Category Archives: Leon Panetta

The White House vs Libya


As you are aware, I have supported the Libyan government from the time they formed as rebels and a force against Moammar Gadhafi the tyrant. I had my reasons, including the Lockerbie bombing to believe that Gadhafi had to go. As I read up information I did learn that Gadhafi had been sponsoring terrorism in Africa whilst he pretended to the West that he was a changed man. I see that many believed the Gadhafi lie in that they have jumped to the conclusion that the world is worse off because he was defeated and is now dead. There are many who have lumped the former rebels with Al Qaeda. They would take any little clue and then smear the good and sincere individuals with claims that they are Al Qaeda. It was not true then, and it is not true now. I acknowledge what was always known, that there were elements of the movement that had links to Al Qaeda. Some of those who did not lose their lives and survived the torture at the hands of Gadhafi have learned by their errors and their group, the former Libyan Fighting Group are now the analysts who understand terrorism. They did in fact renounce terrorism and they do not support Al Qaeda. I continue to have some respect for these people and I recognize that they are not to blame for events in the past week.

However, I am here to state what I believe to be true, and that is the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was planned months in advance. The Spaghetti Western documentary was nothing more than an excuse, a cover for this planned covert action. I agree with the Libyan government and their analysts in London, that this was an Al Qaeda operation. In fact even AQAP agree with me, that this was a planned attack. Their reason is the death of Al-Libi but I think that there is another reason which is that they want to disrupt the fledgling partnership that Libya has with the USA, Great Britain and France in particular. The Libyan President has announced the arrest of 50 individuals in relation to the deaths of the 4 Americans and he has given far more detail than what we are getting out of the White House.

The White House Administration has its collective head in the sand. Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN (an utter disgrace to the US) has doubled down on the belief that this terrible movie was somehow the motivation for the attack. As a spokesperson for the White House Susan Rice claims that the whole thing was spontaneous. My question to Susan Rice: Since when do the Rage Boys take weapons of that nature to a protest? They do not take the kinds of weapons that were used in the consulate attack. Not even protesters last February 17 used those weapons when they stood protesting against Gadhafi, but the Gadhafi government used weapons against them!!

I have seen various reports that point to the fact that the White House was warned at least 72 hours before the attack took place that something was afoot. Yet the White House Administration did not respond and did not order the consulate in Benghazi and the Embassy in Cairo into lockdown. This is a very serious matter because it is this lack of heeding the warning that in fact shows the culpability of the Obama Administration in the death of Chris Stevens.

The movie was worse than B-grade and from the trailers that I have seen it is really stretching to claim that it really was about Mo the Ped. However, there is an anomoly and that is the fact that the actors were speaking about George but the voiceover was saying something else entirely. Who did the dubbing on this C- grade documentary? Another thing to consider is that in Egypt the documentary was aired whereas in the US it had been on Youtube. For this reason, I maintain my belief that this terrible documentary was used as a blood libel. Did the Eyptian TV dub the movie with inflammatory material? Did they add Arabic with inflammatory comments? Please keep in mind here that when Rage Boy came to prominence with the protests over the Danish cartoons, which in my view were inoffensive, one imam had added material that had not been amongst the original cartoons that were in fact quite offensive, thus the libel against the Danish cartoon was that of a blood libel.

This c- grade movie should not have been the cause of the riots that took place. It has been used by Al Qaeda as a motivation to cause mayhem. What were people thinking when they decided to create this movie?

What is of concern here is not so much the movie, but the fact that the motivation for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi has been shifted from the truth to a lie that is being spread by the American and Australian media, that a low grade movie somehow was the reason for Rage Boy to come out and play. There might be some truth because I think that the imams in their mosques, especially the radical imams have jumped on this dreadful movie to give them the opportunity to cause mayhem throughout the world.

