Tag Archives: State Department

MSM Start To Turn On Benghazi . Could Get Interesting Real Quick.

This is encouraging. This will be the only way to take him down. Kinda wish the media would have done their jobs say…about 5 yrs ago.

~Steve~

MAY 10, 2013  POSTED BY 

https://www.newyorker.com

SPINNING BENGHAZI

——————————————————————————————
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Holds Daily Press Briefing
                          Poor wittle Jay Carney. Busted lying thru his teeth.    😀
                        I definitely have a case of Schadenfreude on this.  LOL

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a <href=”#.uy1gksebagw.twitter”>secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Benghazi Eye Witness, Threats From State Department

benghazi100

remember benghazi? Yup that one. well it seems to be picking up some steam and making some people very uncomfortable.  love it when that happens

——————————————- ~  Steve ~ —————————-

Benghazi: Eye Witness on the Scene – Threats From State Department

https://maggiesnotebook.com/
The man in the video below talking with Fox News’ Adam Housley was an eye-witness to the attack on the Benghazi Special Mission where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died on September 11, 2012, and an unknow number were seriously wounded. The man whose voice and appearance is disguised, is with Special Ops and says others want to speak-out but have been threatened by the State Department. A 40-man special ops training exercise (C-110) was underway in Croatia only 3-1/2 hours away. He believes the C110 (Commanders and Extremist Force) could have been in the area in 4-6 hours and been able to save the lives of those lost at the Annex.
The Benghazi Four – Never Forget
“And you hear a whole bunch of advisers say, ‘We wouldn’t have sent them there, because the security was an unknown situation.’ If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum, you send forces there to facilitate the exfill—medical, injuries. We could have sent a C130 to provide medical evacuation for the injured.”
“The State Department could have called another station for help, as well. According to the source, there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Dept. security staff in the Libyan capital of Tripoli who were not deployed even though they were trained as a quick response force. By air, the travel time between Tripoli and Benghazi is roughly over one hour.”
Adam Housely quotes the eye-witness saying “many connected to Benghazi feel threatened and are afraid to talk. So far confidential sources have fed some information but no one has come forth publicly, on camera until now.
“The problem is, you’ve got guys in my position, guys in the Special Operations community  who are still active and still involved…and they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.” 
Housely quotes the eye-witness saying his community feels there was a betrayal, all the way to the top and the people on the ground in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves.
“I don’t blame them for not coming forward. It’s something that’s risky for someone in our profession to talk about anything in the realm of politics, when it deals with policy.”
HOUSELY: Our source provides insight into how the Military reacted. From the moment the attack began, through the immediate hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens went missing, what they were told to do and what not to do as Stevens, Diplomatic Officer Sean Smith, and former Special Operations members Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
“There’s a lot of responsibility, a lot of onus that needs to be taken up and accounted for…”
HOUSELY: …our source says there were two elite military units that could have made it in time, including the one training in Croatia…He also said, as the attack began, there were at least 15 Special Forces and highly skilled State Department Security staff available in the Capital of Tripoli who were not dispatched, even though they were trained as a Quick Response Force.
Meantime a group of American reinforcements in Tripoli which included CIA Global Response Agent Glen Doherty and about 7 others took matters into their own hands – a little known fact that contradicts the version of events in the State Department report. The team commandeered a small jet and flew to Benghazi to try to help secure the CIA Annex still under fire.
Doherty would eventually be killed on the roof along with his friend Tyrone Woods and our source says“these men deserve the highest medal of honor for their actions.”
“If it wasn’t for that decision, I think we’d be talking completely differently about this situation. I think you’d be looking at 20+ hostages captured by AQ or you’d be looking at a lot of dead Americans in Benghazi.”
HOUSELY: We heard the same from other witness who have not yet come on camera, also our British sources on the ground that night. Tomorrow, more of our exclusive interview, including the hunt for those responsible for the hunt or lack thereof.
Click here to view media.Adam Housely Interviews Special Ops Member on the Ground When Benghazi Mission and CIA Annex Came Under Attack (video)
Read more.

 https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/30/obama-administration-threatens-benghazi-whistleblowers/

by  @ theconservativetreehouse
benghazi-massacre-blog-copy
 
WASHINGTON DC – At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.
Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say
“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”  (READ MORE)
 

Spec-Ops Rapid Response Team Was 3-4 Hours From Benghazi

by johngalt youviewed.co
H/T  Laura @  https://americac2c.com/?
 
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama’s Low-Information Supporters

How often have we heard our “friends” on the left describe us conservatives as “knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers?”

Really?

And just in case you have forgotten:

If these people actually are the future of America, we are in seriously deep trouble as a nation.

God help us.

-Dave

(h/t: boortz.com)

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

2 ex-Navy SEALS killed with Amb. Stevens

Most, if not all, of the news on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has centered on the torture and killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Our own intelligence says the attack was “well-planned” and “well-coordinated” with “outside” connections, i.e., al-Qaeda.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens

But three other Americans were also killed, although we don’t know the details of their murders as we do about Stevens’.

We know that one of the three is a State Department staffer, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

Sean Smith

Now we have the names and identities of the remaining two. They are former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. I don’t want them to be forgotten.

