Intel Matters

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/10/who-authorized-fbi-surveillance-of-petraeus

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Saturday, November 10, 2012 -- 1:45 PM EST
-----

F.B.I. Said to Have Stumbled Into News of Petraeus Affair

The F.B.I. investigation that led to the resignation of David H. Petraeus as C.I.A.
director began with a complaint several months ago about “harassing” e-mails sent by
Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus’s biographer, to an unidentified third person, a
government official briefed on the case said Saturday. 

When F.B.I. agents following up on the complaint began to examine Ms. Broadwell’s
e-mails, they discovered exchanges between her and Mr. Petraeus that revealed that
they were having an affair, said the official, who spoke of the investigation on the
condition of anonymity. 

The person who complained about harassing messages from Ms. Broadwell, according to
the official, was not a family member or a government official. One Congressional
official who was briefed on the matter said senior intelligence officials had
explained that the F.B.I. investigation “started with two women.” 

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/fbi-said-to-have-stumbled-into-news-of-david-petraeus-affair.html?emc=na

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/petraeus-a-sad-day-for-the-united-states.htm

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/second-chances.htm

[Crafty_Dog]

Bringing this thread into the mix for the Benghazi affair.

Not sure of the provenance of these two, but Brett Baier last night was also reporting on the "secret prison" angle, with the added point that there was a temporary handling of prisoners exception to the presidential order ending the dark operations i.e. the CIA operation may have been legal due to an exception.

===========

Petraeus Mistress Suggests Benghazi Attack Was Aimed At Secret CIA Prison

by Tony Lee 11 Nov 2012, 6:43 PM PDT


Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus may have told his alleged mistress Paula Broadwell what really happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 when terrorists murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Broadwell, whose alleged affair with Petraeus forced him to resign last Friday, revealed during an October 26 speech at the University of Denver that Libyan terrorists may have attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 in order to take back Libyan militia members the CIA Annex had taken prisoner.

Furthermore, Broadwell confirmed that the CIA Annex in Libya had requested reinforcements and could have “reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex that were under attack.” Broadwell also said Petraeus and administration officials knew within 24 hours the possible motives behind the terrorist attacks.

In January of 2009, the Obama administration ordered secret interrogation camps abroad to be closed. Broadwell's comments about the CIA Annex having captured Libyan militia members may reveal some of these overseas prisons may still be operational.

“Now, I don't know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try get these prisoners back, so that’s still being vetted,” Broadwell said during the question-and-answer session of her presentation when an audience member asked her to comment on Libya.

Broadwell, who was speaking at her alma mater about her biography of Petraeus, confirmed the Fox News report (Broadwell said Jennifer Griffin's report had "insightful information") that came out on the day of her speech that said the Obama administration denied Americans on the ground in Libya the security and help they requested, telling NAVY Seals in Libya who wanted to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans who were eventually murdered to “stand down.”

“The facts that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements,” Broadwell said. “They were requesting the – it's called the CINC’s (Commander-in-Chief’s) In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex that were under attack. “

Broadwell said the “challenging thing” for Petraeus was, as Director of the CIA, he was “not allowed to communicate with the press.”

“So he's known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening,” Broadwell said.

The Obama administration tried to claim an anti-Muhammed video caused the terrorist attacks and has repeatedly punted on whether they they turned down additional security measures and reinforcements that were requested. Broadwell, though, said there was a system failure that led to four Americans being murdered in part because additional security forces were denied.

“It is a tragedy that we lost an ambassador and two other government officials, and there was a failure in the system because there was additional security requested,” Broadwell said. “It's frustrating to see the sort of political aspect of what's going on with this whole investigation."

Broadwell said "the challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it's political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been" politicized.

Petreaus was slated to testify before Congress this week about Libya before his prompt resignation. Republicans in Congress said Petreaus's resignation does not preclude him from testifying in the future.

On Sunday, it was revealed Broadwell allegedly sent threatening emails to a Florida woman, whom she may have suspected was having an affair with Petreaus. Jill Kelley -- the woman who received the threatening emails -- reported them to the FBI. The FBI conducted an investigation and discovered Petraeus and Broadwell were having an affair.


=========================
Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

- Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives) Sunday, November 11, 2012


According to two well-vetted sources with intimate knowledge of the CIA operations and events in Benghazi, the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus is directly related to the testimony he was expected to provide before a closed-door hearing next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources close to the controversy, citing the need for anonymity due to their positions, stated that Barack Hussein Obama was aware of the CIA director’s indiscretions “long before” the November 6, 2012 elections, and knew about the FBI’s investigative findings weeks before the election, but “erected a firewall” to prevent any disclosure before November 6th.

“What I do know is that an integral part of that firewall involved having information on Petraeus that would potentially damage his career, legacy and marriage. A sort of political blackmail, if you will. What I don’t know, but suspect, is that Petraeus was placed in the unenviable but self-inflicted position of having to choose between providing truthful testimony under oath and having his professional and personal life destroyed while systematically being impeached due to this incident, or keeping quiet before the Senate Intelligence Committee,” stated one source.

A second intelligence source stated that “the announcement [of Petraeus’ resignation] was carefully timed. It was announced in a Friday afternoon news dump three days after the election, and days before the Senate Intelligence Committee was to hear his testimony, despite the President having knowledge of these events weeks ago. Friday’s announcement served two purposes; it kept controversy from emerging before the election, while allowing the administration to buy time regarding testimony by a federal official about CIA’s involvement in Benghazi.”

The resignation of David Petraeus is merely one, albeit a very high-profile one, of several coordinated moves to push any meaningful investigation into the events of Benghazi well into the future. “Obama and other high ranking officials learned many valuable lessons from Fast & Furious,” a fact agreed upon by both sources. Fast & Furious is the name given to the gun running operation from the U.S. into Mexico. “They understand that the longer they can delay and obstruct the truth, reassign key personnel with important information to positions and locations that hinder any meaningful investigation, the more the public interest wanes. As the public loses interest, it also takes the pressure off Congress from getting to the bottom of things.”

Both sources agreed that it is difficult to speculate whether Petraeus decided to extract himself from the leverage that the controversy had over him by the Obama regime on his terms, or whether his resignation was conducted solely by the terms of the Obama regime. Otherwise, both sources agreed that his resignation would buy the administration some valuable time, and the change in status of Petraeus as the active CIA director would also have an effect on the manner in which he is required to provide testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The change of status, from an active CIA official and government employee, to a citizen bound by far reaching confidentiality agreements, would change his ability to testify before the committee. “He can also lawyer-up,” added one source.

According to another CIA source, the resignation of Christopher Kubasik, president and CEO-elect of defense and aerospace company Lockheed Martin, announced on the same day as Petraeus, might have ties to the events at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “There is a relationship between Lockheed Martin and the defense department, as well as the CIA, that ties into current events in Turkey and Syria. This is particularly relevant in the operation taking place in Benghazi and when investigation into where the ‘black-ops’ money went. Don’t forget, Congress appropriated money, at the behest of Obama, for humanitarian aid, not weapons.”

Like Petraeus, Kubasik cited an “inappropriate relationship” for his resignation. “The timing is beyond coincidental, and the operation much too big for this to be merely coincidental.”

Both intelligence sources interviewed for this report agree that there is an exceptional cover-up campaign taking place. “All roads lead to Benghazi, and this cover-up is exponentially bigger than anything we’ve seen in Watergate and the Iran-Contra Affair combined. The American people are being lied to at every turn, and the Obama administration has become emboldened by the election results and a disinterested media.”

