MY analysts are better than your lying eyes

Posted on April 2, 2014April 2, 2014 by Denise Simon

Alright, I am an analyst, but damned happy I don’t work for Mike Morrell, who was the ‘acting’ director at the CIA at the time of the Benghazi murders. I have worked this event since the moment it happened and have published my reports in various locations on the web. But today (April 2, 2014), Mike Morrell appeared before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Mike Rogers.

Okay, so here goes what was said by Morrell in sworn testimony along with a few, snotty but hard comments by me. This covers Morrell’s opening statement and his responses to questions.

In Morrell’s opening statement, I came away with a few questions.

1. The White House used Morrell’s talking points, which were in fact wrong and he knew it, as he and a handful of others changed the talking points several times, so why did Morrell and others allow the lies?

2. Morrell and the rest took out all references to a terror attack and to any al Qaeda involvement, so they all obscured the threat and the risks to the CIA and all Americans stationed abroad, why?

3. Susan Rice, you know on those 5 Sunday talk shows said. ‘the best information at the time’, well yeah sure since all the truth was stripped out by Morrell, ‘his’ analysts and then those pesky types in the inter-agency.

4. Did ‘his’ analysts bother to include the information of the 200+ prior attacks in Libya, any interviews with the February 17th Brigade, Blue Mountain, any of the Brits that were there or any of the 30+ CIA’ers at the annex at the time? Nah, nor did Hillary’s assigned clan that authored the Accountability Review Board summary. Oh, one more thing, how about the live video stream that was fed back to DC? Was that included by ‘his’ analysts? Nah, again.

5. No one has been brought to justice for these murders, why? Well many answers, least o which JC Martin Dempsey said he was never given authorization. Well, was authorization given to anyone? Admiral McRaven at JSOC? General Ham? General Austin? General Odierno? Anyone?

6. How come no one on the panel of the ARB included ANY testimony of the Red Cross, the Brits much less those at the CIA annex that fateful night who filed OIG complaints?

7. Mike Morrell included in his opening statement that he submitted a 23 page document for the record and requesting it also be published on the web for public view. This is where it gets jiggy, as there is a classified version and an un-classified version, where he makes the distinction that the difference is only that all reference to al Qaeda has been stripped as it would reveal sources and methods….ah what? Just how exactly? Then what Susan Rice had and for public consumption was the un-classified version….sigh.

8. Also in Morrell’s opening statement he offered that he handled the analysis and the talking points with total objectivity and the matter of policy and politics was ‘never’ included in his assessment….yeah okay, sure dude. He also offered the notion that he worked to alter the talking points and he did not deliberately downplay the events, he admits mistakes and could have tendered better performance. Really?

9. There were three key points he wanted to ensure got on the record today. 1. His CIA analysts are the most talented in the agency and they concluded this event was due to protests with good reason, there was no outside input or any coordinated collaboration across the intelligence community. (sheesh) 2. His senior analysts wrote the first draft of the un-classified talking points and many changes were made by the CIA and other agencies but NOT the White House and the protests were consistent with the intelligence. (ah jeez, that is kinda opposed to #1 eh?) 3. Morrell also worked to get the analysis right and he did in fact have the CIA Chief of Station’s emails (2) but they did not matter to his final analysis. Let us remember here that the Chief of Station had an estimated 30+ assigned at the annex at the time. (head-desk).

10. Oh, Mike Morrell also mentioned that he did not know that the mission post relied on and looked to the CIA annex for additional security given the fact that all previous requests for additional security was rejected. Okay, so one must assume then that Morrell’s Station Chief did not have a good relation at all with CIA headquarters or for sure with anyone at the State Department either.

11. On 9-11, when AQ attacked three locations in the United States, Morrell was in fact with GW Bush in Sarasota at the moment the first attack occurred. Morrell was asked for his thoughts on who did this and Morrell immediately told President Bush it was bin Ladin. So, Morrell clearly understands the threats and gets reports on the threat chatters, but he could not bring himself to pony up the real deal on the matter in Benghazi. (shaking my head again).

