CIA expert: Obama, Osama share Mideast goal

Clare Lopez

Clare Lopez

By GARTH KANT:

WASHINGTON – Clare Lopez looks more like the prototypical all-American mother she is than the highly trained government spy she was for 20 years.

Sitting across the table at a Washington eatery, the somewhat petite, charming blonde with a friendly and engaging smile was generally soft-spoken but often emphatic in delivery, especially while unloading a bombshell analysis that turned the common understanding of U.S. foreign policy on its head.

According to the former CIA operative, President Obama’s plan for the Middle East is just what Osama bin Laden wanted: removing U.S. troops and putting the jihadis in power.

Lopez spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. She currently manages the counterjihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

Lopez told WND she sees a pattern in Obama’s actions, or inaction, that reveals his blueprint for the Middle East and Northern Africa is to let the warring jihadi factions, the Sunnis and the Shiites, divide the region into two spheres of influence, and for the U.S. to withdraw.

“The administration’s plan, I believe, is to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands,” Lopez asserted.

When WND remarked that was just what Osama bin Laden had demanded, Lopez pointed out that is the aim of all jihadis, “Because that is what Islam demands, that foreign forces be kicked out of Islamic lands.”

Does Obama think if we leave the Mideast the jihadis will then leave us alone?

“I don’t know,” she said. “I can just see the pattern that is enabling the rise of Islam, empowering the Muslim Brotherhood domestically and abroad, alienating and distancing ourselves from our friends and allies and debilitating the American military.”

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden

Even if she doesn’t have inside information, the former spy said, “I can see what he is doing; it seems to be a clear agenda. It is clear that is what he is doing.”

WND spoke with Lopez about the current crisis in Iraq, in which the Islamic terrorist army ISIS has blitzed across the country, capturing large chunks of territory while slaughtering Christians and other Muslims and threatening genocide. In a wide-ranging interview, the foreign policy expert also assessed the current state of the Mideast.

She believes Obama’s hesitance in the face of the horrific violence in the current crisis comes from a basic mistake, not recognizing the true motivation of the jihadis is an ideology of relentless conquest.

But she isn’t advocating a return to the Iraq War. Lopez believes the U.S. should protect its interests and those minorities facing genocide, but otherwise, let the warring parties sort it out, for the time being.

Lopez believes regimes such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey play all sides of the jihadi game and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.

Besides, she observed, there isn’t much else left for the U.S. to protect in Iraq.

When WND asked her if Iraq is lost, she had a startling but succinct reaction: “Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. I liken it to Humpy-Dumpty. It’s fallen off the wall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put it back together again.”

Given that bleak assessment, the former CIA operative described what she believes the U.S. must now do to preserve its core interests in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf region:

  • Protect American personnel and facilities at the Embassy in Baghdad and the Irbil and Basra consulates with either airstrikes or evacuation.
  • Provide as much humanitarian aid as possible to beleaguered minorities facing genocide, as well as to friendly countries like Jordan that are burdened with overwhelming economic demands to care for millions of refugees.
  • Stand by allies and partners in the region, especially Israel and Jordan.
  • Help the Kurds survive by providing diplomatic support, intelligence, logistics and modern weapons.
  • Deploy a Special Forces capability to the region to gather intelligence and provide early warning of threats to U.S. interests, and provide the ability to project power and influence as required.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently criticized Obama for not arming what she called moderate rebels in Syria when the civil war there began, which, she claimed, could have prevented the rise of ISIS.

Much more at WND

 

Daniel Greenfield on “How Obama Surrendered Iraq” – on The Glazov Gang

Front Page:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He writes the blog, The Point, at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed “How Obama Surrendered Iraq,” outlining a Radical-in-Chief’s suicidal foreign policy [starting at the 8:30 mark].

The dialogue also involved an analysis of Obama’s disastrous Afghanistan give-away, more revelations on the Benghazi betrayal, the scandalous Taliban-Bergdahl swap, and much, much more:

Krauthammer: Obama’s West Point Speech ‘Literally Pointless’

 

Washington Free Beacon:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer called President Obama’s foreign policy address at West Point Wednesday “literally pointless,” adding it was “weak and defensive” and questioning using the platform of the U.S. Military Academy’s graduation to answer his critics.

“I think the speech was literally pointless,” he said on Special Report. “It was a defensive speech. It was an answer to the chorus of criticism, even from his side of the aisle, that it’s been a weak, leaderless, rudderless foreign policy, which it has been …  He set out this ridiculous contrast between extreme isolationism on the one hand and almost a caricature of intervention on the other … There’s not a person in American who’s asking for boots on the ground in Syria or in Ukraine … I think it was a very weak and defensive speech and there was no response from any of the cadets. It was quiet as a mouse.”

