Obama Admin Skewed Intel to Make ISIS Seem Less Potent

This is the latest in the series If Republicans Did This They'd Be In Jail. 

I'm sure most of you recall that Democrats and the media (redundant, I know) were all over W. Bush after 9/11 for an ambiguous briefing about Osama bin-Laden and his plans to attack the US that was briefed to the former president just prior to the WTC attacks. HE KNEW! they screamed and were adamant that he was going to suffer for this catastrophic failure in intel gathering. They seemed extremely worked up that the president hadn't acted in time to stop the plot.

Fast forward to today and the administration of Obama. As of 2014, Obama missed half of his daily briefings, which are a rundown of events throughout the world and the potential effect on the US. They are easily the most important part of the presidents day...or were until now. Perhaps this is why he called ISIS the "jayvee team" not so long ago--but I digress. The PDB is critical in the decision making process for any president and Obama flat out ignored a large part of them.

Now we may know why; he was fudging the intel to make ISIS seem less aggressive and successful:

At issue is whether analysts at Central Command, which oversees U.S. Department of Defenseoperations in the Middle East, altered assessments of the campaign against ISIS to make it appear as though the United States and Western partners were making more progress than they really were, at least according to claims from a whistleblower assigned to Centcom.The inquiry, which started in September, has grown to include congressional investigations, including the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. The chairmen of both committees are also forming a task force in the "near future" to investigate allegations of intelligence manipulation, aides with both panels confirmed.

As a vet and a guy with a bunch of ex-military and active duty friends, I find it extremely hard to believe that the military took it upon themselves to skew intel lowering the threat of ISIS. The military may sometimes indulge intel to make a threat seem greater so they can get more funding, training and weaponry. They never, ever would knowingly make the threat seem less than it is. That means they were forced to do so or are the scapegoats for Obama. I'm inclined to believe the latter but the former is possible because the senior leadership in the military is immensely more political than even 8 years ago. But no, I'm pretty sure it was Obama through Valerie Jarrett or his staff who tamped down the information that would make their boss look bad. If the intel showed massive gains by ISIS, Obama would have to act and he does not want to act. To act would mean he would have to make a decision and take action and the former "Senator Present" hates to make decisions that protect America.

This is not shocking nor is it surprising but it sure will be interesting to see just how this shakes out. Obama threw the military under the bus and other low level staffers but if there's any proof of it being someone higher up, the public will be out for a senior scalp. Unfortunately it will not be Obama since the bucks stops anywhere but on his desk.

Empty Chair Throws DNI Under Bus

Harry Truman famously had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here". Obama should have one that says "the buck stops..."with arrows pointing in every direction but toward him.

The first rule of leadership is that you are responsible for the good and the bad. A true leader humbly passes the credit to those who work for him and accepts the blame when things go wrong. Unfortunately we have Obama so that ain't happening. The man gladly took credit for killing bin-Laden  when he was half a world away but is still blaming Bush for everything that is wrong.

The Libyan terror attack that resulted in the death of the first ambassador killed on duty since 1979 and three others was a serious intel disaster. It may have been the fault of the CIA, DIA, NSA or any other alphabet agency but ultimately it was Obama's fault. So what do you think he did? Did he say, yes, this was an act of terror on a day we should have been prepared and I take full responsibility? Silly you, of course not, he got one of his underlings to take the rap.

This blog and many others knew that it was a terror attack right away but to admit that would mean Obama would take a hit on the whole lame "I killed bin-Laden and I'm the baddest mother on the planet because I got bin-Laden" edifice they built so the administration obfuscated and said it was a mob that got out of control. Anyone with any military knowledge laughed. Our fearless leader even sent his UN Ambassador out to the morning shows well after it was clear to parrot those talking points.

So now that that ridiculous story has been proven to be a lie, Obama needs someone--anyone to take the rap as long as it's not him. Enter the Director of National Intelligence groveling:

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170078/intelligence-office-says-it-got.html#storylink=cpy

“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Sean Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

Let's play a game and pretend this is true. We're supposed to believe that the lead intelligence expert in the nation would actually say to the President that it was a mob that formed up and used finely sighted mortars to attack the ambassador in a secret safe-house and used direct and indirect fire to assault the house?