Tyrone Woods (l); Glen Doherty (r)

The Associated Press reports, Sept. 14, 2012:

Two of the Americans killed Tuesday in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were former Navy SEALs from San Diego County who always asked to be on the front lines, family, friends and government officials said.

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, who both provided security at the consulate, were killed in the Tuesday attack along with U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department employee Sean Smith, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement Thursday.

Woods, 41, was from Imperial Beach south of San Diego and Doherty, a native of Massachusetts, had lived in Encinitas, north of San Diego.

“Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction,” Clinton’s statement said.

Woods, a Navy SEAL for two decades whose friends called him “Rone,” served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton said. Since 2010 he had protected American diplomats in posts from Central America to the Middle East.

Dr. Timothy Rasmusson, Woods’ former brother-in-law, said Woods was a hard-charging Navy SEAL who joined the military straight out of high school and went to work for military contractors after leaving the service a few years ago. To unwind, he drove his motorcycle and Ford Mustang at top speeds. “He was like a guy out of the movies,” Rasmusson said. “He was on the edge. He was always volunteering for the mission. He always wanted to be on the front line. Everything was full speed.”

Rasmusson said Woods and his sister, Patricia Ann So, divorced about 10 years ago and have rarely spoken, though the split was amicable. They had two teenage boys, Tyrone Jr. and Hunter, who live in San Diego with their mother. Woods is also survived by his wife and another son, Kai, who was born a few months ago.

Doherty, 42, worked in private security around the world since leaving the Navy in 2005, and between stints worked as a personal trainer in the San Diego area. A native of Winchester, Mass., just north of Boston, he wrote a 2010 book called “The 21st Century Sniper: A Complete Practical Guide” along with friend and former colleague Brandon Webb. An updated version of the book, about how to become a good marksman, is expected out in January.

Webb told The Associated Press his friend wouldn’t have sought sympathy. “Don’t feel sorry for him. He wouldn’t have it,” Webb said. “He died serving with men he respected, protecting the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and doing something he loved.”

Doherty became a Navy SEAL in 1995. He worked as a paramedic and sniper in the Middle East, responding to the destroyer Cole attack among his missions, and served two tours in Iraq. Along with his brother, his survivors include his parents, Bernard and Barbara, and a sister, Kathleen.

God bless you, brave men who served America with honor.

You were betrayed by your own government.

May you rest in peace.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The GWOT is Lost


I knew we were pretty much toast when TSA goons began molesting American children with impunity. I mean, a nation that will stand idly by and allow that to happen will put up with just about anything government throws at it.
Somehow I doubt America’s reaction to the following will be any different:
December 8, 2011
Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America
Clare M. Lopez
When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).
One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.
Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.
The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.
You will find the rest of the article here.
Related story: State Department meetings with the OIC are now underway.

The respect and deference that the United States is paying to the OIC amounts to surrender in installments. The very idea that the U.S. Secretary of State is meeting with the OIC to discuss “religious tolerance” is like having Himmler meeting with Jews to condemn Jew-hatred. Under Islam. there is a complete and utter absence of “religious tolerance” of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries under the Sharia.

Outraged yet?
-Dave 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama Wants Your Life History to Get a Passport

A blog called The Identity Project is alerting us to a plan by the Obama administration, specifically the State Department, to make our acquisition of a passport much more difficult.
How?
By making us answer a detailed “Biographical Questionnaire” that includes all the addresses you’ve lived in since birth, your entire employment history, personal information about your siblings, your mother’s address a year before you were born, and — most bizarrely — the “religious ceremony” (if any) around the time of your birth.
Why does the feral gubmint need/want all this information?
It is Obama who should provide a detailed and complete Biographical Questionnaire, including his mother’s address at the time of his birth, as well as how he acquired his Connecticut Social Security number!
~Eowyn

State Dept. proposes “Biographical Questionnaire” for passport applicants

The Identity Project – March 18, 2011

The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for passport applicants. The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information.  According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”
The proposed “Biographical Questionnaire” follows the introduction in December 2010 of a new Form DS-11 for all passport applicants. It seems likely that only some, not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new questionnaire, but no criteria have been made public for determining who will be subjected to these additional new written interrogatories.
It’s not clear from the supporting statementstatement of legal authorities, or regulatory assessment submitted by the State Department to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) why declining to discuss one’s siblings or to provide the phone number of your first supervisor when you were a teenager working at McDonalds would be a legitimate basis for denial of a passport to a U.S. citizen.
The State Department is accepting comments for OMB on this proposal on this proposal for 60 days, which began February 14, 2010, and thus should run through April 15, 2011. (Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,  OMB must approve and assign an OMB control number before any new form can be used.) Details and instructions for submitting comments are in the Federal Register notice:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-mail: GarciaAA@state.gov
Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Alexys Garcia, U.S. Department of State, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 3031, Washington, DC 20037
Fax: 202-736-9202
Hand Delivery or Courier: Alexys Garcia, U.S. Department of State, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 3031, Washington, DC 20037
You must include the DS form number [DS-5513], information collection title [Biographical Questionnaire for U.S. Passport], and OMB control number [none yet assigned; 1405-XXXX requested by Dept. of State] in any correspondence.

