Some Interesting Information About Benghazi

The U. K. Daily Mail reported today:

Benghazi: The Definitive Report,’ published by William Morrow and Company, is due out in e-book on Tuesday. The authors, Webb and Murphy, are editors of SOFREP.com, a site devoted to news and stories written by current and former special operations commandos.

The book makes a lot of interesting charges about the fall from grace of General David Petraeus and exactly who orchestrated that fall, but it makes some even more interesting charges against CIA Director nominee John Brennan.

The article reports:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had ‘kicked a hornet’s nest’ among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing ‘unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,’ according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama’s pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

This is disturbing. The idea that there were ‘unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure’ is highly questionable. I don’t have a problem with the concept of secrecy, but the President is not entitled to run his own private army operations outside the structure of command. This is clearly unconstitutional. Not to inform the people who would be ultimately impacted by these operations is unthinkable.

The article further reports:

Webb and Murphy said they wrote the book to reveal ‘the truth’ behind the attack. They say news accounts of the incident have often been inaccurate because journalists have not had inside access to the people who were on the ground at the time.

The authors have been frustrated, they say, by politicians who have attempted to twist the facts of the case to suit their own ends. Conservatives sought to use the attack as an election issue and place the blame on Obama.

Democrats and the Obama administration have worked to deflect responsibility and downplay the warning signs that were present before the consulate was raided.

Webb and Murphy claim that the ‘inside’ story of the attack – as told by their connections in the CIA and special operations units of the military – show that Brennan never warned the CIA or Stevens about ongoing U.S. military operations in the country.

Had the State Department and the intelligence community known about what was happening, they would have stepped up security in Benghazi and could have prevented the tragedy.

The entire article makes me wonder about the fitness of John Brennan to be Secretary of Defense.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Of The Questions Raised By Terrorism

The successful assassination of Adolph Hitler would have been seen as a blessing. It would have saved many lives–German, British, European and American. Adolph Hitler was leading Germany into war with all of its neighbors and had plans for an even larger war. He needed to be stopped.

Life is a little less black and white when you are dealing with terrorist leaders. The average terrorist leader is not the head of a country, although there are a few exceptions. The average terrorist leader has followers, but there are not necessarily all located in one place. The average terrorist leader may not even be acknowledged as a terrorist–he may be perceived as a moderate Islamic leader. It really is difficult in a war on terror to tell the bad guys from the bystanders. That is part of what makes President Obama’s drone program such a major concern.

NBC News has posted an article about three drone killings that occurred in September 2011. All those killed were American citizens. Americans would be up in arms if Americans were killed overseas by other countries without proper jurisprudence, so why are we doing it ourselves?

The article reports:

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed by a missile strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, while al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed in the country just weeks later.

Anwar al-Awlaki posted anti-American sermons on the internet and encouraged terrorism by his followers. Major Nidal Hasan, who killed soldiers at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” is said to be a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki. 

The article reports on al-Awlaki and Khan:

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, he ( Anwar al-Awlaki) became a popular spokesman for moderate Islam, and was often used to juxtapose perceptions that Islam is a religion that spreads hate.  But less than a decade later, he was hiding in Yemen as a name on the CIA’s kill list.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said in an audio message in March 2010.    

Conversely, Khan was never interested in the peaceful side of Islam. The New York Times reports that as a teen, Khan’s attraction grew exponentially to militant sites on the Internet after 9/11. Parental concerns and intervention from community leaders proved unsuccessful. Khan was 25 when he died in Yemen.

My point is this. These men were killed without a trial for words they posted on the internet. They were not leaders of countries. Would it not have been better to take them alive and put them in Guantanamo to end their internet postings?

I believe in fighting terrorists; I just have a problem killing Americans because of what they say rather than what they do.Enhanced by Zemanta

The Spin Continues

Fox News posted a story today about the testimony of General Petraeus before Congress. Unfortunately, unless things change in this investigation, politics will be more important than the fact that four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi.

The article reports:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed. 

Needless to say, there were a few people at the hearings who did not want to hear that testimony.

The story continues:

(Representative Peter) King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.” 

A congressional source familiar with this week’s testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from “Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations” — which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack. 

The Democrats on the Committee accused the Republicans of taking the issue out of context.

The article further reports:

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice’s defense Thursday, saying after a House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community’s “best assessment” at the time. 

