SAUDI JETS BOLSTER U.S. DRONE ATTACKS ON YEMEN

AFP – Saudi Arabia has provided fighter jets to assist the United States with its drone strikes against Al-Qaeda targets in Yemen, the London Times reported on Friday.

US drones are backing Yemeni forces combating militants of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The group’s Yemen branch is considered by Washington to be the most active and deadliest franchise of the global jihadist network.

The Times cited a US intelligence source as saying that “some of the so-called drone missions are actually Saudi Air Force missions”.

US drone attacks in Yemen nearly tripled in 2012 compared to 2011, according to the Washington-based think tank New America Foundation, and for the first time totalled more than in Pakistan last year.

A new US drone strike on Thursday killed three Al-Qaeda suspects in the town of Rada in Yemen’s central Al-Bayda province, the site of similar recent attacks, tribal sources there said.

AQAP took advantage of the weakness of Yemen’s central government during an uprising in 2011 against now ousted president Ali Abdullah Saleh, seizing large swathes of territory across the south.

But after a month-long offensive launched in May last year by Yemeni troops, most militants fled to the more lawless desert regions of the east.

US FLOODING YEMEN WITH DRONES

The United States will buy 25 more drones for the Yemeni military. They should arrive within two years and are designed to help Yemenis conduct their own surveillance. As one human rights group’s research reveals, though, more civilians than terrorists have died from air strikes in Yemen . So who really will be targeted this time? RT’s Liz Wahl has the details.

THERE WILL BE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse

The military action that we are watching in the Middle East right now is just a preview of coming attractions.  Tensions in the region are rising with each passing day, and all sides have been anticipating future conflicts and preparing for war for decades.  It would be wonderful if everyone could sit down, forgive each other and agree to quit fighting, but that is not going to happen.  Most of us that live in the western world have a very difficult time understanding the mindset of those immersed in these conflicts.  In the Middle East, there are vendettas and grudges that go back literally thousands of years.  Children are raised in schools where they are taught to bitterly hate their enemies from the time that they are first able to speak.  As Americans, we have forgiven former enemies such as Germany and Japan and we just expect that everyone else should be able to forgive as well.  But that is simply not the way that it works over there, and there is no long-term solution in the Middle East that is going to be acceptable to all sides.  Right now, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria and Iran are all preparing for war.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in this current crisis, but that will only delay the inevitable.  There will be war in the Middle East.  Yes, politicians such as Barack Obama will do their best to broker more “peace agreements”, but even the declaration of a “Palestinian state” will never stop the fighting.  In fact, it would just set the stage for more war.  I don’t mean to sound pessimistic about the region, but the truth is that there will be more war until it is not possible to fight any longer.  Any “peace plan” will just be a pause in the warfare.

But hopefully the current crisis in the Middle East will not immediately erupt into a full-blown regional war.  That would not be good for the global economy.  In fact, that would not be good for anyone at all.

Here are some of the most recent developments…

-Hamas has launched dozens of rockets into Israel since Saturday.  At one point, the IDF estimated that at least 130 rockets had been fired from Gaza.  Other estimates have put the number of rocket attacks much higher.

-In response, the IDF launched a military operation in Gaza on Wednesday.  This involved the killing of the head of the military wing of Hamas, Ahmed Jabari, in an airstrike that was captured on video.  You can see video of the airstrikeright here.

-The IDF also attacked more than 20 underground rocket launchers in Gaza.  The goal was to stop them from launching more rockets into Israel.  Apparently those rocket launchers were capable of hitting targets 25 miles over the border into Israel.

-In response to the Wednesday attacks by the IDF, a substantial number of rockets were fired from Gaza toward Israel.  The IDF says that the Iron Dome missile defense system was able to intercept 13 of the rockets.

-The IDF says that the military operations they conducted on Wednesday were part of a “major offensive” and that a ground attack may also be coming.

-”Operation Pillar of Defense” is the code name that has been given to this campaign.

-The IDF is not taking any options off the table.  The following is from a message posted on the IDF Twitter account

“All options are on the table. If necessary, the IDF is ready to initiate a ground operation in Gaza.”

-In particular, the IDF is being very open about the fact that top Hamas leaders will be targeted.  The following is from another message posted on the IDF Twitter account

“We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.”

-The U.S. State Department has denounced Hamas for the rocket attacks against Israel and is saying that Israel has the right to self-defense.

-The military wing of Hamas says that Israel “has opened the gates of hell.

-One top Hamas official, Khalil al-Haya, is very clear about what his goal is…

“The battle between us and the occupation is open and it will end only with the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem”

-Islamic Jihad has released a statement that is very critical of the IDF attack on Wednesday…

“Israel has declared war on Gaza and they will bear the responsibility for the consequences.”

In Egypt, the head of the most important political party is warning that Egypt may have to get involved if the fighting continues.  The following is from a Breitbart report

Today, Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood – a party formerly headed by current President Mohammed Morsi – announced that Egypt would get involved if Israel continued to kill terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Such Israeli action, said the party, would prompt “swift Arab and international action to stop the massacres.” The party also warned that Israel “must take into account the changes in the Arab region and especially Egypt … [Egypt] will not allow the Palestinians to be subjected to Israeli aggression, as in the past.”

-Things also continue to get more tense with Syria.  Israel has fired tank shells into Syria twice since Sunday.  They did this in response to Syrian shells which struck the Golan Heights.  This marked the first time that Israel had fired tank shells into Syria since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

-Syrian rebels are receiving a massive influx of arms and assistance.  The following is from a recent article in the Washington Post

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.