However, truth has a habit of coming to light and in this case the Libyans are telling the truth. Al Qaeda operatives crossed the border into Libya via both Mali and Algeria (how strange that both these countries have haboured members of the Gadhafi family). They then spent several months training with a group known as Ansar al Sharia from Derna. The leader of Ansar al Shariah had been busy attempting to recruit people from Benghazi through to Brega to join him.  This was all watched via US drones and the intelligence should have reached the White House.

The White House has ignored the other attacks upon consulates and consular staff in and around Benghazi. Nothing was done to increase the security for the US Ambassador and his staff. The White House was warned prior to the attack that an attack was imminent, but the White House Administration failed to warn its own consulates to be either on the alert or to go into lockdown. Compounding these failures is the fact that the US consulate building in Benghazi was not sufficiently secure.

Then there is the matter of security. I have no doubt about the sincerity of some members of the Februrary 17th movement. However, in their midst there had been some who were never to be trusted. Their names had already been mentioned as being behind some minor atrocities during the civil war. This begs the question about those who were detailed to guard the US Consulate and they really were not trustworthy. One thing did stick out and that is these guards ran off when the US consulate was attacked. They left their posts supposedly because they too were angry about this c- grade documentary. Did they ever see it?

The White House Administration had refused to provide proper security for its Middle East embassies, and now it reaps what it has sewn. There is even more suspicion on one side and it is all against the USA.

Yet, this does not cover the fact that the attack in Benghazi was not spontaneous. It was a well planned attack under the cover of a protest. When viewed in this way, you can see why I am asking questions about that dreadful documentary and the way it was used to suddenly inflame the passions of Rage Boy.

Advertisements

Egypt – was it Islamists who stormed the Israeli embassy?


The report at News.com.au indicates that the protesters were not members of Muslim Brotherhood. This particular report is without the hype that I have seen elsewhere on the Internet. It gives the facts about what happened, that protesters who had been at Tahrir Square broke away and headed to the Israeli Embassy. They had sledgehammers and they hacked away at the walls that were put in place to secure the building. Roughly 30 of them got inside the building and then distributed papers onto the street. Of concern to me is that these people were chanting: onward to Jerusalem, blah, blah.

According to this report, the cause of this extraordinary activity was an incident near the border of the Gaza strip where some Egyptians had been killed. Likewise some Israelis had been killed. The kicker here is that it looks as if this had nothing to do with Muslim Brotherhood. It seems that the individuals involved are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

As you are aware Egypt has co-operated with Israel with regard to attempting to keep arms out of the Gaza strip. The incident that took place has not really been explained. There has been no apology over the latest of the rockets that were fired into Israel from the Gaza strip either.

If Muslim Brotherhood has disavowed the protest as well as the action at the Israeli Embassy, then it seems that rather than Islamists at work, this is the handiwork of the LEFT WING communists from Egypt.

As we have noted in the past, it seems that certain Communists within the USA have had more than a passing interest in causing disruption in Egypt. I refer of course to Bernadine Dorhn, William Ayers, and the luvvies from Code Pink. The people who have been attempting to get into the Gaza strip have been the Marxists, not the likes of Muslim Brotherhood.

I find this very curious since CAIR is an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood, or is it? I am wondering if CAIR is being sponsored by some other party. Members of CAIR have been behind some pretty nasty stuff in the USA, and they are linked to other groups such as the Holy Land Foundation, which was taking money for Palestininian activists in that region.

Perhaps we need to have another look at the activities of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Are they linked to Iran, or putting that another way, is Iran somewhere in the background waiting to pounce if Muslim Brotherhood rises as a political force in Egypt?

Something else on my mind here concerns Mr. Potato Head who has been very quiet lately. As you are aware this is the man who claimed that there were no WMDs in Iraq, which is not true, and he also made false statements about the WMDs in Iran. His wife is an Iranian who is the daughter of a prominent member of the Iranian government. It is obvious that Mr. Potato Head, if he got into power in Iran would push Egypt into some form of alliance with Iran. Mr. Potato Head wanted to be allied to Muslim Brotherhood, but it seems that they are not interested in him. Interesting.

