It's only a bombshell to insular lefties

The CIA colluded with Democrats during the 2020 presidential election campaign.

Obama's CIA coup d'etat attempt coming to light

Um, scary:

Pick for head of CIA has China ties

 The guy who has ties to china, is putting people in high places who also have ties to China:

Former CIA, Never-Trumper says the president can say what he wants

CNN suffers multiple head explosions.


LOLZ.

World Socialist Website talking Democrat candidates

Infecting America for decades.

Masquerading as a profiling of Democratic candidates The World Socialist Website is profiling numerous Democrat candidates that it is clearly supporting.  What is especially interesting, indeed frightening, is that a vast number of them are former CIA operatives.

In addition, it is truly frightening that so many Democratic candidates that clearly enjoy covert socialist support, are not being exposed for the extreme radical views they share.  It's a deliberate Democrat ploy to stealthily get socialist and socialist sympathizers into the congress of the United States. 

Check out the entire shocking list (parts 1, 2 and 3).  If your congressional candidate is being supported by socialists it is especially important that you do your level best to help the Republican candidate running against them in your district.

Latest WikiLeaks data dump is on the CIA itself

This is big, and it probably exonerates Trump and implicates former president Obama.  Good.  But this leak outs a whole bunch of CIA methodology and that is a national security breach.  A really serious one.  It's really bad.

What the CIA has been doing is also a concern.  Yes, they need to protect America. And they should have all tools at their disposal that they deem necessary.  But there's a big BUT: some of the methods they employ have wider reaching implications and possibilities for American citizens. What the CIA is capable of doing makes the Lois Lerner IRS targeting of various Tea Party groups kindergarten playground level stuff.  That's really, really bad. And the situation and potential needs to be debated as to the merits of allowing the CIA to have this capability and do these sorts of things.  If there is enough merit, how does it remain controlled and dedicated to a specific scope.  

And even the value of WikiLeaks itself is up for debate.  WikiLeaks is a double edged sword because with every exposure of American secrets, they reveal things that put Americans at risk because they weaken the institutions that were designed to protect America from foreign malfeasance.  The question now is whether those very institutions, like the CIA have grown beyond control and/or can simply be used by those in power in ways they were not designed to be used.

I wonder how long it will be before the Democrats blame the latest data dump by WikiLeaks on the Trump administration in an effort to exonerate themselves on the (unfounded) Russia claims in the media.

Quote of the Week

Sen. Bob Kerrey, Democrat, on the partisan nature of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report that kneecaps the CIA and does not serve America:

I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it....

The worse consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations. This is perhaps the most significant missed opportunity, because no one would claim the program was perfect or without its problems. But equally, no one with real experience would claim it was the completely ineffective and superfluous effort this report alleges.

A few Democrats seem to have come down with a case of candor.

Al Qaida on the run? Maybe Not.

Via AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's top two intelligence officials said Tuesday that al-Qaida is weaker and U.S. intelligence agencies are smarter since the Sept. 11 attacks - but the terrorists are nowhere near giving up.

In his first week on the job, CIA director David Petraeus told members of Congress that al-Qaida's recent losses of Osama bin Laden and others have opened "an important window of vulnerability."

Petraeus predicted that al-Qaida leaders may even flee to Afghanistan or leave South Asia altogether to escape the CIA, which has quadrupled covert drone strikes against al-Qaida under the Obama administration. He testified at a joint congressional intelligence committee hearing.

Petraeus and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, both said that al-Qaida's Yemeni offshoots and others are growing more daring and dangerous - a sentiment shared by lawmakers.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers, R-Mich., warned against dismissing new al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri as "feckless" and dismissed suggestions that "the threat of terrorism has significantly waned." He said he feared Americans becoming complacent.

Does America have the stomach to continue the war on terror? Does it require a continued presence in Afghanistan or are drone strikes, better intel and more groping at airports enough? To be honest those are not easy questions, nor am I trying to be more than a little facetious. The important thing is to not let our guards down.

CIA in Libya - Vietnam II?