[Crafty_Dog]

second post:

"It appears we have a couple generals taking orders from their privates."


Broadwell speaks:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/all-in-benghazi-edition.php

[Crafty_Dog]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-feinstein-an-ally-for-benghazi-truth-seekers/

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/11/13/the-real-housewives-of-centcom-or-who-should-solve-benghazi/?singlepage=true

[Crafty_Dog]

In Final Days, Petraeus Hurt by Libya Clash, Then Affair
By ADAM ENTOUS And SIOBHAN GORMAN

WASHINGTON—In David Petraeus's final days at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency, his relations with chiefs of other U.S. agencies, including his boss, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, took a contentious turn.  At issue was whether the CIA should break its silence about its role in Benghazi, Libya, to counter criticism that increasingly was being leveled at the agency and Mr. Petraeus, said senior officials involved in the discussions.  Mr. Petraeus wanted his aides to push back hard and release their own timeline of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby CIA safe house, seeking to set the record straight and paint the CIA's role in a more favorable light. Mr. Clapper and agencies including the Pentagon objected, but Mr. Petraeus told his aides to proceed, said the senior officials.

By all accounts, the driving force behind Mr. Petraeus's departure last Friday was the revelation about his extramarital affair with his biographer. But new details about Mr. Petraeus's last days at the CIA show the extent to which the Benghazi attacks created a climate of interagency finger-pointing. That undercut the retired four-star general's backing within the Obama administration as he struggled with the decision to resign.

On Nov. 7, Mr. Clapper spoke to Mr. Petraeus by phone, advising him "that the right thing to do would be to step down," said Mr. Clapper's spokesman, Shawn Turner, adding that it was a hard message for Mr. Clapper to deliver. Mr. Turner denied there was any connection between Mr. Clapper's advice and efforts by the CIA to explain its role in the Benghazi attacks.

Many officials say Mr. Petraeus didn't act like someone who intended to resign as he mounted an aggressive defense of the CIA over Benghazi a week before Mr. Clapper was told about the affair.

The crisis in Benghazi was the first major test within the administration of Mr. Petraeus's 14-month tenure at the CIA, officials said.

Streaming

The CIA director's resignation over an affair with his biographer came amid questions about national security, in a case that already has engulfed a senior military commander, a Tampa social planner and an FBI agent. Follow all of the updates in the rapidly moving case in the Petraeus Affair stream.

Mr. Petraeus had struggled to win over CIA employees, who initially viewed him with suspicion because he was a high-profile former general accustomed to the hierarchical respect conferred within the military. The CIA, by contrast, is a less hierarchical institution.

"That was a big change for him," said Michael Hurley, a former agency officer. "Authority comes with rank in the military, but CIA directors have to earn the respect of agency officers."

Agency officers saw his CIA office as much more regimented compared with the relative ease with which they could stop in to see top agency officials under Leon Panetta, Mr. Petraeus's predecessor. Mr. Petraeus appeared to be surprised when much younger analysts would disagree with a point he made, a former official said.

Mr. Petraeus's attempts to connect with agency officers over running—he extended an invitation to exercise with him as long as they could keep up with his six- to seven-minute miles—often fell flat as many analysts and operatives weren't as athletic.

On more substantive issues, agency officers sometimes chafed under what they saw as Mr. Petraeus's more controlling style, the former official said. In his efforts to more closely align the CIA's drone program, aimed at killing terror suspects, with diplomatic sensitivities, Mr. Petraeus sometimes clashed with the agency's Counterterrorism Center chief, with Mr. Petraeus denying requests to strike a particular target.

Administration officials respected Mr. Petraeus's success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Barack Obama praised him in a news conference Wednesday for his "extraordinary career." But he didn't have a deep bench of backers within Mr. Obama's powerful inner circle, current and former officials say.

Not being fully aligned with the administration is sometimes good for the head of an intelligence agency that prides itself on being apolitical, the former intelligence official said.

Some lawmakers and administration officials have questioned why Mr. Petraeus had to resign over an affair that apparently didn't compromise national security. But throughout his tenure, Mr. Obama has shown little patience with aides who are at the center of what he sees as unwelcome media spectacles.

Moreover, some of Mr. Obama's aides viewed Mr. Petraeus as a potential rival. Republicans have long talked about him as a possible candidate for president. Mr. Petraeus has repeatedly said he isn't interested in running for office.

Criticism of Mr. Petraeus within the administration rose after the Benghazi attacks. Some senior administration officials at the time described Mr. Petraeus as disengaged in the attacks' aftermath.

The CIA decided to keep secret its extensive security and intelligence-collection role in Benghazi, and Mr. Petraeus didn't attend ceremonies for two CIA security contractors killed in the attacks.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus said he was fully engaged, reviewing intelligence reports and taking part in meetings about the attacks.

Some administration officials felt they took the blame for using the CIA's shifting accounts of what happened in Benghazi. Initially, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and other top policy makers used CIA talking points to make the case that the attacks were preceded by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video created in the U.S.—an assessment the agency later abandoned. Critics said the attacks had the markings of an organized strike by al Qaeda-linked militants but the White House was initially more cautious about making such links.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday came to Ms. Rice's defense, saying she had relied on the intelligence she had been given.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation in May began looking into complaints about cyberstalking made by Jill Kelley, a Tampa, Fla., woman who was a social friend of Mr. Petraeus. The case uncovered the extramarital affair between Mr. Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, according to U.S. officials familiar with the investigation.

It is unclear when Mr. Petraeus realized the FBI knew of his affair. The FBI investigation was picking up steam as reaction to the Benghazi attacks became a major challenge to the CIA.

Ms. Broadwell was first interviewed by the FBI in late September, and Mr. Petraeus was interviewed in late October. Both admitted to the affair, according to the U.S. officials.

During the same period, the CIA's role in Benghazi, initially kept secret, had come into sharper and more critical focus. "He had a lot on his plate," a senior official said of Mr. Petraeus.

At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., officials began debating whether the CIA should be more active in countering the criticism. Mr. Petraeus, in particular, advocated a more aggressive defense.

As questions mounted, a Fox News report Oct. 26 alleged that the CIA delayed sending a security force to protect U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under attack. Mr. Stevens and three other Americans died.

The CIA denied the report, then began pulling together its own timeline of events.

The Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies objected to Mr. Petraeus's decision to mount a solo defense. "We conveyed our objections. Multiple agencies did," a senior military official said.

Mr. Petraeus's decision to release the CIA's timeline to the press didn't sit well with Mr. Clapper, who was unaware it would be made public, officials said. Other agencies saw Mr. Petraeus's decision as a step aimed at presenting the CIA and Mr. Petraeus in the best light and forcing them to accept the brunt of the criticism.

At CIA headquarters, officials believed it was important to make their case. "Clearly, when people are insinuating things about a situation that just aren't true, there has to be a response," a senior U.S. official said. The official added that the briefing was considered effective. "The record was corrected," he said."Smart people can disagree on the best way to do this, while at the same time agreeing that something must be done."

Meanwhile, one week after the turf fight over the CIA's release of its Benghazi timeline, the FBI told Mr. Clapper about Mr. Petraeus's extramarital affair, said officials familiar with the timeline.

Mr. Turner said Mr. Clapper had no doubt when he spoke to Mr. Petraeus on Nov. 7 that "resigning was the honorable thing for Petraeus to do," describing the discussion as "difficult" and "painful." He didn't consult with the White House first. Mr. Clapper informed the White House that day that Mr. Petraeus was considering resigning, these officials said. The next morning, Mr. Petraeus called Tom Donilon, Mr. Obama's national security adviser, to request a meeting with the president, the officials said.