Krauthammer said a congressional source who served in the armed forces thought there was a “real pettiness and personalization” to Obama’s address, which drew bipartisan disdain. One CNN reporter even said the response by the cadets to Obama was “pretty icy.”

The Weekly Standard‘s Steve Hayes simply said Obama’s echoes of criticism of former President George W. Bush’s policies were a sign he “doesn’t really know what he’s doing.”

“He doesn’t have a clear foreign policy vision,” Hayes said. “The best way to define himself is to define himself in opposition to those who have criticized him. The problem with this speech was it was an attempt to retroactively impose some kind of doctrine on the chaos we’ve lived through over the past five-and-a-half years. It’s been an inconsistent, incoherent, sloppy foreign policy for five-and-a-half years with no apparent vision from the Commander in Chief, from the President of the United States.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson said Obama didn’t come close to solving his foreign problems with the speech, pointing out Obama’s habit of creating straw men in his addresses on both sides and positioning himself between them.

“What jumped out at me was how familiar it was,” Liasson said. “He pretty much reiterated his foreign policy approach, which is to set up two extremes, kind of cartoonish extremes, one, isolationism, the other, boots on the ground everywhere, and say ‘Hey, I’m not for either of those. We have to be strong, we have to lead, but we don’t always have to take military action.’”

OBAMA AT WEST POINT: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SURRENDER

obama-saluting-cadets-afpBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

From the vantage point of the just-about-to-graduate cadets at West Point, it must be very cool to have the Commander-in-Chief be your commencement speaker. Perhaps the ‘wow-factor’ is diminished when the speech is one that underlines why America isn’t important and how the biggest war of the last decade is about to be lost.

For those who really must go to the source the full text is here. For those with shorter attention spans see the excellent and almost instantaneous analyses by my Breitbart colleagues Joel Pollak and Charlie Spiering​.

Here is another take.

What can I say? Bluntly: as a professor of irregular warfare and international security I cannot recall ever reading a more confused speech by a head of state, nor one that is so utterly detached from reality. From the opening passages that speak of how the world automatically looks to America when “schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine,” to the president later taking credit for the fact that “more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history” it feels as if the President is living in an alternate reality.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that the world does look to us when there is a crisis or a vicious wrong to be righted. But when we respond with hashtag “assaults” via Twitter instead of actual commando raids to rescue the Christian girls captured by the jihadists of Boko Haram, or when we deploy 600 troops to Poland and the Baltic states as Russia moves 30,000 troops in their APCs and tanks to the border of Ukraine, I am at a loss at to what there is to be proud of.

Then we see the idea that an administration which sees “Climate Change” as one of the greatest threats to the nation – if not the greatest – and which labels the deaths in Benghazi as a “fake scandal” is in fact the reason that more people live in freedom today than ever, and it seems as if we are Neo from the Matrix and have popped the blue pill.

The President’s speech is full of these surreal assertions that bear no resemblance to the actual world we live in. He spoke of an America that will not allow regional aggression to go unchecked, whether “in southern Ukraine of the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world,[!]” and then that we cannot live in a world where people are “slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.” This on the same day as more than 30 people weremassacred in a Catholic church in the Central African Republic.

Then there is the schizophrenic logic of the address.

The Commander-in-Chief said Wednesday, “Here’s my bottom-line: America must always lead on the world stage.” We can ignore whether this is what the administration has embodied for the last five years, because the speech itself is clear that we are not meant to understand “lead” in any classical or conventional way. For the rest of the address President Obama was clear; his definition of leading means that we should avoid the use of force or military assets. Instead it is our “partners” that will respond. Perhaps we could call this the doctrine of America Leading by Proxy. For “invading every country that harbors a terrorist network is naive” and because what this administration wants is “collective action” because it works.

The proof the President provides that this leading without leading works? Ukraine and Iran.

No, I am not joking.

According to President Obama, the fact that Ukraine elected a new President this weekend “without us firing a shot” is proof that the international system and America’s leadership of it works. The facts that Crimea is now part of Russia, that Tuesday saw the heaviest death-toll since the crisis began, and that now Putin seems to be making a move againstGeorgia are somehow not indicators of failure.

Then there is the success of Iran. The President actually stated today that his version of leadership has been vindicated by our decision to “extend the hand of diplomacy” to the mullahs. This just three days after the Supreme Leader in Iran declared that the United States must be destroyed through Jihad. (No, I am not making this up. The details arehere.)

After all of the above – and more – the President calls this approach “the right way to lead.”

Most disturbing of all is the decision to leave Afghanistan. Despite closing his speech by referring to a West Pointer who lost a leg in that god-forsaken war zone, the president does not explain how what he used to call the “good war” has finally been won and why we can go home.

War is not about institutions, battle-plans, or even hardware. It is ultimately defined by the will to defeat your enemy. The enemy that killed 3,000 people in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania thirteen years ago now has followers fighting in Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Libya, to name just a few of the jihadi-infested lands around the world. How will our leaving Afghanistan be received by al Qaeda and its allies? Will they feel as if America has imposed its will upon them?

