The lie of the left about the IC
UNDISCLOSED – You can play the audio and read, there is no video involved. People in general do not understand the intelligence community. There are the foreign intel agencies, and domestic ones. They present intelligence in various forms, at various times sometimes directly to operational units… other times to the legislature and executive. All intelligence does not go through the White House. It used to be that the Director of the CIA was the central location for intel, however we now have DHS after 9/11. I fear that is just adding another layer that will come back to haunt us.
Then of course we have the general structure which I will go on about, but we also have so many people (mostly on the left) that want to limit the abilities of CIA to question a detainee that may have urgent and vital information. While they used to say “I want to do everything to protect America” now an * next to “everything” should be required.
Known as the IC the Intelligence Community is comprised of 16 agencies, bureaus, and organizations. They range from the more notable CIA and FBI, to the ever mysterious NSA. Every branch of the military has an intelligence gathering capability and then there are the other alphabet soup agencies that are never mentioned on the front pages yet play a vital role. All this material is funneled up the chain, and ultimately used by the DNI to brief the President and NSC (National Security Council), among others.
The Senate and House Intelligence Committees are tasked with the oversight of the IC. That is right folks, they have the oversight and are informed of intel operations… they do not need to go to the President. Of course you cannot be providing all intel to hundreds upon hundreds of those at the Capitol. If you want to lay the responsibility of wrong intel, you can lay it at the intel committees. Not President Bush. So let’s look at some conclusions, while keeping in mind we had been attacked on 9/11.
So everyone agrees that both hate the US, and would therefore be willing at times to help one another in order to destroy the United States. But the question remains was the President and others in Congress given information that would conclude a plausible danger from Iraq due to their support of terrorism?
But in the end, the question remains... Was the Congress given intelligence that showed a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq or any terrorist organization? YES. And it was in 2004 that the President should have been vindicated. If anything the blame should be layed at the feet of the IC and of Congress who failed to make sur the IC provided "informed and timely" intel.
For those that want to debate over the IC, don't call in to a show saying "you don't know anything more about it than I do." Not only are you wrong, but I can prove you wrong.Is this a Congressman Ackerman saying they get briefed? I thought, they were denied intel?
CIR Radio Tonight 11/23/07
Happy Thanksgiving, but the world still turns.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Well folks, I say Happy Thanksgiving to all!! I have much to be thankful for and while on this day many celebrate and let everything drift to the back of their minds, I cannot. We should be thankful, but we must also be cautious. To illustrate this I will start with the good and finish with the bad.
The surge in Iraq is working (even the NYT has to admit it), has turned the war around, and as long as we can play whack-a-mole long enough with the politicians that like to say “the war is lost” we can make this work. That is right violence is dropping at not impressive rates. The Sunni’s were a problem being Saddam’s people, but the Shia also became a problem with support from Iran. However they have become as mad with Iran for killing Americans and causing disorder as we are. They have composed a petition regarding Iran’s actions that reportedly have 300,000 signatures including 600 tribal leaders.
This is a must read. It is 12 myths of 21st Century Warfare. This is a fantastic piece. Please follow the link to get the whole piece. These are myths that the lefties want to force feed us, the left wants us to believe their garbage in order to bring their own country to its knees.
Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.
Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.
Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.
Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.
Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.
Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.
Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.
Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?
Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.
Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.
Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.
Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."
Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.
Now while we could win this war, I agree with the politicians and talking heads. It is going to take diplomacy, and who do we turn to that for? The Department of State, and the front line people there are Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). These are the people tasked to go out in to the field around the globe to work with people and develop ties. Of the many jobs in State this one specifically tasks the person with going abroad, and going in you know the following:
"Worldwide availability is both an affirmed willingness to serve anywhere in the world and a matter of being medically qualified to do so. Both the willingness and being medically qualified are essential requirements for appointment to the Foreign Service. Worldwide availability also means that members of the Foreign Service are expected to serve anywhere in the world, even in cases where family members cannot go to post due to political instability and/or other concerns, or when family members must leave post as conditions deteriorate (evacuations).Why do I not hear the politicians telling the Diplomatic “marines” to do their duty? These FSOs always resist be “directed” to a certain location, most of the time it is by preference. I have no problem with that, usually you have a better worker when they are happy. But when we have the possibility of calming tensions in the mid-east and getting on the right track… and our forces to aid that say they do not want to, they should retire. If they do not they should be fired and lose any government pension for failure to adequately perform their duties. Start putting the State DEPARTMENT ahead of the individual. The individuals at State do not make the policy, they carry it out… well that is how it is supposed to be.