Mr. Donilon then briefed Mr. Obama. The president met Nov. 8 with Mr. Petraeus, who offered to resign. Mr. Obama told Mr. Petraeus he would think about it overnight, the officials said.

Officials said Mr. Obama didn't try to talk Mr. Petraeus out of leaving. On Nov. 9, Mr. Obama called Mr. Petraeus and accepted the resignation.

At CIA headquarters, the reaction among officers has primarily been one of shock, said a former intelligence official who worked with Mr. Petraeus. Employees frequently joked that Mr. Petraeus and Ms. Broadwell must be having an affair, but they saw it as implausible because they considered it unlikely that two people would be seen together so frequently if they were hiding a relationship.

"It was so obvious it couldn't be true," the former official said. "It was really surprising because he's so disciplined."

[bigdog]

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers & Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein
to Appear on NBC’s Meet the Press

 

HPSCI Chairman Rogers and SSCI Chairwoman Feinstein will be guests on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, November 18, 2012
Date:                           Sunday, November 18, 2012
Time:                           10:30am ET  - in the DC market  (check your local listings for air time)
Organization:              NBC
Show:                          Meet the Press

From Meet the Press  
SUNDAY: House and Senate Intelligence Chairs Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will be on #MTP for the latest on the Benghazi attacks, Gen. Petraeus, and Israel.

[Crafty_Dog]

BD:  That promises to be very interesting.

All:

WSJ  "Mr. Petraeus said Friday that initial drafts of CIA talking points referred to the attack as a terrorist act, but that reference was removed from the final drafts after other agencies weighed in, lawmakers said."

[Crafty_Dog]

Petraeus vs. Petraeus The former CIA director's shifting Benghazi story puts the spotlight back on top Obama administration officials.By WILLIAM MCGURNLike this columnist ..
Article Video Comments (22) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger 
When David Petraeus told Congress on Friday that he knew almost from the get-go that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in a terror attack in Libya, the former CIA director was contradicting information put out by two prominent Obama appointees.

The first is United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. The Sunday after the attack, Ms. Rice took to the talk shows to blame everything, falsely, on an Islamic mob outraged by a blasphemous YouTube video. Mr. Petraeus says the CIA's original talking points mentioned al Qaeda. If this was edited out, we ought to know who did it—and why.

 
Columnist Bill McGurn on the conflict among Susan Rice, David Petraeus and Eric Holder over the Benghazi terrorist attack. Photo: Getty Images
.The other person whom Mr. Petraeus contradicted on Friday was the Mr. Petraeus who briefed the intel committees in the first days after the killings in Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) sadly noted the discrepancy after leaving the latest briefing. Back in September, said Mr. King, Mr. Petraeus had left "the clear impression" that "the overwhelming amount of evidence" was that the atrocity "rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack."

Mr. King's recollection is supported by press accounts at the time, which until now Mr. Petraeus did not correct. Mr. King's characterization is further supported, however inadvertently, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). Appearing on CNN shortly after hearing Mr. Petraeus speak to her own Intelligence Sommittee in September, she said she had seen "no evidence or no assessment" indicating that Benghazi was a planned attack.

What do these discrepancies mean? In the narrowest sense, they explain why Mr. Petraeus was so compromised. Even if his initial testimony supporting the Obama administration's version of events wasn't affected by the FBI investigation into his extramarital affair, reasonable people might conclude otherwise. At the time he was leaving Rep. King and Sen. Feinstein with the impression Benghazi had been a spontaneous event, others—including the CIA station chief in Libya—were saying otherwise.

As bad as this may be for Mr. Petraeus, it pales next to what it says about how this White House handles security. Start with President Obama. We saw his flash of anger over the contention by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) that Ms. Rice is unfit to be secretary of state. Why no presidential outrage for his own team, who (supposedly) kept him in the dark about an investigation into his CIA director and later put his administration's name on a patently false account of the Benghazi killings?

At the top of that team would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The president says it is deeply unfair to blame Ms. Rice for her misleading information because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi." So why was she picked to speak? Might it be that Mrs. Clinton prudently decided she didn't want to go on the record knowing what she did about the real story?

Enlarge Image


Close
Associated Press
 
David Petraeus
.Then there's Attorney General Eric Holder. The idea that the Tampa office of the FBI was investigating the CIA director without direction from Mr. Holder's Department of Justice is ridiculous. Then again, even the ridiculous can serve a purpose.

Take the now-infamous "shirtless FBI agent." For days America was given the impression that this was a man who had the hots for Jill Kelley, the Florida socialite whose complaint about emails sparked the investigation. She came to him with those emails, and he came on to her with an Anthony Weiner-like photo of his shirtless self.

Now we have learned that this photo was sent in 2010; that it was an obvious joke with no sexual overtures; and that the agent in question is a little more competent and complicated than he has been made out to be. Not only did Fred Humphries foil an al Qaeda plot to blow up the Los Angeles airport, he shared Mr. Obama's criticism of harsh interrogation techniques and made his views well known.

Still, the "shirtless FBI agent" made for a nice media distraction. Otherwise the press corps might have been asking Mr. Holder whether he ordered FBI Director Robert Mueller not to tell the president about the Petraeus investigation, at least until after the election. Or asking how Justice officials could conclude so quickly that there were no criminal violations, especially since prosecutors didn't see documents from Paula Broadwell's home until the FBI had searched it—days after the affair became public.

In the end, all we know is this. Four Americans were killed in an al Qaeda assault on our consulate. A filmmaker falsely accused of inciting that attack is now in prison. A member of Mr. Obama's cabinet peddled a false account of how they died when the president's intelligence team knew better. And no one, including Mr. Obama, can tell us what was done to follow his order to "do whatever we need to do" to help those Americans in Benghazi when they were still alive.

It's a baffling sequence of events and evasions—one that makes sense only in a place where the No. 1 priority is not so much securing American lives in danger but sustaining the political narrative.

[bigdog]

BD:  That promises to be very interesting.

The video:

[Crafty_Dog]

While I respect Feinstein for not being a complete political hack in all this, I must say I do not follow some of her logic e.g. that Rice could only say what was in the unclassified briefing/talking points.  This sure sounds to me like there was classified material to which she (our Ambassador to the UN after all!) was privy contrary to the unclassified talking points.  Thus, doesn't Feinstein's statement here boil down to an admission that Rice was lying? As were the people who gave her the false info she used as part of lying to the American people? (As the interviewer here aptly asks about the disparity between the classified and unclassified material "Why not just tell the Truth?")  The utterly weird speciousness of Obama's statement "Don't blame her, we sent her because she didn't know anything" contrasts nicely here.

To me it looks like the plan was for Rice to have plausible deniability as part of this lie to get Obama past the election.   Given the determination with which the Obama administration held on to the dissemination of this false meme about disconcerted video clip viewers getting out of hand and its efforts to blame the video maker (e.g. SecState Hillary telling the mourning father, "Don't worry, we'll get the video maker" WTF    ) well past the date of Rice's Sunday talk show performance I think we the people are well justified in shooting them all and let God sort it out. 

If Rice wasn't lying-- and it sure smells to me that she did or she's too stupid/incompetent/naive to be SecState-- , no way she should come up for SecState until we find out who was.