President Reagan once famously said to his future National Security Adviser, Dick Allen, that his vision of the Cold War was that “We win, they lose.” If Ayman al Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, is listening to President Obama’s speech somewhere in South Asia – and I know he is – I am sure he does not think our withdrawal from Afghanistan means that we have won and he has lost.

Sebastian Gorka PhD has recently been appointed the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and is the editor of national security affairs for Breitbart.com.

Obama Endorses Iranian Regime’s Fraudulent Election

AP

AP

File this under “Rouhani delerium”

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff

President Obama said in a Norwuz greeting released Wednesday that the Iranian regime’s selection of a new president last year was in fact an election in which “the Iranian people” were allowed to choose a new leader.

“Last year, you—the Iranian people—made your voice heard when you elected Dr. Hassan Rouhani as your new president.” Obama said Rouhani “was elected with your strong support.”
Shortly after the regime’s selection of Rouhani, the Wall Street Journal’s Sohrab Ahmari described the process for subverting democratic choice in Iranian elections:

Iran’s presidential campaign season kicked off last month when an unelected body of 12 Islamic jurists disqualified more than 600 candidates. Women were automatically out; so were Iranian Christians, Jews and even Sunni Muslims. The rest, including a former president, were purged for possessing insufficient revolutionary zeal. Eight regime loyalists made it onto the ballots. One emerged victorious on Saturday.

President Obama opened his message with the greeting of “Dorood” to “the Islamic Republic of Iran,” using the regime’s preferred honorific. Obama concluded his message with “Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.” Obama did not mention the plight of dissidents languishing in Iranian prisons, nor did he call on “the Islamic Republic of Iran” to release the American citizens it is holding hostage or cease being the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

************

It would be nice if someone would brief Obama on How to Think About Iran but I guess we’ll have to wait for the CIA to get it’s Iran operations department in order. Then there are the problems of cognitive dissonance and jihad threat denial to overcome.

a1-obama-and-kahameni-building-a-toaster (1)

Rep. Michael McCaul Slams Obama Foreign Policy in Speech

Michael McCaulBY: :

House Homeland Security Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R., Texas) offered a searing indictment of the Obama administration’s “wait and see diplomacy” during a wide ranging foreign policy speech Wednesday that focused on what he dubbed the president’s failure to lead.

Obama’s indecision and failure to take a stand in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the world have emboldened America’s enemies and allowed extremists to galvanize greater support, McCaul said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

“That lack of clarity isn’t just confusing, it’s dangerous,” McCaul said. “One cannot lead if they refuse to accept reality.”

Obama is misleading the American public about the threats posed to America by radical extremists, he added.

“The battlefield is now everywhere,” McCaul said. “The president likes to deliver speeches. What he may not realize is his words have a practical application.”

Radicals across the world were listening when Obama declared earlier this year that the war on terrorism is coming to an end, McCaul said.

“Publicly downgrading a real threat which is growing only emboldens our enemies and sends a signal we lack resolve,” McCaul said.

Such declarations also degrade the morale of America’s fighting forces, he said.

“Rhetoric has a ripple effect,” McCaul warned. “I believe the president should be more careful.”

Broad statements about ending the global war on terror “do not constitute a counterterrorism policy,” McCaul added. “Words cannot simply wish it away.”

While “declaring the war over is a popular thing to do politically … misleading the American people with a false narrative does them a great disservice,” McCaul said. “The reality is the threats we faced on Sept. 10, [2001], exist today.”

The Obama administration has systematically ignored and downplayed the threat that Muslim extremists pose to America, McCaul said.

From the Fort Hood shooting to the Benghazi, Libya, attacks, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing, team Obama has avoided using terms such as “radical Islam,” McCaul said.

“With each attack, the administration appears to distance itself from who’s behind it,” McCaul said.

“The administration may think by taking the war on terror and radical Islam out of the conversation it will help end the conflict. But in reality you cannot defeat an enemy you are unwilling to define,” McCaul said.

Read more at Free Beacon

 

Egypt: Free People Not Going Quietly Into the Sharia Night

4490204-3x2-700x4671By Robert Spencer

Survey after survey, as well as the election results that put the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in the presidential palace, show that most Egyptians want Islamic law. But those who do not are not submitting quietly to Sharia tyranny.

Morsi has declared a state of emergency and given the military the power to arrest civilian protesters, yet still the anti-Morsi demonstrations continue. And while he quickly endorsed the demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak that ultimately led to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power, Barack Obama has been reticent about supporting these demonstrations, as he was in 2009 when thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest against the mullahcracy.