Obama administration officials emphasized that the United States is neither supplying nor funding the lethal material, which includes antitank weaponry. Instead, they said, the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.

-It is being reported that UK troops may soon be deployed to areas near the border with Syria.

-NATO has announced that it is prepared to defend Turkey if necessary…

NATO will defend alliance member Turkey, which struck back after mortar rounds fired from Syria landed inside its border, the alliance’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a meeting in Prague on Monday.

“NATO as an organization will do what it takes to protect and defend Turkey, our ally. We have more plans in place to make sure that we can protect and defend Turkey and hopefully that way also deter so that attacks on Turkey will not take place,” he said.

Once again, hopefully all of this will settle down in a few days.

But it is never easy to predict what is going to happen next in the Middle East.  There is so much hate and anger and things could literally explode over there at any time.

In the months and years to come, I expect the Middle East to become a major issue for the global economy and a major political issue inside the United States.

When war does erupt in the Middle East, it is going to dramatically affect the price of oil, and there will also be a tremendous amount of debate about whether the U.S. military should intervene or not.

Let us hope for peace, but let us also be very realistic about the situation over there.  Our world is becoming more unstable with each passing day, and the times that are coming are going to be very challenging.

THE MIDDLE EAST: ISRAEL AND ITS NEIGHBORS

By Elliott Abrams

It is now two months until the inauguration in Washington, and it would be nice if the world went into a postelection recess for the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays. With Israel facing elections on January 22, there might once have been some hope for a brief respite. Alas, events in the Middle East are heating up and are likely to keep getting hotter this winter and into the spring.

Until this week the hottest crisis was in Syria, where the death total is now around 40,000​—​with about 10 times that number as refugees and many hundreds of thousands more as internally displaced persons. American policy has, at least until now, been to combine diplomatic activity with military and intelligence passivity. American, EU, and Arab pressure got the Syrian opposition to offer a new, unified face to the world last week, but that unity will be useless unless it elicits more military help. Bashar al-Assad cannot defeat the rebels, but with more help they can defeat him. Optimists think the recent American diplomatic efforts are the precursor to a new, postelection activism that sees us getting more arms to the opposition so they can seize and keep more territory in northern Syria and then begin to move south toward Damascus.

And the departure of CIA director David Petraeus may even help here, for he was reported to be extremely cautious about ramping up the CIA’s role in the Syria crisis. Chances are, then, that Syria will see more fighting in the next few months. A no-fly zone remains unlikely, especially if the rebels appear to be making gains without one. If the rebels win, the administration will next year claim that it handled things perfectly well and that critics who argued for a greater American role sooner were just mindless hawks or​—​worse yet​—​neoconservatives! But the fall of Assad will only inaugurate the next stage in the Syria crisis, as jihadist, Muslim Brotherhood, and more moderate and secular elements of the opposition struggle for power. Here the administration’s passivity​—​allowing the crisis to drag on for two years​—​may prove to have been catastrophic. The jihadist presence in Syria was tiny and unimportant when the war began, but grew monthly as Sunnis watched the regime slaughter their brethren while Western powers did little or nothing. Will the jihadists just go home when Assad falls, or make more trouble in the neighborhood? Will the Brotherhood prove to be the best organized group while moderates are divided and feckless, as happened in Egypt? The time to have helped those moderate forces​—​with guns, to be sure they were a powerful part of the victorious coalition, and with humanitarian aid, to be sure they could buy influence and show the benefits of their Western ties​—​is about over. The Obama administration muffed this, and Syria and its neighbors will all pay the price over the next few years.

Even with the fighting in Syria, the hottest crisis spot right now is obviously Gaza. In the last two weeks the number of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel grew into the hundreds, something no Israeli government could tolerate for long. This kind of terrorism from Gaza is what produced Operation Cast Lead in December 2008, when Israeli air and ground forces attacked Hamas and other terrorist groups there. It remains unclear why Hamas decided to produce a crisis now, but it is clearly a Hamas decision and not merely the action of uncoordinated jihadist groups. Hamas could have done more to repress the other groups and prevent them from firing into Israel; instead it joined the fray and officially claimed credit for some of the attacks.

The Israelis do not seek another ground war in Gaza, but something had to be done. Their air attacks into Gaza in early November were meant to signal Hamas to knock it off, but failed; in the three-day period from Saturday to Monday, November 10-12, more than a hundred rockets were shot into Israel. Israel responded on November 14 with airstrikes that among other things killed the Hamas military leader in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari. Those strikes had wall-to-wall political support in Israel, and in this pre­election period no candidate wishes to appear weak in the face of terror.

The Israeli tactic is to make the Hamas leadership pay directly for these terror attacks on Israel rather than to make the population of Gaza pay. Israeli targeting was extremely careful, and by Friday afternoon there had been several hundred strikes by the Israeli Air Force but fewer than two dozen Palestinian deaths​—​and very few accidental hits at civilians that Hamas could turn to propaganda advantage. The hope is that Hamas will be persuaded that the price is too high, and the rockets will stop​—​and meanwhile Israel will not have to listen to European and Arab complaints about the plight of the poor people of Gaza under Israeli attack. The initial Hamas reaction of more rocket attacks into Israel to avenge the death of Jabari was predictable, and does not tell us whether Hamas really wishes to escalate. If it does, an Israeli ground assault is inevitable​—​and reserves were called up in Israel in midweek.