It was pointed out today that up until September 11, the YouTube video in question had 200 hits. It is amazing that a video with only 200 hits is being credited in some circles with causing the death of four Americans.

Everything the Obama Administration has done on and since September 11th appears to be a cover-up. The goal of the cover-up was to keep the truth under wraps long enough to get President Obama re-elected. Now the election is over, and I am not sure we have seen any noteworthy percentage of the truth. Were there prisoners at Benghazi and was there a gun running operation operating out of Benghazi? Until these two questions are answered in a convincing way, we are simply running around in circles.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When National Security Takes A Backseat To Politics

Today was the day General Petraeus testified before Congress on the Benghazi attack of September 11. MRC.TV is reporting on a statement made by Representative Peter King after the General testified.

This is the video:

The article reports Representative King’s statement:

Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice’s talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism. 

The reason behind this is simple. The Democrat Convention was all about killing Osama Bin Laden and the end of Al Qaeda. The attack on Benghazi showed that Al Qaeda was alive and quite capable of attacking American assets. Therefore, the fact that the attack at Benghazi was Al Qaeda needed to be covered up–at least until after the election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Eventually The Truth Will Come Out

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that the Annex at Benghazi may have been used as a detention site for local militia forces and possibly for prisoners from other parts of Africa. This would indicate that it was a black ops site (something the Bush Administration was heavily criticized for and that President Obama supposedly outlawed).

The article reports:

The CIA denies this saying the CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009. That’s when the President signed executive order 13491. The CIA claims any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is “uninformed and baseless.”

It really would have made more sense for the Obama Administration to tell the truth when this incident occurred. President Obama has been re-elected, but his Administration may be somewhat crippled by this scandal.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy theories about the Obama Administration are getting to be old hat. I suspect some of them have a basis in truth, but I also suspect the majority of them don’t. Generally conspiracy theories arise because there is a vacuum of information that people tend to want to fill. Because the details about President Obama’s life–school records, childhood education, etc.–are so sketchy, conspiracy theories have arisen.

My latest contribution to the conspiracy theory pile is the reason for the resignation of General David Petraeus.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line is one of the sources for my latest conspiracy theory.

In an article posted yesterday, Mr. Mirengoff states:

…If so, then it seems that the affair started before Petraeus became the director of the CIA. The background check on Petraeus when he was being considered for the CIA job must have been incredibly thorough. And, since an affair with an embedded reporter would probably have been difficult to keep fully secret, even an ordinary investigation might well have uncovered word of it.

Thus, it may be that the White House knew of the General’s affair before he became the DCIA.

USA Today reported early this morning:

A federal law enforcement official said the relationship was discovered by the FBI during the course of an unrelated security investigation. Subsequently, a number of e-mails concerning the relationship were discovered, said the official who is not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

Now, my questions. Did the White House know of the affair when General Petraeus was chosen to head the CIA? Did General Petraeus know that they knew? Does that explain the fact that he towed the Democrat party line in his last appearance before Congress? Did he resign and make the matter public to avoid having to tow the Democrat party line again in his appearance before Congress next week? Who authorized the FBI investigation and who were they investigating?  I don’t want to see the reputation of a good man ruined by one serious mistake, but I think that there is a whole lot more to the story than we currently know.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Timeline That Tells It All

Doug Ross at Director Blue has posted a timeline of the events in Benghazi. It shows the events both in Washington time and Benghazi time. It is posted below. To see a more easily read image, please follow the link above.

It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media bothers to cover this after the election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Strong Words From Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, Former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations

On Sunday, the Washington Times posted an article by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, about the September 11 attack in Benghazi.

The Admiral did not mince words, and as a retired military man, he had a better understanding of how the military chain of command works than most of us have.

The article reports:

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety.  According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

What in the world are we doing? Didn’t we learn our lesson when we created the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

The Admiral concludes:

Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.

I suspect that the truth of this event will come out after the election. It should come out before. The events of September 11 reflect very badly on the people in the Obama Administration who were making decisions that night–whoever they were. They need to be held accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Just Isn’t Getting Any Clearer

Yesterday the Weekly Standard reported:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

OK. Who did tell the military special forces not to help those under attack in Benghazi? And why? It seems to me that at least the first question should have been answered by now.There are phone records and email records that should paint a fairly clear picture of who said what.