But aren’t these “pro-democracy” protesters? After all, Morsi has been notably inhospitable to dissent, arresting his critics and overseeing the adoption of a constitution that Egyptian Christians fear will be used to deny them basic rights, in accord with Sharia provisions institutionalizing discrimination against non-Muslims. Videos have come to light in which he lashed out against Jews with venomous hatred, referring to Qur’anic curses of them as “apes and pigs” and declaring that there could be no negotiations with Israel.

Those who are protesting against his regime, on the other hand, are in favor of genuine democratic rule, without Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech and its denial of equality of rights to large segments of the popular.

Yet Obama is silent. The only two mass popular uprisings in Muslim countries that he has not supported have one thing in common: both have been against pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist regimes. All the popular uprisings he has supported, meanwhile, have resulted in the installation of pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist regimes.

One might be pardoned for thinking that Obama is in favor of pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist regimes. In any case, so are most Egyptians: a Pew Research Center survey conducted in Spring 2010, before the chimerical “Arab Spring” and the toppling of Mubarak, found that no fewer than eighty-five percent of Egyptians thought that Islam was a positive influence in politics. Fifty-nine percent said they identified with “Islamic fundamentalists” in their struggle against “groups who want to modernize the country,” who had the support of only twenty-seven percent of Egyptians. Only twenty percent were “very concerned” about “Islamic extremism” within Egypt.

Another survey in May 2012 found little difference. 61 percent of Egyptians stated that they wanted to see Egypt abandon its peace treaty with Israel, and the same number identified the hardline Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country that should serve as Egypt’s model for the role Islam should play in government. 60 percent said that Egypt’s laws should hew closely to the directives of the Qur’an.

Yet these surveys show that a substantial minority in Egypt does not want Sharia, and the demonstrations this week demonstrate that they’re determined to make a stand. They oppose the new Egyptian constitution that, as the Associated Press reported, “largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.” They have every reason to be concerned, for the constitution reflects in numerous particulars Sharia restrictions on their rights. AP noted that the constitution’s wording “could give Islamists the tool for insisting on stricter implementation of rulings of Shariah.”

Read more at Front Page

American isolationism: Obama’s unfolding signature policy

Al Qaeda in Mali armed with Grad missiles from Libya

Al Qaeda in Mali armed with Grad missiles from Libya

Debka:

Whereas in his first term as president, Barack Obama opted for “leading from behind,” in international military operations, he enters his second term – even before being sworn in this week – by expanding this step-back precept into American isolationism proper – even when it comes to countering Islamist terrorism. debkafile’s analysts note that this stance was heralded in December 2012 by his abrupt order to the USS Eisenhower strike group and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group to withdraw from stations opposite Syria. Washington had already then decided to ignore the Syrian chemical war threat, and brush aside the report from the US consul in Istanbul that the Syrian ruler Bashad Assad had already fired chemical bombs against rebels. And so French military intervention in Mali on Jan. 12 and Al Qaeda’s massive attack on an international Algerian gas field four days later found the United States without a single carrier, landing vessel or marine force anywhere in the vicinity, to be available for aiding in the rescue of scores of Western hostages from ten countries, including the United States.

The USS John Stennis carrier is the only vessel left at a Middle East battle station. It is tied down at the Strait of Hormuz to secure the flow of Gulf oil to the West. It is therefore hardly surprising to find Pentagon and top US military experts leveling sharp criticism at the White House’s policy of non-intervention in the Mali conflict, where France is fighting alone, or in Algeria’s In Amenas gas field, where Algerian forces are battling a multinational al Qaeda assault and multiple hostage-taking raid for the third day. The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, Jan. 20 that the sharp debate between the Pentagon and White House is over the “danger posed by a mix of Islamist militant groups, some with murky ties to Al Qaeda that are creating havoc in West Africa” and whether they present enough of a risk to US allies and interests to warrant a military response.

Many of Obama’s top aides say “it is unclear whether the Mali insurgents, who include members of the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, threaten the US.” As to the question, “What threat do they pose to the US homeland? The answer so far has been none.”

Some top Pentagon officials and military officers warn that without more aggressive US action, Mali could become a haven for extremists, akin to Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

debkafile’s counterterrorism sources report that these assertions are misleading.

Whereas the US homeland may not be in immediate peril from the Mali and Algeria episodes, it is important to remember the far-reaching interconnectivity of al Qaeda’s operations. Seven years ago, the suicidal jihads who on July 7, blew up London trains and a bus, used explosives provided by the same Al Qaeda cells of Sahel Desert which are now threatening Mali and which struck the Algerian gas field.

No US official can guarantee that such explosives from the same source won’t be used in 2013 against American targets in Europe or be smuggled into the American homeland by al Qaeda cells in Europe. The Algerian gas field hostage siege was carried out after all by a multinational group that included Algerians, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, a Frenchman and a Malian.