[Crafty_Dog]

Not sure of how reliable Debbie Schlussel is, but given the paucity of transparency in all this, I think this worth considering:

===============================================================================


http://www.debbieschlussel.com/56333/jill-kelley-helped-muslim-nations-hezbollahs-lebanon-infiltrate-central-command-macdill-base-go-to-girl-for-muslim-parties-w-generals/
November 15, 2012, - 12:08 pm

Jill Kelley Helped Muslim Nations, Hezbollah Infiltrate Central Command, MacDill Base; “Go To Girl” For Muslim Parties w/ Generals
By Debbie Schlussel

Jill Khawam Kelley was the hand-picked lobbyist for Muslim nations and their agenda at Central Command.

Kelley, who is part of the soap opera that the Petraeus scandal spawned, was in charge of hosting parties and social events to push the Islamic agenda of Middle Eastern countries. She was seen by Muslim Mid-East nations, especially Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, as the “go to” woman to push their agenda on top American generals. She was a lobbyist for their cause and, yet, wasn’t required to register as a lobbyist, like all others who host lavish parties for top American officials, like she did, in an attempt to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East.


Gen. David Petraeus w/ the Arab Nations’ Agent of Influence @ Central Command, Jill Kelley

Kelley, a dhimmi Christian Arab of Lebanese descent, was well known in the Muslim Arab embassies of Washington for doing their bidding and hosting their parties at and near MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, where our nation’s top generals are based. It’s where Central Command–the U.S. Armed Forces’ leadership over wars and military personnel Middle East–is headquartered.







When a friend of mine said that he thought the financially troubled Khawam sisters, Kelley and Natalie Khawam, were spies for Lebanon and the Arab world, I originally expressed skepticism. I believed that these twin sisters with obvious twin nose jobs were merely bimbo gold diggers in slutty outfits, who used their Delilah ways to first nab rich husbands, and then nab idiotic top American generals to participate in Lifetime-Channel-worthy bitter child custody disputes. But then I learned that Ms. Kelley, who was until this week under the radar, was quietly involved in pushing the agenda of Muslim Arab nations on our nation’s top generals with whom she’d grown close by design. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Ms. Kelley got her hooks into our two top generals in the Middle East, David Petraeus and John Allen. I’m now convinced that my friend, lawyer Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana, who has excellent instincts, was correct.

I’ve long written about the infiltration of Central Command at MacDill Air Base in Tampa by Islamic terrorists. Islamic Jihad founder and convicted Islamic terrorist, Sami Al-Arian, was an instructor on the Middle East to our top generals at MacDill Air Force Base AT THE VERY SAME TIME that he was planning mergers and terrorist attacks in Israel with “the brothers of HAMAS” and while he was bringing Muslim illegal alien Islamic terrorists to the U.S. Al-Arian’s friend and co-conspirator, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah (one of those Al-Arian brought here), who became the Secretary-General of the worldwide Islamic Jihad terrorist group, was also a lecturer at MacDill and also taught our top generals his poisonous views on the Middle East and Israel. FBI and INS agents who investigated Shallah and Al-Arian were alarmed at the influence these two top Islamic terrorists had over CentCom. They were also alarmed to find many books on the inner workings of MacDill in Shallah’s house when they raided it.

So when people ask me how I think these women were able to insert themselves into top generals’ lives and topple them (along with, apparently, the men they married), I think back to the fact that our top generals gladly allowed top terrorists to infiltrate Central Command as alleged “professors” on the Middle East. And when generals like Petraeus and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. openly attack Israel and America’s relationship with Israel, people like Jill Khawam Kelley and Al-Arian and Shallah are the reason why. Khawam Kelley isn’t an innocent socialite. She’s an agent of influence for Arab Muslim nations.

The Washington Post reports:

A military officer who is a former member of Petraeus’s staff said Kelley was a “self-appointed” go-between for Central Command officers with Lebanese and other Middle Eastern officials. . . . At the parties Jill Kelley hosted at her Tampa mansion, guests were frequently treated to the indulgences of celebrity life: valet parking, string quartets on the lawn, premium cigars and champagne, and caviar-laden buffets.

The main recipients of the largess were military brass — including some of the nation’s most senior commanders — based at nearby MacDill Air Force Base.

Kelley flaunted her access to these military VIPs. . . . The investigations of Petraeus’s and Allen’s actions, nonetheless, have raised questions about how Kelley, a woman with no formal military role, cultivated such close ties to two of the nation’s most revered generals.

One former aide to Allen, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the case, suggested that Kelley had become a de facto social ambassador among high-ranking personnel at MacDill, home to the U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Middle Eastern diplomats in Washington also knew Ms. Kelley, who came from a Lebanese immigrant family and who helped arrange social activities when dignitaries from the region visited Tampa, diplomats said. She also sometimes attended parties at Washington embassies.

I guarantee you that Jill Khawam Kelley wasn’t hosting visits from dignitaries from Israel. And, other than those from Israel, every single “Middle Eastern diplomat” in Washington is a Muslim, most of them Muslim Arabs. And all of them Muslims with an agenda that is anti-Israel and anti-Western. And definitely not in America’s best interests. They come to Tampa for one reason and one reason only–to ingratiate themselves with the top military brass at CentCom at MacDill.

And Jill Khawam Kelley was their social director in that mission.

Kelley’s sister, Natalie Khawam, was married to a top Bush administration official, Grayson Wolfe, Director of Broader Middle East Initiatives and Iraqi Reconstruction at the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and frequently accompanied him on trips to the Middle East, including to Pakistan. Before that position, Wolfe was the Bush-installed Manager of the Private Sector Development Office of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq. How many of the Khawam’s insider Arab Muslim friends did he give sweetheart contracts to? Before It’s News has more and asks more questions about the consulting and contracting firm that Wolfe now heads. Although they are now embroiled in a bitter custody fight over their son, you have to wonder what influence Khawam had on him and what was done in the Middle East. She recently sued her former employer, a Jewish lawyer, Barry Cohen, but gave up after her lawsuit was shown to be phony. Cohen struck back and found that Khawam engaged in bankruptcy fraud.

My friend wasn’t so far-fetched when he insisted the Khawam chicks are modern day Mata Haris for the Muslim Arabs.

Just look at what they’ve accomplished for the Muslim Mid-East, all of it under the radar . . . until Paula Broadwell had the stupidity to send her threatening e-mails and Jill Khawam Kelley had the stupidity of complaining about it to shirtless FBI agent Frederic Humphries.

[bigdog]

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/03/not_logical.html

From the article:

In an opinion published this week, DC District Judge Richard W. Roberts did an astonishing thing that federal courts almost never do:  He probed into the decision to classify a government document and concluded that it was not well-founded.  He ordered the agency to release the document under the Freedom of Information Act.

[bigdog]

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers & Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein
to Appear on Face the Nation (CBS) – Sunday, December 2, 2012



HPSCI Chairman Rogers and SSCI Chairwoman Feinstein will be guests on Face the Nation (CBS) on Sunday, December 2, 2012


Date:                          Sunday, December 2, 2012
Time:                          10:30am ET  - in the DC market  (check your local listings for air time)
Organization:           CBS
Show:                         Face the Nation

Topics:                       Developments in North Africa and the Middle East, Potential Cabinet Nominations, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/us/former-cia-officer-is-the-first-to-face-prison-for-a-classified-leak.html?emc=na

[Crafty_Dog]

ALLARD: Who leaked the Stuxnet virus attack on Iran?
The CIA nominee must be grilled about this damaging disclosure
By Col. Ken Allard
 Friday, January 18, 2013


Because of the looming conflict with Iran, Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense has attracted wide attention. Yet Senate Republicans may have a chance to advance their own national security agenda by zeroing in on John O. Brennan, President Obama’s choice for CIA director. This approach will require courage as well as a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and the scandal-before-last.