I heard a theory today that totally unnerved me. The New York Times reported recently that the Obama Administration was selling weapons to the rebels in Syria, despite the fact that these rebels have close connections to Al Qaeda. It also should be noted that Libya has supplied a major portion of the Al Qaeda soldiers we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the Ambassador (who was a good man who had a heart for the Arab people) was about to blow the whistle on our gun running activities in the Middle East? Would that have been a reason not to send help? As I said, that is just someone’s theory, but can someone come up with a better explanation as to why help never came?

Enhanced by Zemanta

What In The World Were They Thinking ?

The story of Benghazi has been in the news for more than a month now. There are many aspects of this story that are downright disturbing. The latest has to do with the military and special forces people that could have helped the Americans under fire being told to stand down. Stand down? While the higher-ups in the Obama Administration watched Americans being killed in real time? What in the world is this?

Fox News reported some of the details today. Fox reports:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.” 

…According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from. 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help. 

American soldiers have a tradition of leaving no man behind. Evidently the Obama Administration was not familiar with that tradition. One of the problems Benghazi has caused is that it will reinforce the Al Qaeda attitude that America is a paper tiger. The lack of response to this attack with embolden Al Qaeda to plan and execute more attacks on American soil (an Embassy is considered American soil) without fear of retribution. This is very reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter administration–the reason the Iranian hostages were returned as soon as Ronald Reagan took office was that the Iranians feared that President Reagan would actually retaliate if the hostages were not returned. There was reason to respect the power of America. We have lost that respect and need to restore it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Is Teaching Our Children and What They Are Teaching Them ?

I have spoken before on this website about Reza Kahlili. The Daily Caller describes him as follows:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

His website, A Time To Betray posted an article today about Abbas Maleki, the Iranian regime’s former deputy foreign minister and adviser to the Supreme Leader. Mr. Maleki is set to begin his academic career in America at Harvard and MIT.

The website includes a video:

It’s time to think about what our ‘best and brightest’ are learning in college.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Changes In The American Drone Policy

Last week Kimberly Dozier, an Associated Press intelligence writer, posted an article at Google.com about recent changes in the American drone policy. The changes alter the process of targeting terrorist leaders for drone attacks that had been in effect since 2009. The changes swap the old military-run review process for a new process which involves consulting the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies when compiling a list of drone targets. White House counter-terror chief John Brennan‘s staff oversees the process.

The article reports:

Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate.

The new Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has been more focused on shrinking the U.S. military as the Afghan war winds down and less on the covert wars overseas.

With Dempsey less involved, Brennan believed there was an even greater need to draw together different agencies’ viewpoints, showing the American public that al-Qaida targets are chosen only after painstaking and exhaustive debate, the senior administration official said.

But some of the officials carrying out the policy are equally leery of “how easy it has become to kill someone,” one said. The U.S. is targeting al-Qaida operatives for reasons such as being heard in an intercepted conversation plotting to attack a U.S. ambassador overseas, the official said. Stateside, that conversation could trigger an investigation by the Secret Service or FBI.

Defense Department spokesman George Little said the department was “entirely comfortable with the process by which American counterterrorism operations are managed.

The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.

I am not particularly comfortable with the new arrangement. The State Department has different goals than the military, and in the past they have not hesitated to work against the interests of a President they disagreed with philosophically. I also don’t like the idea of putting an unelected, unaccountable civilian person in charge of a military program. We need to remember that the drone program is a targeted assassination program–it is being used to kill terrorists. It also eliminates the possibility of capturing terrorists and gathering intelligence from them.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things That Make You Wonder (Although Some Of Us Stopped Wondering A Long Time Ago)

Fox News is reporting today that Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state.

The article reports:

Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden’s presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief last May in a unilateral raid. The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally.

Wait a minute. Hasn’t the President been claiming all along that we were never sure that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound?

The article at Fox News reminds us:

On Tuesday, a Senate panel approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes U.S. assistance to Pakistan by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open the NATO supply routes.

American lawmakers are also frustrated by suspicions that Pakistan is aiding militants who use its territory to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan — allegations Islamabad has rejected. There is also lingering resentment over the fact that bin Laden was found hiding deep inside Pakistan.

But the U.S. cannot afford to turn its back on Pakistan entirely.

Pakistan is seen as vital to negotiating a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban and their allies given the country’s historical ties with the militants.