When Israel began Shabbat, the supposed day of rest, as a day of war on Friday, the question remained whether Hamas was going to force a ground invasion by continuing and even escalating its attacks. It is plausible, because Hamas is in a difficult position, and a week of what it will call “martyrdom” may look attractive. The Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt has not been the boon they had anticipated, and the border with Egypt has been only partially opened. Egyptian soldiers continue to take apart the smuggling tunnels that over the years have provided so many goods to Gaza​—​and so much income to Hamas. And Egypt’s new government has not renounced the peace treaty with Israel, is negotiating with the IMF for a loan, and appears to seek steady relations with Washington​—​all anathema to the Hamas warriors in Gaza. In fact, Cairo even urged Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. Meanwhile the effort of Palestinian Authority president and Fatah party chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the United Nations appears headed for a late November vote that will give “Palestine” the status of a “non-member state” U.N. observer. With that status in hand Abbas says he wants to restart negotiations with Israel after its elections (abandoning the Palestinian Authority’s previous position, in essence imposed by the Obama administration, that all construction in settlements and in Jerusalem had to be frozen first).

All this left Hamas looking marginalized, and what fun is there in governing a poor and tiny principality? Better, perhaps, to remind the world of Hamas’s true vocation, which is terror; to remind everyone that Hamas is still there and can still produce a regional crisis; and to remind would-be peacemakers with Abbas that he controls only half the Palestinian population. But whatever Hamas’s debatable motivations, it has produced this crisis and must now seek to avoid a visible defeat. Logically that should mean stopping now, but the leaders of Hamas are not conventional politicians. Their actions in the last few weeks remind us that Hamas leaders too have a “policy” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that it is not to prove they are effective negotiators in U.N. salons or efficient administrators of the statelet they now rule. They are not irrational, but they are terrorists, enthralled by blood, death, and martyrdom.

What we will learn early next year is whether there is a U.S. policy on Israeli-Palestinian issues beyond stopping the current violence. Since the quick failure of the September 2010 peace extravaganza at the White House, attended by Netanyahu, Abbas, Mubarak, and the king of Jordan, the Obama administration has not had one. The days when George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton inveighed against settlements are long gone. Today the administration is opposing Abbas’s U.N. efforts, and when he succeeds the administration will try to persuade him not to complicate matters further by bringing Israeli generals before the International Criminal Court or joining additional U.N. agencies​—​actions that would embitter Israeli-Palestinian relations even further, potentially prevent renewed negotiations, and lead Congress to end American support for those agencies just as we have withdrawn our support for UNESCO (where we supplied 22 percent of the budget). We see what Obama wants to prevent, but we don’t know what he wants to promote. Does he see the “peace process” as a second-term chance for greatness, or a magnet for endless and useless diplomatic efforts?

Just managing the current developments in the region would seem to be enough to keep our diplomats busy when the president’s second term begins, without the reach for an Israeli-Palestinian peace and a great ceremony on the White House lawn. Not only will there be Syria, the violence coming from Gaza, a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt whose commitment to democracy is at best unproved, and an increasing sense of instability in Jordan, but looming over all this will be Iran. Negotiations between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1​—​the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia​—​will resume soon. But what is the president’s game? Obama loyalists debate whether he really means “all options are on the table” and might some day bomb Iran or support an Israeli strike.

The first steps will be diplomatic, and the question is whether the administration will avoid the hardest choice​—​war​—​not by ending the Iranian program through sanctions and negotiations, but by accepting a bad deal and calling it victory. Defining what is a bad deal will of course be the substance of the debate, and it can be very technical at points. But the gap between what the Security Council resolutions demand and what Iran will be willing to accept seems very wide, and a deal that can be described as “even weaker than what the U.N. wanted!” may not seem too attractive to most Americans. There’s no particular reason for Republicans​—​who have always taken a harder line on Iran than has Obama, and who forced many of the current sanctions on him​—​to accept such a deal, and they can be expected to oppose it. So may the Israelis, and so at least in private may the French. And so may the Arab Gulf states, who not only oppose a deal that allows Iran to have any nuclear program at all but also fear that an Iran that feels triumphant and has gotten all sanctions removed may step up its subversion in the region.

If there are serious negotiations with Iran, the president must decide fast whether they will be bilateral rather than with the Security Council members and Germany​—​which would make both the Israelis and Arabs very nervous​—​and whether he will offer Iran a “grand bargain” that goes beyond nukes to end 30 years of hostility between the United States and the Islamic Republic, which would make the Israelis and Arabs even more nervous. He may well find that Khamenei, whose loathing for the United States knows no limits, refuses such talks and such a deal​—​or indeed any deal. If so, the president will next spring face an Israel that thinks its military option must be exercised soon, as he will face a decision about American military options.

All of this is in the cards, but wild cards may appear. What if we find that al Qaeda groups in northern Mali were involved in the Benghazi attack and need to strike at them before that region becomes a new safe haven for al Qaeda bases? What if the palpable unease in Jordan turns into serious demonstrations (and there were sizable demonstrations this past week) against the king? What if the king and crown prince of Saudi Arabia, both in questionable health, die or become incapacitated in the coming months? What if Iran decides to turn Bahrain into a greater crisis by spurring riots there, or sends more Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah troops into Syria to bolster the Assad regime?

Also among the wild cards are the names of our own top officials. Who will deal with crises on the American side? A Secretary of State Susan Rice, who saw Ben­ghazi as a demonstration and not terrorism, or John Kerry, who long argued that Assad was a reformer? Who will be running the Pentagon on the day the president must decide about bombing Iran, or supporting an Israeli bombing and helping the Israelis deal with its consequences? Who will be CIA director as we contemplate everything from drone strikes in Mali, to arming the Syrian rebels, to sabotage in Iran?

The next three to six months in the Middle East will make Obama administration officials look back to 2012 with nostalgia as a quiet time when they were able to focus on the campaign. The coming year will be much tougher​—​starting now.

