environmental sampling."

The IAEA, which has requested Parchin access for more than two years, says it has information that Iran built a large steel chamber there for explosives tests, possibly more than a decade ago. It said back in 2011 that "such experiments would be strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development"...

The IAEA's suspicions about Parchin were part of a 2011 report that included a trove of intelligence information pointing to Iranian research in the past that could be relevant for nuclear weapons, some of which it said may be continuing.

White House blows cover of CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Afghanistan

In case you missed it, the Washington Post reported on Sunday:

The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops...

The list was circulated by e-mail to reporters who traveled to Afghanistan with Obama, and disseminated further when it was included in a “pool report,” or summary of the event meant to be shared with other news organizations, including foreign media, not taking part in the trip.

So, it seems the CIA official's name has been revealed to both US and foreign media organizations, which should certainly be a comforting thought for the CIA official.

The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country...

Conyers & Obama, voting petition double standard

During his run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Barack Obama 'effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition,' CNN reported in 2008.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them... a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today in 2008]. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."...

"He came from Chicago politics," Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association said. "Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."...

But Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2007: "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up. My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."...

One... opponent who Obama eliminated by challenging his petitions, Gha-is Askia..., back at the time he was running for state Senate..., said he was dismayed Obama would use such tactics.

"It wasn't honorable," he said. "I wouldn't have done it."

He said the Obama team challenged every single one of his petitions on "technicalities."

If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn't properly registered, those petitions also were thrown out...

Kass, the Chicago Tribune columnist, said [in 2008] the national media... have bought into a narrative that Obama is strictly a reformer. The truth, Kass says, is that he is a bare-knuckled politician...That's the politics he plays."

However, in the 2014 US Senate race in Michigan, the veteran Democrat operative from Michigan, Rep. John Conyers, is not running against Barack Obama, the Messiah; hence the blatant double standard; hence the rules permitting the use of bare-knuckled politics do not apply:

Reuters reported on Friday that, despite the fact that 'John Conyers had less than half the required signatures of valid registered voters on the petitions he turned in to qualify for the Aug. 5 primary ballot', a US Distrtict Judge ruled that, 'the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters — the issue that got Conyers booted off the ballot in the first place — put serious limitations on the free speech rights of the circulators, the people who signed the petitions and Conyers.'

“The public interest favors the enjoining of the likely unconstitutional Registration Statute,” for circulators, the Judge said....

Hence, while the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters invalidated the voting petitions of Obama's opponents in 1996, and cleared the way for the Messiah to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in Illinois, the same requirement mustn't invalidate the voting petitions of John Conyer's, because Conyers, the veteran Democrat operative, is not running against the Messiah.

Conyers said in a prepared statement Friday that the Judge's "decision affirms that all should have equal entry and access to the political process.”

Sadly, the aforementioned principle does not apply when Obama is running for office.

Obama feigns outrage over Veterans Affairs [VA], IRS scandals - Press Briefing

In typical fashion, President Obama on Wednesday feigned outrage over recent news media reports that detailed some of the problems and scandals plaguing the Veterans Affairs health care system.

Despite having been informed of the VA problems quite some time ago, the Politician-in-Chief acted as if he was shocked by the news media reports.

Likewise, in May of 2013, the President feigned outrage over revelations that the IRS was targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups.

"It's inexcusable," the President said at the time. "And Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency."

However, by the time 2014 came rolling around, and the IRS scandal had been largely forgotten, Mr. Obama no longer felt the need to admit that Conservatives were being targeted, nor did he feel the need to feign contriteness. In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, in February of 2014, Mr. Obama asserted in a scoffing tone - in typical phony fashion - that there wasn't even the slightest bit of corruption on the part of the IRS when it targeted Conservative groups.

Typical, vintage Obama...... See video below:

Abandoned American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, severely beaten in Iranian hospital; Iranians trying to extract more concessions from the Appeaser-in-Chief?