Long before Benghazigate, we were still basking in the afterglow of the raid on Osama bin Laden and the joys of the Arab Spring when The New York Times published an astonishing story. In a book and a widely quoted series of articles by David Sanger, its chief Washington correspondent, the newspaper essentially published the beyond-top-secret playbook of the Obama national security team.

While sympathetically portraying a technically savvy president coolly orchestrating drone strikes against foreign terrorists, the book also dropped a truly astonishing revelation. The worrying appearance of the Stuxnet virus — infecting at least 100,000 computers around the globe — was actually blow-back, collateral damage from a U.S.-Israeli campaign to sabotage the centrifuges of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It was difficult to know whether to be happy that a macho Barack Obama was bamboozling the mullahs or angry that a Pulitzer-hungry journalist had spilled the beans.

There were also other nagging worries. Since industrial sabotage is an act of war, the soft underbelly of the U.S. electronic infrastructure might be vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

There was the usual amount of descrying and harrumphing with predictably bipartisan calls for congressional investigations. I even testified before one of them, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Mr. Sanger’s revelations could hardly have been more damaging had a team of KGB moles taken up residence in the West Wing. For a time, there was loose talk about subpoenas and follow-on investigations. However, there was little real stomach in a divided Congress to take on a Fourth Estate sanctimoniously defending its right to recycle national secrets into ratings, royalties and partisan advantage.

This is where Mr. Brennan comes in. A career CIA officer, Mr. Brennan is steeped in an organizational milieu that, to the unwashed, epitomizes secrecy. To the cognoscenti, however, artful press leaks are to the CIA what haute cuisine is to French culture. When a promising operative progresses toward the higher echelons, he typically is mentored by a more-skilled Auguste Escoffier, carefully groomed in the finer points of modern media practice. Rather than courageously presenting truth to power, the savvy intelligence officer views his press patsy as just another target to manipulate. The primary objective: Always make the boss and the agency look good.

If you don’t believe that, then you probably haven’t read any of Bob Woodward’s books. In “Obama’s Wars,” for example, he mined sources in the Obama transition team to reveal top-secret code words, the existence of the CIA’s “3,000-man covert Army in Afghanistan” and, for good measure, the offensive Computer Network Attack capabilities of the super-secret National Security Agency. How did Mr. Woodward do it? By convincing willing sources that they had nothing to fear by telling him what they knew, exactly as any competent intelligence agent does when recruiting spies.

Because the news is a highly competitive business, it is not surprising that Mr. Sanger and The New York Times had their own motivations for one-upping Mr. Woodward’s penetration of the Obama White House. There is little doubt those motivations included politics, specifically the polishing of the president’s national security resume. For precisely that reason, it is also likely that Mr. Sanger had what the FBI typically calls the “witting cooperation” of senior White House officials. Compare the Sanger and Woodward books, and certain names keep recurring, especially Tom Donilon, the national security adviser and his deputy, Mr. Brennan, who also oversaw the CIA drone program.

Because the Sanger book extensively profiled that previously covert program, it is worth asking — under oath and with corroborating witnesses — exactly what Mr. Brennan knew of The New York Times moles and when he knew it. Did he, for example, ever receive explicit or implicit instructions from his superiors in the White House to cooperate with Mr. Sanger or his principal sources? If so, from whom?

To some, Senate confirmation hearings might not be the ideal venue for revisiting old headlines. Yet Mr. Brennan may become CIA director at precisely the moment when the long-postponed Iranian confrontation reaches critical mass. As The New York Times reported last week, without any trace of irony, Iranian cyberteams are now mounting denial-of-service attacks against U.S. bank websites. Mr. Brennan, as an experienced intelligence officer, please begin your hearing by telling us why the mullahs might be conducting such unprovoked acts?

Retired Army Col. Ken Allard is a former NBC News military analyst and author on national security issues.

[Crafty_Dog]

Obama CIA Nominee John Brennan Wrong for the Job
by Steven Emerson and John Rossomando
IPT News
February 5, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3902/obama-cia-nominee-john-brennan-wrong-for-the-job
 
America's top spy needs to be a steely-eyed realist, sensitive to emerging threats and keen about our foes' intent to deceive us.

Unfortunately, President Obama's nominee to head the CIA, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, has shown a tendency to fall for the bait from radical Islamists. Globally, he repeatedly expressed a hope that "moderates" within Iran and its terror proxy Hizballah would steer their respective constituencies away from terrorism.
Domestically, he claims that radical Islam does not pose its own, unique threat to American security. He has helped strip language about "radical Islam," "jihad" and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to "violent extremism" in an attempt to deny terrorists religious credibility. When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what terrorists themselves say.

Likewise, he also yielded to demands from American Islamists to purge law enforcement and intelligence training material of the terms "jihad" and "radical Islam."

Despite these positions, some American Islamists still oppose Brennan's nomination because he is considered the architect of the drone program which has killed scores of al-Qaida terrorists.

That should tell him something. But there is little in Brennan's record to indicate he'll learn from the experience.

Brennan Promotes Iran-Hizballah Outreach

Brennan's complacency regarding the jihad threat was made clear in May 2010, when he expressed a desire to encourage "moderate elements" of Hizballah, which is a State Department-designated terrorist organization.

"There is certainly the elements of Hizballah that are truly a concern to us what they're doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements," a Reuters report quoted Brennan saying.

He did not explain where such elements could be found, how they could be identified, or what separated them from the Hizballah "extremists."

That was just the latest in a series of similar statements Brennan has made about Hizballah, the group which ranks second only to al-Qaida in killing Americans in terrorist attacks. The Iranian-founded and funded group "started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time," Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.

"However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large -- they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."

In a paper published a year earlier, Brennan called on U.S. officials to "cease public Iran-bashing," and recommended that the U.S. "tolerate, and even … encourage, greater assimilation of Hizballah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence."

In "The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence," published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science in July 2008, Brennan claimed that Hizballah's participation in Lebanese politics was evidence that it was leaving behind its terrorist roots:

"This political involvement is a far cry from Hizballah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hizballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.

The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization – as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hizballah primarily as a pawn of Tehran – is to increase Hizballah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes."

The record since then could not be further from Brennan's idealistic hopes. Four Hizballah members have been indicted by an international tribunal in connection with the 2005 car-bomb assassination of Lebanon's President Rafiq Hariri. Hizballah has helped Iran send fighters and advisers into Syria to try to aid dictator Bashar al-Assad's ruthless assault on his own people. A new report finds Hizballah, working with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is responsible for a wave of terrorist plots throughout the world. Any move away from violence may have been a strategic lull aimed at avoiding being "caught in the crosshairs of Washington's 'war on terror.'"

That lull appears to be over, the report finds.

Brennan's analysis also was refuted by a senior Hizballah leader. Engaging in Lebanese parliamentary politics does not make Hizballah moderate and Hizballah politicians are still part of the mother ship.

"The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions," Naim Qassem, a deputy to Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, told the Los Angeles Times.