It is true that Al Qaeda terrorists are engaged in vast smuggling rackets – especially of drugs and cigarettes – across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, as well arms trafficking through networks covering Egypt, Sinai, Arabia, the Gulf, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan – all of which are direct threats of US national security. But to write them off as criminals and smugglers is simplistic: “… some are diehard terrorists with more grandiose visions,” as Pentagon officials point out.

The way the Al Qaeda menace is being handled by Washington has a ripple effect in the wider context. Tehran and Damascus are avidly watching the Obama administration’s stand-aside stance on military involvement in external crises – even emergencies posed by the Al Qaeda terrorist threat encroaching on continental Europe and Africa and the Middle East up to and including the Persian Gulf. Washington should therefore not be surprised when its diplomatic efforts – overt and secret – to rein in Iran’s military nuclear ambitions run into the sand. The Iranians know they have nothing to fear from the Obama administration. The next surprise, our Middle East sources are now reporting, will come from Damascus where, according to a hint President Bashar Assad threw out this week to his intimates.

CNN links Obama’s disaster in Libya with the terrorist attack in Algeria:

 

Obama Gives Hezbollah 200 Armored Personnel Carriers

Lebanon_M113_30112006_news_001-450x259By  in Front Page

It’s only fair that with the Muslim Brotherhood getting 200 Abrams tanks, Hezbollah should get 200 armored personnel carriers.  While tragically there was no money available to provide security for the US mission in Benghazi, there’s always room for giving billion dollar weapons packages to the terrorists who attack US embassies.

In 1983, Hezbollah carried out the suicide car bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, including US soldiers, and wounding 120. The suicide vehicle of choice was a delivery van. But now Hezbollah will be able to attack the next US embassy in style with the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier.

When Hezbollah overturned the Lebanese government and replaced it with a coalition dominated by the Shiite terrorist group, backed by Iran, there were worries that this might prevent Lebanon from receiving US aid.

But those worriers had clearly never met Obama who will never unfairly deprive Islamic terrorists of the weapons that they are entitled to under the code of social justice.

The United States has provided more than $140 million in equipment and assistance to the Lebanese armed forces in the past six months, including six Huey 2 helicopters, a 42-metre coastal security craft, more than 1,000 guns – including grenade launchers – and 38 million rounds of ammunition.

The United States has given 200 armored vehicles to Lebanon, the Lebanese army said… The M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs) arrived by ship to Beirut on Sunday, the army said in a statement. A Lebanese security source said the army now had 1,200 APCs.

What possible use could the Lebanese military make of that firepower? It isn’t to fight Hezbollah as Hezbollah is in the government. It isn’t to fight Syria, because even in its present state, the Syrian military would kick Lebanon’s ass, and Lebanon’s military would end up fighting Hezbollah at home if they tried that.

That just leaves one possibility.

“This government is committed to maintaining strong, brotherly ties which bind Lebanon to all Arab countries, without exception,” Prime Minister Mikati said at the Baabda Presidential Palace. “Let us go to work immediately according to the principles… [of] defending Lebanon’s sovereignty and its independence and liberating land that remains under the occupation of the Israeli enemy.”

Israel had already withdrawn entirely from Lebanon, so that just leaves Shebaa Farms and the rest of Israel to “liberate”.

On Monday, House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., criticized the administration for keeping “the aid pipeline flowing” when Hariri’s government fell.

“Now, Hezbollah and its cohorts will control the Lebanese government and likely benefit from the years of U.S. assistance, including to the Lebanese military. We cannot undo past mistakes, but we can learn from them and safeguard taxpayer dollars going forward,” Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement. “The U.S. should immediately cut off assistance to the Lebanese government as long as any violent extremist group designated by the U.S. as foreign terrorist organizations participates in it.”

That was last year. Instead Obama has given them even more assistance. If they just found a way to bring Al Qaeda into the government, they would probably get their own stealth bombers.

Libya Blowback: US Missiles intercepted in Egypt bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza

imagesCAUSZ01YPJM:

By Patrick Poole

A stunning story out of Egypt on Friday (HT: Jonathan Schanzer at FDD) after a raid in northern Sinai uncovered a cache of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza. The discovery was made in Be’r al-Hefn near Arish in an area known as a transit point for materials headed for the smuggling tunnels running from Sinai into Gaza.

The most remarkable part of the story is that the missiles were American-made, arriving from Libya according to multiple reports.

Egypt Independent reported:

The North Sinai Security Director seized  a shipment of advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles at dawn on Friday.

The directorate received a tip that the missiles were being secretly stored in a repository in Be’r al-Hefn — just south of Arish, the capital of North Sinai — and would be smuggled through tunnels to the Gaza Strip, said a security source.

After informing the Interior Ministry in Cairo, two assistants to the interior minster led a large formation of police in a raid on the area. Be’r al-Hefn has often been used as an illegal storage area for explosives and weapons.