The Pakistani government is also keen to repair relations with the U.S., partly to receive over a billion dollars in American aid it needs to fill out its budget as it looks ahead to national elections scheduled for 2013. But patching up ties is politically sensitive in a country where anti-American sentiment is rampant.

Aside from the obvious questions surrounding the arrest of Dr. Afridi, why in the world are giving major amounts of money to a country that obviously does not support us? Also, why in the world are we negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban rather than defeating them?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/23/pakistani-doctor-who-helped-us-in-bin-laden-raid-sentenced-to-prison/#ixzz1vhmujw1A

Enhanced by Zemanta

Good News And Bad News

The good news is that a plot to blow up an airplane (or two) using underwear bombs which would not have been detected by normal screening processes was foiled. The bad news is that somewhere in the foiling of the plot, a lot of classified information was leaked that will hamper our future efforts to foil such plots.

The U. K. Guardian reported the story yesterday. According to the article:

Detailed leaks of operational information about the foiled underwear bomb plot are causing growing anger in the US intelligence community, with former agents blaming the Obama administration for undermining national security and compromising the British services, MI6 and MI5.

The Guardian has learned from Saudi sources that the agent was not a Saudi national as was widely reported, but a Yemeni. He was born in Saudi Arabia, in the port city of Jeddah, and then studied and worked in the UK, where he acquired a British passport.

Mike Scheur, the former head of the CIA‘s Bin Laden unit, said the leaking about the nuts and bolts of British involvement was despicable and would make a repeat of the operation difficult. “MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president, if he has the balls. This is really tragic,” Scheur said.

I understand that there are many things in our government that are classified that should not be. I also understand that sometimes there is a very obvious reason to keep certain information secret. How many people were put at risk by the leaking of the details of this operation? Whoever leaked the information should be charged with a crime, and the newspapers that published it should also be penalized in some way. There is too much information available about this operation. That fact will limit our ability to prevent such attacks in the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Is No Way This Is Going To End Well

The U.K. Guardian reported today that Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated that it may soon be too late for a military strike on Iran.

The article states:

But the veteran politician also publicly acknowledged the extent of debate and disagreement within Israel’s political and military echelons over the merits of a military strike.

He told an international conference in Herzliya, Israel, on Thursday: “The world today has no doubt that the Iranian military nuclear programme is slowly but surely reaching the final stages and will enter the immunity stage, from which point the Iranian regime will be able to complete the programme without any effective intervention and at its convenience.”

At that point it would be impractical to attack, he said.

Yesterday The Christian Science Monitor posted an article by Reza Kahlili (a former CIA spy in Iran) explaining why negotiations with Iran will not work. In his article he describes the five reasons that he believes that war with Iran should be avoided.

Some highlights from Mr. Kahlili’s article in The Christian Science Monitor:

I explained that the very ideology of Iran’s Islamic leaders was the sole reason for no progress in a negotiated settlement. They simply would not close an honest deal with infidels.

… I was working for the CIA in Europe then when my American handler told me to consider the more moderate Rafsanjani, by then president, as the new king of Iran. This despite information I had passed on about Iran’s involvement in the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland – and despite the fact that Rafsanjani and other regime leaders were involved in worldwide terrorism and assassination. The elder Bush’s efforts at negotiation failed.

Mr. Kahlili concludes:

America must openly support the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran – facilitating a direct channel of communication with them and finding a way to bring Iran’s leaders to court for crimes against humanity. 

Only then can we can hope for real change in Iran, for peace and stability.

Unfortunately President Obama voted ‘not present’ during the last Iranian uprising in the false hope that his silence would further negotiations with the Iran’s leaders. We cannot afford to make that mistake again.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Should Have Been Done A Long Time Ago

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that a former CIA Officer is being charged with repeatedly leaking classified information. After leaving the CIA in 2004, John Kiriakou worked as a Senate aide, working as an investigator on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a year before leaving in 2010.

The article reported:

Kiriakou made a media splash in 2007 when he appeared on ABC News describing the use of waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaida, also known as Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein.

He also revealed the name of the CIA’s interrogator of Mohammed.in a piece he wrote for the New York Times in 2008.

The article further reports:

The Kiriakou investigation appears to have been triggered by a CIA referral to the Justice Department as well as a separate probe into how photographs of CIA operatives ended up in the possession of high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2009.