The retired Israeli Brigadier General Shimon Shapira observed: "Hizbullah's own analysis of itself contradicts what Brennan has been writing and stating in recent years.
"Today, saying that Hizbullah has moderate elements that have moved away from terrorism can lead the political echelons in the West to ignore how Hizbullah is serving its Iranian sponsors by directly threatening Israel's civilian population. On May 20, 2010, Hizbullah military sources boasted to the Kuwaiti daily al-Rai that Israel will be bombarded with 15 tons of explosives a day if a future war breaks out. Hizbullah clearly does not care about the implications of its military build-up for the people of Lebanon, because it only seeks to serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

In his 2008 paper, Brennan also advocated direct engagement with Iran despite its well-earned reputation as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. He minimized the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program and blamed American rhetoric as "brash labeling" for hardening Tehran's position toward the United States. Brennan's recommendations assumed Iranian interest in backing away from terrorism and a nuclear bomb.

A presidential envoy – Brennan suggested Colin Powell – would allow the United States to persuade Iran to behave more responsibly and peacefully and rein in its terrorist proxies, Brennan wrote.

"Initially, Washington should press Iranian officials to cease their vitriolic anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and to condemn publicly acts of violence that clearly are terrorism. Iran can also take some more tangible steps. For example, Iranian financial and military support to Hezbollah gives Tehran significant leverage over its Lebanese ally, and Iran has the ability to direct Hezbollah to refrain from carrying out any attacks against civilian targets, such as settlements in northern Israel," he wrote.

History again proved Brennan's assumption wrong. While there is still talk of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, four years of tempered rhetoric and invitations for negotiation have done nothing to slow Iran's march toward the bomb.

Brennan Lets Radical Islamists Dictate Policy

During his time as a White House advisor, Brennan displayed a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.

A Feb. 13, 2010 speech Brennan gave at the New York University School of Law serves as an example.

Organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet for Brennan's argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by religious terms, including "jihadist." In doing so, Brennan waded into theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.
"As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said. "We're trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance. It's the reason why I don't use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain't gonna give it to them."

Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan's views about using religious references like "jihad" have been uttered repeatedly and consistently. "President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term 'jihad,' which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve," Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

He returned to the narrative in a May 26, 2010 speech, also at CSIS.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Brennan's interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how the term has been consistently understood, especially by the intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose ideas have influenced all subsequent Islamic extremists including Hamas and Al-Qaida, rejected the definition of jihad that Brennan suggests is correct.

In a pamphlet titled "Jihad," al-Banna wrote: "Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: 'We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.' They said: 'What is the greater jihad?' He said: 'The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego. This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition …"

Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna's successor in defining Islamist thought, clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should not be fought merely in a defensive manner.
"Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam is not a 'defensive movement' in the narrow sense which today is technically called a 'defensive war.' This narrow meaning is ascribed to it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the concept of Islamic Jihaad," Qutb wrote in his book Milestones. "It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods."

Even Brennan's NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA's official magazine Islamic Horizons notes that "jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against the evil situation with the intention of changing it," that "anyone killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise," and that "a believer who participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not."

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad. In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends is the case with Israel.

These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan's host, ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA's "intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood." In addition, the federal judge in the case found "ample evidence" connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.

ISNA has sought to publicly moderate its image, yet it has kept radicals such as Jamal Badawi on its board of directors and granted a 2008 community-service award to Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, as well as a former ISNA board member.

Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy. Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Barzinji's name appears in a global phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members recovered by Italian and Swiss authorities in November 2001 from the home of Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano founder Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood and an al-Qaida financier.

At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb's writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated against using terms like "Islamic terrorism" since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as "an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam."
Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists. Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.

During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots. "Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country," he said. "So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another."

The White House invited al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the FBI's use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in "legitimate resistance."

After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration's policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. "Mr. Brennan made two important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC's government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington," an MPAC statement said. Among them, "He rejected the label of 'jihadist' to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism."

Terrorists Disagree

While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam. Asserting that religious motivation doesn't exist does nothing to lessen the threat.

When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo's mother asked her son what would drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct.

"The reason is religion, Mom," he said.

Similarly, would-be bombers Faisal Shahzad and Farooque Ahmed justified their attempts to blow people up in New York and Washington as part of a war, a jihad, they felt compelled to join.

"This time it's the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah," Shahzad said at his October 2010 sentencing for trying to detonate a car-bomb in Times Square. "So let's see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [God willing], which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order."

Ahmed, who scouted subway stations along the Washington, D.C. Metro line in hopes of aiding a bombing plot, acted in response to "an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam," his lawyer said at Ahmed's April 2011 sentencing, "that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."

Brennan grew prickly when challenged on this view of jihad. The Washington Times editorial board pressed him about the role of armed jihad in history during an Aug. 23, 2010 interview. After acknowledging that history – "Absolutely it has" happened – Brennan tried to deflect the question, saying "I'm not going to go into this sort of history discussion here."

He cut the interview short and walked out after the editorial board pressed the point, asking Brennan to distinguish between those historical armed jihads and al-Qaida's current jihad.

Brennan further displayed his eagerness to kowtow to Islamist demands in the fall of 2011. After a small number of materials in FBI training manuals and libraries were found to be excessively negative in describing Islam as a religion and Muslims as a people, Islamist groups demanded a purge of anything they considered offensive.

An Oct. 19, 2011 letter to Brennan written by Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera and signed by 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations demanded that Brennan create "an interagency task force, led by the White House," that would, among other things, review all counterterror trainers, so as to purge those that the Muslim organizations, which included many with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties, found unacceptable. The task force would also "purge all federal government training materials of biased materials"; "implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training"; and more to ensure that only the message about Islam and jihad preferred by the signatories would get through to intelligence and law enforcement agents.
Brennan readily agreed, promising in a November 3, 2011 response to Khera written on White House stationery obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, that such an interagency task force was indeed "necessary," and agreeing to purge training programs of all materials that the Muslim groups found objectionable.

To this day, officials have declined to identify those with whom they consulted in identifying the material to be removed. During an April 2012 talk at the New York Police Department, Brennan refused to answer when asked specifically whether Muslim Advocates was among those consulted.

"Now I'm not going to, you know, take on any individuals or claim or charge on this. But I just want to underscore that at least from the national government perspective and all my discussions with Commissioner Kelly and others, there is a real interest in trying to make sure that all of the different communities of different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliations, have an opportunity to express themselves, so that we are able to do this," he said. "When we talk about, you mentioned about, you know, Muslim Advocates … obviously al-Qaeda, which is, purports to be an Islamic organization, is anything but; it's a murderous organization. They certainly misrepresent what they stand for. But we need to make sure that we're able to talk with the Muslim community here in the United States. The Muslim community is as much a part of the United States as any other community of any religious background. The Muslim community is part of the solution on terrorism, not part of the problem. We need to make sure that we have all the expertise, the representation and the perspective, so that we can bring it to bear."

But in his letter to Khera, Brennan acquiesced to virtually every demand.

"We share your sense of concern over these recent unfortunate incidents, and are moving forward to ensure problems are addressed with a keen sense of urgency," he wrote. "They do not reflect the vision that the President has put forward, nor do they represent the kind of approach that builds the partnerships that are necessary to counter violent extremism, and to protect our young people and our homeland. American's greatest strength is its values, and we are committed to pursuing policies and approaches that draw strength from our values and our people irrespective of their race, religion or ethnic background.

While much work remains, I am confident that concrete actions are being taken to address the valid concerns you raised. Thank you again for your letter and for your leadership in addressing an isue that is crticial to ensuring the security of the United States."