If that's the case, Obama appointed the worst DNI in history and should lose his job for it along with the DNI.

This is an out and out lie and it should be the turning point of the election if--and it's a big if--Romney hits him on it. It occurred on 9/11 and we know that al-Qaeda loves important dates. I have no intel background and I saw it right away.

We need a leader who cares about the country and his people. Obama cares about no one but Obama and it's led us to the abyss. It was also a pussy move to release this on a Friday when it will be glossed over.

Obama Admin Leaks Critical Info

The best intelligence operations are ones we never hear about. And even if we do, the details are usually never revealed or are twisted in such a way that tactics and sources are never really made known. Intelligence services do this to protect their agents, sources, governments and ongoing operations.

Enter the Obama administration and the operation to eliminate bin-Laden The Navy SEAL's take out Osama and the Obama people spill the beans on how it was done thus removing that type of operation from the playbook.

The latest example of amateurish behavior with intel issues came this week:

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

Note that this is from the far left-wing Guardian newspaper. 


These are things you never want to hear from intelligence experts; men who have been involved in some of the most covert activities ever:


Michael Scheur:

 "MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president, if he has the balls. This is really tragic," ... "Any information disclosed is too much information. This does seem to be a tawdry political thing." 

Of course it is Michael, Obama wants to appear tough to the voters, that's why he went on the I Killed Osama Victory Tour 2012, you may have seen it on TV. Everything is political with this regime and what do they care if we hurt the intel forces of allied nations, liberals hate all intelligence services. And take note, Scheur is not a conservative. Hell, I disagree with the man's politics almost completely but you can't discount his experience and abilities.

What does the former head of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center think? Discussing what the British agencies must be thinking, he said this:

"In their place, I would think two and three times before sharing with the Americans, and then only do it if I had to. The problem with that dynamic is that you don't know what you don't know, and what opportunities you might be missing when you decide not to share. The Americans are doing a very good job of undermining trust, and the problem starts at the top."

In essence, by staffing his administration with a bunch of amateurs who leak info on operations to show what big shots they are, other, more professional intel agencies around the world now must hold and hide info that may be crucial to stopping the next 9/11 or worse.

Is there anything the Obama administration can be professional about?

War on Terror 2.0

In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush made several crucial moves to revive an intelligent apparatus that was gutted during the 1990's. He increased training and funding for paramilitary units within the CIA and bulked up our human intelligence (humint) gathering by putting boots on the ground. When Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters were apprehended on the battle field or in raids, trained interrogators were in place to glean as much as intelligence as possible in a short period of time.

Some of this intelligence gathering was restricted by liberals in Congress who screamed torture at every paper cut inflicted on suspected (or known) terrorists. But the overall effort led to numerous arrests and took some big fish out of play before we could be struck again.

Fast-forward to the present and let's examine our intel gathering regimen now. While we are gaining some intel in Afghanistan, the conflict has settled into a stalemate where neither side seems to be gaining any advantage. The American public has soured and we are stretching our military well past the appropriate limits. Our intelligence gathering has suffered as we've changed our tactics. Instead of humint, we are relying more on electronic intelligence gathering or "chatter". While we are very good at this type of collection, we lack the available personnel to decipher the millions of conversations and other electronic communications.

Yes, we did track down bin-Laden but my opinion is that it had more to do with information obtained using humint collection techniques that were residual from the Bush years.

Now we are in a stand-off mode in this global war. Instead of capturing AQ leaders, we are exterminating them with pilotless drones. Yes, we take them out. No, we gain no intelligence from them when they are blown into fifty pieces. This may have far-reaching ramifications as AQ and the hundreds of other offshoots have gotten smarter from a communications perspective. Without humint, we will lose much of the advantage we once gained and good men like Mike Spann died for.

So why are we changing our tactics? because liberals have a visceral hatred for intelligence gathering by organizations such as the CIA, FBI and NSA. It goes back to the 60's when the FBI infiltrated home-grown terror groups and the CIA pulled numerous covert ops in Latin America and Africa. many of these operations should never have been revealed but that's a post for another day.

