Panetta bluffs on Iraq, Iran ties - Senate Armed Services Committee hearing

Despite the fact that Iranian and Iraqi military leaders met on Sunday to discuss the expansion of military ties between the two countries, and despite the fact that Iran has been steadily exerting its influence in Iraq, Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, assumed a superb poker face and insisted that the Iraqi government was rejecting Iran [Iranian influence]. Video below.

Mr. Panetta was clearly attempting to defend President Obama's failure to negotiate a deal that would leave a residual US force in Iraq beyond the scheduled date for the US troop withdrawal.

But as I noted previously, during the 2008 Presidential debates, Mr. Obama made it perfectly clear that not only did he not have any problem with the prospect of Iran ultimately expanding its influence in Iran, he actually desired the aforementioned scenario:

After boasting that he would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, Obama went on to say:

"I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them [the aforementioned leaders]. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Hence, according to Obama, as soon as the US military packs its bags, leaves Iraq [completely] and tells Iran "that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force" in the country, Iran will then be able to fill the vacuum and help stabilize the country.

Good grief....

Panetta: Obama's defense-cutting-trigger "Devastating" to US Defense Dept.!

It should be noted - as Sen. Jon Kyl noted on the Senate floor several months ago - it was the White House [President Obama] that proposed this "devastating" trigger. See the video below.

From the AP:

The number of U.S. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940, the Navy would drop to the smallest number of ships since 1915 and the Air Force would be the smallest ever, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in warning Congress of the dire implications of deeper defense cuts.

The Pentagon chief on Monday offered a litany of drastic steps triggered by the automatic, across-the-board cuts if Congress' supercommittee fails to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-cutting plan by Nov. 23. If the panel stumbles, the Pentagon faces some $500 billion in reductions in projected spending over 10 years — on top of the $450 billion already under way.

"Devastating for the department," Panetta wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Senate Armed Services Committee's top Republican, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a panel member. The two lawmakers had written the Pentagon chief earlier this month seeking specifics...

Panetta's comments add pressure to the supercommittee a little more than a week before its deadline, as panel Republicans and Democrats struggle to fulfill their mandate. The Pentagon letter also stirs the recent talk in Congress about trying to nullify the automatic cuts, a step McCain and Graham have discussed. Obama said last week that he wouldn't accept any legislation that tries to undo the automatic cuts.

In a statement, McCain and Graham said the automatic cuts "would set off a swift decline of the United States as the world's leading military power. ... This is not an outcome that we can live with, and it is certainly not one that we should impose on ourselves. The sequester is a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and it should not be allowed to occur."

Read the full article

Related Video - August 2, 2011 - Kyl slams Obama over defense cutting trigger in debt ceiling bill:



Related post - August 3, 2011: Panetta: 'Trigger' Cuts "would do real damage to our security"

Obama: More speeches & more of nothing - Press Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii

Iran, Iraq military leaders pledge military cooperation, agree to fill void left by the President's US troop withdrawal debacle

Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Joint Forces, General Babaker Zebari called for the expansion of military ties between Tehran and Baghdad during a meeting Sunday with the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards' ground forces, Gen. Mohammad Pakpouron.

Zebari added: “Iran and Iraq are two friendly neighboring countries, which should have very close relations."

Mr. Pakpour responded in kind by saying that Iran would make every effort to help Iraqis build a secure and safe country.

Likewise, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, after meeting with Mr. Zebari, said that "we can have great cooperation against the common enemies of Iran and Iraq in the region and outside the region. This cooperation can be in the fields of security, training, joint maneuver and sharing experiences."

Jafari said that several memorandums of understanding were inked between Iraq and the Revolutionary Guards.

Mr. Zebari's visit, and his subsequent discussions on Iranian/Iraqi military ties, comes on the heels of President Obama's announcement last month that all US forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by year's end and the President's refusal to renegotiate a new status-of-forces agreement that would have left a residual US force in the country to train Iraqi security forces etc.

Clearly, the Iranians are filling the vacuum left in the wake of Obama's ominous and perilous foreign policy debacle.

However, as I noted last week, none of this should come as any surprise, for indeed this was Obama's plan all along.