We’ll be submitting comments, and we encourage others to do so as well.
The Identity Project explores and defends the fundamental American right to move freely around our country and to live without constantly having to prove who we are or why we are here.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Why Hillary Recalled Ambassadors to D.C. Meeting

On February 7, the ModernSurvivalBlog asserted that “In an unprecedented move…nearly all U.S. Ambassadors to all nations have been called back to Washington for a summit conference this week,” but we don’t know why.
Veteran D.C.-based investigative reporter Wayne Madsen has an exclusive-to-subscribers report on this. Below are excerpts from his exclusive Wayne Madsen Report.  
~Eowyn

Peering through the shroud of global corruption: Hillary’s “all hands” meeting and bribery and kickbacks
Wayne Madsen Exclusive Special Report, Feb. 9-10, 2011
Amid a major FBI and Department of Justice criminal investigation of a hacktivist group known as “Anonymous,” which has hacked into public and private computer systems in retaliation for actions taken against Wikileaks for its release of over 250,000 classified State Department cables, WMR has been contacted by a source close to Anonymous to set the record straight on the group’s intentions and convey a road map of its future plans…. It should be noted that Anonymous is not connected to Assange or Wikileaks.
It is the penetration of the State Department’s communications networks by Anonymnous that prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to call all of America’s ambassadors, consuls general, and special envoys to Washington for an unprecedented diplomatic “all hands” meeting. WMR has learned that Clinton briefed the envoys on the State Department’s security problems and that information sent over channels thought to be safe was no longer guaranteed to be secure. Other means of communicating sensitive information from overseas posts to Washington were apparently discussed. In addition, the fallout from bigger and more damaging leaks of classified cables matched with off-shore banking information and emails was also discussed with the envoys. The fallout includes the spread of Tunisia- and Egypt-style popular revolts around the world and the need by the diplomats to be prepared for a surge in anti-American attitudes globally.
Anonymous, which uses the Guy Fawkes mask-wearing character “V” in the film “V for Vendetta” as a role model, first came on to the media radar screen in 2008 when the loose-knit association of bloggers took on the Church of Scientology by subjecting the cult to a series of denial of service attacks after the “church” had YouTube pull an interview with actor Tom Cruise over copyright violations.
However, the group now finds itself as a target of a major FBI investigation with FBI agents confiscating computer equipment and cell phones at gun point. A federal grand jury in San Jose, California is now empaneled to hear evidence against suspected members of Anonymous. The group hacked into PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, and the UK’s Moneybookers in retaliation against the blocking of donations to Wikileaks. Anonymous also retaliated against the computer security firm, HBGary Federal, after an official of the company threatened to publicly expose the leaders of Anonymous.
Anonymous…is currently conducting data matching and fusion of information contained in the State Department cables and banking data and hacked email it has obtained from around the world. The picture that Anonymous is painting is one of the State Department being part and parcel of a global “pay-to-play” operation for foreign and U.S. defense contracts and the siphoning of kickbacks by world leaders to numbered bank accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, and elsewhere. From the information gleaned from multiple sources by Anonymous, it is clear that the CIA facilitates America’s “play-to-pay” system of corruption and contract fraud.
…The global payola scam also involved top French government officials who benefited from sweetheart rendition and defense contract deals with Tunisia and Egypt…. What Anonymous has discovered is a global pattern of such kickbacks in return for lucrative contracts and the world’s elites growing wealthier as a result. The graft and corruption globally is sweeping, with details of pay-offs to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his ministers by BP in return for releasing accused Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison to Libya in return for lucrative Libyan oil concessions and  a defense contract with Sri Lanka during the Bush administration that permitted that nation’s government to commit a genocidal campaign against ethnic Tamils being just the tip of the iceberg.
State Department cables previously leaked and those that have to be revealed show that U.S. diplomats are the prime facilitators of U.S. graft and corruption, with member companies of the US Chamber of Commerce and top Pentagon contractors reaping a financial whirlwind as a result.
Anonymous plans to release 40 more videos outlining the connections between U.S. political leaders and top-level bribery and kickbacks, including a deal worked out by then-President George W. Bush between Saudi Arabia and Boeing that saw Boeing receive a major Saudi Air Force contract in return for the King of Saudi Arabia receiving a plane similar to the Boeing 747 used as Air Force One. In the deal, Bush pocketed a “handling fee” that ended up in a Bush numbered account from a Saudi numbered account in an off-shore bank. And the trove of fused data from the cables and financial and email data show that Bush and Rove are not alone in receiving payola from his fronting for U.S. firms: the recipients of bribes and kickbacks include Hillary and Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Vice President Joe Biden, and President Obama. Anonymous has uncovered details of Obama personally lobbying overseas for Boeing, with the now “accepted” practice of kickbacks ending up in the president’s off-shore accounts. Boeing is headquartered in Obama’s hometown of Chicago. And when it comes to this level of corruption, America can always count on its political police force, the FBI, to protect the criminals and attack the sources of the information, as the G-men are now doing to Anonymous.
“Bigger and badder” than Wikileaks: “Anonymous” analyzes and fuses hacked data and cable information and reveals that President Obama not only shills for Chicago-based Boeing but gets kickbacks from defense deals overseas. George W. Bush also shilled for Boeing and received similar sweetheart financial deals.
…The “V” fans who make up Anonymous also want it known that it is they who originally obtained the 250,000 State Department cables, which have the highest classification of Secret and came from the Defense Department’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). Access to the cables did not come from hacking into the network but from individuals who had legitimate access and clearances. It was Anonymous that provided the cables to Wikileaks. And Anonymous is planning on conducting leaks of more enhanced information, the combination of cable information with financial banking information to expose leaders around the world as corrupt. Anonymous did not give Wikileaks the “entire store.” In addition to the Secret cable traffic from SIPRNet, Anonymous claims to have cables with classifications higher than Secret, traffic that sheds more light on the overriding role that “neocons and Zionists” play in shaping American foreign policy.
…The word on the street is that the world’s “military-industrial-political” complex is worried about further releases of sensitive information and is bracing itself for a global rebellion when the true nature of the world’s elites is revealed around the world. Anonymous has an ultimate target based on what it has managed to obtain from computers and networks around the world: the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family. It is now obvious why Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) wants an Internet “kill switch” to be thrown by the president of the United States. Their futures depend on it….