Liberals live in a dream world where nations can be negotiated with and all problems can be solved by the UN. Except the world has changed dramatically since President Obama was inaugurated. Instead of despotic but reliably stable regimes in Egypt and Libya we have radical Islamist's like the Muslim Brotherhood ascending to power. Instead of covert training camps, we now have huge nations that can sponsor terror and still conceal their participation. The rules have changed and we are in no position to adapt. Without human intelligence and people on the ground, we are weaker than we've been in 12 years.

The World Should Be Thanking Israel, Not Condemning

Once again, the Israeli's took things into their own hands. They take the biblical quote "an eye for an eye" literally and must do so for their survival. And once again, the world acts outraged. If this had been done by a Palestinian and he assassinated and Israeli, you'd be hearing much, much less.

The outrage today comes from Britain and Ireland whose forged passports the Mossad agents used. This is a daily occurrence in the covert ops business and every nation is guilty of it. The Brits are trying to keep Londonistan from going insane while Ireland doesn't want to be portrayed as conspirators so they have to feign outrage. There's a US angle as well.

But the Israeli's were well within their rights to take out Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. He admittedly killed two Israeli soldiers and was involved in numerous other plots. He was the Hamas military commander and would certainly have killed more Israeli's in the future. Hell, he probably plotted attempts resembling the one that finally sent him to meet his forty virgins in paradise.

The man was a member of a terrorist organization and the Mossad did what had to be done because the Israeli's understand something that George W. Bush did but Barack Obama is just starting to: terrorist's understand one thing and one thing only and that is personal fear and force. If they believe you can get to them, they will think twice and the Israeli's don't have Miranda Rights. If they could track Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and kill him in a Dubai hotel then no one who commits acts of terror against Israel is safe.

An eye for an eye.

More here.

GOP Leaders Reveal That "Torture" Worked

GOP members of the Intelligence Committee revealed that Dick Cheney was right and the Dems have their collective panties in a wad:

But Republicans on the panel said that not only did the use of interrogation techniques come up Thursday, but that the data shared about those techniques proved they had led to valuable information that in some instances prevented terrorist attacks.

Hoekstra did not attend the hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did. He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective.

“I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked,” Hoekstra said.

I find it amusing that the Dems are crying foul about internal discussions. Wasn't it their leader who released the docs that led to this whole mess and led us to where we are today by not releasing the complete documents showing enhanced interrogation worked and saved American lives?

Cheney knew exactly what the memos said and he knows that the information gleaned was instrumental in preventing further attacks.

Perhaps that's why he now has a higher approval rating than San Fran Nan Pelosi.

Thursday Morning News and Notes

Hey, what's up?

Here's the news in a flash:

-The Soto-Mayor selection is generating some serious partisanship. Gingrich leads the way.

-Joe Sestak gives Arlen Specter the finger. Spend that money, Arlen.

-Keeping an eye on ACORN.

-It's on: Intel agencies battle.

-Today's must read: The Liars Club.

Obama Embarrases Brits Again

George W. Bush supposedly killed our relationship with Europe; Obama is burying it and pissing on the grave to boot:

The Obama administration says it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee.

A court filing from the British Foreign Office released recently includes a letter from the U.S. government, identified as the "Obama administration's communication." Other information identifying the U.S. agency and author of the letter appears to have been redacted.

Hit the link and read the letter. Obama is threatening one of our greatest allies saying he will withhold intel in a crucial moment. We need MI-5 and the other Brit intel sources on everything from Iran to north Korea as they may have better placed agents, spies and an overall better covert operation--and one that will take more chances than our recently neutered CIA.

Instead, Obama talks to them as if they were a child and in doing so alienates us more than Bush ever could have.

What does Obama have against Her Majesty's Government any way?

More here.

Thursday Morning News & Notes

Here's what's news:

-The ups and downs of counter terrorism through the years. It's at a definite nadir right now thanks to the systematic neutering of our intel gathering and the release of the "torture" memos.

-Arlen Specter will soon find out that nobody likes a traitor. I just read that even though Benedict Arnold was given a Brigadier General post, he was never trusted fully by the Brits because anyone who would sell out his own was just too unreliable. Arnold was promoted ahead of others and it had the effect of making him an outcast. I hope Specter suffers the same fate and is tagged with the same legacy. Instead of a "Quisling", perhaps we should call anyone who betrays their own a "Specter".