During the 2008 Presidential debates, Mr. Obama made it perfectly clear that Iran would be tasked with the job of helping to "stabilize" Iran after the US 'occupying' forces withdrew from the country:

After boasting that he would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, Obama went on to say:

"I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them [the aforementioned leaders]. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Hence, according to Obama, as soon as the US military packs its bags, leaves Iraq and tells Iran "that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force" in the country, Iran will then be able to fill the vacuum and help stabilize the country.

And, in a related development, the LA Times reports:

As the last U.S. troops pack up to leave Iraq by the end of next month, Pentagon officials and senior military commanders are warning that Iran will rush to fill a power vacuum created by the American exit unless Washington limits its pullback from the region.

That broad assessment has taken on urgency in recent weeks against a backdrop of new intelligence that indicates the government in Tehran also is aggressively courting proxy forces in Yemen and, according to United Nations nuclear inspectors, is fast approaching the capability to build nuclear weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials say Iranian operatives have provided millions of dollars to leaders of the Houthi tribe, which adheres to an offshoot of Shiite Islam in Yemen's rugged north and has joined an armed uprising by disparate forces against the U.S.-backed government in Sana.In Iraq and other trouble spots, Iran is handing out money and weapons, often in secret, in an effort to expand its clout and stay ahead of the political changes sweeping the region since the start of the "Arab Spring," U.S. officials say.

Related item: "Who Lost Iraq?" by Charles Krauthammer

Eric Holder vs Brian Terry: The Apology conundrum

Obama unlikely to impose Sanctions on Iran's energy sector for fear of jeopardizing his vaunted 'reset button'

President Obama is unlikely to impose sanctions on Iran's energy sector for fear that such a move would upset the Russian regime and harm US/Russian relations, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

Mr. Obama often boasts on how he has managed to facilitate a reset in US/Russian relations, although there appears to be no evidence to support this claim. Quite the contrary, US/Russian relations appears to be on the wane:

From Reuters:

The US may impose more sanctions on Iran, possibly on commercial banks or front companies, but is unlikely to go after its oil and gas sector or central bank for now, a U.S. official said on Tuesday.

The official spoke after the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the U.N. nuclear watchdog, completed a new report that said Iran has worked on developing an atomic bomb design and may still be conducting relevant research... The agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.

"I think you will see bilateral sanctions increasing," the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

But because of Russian and Chinese opposition, chances are slim for another U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for its nuclear program, the official said..., [which leaves] the US with few options but to tighten its own extensive sanctions and try to persuade others to follow suit...

"There is not a whole lot out there other than the oil and gas market -- and you know how sensitive that is. I don't think we are there yet," the US official said.

The United States has long barred U.S. companies from trading with or investing in Iran, including its oil and gas sector. But it also has laws permitting sanctions on non-U.S. companies that develop Iran's energy sector.

Washington has been reluctant to impose such sanctions for fear of a diplomatic backlash from countries [like Russia] whose support it needs to isolate Iran. But members of Congress have been pushing the administration to embrace such penalties.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs last week... approved legislation requiring sanctions on Iran's central bank if the president finds it is enabling terrorism or the development of nuclear arms or supporting Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps... [However, the US] official played down the chances of sanctioning Iran's central bank, which is the clearinghouse for much of its petroleum trade, the mainstay of the Iranian economy.

"That is off the table" for now, he said. "That could change, depending on what other players (think). I don't want to rule that out but it is not really currently on the table."

The official said there were limits to how much pressure the US, acting on its own, could place on Iran without targeting the petroleum industry or the central bank.

"The reality is that without being able to put additional sanctions into these key areas, we are not going to have much more of an impact than we are already having," he said.

[The US official] acknowledged it was unlikely Russia and China, which hold Security Council vetoes, would back more multilateral sanctions and said it may even be hard to persuade them to support a new IAEA board of governors resolution.

"The reality is getting further sanctions at the U.N. is probably not doable", he said.

Senator John McCain... said the US should be doing more to persuade Russia and China to crack down on Iran.

"This is clearly a rogue nation and for us to sit there and watch the Russians and Chinese veto sanctions which could affect Iranian behavior is in my view not acceptable," McCain told the Reuters Washington Summit.

Is Sen. McCain proposing that the US create a diplomatic backlash with Russia and bring about the demise of Obama's highly touted and much-vaunted "reset button"?

Would Sen. McCain be willing to jeopardize the warm relationship that Obama has established with Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev for the sole purpose of preventing Iran from setting off a few nuclear bombs?!? What's more, as long as Obama's reset button with Russia stays intact, does it really matter how many nuclear bombs Iran detonates?