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Update: US Ambassadors Called Back to Washington

Jeff Rense received the missive below, from a retired career member of the US Dept of State, on the recent story of an unprecedented recall of all US Ambassadors to DC for a conference.
One of this blog’s fellows, Joseph, alerted me to this. According to Joseph, the anonymous author of this missive is “very good, a life-long career officer in the Service, and taught at the War College.”
~Eowyn

 
Update – All US Ambassadors Called Back To Washington 
Feburary 9, 2011
“Jeff – Whoever sent this to you is right on one point at least: It has never happened before.
When State has a Chiefs of Mission conference, it normally tends to do it on a regional basis. What I am reading in the story below is a conference of the chief officers of every diplomatic and consular post. They are not all Ambassadors, however.
Ambassadors have Embassies; Consuls General have Consulates General; and Consuls have Consulates. The goal of such a meeting, if it actually occurs, would be to brief all chief officers of our overseas posts simultaneously about some truly critical issue; so critical that something may be expected to happen in the area of any of those posts that affects the safety and security of the post and the people in it, along with the vital interests of the United States. The global overseas senior management cut would be ambassadors and consuls general. That is a plausible cut, even recognizing that in some countries we have more than one consul general ( 5 in Canada, 2 in Brazil as examples). 
It could be that the rebellion in Cairo is seen to be peculiarly contageous, and might unsettle any diplomatic post. In such an eventuality, the goal would be to put everyone on the alert at the same level of sensitivity and give each the same precisely stated policy guidance. How to act in the event of another Tahrir Square gathering in some other country could be the subject. That can all be done, of course, with a properly stated and prioritized telegram. Getting all those troops together is both expensive and disruptive. 
Name withheld”

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Unprecedented Recall of All US Ambassadors to Washington

What does Hillary know that she’s not telling the American people?
~Eowyn & Steve
See Updates of this post HERE and HERE.

U.S. Ambassadors of the world called back to Washington
All Ambassadors Called Back to Washington!
ModernSurvivalBlog.com February 7, 2011
In an unprecedented move, apparently one that has never happened before, nearly all U.S. Ambassadors to all nations have been called back to Washington for a summit conference this week.
politico.com reports, “Ambassadors from almost all 260 U.S. embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries are expected to convene at the State Department for what’s being billed as the first meeting of its kind.
huffingtonpost.com, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is convening an unprecedented mass meeting of U.S. ambassadors.
The first logical thought that comes to mind…
Looking back at all previous world crisis, what might now be so important, evidently more-so than anything ever in the past, to call all Ambassadors back to Washington?
The sky’s the limit with ideas and conspiracy…

  • leaks of something very important to discuss
  • To get all their stories ‘straight’ ahead of time – for something
  • To prearrange settling the debt score between nations prior to a new world currency roll-out
  • A dollar currency devaluation
  • China is calling in our debt
  • New severely damaging Wikileaks about to release
  • Afraid of electronic communication

???
While the main stream and most Americans are involved with the SuperBowl at the moment, hardly any reporting on the event can be found. Fine time to do something ‘under the radar’.
Could this actually be simply a ‘first time’ of such a gathering to discuss ‘normal’ business? At first instinct, suspicion is aroused.
stay tuned…
Update, found this link from the U.S. Department of State website ‘Notice to the Press’ on February 1. This meeting was ‘officially’ about something named QDDR.
https://www.state.gov/s/dmr/qddr/
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened the first ever Global Chiefs of Mission Conference. This will be the first time U.S. Ambassadors will gather from around the world simultaneously. A principal aim of the conference will be to prepare for the implementation of the recommendations in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)
“The QDDR provides a blueprint for elevating American “civilian power” to better advance our national interests and to be a better partner to the U.S. military.”
Some of the objectives of the QDDR