Denies Religious Dogma Entices Terrorists

In addition to purging training material at the behest of Islamist groups, Brennan's theories about what drives people to plot terrorist acts betrays a further desire to conceal religious dogma. Economic conditions, more than religious beliefs, account for the draw of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, he has said.

"This includes those upstream factors – the political and economic causes and conditions that help to fuel hatred and violence, including loss of faith in political systems to improve daily life and the vulnerability of young minds to predators like gangs and terrorist recruiters," Brennan said during his NYU speech. "And while poverty and lack of opportunity do not cause terrorism, it is obvious that the lack of education, of basic human services and hope for the future make vulnerable populations more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death."

That may be true in some cases. But numerous examples expose this as a misguided stereotype. And terrorist leaders – those who recruit terrorist operatives – hail from professional classes. Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician. So was Palestinian Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shikaki. Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook has a master's degree and pursued a PhD. Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad had a steady job and a decent wage. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were middle class or affluent. The Times of London observed in an April 3, 2005 article that a large percentage of 500 al-Qaida members had discovered that an overwhelming percentage came from middle class or affluent backgrounds.

Scholar Daniel Pipes reached a similar conclusion in a Winter 2002 article examining militants held in Egyptian jails.

"What is true of Egypt holds equally true elsewhere: Like fascism and Marxism-Leninism in their heydays, militant Islam attracts highly competent, motivated and ambitious individuals. Far from being the laggards of society, they are its leaders," Pipes wrote.

INTERPOL similarly warned in a Sept. 21, 2010 press release that the proliferation of extremist websites showed that al-Qaida recruiters were deliberately targeting middle-class youth.

"Speaking at the two-day International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) summit (21-22 September) in Paris … INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said that terrorist recruiters exploited the web to their full advantage as they targeted young, middle class vulnerable individuals who were usually not 'on the radar of law enforcement,'" the INTERPOL press release said.

Al-Qaida publications such as Inspire magazine, along with its other media, make it clear that its followers are driven by religious zeal rather than by economics. Its slick, glossy production and the content of its articles appealed to educated people with access to at least some money. "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" is a notorious example.

Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, leader of the jihadists who killed 22 people in a 1994 attack on Americans in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, invoked Islam's prophet: "We are Mujahideen, and we want the Americans. We have not come to aim a weapon at the Muslims, but to purge the Arabian Peninsula, according to the will of our Prophet Muhammad, of the infidels and the polytheists who are killing our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

John Brennan's recipe for fighting terror seems to cast these motivations aside. That's the mindset poised to direct American intelligence gathering for the next four years.

[G M]

This, like other times Buraq does something to empower the global jihad isn't accidental.

[Crafty_Dog]

ALLARD: Who leaked the Stuxnet virus attack on Iran? (Marc: inter alia, this open admission gives Iran, China, Russia et al propaganda cover for their deeds)
The CIA nominee must be grilled about this damaging disclosure
By Col. Ken Allard
Friday, January 18, 2013

 
Because of the looming conflict with Iran, Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense has attracted wide attention. Yet Senate Republicans may have a chance to advance their own national security agenda by zeroing in on John O. Brennan, President Obama’s choice for CIA director. This approach will require courage as well as a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and the scandal-before-last.
 
Long before Benghazigate, we were still basking in the afterglow of the raid on Osama bin Laden and the joys of the Arab Spring when The New York Times published an astonishing story. In a book and a widely quoted series of articles by David Sanger, its chief Washington correspondent, the newspaper essentially published the beyond-top-secret playbook of the Obama national security team.
 
While sympathetically portraying a technically savvy president coolly orchestrating drone strikes against foreign terrorists, the book also dropped a truly astonishing revelation. The worrying appearance of the Stuxnet virus — infecting at least 100,000 computers around the globe — was actually blow-back, collateral damage from a U.S.-Israeli campaign to sabotage the centrifuges of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It was difficult to know whether to be happy that a macho Barack Obama was bamboozling the mullahs or angry that a Pulitzer-hungry journalist had spilled the beans.
 
There were also other nagging worries. Since industrial sabotage is an act of war, the soft underbelly of the U.S. electronic infrastructure might be vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
 
There was the usual amount of descrying and harrumphing with predictably bipartisan calls for congressional investigations. I even testified before one of them, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Mr. Sanger’s revelations could hardly have been more damaging had a team of KGB moles taken up residence in the West Wing. For a time, there was loose talk about subpoenas and follow-on investigations. However, there was little real stomach in a divided Congress to take on a Fourth Estate sanctimoniously defending its right to recycle national secrets into ratings, royalties and partisan advantage.
 
This is where Mr. Brennan comes in. A career CIA officer, Mr. Brennan is steeped in an organizational milieu that, to the unwashed, epitomizes secrecy. To the cognoscenti, however, artful press leaks are to the CIA what haute cuisine is to French culture. When a promising operative progresses toward the higher echelons, he typically is mentored by a more-skilled Auguste Escoffier, carefully groomed in the finer points of modern media practice. Rather than courageously presenting truth to power, the savvy intelligence officer views his press patsy as just another target to manipulate. The primary objective: Always make the boss and the agency look good.
 
If you don’t believe that, then you probably haven’t read any of Bob Woodward’s books. In “Obama’s Wars,” for example, he mined sources in the Obama transition team to reveal top-secret code words, the existence of the CIA’s “3,000-man covert Army in Afghanistan” and, for good measure, the offensive Computer Network Attack capabilities of the super-secret National Security Agency. How did Mr. Woodward do it? By convincing willing sources that they had nothing to fear by telling him what they knew, exactly as any competent intelligence agent does when recruiting spies.
 
Because the news is a highly competitive business, it is not surprising that Mr. Sanger and The New York Times had their own motivations for one-upping Mr. Woodward’s penetration of the Obama White House. There is little doubt those motivations included politics, specifically the polishing of the president’s national security resume. For precisely that reason, it is also likely that Mr. Sanger had what the FBI typically calls the “witting cooperation” of senior White House officials. Compare the Sanger and Woodward books, and certain names keep recurring, especially Tom Donilon, the national security adviser and his deputy, Mr. Brennan, who also oversaw the CIA drone program.
 
Because the Sanger book extensively profiled that previously covert program, it is worth asking — under oath and with corroborating witnesses — exactly what Mr. Brennan knew of The New York Times moles and when he knew it. Did he, for example, ever receive explicit or implicit instructions from his superiors in the White House to cooperate with Mr. Sanger or his principal sources? If so, from whom?
 
To some, Senate confirmation hearings might not be the ideal venue for revisiting old headlines. Yet Mr. Brennan may become CIA director at precisely the moment when the long-postponed Iranian confrontation reaches critical mass. As The New York Times reported last week, without any trace of irony, Iranian cyberteams are now mounting denial-of-service attacks against U.S. bank websites. Mr. Brennan, as an experienced intelligence officer, please begin your hearing by telling us why the mullahs might be conducting such unprovoked acts?
 
Retired Army Col. Ken Allard is a former NBC News military analyst and author on national security issues.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/who-leaked-the-stuxnet-virus-attack-on-iran/#ixzz2KEk944hG
 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Crafty_Dog]

I have not had a chance to give this a serious look yet , , ,

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/11/rumor-check-ex-fbi-agent-claims-obamas-cia-nominee-is-really-a-secret-muslim-recruited-by-saudis/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.afio.com/publications/GIBSON%20Draft%20IntelOversight%20Draft%20ver2.pdf

[G M]

http://www.afio.com/publications/GIBSON%20Draft%20IntelOversight%20Draft%20ver2.pdf

Very well done.