Even before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the CIA was involved in Vietnam. Their actions there predated  the onset of the actual war. With military air strikes being layered in before the ground war really got started.  The CIA was their for training as well as intel.  There was a path of escalation.  

Now it turns that the CIA was apparently there in Libya before the the no fly zone was put in place.  The point is that there was a path of escalation in Vietnam that has an eerie resemblance to the situation early on in Libya.  Is this a repeat of Vietnam?  It's way too early for any serious consideration of that, but if you see some Libyan forces attack on U.S. personnel, planes or even ships, I'd be prepared for a response just like the Gulf of Tonkin response.  Likely?  No, but certainly possible.  

The Vietnam war was started by a Democrat, so I'm just throwing the idea out there as a not fully formed notion, much the way the Libyan response from Obama didn't seem to be fully formed.  Except with the news about the CIA, I'm not so sure there wasn't some sort of escalation path the White House may have had in mind all along.

Danger: Train wreck in progress

Do you hear that? It's a sound of a train wreck in progress.

After falling flat on their face over the health care issue, and losing considerable job approval ratings in the process, the Obama administration brand marketing wizards have decided that it might be a good idea to divert attention from the carnage in order to repair the Obama brand.

That's not a bad idea. In fact, given the drubbing their agenda has taken at the hands of the Town Hall protesters (or more accurately hard questioners), a diversion might just stem the flow of ratings points away from the President. 

That's not the problem.  The problem is what they did to divert the public's attention.   Keep in mind that as a very leftward leaning President, Obama has his left ear closer to the ground than his right ear.  Consequently he's more likely to hear feedback, both positive and negative, from the far left than from the right.  Town hall protesters are deemed un-American, but complaints from his base are taken seriously.

And what pray-tell is his base unsettled over?  Or rather, going crazy over? The possiblility of the single-payer option  the government-paid option being taken off the table by the administration.  The comments by Sebelius that government as a "competitive" provider is not mandatory to reform, drew far left ire.  Big time.  And the Obama administration heard it.  They were probably prepared to have points siphoned off from the conservatives they felt were willing to give him a chance.  They may have even been prepared to lose some appeal to moderates (though not all).  But to start bleeding support from all sides?  That's the making of a train wreck.

The administration, when confronted with a challenge go back to the playbook.  Early on it was 'blame Bush'.  And up until recently it has been trotting out the President to speak to the press, yet again.  They probably went to the well too often, too soon with that ploy because while it created spikes in approval ratings in the past, it has not stemmed the general tide of downward sloping approval ratings.  They had to try something different.

With their ear to the left side of the ground, they remember what got them elected in the first place.  Their grassroots support had a huge anti-war component to it.  Obama, having made some initial traction with his support base on Gitmo and on ending Iraq, decided to beef up Afghanistan.  It plaed well to the middle because it supported his sales pitch that it was supposed to be about Bin Laden, not Iraq.  The argument probably was tolerated by the far left as a necesary evil to oust the Republicans and to get a Democrat into the White house.  But that anti-war goodwill started getting eaten up with Afghanistan and the apparent cave in on health care may have hastened the President's dilemna.

So going back to the well, and shoring up the liberal support probably seemed like a good idea.  What worked really well for them were the 'impeach Bush' and 'try the war criminals' memes.  So Eric Holder re-ignites the prosecute the CIA fires.  Let's put some people in jail.  This from the same left who felt that protests against Bush would cause Marshall Law to be imposed and every protester would be imprisoned and elections cancelled forever with Bush as the perma-President.  Yes, the hypocrisy is almost comical; they want to prosecute people who were trying to protect the country from an actual foe, whereas they were imagining a foe of freedom in Bush and believed they were going to be prosecuted for it.

The idea of prosecuting CIA personnel for trying to defend the country is assinine.  So bad in fact that there are rumors that liberal Leon Panetta, he of the no-intelligence-experience-but-now-heading-the-CIA fame gets it.  Apparently there were rumors he threatened to quit over it.  If he gets it, why doesn't Holder?  And does Holder have free rein here?  Has Obama lost control of his team?  That would certainly lead to a train wreck.

