Benghazi, It is the Lawyers Stupid…

Posted on May 6, 2014May 6, 2014 by Denise Simon

Every government agency has more lawyers than common sense, meaning they are called upon to drum up legal advise to either not do something or to do it and in the case of a military response to the attacks in Benghazi, a boat load of various lawyers were called upon. Let’s go deeper.

For some background, directly after the 9-11 attacks on the United States, President Bush acquired a bi-cameral (joint) resolution to use military force in response to the attacks on the Taliban, al Qaeda and all associated affiliates wherever they were located at the time and in the future. This is called the AUMF. This is a standing authorization that has never expired.

Now in the case of Benghazi, Libya, NATO as a collective of member nations sought and gained a United Nation Resolution for a ‘no-fly’ zone in Libya which eventually led to the capture of Qaddafi but this resolution also included striking all of Qaddafi’s military weapons and any other cache of military grade arms including residual yellowcake inventories. The Libya operation did perform rather well at in fact striking what was known at the time Qaddafi’s arsenal. Upon the expiration of the UN Resolution which was October 31, it was determined that much of the weaponry was not destroyed or seized and this included the most deadly manpads of which there were an estimated 12-15,000.

The Senate voted for a mandate to the State Department under Hillary Clinton that an operation be deployed to capture these manpads due to the known threat of jihadists and al Qaeda factions working in Libya to steal these weapons bound for Algeria, Tunisia and most of all Mali. Hillary assigned $50 million to this operation and hence the Benghazi operation was underway. Working in close collaboration with the CIA, an annex was earlier established in Benghazi for this purpose and more meaning al Qaeda had several footprints in Northern Africa.

Now, lets move on to the fact that General Dempsey has said he and Leon Panetta did not have authorization to respond to the Benghazi attacks. Enter the lawyers. It is here that it must be known, the AUMF is a standing and enduring authorization which continues to be included in all annual NDAA law approved by the total Congress.

Additionally, the AUMF is a military mandate both in a proactive measure and in a defensive posture when it comes to al Qaeda and or any affiliates. We cannot overlook the fact that Barack Obama continues to give the Air Force and the CIA authorization for drone strikes wherever they may be located from Afghanistan to Pakistan, to Yemen and beyond. Barack Obama has said that drone strikes are used only as a last offensive measure when all other options are not viable, meaning boots on the ground to capture and detention, after all, we cannot put anyone in a prison detention least of which is Guantanamo. So we have drone strike de jour. Every drone strike by the way requires legal approval, meaning a lawyer sits beside the drone operator to process the Barack Obama kill list.

This brings us to Hillary Clinton and her radio silence of approval to dispatch to the Department of Defense a military response to the Benghazi attacks. We clearly know between the first attack and the second attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton drafted a communique stating the matter in Benghazi was a demonstration regarding a YouTube video. An email was issued by the State Department at 5:55 pm, on September 11, while the attacks were underway that Ansar al Sharia has taken credit for the attacks. This email also asked that the Libyan President and Libyan Prime Minister to please pursue Ansar al Sharia. A few hours later, Beth J0nes, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs working directly for Hillary Clinton wrote an email to the Libyan Minister, time-stamped September 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm that the attack was at the hands of Ansar al Sharia. This email included the recipients of Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, William Burns and Wendy Sherman.

Back to the lawyers, it appears that Hillary conferred with lawyers and interagency personnel to call the attacks only a demonstration as the AUMF/military response would NOT be authorize in the case of a demonstration but would only if an attack. Huge distinction and major sticking point when in fact, they knew it was an attack and who the murderers were at the very moment the attacks commenced.

The decision was made by the interagency personnel which included the DoJ, the NSC, the WH advisors, the Pentagon and the DoD to take a pass on responding to Benghazi as the live/realtime chats, critics and video feeds via the drone and the live video of the compounds security cameras spoke to the notion that Benghazi was a lost cause regardless of how long the attacks and looting went on. The alternate decision was made instead to protect the Tripoli embassy as it where all documents and robust State Department footprint is located.

In summary, the word demonstration vs. attack is the difference between authorizing a military response to save all American personnel and Libyan personnel hired by State working on behalf of the United States.

The operation in Benghazi was NOT to move weapons to Syria much to the opposition of many theories, it was to capture the weapons before they ended up in Algeria, Tunisia and most of al Mali. For reference, go to page 2 second to the last paragraph here.

Now we understand the blame of the video, it is the cover the Barack Obama regime and Hillary Clinton have embraced to keep a light and hidden and obscure presence in Libya while the remainder of Qaddafi weapons caused huge collateral damage in Mali.

The lawyers parsed the authority and go orders and gave deadly advise.

North Korea Nuclear Program is Real

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

No one really wants to admit the effectiveness and reality of the North Korea nuclear program but it is real. The real objective of the global leaders is to determine what is next. Global Hawks, eyes in the sky along with Geo-Spatial systems are taking pictures for sure, but analyzing the scope of the North Korean objectives continues to pose future estimates and targets as well as timelines.

U.S. researchers detect increased activity at North Korea’s nuclear test site but remain unsure when an underground explosion might happen.

South Korea said last week, as President Barack Obama toured East Asia, that the North appeared ready to conduct its fourth nuclear test since 2006 at Punggye-ri (PUNG-gare-ree).

The North Korea-watching website 38 North says commercial satellite images taken Tuesday show vehicles and equipment outside a tunnel entrance. It says past practice suggests those would all be withdrawn immediately before any blast.

The imagery also shows possible signs of digging at another part of Punggye-ri, further sign a test isn’t imminent.

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said VIPs may have recently visited the site and a test could happen soon, but it’s difficult to determine when.

It is time to question the assessments and the abilities and then the truth of what is being reported by the U.S. government officials and the United Nations.

Abstract

A recent unclassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment stated: “DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North [Korea] currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles.” This conclusion is highly credible and not really new. North Korea was assessed to have nuclear weapons long before the actual (or at least detected) first test of these weapons in 2006. Building a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried by the relatively large payloads of North Korea’s ballistic missiles is not a very difficult task today. In light of what is now known about the proliferation of a nuclear missile warhead from China to Pakistan and from Pakistan to North Korea, the North Korea defector reports about nuclear weapons development and the North Korean nuclear tests, the DIA conclusion may be an understatement. The North Korean nuclear stockpile may be significantly greater than what is usually assessed. This is of concern because the North Korean regime is the most brutal Stalinist dictatorship in the world. Moreover, while North Korea has long made occasional nuclear attack threats against the U.S. in the past, the scope, magnitude, and frequency of these threats vastly increased in 2013. Current U.S. policy, which downgrades the importance of nuclear deterrence and cuts missile defense, is not well suited to handle this threat.

Read more on a related study here.

Overview Last updated: February, 2014

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has an active nuclear weapons program and tested nuclear explosive devices in 2006, 2009, and 2013. It is also capable of enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea deploys short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and successfully launched a long-range rocket in 2012. Pyongyang unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in January 2003 and is not a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) or a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The DPRK is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and is believed to possess a large chemical weapons program. North Korea is a party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), but is suspected of maintaining an offensive biological weapons program in defiance of that treaty.

Nuclear North Korea’s interest in a nuclear weapons program reaches back to the end of World War II. Since then, Pyongyang developed a nuclear fuel cycle capability and has both plutonium and enriched uranium programs capable of producing fissile material. North Korea declared that it had roughly 38.5kg of weapons-grade plutonium extracted from spent fuel rods in May 2008, however external estimates have varied.[1] In November 2010, North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment program ostensibly intended to produce low enriched uranium for power reactors, though it is possible for Pyongyang to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes.[2] North Korea conducted three nuclear weapons tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013.[3]

The Six-Party Talks between North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States began in 2003 with the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. However, these talks have been suspended since April 2009. Initial uncertainties about North Korea’s nuclear program after the death of Kim Jong Il were tempered when Pyongyang agreed to suspend nuclear tests, uranium enrichment, and long-range missile tests in exchange for food aid from the U.S. on 29 February 2012.[4] After a dispute with the United States over the launch of a rocket in April 2012, North Korea declared the agreement void, and later conducted a nuclear test in February 2013.[5] In April 2013, North Korean state media announced that Pyongyang would restart all nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, including its 5MW graphite-moderated reactor, and uranium enrichment plant.[6] By August 2013, satellite imagery confirmed steam venting from the 5MW reactor’s turbine and generator building.[7]

Biological

Although the DPRK acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 1987, it is suspected of maintaining an ongoing biological weapons program. Defectors from the DPRK and the defense agencies of the United States and South Korea generally agree that the country began to acquire a biological weapons capability in the early 1960s.[8] However, open source information on the DPRK’s biological weapons program varies considerably. The 2010 Defense White Paper by South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense, estimates that the DPRK possesses the causative agents of anthrax, smallpox, and cholera, among others.[9]

Chemical

The DPRK’s pursuit of chemical weapons dates back to 1954. It most likely obtained indigenous offensive CW production capabilities in the early 1980s.[10] The DPRK’s CW agent production capability is estimated to be up to 5,000 metric tons per year. Pyongyang has concentrated on acquiring mustard, phosgene, sarin, and V-type chemical agents.[11] Reports indicate that the DPRK has approximately 12 facilities where raw chemicals, precursors, and actual agents are produced and/or stored, as well as six major storage depots for chemical weapons.[12] Pyongyang also has placed thousands of artillery systems — including multiple launch rocket systems that would be particularly effective for chemical weapons delivery — within reach of the Demilitarized Zone and Seoul.[13] North Korea has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Missile

North Korea began its missile development program in the 1970s and tested a Scud-B ballistic missile by April 1984. North Korea is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

In its short-range arsenal, Pyongyang has produced the 500km-range Scud-C, the 700km-range Scud-D, and the solid-fueled KN-02, which is an upgraded version of the Russian SS-21 “Scarab” with a slightly longer range of about 120km. In its medium and intermediate-range arsenal, North Korea has the 1,300km-range missile known as the Nodong (Rodong), which it initially tested in 1993 (500km), and again in 2006. North Korea has deployed between 175 and 200 Nodong missiles.[14] Pyongyang has also displayed its Musudan IRBM in parades, although it has never flight tested it. A yet-unnamed Nodong-variant was also displayed in October 2010, which possesses visible similarities to Iran’s Ghadr-1.[15] North Korea’s Taepodong-1 (Paektusan-1), an 1800km-range space launch vehicle has also been flight-tested. North Korea’s three-stage Taepodong/ Unha SLV has been tested with varied success.[16]

North Korea agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile tests in exchange for food aid from the U.S. on 29 February 2012.[17] However, on 12 April, it attempted to launch the Kwangmyong-3 satellite into orbit using an Unha-3 launch vehicle. The launch failed after approximately 80 seconds, and the debris landed off the western coast of South Korea. The U.S. government withdrew its offer of food aid because it considered the space launch, which relied on missile technology, a violation of the bilateral agreement as well as UN Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874.[18] On 15 April, North Korea displayed six never before seen missiles in a parade in honor of its founder Kim Il Sung. These missiles, known externally as KN-08s, are likely only mock-ups.[19] The missiles were displayed on six trucks of Chinese-origin that were converted to transporter-erector-launchers (TELs).[20] On 12 December 2012, North Korea reattempted its Unha-3 launch, successfully putting a Kwangmyong-3 satellite into orbit.[21] This test proves a significant advancement in North Korean missile technology. With only slight modifications for re-entry the rocket could deliver a very small payload, though without great accuracy.

Pyongyang has also tested anti-ship cruise missiles numerous times since 1994. The North Korean missile identified as the AG-1 is based on the Chinese CSSC-3 ‘Seersucker’. Anti-ship cruise missile tests on 25 May and 7 June 2007 are believed to have been either the KN-01 or the Chinese-made CSSC-3 ‘Seersucker’.[22]

Citations on the above are here.

Iran, the Pivot Away

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

Nothing has changed in Iran, except Rouhani is now wealthier given the suspension by the United States of key sanctions. Iran is as strong today globally as it ever was. Europe is considering stronger sanctions and Iran is working diligently to get more sanctions lifted to buy at least 400 aircraft.

Just keep in mind that the Obama White House has been negotiating with Iran and using several mediators, but even more disturbing is what is below. We are earnestly working with a state sponsor of terror.

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah. It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary. In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria. Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role. There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations. In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.

Beyond terrorism, there is still the matter of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA.

The Iranian regime’s Atomic Energy Organization spokesman, Behrouz Kamalvandi, stated that “legally, they have no right to visit Parchin since we are not implementing the Additional Protocol (to the NPT) and even if we did, access needs to be managed” (State-run Fars news agency, May 3).

Iran and China are now strategic defense partners which the State Department seems to dismiss. Then there is Sudan.

Two Iranian warships docked for refuelling on Monday in Port Sudan, across the Red Sea from Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia.

Sudan’s army spokesman Sawarmi Khaled Saad said the warships, one of them a navy supply ship, had arrived in Port Sudan, where civilians could tour the vessels during their port call.

Naval vessels from Iran have periodically stopped in Port Sudan for what Khartoum describes as normal port calls.

The coastal city lies about 250 kilometres (155 miles) across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia, which has long been wary of Iran’s regional ambitions.

In March, a Western diplomat said strained political relations between Riyadh and Khartoum over Iran could have been a factor in a decision by Saudi banks to stop dealing with Sudan.

Khartoum also has close ties with Qatar, which is perceived as supporting the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, towards which Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have long been hostile.

Relations between Sudan and Saudi Arabia are “zero”, a senior Sudanese opposition politician told AFP last month.

But Ibrahim Ghandour, an aide to President Omar al-Bashir, said in a March interview that there is “nothing peculiar” in Sudan’s relations with Iran, insisting they had not affected ties with other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which remains a leading investor.

On Monday Sudan’s foreign ministry described relations with the Gulf as “stable” and said ties with Saudi Arabia are based on “mutual respect,” in a report to parliament, the official SUNA news agency said.

There are CIA political hacks and then the Others

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

I have nothing to add to this one except to say, there once was a time when the oath and sense of duty meant something.

The CIA that saved Dick Holm

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, May 2, 2014 – Benghazi showed us a difficult truth. Once upon a time, the CIA left no man behind. The Agency took care of its own, even in the face of disapproval from the public or from other government organizations. Right or wrong, the Agency did everything it could to protect its employees.

And the leaders in the United States Government backed those decisions, anxious to protect Americans overseas.

That was the CIA that saved Dick Holm; that went into the Congo not once but twice to rescue him.

In 1964, Dick Holm was a young CIA officer. After a two-year tour in Laos and Thailand, Holm was assigned to the Congo, to collect intelligence and support Belgian operations in the country.

One day in 1965, the chief of the air unit directed Holm to conduct an air survey of the area to determine whether arms and ammunition were coming across the border with Sudan. Holm was to ride with pilot Juan Peron in his T-28, a two-seater plane where the passenger sits behind the pilot. The mission was to gather intelligence but, even more importantly, to attack military targets

Holm tells how he and Peron spotted some trucks and a power plant, and Peron attacked both targets.

After the attacks, the weather turned threatening, blowing the plane off course. Lost and low on fuel, Peron decided to take the plane down before dark while he still had the ability to land in a clearing. They crash-landed into the jungle.

During the landing, Holm was splashed with flaming jet fuel on his face, his hands and his legs. Juan was unhurt. The plane was on fire. Holm’s eyes were seared shut from the fire and he had little use of his hands. He could smell fire and hear Juan yelling at him to get out of the plane. He used his elbows to release the harness and then crawled out of the plane, and Juan helped him get away from the plane minutes before it exploded.

Holm was weak and barely able to move, and he and Juan were in enemy territory with no support. Holm says he knew burns meant dehydration and infection, and the jungle was an inhospitable place for someone hurt as badly as he was. Holm says in his book, “Juan used his knife to cut charred skin hanging from several of my fingers. There were already bugs on some of my burns.”

Holm and Juan were also in enemy territory. Simba rebels, the force the Belgians and Americans opposed, were in the jungle and would not hesitate to kill Holm and Juan if they found them. They were known to eat their enemies after killing them, believing they gained strength from eating their vital organs.

The next morning, Juan found a village. Village Chief Faustino agreed to help Holm and Juan to safety, and to take care of Holm while Juan went for help. When Juan and the villagers came back to Holm, he was covered in bees and barely conscious.

The villagers made a litter and carried Holm back to the village. They cared for his burns and dug out the worm-like bugs that had burrowed into his wounds. They applied a salve that hardened and created a type of coating, which Holm credits with saving his life. Juan and two villagers left Holm in the village to go for help.

Eight days later, Juan and the villagers arrived at an air station in Paulis. Within two hours, the Agency officers at Paulis received permission to use one of the Belgian helicopters at the field to rescue Holm. They also sent a T-28, piloted by Juan, and the air operations chief in Paulis had ordered a C130 to be at Paulis to transport Holm as soon as he arrived.

When the helicopter crashed on landing to rescue Holm, the air operation authorized a second helicopter to take its place.

That second helicopter saved Holm, and returned him to Paulis. He then immediately was transferred to the C130 and sent to a hospital in what was then Leopoldville, now Kinshasa.

Holm also reports that when CIA headquarters heard Holm was in Paulis, Dick Helms, the Deputy Director for Plans, now the Directorate of Operations, immediately went to Director of Central Intelligence John McCone and said the only way to save Holm’s life was to get him to the National Burn Center in San Antonio, Texas. The DCI called Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who authorized the US Air force to deploy a 707 to carry a burn team to care for Holm.

Holm survived, and after years of painful rehabilitation, returned to have an extraordinary 35-year career at the CIA.

The U.S. government went in to rescue Holm, one man, and spared no expense to give him the best care possible.

Where was that CIA on September 11, 2012?

On September 11, 2012, CIA-affiliated officers stood on a roof in Benghazi for seven hours waiting for help from the U.S. government. None came. Eventually, they could no longer hold back the terrorists, and they lost their lives.

Charles Woods and Glen Doherty, part of a Global Response Staff that provides security for CIA officers overseas held off hostile attackers at the US Consulate in Benghazi for seven hours on September 11. For seven hours after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith were attacked, they manned machine guns on the roof of the CIA annex and defended US territory and personnel. They called for help but were ignored.

While the public still does not know exactly what happened in Benghazi, we do know that US government leaders did not deploy forces to rescue Americans stranded on a rooftop taking enemy fire. We know that for seven hours, those men called for assistance were ignored.

We don’t know where leaders were on September 11. We do know they were not on a rooftop in Benghazi and they did not send help, despite seven hours of requests.

We know they left those men behind.

Lisa M. Ruth

Lisa M. Ruth started her career at the CIA, where she won several distinguished awards for her service and analysis. After leaving the government, she joined a private intelligence firm in South Florida as President, where she oversaw all research, analysis and reporting. Lisa joined CDN as a journalist in 2009 and writes extensively on intelligence, world affairs, and breaking news. She also provides CDN with investigative reporting and news analysis. Lisa continues to write both for her own columns and as a guest writer on a wide variety of subjects, and is now Executive Editor for CDN. She is also a regular contributor to Newsmax and other publications.

VA Where Bonuses Trump Lives

Posted on May 5, 2014May 6, 2014 by Denise Simon

Update: May 6, 2014 Senators call for the resignation of the head of the Veteran’s Administration Eric Shinseki.

The Veteran’s Administration has a long standing policy that veterans seeking care must be seen by a VA doctor within 14 days. If that timeline cannot be met, then the VA must refer the case to a local private practice doctor. Sadly, too many veterans do not know this and what is worse, the VA administrators don’t bother to explain this to the veterans either. Consequently, death and manifested illnesses expand all without so much as a moments attention by any VA leadership including Eric Shinseki.

Each VA across the country has a mandate, but some have chosen to ignore for the sake of getting a bonus by falsifying records as is the case in several VA locations across the country. Whistleblowers are coming forward explaining the secret lists, the destruction of files and the lies where Ft. Collins Colorado is the latest to be added to the collusion.

But where is the Commander in Chief on the matter of the VA scandal? Well, as usual he will get to the bottom of the matter and that was about it. The VA had an Inspector General assigned to a VA medical center in California in 2011. By virtue of the methods to complain about medical and patient neglect offered by VA’s across the country in and of itself paint a chilling picture of how bad the neglect and obstruction of delivering care really is.

So two Senator are pressing for more answers by the Inspector General on the matter of VA abuse as witnessed by this letter. Question is where is Senator Lindsey Graham, who was JAG once in his career, why has he not weighed in? Where is the FBI and how come they are not assigned to investigate the years of abuse?

The matter of patient abuse and neglect is not about having enough money in the system, never was, it was more about personal awards of bonuses to VA administrators. Now the Concerned Veterans for America and the American Legion are calling for the resignation of Eric Shinseki, where actually the man should be tried to accessory to RICO, murder and breaking the law.

Pete Hegseth, CEO of CVA, issued the following statement:

“We’re proud to stand with The American Legion as they take this courageous—and historic stand. As America’s largest veterans organization, their moral authority on this issue is unimpeachable. We applaud their demands for accountability at the very top of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

“As the American Legion knows, it is important to note that firing Shinseki will not solve VA’s systemic problems. What the VA really needs is oversight and accountability. The next VA secretary must be given the tools to enforce accountability—which is why CVA, along with the American Legion, supports the VA Management Accountability Act of 2014 (HR4031/S2013).

“Firing Shinseki, without passing this critical—and bipartisan—legislation, will be a hollow victory for veterans. Accountability needs to start at the top, but must also be infused in all aspects of VA. We need to replace Shinseki with a VA secretary who is fully empowered to change the culture at VA and implement long-overdue reforms.”

– See more at: http://concernedveteransforamerica.org/2014/05/05/concerned-veterans-america-fully-supports-american-legion-call-fire-veterans-affairs-secretary-eric-shinseki/#sthash.ywZ7RLnH.dpuf

This is the recommended solution to the common patient abuse and neglect by Eric Shinsheki. Attach the scarlet letter to all those involved in this neglect as ‘A’ stands for abuse, nothing more shameful …..nothing.