If McCain were President right now, no doubt he would impose sanctions on Iran's oil and gas market, which would be deeply offensive to our Russian allies.

President Obama, on the flip side, has wisely chosen not to impose sanctions on Iran's energy sector [according to Reuters] "for fear of a diplomatic backlash from countries whose support it needs to isolate Iran," namely Iran's allies: Russia, China etc.

Sen. McCain just doesn't get it: Obama's reset button must be kept intact at all costs, even it entails Iran becoming a nuclear super power and ultimately setting off a few nuclear explosions!

Obama's reset button must be kept intact at all costs, period!

P.S. From a previous post, entitled: Obama resetting relations with Russia? - November 19, 2010:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the Caspian Sea summit on Thursday.

Medvedev issued a statement, saying "Russia seeks to improve its political, economic and even military ties with Iran."

He went on to say that "following the" adoption of the UN "sanctions resolution" certain countries "sought to intensify sanctions against Iran, to which Russia strongly opposed and took stances against it."

Medvedev also proposed that Russia and Iran adopt a joint stance in the international forums.

Ahmadinejad issued a statement saying, "The era of bullying and sanctions is over. “[We] believe that in the current global conditions, if Iran and Russia stand together, the enemies will fail in their plots against Iran, Russia and the region."

Obama & the Gaddafi regime, a friendship gone awry

In March of 2011, the once-close-knit relationship between the Obama administration and the Gaddafi regime came to an abrupt end when President Obama decided to cut off all ties with his former ally, Moammar Gaddafi.

In a speech on March 28, 2011, Obama proclaimed that, "For more than four decades the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -- Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world."

Let us take a brief trip down memory lane and reminisce about the good ol' days when, despite Gaddafi's wealth exploitation, his murdering of opponents at home and abroad, and his terrorizing of innocent people around the world - he still found a trusworthy ally and caring friend in the White House.

From The Cable, March 3, 2010:

Obama administration hopes to deepen Libya ties:

Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, said Tuesday that the United States is hoping to "put some flesh" on the bones of American efforts to deepen ties between these two former foes.

He outlined a number of steps the two countries might take in the coming year, including closer military-to-military relations, U.S. training of Libyan forces, a new trade agreement etc.

From the AP - March 9, 2010:

A senior State Department official said Tuesday he's sorry for a joking remark he made about Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that prompted Libya to threaten diplomatic retaliation unless he apologized.

Chief department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he regretted any offense caused by his response to a reporter's question about Gadhafi's recent call for a holy war against Switzerland. Libya said last week it might take action against American business interests there if a formal apology was not made.

"I understand that my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack," Crowley told reporters. "The comments do not reflect U.S. policy and were not intended to offend. I apologize if they were taken that way. I regret that my comments have become an obstacle to further progress in our bilateral relationship."

Crowley had already said his offhand remark questioning the "sense" of Gadhafi's speech to the U.N. General Assembly last year had not been intended as a personal attack. He met with Libya's ambassador to the U.S. late last week to try to clear the matter up, but he had not apologized until Tuesday.

He made the remark in question on Feb. 26 when he was asked what the U.S. thought of Gadhafi's appeal for "jihad" against Switzerland after the country banned construction of new mosque minarets. Crowley said he was reminded of Gadhafi's lengthy speech at the UN last September in which the Libyan leader ripped pages from the U.N. Charter.

"I saw that report and it just brought me back to a day in September, one of the more memorable sessions of the U.N. General Assembly that I can recall: lots of words and lots of papers flying all over the place, not necessarily a lot of sense," he said.

Within days, the Libyan government summoned the U.S. charge d'affaires in Tripoli, Joan Polaschik, and threatened negative repercussions if the U.S. failed to apologize...

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton became aware of the situation, Crowley and the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, met the Libyan ambassador on Friday to explain that the Obama administration was "strongly committed" to the U.S.-Libyan relationship. But the Libyans insisted on an apology.

Crowley said Clinton had instructed Feltman to travel to Libya next week for broad discussions on bilateral ties.

State Department officials said the furor over the comments jeopardized a phone call Clinton had been planning to make to Gadhafi this week to discuss a summit of Arab leaders that Libya is hosting on March 27. The conversation would be her first with the Libyan leader.