12. Oh, ‘his’ analysts also use press reports for their assessments, which Morrell admitted today. Really the press? Whose in the press? No slight meant to on the ground journalists who often do stellar work, but by the time many of their items are filed and published, heh the core of the story is edited for political correctness…. (moving on).

13. The Chief of Station, Benghazi sent two emails (one on the 15th and his last one on the 16th) with facts and judgments to Morrell but ‘his’ analysts thousands of miles away trumped and Morrell admitted too that he was the one who sorted out the press reports, clues and intelligence. (raised eyebrow now).

14. Morrell said he did NOT take out the reference to al Qaeda from the talking points, his summary went to the NSC and the WH on Friday the 14th. But in the next sentence he said he took out the warning language put in by one of his analysts in deference to the State Department. (remember Morrell works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Hillary protected think tank).

15. Morrell today was presented with an email where the beginnings and the middle of the talking points began and percolated. In his own handwriting, there were many notes but he also wrote in some key names of those that needed to be included in the talking points creation and editing. (Director of OTA, Robert Cardillo, Alan Pino, Matt Olsen, Jake Sullivan, Mark Giliano, Lisa Monaco and Ben Rhodes, NSC and DI). All of these people got the emails on the talking points for approval and editing. Morrell tells us too that he never spoke to the White House or to Susan Rice on the talking points.

16. The Chief of Station’s email never went to anyone in the list above, the emails remained exclusively within the CIA that included the analysts and David Petraeus. The email did have in the text extremists (PC terminology) and there were up to three reasons for the attack in order: a) in response to the 9/11 anniversary b) calling for revenge of Ayman al Zawahiri and al Libi c) a YouTube video. So Morrell then concluded on his own, this was an attack but the matter of the reason for the attack being due to the protests/demonstrations. Morrell also tells us that part of his analysis was due in part to 12 reports of protests, press reports, the NSA, CIA and DoD. Yet, his analysts did not have ‘all’ reports for their summary as he told the committee. (But his analysts are the best in the agency?)

17. When asked the question, if you were seeking the best information on conditions or events in country, who would you go to for that? Morrell responded that he would go to his analysts and not the Chief of Station. He has one top analyst, a woman that is his ‘go-to’ person, she is his best source. (Guess his Chiefs of Station must be nothing more than WalMart greeters to Morrell)

18. Morrell also said in testimony that the CIA Public Affairs Office and the liaison to Congressional Affairs took out the AQ reference in the talking points and got a copy of the analysts reports using AQ AND the reference to attack. (ah, dude which is it now?) Sometime later the word attack was changed to demonstration. And Mike Morrell also said his analysts make judgments. (Facts be damned)

19. When asked about his threat assessment today, Morrell said that the terror threat is still robust including al Qaeda. We defeated al Qaeda leadership but the AQ ideology is still spreading. The threat of AQ is very significant and will grow. (Clapper concurs on this but Barack Obama says otherwise, feel secure yet or how about those Americans working in foreign lands?)

20. Morrell was also asked about how the CIA types that work in foreign lands feel, he responded that those working across the globe don’t feel abandoned. (Ah, just who did he ask, any of the 30 working in Libya by chance?)

21. Mike Morrell did offer this tidbit, ‘the CIA should not be in the business of creating un-classified talking points or talking to the public, this was part of the written lessons learned post the Benghazi attack’. It should also be noted that there were 2-a-day deputy meetings for several days after Benghazi. Those meetings included members from the State Department, NCTC, DoD, NSC, CIA, FBI and DoJ. These meetings mostly included what measures so be taken in the future to keep another Benghazi from happening again. (Oh, you mean, that now all the diplomatic rules and laws established after the Tehran hostage situation should now be followed?)

Well, I that is about all I could take, there are still more to learn, but really, not any different than what is written above.

In summary however, I must add this one stipulation. Congressman Ruppersburger ( Just call me Dutch) wants to move past Benghazi, but he does need to be reminded of this:

All the people assigned to Benghazi between both locations were left to perish as no one knew when the attacks would officially stop. Between the two locations, there were almost 40 people assigned in Benghazi and we cannot forget the real time communications going on including ‘critics’, critical situation reports and the real time video feeds. Oh, one last thing, we continue to hear that 4 Americans died in Benghazi, but, ah, actually there are 29 people dead of unknown work status, meaning were they too working as contractors or paid informants….