"Candidates should also bear in mind that Foreign Service Officers are expected to take assignments that can involve extremely difficult work, hardship, and even danger. We are looking for capable,
healthy, dedicated candidates who are prepared to step up to the challenges the Foreign Service faces in today’s world.
"The need to influence the rapid pace of world change effectively requires more assignments to hardship posts where such change is occurring. Some of these positions are in danger or war zones and a good number involve sending officers without their families, who usually remain in the U.S. for the duration of the particular assignment."
And while we have those that are supposed to be serving our country in a diplomacy manner refuse to do so, we have our friends the communists complaining and sticking their thumbs in our eyes. While we have the USSR complaining that the “west” is plotting against them, keep in mind this is all while the USSR is selling weapons to not just our enemies but state sponsors of terrorism.
The ChiComs are canning a long time planned visit from the Kitty Hawk and its battle group. Which made no sense because they have been following it and spying on the group why not let them sit right near by? What made it worse was hundreds of families had flown to Hong Kong to celebrate Thanksgiving, they were already there. Instead the ships would be out at sea leaving the families on the shore. This is just one more occurrence in a long line of issues that really make me feel like we should consider boycotting the Olympics. Yes, so unfair to the athletes… NBC will lose money. I don’t care, but sure enough as the commies like to do…play games…they suddenly said the group could dock. However in my opinion they made that decision only after knowing the group had headed away and was too far to return. That is just the start. More of a slap in the face than significant action.
There are plenty of reasons to keep an eye on China. From the 2006 QDR China “has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and fi eld disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages.” In addition to that, the band is getting back together.
“PRC President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed 2006 as “The Year of Russia” during their March meeting in Beijing, the leaders’ fi fth meeting in less than twelve months. Building on their joint exercise in 2005, the two leaders agreed to increase military exchanges and hold eight cooperative military activities in 2007.”
The United States has seen work and progress in China’s power. They have been actively transforming their military from one solely based on overwhelming manpower with little to no projection capability, but now they have developed a variety of air, naval, and missile assets that is making it possible that they could project power should they decide. All of that tied in to their concept of being able to take out our communications.
While they have little to no modern warfare battle tested forces they have been running large scale operational exercises with our bestest friends the USSR. Much of their work has been based on studying the modern wars. Applying similar tactics from the first Gulf War to the more current ones. Information can be your biggest weapon. That is why they are spending much more time than in the past employing a variety of imagery and reconnaissance satellites, which is of course normal for every single country with the ability and assets to do so. What is not normal is developing a system to take out satellites, a system and test performed still has yet to be explained.
In the end, little is explained. Therefore we must treat China as a serious problem for the future, be it their military or the road blocks they put up for us in the international community (such as the U.N. and Taiwan).
Thanksgiving Iraq surge myths State+Department FSO USSR China
S&G Showdown Nov 18th, 2007
CIR Radio Tonight 11/16/07
CIR Radio Tonight 11/10/07
Vince Flynn and you can help Valour-IT
I will not support Hillary.
WASHINGTON, DC – Why do I have problems with Hillary Clinton? Is it the same as BDS? No, unlike those haters of Bush I have good reason to take issue with the Senator. I hope those lefties that may come across this will realize that I have a standpoint because of my serious concerns about the national security issues at stake. If her reasoning for being president is due to the fact that she has had experience in the White House. Well that experience occurred, under her husbands oversight of blunder after blunder…
By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
National Security: Bill Clinton was the best president the People's Republic of China ever had. His wife may be even better. Beijing, hungry for more technology transfers, is betting on it.
… Command fundraisers are breaking out all over the Chinese community. It's plain that Sen. Clinton is China's candidate. It's time to ask why that is. What is the attraction? What does Beijing want? What has she promised? Is Hillary, as some suspect, a Manchurian candidate loyal to foreign and unseen donors rather than American voters? Can she be trusted with U.S. security?