What it looks like here is that Muslim Brotherhood joined in the original protests to oust Muburak, but have always had their own agenda. I think that was clear immediately after Muburak was sent into exile. However, it looks like there was some kind of immediate split between the two groups. Again it was quite obvious. What seems to be happening is that the Marxists want to keep protesting, but the Muslim Brotherhood are happy biding their time. Also, it appears that Muslim Brotherhood is not the same as the Salafists.  Here again we have that split based upom Islamic sectarianism. Muslim Brotherhood seems to be Shia oriented, and the Salafists (Al QAEDA) are Sunni in origin.

I think that demanding Muburak step down was the biggest Foreign Policy of the present USA administration. It was something that was a total botch from the time that the protests began. Egypt is a separate issue from that of Libya, especially when Østupid actually had very limited say on what was happening over there. He had more impact upon Egypt, than on Libya. In fact Østupid was reluctant to make a decision on the no-fly zone and he had to be pushed. (ALSO please note the way that this stupid individual is trying to big note himself on making the decision to go after Bin Laden. He has no shame. He is claiming that his advisors were against it, but from what has been passed on, it was Valerie Jarrett who was against it, and it was Leon Panetta who went ahead with the action, but just watch Østupid as he continues to lie in the hope that people will see him as some kind of hero – he is not anything of the kind).

Pakistan outrage on raid deflated


As the relationship between the present White House regime and Pakistan continues to deteriorate, some new information has come to light regarding a deal that was made between GWB and Musharraf in 2001 and then reaffirmed in 2008 when Pakistan transitioned from a military junta to a civilian government.

The Guardian is reporting that the deal that was made gave the US unilateral permission to go into Pakistan and strike if they found out where Bin Laden was hiding. This deal was revealed to the Guardian by serving and retired military forces.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

“There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him,” said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. “The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn’t stop us.”

The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden’s death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.

Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, “Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force.”

Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a “violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan”.

But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.

A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the “transition to democracy” – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

Referring to the assault on Bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound, the official added: “As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement.”

The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the “public face” of the deal. “We knew they would deny this stuff.”

the death of OBL does not change the F grade given to Østupid for his foreign policy failures


Yes, it is true, I am a very harsh critic of the Østupid regime.  There are few amongst them that deserve any accolades. However, I will give special mention to Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, David Petreus and John Brennan for their persistence in going after OBL. They deserve the accolades for the death of OBL, not Østupid.

In the week since it was announced that OBL was dead, there has been so much spin coming out of the White House that it has been enough to make a person go dizzy. The stories have been changing daily, and there has been a lack of consistency about those stories. Even that story about waiting 16 hours before giving the final go ahead sounds like cow dung. It is a story that does not show decisiveness, but instead shows virtual cowardice when it comes to facing the realities of a war situation. It sounds like the truth lies somewhere between the Ulsterman report on the matter, and the cow dung fodder that came out of the press. I have a hard time imagining that the fey pResident could hammer his fist on a table to give the go ahead on something this important, and then head off to parties and playing golf, whilst it is all going down.

The fallout from the action is still very nuclear at the present time. The relationship between the USA and Pakistan is deteriorating rapidly. What is worse, the Pakistanis have released the name of the top CIA agent in Pakistan, which has put his life in danger. This is partly caused by the spin that has come from the White House, as well as the refusal to release the pictures of the body of OBL or of the video that showed him being fed to the sharks.

There should have been a very real psychological advantage in showing those photographs, but the image-obsessed pResident has told the world that he is “afraid” of any ensuing outrage. Well, the fact is the outrage is going to happen anyway, and why should the USA be concerned about the sensibilities of a bunch of very brain deficient individuals who go crazy over the slightest thing?