From Fox News:

The American citizen being held in Iran for alleged crimes related to his faith and work as a Christian pastor was yanked from a hospital bed, beaten and taken back to one of the Islamic Republic's infamous prisons, his family charges.

Pastor Saeed Abedini had spent the past two months in a hospital for injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of guards and inmates in Iran’s Evin and Rajai Shahr prisons when he was once again beaten and hauled back to prison, according to family members who say they witnessed the beating.

"This news is devastating to our family...” his wife, Naghmeh Abedini, told FoxNews.com. "Saeed's family, who was present at the hospital when this occurred, witnessed the severe beatings that Saeed received - at one point seeing him collapse before being taken away. We're very concerned about his health."

In March, when Abedini was transferred to a private hospital in Iran, where he was told he would receive further tests for his worsening medical condition as well as surgery for the chronic stomach pain suffered as a result of repeated beatings. But soon after being admitted, he was shackled and beaten by guards, according to family members. He was also denied medical treatment and was not allowed to see family members initially, they said.

It was not immediately clear why Abedini was suddenly transferred back to Rajai Shahr.

However, the American Center for Law and Justice, which has been representing Abedini’s family, said in a statement on Tuesday that, according to Saeed's family members, "one of the guards who was involved in the transfer mentioned the Iranian nuclear talks as a possible motive."

It should be noted that the Iranians do not need a motive to beat up and torture prisoners, especially American prisoners who are typically arrested, sent to jail without justification and beaten to a pulp. Indeed, torture is part and parcel of the Iranian jail experience. Hence, Saeed Abedini, who has been abandoned by the Obama administration - like many other Americans who are currently being held captive on foreign soil -  has been beaten brutally -  in typical fashion - over the course of his detention.

Nevertheless, if the Iranian nuclear talks are indeed the motive for the latest beatings, it would mean that not only has President Obama failed to win Abedini's release - not only has he failed to make Abedini's release a precondition to nuclear negotiations - but also that the Iranians are using Saeed Abedini as a pawn, and beating him anew, to squeeze even more concessions on their nuclear program from the weak Appeaser-in-Chief, President Obama.

Appeasement breeds more appeasement; it also breeds more torture and cruelty from the very people whose pacification is being sought.

How sad.

Related Video below - from February: "Obama offers phony, perfunctory, token prayer for Abandoned American Pastor Saeed Abedini at National Prayer Breakfast":

Iranian & US regimes arrest video posters

The AFP reported:

[Iranian] Police said on Tuesday they had arrested six Iranians suspected of posting a version of US singer Pharrell Williams's hit song "Happy" - [a song about feeling high from a state of happiness] - on the Internet.

The clip shows three men and three unveiled women singing and dancing to the tune in the streets and on Tehran rooftops.

"After a vulgar clip which hurt public chastity was released in cyberspace, police decided to identify those involved in making that clip," Tehran police chief Hossein Sajedinia was quoted as saying...

"Following a series of intelligence and police operations and after coordinating with the judiciary, all the suspects were identified and arrested."

[An Iranian news agency] said the detainees were three men and three women and that they "confessed to their criminal acts".

In a similar occurrence, although it involves a video of a less benign nature, the producer, and poster, of an anti-Islamic YouTube video, which President Obama falsely, and cunningly, blamed for the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, was arrested on September 27, 2012.

Prosecutors claimed rather disingenuously that they were charging the video producer with violating terms of a probation from a 2010 conviction, however, they then added, begrudgingly, that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film. But sadly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude why the video filmmaker was suddenly arrested: He was the phony talking point that President Obama desperately latched on to; he was the scapegoat, he was Obama's ticket to victory in the 2012 Presidential election.

Ultimately, Obama always gets what he wants: He falsely blamed the filmmaker for the attacks, propagated the false narrative that the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to the video - and not pre-planned terrorist attacks - the filmmaker was subsequently arrested - and Obama was able to exonerate himself from any blame in the crucial weeks leading up to the November 2012 Presidential election.