It's a shame that this endearing relationship with Gaddafi had to end so abruptly. But, as is often the case with friendships, they can evolve into acrimony and end in heartbreak.

President Obama expained his sudden breakup with Gaddafi so eloquently in his March 2011 speech:

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

Hence, after 40 years of grueling tyranny and excruciating terror, Obama decided it was time to end his relationship with Gaddafi.

But thankfully, things are looking up: An al Qaeda flag now flies over the courthouse in Benghazi [the provisional headquarters of the National Transitional Council], and a new relationship is currently blossoming between Obama and the new Libyan regime.

Yes, a new dawn is upon us......

Obama's dream fulfilled: Iran will fill the vacuum in Iraq

On October 21, President Obama announced that the last American soldier would leave Iraq by the end of this year.

The Obama administration claimed that it had sought to leave a residual force of roughly 3000 troops in Iraq [consisting of military trainers etc.], but an irreconcilable dispute between the US and Iraq over the legal immunity of troops remaining in the country left the administration with no choice but to withdraw every last soldier from Iraq.

The failure to leave behind a contingency of troops in Iraq has raised concerns that Iran will attempt to fill the vacuum and extend its influence there.

Nevertheless, two explanations have been proffered as to why the administration failed to strike a deal with the Iraqi government that would allow a residual force of troops to remain in the country.

1) President Obama, the so-called "diplomat par excellence", was unable to negotiate such a deal.

2) President Obama, contrary to the administration's claims, preferred to remove all US troops from Iraq in order to curry favor with his left-wing base.

However, it should be noted that during the 2008 Presidential debates, Mr. Obama made it perfectly clear that not only did he not have any problem with the prospect of Iran ultimately expanding its influence in Iran, he actually desired the aforementioned scenario.

After boasting that he would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, Obama went on to say:

"I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them [the aforementioned leaders]. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Hence, according to Obama, as soon as the US military packs its bags, leaves Iraq and tells Iran "that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force" in the country, Iran will then be able to fill the vacuum and help stabilize the country.

Obama was clearly not concerned about Iran exerting its influence in Iraq, just as he is unconcerned about the Taliban regaining influence in Afghanistan. Quite the contrary, the Taliban, according Obama and his New World Order, will have an important role to play in terms of stabilizing Afghanistan.

Of course none of this makes any sense. But despite Obama's convoluted rhetoric, he was able to win the Presidential election in 2008 and still continues to garner significant backing in this country - and that doesn't make any sense either. [Obama's election victory is one head-scratcher I will never be able to solve.]

Speaking at a campaign rally in February of 2008, Michelle Obama stated as follows:

"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Likewise, if Barack Obama is re-elected in 2012, I will concede unequivocally that "for the second time in my adult life I am ashamed of my country..., because it feels like hopelessness is making another comeback."

Related News: Iranian influence seeping into Iraq

Iran reaches threshold of nuclear capability, receives critical assistance from former Soviet weapons scientist

From the AFP:

The Iranian government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon after receiving assistance from foreign scientists, The Washington Post reported.

Citing unnamed Western diplomats and nuclear experts familiar with new intelligence to be released to the United Nations, the newspaper said a former Soviet weapons scientist had allegedly tutored Iranians on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, the report said.

An intelligence update will be circulated among International Atomic Energy Agency members on Tuesday or Wednesday. It is expected to focus on Iran's alleged efforts towards putting radioactive material in a warhead and developing missiles...

Western officials said the intelligence reinforced concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 when, according to US intelligence agencies, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures, The Post said.

The paper noted that one key breakthrough that had not been publicly described was Iran's success in obtaining design information for a device known as a R265 generator.

The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell that is lined with pellets of high explosives and electrically wired so the detonations occur in split-second precision, the report said. The explosions compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

Creating such a device is a formidable technical challenge, and Iran needed outside assistance in designing the generator and testing its performance, the paper said.

According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran's Physics Research Center, the paper said.

Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design...

Similarly, Julian Borger of the Guardian-UK reported in November of 2009:

The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design...

The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking"...

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile...

Extracts from the dossier have been published previously, but it was not previously known that it included documentation on such an advanced warhead. "It is breathtaking that Iran could be working on this sort of material," said a European government adviser on nuclear issues...

A US national intelligence estimate two years ago said that Iran had explored nuclear warhead design for several years but had probably stopped in 2003. British, French and German officials have said they believe weaponisation continued after that date and may still be continuing....