[bigdog]

http://www.afio.com/publications/GIBSON%20Draft%20IntelOversight%20Draft%20ver2.pdf

Very well done.

Thank you, GM. I appreciate it.

[Crafty_Dog]

I confess to being more than a little proud of our little braintrust 

[G M]

He doesn't have a hotness score at rate my professors dot com though....


 

[bigdog]

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Intelligence%20Reports/2013%20ATA%20SFR%20for%20SSCI%2012%20Mar%202013.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

Care to give us a brief description of what it is BD?

[bigdog]

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Intelligence%20Reports/2013%20ATA%20SFR%20for%20SSCI%2012%20Mar%202013.pdf

2013 Report on Worldwide Threat Assessment of US Intelligence Community presented to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

[bigdog]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secret-report-raises-alarms-on-intelligence-blind-spots-because-of-aq-focus/2013/03/20/1f8f1834-90d6-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

From the article:

U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged that demands on spy agencies have grown in recent years, driven by political turmoil associated with the Arab Spring, the cyber-espionage threat posed by China and the splintering of militant groups in North Africa. The pressure has been compounded by shrinking or stagnant budgets for most agencies after years of double-digit increases.

[bigdog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/gallery/2013/apr/13/10-best-real-life-spies?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=SOCNETTXT6965#/?picture=407008970&index=0

[bigdog]

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/04/22-intelligence-terrorism#ref-id=20130422_fullevent

[Crafty_Dog]

Reliability unknown:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/boston-suspects-mom-was-also-in-terror-database-sources-tell-ap-theblaze-com/

[objectivist1]

More Secrets From Huma Abedin

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 20, 2013 - www.frontpagemag.com

To order the Freedom Center’s pamphlet, “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration” by Frank Gaffney, click here.

Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary’s Clinton’s long time aide with extensive ties to Muslim Brotherhood groups, was granted an arrangement by the State Department to do outside consulting work, even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. Abedin did not disclose either the arrangement, or how much she earned from it, on her financial report, despite a requirement that public officials must disclose significant sources of income. Clinton advisor Philippe Reines contended she was under no obligation to do so.

Abedin, who has served Clinton for 15 years, became a “special government employee” when she returned from maternity leave in June 2012, according to an unidentified source familiar with the arrangement. According to several sources who spoke to Politico, Abedin did work for outside clients, and one of her friends confirmed they totaled four entities in all: the State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton.

Teneo, which promotes itself as a company that “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs, investor and public relations and investment banking advisory in an integrated approach that allows us to provide clients with unparalleled strategic counsel and operational support,” has advised clients such as Coca Cola and MF Global, the brokerage firm that went bankrupt while it was being run by Jon Corzine, former Governor of New Jersey, and big-donor “bundler” for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

The disclosure was revealed as Abedin’s husband, disgraced former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, has begun preparations for a New York City mayoral run next year in an attempt to resuscitate his career. The city’s Conflict of Interest Board requires mayoral candidates to disclose personal financial information, including spousal sources of income, but that part of a candidate’s filing is not made public. Furthermore, because Abedin relinquished her job as deputy chief of staff last June, that change abrogated her requirement to disclose private earnings for the rest of the year on her own disclosure forms. The change of Abedin’s employment status was done so quietly, she continued to be identified in news reports as employed in her former job. On March 1, Abedin was tapped to run Clinton’s post-State Department transition team, comprised of a six-person “transition office” located in Washington.

Good government groups have questioned the potential conflict of interest that representing the public, while maintaining private clients, suggests. “If she was being held out as a deputy chief of staff, it would be highly unusual for her to be a part-time employee or a consultant,” said Melanie Sloane, executive director of CREW, an ethics watchdog group. “Being a deputy chief of staff at the State Department is generally considered more than a full-time job.”

It is not clear what role, if any, Hillary Clinton played in approving Abedin’s transition to her new job. State Department officials, as well as people who work with the Clintons, refused to talk on the record about the arrangement. And while Weiner released a copy of the couple’s 2012 tax return revealing income of more than $490,000, he also declined to discuss what portion of that income was earned by Abedin apart from her job at State, which paid her around $135,000 for the year. The remaining amount of approximately $365,000 combines consulting fees for both husband and wife, sources said.

The change in Abedin’s status permitted her to work from home in New York, rather than at the State Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., allowing her to spend more time with her husband and child. While Abedin was pregnant, Weiner was forced to resign from his congressional seat when it was discovered that he had Tweeted sexually charged messages, as well as nude photos of himself, to several women. Weiner vehemently denied the allegations at first, saying his account had been hacked. But mounting political pressure forced him to admit the truth and abruptly resign.

Abedin’s arrangement is similar to those of other Clinton loyalists who received compensation for their work on Clinton’s government staff, and her political action committee, while she was a U.S. Senator from New York. Furthermore, while there is no exact number of State Department officials who have a similar arrangement, a Department source told Politico it was “not uncommon.”

Perhaps not. But Abedin is anything but a common government employee. While the mainstream media remains temporarily focused on Abedin’s role with regard to her husband’s political campaign, it remains calculatingly incurious about her work with the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and the tens of millions of dollars in donations it has received from such entities as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid, who has close ties to the Saudi royal family, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, reputed to be one of the richest men in the world, and a group called Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation.

Abedin’s earlier career also remains below the radar as well. She began working with Hillary Clinton in 1996, as the then-First Lady’s intern. She remained a loyal staffer as Clinton transitioned to the Senate, and the State Department.

During part of that time, Abedin had another job as well. From 1996-2008, she also worked as assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), a publication founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, a highly significant Muslim Brotherhood organization Osama Bin Laden once characterized as one of his terrorist group’s chief funding sources.

Using that connection, Naseef founded the Rabita Trust, a designated terrorist organization. In the late seventies, he hired Abedin’s parents to run his newly formed Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). Editing its journal has remained a family enterprise to this day, and Naseef’s tenure as a member of the journal’s advisory editorial board, seven years of which coincided with Huma’s Abedin’s tenure there, lasted until 2003–the same year he was named as a defendant in a civil case brought by victims of 9/11. Naseef was dropped from the suit in 2010, when a court decided it lacked jurisdiction over him.

Dr. Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, still edits the JMMA. She took over when Huma’s father, Syed Zainul Abedin, passed away. Both of Abedin’s parents, as well as her brother, Hassan Abedin, have deep, documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, her mother runs the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which is part of yet another terror-designated organization known as the Union of Good.

It remains impossible to understand how Abedin received security clearance to work at the State Department, which allows her access to top-secret documents. Even if one makes the case that she should not be tainted by the dubious relationships maintained by her family members, it is impossible to disassociate her from her own relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and his organization.

Yet in a testament to the power of PC-inspired denial, when these and other sordid relationships were documented in a letter sent by Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and Tom Rooney (R-FL) to the State Department’s Deputy Inspector General, politicians in both parties, as well as the mainstream media, accused Bachmann of engaging in a McCarthy-esque smear campaign.

The letter to the Inspector General was sent in June, the same month Abedin relinquished her position as deputy chief of staff. Whether one assumes this to be a mere coincidence or not, there is no denying that Abedin’s change in status was kept secret for nearly a year. The Obama administration could quickly put an end to this controversy by revealing the contents of Abedin’s responses contained in Standard Form 86, a “Questionnaire for National Security Positions.” That questionnaire should have been completed prior to Abedin serving in her capacity at State beginning in 2009.

No doubt a State Department up to its neck in the Benghazi scandal is too busy to respond.