  • Creating an Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment
  • Establishing a new Bureau for Energy Resources
  • Creating an Under Secretary for Civilian Security
  • Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
  • Establish a Bureau for Counterterrorism
  • Establishing a Coordinator for Cyber IssuesIn summary, it appears that the U.S. State Department is trying to establish more effective control over their foreign ambassador offices and programs. The QDDR is the only official explanation offered by the State Dept. as to the reason for calling in all foreign ambassadors. Who knows what else goes on behind closed door meetings…
Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Beltway Insider Looks At Egyptian Unrest & the Failure of U.S. Policy

This is from one of my e-correspondents who wants be to be known as an anonymous “observer inside the Beltway.” He is not just an observer; he has worked long in the Beltway, most likely within the State Department.
In this missive, “Insider” describes a U.S. foreign policy apparatus that is distressingly out-of-touch and manipulated by our very enemies. Our government has relied and is still relying on the Muslim Brotherhood — no friend to the United States, Israel, and Western civilization — for intelligence! “Insider” also points out what we already know — the collusion between the Left and Radical Islam.
Since “Insider” wrote this as a stream-of-consciousness e-mail — with many “beltway” bureacratese acronyms — instead of as a polished publishable piece, I did some very minor editing to enhance his writing.
~Eowyn

Some of us (in media, thinktanks, academia, government) have been in a running dialogue about the recent events in Lebanon, Tunisia and Egypt and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood. A theme has been the range of possible spill-on effects across the region, the Arab and Muslim world, and our allies and enemies near and far.  
For a recap, here’s the scoop on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin, or simply the ‘Ikhwan’ (brothers):
c. 1928, Egypt; supportive cooperators and combatants of Hitler (and Mussolini); fought in initial war against Israel; active in +- 89 countries; inspiration and/or parent of a working quorum of U.S. SDGTE’s (Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entities) to include AlQaeda, PIJ, Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Sudanese ruling front, etc.; established U.S. support network (CAIR, ISNA, MAS, CSID, and others, many of which, and their leaders/cadres, are indicted/unindicted co-conspirators or convicted, deported or fugitives in U.S. federal terrorism cases. This whilst the groups remain trainers and partners with the FBI, State, DHS, national law enforcement, chaplains in the US military and prison system, human rights commission members in many jurisdictions including NYC, etc.); Homologue apparatus exists in many countries of operation, to include major institutes, banks, Islamic movements and parties, e.g., that of MB senior Anwar Ibrahim and his family in Malaysia. 
Previous MB attempts to overthrow the Government of Egypt (GOE) include assassination attempts on Nasser and his PM (successful), Sadat (successful), and Mubarak. MB has access to billions of dollars of funds. Increasingly cooperative with shi’ite Iran/Hez’b’allah (Party of God), vice only Saudi/OIC and sunni dominated countries/groups.
MB’s End game goal: Establish the caliphate and achieve global governance under Islam.
MB’s Motto: the very democratic, moderate, pluralistic and inclusionary verses of:

Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

[For a reasonably fair and accurate, well footnoted summary, see the main MB Wikipedia entry, and notably MB original documents and US trial evidence in the footnotes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#cite_note-24.  Pro-MB authors (Leiken, Graham Fuller, others), are in the mix and a dance card is useful, but the overall picture emerges.] See also, www.GlobalMBreport.com
Irrespective of the accuracy of The Telegraph‘s story that the U.S. cleverly has been planning/aware of this effort in Egypt for 3 years, working with “democracy activists” — who are rather clearly the Muslim Brotherhood (for which there is significant evidence) — it serves at least to highlight unsettling trends. Not least re our inability, in our present state, to consider, contain or even react in any effective way to these events and effects — of which there seems to be endless permutations.  
It should be noted that the Obama Administration has been all over the map on the issue in recent days, to include contradictory statements by the Pres, VP, SecState, and spokesmen as to human rights, Tunisia, whether Mubarak is or isn’t a dictator, whether the GOE is stable, whether we will suspend US aid, whether we support Arab world “people’s” movements (no in Iran, yes in Tunisia, maybe in Egypt, etc.), whether the claims of such movements are legitimate or not, etc. Not to mention inconsistencies, silence, reversals on similar subjects in the case of Lebanon, Syria, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Crisis management is not their forté and the Middle East has not been the scene of Administration victories. 
Re the “activists,” interlocutors and agents provocateur, aka, Muslim Brotherhood cadres: Virtually our whole approach to understanding of, and ‘outreach” to, the Arab and Muslim world, at home and abroad, has been contracted out — increasingly formally (funding, billets inside our decision and analytic loop, not just advisory, seats at tables, etc.) — to our enemies at home and abroad for years now, notably CIA, State, INR, and domestically — the Bureau, DHS, and the soft powers (NED, USIP).   Same for the UK.  The history of the UK and U.S. services, and others, over a long period stretching to the 1920-40’s, with the MB is another topic. Suffice it to say it is long and convoluted; but the point is that the engagement is of long standing, which might raise more questions than it answers.
The main, or even exclusive interlocutor, in Egypt and generally in the Muslim basket, is directly and indirectly the MB in all its disguises. As Melanie Phillips put it in Londonistan“we have long contracted our understanding of the extremists to the extremists”, with the predictable result.  At the very definitional level, the enemy has come to designate the parameters of the engagement and debate, to a remarkable extent. It is all so handy and timely, and certainly saves us having to read their damnable history, books and reams of doctrine and to learn their secret language, locate the Hijaz on a map,  etc.  It even runs the Islamic World polling operation of Pew and other major opinion firms who in turn stoke our policy and informational data inputs and objectives, and our broadcasts to the Muslim/Arab world, our Democracy/Civil Society money in Iraq and the greater MidEast/NoAfrica region. How very useful these MB friends and “assets” are.  
A consensus seems to emerge among us that, sadly, none of this is likely to get us what the (US Govt/architects) imagine.  If the recent Obama awarding of $60B arms to Saudi was part of this fantastic calculus for replacing dictatorships, then this is even dumber. In any case, the MB have no intent of being our partner, or dealing in any normative context of quid pro quo beyond whatever is strictly in their interest — which self-evidently does not include moderating or restraining world Islamist trends and capabilities. The Islamists are in particular need of a serious propaganda and recruitment boost on both the political and armed side, and now they are getting it.  Losing in Cairo, or a setback there of some sort, will only redouble the bracing effects, there and globally, of a new shot of adrenalin for their ummah-wide aspirations. I don’t expect them to lose, or to be held back for long, but rather to be strengthened overall.  
The Mubarak regime is weakened already, the police and military have fissures and know their future lies beyond the 80-year-old weakened Mubarek. The concession on the resignation of the Cabinet came quickly. The armed forces are unlikely to crush the MB — managing revolutions is notoriously difficult. But in such fluid situations the advantage most always accrues to the party with the most fervent willingness to ruthlessly apply the level of violence needed to prevail, especially if they have advantage of initiative. It is not a game for moderates, nor is there any serious “moderate” opposition in evidence. Such moderates as exist, who may hope to influence the MB, will suffer the usual fate of being swept along, co-opted, used and discarded by the revolutionary elite once power is consolidated.  
Revolutions also can benefit from a focus on external enemies — safety valves for the unrest they inherit, create and cannot quickly enough manage or suppress. Eliminating the border blockade and any pretense of partnership with Israel/U.S. in a peace process, recognizing a Palestinian state, and moving a war against Israel, are just some of the logical options for early action by an Islamist regime.  U.S. influence in Egypt, as in the rest of the region, is fast eroding and nearly impossible to advance in effective timeframes given the recent and near term realities and the overwhelming contingencies of the fortnight (Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, the Hariri tribunal, civil war within Lebanon, war with Israel, the Iranian program, to name some obvious ones).
Thus the table could soon shift, all over the globe, in the Islamists’ favor — with too few offsets for our side, even were we prescient and resourced enough to be able to exploit such.  
Part of our failure to ever conduct a serious global net-assessment of the Islamists or otherwise examine them in the global context — indeed to view them as global at all — was/is often rationalized as “We need to deal with them in Egypt, don’t trouble us about the rest”.  In the 1990’s, State Dept essentially said the same thing about elevating Hamas (officially the MB)  viz Arafat and the ‘process’ — “We need a 2nd ‘party’ to have a Palestinian democratic entity, and one we can deal with that has legitimacy and isn’t so corrupt — Hamas is it!”  (they speak English, went to school in the West, understand the media and can be trusted to run AID projects efficiently, are good organizers, earn us points in the Arab Street, etc. — same thing State said to justify support to the legacy parties of the CCCP in Russia in the same timeframe). I was at the table as a Democracy/Governance Advisor at State at that time as these things were said and programmed.  
Recent US Govt-sponsored efforts have whitewashed the MB by selective reporting, notably the IC-sponsored Robert Leiken paper in Foreign Affairs, which strove to portray the MB as a political party, democratic and moderate, while acknowledging its role as the predominant Islamist movement in the world. This report was anchored by numerous interviews, yet curiously done without reference to the three most important leadership cadre of the MB –then Supreme Guide, Atkef; the lead cleric, Qaradawi; or the chief fundraiser, Nada — whose positions repeatedly and consistently are opposite to those represented by Leiken and his sponsors (a charter founder of the Social Democrats USA, Leiken’s record with the Sandinistas was similar, and very late into the regime).  So the belief that another Iran won’t happen and that the revolutionary forces are moderate and manageable, gets another run. 
This “pragmatic” approach — along with factors such as Islam’s millenia of institutionalized D & D (in the religion’s books, shari’a, statecraft and culture); the IC’s Saudi black box (and the cash box of billions of dollars in Saudi funding since 1975 to ensure Islamist domination of all aspects of Islam, thus ensuring only the radicals are heard and effective while the chimerical ‘moderates’ are defunded, displaced, demoralized and discredited); the overall Arabist tilt and romance in the U.S. foreign service arms and the academy; and, the brilliant playing of the PC and fake “civil liberties-Muslim bigotry” elements domestically by the MB’s apparat orchestra — abetted by our witling and/or willing bureaucrats across government, media and academia, all have combined to blind us to the realities of the Islamist vision, resources, capabilities and networks and to their avowedly global project. In the process, our approach has also smothered and penalized any who ask the inappropriate or inconvenient questions (whether in the IC, Law enforcement, agencies, congress, media, publishing and the culture at-large). A controlled and shaded mirror guides our analysis under the cover of providing us the needed crescent of light.    