OBAMA’S NIGHTMARE: THE MIDDLE EAST

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN | The New York Times

The scandal engulfing two of our top military and intelligence officers could not be coming at a worse time: the Middle East has never been more unstable and closer to multiple, interconnected explosions. Virtually every American president since Dwight Eisenhower has had a Middle Eastern country that brought him grief. For Ike, it was Lebanon’s civil war and Israel’s Sinai invasion. For Lyndon Johnson, it was the 1967 Six-Day War. For Nixon, it was the 1973 war. For Carter, it was the Iranian Revolution. For Ronald Reagan, it was Lebanon. For George H.W. Bush, it was Iraq. For Bill Clinton, it was Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. For George W. Bush, it was Iraq and Afghanistan. For Barack Obama’s first term, it was Iran and Afghanistan, again. And for Obama’s second term, I fear that it could be the full nightmare — all of them at once. The whole Middle East erupts in one giant sound and light show of civil wars, states collapsing and refugee dislocations, as the keystone of the entire region — Syria — gets pulled asunder and the disorder spills across the neighborhood.

And you were worried about the “fiscal cliff.”

Ever since the start of the Syrian uprising/civil war, I’ve cautioned that while Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Tunisia implode, Syria would explode if a political resolution was not found quickly. That is exactly what’s happening.

The reason Syria explodes is because its borders are particularly artificial, and all its communities — Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Druze and Christians — are linked to brethren in nearby countries and are trying to draw them in for help. Also, Sunni-led Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war against Shiite-led Iran in Syria and in Bahrain, which is the base of the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Bahrain witnessed a host of bombings last week as the Sunni-led Bahraini regime stripped 31 Bahraini Shiite political activists of their citizenship. Meanwhile, someone in Syria decided to start lobbing mortars at Israel. And, Tuesday night, violent anti-government protests broke out across Jordan over gas price increases.

What to do? I continue to believe that the best way to understand the real options — and they are grim — is by studying Iraq, which, like Syria, is made up largely of Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Kurds. Why didn’t Iraq explode outward like Syria after Saddam was removed? The answer: America.

For better and for worse, the United States in Iraq performed the geopolitical equivalent of falling on a grenade — that we triggered ourselves. That is, we pulled the pin; we pulled out Saddam; we set off a huge explosion in the form of a Shiite-Sunni contest for power. Thousands of Iraqis were killed along with more than 4,700 American troops, but the presence of those U.S. troops in and along Iraq’s borders prevented the violence from spreading. Our invasion both triggered the civil war in Iraq and contained it at the same time. After that Sunni-Shiite civil war burned itself out, we brokered a fragile, imperfect power-sharing deal between Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Then we got out. It is not at all clear that their deal will survive our departure.

Still, the lesson is that if you’re trying to topple one of these iron-fisted, multisectarian regimes, it really helps to have an outside power that can contain the explosions and mediate a new order. There is too little trust in these societies for them to do it on their own. Syria’s civil war, though, was triggered by predominantly Sunni rebels trying to oust President Bashar al-Assad and his minority Alawite-Shiite regime. There is no outside power willing to fall on the Syrian grenade and midwife a new order. So the fire there rages uncontrolled; refugees are now spilling out, and the Shiite-Sunni venom unleashed by the Syrian conflict is straining relations between these same communities in Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait.

But Iraq teaches another lesson: Shiites and Sunnis are not fated to murder each other 24/7/365. Yes, their civil war dates to the 7th century. And, yes, when they started going after each other in Iraq, they did so with breathtaking chainsaw-nails-pounded-into-heads violence. There is nothing like a fight within the faith. Yet, once order was restored, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, many of whom have intermarried, were willing to work together and even run together in multisectarian parties in the 2009-10 elections.

So the situation is not hopeless. I know American officials are tantalized by the idea of flipping Syria from the Iranian to the Western camp by toppling Assad. That would make my day, too, but I’m skeptical it would end the conflict. I fear that toppling Assad, without a neutral third party inside Syria to referee a transition, could lead not only to permanent civil war in Syria but one that spreads around the region. It’s a real long shot, but we should keep trying to work with Russia — Syria’s lawyer — to see if together we can broker a power-sharing deal inside Syria and a United Nations-led multinational force to oversee it. Otherwise, this fire will rage on and spread, as the acid from the Shiite-Sunni conflict eats away at the bonds holding the Middle East together and standing between this region and chaos.

OBAMA BOMBS YEMEN HOURS AFTER WINNING REELECTION

By John Glaser | Global Research

Not even a full day had passed before newly reelected President Obama ordered another drone strike in Yemen.

A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of al-Qaida militants on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three terrorists, government officials said.

Huffington Post:

 A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. If it were a American strike, of course, it would have to have been authorized by Obama.

The drone war violates both domestic andinternational law, and the Obama administration’s vehement disdain for transparency in government is the only thing keeping it from public and legal scrutiny. Beyond the law, it’s terrorism.

DRONE HITS SUSPECTED AL QAEDA TARGET IN NORTH YEMEN

SANAA (Reuters) – At least four men suspected of being al Qaeda members were killed in what a local official said was a U.S. drone strike on Islamist militants in northern Yemen on Sunday.

It was a rare attack on al Qaeda-linked targets in northern Yemen, an area dominated by Shi’ite Muslim Houthi rebels battling Yemeni government forces for control of the rugged mountainous region.

The official said that a drone attacked two houses in the Abu Jabara area in Saada Province, killing four people.

Some reports suggested that Hadi al-Tais, a local al Qaeda commander, had been targeted in the attack, but there was no confirmation that he was among the dead.