Sorry there was another Ft. Hood shooting that was going on as I was writing this but here is another update….those CIA’ers in Benghazi listened to Mike Morrell’s testimony today. To say the least they are not pleased, saying either he still does not know what happened that night or he is covering for somebody. Heck, I think it both, and more than one somebody. Ah well, read for yourself on what those on the ground had to say.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/sources-on-ground-during-benghazi-attack-slam-ex-cia-boss-morells-testimony/

Over for now, may be another update soon.

Dempsey there but not John Kerry (Israel)

Posted on April 2, 2014April 2, 2014 by Denise Simon

Well, people, the matter of Israel at the core of two epic issues remains, the matter of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the matter of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. So, while Barack Obama has capitulated with Iran with wide spread news and failures, Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is in Israel gaining an assessment on Israel’s war plans with Iran.

ABOARD A GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT — Israel and the United States are now in broad agreement about the threat that Iran poses to the region and how to deal with it, the top US military official said Tuesday.

“I think they are satisfied that we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of Israeli officials. “I think they are satisfied we have the capability. I think they believe we will use it.”

Acknowledging there were differences in the past, Dempsey said Israel and the United States are closer now in their assessment of the threat Iran poses and America’s willingness to act.

Dempsey made the remarks after wrapping up a two-day visit to Israel, where he met with military and government officials.

The international community has reached an agreement with Iran to lessen sanctions against the country in return for curbing its nuclear program.

In the past, Israeli officials have expressed wariness about the international accord with Iran and also disagreed with the United States at times over the pace at which Iran could field a nuclear weapon. Israel had raised the prospect of a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“Our clocks are more harmonized than they were two years ago,” Dempsey said.

“They just wanted to know that we are maintaining and continuing to refine our military options,” he said.

Jim Michaels writes for USA Today.

Then the matter of John Kerry and his broken talks with Abbas, Kerry bailed out.

JERUSALEM, Jan. 13 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called off his Monday visit to Israel at the last minute, Israeli broadcaster Arutz Sheva reported.

The cancellation is apparently in reaction to poor results in Kerry’s attempt to broker an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the broadcaster said.

The next stages of the diplomatic negotiations were expected to be finalized at Monday’s meeting.

Currently, Israel hasn’t responded to Kerry’s suggested security arrangements in the Jordan Valley that would replace the presence of Israeli troops.

The Palestinian Authority objects to Israel’s demand that Israel be recognized as the state of the Jewish people. It also refuses to give up on the so-called “right of return” for displaced Arabs and their descendants to Israel.

Oh yeah, one more thing, the issue of releasing Jonathan Pollard just to keep the talks moving forward, well that is for the most part off too. Pollard does not want to be released just to save John Kerry and the White House….I don’t blame him.

Putin in the Red Zone, WH and NATO in Lockeroom

Posted on March 31, 2014March 31, 2014 by Denise Simon

While Vladimir Putin is moving to Federalize Crimea and Ukraine, the Baltic States are not getting any support from NATO as Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on others) is but a quiet whisper. The United States has an agreement with Ukraine titled the Budapest Memorandum. This is a handshake that the United States will come to the aid of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons which they did, gave them up to Russia. But while eyes are on Russian forces at Ukraine’s border with Russia, many other Baltic States are in deep worry as to what comes next. John Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for four hours on March 31 in Paris to work out the next moves of each while Kerry required Russia to move their troops. Russia has refused, yet there was some troop movement where some take this as a sign to calm tensions. It needs to be known however, such is not the case.

Russia is performing military drills at the border of Finland.

Finland Frets as Russia Launches Military Drills on Its Doorstep

According to Dr. Jonathan Eyal, international director at London’s Royal United Services Institute think tank, there is “no question” that these exercises show that Russia is testing its power in the region, which was reshaped by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“In pure capability terms, the Russians are preparing an operation,” Eyal said. “The question is: Is there an actual military threat? I do not think there will be.”