“With the help of secret informants, the police found the storage site, where they found six US-made advanced missiles inside large holes in the ground [that were waiting to be] smuggled to the Gaza Strip through tunnels,” the source said.

He said the shipment likely originated in Libya, and that the range of the rockets was 2 km.

That US-made weapons are finding their way from Libya should be of grave concern for American security officials. Presumably these are weapons provided by the Obama administration to the Libyan rebels in their fight against Gaddafi in 2011.

US weapons have also made their way to Syria via Libya with active US assistance according to reports. In October, Russia accused the US of sending Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, a claim that Defense Secretary Panetta denied.

Back in August I noted here at PJ Media the New York Times caught scrubbing one of its stories of any mention of CIA funneling arms to the Syrian rebels.

This is not the first time that US missiles have been bound for Gaza and Hamas. During Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in January 2009, Hamas attempted to use American-made Stinger missiles they had acquired against Israel’s AH-64 ‘Apache’ helicopters to no effect since the weapons system identified the Israeli aircraft as friendly.

A Maan News Agency report on yesterday’s raid noted that authorities had recovered 17 French missiles several weeks ago in the same area.

Analysis Of Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up

By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)

A List Of The National Security Issues Involved In Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up
1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.
2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.
3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.
4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.
5. The State Department’s security planning failures preceding the Benghazi attack.
6. The failure of the Obama regime to react to the seven-hour attack to protect U.S. Government personnel.
7. The Obama regime’s continuing dishonesty in deceiving the American people about what actually occurred at Benghazi and why.

Analysis Of The Issues

1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.

The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack exposes the failure of Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy that includes his unauthorized war of intervention to depose Gaddafi, a U.S. ally. Obama’s ill-conceived policy has enabled Islamic jihadist groups that are al-Qaeda-affiliated, like Ansar al-Sharia, to completely control the jihadist safe-haven in Eastern Libya. But this Arab Spring-Foreign Policy failure spreads far beyond Libya to include the Muslim Brotherhood’s dictatorial take-over of Egypt, the green light to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas jihadists to conduct missile terror attacks on Israel, the unimpeded progress of the Iranian mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons, the Iranian domination of Iraq following Obama’s precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops, the impending take-over of Syria by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the imminent defeat of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban/al-Qaeda forces.

2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.

The following Obama quotes attempt to vindicate Islam and distance the religion from its almost 1400-year history of hate, violence, aggression, and barbarity:

  • “Islam has always been part of America”
  • “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”
  • “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
  • America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
  • So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”
  • “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”
  • “As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.”
  • “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”
  • “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
  • “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

Except for the above expressions of Obama’s personal feelings, it doesn’t get any more dishonest than this. To borrow Mary McCarthy’s pithy description of a rival’s work, “every word . . . is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.” When the above Obama quotes about Islam are combined with Obama’s words at the UN, which were, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” it becomes an inescapable but to conclude that Obama is actually attempting to get the West to adopt the Islamic Sharia’s blasphemy law against any criticism of Islam. In view of Obama’s many pronouncements, it is impossible to dismiss Obama’s unnatural mania for Islam. To say that Obama is a pandering Islamophile does not begin to adequately describe Obama’s obsession.

3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.

The failed Arab Spring-Foreign Policy of the Obama regime is constructed on a brazen deception that conceals Sharia-mandated Islamic jihad; therefore, every jihadist attack must be made to appear to have been provoked by non-Muslims, hence the Obama regime manufactured the false narrative that an unknown video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

The American people have been subjected to a transparently conspiratorial attempt at blaming a fictional, spontaneous mob reaction to some obscure Internet video, which mocked Muhammad, for the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and death of four Americans. This deception is an integral part of the Obama regime’s national security fabrication to conceal the existence and adversarial nature of Islamic Sharia-mandated jihad. Consequently, the entire Team Obama has engaged in manic attempts to deceive the American people about the attack-causal role of the Internet video, including when the president shamefully lied to the world before the UN in alleging that the anti-Muhammad video motivated the U.S. ambassador’s murder by an outraged Muslim flash mob! Obama clearly put the blame on video-attack-causation with these words:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

This bold-faced lie was foisted on a global audience two weeks after it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack was conducted by terrorists, according to Obama’s own public relations flack, Jay Carney. But Obama’s video-attack-causation lie to the UN is apparently exposed as mendacity by Obama himself in the second presidential debate with Mitt Romney on October 16th when he asserted:

Obama: “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened — that this was an act of terror — and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”Romney: “I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.” Obama: “That’s what I said.” Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?”Obama: “Please proceed, governor.” Romney: “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama: “Get the transcript.”