The Yemeni Defense Ministry’s website confirmed that three suspected militants, including two Saudi nationals, had been killed in an air strike, but did not elaborate.

U.S. drone strikes have regularly targeted al Qaeda militants in southern Yemen, where the group had exploited last year’s protests against former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and seized swathes of territory before being driven out by an army offensive in June.

But it was the first report of an attack by a pilotless plane in the area near the Saudi border in northern Yemen.

Yemeni officials say hundreds of suspected al Qaeda militants, many of them veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviet occupation, have been operating in the area with tacit consent of Saleh, who ruled Yemen for more than three decades.

Saleh’s critics say the former Yemeni president had used the militants in his repeated and unsuccessful attempts to crush the Houthis.

THE PRESIDENT’S 10-YEAR PLAN FOR THE KILL LIST

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American

There will be no end to the War on Terror and the targeting of “suspected militants” will continue and become more sophisticated, according to an article published in the Washington Post on October 23.

In the piece, Greg Miller describes a project the Obama administration has been developing for a couple of years called — in true Orwellian fashion — the “disposition matrix.”

Glen Greenwald at the Guardian (U.K.) describes the matrix’s chain of command:

The “disposition matrix” has been developed and will be overseen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is “to augment” the “separate but overlapping kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon: to serve, in other words, as the centralized clearinghouse for determining who will be executed without due process based upon how one fits into the executive branch’s “matrix”.

According to reports, the plans for perpetuating and perfecting the death-by-drone program “contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations.”

The article quotes “U.S. officials” saying that the matrix will improve the existing pair of kill lists (one maintained by the President, the other kept by the CIA) by “mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.”

Readers unfamiliar with the argot of the White House and the intelligence community should understand that the phrase “plans for the disposition” of someone means plans for summarily executing a person who has never been accused of a crime and who has never been proven to have any plan to attack the United States or its interests.

Charging someone with a crime and allowing him to counter evidence produced of his intent to commit a crime or of his collusion with those who do intend to commit a crime is called due process. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but regularly and unrepentantly denied by the Obama administration to scores of people killed by drones everyday.

In an article in the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf records the comments made by Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary and now a senior adviser to the Obama reelection campaign, regarding the use of drones to assassinate those without a demonstrable link to terror, particularly Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in October 2011, and to date the Obama administration has never informed the country of any wrongdoing by this teenager, other than being related to a man (his father) who posted anti-American videos on the Internet that allegedly influenced others to commit crimes.

As he sat enjoying a roadside picnic in Yemen with a few second cousins and their friends — most of whom the young Colorado native had never met before that day — the teenager and all his companions were killed by two Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator drone.

The finger that pressed the button launching the lethal ordnance was American, and so was 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the target of the strike.

Upon being asked how the president justified killing an underage “American citizen … without due process, without trial,” Gibbs responded:

I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

That is the sort of callous disregard for the value of life and the rule of law that animates the current administration. The fact is that Abdulrahman was not a terrorist, was never accused of fomenting terrorism (as his father was), and was not in the company of his father when he was killed. That would have been impossible because by the time he and his cousins were killed, his father was already dead.

Perhaps the younger Awlaki was accidentally killed. If that were so, why wouldn’t the administration admit it? Gibbs’ answer indicates that the boy’s only crime was having a bad father. If that’s a crime for which you can be executed, then there are a lot of people all over the world who need to be watching their backs.

The unanswered questions are mounting: How many of those killed were innocent bystanders such as those who happened to be with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? How many of the actual “targets,” like Abdulrahman, were themselves innocent or at least had no demonstrable ties to terrorist organizations?

This question will never be known with certainty because the president alone serves as judge, jury, and executioner — and does not believe he is obliged to provide evidence to the American people.

In fact, it would be very naïve to believe the targeted assassination of an innocent like Abdulrahman was an unfortunate miscalculation. When the judicial and executive powers of government are consolidated and restraints on the exercise of power are cast aside, it can be expected — based both on our knowledge of history and on the nature of man — that power will be abused and no one’s rights or life will be safe from elimination by ­despots.

The revelation of the “disposition matrix” makes it certain that, as the report indicates, the despotism will go on for at least another decade. In fact, the Post article suggests that according to the timeline provided by their sources, the United States is only at the halfway point of the “war on terror,” and the president and his agents will add and subtract names to their proscription lists, but “with the pace of drone strikes … never go to zero.”

A comment from “a senior administration official” quoted in the Post article explains why the “disposition matrix” was necessary to keep America safe: “We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” he said.

Given the expansion of the drone program and the institutional and habitual delivery of remote control death without due process, it seems the federal government will certainly keep trying.

RED CARPET FOR RADICALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE

by Steve Emerson and John Rossomando | IPT News

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors’ names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:

  • Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;
  • Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;
  • Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a “war against Islam”— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;
  • Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign.

Individuals from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the White House at least 20 times starting in 2009. In 2008, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering case in U.S. history – the trial of the Holy Land Foundation in which five HLF officials were convicted of funneling money to Hamas.

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis later ruled that, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the association” of CAIR to Hamas, upholding their designations as unindicted co-conspirators. In 2008, the FBI formally ended all contact with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas.

In January 2004, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR’s Los Angeles office, publicly defended Palestinian terror attacks in comments before Muslim students at the University of California – Los Angeles, saying that terrorists were exercising their “legitimate right” to defend themselves against Israeli occupation.

Ayloush, who was a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., casts the United States as controlled by Israeli interests. At a 2008 CAIR banquet in San Diego, he imagined “an America that respects and humanizes religion. It’s an America that is free to act on its values and not on the interests of any foreign lobby.” In 2004, he said that the war on terror had become a “war on Muslims.” Ayloush attended at least two White House meetings.