Eyal said that while Russia’s annexation of Crimea has put a spotlight on its foreign policy, tension with Finland and Sweden is not new. This was shown as recently as last year when Russian jets flew toward Swedish airspace, causing Stockholm to scramble its air force, he said.

But he said that Scandinavia and the Baltic states have sensed renewed danger in recent days because “Putin is an opportunist, and if the opportunity arises he will pick up on it.”

Andrew Kutchins, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the proximity of the drills had made the alarm most palpable in Finland.

“The people of Helsinki are nervous,” he said. “What Putin is doing is sending shock waves through Europe.” However, Kutchins added that the likelihood of immediate military action appeared “very far-fetched.”

This anxiety was heightened Sunday after one of Putin’s closest former advisers told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that the Kremlin would seek “historical justice” by reclaiming Finland and ex-Soviet countries as part of an enlarged Russian Federation.

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” wrote Andrei Illarionov, according to a translation by the Moscow Times.

“Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership,” said Illarionov, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.,-based Cato Institute.

Illarionov, who was chief economic adviser to Putin until 2005 and is described by the Moscow Times as an outspoken Kremlin critic, said Putin could argue the Communist revolution of 1917 was a “treason against national interests.”

“It is not on Putin’s agenda today or tomorrow,” Illarionov added. “But if Putin is not stopped, the issue will be brought sooner or later.”

“Finland isn’t Ukraine”

The reason experts think Finland is more secure than Ukraine is that although neither are members of NATO, the former is more protected by its European Union membership.

“Finland isn’t Ukraine,” said Oliver Bullough, commentator and author of “Last Man In Russia.” “It might not be a NATO member but it is in the European Union and you can bet that if Russia were to start invading members of the E.U., the E.U. would have something to say about it.”

Bullough said the Russians had a “grudging respect” for the Finns because of the way they resisted Moscow’s Red Army during World War II. Apart from Britain and the Soviet Union, Finland was the only European nation involved in the war to avert a foreign occupation.

Research consultant Kathleen McInnis pointed out that Finland is connected to NATO in that it has taken part in NATO-led actions, including Kosovo and Afghanistan.

“Recently there has been discussion in Finland about joining NATO, but opinion remains in favor of a defense partnership with Sweden,” said McInnis, who is based at the London-based think tank Chatham House.

Add to that Finland’s recent agreement to start discussions with Sweden over a defense partnership, and an incursion by Moscow looks less likely.

Perhaps the key difference between Finland and Ukraine is that Putin does not have a tangible excuse with which to exercise the Kremlin’s influence abroad.

In the swift annexation of Crimea, he spoke of the need to protect ethnic Russians living in the peninsula from what he called the illegitimate fascist regime in Kiev.

But Eyal said that it is wrong to assume Russia’s only option is a brute-force invasion.

“Russia could put pressure on Scandinavia not to come to the aid of the three Baltic states [Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania], which do have Russian ethnic minorities,” he said. “Or they could warn in advance for Finland and Sweden not to join NATO. It’s a key foreign policy for Russia to prevent NATO’s enlargement.”

Albina Kovalyova reported from Moscow. Alexander Smith and Alastair Jamieson reported from London.

So what is being said about Finland?

One of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ex-advisers has claimed that the ex-KGB agent ultimately wants to reclaim Finland for Russia.

Andrej Illiaronov, Putin’s economic adviser between 2000 and 2005 and now senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, said that “parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.”

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” he said.

When asked if Putin wishes to return to the Russia of the last tsar, Nicholas II, Illiaronov said: “Yes, if it becomes possible.”

Illiaronov admits that Finland is not Putin’s primary concern at present but, if not stopped in other areas of Eastern Europe, the issue will one day arise. Russian troops are currently massing on the eastern border of Ukraine, following Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea.

“Putin said several times that the Bolsheviks and Communists made big mistakes. He could well say that the Bolsheviks in 1917 committed treason against Russian national interests by providing Finland’s independence,” Illiaronov told a Swedish news website.

He believes that Putin is not planning to invade Ukraine for territorial gain but rather “the goal is a pro-Russian puppet government in Kiev.”

“Six years ago Putin conquered Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. The west let him do it with impunity, and now he has got Crimea,” he continued.