There is no reconciling Obama’s claim that he said it was a “terror attack” in a speech to the nation on September 12th with his asserting the pernicious video-attack-causation lie to the UN on September 25th! So, was Obama lying on the 12th or on the 25th! Actually he was lying on both dates as well as on October 16th at the second presidential debate! When one takes Obama’s instruction and gets the September 12th Rose Garden transcript, one finds these words from Obama, “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans . . . While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. . . .” In Obama’s statement that, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” it is obvious that he is propounding the video-attack-causation lie which lays the blame on an anti-Islamic, provocative action committed by an American, and he is not referring Islamic terror.

But the UN debacle was not the only international calumny committed by Obama. Again, after it was indisputably clear to U.S. Intelligence that the Internet video played no part in inspiring the Benghazi attack, Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, disgracefully paid U.S. taxpayer dollars to appear on Pakistani television to perpetuate the video-attack-causation lie, unnecessarily provoking even more hostility in the Islamic world against the U.S. in the commission of this mendacity!

And then, two weeks after the Benghazi attack when the preplanned terrorist involvement was beyond question, there were the ludicrous TV performances of the U.S. UN Ambassador, Susan Rice. Obama called on Rice to robotically repeat the mindless video-attack-causation lie on five different Sunday morning TV talk shows, disgracing herself, her office, the Obama regime, and the United States in the process!

4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.

The following is an account of how far Obama and his regime have gone to flush the fact of Islamic jihadist imperialism down the “Orwellian Memory Hole”:

“ . . . in order to continue on the irresponsible course of being ‘Islam-ignorant,’ the Obama National Security Council removed terms like ‘militant Islamic radicalism’ from the 2010 National Security Strategy and substituted ‘violent extremism’ and (undefined) ‘terrorism’ in an effort to deny and conceal the cause of the on-going war against America, and that cause is, the ‘theo-political-military imperialist doctrine’ laid out in the Quran and Islamic Sharia. From there the Obama administration’s obstructive effort becomes even more serious when Islamist and militant Arabic groups, representing the jihadist Hamas and Hezbollah terror organizations, demanded that the FBI purge its training materials of all information which the Islamists found offensive to their ‘religious sensibilities.’ To his ever-lasting disgrace, FBI Director Mueller complied with these Islamic demands, undoubtedly carrying out with his superiors’ policy.

“But it is at this point that the U.S. national security establishment descends to its all-time nadir when President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, acquiesced to the stipulations in a October 19, 2011 letter to the White House, signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials not meeting their approval be “purged” from the curricula of U.S. military schools and that instructors ‘guilty’ of teaching the Islamic Sharia to U.S. military officers be ‘effectively disciplined.’ Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, Joint Forces Staff College instructor, was selected as the ‘guilty’ scapegoat to meet the Islamists’ punishment demand. Here is where it gets beyond outrageous. General Martin Dempsey proved himself to be the U.S. lackey-equivalent of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command under Fuhrer Adolph Hitler, when he ‘personally attacked’ Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span television, May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference. Obviously Dempsey was subserviently executing ‘his leader’s’ orders to suppress the truth about Islam. Lt. Col. Dooley’s ‘crime’ in Obama’s and Dempsey’s eyes was to present Islam in an accurate way that displeased Islamists in his Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism course. When America’s top ranking military officer publically rebukes a much junior officer on live television, which is absolutely unprecedented, it sends the unmistakable message to all officers in every military service that to be a truth-teller about Islam is a career-ending offense in the Obama military.”

Read more at Right Side News


Video: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to present a  panel discussion with three of America’s top experts on the shariah doctrinal threat to national security. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin will be joined by Frank Gaffney to discuss, “Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine.”

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

* Dr. Andrew G. Bostom – author of Sharia versus Freedom (Prometheus Books, October 2012). Dr. Bostom’s earlier publications include The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History and The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. He posts regularly at http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog

* Diana West – author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (St. Martin’s Press, April 2013). Ms. West’s earlier publications include The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization and Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II). She posts regularly at http://dianawest.net

* Stephen Coughlin – author of Catastrophic Failure: The Big Lie in the War on Terror (Center for Security Policy Press, January 2013).   Mr. Coughlin’s earlier publications include Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II) , and “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” His popular series of educational video lectures on Shariah doctrine can be viewed on YouTube.

* Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy

#StandDown: Obama Let Benghazi 4 Die, Rather than Defy Libyan Authorities

By Daniel Greenfield

FOX News continues to do invaluable work by investigating Benghazigate and Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley have a new article which raises serious questions about the so-called “Timeline” as well as continuing to pursue the question of why the Benghazi were allowed to die by the Obama Administration.

Now Obama had no problem bombing and invading Libya to prevent a fake massacre in Benghazi whose existence he lied about in a speech to the American people. But he did have a problem sending troops into Libya to prevent an actual massacre of Americans against the wishes of the Al-Qaeda linked Libyan authorities.

The closing paragraph says it all,

According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, “When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.”

Any show of air power was clearly off the table. The CIA rescue team chartered a plane too small to use. US rescue teams coming from outside the country were only allowed to enter by the Libyans after all the fighting was done.