The logs show Ayloush met with Paul Monteiro, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement on July 8, 2011 and Amanda Brown, assistant to the White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard, on June 6, 2009.

According to reliable sources, Monteiro was White House liaison for secret contacts with CAIR, especially with Ayloush. IPT has learned that the White House logs curiously have omitted Ayloush’s three meetings with two other senior White House officials.

Louay Safi, formerly executive director of the Islamic Society of North America, visited the White House twice – meeting in intimate settings with Paul Monteiro on June 29, 2011 and July 8, 2011.

Law enforcement first noticed Safi in 1995 when his voice was captured in an FBI wiretap of now-convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian. At the time of his conversation with Al-Arian, Safi served as executive director of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, an organization listed in law-enforcement and in internalMuslim Brotherhood documents as one of the movement’s top front groups in North America.

Safi also wrote for the Middle East Affairs Journal, produced by the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). That group was established by Hamas deputy political leader Mousa Abu Marzook and part of the Hamas-support network called the “Palestine Committee.”

Safi has repeatedly expressed understanding for the underlying causes that provoke terrorism: “Terrorism cannot be fought by…ignoring its root causes. The first step…is to examine the conditions that give rise to the anger, frustration, and desperation that fuel all terrorist acts.” He also called Palestinian terrorists “freedom” fighters.

Esam Omeish, former head of the Muslim Brotherhood-created Muslim American Society, visited the White House three times.

In 2000, Omeish personally hired the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to be the imam of Falls Church, VA, Dar al-Hijrah mosque. According to IPT analysis, more terrorists have been linked to Dar al-Hijrah since 9/11 than to any other mosque in America.

Omeish publicly mourned the Israeli airstrike that killed Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin at an April 10, 2004, MAS conference.

According to video captured by IPT, Omeish went a step further at the December 22, 2000, Jerusalem Day rally in Washington’s Lafayette Park, praising Palestinian terror groups, saying they had learned “the jihad way” to “liberate” Palestine.

In a sermon at Dar al-Hijrah in 2009, Omeish called for “an American Islamic movement that transforms our status, that impacts our society, and that brings forth the change that we want to see.”

Last month, Omeish attended a reception for Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi during Morsi’s United Nations visit. Morsi is a longtime Egyptian Brotherhood leader. Omeish posted a picture of the event on his Facebook page and noted: “His Excellency provided great insights and we share important perspectives.”

 

Mohamed Elibiary, appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, spoke at a December 2004 seminar in honor of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, titled: “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary.”

Elibiary condemned the convictions of the defendants in the Hamas money-laundering trial as a “loss for America” and dismissed the prosecution as “a political trial trying to achieve a government policy.” He also opposed the targeting of American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, saying it wouldn’t be “worth the ramifications of having to chase his ghost as a martyr for the next half century.”

Interestingly, the Obama administration’s enthusiastic support for gay rights did not prevent it from inviting Islamists who support laws overseas giving gays the death penalty.

In a June 21, 2001 article in The San Francisco ChronicleMuzammil Siddiqi, the former head of Islamic Society of North America, said he “supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.” Siddiqi met with Monteiro on June 8, 2010.

Despite the President’s public proclamations that he is standing strong against terrorism, the White House logs demonstrate that he has legitimized the very same groups that espouse radical Islamic terrorism.

MPAC’s Influence on Policy

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has secured the closest working relationship with the Obama White House despite a record of anti-Semitism,whitewashing the terrorist threat and hostility toward law enforcement. Fifteen MPAC officials have been welcomed by the White House. Executive Director Salam al-Marayati enjoyed at least six White House visits between September 2009 and July 2011, mostly involving meetings with Monteiro. Alejandro Beutel, who was MPAC’s government liaison until July 2012, had 10 White House visits between July 2010 and May 2012.

MPAC’s Washington director Haris Tarin made 24 trips to the White House between December 2009 and March 2012. Those meetings often were intimate in nature, involving a handful of people at most.

Edina Lekovic, an MPAC spokeswoman, visited the White House twice in July 2010. As a UCLA student, Lekovic served as an editor of a Muslim magazine called Al-Talib, which in 1999 ran an editorial calling Osama bin Laden “a great mujahid” and saying when bin Laden is called a terrorist, “we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah.” That issue identified Lekovic as a managing editor.

Like CAIR, MPAC also has pushed that “war on Islam” message. MPAC defendedHizballah’s 1983 attack on a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon which killed 241 Americans and questioned U.S.-terror designations for Palestinian terrorist groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

But the White House turned to MPAC officials as it prepared two papers on combatting what it calls violent extremism in America.

On July 18, 2011, White House Senior Director for Global Engagement QuintanWiktorowicz hosted four MPAC officials for a private meeting. Two weeks later, the White House issued “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,” a counter-terrorism initiative which made no mention of radical Islam or jihad waged by its followers. Rather, it named only al-Qaida as the enemy and included a vow to counter al-Qaida’s narrative that America is at war with Islam.

That focus fits neatly with MPAC’s agenda. It has lobbied for years to strip references to Islam from national security dialogue, even though terrorists from al-Qaida to Hamas use Quranic doctrine to justify their bloody campaigns.

And it marks the culmination of a dream described by MPAC founder Salam al-Marayati in a 2005 speech: “Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us,” he said. “We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country. So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another … That is why we are saying have them [law enforcement] come in community forums, in open-dialogues, so they come through the front door and you prevent them having to come from the back door.”