“Now, eastern and southern Ukraine is destablised so that the self-defence forces can take power there. If the situation allows, it may be a military invasion.”

Finland was a part of the Russian Empire for 108 years but broke away in 1917 at the end of the first world war.

The Scandinavian nation was attacked at the beginning of the second world war by the Soviet Union, with Finland fighting the winter war and the continuation war in resistance and losing 10% of its pre-war territory.

Finland is not a member of Nato, so any invasion of its land would not constitute an attack against all members under Article 5 of Nato’s founding Washington Treaty.

Fast and Furious Part Deux

Posted on March 31, 2014March 31, 2014 by Denise Simon

Contempt, Oversight hearing, more contempt. The original story of Fast and Furious has been litigated and yet there is no solution or consequence, when in fact another operation has since occurred named Operation Fearless. At the core of these two operations is the Department of Justice, ATF and hired operatives.

Darrell Issa: Reprimand of ‘Fast and Furious’ official justifies Eric Holder contempt lawsuit

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa believes new disciplinary action against a government operative in the “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal reinforces a Congressional contempt charge against Attorney General Eric Holder.

Issa, R-Calif., said former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke “undoubtedly deserved” the reprimand he received from the Arizona State Bar for leaking information to the press about the gun-running operation. Issa said it also justifies the GOP-led lawsuit against Holder for information relating to the matter.

“Dennis Burke’s disciplinary agreement with the Arizona State Bar makes clear his belief that Eric Holder’s Justice Department was more interested in politically protecting itself than giving Congress full information about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious,” Issa said on Monday.

Burke was reprimanded last week by the Arizona Bar for leaking classified Fast and Furious documents to two media outlets.

Republican lawmakers are entangled with Holder in a court case stemming from a June 2012 House vote to hold him in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents and emails related to the gun-trafficking case.

Both sides are preparing to present arguments before a federal judge, who will then issue a judgement in the case. So far, the judge has rejected efforts by the Justice Department to dismiss the House lawsuit.

“These documents will shed light on the nature of the Department’s false denials of improper conduct and its response to Congress, including misconduct of which Dennis Burke was aware, that Attorney General Holder refused to discuss with Congress,” Issa said.

The Fast and Furious operation was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to trace gun sales to Mexican drug cartels. The program, which was based out of Phoenix between 2009 and 2011, when Burke headed the Attorney General’s office there, ended up allowing more than 1,400 guns to be smuggled over the Mexican border and one of them was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Burke told the Arizona Bar and congressional investigators in an earlier interview that he leaked the Justice Department information to the media to provide more transparency about the matter.

But Issa said Monday he believes Burke gave out the information to reveal who inside the government had originally blown the whistle on the deeply flawed operation.

“His actions to selectively leak a single document supporting a misleading narrative, though a common tactic in the Obama administration, was a cowardly and self-serving action intended to smear a whistleblower,” Issa said.

Now we move on to Operation Fearless

The Committee first became aware of Operation Fearless, a storefront operation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from media reports in January 2013. These reports made clear that Operation Fearless was fundamentally mismanaged, evidenced by the fact that nearly $40,000 in merchandise and three guns were stolen from ATF agents during the operation, including a fully-automatic rifle. After months of delay, ATF officials finally briefed congressional staff on April 15, 2013, representing that such storefront operations were limited to the single instance in Milwaukee. Subsequent media reports, however, revealed that the ATF used these same storefront stings across the country. In one case, the ATF exploited a mentally disabled man to work at the storefront. In another, the ATF had a mentally disabled man tattoo a squid smoking a joint on his neck.

The Committee’s Subpoena Requires ATF to Provide Documents Including:

· Communications relating to Operation Fearless Distributing and the Monitored Case Program at ATF.

· Operational plans and relevant Reports of Investigation for undercover storefront operations conducted around the country.

· Documents relating to authorization for ATF agents to sell weapons during these operations.

· ATF policies for conducting undercover storefront operations.

· Relevant Reports of Investigation, for undercover storefront operations conducted between January 1, 2010 and March 19, 2014, in any of the following cities:

o Milwaukee, Wisconsin

o Portland, Oregon

o Wichita, Kansas

o Albuquerque, New Mexico

o Pensacola, Florida

o Atlanta, Georgia

_________________________________________

Some things concocted by government and then approved are not only disgusting but deadly.