-Joe Biden says exactly the wrong thing again; tells public to stay off of subways and trains in light of the swine flu. That's it Joe, calm the nation in a time of crisis. What a friggin' buffoon, he makes Dan Quayle seem downright cerebral and Al Gore seem as intelligent as Einstein.

-People rag mag includes Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner among its "most beautiful". Perhaps they are a bit confused as to what beautiful actually means.

-Curtailing our rights at every opportunity. The Obama administration at its finest.

-Doing that old global warming two-step again.

CIA Whacks Wanted Terrorists; Would Panetta Have Allowed It?

Leon Panetta is by far the worst of the Obama selections for top government managers. The man has zero experience with intelligence matters and even less experience with covert operations and clandestine warfare. Plus, he's a stone-cold liberal with liberal tendencies in a position that requires nerve, balls and a kill instinct--personality traits not usually associated with a left-wing budget manager.

Take this incident for instance:

Two top al Qaeda officials are believed dead following a New Year's Day drone attack in northern Pakistan, ABC News has confirmed. U.S. officials said Fahid Mohammed Ali Msalam and Sheikh Ahmed Salem Swedan, both on the FBI's most wanted terrorists list, were killed in the CIA strike.

Msalam, who also went by the alias Usama al-Kini, and Swedan were both from Kenya and were indicted in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and for conspiring to kill U.S. citizens.

"It's amazing that it took 10 years to get these guys when they were on the FBI most wanted list all of this time," said former national security advisor and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke.

U.S. counterterrorism officials said that they believed the al Qaeda leaders were running operations for the terrorist group in Pakistan.

"Hopefully this provides some sense of justice for the 1998 bombings," one official told ABC News.

Yes, it does provide a sense of justice.

Anyway, it's clear that the CIA got wind of where these guys were and it would have been up to CIA Director Hayden to give the green light to launch this operation--effectively an assassination--into Pakistan. Thank goodness he had the guts to OK it.

But would a Leon Panetta have the huevos to make the same call? We saw what indecision and politics can do when they enter into a crucial decision that must be made quickly when the CIA had bin-Laden in their sights and then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger hemmed and hawed and let him get away to carry on his jihad that resulted in 3,000 dead and a smoking crater in Lower Manhattan and a gaping wound in the Pentagon.

I tend to think that Panetta was purely a political pick and a yes man who will neuter the once-powerful agency once and for all. Panetta will immediately cut back on covert ops and leave us wide open to another attack--one that will not be symbolic but aimed at further destroying our economy. Something we can ill-afford at this time.

Kudos to Michael Hayden for giving the go-ahead to this plan and I hope we can get a few more in the next 11-days leading up to the inauguration.

CIA Pick Shows Lack of Commitment in War on Terror

Are you friggin' kidding me? Leon Panetta?

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems (and one that has prevented a follow-up attack for the last seven years--ed.).

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

Aides have said Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. head with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

We are in the midst of two war--albeit one seems to be winding down somewhat--and OBH selects a crony who can't even spell intelligence. It was a major CIA op that started the war in Afghanistan and it's an organization that has probably been involved in more black ops against al-Qaeda than will ever be known publicly. We need a man with at least one day of intelligence experience running arguably the largest intelligence organization on the planet, not a man who's claim to fame is attempting (unsuccessfully) to stop another Clinton "bimbo eruption".

I would have felt better if Obama had picked Sandy Berger. Sure, the man stole documents from the National Archive that could have changed every single 9/11 Commission finding but at least he was National Security Advisor.

This shows just how un-serious Obama and his people are about intelligence and protecting the citizens of this country. The Clinton's allowed al-Qaeda to grow and thrive and passed on an opportunity to take bin-Laden out (in part because of Berger) but at least they had a man in the DCI chair--George Tenet--who knew how to gather the intel to find OBL in the first place. I tend to lean toward AP's thinking that Obama wanted someone--anyone that is not a supporter of enhanced interrogation techniques, or what liberals call torture.

Note that senior Dems are even aghast and the effect this will have on a newly revitalized intel apparatus could be devastating.

I was pretty much okay with most of BHO's selections thus far but this one is the most crucial and he blew it.