Wiktorowicz, a member of President Obama’s National Security Council who authoreda 2005 ebook on radical Islam, was a receptive host for MPAC government and policy analyst Alejandro Beutel, Washington, D.C. office director Haris Tarin, policy analyst Hoda Elshishtawy and Shammas Malik, an MPAC intern, White House logs show.

MPAC didn’t tout the July 18 meeting publicly but quickly praised the White House initiative. It “echoes MPAC’s long-standing position of emphasizing community-based solutions in addressing violent extremism,” the organization said in an August 3, 2011news release.

Days before the meeting, President Obama called Tarin personally to commend his work with the Muslim American community and the nation.

MPAC repaid the courtesy a month later by issuing a paper blasting the American opposition to a Palestinian scheme to get United Nations recognition of statehood without pursuing it through peace talks.

The MPAC report questions the Obama administration’s integrity by suggesting that the “U.S. is so out of step with global public opinion” on this issue because it is unduly influenced by “domestic political consequences” and campaign concerns, an allusion to the perceived political power of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., which MPAC often invokes.

Despite MPAC’s strident public opposition to U.S. policy, Wiktorowicz again hosted Beutel, Tarin, and Elshishtawy on November 4, 2011 – just a month before a follow-upcounter-terrorism document was released.

Access Didn’t Moderate MPAC

In March 2011, Beutel took to Press TV, an English-language broadcast outlet controlled by the Iranian government, to criticize congressional hearings on radicalization within the Muslim American community:

It spoke to a lot of the feelings that I think many Muslim Americans have with respect to their position here in America post-9/11. We are loyal citizens to this nation and we are trying to do everything we can to keep it safe and secure. And yet even when we’re doing the right things and in many cases, laying our lives down on the line for our nation, we still get stigmatized sometimes.

Most recently, Beutel co-authored an op-ed with Tarin, in which the two MPAC officials criticized NYPD surveillance of Muslim student groups across the Northeast: “The NYPD’s surveillance of an entire community based on their faith — with no evidence of criminal activity — is a blow [to] democracy and an ineffective and counterproductive offense to its mandate to ‘protect and serve.’”

In September 2010, Beutel criticized FBI raids in Chicago and Minneapolis targeting supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. Beutel argued that “[t]he FBI cannot continue to tell the American people that harassing anti-war activists falls under the rubric of counterterrorism and a fight against al-Qaeda … They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The FBI is undermining the trust that has been built between communities and law enforcement.”

Other Islamists Who Enjoyed Access

White House logs show Islamists visiting the White House who may have lower profiles, but who also defended terrorists and terrorist groups, and repeatedly castigated law enforcement, especially in counter-terror sting operations. Among them:

  • Farhana Khera executive director of Muslim Advocates and the National Association of Muslim Lawyers (NAML). She casts FBI counter-terror stings as “entrapment.” Following arrests in late 2010, she told USA Today, “But for the government’s role in these cases the suspects may have been left with their own bravado. Law enforcement resources need to be focused on actual threats.” Khera also has compromised FBI operations and coached mosque personnel on how to evade FBI surveillance. “In one case, the FBI even wanted to build a gym to attract young Muslims to work out and ‘discuss jihad,” Khera once wrote. In July 2010 Khera told delegates at an Islamic Society of North American convention: “Sometimes [Muslim] community members don’t even think of themselves as a[n] [FBI] source. They might just think [to] themselves, ‘Well, I have a good relationship with the head of the FBI office. He comes by my office from time to time and we have tea, or we go to lunch, and he just talks to me about the community.’ But what may seem like an innocuous set of conversations in the FBI’s mind they may be thinking of you as an informant, as a source. And the repercussions and the harm that that can cause can be pretty serious.” Khera shows up three times in the White House visitor logs, most recently in August 2011.
  • Hisham al-TalibA founder and current VP of Finance for Herndon, VA-based, International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization the FBI believes has housed key Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the United States since the late 1980s. Al-Talib was among seven people to meet March 30, 2012 with Joshua DuBois, White House executive director of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. A 1987 FBI investigative report, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, cited a source whose name was redacted but who has private communication with IIIT leaders. Their conversations show the IIIT leaders “…are implementing Phase I of the overall six phase IKWAN [Brotherhood] plan to institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said that IIIT leaders were working “to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities” ultimately to help overthrow non-Islamic governments. Just four years later, the IIIT acknowledged funding WISE, a Tampa think-tank that housed four members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board (Sami al-Arian, Ramadan Shallah, Basheer Nafi and Mazen al-Najjar). WISE had a cooperative agreement to work with University of South Florida faculty. In a November 1992 letterto al-Arian, IIIT President Taha Jaber al-Awani explained the intimate relationship between the Tampa and Virginia operations. “And I would like to affirm these feelings to you directly on my behalf and on the behalf of all my brothers [naming IIIT officials including al-Talib] … “that when we make a commitment to you or try to offer, we do it for you as a group, regardless of the party or façade you use the donation for … [W]e consider you as a group … a part of us and an extension of us. Also, we are part of you and an extension of you,” al-Awani wrote. “[O]ur relationship, in addition to being a brotherhood of faith and Islam, is an ideological and cultural concordance with mutual objectives.” The letter named the IIIT officials who shared this view, including al-Talib.
  • Imam Talib El-Hajj Abdur Rashidreligious and spiritual leader of Harlem’s Mosque of the Islamic Brotherhood. Rashid rationalized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stance on destroying Israel, saying it merely is a “sentiment born of the legitimate anger, frustration, and bitterness that is felt in many [parts of the Muslim World” because of Israel’s “ongoing injustice toward the Palestinian people.” He also serves on the National Committee to Free Imam Jamil Abdullah al-Amin. Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rapp Brown, was convicted of killing a Georgia police officer in 2002.White House logs place Rashid in two meetings during 2010 including a July 13 event with President Obama.
  • Hatem Abudayyeh – executive director of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, founded by Rashid Khalidi, a friend of President Obama. Abudayyeh has been under criminal investigation at least since September 2010, when FBI agents raided his home and office in connection with a terror-support probe. In a 2006 interview, Abudayyeh blasted Israel’s “military killing machine” after Israel retaliated for a cross-border Hizballah attack that killed five people and led to the kidnapping of two soldiers. “The U.S. and Israel will continue to describe Hamas, Hezbollah and the other Palestinian and Lebanese resistance organizations as ‘terrorists,’” he said,”but the real terrorists are the governments and military forces of the U.S. and Israel.” He visited the White House in April 2010.