It will become increasingly hard to turn all this around, especially if Egypt does become MB soon, and as we go from crisis to crisis along a shifting, reactive, policy line (Saudi, Israel, Turkey, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.).  Ponder whether we would then be better positioned for managing the dead “peace process’; affecting the leadership transitions in Saud, et al.; countering Iran’s nuclear program; holding the oil price in a reasonable range; containing Turkey’s Islamist government (and WMD development); or, prevailing in policy and security goals re Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, or among Central Asian Muslims, Nigeria’s Muslims, and all the relevant pipelines, governments, WMD’s, SLOCS, MB offspring and related Islamist terrorist groups, etc. 
Or imagine whether, after a MB-takeover in Cairo, France would be better able to manage its hundreds of Muslim “no go” areas, or England, Spain, Germany and the Benelux advancing increasingly needed countermeasures. Consider effects on Right-wing, Nazi, anti-immigrant and already heightened anti-semetic/anti-Israel activity, and other sectarian reactions and concomitant stressors, in a Europe already fraught with domestic pressures re economy/jobs, fuel supply/pricing, sovereign/unsustainable debt, immigration/welfare, aging populations and negative birth rates.  Imagine the effects in, say, the Balkans, Malaysia, Indonesia, the India-Pakistan subcontinent, and in energy patches of FSU (not to mention the Russian military and its Muslim cohort or the vast Muslim population proximate to the Moscow ring road).  None of these situations will be ameliorated by a renewed Islamist energy, added state sponsorship for Islamist fronts and terror groups, or the cascading effects of wars, blockades, commodity shortages, Muslim led strikes (Marseilles, e.g.), an Iran and Russia reaping windfall oil profits and arms sales markets, and a visibly weakened U.S. authority/credibilityand an attenuated crises of confidence generally among friends and allies.
If it is the US/Western assumption that the MB in Egypt or elsewhere is “a kind of solution,” then we are in deeper trouble considerably sooner than expected.  
It is possible that this might turn out to be the most grievous failure of strategy, intelligence and analysis in our time.  It may also turn out to be among the most rapidly and deeply effective influence operations ever perpetrated against us.  [The MB came here informally in the early 1960’s, and began formalizing institutions in the early 1980’s, and entering government and dominating dialogue in the 1990’s — all under foreign, illegal and criminal sponsorship and funding, and while actively criminally providing material support to global terrorism, including that aimed at the US and its allies. Truly an impressive feat from most any applicable metric.] 
One objective of the series of Senate hearings and other investigative, analytic, law enforcement support and reporting efforts that colleagues and I led and supported in 2003, was to set the predicate for an independent B-team analysis of Islam and Arab related intelligence, since so clearly much had been wrong, ignored or sidetracked.  This certainly would have quickly come to focus on the global MB and the strength and growth rates of its efforts. Two former Directors of Central Intelligence were willing to oversee such a blue-ribbon effort; no such comprehensive review or competitive analysis effort, to my knowledge, has occurred.  Nor has there been any similarly aimed top level coordination against the global MB/Islamist target.  Instead, considerable efforts have been devoted to loading the deck in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the requisite zig-zagging around the Sauds, while the majority of daily IC effort otherwise applied to things Muslim/Arab is devoted directly to warfighter support, something limned as “Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” Iran’s nuclear program and some marginal drug/terrorist/threat finance support and WMD possibilities — all results of Islamist growth and depth earlier misjudged. 
Yet, almost assuredly, there now will be no time, even if demanded by Congress, for reviews, new assessments, independent forward thinking, all-points questioning, the sponsorship of rapid mastery of Islam or Arabic/regional certification programs, enhanced CI [counter intelligence] training and Islam awareness programs.  All instead will be invested in managing the daily crisis traffic and threat streams, defending the mistakes and investments already made, and maintaining endless cycles of rationalization and delusion, and general political spin.  The damage will evolve slowly and unevenly, continuing a long pattern. Disasters will be attributed to uncontrolled ‘unforseeable’ forces. We will adapt without retribution, reform or meaningful correctives — short of a 9/11 of some sort, and even then. Perhaps the defeat of Israel, who knows?   
It becomes a thing beyond Orwell — or Fred Ikle’s ‘semantic infiltration’ or V. Bukovsky’s remarking (speaking about arms control with the Soviets) on “the West’s need for delusion” — when we find ourselves rationalizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a force for democracy and moderation. And when, from our institutionalized post-religious, post-ideological, post-everything viewpoint, we imagine that we might usefully manage our rather global equities among the soon-to-be 1-in-4 persons who are Muslim (Pew’s latest projection for 2020) through the Muslim Brotherhood’s tender offices and missions. Such delusion makes our China policy seem considered, deeply informed and sober.  Fools who tried to hustle the East.
All enemies will now redouble their hustling of us –from China and Russia to DPRK and Iran, sensing, as jackals and rug merchants alike preternaturally do, the weakened tourist lost in the sands — the easy mark, the overextended, exhausted and fever-blinded grasping hand.  
Of course, the situation may be in varying degrees more happily positive than suggested. Yes, Mubarak or the military may find an interim hold on power, sufficient for U.S. policy to sort itself out.  Yes, the MB if in power will have to divert attention to managing Egypt, feeding its people, controlling its military, refining MB 3.0 and the “democratic mask”,  balancing the local of Arab world and the larger Islamist project, etc. The MB and the Islamist project could be diminished for a time by this, more likely over a dangerous amount of very bloody time. Its capacity for adaptation is not fully understood. Yes, China’s masses may be stirred, the CCP may be weakened, its military empowered more rapidly or the whole friable mess overturned (one can’t bear to think how unprepared we are for that!).  Or some unknowable internal chain of struggle may be set off within and among actors such as Iran or Saudi, or over time between the MB and the rest of Islam, that is somehow beneficial to some U.S. interest.  An awakening in Western governments and culture might begin, or a Presidency here or there be shortened. We may develop our own massive stores of oil and gas, whilst the Saudis run out, altering our calculus about the region notably.  There are many more possible outcomes. There is too much room for the accidents and miscalculations that can easily lead to wars. There is not much resiliency in the system, here or there.
One has to do what one can with any new hand, however dealt.  But it is always harder to play catch-up as MacArthur neatly postulated in his famous remark about the history of failure in war being a result of ‘too late comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realizing the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance, too late standing with one’s friends.’  A cliche for IR [international relations] students perhaps, but all too apt in the current circumstance, as we approach the end of what, in the larger context, might be adjudged a wasted decade regarding this enemy and our exertions afield, post-9/11.  If Mubarak’s Egypt goes, many allies, potential allies and enemies alike will have cause to more deeply question the reliability and credibility of the U.S., beyond the personality of this Presidency, and to consider alternatives. 
All for now. Back to the wires, Al Jazeera, and the rest. Comments welcomed. For various reasons, including the growing list size and members, (sensitive/institutional positions and equities), it is best that any responses come bcc’d and with an indicator as to whether they may be shared, attributed or not.
All best, 
ps. As some of you have pointed out, meanwhile the tanks, troop carriers, gas canisters and related paraphernalia and electronics deployed against the crowds are in the main U.S. origin or license (M1A1 tanks are made their under license, for instance). Those in Iran are Chinese, and those in China are ours and Israel’s.  Makes it all quite complex.   