The agency has also asked Iran to explain evidence that a Russian weapons expert helped Iranian technicians to master synchronised high-explosive detonations...

According to a diplomat familiar with the IAEA documentation, the evidence also points to experiments with a two-point detonation system that represents "a more elegant solution" to the challenges of making a nuclear warhead, but it is much harder to achieve.

Mr. Borger noted in a separate blog post that the presence of a Russian weapons specialist in Iran "will raise questions once more of the nature of the relationship between the two countries."...

It goes without saying that the Russian regime will deny it had any knowledge that a Russian weapons specialist was helping Iran with its nuclear weapons program.

But one thing is crystal clear: The Russian/Iranian alliance - and the Russian/Syrian alliance, which has enabled the Syrian regime to avoid any meaningful and serious sanctions from the UN - is proof beyond doubt that President Obama's reset button with Russia is working like a magic charm..... Ahem.....

Related News: Iranian influence seeping into Iraq

Obama may shift military mission in Afghanistan to advisory role before 2012 election; Taliban mocks US' peace overtures

With its sights set on the 2012 Presidential election, the Obama administration is contemplating shifting the US miliary mission in Afghanistan from combat to advisory and training duties before the end of 2012, two years ahead of the President's previously announced deadline for ending combat operations:

In the face of mounting dissatisfaction with the decade-old war in Afghanistan, the U.S. has long vowed to shift from combat to an advisory and training role, but that shift could come much sooner that previously planned, Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The shift to training and supporting the Afghan military could come as soon as next year, the Journal reports -- two years ahead of a 2014 deadline for ending combat operations -- and could help speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The scenario is part of high-level discussions between the Obama administration and military officials...

U.S. diplomatic and military officials have for years emphasized plans for Afghan security forces to "take the lead" in their own country, but the Afghan forces have been criticized as inadequate and sometimes hapless.

Update: Despite the fact, that the Wall Street Journal had cited senior administration officials as their source of information for the aforementioned report, Pentagon Press Secretary, George Little, [a Leon Panetta appointee], claims that there has been no change or shift in the US strategy in Afghanistan.

Which essentially means that the administration is a bit confused about it's Afghan policy ["surrender policy"] and is sending out mixed messages.

Sigh....

Meanwhile, the administration's desperate and futile peace overtures to the Taliban are being mocked by Taliban commanders.

Taliban commander, Qari Mahmud Mujahid said the US overtures for peace talks was merely an attempt to save face after battlefield losses.

"The blood of thousands of our Mujahideen is bearing fruit and now the U.S. and its allies are begging us to help them find a respectable exit from Afghanistan," Mujahid told Reuters in a recent interview. "The Taliban had defeated them on the battlefield and now they are working to find out a respectable exit from Afghanistan."

And, despite the fact that the Obama administration and Afghan leaders have already been duped on a number of occasions by phony Taliban peace negotiators, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, during a recent visit to Islamabad, that it was time to bring all militant groups to the negotiating table.

Good grief....

Networks Hype Vague Cain Charges, Ignored Sexual Harassment Claims Against Clinton

From Newsbusters:

Since the Herman Cain sexual harassment story broke late Sunday night, the broadcast networks have covered it extensively: full stories on Monday's morning news shows (ABC's Godd Morning America led off their broadcast); full stories on Monday's evening news shows (the CBS Evening News made it their top item) and ABC's Nightline; and the top story on all three Tuesday morning shows.

Cain's accusers are still anonymous. Three women publicly accused Bill Clinton of far more serious instances of sexual harassment in the 1990s, but the networks all but ignored them. The coverage that did exist was often skeptical, insulting and hostile, an astonishing double standard...

Read the full post

Herman Cain, Sexual......? Obama, "Sweetie"

Al Qaeda flag now flying alongside Libyan flag, atop Benghazi court house

An Al Qaeda flag is now flying atop the court house in the city of Benghazi, Libya - according to several eyewitness reports.

Until August - before rebel forces overtook the capital city of Tripoli - the Benghazi courthouse had served as the provisional headquarters of the National Transitional Council [NTC], headed by the former justice minister, Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

Islamists have reportedly been spotted recently in Benghazi driving brand-new SUVs and waving black al Qaeda flags.