Alternately, if the White house is behind this agenda, then they have misjudged the American people.  This comes across as a vendetta and worse, as putting the nation's safety at risk by tying the hands of the covert defenders in order to score political points.  If that perception takes hold, you can count on another 10 points dropping off the President's job approval.  Yep, for them, that's a train wreck too.

The last possibility is that since Place Holder is leading this charge, and Obama and Holder have pulled this Alphonse and Gaston routine before, it's all contrived.  Maybe the script calls for Obama once agains to sweep in and say, we're not going to proceed with this - we have to look forward not backwards.  With that approach they temporarily appease the far left with the thinking that CIA folks are going to jail.  They can reclaim the middle ground with Obama saying that Holder's efforts are counter-productive and Obama is more bi-partisan and forward looking.  Of course the left might be enraged again, but if he frames it as saying "I'm above this petty stuff, trust me", maybe they'll buy it for a while.  By buying himself time, perhaps he can still sneak through health care 'reform' (shouldn't that be 'deform') in some shape.  That will appeal to his base partially.  It might keep them content.  And it might buy him time for Democrats in 2010 with the same old tired line that "this will take time to make a difference, so trust us".  Is there a train wreck in there too?  Absolutely - for that ploy to work in Obama's favor, every calculation described above has to go his way.  What could possibly go wrong?

For starters, the conservative giant has been awakened.  People in middle America won't sit still for CIA personnel being charged with crimes.  It might play well in Tehran, but in Atlanta? No way.  People intrinsically understand that in the broader world, you sometimes have to play outside the box in order to protect the Americans.

Secondly, who is to say the far left won't be completely disillusioned if Obama calls off Holder?  And who is to say Panetta won' actually quit?  That damages the President's credibility on both vetting (yet again) and on believability over whether CIA prosecutions make any kind of sense to even entertain.  And if Obama is losing the middle ground rapidly, this also starts to look a lot like waffling on the issue. Even if Holder is under control, it starts to look like he may be a loose cannon. That harms his visionary image and reinforces the lack-of-experience image.

There's just too many what-ifs for raising this issue now to be considered a good idea.  This is certainly a train wreck that's under way.  Stay out of the way of the debris that's going to fly everywhere.  On the other hand, it's in America's best interest for the Obama train to come to a screeching halt.  And if protests help hasten that impact, they need to keep going - even if it means contributing to a train wreck, because the alternative to an Obama train wreck, is an American train wreck.

Naivety paints Obama into yet another corner

Its been a long while coming but things have finally started going right for the Republicans. The latest Rasmussen polls showing Obama's ratings slide, while at odds with Gallup (65%), has some support in the Pew numbers which show some polarization. More importantly, it seems that the Tea Parties have shaken the GOP out of its doldrums.

In a brilliant maneuver Republican Pete Hoekstra, has potentially built some momentum on those numbers by calling out the Obama administration on it's foolish waffling on the issue of interrogations and criminal investigations. As reported in Hot Air, Hoekstra has demanded full disclosure on the interrogation issue;

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, accuses Obama of dishonesty by selectively releasing memos from the program — and he accuses Congress of cowardice by not admitting their own role in sanctioning the interrogations. He wants names and dates made public in this debate, a prospect that will likely chill enthusiasm on the Hill.

A challenge for full disclosure is a terrific tactical move. Either the White House and Democrats don't go for full disclosure and they look dishonest, or say they can't do it and then appear politically motivated and manipulative by having released only the part that benefits them, or they do and free up GOP targets from prosecution because of the validity of their claims or else lump in many Democrats as having known the issues during these meetings and still having supported the interrogations. Or, the Republicans are bluffing and are guilty. But if they were guilty I'm sure they wouldn't be as obtuse as Rod Blagojevich and call a bluff that really isn't a bluff.

A portion of Hoekstra's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal speaks to the hypocrisy ;

...last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

President Obama has flip flopped on this and it takes away his options. He could have gone one way or the other and left himself more openings, but now his only out becomes ignoring the whole mess and hoping it goes away. This is the path of least resistance and is one he is prone to take. It will help him overall because many Americans are as head in the sand as the President, especially on this. But it will infuriate the fringe who will further start to view Obama as part of the supposed war machine or at least just another political opportunist. And that means eroded support from the far left. But again, it's the path of least resistance for him and his poll numbers.