Investigators believe that defense attorneys obtained the photos after learning the identities of CIA operatives from a journalist who had been in contact with Kiriakou. The photographs, which included shots taken surreptitiously outside CIA employees’ homes, were shown to the detainees as part of an effort by defense attorneys to identify participants in CIA interrogations and potentially call them as witnesses in terrorism trials.

A interesting piece of information was left out of the story in the Washington Post. Newsbusters reported that between 2009 and last year Kiriakou worked as an investigator for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The NBC report on this story by Michael Isikoff reported this in the second paragraph.

This man needs to be charged with treason. His actions put CIA operatives and their families in danger. After reading the article, I wondered if Mr. Kiriakou was motivated by idealism or politics. He was undermining President Bush as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. He didn’t mind breaking the law in order to do that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

American Sentenced To Death In Iran–Accused Of Spying

Sky News reported today that Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was convicted of being a CIA spy and sentenced to death by an Iranian court. Mr. Hekmati is a former U. S. Marine. One report stated that he was carrying his military identification. Do we really believe that the CIA would send in a spy with military identification? Mr. Hekmati’s parents have stated that he was there to visit his grandparents. Mr. Hekmati holds dual citizenship in American and Iran.

The article at Sky News puts the arrest and conviction of Mr. Hekmati in context:

Three American hikers were jailed in Tehran on spying charges in 2009 after they were arrested along the Iran-Iraq border.

Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, who spent more than two years in custody, were freed on a $1m bail deal last September.

Their friend Sarah Shourd was released on bail in 2010.

Hekmati’s trial took place as Washington announced new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

In December, Barack Obama signed into law sanctions that will cut off from the US financial system financial institutions that work with Iran’s central bank.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hekmati is the innocent player caught in a very nasty international chess game. Iran believes that Mr. Hekmati can be used as a hostage to prevent sanctions on Iran from being implemented. If that doesn’t work, they can collect a tidy ransom. This is the kind of thing that happens when America has a weak President.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is It Too Late To Deal With Iran’s Nuclear Program ?

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Image via Wikipedia

There are mixed reports on how much progress Iran has made on their nuclear program. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is going to release a report this week on the Iranian nuclear program. The preview of the report states that Iran has continued its work on developing a nuclear bomb despite claims that the program had been stopped. The thing to keep in mind here is that the IAEA has pretty much been wrong on all of its previous reports on the Iranian nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times posted an article by Reza Kahlili on October 27, 2011, stating that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Reza Kahlila is a former member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard who actually worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

A few things to remember when dealing with Iran:

1. There is a concept in Islam called taqiyya. Loosely translated it means lying for the sake of Islam. The concept is particularly applied to the idea of lying to infidels.

2. A video smuggled out of Iran in March of this year (see rightwinggranny) explains that the basis for the Iranian foreign policy is the quest for a world-wide caliphate. That is a long-term goal, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes he is charged with causing the chaos that will usher in the reign of the 12th Imam.

3. Western cultures tend to look at events in terms of recent history. The Islamic mentality looks at events in the perspective of centuries. We plan for decades–they plan for centuries. There is an expression among Muslims in Afghanistan, “Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.” We need to remember that.

I don’t know what the truth is, although I suspect Iran either has or is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We are coming to the point when the west has to make a decision as to whether it will allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. Aside from the obvious danger to Israel, Iran’s going nuclear will begin an arms race in the Middle East–not a place known for its peaceful tendencies.

Hold on to your seats!

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Update On Fast And Furious

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday with some new details on Operation Fast and Furious. The New York Post has reported that the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ordered one of its agents to buy weapons with taxpayer money and sell them directly to a Mexican drug cartel.

The article reports:

Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy four Draco pistols for cash and even got a letter from his supervisor, David Voth, authorizing a federally licensed gun dealer to sell him the guns without bothering about the necessary paperwork.

This is no way to run a country. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Fast and Furious guns turned up in El Paso, Texas in January 2010.

The article at Hot Air speculates on why the Fast and Furious was allowed to continue after it became obvious that the operation was out of control. There are two possible reasons:

1.  The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners. The operation was manufacturing “evidence” for the president’s false claim that we’re to blame for the appalling levels of Mexican drug-war violence.

Or:

2. A second notion is that the CIA was behind the whole thing, which accounts for all the desperate wagon-circling. Under this theory, the Agency feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.

The article at Hot Air suggests that it may be a combination of the two. At any rate, it would be nice to see someone in the government held accountable for this horrible operation.

Enhanced by Zemanta