One reporter noted that that Abdelhakim Belhaj, a well-known al Qaeda fighter and founder of the notorious Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), is now leading the rebel “military counsel” in Tripoli. Mr. Belhaj was appointed to that position by the NTC [National Transitional Council].

The reporter also noted how one NTC member had boasted of his close association with Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “blind cleric” imprisoned for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It should also be noted that several months ago, US officials had acknowledged that among the Libyan rebel ranks are terrorists who previously had joined up with the insurgents in Iraq to fight the US military.

Indeed, enthusiasm for Al Qaeda among Libya's new rulers should come as no surprise to us - or to President Obama, who, from the onset of this rebellion, gleefully, and eagerly, embraced the Libyan rebels. Mr. Obama was clearly cognizant of the rebel/Al Qaeda connection from day one, but he willfully chose to ignore the facts.

I suppose we can now paraphrase a line from the popular Southwest airline commercials:

"Al Qaeda, you are now free to move about the country [Libya]!"

Good grief......



Related video pertaining to Libya's National Transitional Council [NTC] leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, here

Jalil & Obama hail the arrival of Freedom & Democracy [and Sharia] in Libya

"As an Islamic state, we have chosen the Islamic Sharia as the basic source for legislation. And therefore, any law that will contradict the Islamic Sharia is null and void, legally speaking."
Chairman of the National Transitional Council of Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - October 23, 2011

“Today, the Libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation... I want to thank President Jalil for all that he has done to help Libya reach this moment.”
President Obama, speaking at a U.N. meeting on Libya, in the presence of Mustafa Abdul Jalil

Gohmert quizzes Napolitano about DHS committee member, Elibiary - Napolitano says she knows NOTHING?!

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX) questioned DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano about recent revelations that Mohamed Elibiary - an outspoken admirer of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and other rogue extremists, who was appointed last year to the DHS's Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Dept. and sworn in by Napolitano to the DHS's Advisory Council - had accessed a database of sensitive state and local intelligence reports, and subsequently shopped some of the the information to the media.

Elibiary's goal was twofold: 1) To promulgate the myth that the DHS is promoting "Islamophobia" 2) To besmirch Texas Gov. Rick Perry who is hoping to face off with Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. Sec. Napolitano told Rep. Gohmert that she was unaware that Mr. Elibiary had accessed the database and that she hadn't been briefed on the matter.

Texas Dept. of Public Safety Director, Patrick Poole, however, says that sources have told him Napolitano "had been fully briefed on the matter" the night before - prior to her testimony to Mr. Gohmert and the Congressional Judiciary Committee.

Hmmm....

News Briefs

OCCUPY PORTLAND: A crime infested cesspool?

Of all of the Occupy camps around the country, Occupy Portland seems to be nothing more than one big crime infested cesspool. The Portland Police Department reports they have seen an 81% spike in crime compared to the two weeks prior to the Occupy Portland protest beginning... Read the rest

Justice Dept. Proposes Lying on Records Under New FOIA Rule:

A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government...

[snip]

Upon taking office, President Obama released a memorandum declaring his administration was “committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness. Specifically, he pledged to bolster the strength of the FOIA act, calling it “the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.”

Heh... Read the full article

Will Libya Become a new haven for Al Qaeda?

The "most problematic" fallout from Gaddafi's death, says Ed Husain at the Council on Foreign Relations, is "the emergence of Islamist extremist from within the ranks of the Libyan rebels." Islamist groups have been the biggest winner elsewhere in the Arab uprisings, and they may not welcome a secular government.

Add to that the west and their propensity to turn a blind eye with regards to backing unsavory elements in the short term in order to establish whatever greater goal of the removal of Gaddafi.

There has never been a clear understanding of who the leaders of the rebel movement are and/or whether some of the so-called freedom fighters actually had allegiances with Al-Qaeda and other extremists...

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

More reports raise concens about the character of the rebels. CBS News recently quoted former CIA officer Bruce Riedel as saying the following:

"There is no question that al Qaeda's Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Qaddafi's biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group..."

It appears the U.S. Middle East policy has a schizophrenic nature to it, filled with blatant contradictions. Why are we on the side of al-Qaeda in Libya but against them in Iraq and Afghanistan?...

Greasing The Axis Of Evil:

A decade after 9/11, both our wars against two terror regimes are ending without resolution. Did thousands of our troops die so the Taliban could help rule Afghanistan, and Iran dominate Iraq?