… Bill Clinton called it a "strategic partnership." He argued that cozying up to — or as he called it, "engaging" — the communist Chinese was in America's best interest. But while Clinton was engaging them, an engagement that included inviting them into our defense labs and dismantling export controls, Beijing:
• Managed to steal secrets to every nuclear warhead deployed in the U.S. arsenal.
• Deployed for the first time an entire force of CSS-4 ICBMs that target the continental U.S., from L.A. to New York and everything in between.
• Declared the U.S. enemy No. 1 in its military writings.
• Bought Russian destroyers armed with missiles designed to kill U.S. carriers.
• Built up its missile batteries across the Taiwan Strait.
• Infiltrated the CIA and FBI with spies.
The Chinese espionage that occurred on Clinton's watch was unprecedented, and analysts still don't know how deep Chinese moles penetrated our security complex. The FBI warned President Clinton that the People's Republic of China was running a massive intelligence operation against the U.S. government, which included a plan to influence the 1996 election.
… As soon as Clinton took office, he implemented a policy of "denuclearization." That included ending nuclear testing, kicking open the defense labs to Chinese and other foreign scientists, and declassifying hundreds of documents related to our nuclear program.
Clinton also deregulated export of sensitive dual-use technology such as supercomputers and rocket guidance systems. And Beijing gleefully took advantage of the dovish changes, sharpening the reliability of the missiles it has aimed at the U.S. and Taiwan.
Clinton's open-door "engagement policy" amounted to rank appeasement of a communist state with hegemonic military ambitions. Will Hillary carry on the tradition? Will she, too, hold a high-tech fire sale for the Chinese? One thing is for sure, Beijing and its bagmen are betting on it — big time.
But If I pretend to move past history and to the present we have to deal with the fact that she would be having an advisor that stole classified national security documents. Sandy, Sandy…those darn documents just jump around like Mexican jumping beans. But he gave them back, oh no he didn’t.
Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.
“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
But we cannot judge someone solely on that. The most important thing is her stances on the most important issues. For example, the issue of terrorism and the treatment of those that may provide actionable intel. I appreciate her view from a year ago.
What was not revealed was that Hillary not only disagreed with her husband, but with herself. In October 2006, she told the New York Daily News that the ticking-bomb scenario would be an acceptable exception to a general prohibition on torture.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans," she said at the time, "then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable."
But now she has “refined” her answer to: Sen. Clinton responded: "It cannot be American policy, period."
That answer in and of itself takes her out of consideration in my eyes. She is willing to pamper someone who could have information that could save millions! She used to talk about the “village to raise a child” well now she is willing to allow that entire village, children included, to be killed because she doesn’t want to be mean. And anyone that argues the “enemy will only follow our lead”, get out of here. We give them medical care, food, and they cut peoples heads off. It doesn’t matter what we do. The enemy will continue to be who they are, and we should do whatever is needed to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Care about us first, the rest of the world second.
And the cherry on top, Mondale’s endorsement: The Republican National Committee noted with glee that it was her second endorsement by a failed Democratic presidential nominee. The other endorsement came from George McGovern, the 1972 nominee who was soundly defeated in the general election by Richard Nixon.
Labels: Hillary Clinton
USSR WATCH ALERT II
For a long time, I have been forced to "be out in the cold" but the world is starting to see Russia and Putin for what they really are. Now add to it... The Moscow Times.
The Soviet Mentality Is Alive and Well
By Georgy Bovt
Russia's political elite has failed to develop a new, modern style for governing. When observing, for example, how our leaders speak with the public and make decisions, it reminds me so much of the Soviet way of doing things.
For example, nomenclatural arrogance is alive and well. Russian leaders still sees themselves as standing far above the people. Even if they wade into a crowd to have a "casual chat" with the people, it often takes the form of gods descending from the heavens to speak with simple mortals. And even if they graciously ask one of the mortals about his life, his household and how much he is earning, he still comes across as an alien who has landed on an unfamiliar planet.
Does the current leadership not understand that the Soviet approach was proven ineffective long ago?