Obamacare, Announces 6 million What Exactly

Posted on March 31, 2014March 31, 2014 by Denise Simon

Enrolling is one thing, window shopping is one thing, choosing a plan is one thing, understanding a plan is one thing, paying for health insurance is the last thing that this administration wants to talk about. March 31 is the last day to BUY, exchange money for Obamacare, yet who really has coverage and what kind of coverage? It should especially be noted that while the healthcare dot gov website is unstable when it comes to actually working, it should also be noted that a very certain key component of the site has not been built at all and that is the interface to the actual health insurance carriers.

Let’s look closer for some truth shall we?

Making up good news about Obamacare

The Obama administration is celebrating that it has achieved its (downwardly revised) goal of signing up more than 6 million Americans for Obamacare by 11:59 p.m. March 31. Mission accomplished!

Not quite. The administration has not revealed how many of those 6 million people have paid their premiums. If you have not paid, you have not actually “enrolled.” It’s like putting merchandise in your Amazon cart but never clicking “buy.”

Besides, the number that matters is not how many Americans signed up for Obamacare but rather how many previously uninsured Americans signed up for Obamacare. By that standard, Obamacare may be headed for an epic failure.

Recall that between 5 million and 6 million Americans lost their health plans because of Obamacare last fall. If the administration now succeeds in signing up 5 million to 6 million previously insured Americans, it will have achieved . . . nothing. Breaking even is no great accomplishment.

And let’s not forget: Many of those new Obamacare sign-ups are self-sufficient people who were previously paying their own way and now receive government subsidies for insurance. Creating government dependency is not progress — it’s a step backward.

The stated goal of Obamacare was not to move millions of privately insured Americans into taxpayer-subsidized health coverage. The goal was to cover the uninsured. That was the justification for all the chaos and disruption Americans have experienced — and that is the standard by which the administration should be judged.

So how is it doing? We don’t know yet, but the signs are not good. A March survey by McKinsey & Co. found that only 27 percent of consumers who had purchased new coverage in the individual insurance market in February were previously uninsured — up from 11 percent in January. But McKinsey also found that the payment rate for the previously uninsured was just 53 percent, compared with 86 percent for the previously insured. Remember: Those who sign up and do not pay are not actually enrolled.

Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because “HHS figures . . . count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.” Goldman Sachs also anticipates that fully 75 percent of all the Obamacare sign-ups will be from people who already had insurance.

The administration faces a similar problem with Medicaid enrollments. President Obama recently declared, “We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion.” That statement is flat untrue.

The president assumes that every single one of those Medicaid enrollees is getting health insurance for the first time because of Obamacare. But according to his own Department of Health and Human Services, that number includes people previously enrolled in Medicaid who are deemed eligible for another year, as well as people who would have been eligible under the law before Obamacare. The fact is, HHS does not know how many of the Medicaid signups are “newly eligible” and how many would have signed up anyway. If HHS doesn’t know, how can the president know? The answer is: He can’t.

Over any given six-month period since 2008, between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people have joined the Medicaid rolls just by the natural expansion of the program. Much of that figure, then, is likely just regular Medicaid growth that has nothing to do with Obamacare. Moreover, the health consulting firm Avalere examined the state-by-state numbers and estimates that only 1.1 million to 1.8 million of the claimed enrollees could be attributed to Obamacare. That’s a lot fewer than 7 million.

The Obama administration is so anxious for some good news about this law that if it doesn’t have any, it just makes some up.

There are other problems with Obamacare — coming cancellations of employer-based plans, not having enough young healthy enrollees to play for the old and the sick, skyrocketing deductibles and massive premium hikes despite Obama’s pledge to “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

But the whole point of Obamacare was supposed to be to cover the uninsured. The president himself set the standard — giving Americans “access to health care for the first time” — by which Obamacare should be judged. So hold him to that standard, and ignore the hyped-up numbers touting how many people “sign up” for Obamacare.

What matters is how many of those who actually enroll were previously uninsured.