That unarmed drone was sent over by General Ham. Meanwhile the rescue op moves as slowly as possible. “It isn’t until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave.”

The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane.

What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

And so the rescue was effectively delayed, by both the Libyans and Obama’s cronies, until there was no chance that they would be drawn into a firefight at the CIA annex.

The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami.

The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help.

Of course not. Helping was not a priority. Collaborating with the Libyan Islamists running things and their precious sensibilities was.

Or this is how it would have been put in Diplospeak. “Armed intervention in Libya will shape a perception on the Arab Street of the new government as American puppets. During this crisis we must rely on indigenous support from Libyan police and military authorities while keeping our intervention as low key as possible. While the deaths of American personnel are regrettable, armed intervention would lead to further attacks and far more bloodshed. The cycle of violence must end with us.”

And so Obama watched while four Americans died.

Obama’s National Security ‘Not Top 10′ of 2012

By Patrick Poole:

In years past I have conducted an annual review of ongoing catastrophic failure that is Barack Hussein Obama in all things related to terrorism and national security (see my previous year-end reviews for 2011, 2010 and 2009). But with America just hours away from deciding its next president for the next four years, I thought it timely for a pre-election review of Obama’s national security ‘Not Top 10’ for 2012.

These are listed in chronological order, not order of importance.

1) Dept. of Homeland Security Lexicon Brands Libertarians and Conservatives as ‘Militia Extremists’ in violation of its own policies (Feb. 2012)

Straight out of the gate in 2012, the Obama administration continued its branding of conservative ideas as extreme and threats to the nation. In February I reported on a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lexicon that linked ‘militia extremists’ with “the belief that the government is deliberately stripping Americans of their freedom” and opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations (particularly those related to firearms ownership)”. Added to that, Homeland Security observed that such extremists “often belong to armed paramilitary groups”, meaning that you don’t even have to belong to a militia to be a ‘militia extremist’. One wonders if they have the NRA in mind when mentioning “armed paramilitary groups”?

Two days after my report appeared the U.K. based Reuters rolled out an article that breathlessly reported, “Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned”, basically reinforcing the narrative expounded in the DHS lexicon.

Curiously, the words “Islamic”, “Muslim” and “jihad” were all missing from the DHS lexicon. Not only that, but branding those with mainstream political ideas as ‘extremists’ ran afoul of rules promulgated by DHS in October 2011 that warned, “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values” and “Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity.”

Then in June I reported that another DHS-funded study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland was caught editing out well-documented acts of Islamic terrorism inside the U.S., such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, from its terrorism database.

The codebook underlying the START study, also funded by DHS, branded popular “tea party” views as ‘right-wing extremism”, claiming that such ‘extremism’ “may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

As I noted at the time, START was basically saying that if you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” All on the taxpayer dime.

2) FBI Directive OKs U.S. Government Outreach to Members of Terrorist Groups, Supporters (March 2012)

As part of a widespread Obama administration ‘Islamophobia’ witch hunt in U.S. government agencies, Matt Vadum at Breitbart News reported that the FBI had produced a document it called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training” to justify an ongoing purge of its trainers and training material. Among the provisions of this “Touchstone Document” is the statement that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”

The net effect of this new FBI policy is that membership in a terrorist organization, or support for “legitimate” goals of terrorist organizations, does not hinder your relationship with the FBI for ‘outreach’ purposes nor make you a suspect for any investigation.

The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court found otherwise in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (2010), where the court upheld provisions of the PATRIOT Act that makes even support for “legitimate” objectives of a terrorist organization a violation of federal law.

The FBI’s “Touchstone” policy of ignoring support for terrorist organizations in its ‘outreach’ to the Muslim community is part of a larger trend during the Obama administration of rolling out the red carpet for Islamic extremists. At the same time that the FBI was announcing its new policy, as Michelle Malkin recently reported, Hisham al-Talib, who has been identified by the U.S. government as being a senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader involved in organizations supporting terrorism, being invited to the White House in March to help assist the administration in its reception of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders several weeks later. A more recent report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found a whole string of Islamic extremists regularly visiting and consulting with the White House.

This explains the admission of a senior White House outreach official back in June to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller that the Obama administration has conducted “hundreds” of meetings with terrorist front group CAIR in violation of a longstanding ban by the FBI with the group for its terror support (a ban that would run afoul of the FBI’s new ‘Touchstone’ policy). And as reported on Friday, it also explains the DCCC fundraiser featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C. attended by many U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, including CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad.

One corrosive effect of this outreach was noted by Kerry Picket at the Washington Times, who reported that these same organizations now deemed ‘moderate’ by the Obama administration has helped shape our national security policy. That might explain the complete meltdown in our Middle East foreign policy. Continue reading