Imagine the U.S. and the other Allied powers allowing the remnants of the Nazi party to help run a post-World War II West Germany. That, in effect, is our policy in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that "there has to be outreach to see whether or not there is an opportunity for resolution with some parts of the Taliban, or with all of the Taliban."...

As Secretary Clinton and the president apparently view it, more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers and Marines died in Afghanistan not to annihilate these global jihadists, but to give them some kind of parliamentary "loyal opposition" role...

Read the full article

Occupy D.C. planned to shut down Senate building, 6 arrested

From NBC Washington - via Gateway Pundit [Video] :

Capitol Police moved swiftly to stop protesters unfurling banners at a U.S. Senate office building in Washington, D.C.

Members of the Occupy DC protest, a demonstration that arose out of the larger Occupy Wall Street protests, marched on the Hart building on Tuesday morning.

Protesters gained entrance to the Hart building’s atrium and dropped two banners, one reading “End War Now” and the other “People for the People.”

NBC News reports as soon as demonstrators unfurled their signs, Capitol Police placed them under arrest. At least six have been arrested for unlawful conduct...

Dozens of other demonstrators ran through the building’s upper levels chanting and waving smaller signs.

According to one blog, a popular Liberal blog, the demonstrators had planned to shut down the senate building - which, I suppose, is par for the course for these Left Wing anarchists...

Reagan & Obama, Polar opposites; Capitalism vs Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street: Communist and Marxist professor, Slavoj Zizek, galvanizes the crowd

Obama News Conference - Jobs plan - "American people are sick of games"

'Fast and Furious' - Carney: Holder's lie was truthful

During a White House press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was questioned about the latest indications that suggest Attorney General, Eric Holder, perjured himself, several months ago, when he told the House Judiciary committee that he had only recently learned about the ATF's Fast and Furious program.

Mr. Carney insisted that Eric Holder's lie was indeed truthful.

Biden Knows / Doesn't know who Van Jones is

Obama administration conducted 'peace negotiations' with the Haqqani network

In an effort to carry out the President's policy of appeasement and secure an exit strategy in Afghanistan before the 2012 Presidential election, U.S. officials secretly met with members of the Pakastani-based Haqqani [Taliban] network, a terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda, according to recent media reports.

The Obama administration claims that the meetings were held prior to the recent attacks on the U.S. embassy and NATO's military headquarters in Afghanistan, which U.S. officials attribute to the Haqqani network - although the terrorist network denies this allegation.

However, it should be noted that the admistration, long before the aforementioned attacks, lambasted the Pakistani government for its refusal to take on the Haqqani network and its insistence on pursuing peace talks with the terrorist group.

The criticics included President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Hence, the latest revelation that the Obama administration was negotiatiing with the Haqqani network is clearly just another example of the White House's blatant hypocrisy.

Nothing really new here; par for the course....

Related Video: Obama excoriated Pakistan over Taliban talks - '08

Reid refuses to bring Obama's jobs bill to a vote, but the President lashes out at GOP leaders

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to give President Obama the vote he's sought on a jobs bill Tuesday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the President's bluff and introduced the bill in full on the Senate floor Tuesday, but Mr. Reid, who is cognizant of the fact that many Democrats are wary of supporting Obama's latest spending proposals, refused to bring the bill to a vote.

"The least we can do for the president is give him a chance to have a vote on his proposal now as he has requested on numerous occasions," argued McConnell. "The suggestion that Senate Republicans are not interested in voting on his jobs bill is not true."

"Let me count the number of times - one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 times - the president of the United States over the last few weeks has called on us to have this vote," said McConnell. "I'm prepared to vote on the president's proposal today."

House Republicans, on the other hand - who've expressed concerns over a number of proposals in the President's Porkulus bill - say the bill won't get a vote in the House in its entirety.

Not surprisingly, however, President Obama on Tuesday, rather than lash out at Mr. Reid for refusing to bring the bill to a vote in the senate, focused his attention, political rhetoric and feigned ire at House Republican leaders.

"At least put this jobs bill up for a vote so that the entire country knows exactly where every member of Congress stands. Put your cards on the table. I realize that some Republicans in Washington are resistant," the master pol said Tuesday in a speech in Mesquite, Texas, the House district, which coincidentally is represented by Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Incidentally, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney was asked repeatedly by reporters on Monday why the President was not engaging with congressional leaders in discussion about the proposed bill.