Domestic influence codicil:
Attempts to view global Islam and its main motive force in the tired, routine and largely irrelevant lenses of the Cold War abound.  EuroIslam/a third way? MB as Social Democrats equivalent? Catholic and western formalist religious critiques recast as points of departure to analyze a wholly different religion which in its fundamentals rejects western rationality?  Memes of Civil rights, decolonialization, poverty remediation, cross cultural exchange and interfaith dialogue? 
These, and the other self-mirroring and studied tropes of the IR, aid and talkshop world have been generally reflections more of American obsessions and social science fashions than of the subject target of effort and its culture.  They will continue to be both 1) ineffective for us and 2) useful for the Islamists.  Useful for them because they are thus better funded, credentialed, and validated to be further introduced into our analytic, informational and decision loops whilst they gain intelligence on us and reinforce our misguided beliefs; and, because it buys them time and tactical room to exploit here and abroad, which for them are one line, Dar al Harb, the zone of war.  Ineffective for us because our approach insulates the MB from normal Law Enforcement and IC/Counterintelligence attention, reduces them in our conception as any level of threat in favor of viewing them as a client and lever whose confidence and favor we may gain by empowering them further.  The trade off is the cut off of most all critical thinking or review — not to mention limiting useful collection/tasking, purposeful and effective infiltration and turning, etc. 
So, this wilful distortion perpetrated by the MB and by ourselves, precisely blocks effective “connecting of the dots”. It is its own virtual Wall, to unpleasantly recall the Reno/Holder device. This is the case whether for a deplaning panty bomber who thus cannot be interrogated effectively and timeously, an influence agent in place, an MB appointee or judge, a psychotic military officer or sociopathic federal agent gone ‘native’, or an insider threat target (or an MB investment) in a vital government or private sector critical infrastructure — virtually none of whom have been, or can at present expect to be, subject to the normal scrutiny, review, procedures or questioning for fear of an unfavorable federal case, a private tort, a slap down from an interested agency, or simply an overwhelming MB-orchestrated public reaction which results in any of the above.
This new mau-mau has been fine-tuned with guidance from the old New Left, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the remnant Socialist Worker Parties, et al —  and a clutch of their alumni, fresh from Gitmo representation and now in senior appointive slots at DOJ — all practiced at “widening the legal space for the revolution” as their godfather Wm. Kunstler put it. The MB’s experience in Egypt and elsewhere of having to play a behind the scenes, underground and two-faced role, often while banned or exiled — biding time and gathering strength — provides an organic understanding of such subversive approaches, which in turn has firm roots, nomenclature, and positive reinforcement in the religion, from the Koran and foundational authorities, and over time. Such is the MB’s alliance structure in America, its conception of engaging democracy, making alliances with secular elements, waging lawfare and propaganda, and more generally, how best to subvert the U.S. constitutional order.
Please follow and like us:
error0