And while it's true that the aforementioned YouTube video is not as benign as the Pharrell Williams "Happy" song video, nevertheless the moral of the story is clear: The Iranian regime and the Obama administration will take whatever actions are necessary to advance their cause, their lies, and their false narratives.

Sickening. Ughh........

Twin bombings kill at least 118 people in Nigeria; #BringBackOurTwitterCampaign, Michelle Obama!

If there are two lessons that the First Lady and the President have taught us over the last five and half years, it is the following:

1) It is extremely crucial to use social media outlets like twitter to counter the abduction and murder of innocent men, women and children by "misguided" and "unfortunate" terrorists.

2) We must never shame the terrorists by referring to terrorism as "terrorism", or by referring to the battle against terror as a "War On Terror".

The battle against the terrorists should be referred to in the more milder and benign lexicon formulated by the President and his administration, namely "Overseas Contingency Operations."

However, merely tweeting out a few times one particular slogan like #BringBackOurGirls will not get the job done, as evidenced by the ongoing destruction and continuous violence in Nigeria. We must strengthen our twitter and social media campaign, or the violence will continue to escalate:

From the AFP:

Twin car bombings killed 46 people on Tuesday at a crowded market in the central Nigerian city of Jos..., while 45 people were seriously injured... The second bomb came from a minibus some 20 minutes later...

Update: The AFP later reported that, according to the co-ordinator of the National Emergency Management Agency, at least 118 people were killed and 56 were injured.

"More bodies may be in the debris," he told AFP, adding: "The exact figure of the dead bodies recovered as of now is 118... 56 people were injured."

CNN quoted the NEMA co-ordinator as saying: "The death toll stands at 118. This is the number of victims recovered from the scene of the explosions, but we are still searching through the smoldering debris for more bodies. Reuters quoted the NEMA co-ordinator as saying "We've now recovered 118 bodies from the rubble. This could rise by morning, as there is still some rubble we haven't yet shifted."

However, the AFP noted that, "the police in Plateau state, of which Jos is the capital, disputed the NEMA figure, and maintained that 46 were killed and 45 injured.

"We are saying 46," said state police commissioner Chris Olakpe. "That's the number we have in the morgues. But we are not ruling out more bodies."

However, the figure [of 118 deaths] cited by the National Emergency Management Agency is likely more accurate due to the fact that the agency is in charge of digging through the rubble and recovering the bodies.

Back to the initial AFP report:

"Scores died. Mostly women," Pam Ayuba, spokesman for Plateau state's Governor Jonah Jang, said earlier.

Boko Haram Islamists are widely believed to have active cells in Jos and have attacked the city before... The group claimed a July 2012 attack at a funeral outside the city that targeted mourners and the security services...

"What we are doing now is (trying) to evacuate the dead bodies... many of them are burnt beyond recognition," said Mohammed Abdulsalam, coordinator for the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

"The fire is still raging. Many shops are consumed by the inferno," he said.

Rescue workers and the security services were struggling to control the crowd amid the chaos.

The bombings follow two separate attacks on the same bus station in a suburb of the capital, Abuja, on April 14 and May 1, that killed more than 90 people. The first was claimed by Boko Haram.

Four people were also killed on Sunday in a suicide car bomb attack in... the northern city of Kano that had been previously targeted by the group.

Michelle Obama, international celebrities and everyone else must respond firmly to the unspeakable violence with additional tweets, or it will be too late! Moreover, the public should send out tweets to the First Lady and demand that she "Bring Back The Twitter Campaign!", and that she continue to respond to the escalating violence with her extremely valuable and highly cherished tweets. Use the following hashtag - #BringBackOurTwitterCampaignMichelle!

We can win this thing - however, victory is ultimately dependent on Michelle Obama's Twitter Contingency Operation and our own twitter endeavors! So, let's huddle up to our keypads and tweet!

#BringBackOurTwitterCampaignMichelle!