However, it is not just the handling of finding OBL that keeps that grade as an F, but it is the way in which he has handled other Middle East issues.  For example, when the Iranian regime crushed the protests of the people with bloodshed, Østupid said nothing until prompted by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. If it had not been for those two, Østupid would have totally ignored the human rights abuses in Iran. It was the death of Neda that made a difference, but the difference was short lived. The notion of extending a hand has been proved to be fruitless, and on the other hand it has shown to the Iranians that the USA has been weakened by having this man as pResident.

Then there is the attitude over the uprising in Egypt. The strategic concerns for the region were overridden out of some other underlying beliefs that Muslim Brotherhood be allowed to control Egypt… oh what a web we weave!!! Now it seems that the Salafists are on the loose in Egypt and the uprisings that are about to take off again are going to get extremely bloody unless the army is willing to stop the slaughter of the Copts. Muburak at least kept these Salafists (allied to AQ) under control. The demands that the pResident made to Muburak to step down were totally ill-considered.  Tunisia is also troubled, but it is a far more settle nation for the time being.

Since there have been several uprisings, and with brutal crackdowns by the regime in question, this leaves open further accusations of inconsistency in policy. As an example here, look at both Libya and Syria. I do see the differences in that Syria was slower to crack down on the population, and in Syria the situation is becoming more and more bloody. It has been the slow build-up. On the other hand, in Libya, Gadhafi planned his reaction in advance of any protests. At first Østupid made some noises, but only after Sarkozy and Cameron were insisting that action had to be taken. The UN no-fly zone enforcement is justified in Libya because Daffy Duck was bombing his own people, pretending that he was combating AQ elements. I have discussed at length that much of the claims about the involvement of AQ in Libya has been exaggerated, and is mostly coming from regime propaganda. This does not mean that some AQ associated individuals are not present, it just means that the vast majority are not associated with AQ, and that they are fighting for their lives against a wounded bull. That being said, the issue here is the manner in which Østupid stepped back, leaving a gap that had not been filled in the mission to take out Daffy’s means of killing Libyans. The attack on Misrata is outrageous and it needs to be stopped.  It needs strong leadership from the US and instead, the leadership has been totally wimpy. I commend both Sarkozy and Cameron, and I give a special mention to the Turk Erdogan for their efforts in attempting to protect the citizens of Misrata and Zintan.

To these concerns about Libya, I add here that the pResident had plenty of time to go to the Congress before the UN resolution, and to put to Congress the possible actions that would be required. The fact that he was spending his time on vacation, playing golf and giving parties, indicates that he is not serious in being a leader of the world. The fact is that without Congressional approval, the participation of the US in the Libyan action is not illegal, but certainly illicit. 

For these reasons… and counting…. an F grade on foreign policy and international relations is still very appropriate.

Accusations and backtracking, left, right and centre


What a confusing week!! My week started on Monday when I saw a news report that was the result of a tweet from the aide to Donald Rumsfeld. Oi Vey!!  The tweet pre-empted the announcement that was to come from the White House that Osama Bin Laden had been killed during a raid on a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. There are some people who just cannot accept that OBL had been alive and hiding in Pakistan, however, I see no reason to contradict the information because there is a lot of information out there that corroborates everything.

First, there is the story of how the raid went down. There has been backtracking galore on the details. You can blame that on a strategy plan that came about from a meeting the pResident had prior to his announcement. No doubt in my mind that they fudged the details in that meeting. We were told that one of the wives had been used as a human shield, but that was not true. The truth is that the woman thrust herself towards one of the SEALS and she was shot in the leg. A woman did die, but she was the wife of the courier who was the first to be shot. Then we were told that there had been “resistance”, and here we have more conflicting stories because the guns that were in the bedroom of OBL had been removed by the SEALS (or at least that is the latest story). I put no value in the story of the 12 year old, so for the moment I will discount that testimony. 