"The President repeated today -- or said today that Republicans should detail what aspects of the bill they don’t like, what they’re prepared to move forward. The House leadership released a memo September 16th in considerable detail, doing just that. So what is it that the President needs to see additionally from them?", asked one reporter.

Another member of the press pool asked: "Is there anyone in this building... dealing with the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and others on this bill, or is it just, we sent it up and we expect them to pass it? Is there any negotiations going on? Is there any give-and-take along the lines of what you just were talking about?"

The reporter added: "I guess, just -- what underlying my question is I understand and I believe the President wants this bill to pass, but it’s also a political weapon in a sense. The President is talking about, this needs to be passed, and if Republicans don't pass it, what are they for? And I’m trying to figure out how seriously the White House is about engaging with congressional leaders to actually get this thing passed, as opposed to talking about it on the stump?"

And, another reporter asked: "As was referenced, the Republicans, several weeks ago, outlined areas of compromise. Is the President talking or listening to Republicans? Or is he just interested in appealing to the public instead?"

Another member of the press pool noted: "Jay, the suspicion among Republicans is that you want to vote on the whole bill so that then you can take the component parts that Republicans vote against and use it against them politically."

Another reporter opined: "You say there’s no point person to try to get something done on the jobs act with Congress, then that’s a change in how the White House" is dealing with Congress. "Should they not be negotiating with... sounded like you're not negotiating a piece of legislation."

"But if you are saying this about the minority of one party in one house of Congress," said one member of the press pool, "you certainly had some struggles getting all of the Democrats in the United States Senate on the same page, for instance, in even agreeing to how they would pay for this..."

And, another reporter asked: "Isn’t it somewhat misleading for the President to be going to these audiences repeatedly, and getting them - 'fired up and ready to go' - chanting 'pass that bill,' when he knows himself that in the chamber that his party controls they’re [Reid, and Democrats who are wary about voting in favor of additional government spending] not doing that?"

Even the White House press pool is on to the President's charade. Nevertheless, the President's primary focus right now is to score political points. For he is keenly aware that he can't possibly turn around the economy anytime soon, especially with his bankrupt policies, but he also realizes that his skill in the art of political rhetoric is the only vehicle he has to secure his re-election in 2012.

Hence the President will continue to do what he does best: Travel the country, campaign, and give speeches...

Flashback - Obama in '08: "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" - Video

Poll: 55% of Americans believe GOP will win 2012 Presidential election, 37% believe Obama will be re-elected

According to an ABC News/Washington Post survey, released on Monday, 55% of Americans believe the GOP will recapture the White House in the 2012 Presidential election. 37% believe President Obama will be re-elected.

Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party in 2007

From Big Government:

New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.

The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.

In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation...

Among those appearing with Obama was [Malik] Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows...

The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers...

Read the full post at Big Government

Karzai wants to end Taliban peace talks

The White House seems hell-bent on trying to reach an unattainable peace pact with the Taliban - as part of its exit strategy in Afghanistan, in the hope that this would boost Barack Obama's chances of winning the 2012 Presidential election. However, much to the dismay of White House, Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, seems to have reached the conclusion that peace negotiations with the Taliban is, in essence, one big big joke:

The Pentagon was walking carefully Monday around the latest apparent rift with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai about talking peace with the Taliban.

"We still believe reconciliation is a critical part of this process," Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said. "I don't want to get in President Karzai's head here and try to decipher what he meant or exactly what he said."

Karzai seemed to suggest in recent news reports that he wants to pull the plug on peace initiatives with the Taliban and turn attention instead toward [conducting a dialogue with] Pakistan, especially since the man he put in charge of establishing links with the Taliban was assassinated last month. High Peace Council Chairman Burhanuddin Rabbani was killed in a suicide bombing attack by people he believed might be willing to talk peace.

However, while Mr. Karzai would like to pull the plug on the farcical peace negotiations, ultimately the White House is running the show, and they are not about to let Karzai pull the plug on Obama's 2012 political aspirations anytime soon.

So, Mr. Karzai, although you and the Obama administration have already been duped on more than one occasion by the Taliban's phony peace negotiators, you have no choice but to heed the White House's directives.

Stay safe, Mr. Karzai, and thank you for sacrificing yourself and your country for Obama's personal gain....

The Irony: Obama stands up for Gay soldier, despite his own abysmal record in defending US troops