Outreach to minority communities can foster a feeling of inclusiveness. However, President Obama opening the White House to radical Islamists compromises American security in at least two ways. First, it legitimizes groups and individuals whose track records beg skepticism and scrutiny. Second, White House visitor logs show that top U.S. policy-makers are soliciting and receiving advice from people who, at best, view the war on terrorism as an unchecked war on Muslims. These persons’ perspectives and preferred policies handcuff law enforcement and weaken our resolve when it comes to confronting terrorism.

“OBAMA THE MUSLIM:” PLOY TO COVER-UP YEARS OF US-AL QAEDA SUPPORT

By Tony Cartalucci | Infowars.com

Neo-Conservative Frank Gaffney thinks you are stupid. After plotting for the better part of a decade, arming Al Qaeda across the Arab World in a documented conspiracy to use the notorious terror group as a proxy against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, Gaffney and his colleagues are attempting to jettison responsibility and all the blunders that have come with the plot, on US President Barack Obama.

President Obama for his part, faithfully and knowingly carried out this strategy, “heeding” signed letters sent to him from Gaffney’s warmongering circle, imploring him to not only support terrorists in Libya and Syria, but to do so more overtly.

Gaffney, in a Washington Times article titled, “GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate: Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?” Gaffney answers the question by stating correctly, “yes.” What Gaffney doesn’t tell readers is that the plan to arm these terrorists and array them against Syria was a plan set into motion, not by Obama the alleged “crypto-Muslim,” but in 2007 during the Bush administration.

Seymour Hersh, in his 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” (covered in depth here) compiled interviews from Bush administration officials, as well as Saudi and Lebanese politicians who openly admitted that weapons, cash, and support were already being lent to extremist groups, many with direct ties to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Hersh would report:

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Hersh’s report would continue:

“the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

The report also stated:

…[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Clearly, at least as early as 2007, the US, then under the Bush administration, was already funding and arming terrorists across the Arab World to trigger the very sectarian war now unfolding in Syria and beyond.

Gaffney echos the 2007 Hersh report, but attempts to pin it entirely on President Obama, claiming in his recent Washington Times article that:

What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

President Obama merely carried on exactly where Bush left off, and exactly where presidential candidate Mitt Romney will pick up if elected in 2012. In reality the White House is not responsible for the creation of policy. It merely serves as public relations, selling a particular narrative to the public, and taking the fall (with little or no consequence) for when details emerge implicating the US in the global state sponsorship of terrorism. Behind Bush, Obama, and Romney are corporate-financier funded think tanks that craft policy and/or the talking points used to sell such policy to an unwitting public.
Gaffney belongs to just such a think tank, the “Center for Security Policy,” which includes Morris Amitay, Paula Dobriansky, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Michael Rubin – Neo-Cons who were behind letters publicly imploring President Obama to commit even more weapons, resources, and military support to the opposition in Libya and now Syria.
In an open letter to House Republicans, the Foreign Policy Initiative which consists of Gaffney’s fellow Neo-Conservatives, stated in regards to Libya (emphasis added):
We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation.  The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies.  We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.
While the establishment now attempts to portray Obama as having unilaterally and recklessly given support to the “opposition” in Libya, in June of 2011 Obama’s feigned “right” opposition was clearly in favor of providing these terrorists with just such support, and more.
If the public remained ignorant over the true nature of Libya’s “opposition,” in all likelihood Ambassador Stevens would still be merrily arranging arms and fighters to be sent from Benghazi to fight America’s next proxy war in Syria, while Neo-Cons on the fake-right continued calling for more support to be given to Syria’s “opposition.”
However, as public awareness grows regarding the United States and its allies funding, arming, and training listed-terrorist organizations in Libya and Syria, the system is attempting to compartmentalize the damage by placing full blame on President Obama, hoping the vast majority of the population’s concept of history is neatly divided and isolated into 4 year presidential terms. The establishment also hopes that people have never read Seymour Hersh’s report regarding the use of Al Qaeda affiliated terror groups starting under Bush.
Gaffney cites his collaborators in this effort to manipulate the public – notably Fox News, WorldNetDaily (WND), and RadicalIslam.org, run by the Clarion Fund and part of the Islamophobia propaganda front responsible for the film that in fact triggered the embassy violence in which US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens died. Clarion also has produced a number of other war propaganda films, including the ridiculous “Iranium.”
There is an obvious attempt to salvage the West’s overarching agenda by jettisoning the blunders and crumbling narratives out with the Obama administration while reestablishing a renewed false left/right paradigm headed by establishment cognitive infiltrators like Glenn Beck and WND. How successful this attempt is depends entirely on the burgeoning alternative media and its ability to quickly expose and discredit the talking points hamhandedly peddled by the likes of Gaffney and his collaborators.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers