Category Archives: The Denise Simon Experience

Putin Was Specific at the United Nations

Posted on by

While Putin is in New York back in Syria:

Washington (AFP) – NATO General Philip Breedlove expressed concern Monday about the strength of Russia’s military build-up in northwestern Syria and the apparent creation of a defensive “bubble” in the Mediterranean.

The supreme allied commander in Europe for the 28-member military alliance said Russia had sent advanced weaponry beyond what is needed to fight the Islamic State group — meaning the hardware is to protect Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“We see some very sophisticated air defenses going into these airfields. We see some very sophisticated air-to-air aircraft going into these airfields,” Breedlove told an audience at the German Marshall Fund in Washington.

“I have not seen (the Islamic State) flying any airplanes that require sophisticated air-to-air capabilities.”

The Pentagon says Russia has sent at least 500 troops, along with fighter jets, artillery units, tanks and other military hardware to an airbase in the Latakia region on Syria’s Mediterranean coast.

Breedlove suggested the weaponry included SA15 and SA22 surface-to-air missile defense systems, used to take down enemy planes.

Like it or not, Vladmir Putin spoke in detail yet when it came to the sovereignty of other nations, there is some real hypocrisy in his words and actions. Having written that, once you read his words below, you are invited to comment. Putin has not spoken at the United Nations in ten years.

Several other items need to be mentioned with regard to Russia. On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama finished a climate change seminar at the United Nations and to later meet with Vladimir Putin. It must be noted, that Obama has no intentions on meeting with al Sisi of Egypt when Egypt is sounding a clarion call of action in the Sinai versus Islamic State.

There is a real break down between Poland and Russia and once again the White House is not standing with an ally.

Barack Obama announced a $5 billion ‘counterterrorism fund’ in 2014.

The new fund, if Congress goes along, would be added to the administration’s Pentagon budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, inside what’s known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund. (That’s the cash that’s supposed to be used to help fight America’s wars, and is not considered part of the Defense Department’s core budget.) Experts and former officials warned that unless the administration comes to Congress with detailed plans of how the money will be spent and why those tasks can’t be completed inside the Pentagon’s already-huge budget, lawmakers are not likely to sign off on the idea. The total lack of administration outreach to Congress so far is not a good start.

At West Point, Obama said he was “calling on Congress to support a new Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines”—from Yemen to Libya to Syria to Mali.

Lawmakers were surprised when the president said he needed them to help start the new fund, considering the administration had given them no warning and no details of the plan to spend the $5 billion they were being asked to disburse. Leaders of committees that will have to appropriate the money, in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle, told The Daily Beast there had been no briefings or consultations about the fund before its announcement. More from DailyBeast.

It could be that the Obama ‘counterterrorism partnership fund was a complete bust and a fleecing of taxpayers. As you read through Putin’s speech, he is calling for a partnership as well.

Putin is well aware that the United States has not rudder with regard to any international policy except for offering the United Nations more troops and providing additional aide to the refugee crisis. Beyond that, Obama defers to Putin, Iran and Russia.

Putin’s United Nations General Assembly speech, comments invited.

WashingtonPost:

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Monday and said the West was making an “enormous mistake” by not cooperating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the fight against the Islamic State militant group. Here is the full text of his remarks.

PUTIN (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Your excellency Mr. President, your excellency Mr. Secretary General, distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.

In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order.

But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.

The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.

This swept through the planet in the 20th century.

Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council.

However, I’d like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization.

When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.

Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way.

It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one’s own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.

Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.

We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.

It seemed, however, that far from learning from others’ mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.

But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.

It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.

First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.

Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.

In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one’s service in order to achieve one’s own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.

To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they’re in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.

Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?

Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.

We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all.

However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.

The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now.

It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide.

Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East.

First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East.

Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government’s institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.

First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result.

We’re confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine’s territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country’s political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition.

Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.

I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries’ own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries.

Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.

These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) ’20.

Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China’s initiative of the Silk Road economic belt.

We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.

As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.

I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.

We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I’m confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.

We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.

Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session.

Mr. Suleta (ph) (inaudible), a Colombian diplomat and the chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery and spirit of cooperation.

Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N. I’m confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

END

Trump Blew it on his Proposed Tax Plan

Posted on by

Pile more taxes on the wealthy and allow those below a certain level to never pay anything. We have that now. What is new? Not too much and no mention of the more proven plan called ‘Fair Tax’.

TownHall in part:

Trump’s plan for an overhaul of the U.S. tax code would eliminate federal income taxes on individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. He said those individuals would receive “a new one page form to send the IRS saying, ‘I win.'”

Trump’s plan would also disproportionally benefit wealthy earners by lowering the highest income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and businesses by cutting their tax rate — from major corporations to mom-and-pop shops — to no more than 15 percent.

Trump said his plan would also bring in new sources of revenue to the Treasury by allowing corporations to bring money held in overseas accounts back to the United States after paying a one-time tax of 10 percent. He would also prevent companies from deferring taxes paid on income earned abroad.

In sum, he says, the changes he wants to enact would not add to the annual federal budget deficit or the national debt.

“We have an amazing code,” Trump said of his tax system. “It will be simple. It will be easy. It will be fair.”

Trump said the plan had been crafted with the help of leading economists, but refused to say who they are during his news conference. He also said his plan didn’t suit any particular political agenda, describing it as a “common sense approach.”

Trump to Call for Higher Taxes on the Wealthy

WSJ via MSN:

Donald Trump is set to release a tax plan Monday that calls for major reductions in levies on middle-income and poor payers, while increasing taxes on the wealthy and reining in companies that pay less in taxes by moving their headquarters overseas.

The plan will offer a “major tax reduction for almost all citizens” and help stimulate business in the U.S. again, the Republican candidate’s campaign said Sunday.

The GOP presidential front-runner is also expected to call for the poorest filers to pay no federal taxes at all while also recommending that corporate levies be reduced.

In an interview set to air on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night, Mr. Trump shrugged off questions as to how he would pay for the tax plan and what kind of Republican presidential candidate would recommend that the wealthy pay more to the government.

“Some very wealthy are going to be raised. Some people that are getting unfair deductions are going to be raised,” Mr. Trump told CBS anchor Scott Pelley about his tax plan, according to a transcript. “But overall it’s going to be a tremendous incentive to grow the economy and we’re going to take in the same or more money.”

The tax plan will be the second policy platform released by Mr. Trump in the more than three months since he declared his candidacy. He released a six-page paper outlining his hard-line stance on immigration last month.

The tax plan comes at an uncertain time for Mr. Trump as his summer status as the Republican front-runner could be fading with the arrival of fall. The businessman has led rounds of national public polls and drawn massive crowds to his campaign rallies, but his support has shown some signs of softening as other outsider candidates gain steam.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday showed Mr. Trump is still the race’s front-runner with 21% of GOP primary voters saying he is their top pick, but he’s now virtually tied with Ben Carson, with 20% of those surveyed favoring the retired neurosurgeon. In the prior Journal/NBC News poll, Mr. Carson had only 10% of support compared with Mr. Trump’s 19%.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump came in fifth in a straw poll of social conservatives surveyed by the Family Research Council at the conclusion of its Values Voter Summit in Washington. He trailed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Mr. Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Of the 1,151 summit participants who voted in the straw poll, 56 chose Mr. Trump for president, with 20 respondents saying he would make a good vice president.

Mr. Trump brought a Bible on stage with him during his Friday appearance at the summit and his address was full, but the businessman was booed when he called Mr. Rubio a “clown” at the event.

Mr. Trump is slated to hold a private meeting with evangelical Christian leaders at Trump Towers in Manhattan Monday afternoon. An invitation said the meeting would be capped at 30 people, but about 45 religious leaders have said they plan to attend the hourlong session, according to a person familiar with its planning.

Participants will come from churches across the country, and many are African-American pastors, the person said.

During the “60 Minutes” segment, Mr. Pelley repeatedly tried to press Mr. Trump to be more detailed with his policies and the two men went back and forth several times.

Regarding his plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Trump said he would be able to extend health insurance universally in the U.S. by making “a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people.” Coverage would be private, he said.

“They can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything,” Mr. Trump said about his health plan.

Mr. Trump said that the North American Free Trade Agreement should be ended regardless of breaking a standing international deal. He said he would support sending ground troops to Iraq to fight Islamic State, but would seek less involvement in Syria, believing that Islamic State and the Assad regime would turn on each other and then the U.S. would “pick up the remnants.”

When asked how he would get along with Congress to get his plans passed, Mr. Trump said his leadership style would pave the way.

“I’ve gotten along with politicians my whole life. I’ve made a fortune on politicians. Nobody knows politicians better than I do. I get along with politicians,” Mr. Trump said.

In discussing his personal life, Mr. Trump said his life’s greatest hardship was the loss of his brother, Fred, to alcohol abuse. Mr. Trump said it motivated his decision to not drink.

“I’ve never had a drink. I own the largest winery on the east coast and yet I don’t drink which is a little weird,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump didn’t shy away from the image that he is a narcissist. When asked about magazine covers featuring the businessman that line the walls of his office at Trump Towers, he quipped: “it’s cheaper than wallpaper.”

Hillary, State of State and the Foundation

Posted on by

One has to wonder how retired Admiral Kirby, the State Department spokesperson is gonna spin all the mess noted below.

Hillary Clinton last month signed a certification of all emails being turned over and back to the State Department. Now there is a signature and possible perjury condition.

Are the phone calls flying to the White House demanding ‘executive privilege’ for Hillary and her team?

In part from the DailyCaller and good research team: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official diplomatic business created many national security problems, but they may pale by comparison with the wreckage she left behind in her department’s main digital information security office.

Harold W. Geisel, the State Department’s acting Inspector General, issued eight scathing audits and investigation reports during Clinton’s tenure, repeatedly warning about worsening problems and growing security weaknesses within the Bureau of Information Resource Management, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

Geisel’s critical comments about the deficiencies throughout IRM carry additional weight since he was not considered an “independent” IG.  Watchdog groups noted Geisel had served as a U.S. Ambassador for Hillary’s husband, President Clinton, and had never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In fact, President Obama did not nominate an IG to the State Department during Clinton’s entire term. It was only in September 2013 that the Senate finally confirmed Geisel’s successor, Steve Linick, who currently occupies the the post.

After Clinton left the State Department in 2013, Linick quickly undertook remedial action to save the IRM. Barely two months after his Senate confirmation, he issued a “management alert” to State Department leadership, warning that IRM’s languishing security deficiencies since 2010 were still there.

“The department has yet to report externally on or correct many of the existing significant deficiencies, thereby leading to continuing undue risk in the management of information,” Linick said.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Clinton put Bryan Pagliano, her 2008 presidential campaign IT director, in the IRM in early 2009 as a “strategic advisor” who reported to the department’s deputy chief information officer. Pagliano had no prior national security experience or a national security clearance.

The seriousness of Clinton’s failure was summarized in a 2012 audit that warned, “the weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems” used by U.S. officials around the world.

Geisel’s July 2013 inspection report issued after Clinton’s departure was so damning that the IRM became the butt of caustic comments throughout the IT world.

Network World, an IT review site, for example, headlined one of its articles on the issue with “FAIL: Your Tax Dollars at Play: the US State Department’s Bureau of Information of Resource Mis-Management.” The article charged that the IRM had become “a total joke.”

Another news outlet told its readers that the editors would “like to be able to tell you what the IRM does, but a new report from the Office of Inspector General concludes that it doesn’t really do anything.”

IRM “is evidently an aimless, over-funded LAN party with no real boss or reason to exist,” concluded reporter Jordan Brochette when the 2013 IG report was released.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, reviewed the IG reports for DCNF and concluded that “State’s IT security record is littered with questionable management, insecure systems, poor contract oversight, and inadequate training. The State IG’s reviews show a pattern of significant deficiencies and few, if any, corrections.”

Geisel issued his first audit of IRM in November 2009, eight months into Clinton’s term. It also was the first audit issued after Pagliano arrived at the bureau. Geisel identified many serious IT security deficiencies that year. Unfortunately, most of the problems would continue to be uncorrected throughout Clinton’s term.

One troubling observation early in Clinton’s secretaryship was that the IG found the State Department and even embassy chiefs of mission suffering from a lack of IT security training, including the lack of “security awareness training.”

The lack of IT security awareness by top State Department officials may partly explain why Clinton and her top aides saw no problems with the use of a personal email server. (RELATED: Fmr. CIA Head: Hillary’s Email Server Was Compromised By Foreign Intel Services)

Geisel also warned in late 2009 that at the IRM, he found “there were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for managing IT-related security weaknesses.”

In an audit about IRM in February 2010, the IG reviewed how well IRM officials were implementing Secretary Rice’s 2007 modernization and consolidation progam.

It was in this 2010 audit that the first hints emerged of poor management at the IRM. Geisel concluded the bureau’s leadership failed to satisfy vulnerable IRM field staff deployed at embassies and consulates.  He called them IRM’s “customers.”

The IG “found a significant level of customer dissatisfaction among bureaus about the quality and timeliness of IT services after consolidation.”

In November 2010 Geisel issued yet another warning about shortcomings within IRM. In this report, the IG repeated that IRM “needed to make significant improvements” to address “security weaknesses,”

Once again, he emphasized that IRM had failed in providing mandatory “security awareness training” to all top security personnel. He also noted a failure to require all contractors to undergo mandatory security authorization.

“The department did not identify all employees who had significant security responsibilities and provide specialized training,” the IG charged.

The IG discovered other worrisome problems in 2010. It found officials failed to provide corrective patches for security problems in a third of the cases examined by his office. The IG also pointed to more than 1,000 “guest” IT accounts within the department’s IT systems that could provide entry paths for hackers.

Geisel further reported that the IRM had 8,000 unused email accounts and that department officials never changed the passwords on 600 active email embassy and consulate accounts.

There were also “24 of 25 Windows systems tested [that] were not compliant with the security configuration guidance.”

The damning IG reports continued in July 2011 when Geisel detailed serious problems afflicting a new IRM program called eDiplomacy that Clinton unveiled earlier that year.

Geisel was blunt: “eDiplomacy lacks a clear, agreed-upon mission statement that defines key goals and objectives. With the absence of performance measurement process, management has few means to evaluate, control, budget, and measure the success of its projects.”

Geisel painted an alarmingly negative assessment in a November 2011 audit on the IRM’s overall information security program. Specific details were redacted but the report warned for the first time of “additional security breaches,” saying “we identified weaknesses that significantly impact the information security program controls. If these control weaknesses are exploited, the department could be exposed to additional security breaches. Collectively, these control weaknesses represent a significant deficiency.”

If the breaches weren’t quickly fixed, the consequences would be harmful to “the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems.” Complete summary here.

*** Then there is the Clinton Foundation and the proven interaction of the State Department with the Clinton Charity:

Clinton Aide Shared Classified Information With Foundation, Email Shows

Cheryl Mills sent information marked ‘confidential’ to Clinton Foundation in 2012

FreeBeacon: A member of Hillary Clinton’s staff at the Department of State emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondence obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.

The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public records request, is partially redacted because it includes “foreign government information” that has been classified as “Confidential” by the State Department.

Although the information was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because “foreign government information” is considered classified from inception.

The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.

The email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills’ State Department email address.

Mills later forwarded the full message to Desai along with “talking points for Presient [sic] Clinton” shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the region.

About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it “concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.”

The State Department added that the “disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.”

The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desai—a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007—would have been authorized to view “Confidential” information.

Mills currently sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She previously served on the board until a month after she joined the State Department in 2009.

An attorney for Mills said that she never knowingly transmitted classified information, and would presume that any information sent to her unclassified State Department email address—as opposed to through the department’s secure email system—was unclassified.

“When a subject matter sent the information on the unclassified system, [Mills] presumed it was unclassified,” said the attorney. ”She never knowingly transmitted classified information.”

Mills’ spokesperson also disputed the notion that the information would have been classified when it was sent. The attorney said that some information is not deemed classified until it is transmitted outside of the State Department.

“Information that is considered unclassified when discussed inside the State Department can later be deemed classified when it is being released outside of the Department,” said the attorney.

Intelligence experts have told the Free Beacon and other media outlets that “foreign government information” is one of the few categories of information that is automatically presumed classified from the time the U.S. government receives it, because it is so diplomatically sensitive.

Foreign government information is “born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office, told Reuters in August.

The controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server while at the State Department has been dogging her presidential bid since it was first revealed by the New York Times earlier this spring.

The Democratic frontrunner has turned over many of her emails in response to a State Department request and congressional inquiries. However, she has said that any emails that were deemed “personal” were deleted from her server.

The FBI is currently attempting to recover the deleted emails as part of an investigation into her server, according to reports.

Clinton declined to say whether the FBI investigation could uncover additional damaging revelations, during an interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press on Sunday.

“All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process [of deleting personal emails], I did not participate,” said Clinton.

Clinton is scheduled to testify before Congress on the email issue in October.

Citizens United president David Bossie said the latest news reveals the ways in which the Clintons’s various interests intersect.

“The tangled web that is Clinton, Inc.—the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo—is coming more and more into focus every day. Classified information moving from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation is extremely problematic—we’ll see if there’s a pattern here,” Bossie said.

 

 

 

Obama At UN Ignored Israel and Palestine

Posted on by

There was an official Palestinian flag raising at the United Nations this year. Last March, Pope Francis announced the Vatican’s full recognition of Palestine as a state. So the work continues to lobby all factions for a Palestinian State, but, somehow, Barack Obama missed the memo, or did he?

So, while some speechwriter did an eloquent job of writing Obama’s opening speech, it really spoke to climate change, refugees, challenging Russia and China. But when it came to another major elephant in the Middle East, Obama ignored mentioning Israel and the conflict with Palestine, when Mahmoud Abbas will be challenging the matter in his speech. In fact, Abbas is about to retire and is likely out of options for the near future.

It is almost impossible to hear what is not said, unless you are really listening.

The NYT’s has the text of Barack Obama’s remarks. Meanwhile, it appears the topic of Palestine and Israel was perhaps coordinated with Sheik Tamin bin Hamad al Thani of Qatar.  The White House has used Qatar as the single ‘go-to’ source for working deals in the Middle East.

It was a large agenda item a few years ago for the White House, where Hillary Clinton passed the Palestinian peace talk baton to John Kerry. Today, with a completed Iran nuclear deal, the White House and the Secretary of State, how no further interest in Palestine, rather it is left to the Qataris, the Palestinian Authority and anyone else who cares.

Obama’s UN Speech Ignores Israel but Hits Hard at Putin and Assad

JewishPress: Obama finally understands: “There are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa.”

President Barack Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly Monday was extraordinary in its total exclusion of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and its hard-hitting attack on the Assad regime in Syria and its ally Russia.

A strong indication that President Obama has finally realized what he and numerous predecessors did not understand was this statement:

There are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa.

It is not the first time he has said that, but unlike previous speeches, it was not followed up by the usual pie-in-the-sky statements that “Peace is made with enemies.” or “Solving the Israel-Palestinian Authority struggle is the key to bringing peace to the Middle East.

Saeb Erekat, who chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority and is secretary-general of the parent PLO, was extremely disappointed with Obama’s speech. He said:

Does President Obama believe that he is able to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) and terror or bring stability and security to the Middle East by ignoring the continuing Israeli occupation, settlements and the ongoing Israeli attacks on Al Aqsa [the mosque on the Temple Mount]?

Obama’s speech was a resounding “yes” to Erekat.

The “occupation” never was a threat to the Middle East, but the United States foreign policy gurus couldn’t figure that out, even when the Arab Spring rebellions upended stability and brought anarchy, termed by the United States as democracy, to Egypt, Libya, Iraq and other boiling pots in Arab Muslim countries.

Years after the United States ignored ISIS, it has become Public Enemy No. 1 and is being used brilliantly by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify direct Russian military force in Syria.

When Putin told the United Nations he is fighting the Islamic State, he could have been more accurate, Russia may be the only country fighting ISIS.

The American-led strike force has proven to be pitiful, as TheJewishPress.com reported here last week on the Americana-trained Syrian rebels who betrayed the United States and delivered American weapons to Al Qaeda.

The President verbally attacked ISIS but he was extremely careful to be polite to Islam, stating:

Part of that effort [against ISIS] must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

President Obama mentioned “Israel” zero times in his speech. Ditto for the terms “Palestinian Authority” and Palestine.”

The only time he mentioned “Middle East” was in the context quoted above, that there are no simple solutions.

But he mentioned Syrian eight times and Russia 15 times with harsh comments that were nothing short of cold war speech.

For example:

The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world, dictatorships are unstable.

Consider Russia’s annexation of Crimea and further aggression in eastern Ukraine. America has few economic interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. That’s the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners impose on Russia. It’s not a desire to return to a Cold War.

But his speech was remarkably chilly towards Moscow. He flatly stated:

Russia’s state-controlled media may describe these events as an example of a resurgent Russia… And yet, look at the results. The Ukrainian people are more interested than ever in aligning with Europe instead of Russia. Sanctions have led to capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians.

Pages: 1 2

Iran Busy Schedule in New York

Posted on by

Too busy in fact to attend Barack Obama’s opening United Nations General Assembly salvo, Iran is quite preoccupied.

Hassan Rouhani delivered his remarks and then left the chamber.

On the side, there are several meetings with Iran and one such provocative session is the Iranian proposal to swap 4 U.S. citizens held in prison for 19 Iranians the United States has jailed for violating sanctions.

There are still on going side discussions over the Iran deal and many open items remain unresolved as well as how the United Nations as a global body will address the human rights violations in Iran, if at all.

Rather than listen to the countless speeches on climate change, which Francois Hollande of France pushed hard, you can bet covert operations are in full swing following who is taking Iranian representatives to lunch, cocktails and dinner.

Lining up to do business with Iran is the order of the day by U.S. corporate CEO’s.

Rouhani meets with American CEOs, seeks Iran investment

Iranian president says economic conditions created by nuke deal should be used by major firms; US companies currently banned from doing business with Tehran

TimesofIsrael: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met on Saturday with a group of American CEOs and managers to discuss possibilities for future, private US investment in Iran once the nuclear deal signed in July is implemented and sanctions are lifted in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear activities.

The meeting came on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and a day after Rouhani met with a group of editors of American media outlets.

“The post-sanctions atmosphere has created new economic and political conditions which should be used by major trade, economic and industrial firms,” Rouhani told the group of American business leaders.

Following the signing of the nuclear agreement in Vienna in July, many European states rushed to renew trade relations with Iran with countries sending delegations to Tehran to discuss possibilities. European firms were also flocking to Tehran to sniff out lucrative business deals.

The US remains an exception as core sanctions imposed by Washington will remain even after the nuclear-related sanctions are lifted, meaning US companies would not be able to do business with Tehran.

These secondary sanctions are linked to US charges of Iranian human rights violations, terrorism and other allegations of wrongdoing. They have the effect of banning doing business with Iran, with only few exceptions, such as supplying parts for Iran’s civilian aviation sector.

But Rouhani expressed his conviction that these measures would also be lifted, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

“Tehran has not impeded the presence of the US firms, and these companies can also use the competitive atmosphere resulting from the post-sanction conditions for investment and transferring technology to Iran,” Rouhani said at the meeting.

There is a lot to miss out on for US firms in Iran. The country of 80 million people generates a $400 billion economy, boasts the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, the second-biggest stores of natural gas, and has well-established manufacturing and agricultural industries. It is also investing heavily in the tourism industry.

Rouhani was on a sort of charm offensive in New York ahead of his speech before the UNGA Monday. On Friday, he met with a group US editors to discuss a series of topics including the nuclear deal, developments in the Mideast and US-Iran ties and investment in Iran.

Rouhani said that in the wake of the nuclear deal, a door has opened for foreign investment in Iran.

“I think there are great opportunities, unrivaled opportunities, for American investment in Iran,” if the US government permits, he said.

Rouhani said relations between the two countries had improved in recent years but that there was “still a long road to travel” until they establish normal ties.

The Iranian president said the opposition expressed by some US lawmakers on the Iranian nuclear deal reflected “extremely bitter extremist judgments,” and was not well-received in Iran.

“It was as if they were on another planet,” he said, according to Reuters. “They did not seem to know where Iran was.”

“The nuclear issue is a big test within the framework of issues between the United States and Iran,” Rouhani told the group. “If we can see that we can reach success…and both sides have contributed to that success in good faith, then perhaps we can build on that.”

Rouhani said implementation of the nuclear deal would improve the atmosphere to allow progress to be made.

He also said that Iran can play a constructive role in addressing the threat of the Islamic State group, which has seized control of large swaths of Syria and Iraq, and that world powers were wrong to try to keep Iran out of the discussions on how to deal with the threat.

Iran is “a powerful and effective country in the region, this is undeniable,” Rouhani said. Without Iranian intervention on the side of the Baghdad government at a crucial juncture last year, he said, the Islamic State might already have taken over all of Iraq.

“Had it not been for Iran’s help, Baghdad would have fallen and certainly Daesh would have been ruling in Baghdad,” he said.