Second, there are accusations and counter-accusations from all manner of sources. There is indeed a need to question the role of the ISI and of the Pakistani government. Who was shielding Osama Bin Laden? Who put out the original stories several years ago that he was dead? I have no doubt in my mind that those stories were circulated deliberately by those who were shielding OBL whilst he continued to live in the compound in Abbottabad. However, in my mind those stories never rang true, and that includes the claim that he variously had kidney disease, lung disease or liver disease. There is absolutely no proof with regards to those assertions. As for those who claim he is an old man, I say thank you very much, but at 57 I am not an old woman, and OBL was 3 years younger than myself!!!!! In other words, he was not an old man, so those who claim such are simply trying to justify their own stances on a variety of issues.  It would be interesting to know how it was that a whole group of people in the intelligence community came to believe in the lie that OBL was dead back in about 2003. 

Third, there have been accusations regarding who nearly gave the game away – the tilt was at the Australian Foreign Minister who let the cat out of the bag that a top Indonesian operative and most wanted person associated with AQ had been captured in Pakistan. This was great theatre and more mud slinging. However, I doubt that Kevin Rudd did compromise anything because someone in the intelligence community in Pakistan had tipped off the media about that particular prize catch.  Regardless, this was a prize catch that helped affirm that OBL was in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Fourth, there are questions being asked about who in Pakistan was shielding OBL. Well I have a theory, and I think it goes right to the top, not to the current President, but to General Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan. Here is why I think that he was involved  and it is a report in the UK Guardian:

In Afghanistan, a former intelligence chief told the Guardian that four years ago Pakistan ignored a tip-off that Bin Laden was hiding near Abbottabad. Amrullah Saleh, former head of the National Directorate of Security, which has a long-standing rivalry with the ISI, said that he had believed in 2007 that Bin Laden was hiding in Mansehra,very near Abbottabad, in one of two al-Qaida safe houses. When he put this to Pakistan’s then president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, he grew furious and smashed his fist on the table, said Saleh. “Am I the president of the Republic of Banana?” said Musharraf, Saleh recalled, leading an alarmed President Hamid Karzai, also at the meeting, to intervene.

Saleh, a fierce critic of Pakistan who has now entered Afghan politics, said he had no doubts that Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan Taliban, is hiding in an ISI safe house in Karachi: “He is protected by ISI. General Pasha [Lieutenant-General Shuja Pasha, the ISI director general] knows, as I am talking to you, where Omar is, and he keeps daily briefs from his officers on the location of senior Taliban leaders.”

The direct accusation being made by Saleh is that the ISI is providing safe houses for these wanted individuals, including Mullah Omar. Since Saleh had it wrong about the location of OBL, I will suggest that the person who is located at Manshera is probably al-Zawahri. This is a hunch, because I feel certain that he, like OBL is hiding out somewhere in Pakistan and he is not living in a cave in the Tora Boras. It also begs the question: who tipped off OBL and companions that the allied forces were about to hit the Tora Boras? Somebody in the ISI, rather than the military likely tipped him off. It also begs the question about Musharref and whether he had ever been serious about catching these AQ operatives.

Fifth, there is a barrage of accusations against both the Pakistan government and the Pakistan military. The military is trying to let it slip that they did in fact know about the operation. However, this has not stopped the population in general criticizing the military over letting US forces carry out this raid. On the other hand, there is a good reason to question why the US is spending billions of dollars of aid on Pakistan.  Should aid be cut off, or at least cut back? 

Likewise, I question whether or not there had been any serious attempt to bring the Islamists under control. Pakistan is a nation where the Islamists have been on the rise. For this reason alone there is a lot of sympathy for the Taliban, as well as for AQ and for OBL in particular. The outpouring is bound to get worse, depending upon the radical imams and their Friday sermons. If the imams give a fiery sermon then you can expect a lot of the same that we have seen when Pakistanis get angry… expect the flag burning, the church burning and effigy burning in the near future.

The handling of the news about this operation has been totally botched.