Alternately he could hang Pelosi et al. out to dry. Its a gamble but one that might pay off as he comes across as transparent and bi-partisan. But it would alienate a good portion of his support in Congress. That's risky.

Obama's pontificate-before-you-think approach has painted him into a corner on this and he's where he deserves to be because he's made the country less safe. Whether he can squirm his way out is yet to be seen - with a compliant press he'll have an easier time than most in trying to do that. What's important as conservatives to take away from this are two things; (1) keep the pressure on and (2) Pete Hoekstra deserves some credit for realizing that there was an opportunity to point out hypocrisy here and he pounced on it. Good for him.

Mumbai Terror - Threat and Opportunity

Yet another terrorist attack, yet again not on US soil, and yet again evidence that vigilance is imperative. What will the Bush and/or Obama Administrations do as a result? So far President Bush has offered condolences, and may be, at least publicly reticent to do more, given the dwindling time in office and the self-righteous Obama "Office of the President Elect" being the real power center since the election. Obama has similarly condemned the attacks and indicated it would not destroy Indian democracy. But far more needs to be done. The horrible attacks represent both a threat and opportunity to the War on Terror.

The Bush Administration's approach to Afghanistan has been to work with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. While this may have spawned early success, it has clearly gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. With the increased level of unmanned aerial attacks, it's clear that the CIA, at least, has realized the limits of this approach and is exploring new ways of dealing with the problem of radical Muslim terrorism in the region.



With the terrible terrorist attacks on Mumbai, a new variable has been thrown into the equation. Some in India are angrily calling for war with Pakistan. Such a war would undoubtedly escalate into something larger, including the disputed Kashmir and Northern Areas.

This may be where the opportunity lies for the U.S. Of course no one outside the intelligence community is privy to the level of co-operation between the U.S. and India, but given that the focus has been a tactical alliance with Pakistan, my guess is that the connection with India has at a minimum been weakened. There are a myriad of opportunities available for the U.S. They could act as a peace broker between the two nations, fostering some goodwill in the process. They could take the opportunity to greatly strengthen ties with India. That would serve not only as a potential base of operations if Pakistan falters in it's support, but also, strengthened ties and a strengthened India (with respect to intelligence, trade, security, military and economically) would provide a regional counterbalance to the threat of an aggressive China. In the event of a war in the Kashmir and Northern Areas, supporting India might provide further opportunity to ferret out Bin Laden, in another area he could be in hiding.

Of course there a number of threats in these scenarios as well - a regional conflict may drag the Chinese into the Kashmir territory dispute. Another war front is simply unaffordable, especially during a recession. America may be forced to stand on the sidelines and the outcome would probably not be to their liking. Not gaining Indian support and losing support in Pakistan would severely impede operations in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is 1 1/2 times the size of Iraq, with 116% of Iraq's population, much less hospital terrain and about 20% of the amount of paved roads. Creating a stable Afghanistan has massive logistical problems as it is, losing a base of operations like Pakistan would pose incredible challenges. Even if India were to offer an opportunity along those lines, it would be exponentially more difficult logistically, given the distance between the base of operations and the area of operations. The remaining scenario is ramping up in Afghanistan to levels greater than in Iraq if the job is to get done properly. Given the geographic obstacles, the dangers to U.S. troops would be quite great.

If a regional conflict were to occur, Russian action might also be a possibility. It's a situation that could very quickly spiral out of control, and one where the U.S. is not in the best position to achieve it's regional objectives.

The United States is currently holding a weak hand at the table in many respects. It cannot finance further activity, it cannot rely on continued support from Pakistan in light of the Mumbai attacks, and recent comments from Pakistani military officials. Really negotiation and peace brokering are it's only options at this point, which are also weakened because the others at the table will know that the American 'big stick' isn't in play. The terror attacks in Mumbai are tragic, but they also represent a minefield that needs to be negotiated very skillfully if the United States wants to accomplish anything positive, or even avoid a possible flash point of a new threat to regional stability.