Editor’s Note – Once again, the White House and the State Department are misleading the public over Ebola. Many believe they are flat out lying, but you be the judge. One thing is certain, the story always changes with this administration. The State Department denied that there was any plan to bring non-citizens here for treatment but there was a problem with that statement.
This time, there is a paper trail and it comes from the top – did they not think we would see it eventually, or did they think they could bring non-American Ebola patients to the USA and then spring it on us after they were already here taxing our system and endangering us all?
There is some interesting reading on the timing as well from the WHO. There is a primer on the disease and its progression from as far back as March 24, 2014. One important excerpt tells us more here:
The current outbreak in west Africa, (first cases notified in March 2014), is the largest and most complex Ebola outbreak since the Ebola virus was first discovered in 1976. There have been more cases and deaths in this outbreak than all others combined. It has also spread between countries starting in Guinea then spreading across land borders to Sierra Leone and Liberia, by air (1 traveller only) to Nigeria, and by land (1 traveller) to Senegal.
The most severely affected countries, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia have very weak health systems, lacking human and infrastructural resources, having only recently emerged from long periods of conflict and instability. On August 8, the WHO Director-General declared this outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
We wonder why the press does not just walk out on people like Jen Psaki at State and Josh Earnest at the White House. They always use some denial tactic, or artifice, or they twist and torture words to tell us one thing, knowing it is untrue or misleading.
They always give themselves some wiggle room because they craft the lies so well and the MSM will just yawn. Who really thinks they will ever be held accountable? You can watch Obama’s words on the Ebola crisis here as well. Pay special attention to how he describes the Military protocols versus the public.
If they do bring patients here, how are we supposed to trust they will not endanger us; even our own nurses and doctors coming back home can be trusted. Who trusts the CDC anymore as well? Credibility gap? It’s not a gap, it’s bigger than the Grand Canyon, and where is that vaunted savior, the Ebola Czar?
Internal memo pushes bringing non-citizens to US for Ebola treatment; State denies plan
A memo obtained by Fox News indicates the Obama administration has been considering allowing non-American Ebola patients into the U.S. for treatment – though a State Department official on Tuesday denied any such plans.
The document was obtained by Fox News from a Capitol Hill source, who said it is a memo prepared by the State Department. The top of the document is marked “sensitive but unclassified – predesicional (sic).”
The “purpose” of the memo states: “Come to an agreed State Department position on the extent to which non-U.S. citizens will be admitted to the United States for treatment of Ebola Virus Disease.”
The document goes on to discuss – and advocate for — devising such a plan. The memo recommends that “State and DHS devise a system for expeditious parole of Ebola-infected non-citizens into the United States as long as they are otherwise eligible for medical evacuation from the Ebola affected countries and for entry into the United States.”
Explaining that recommendation, the memo says the U.S., for instance, has an “obligation” to help non-citizen employees of U.S. agencies and U.S.-based private firms. It says the U.S. “needs to show leadership and act as we are asking others to act by admitting certain non-citizens into the country for medical treatment for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) during the Ebola crisis.”
The memo was obtained after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson a week ago asking if either department was formulating a plan to allow non-U.S. citizens with Ebola to come to the U.S. for medical treatment.
Goodlatte also told Fox News Monday night that his office had received “information from within the administration” that such plans were being developed. So far, only American Ebola patients have been brought back to the U.S. for treatment from the disease epicenter in West Africa.
Goodlatte warned that expanding that policy could put the country at more risk.
“Members of the media, my office have received confidential communications saying that those plans are being developed,” Goodlatte said Monday night. “This is simply a matter of common sense that if you are concerned about this problem spreading … we certainly shouldn’t be bringing in the patients.”
The administration, though, has denied planning to do so.
A State Department official said Tuesday that they’re only talking about letting other countries use U.S. planes to transport Ebola patients to their own home countries.
“There are absolutely no plans to MEDEVAC non-Americans who become ill from West Africa to the United States,” the official told FoxNews.com. “We have discussed allowing other countries to use our MEDEVAC capabilities to evacuate their own citizens to their home countries or third-countries, subject to reimbursement and availability. But we are not contemplating bringing them back to the U.S. for treatment.
“Allegations to the contrary are completely false.”
And on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the matter and said “that certainly hasn’t happened so far — I don’t know of any plans to do that.”
A Goodlatte aide told FoxNews.com that “someone in one of the agencies” initially contacted their office with the tip.
In his letter last week, Goodlatte asked whether the administration is crafting such a plan, seeking details and communications among their employees.
The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch also reported, shortly before Goodlatte sent the letter, that the administration was “actively formulating” plans to bring Ebola patients into the U.S., with the specific goal of treating them “within the first days of diagnosis.”
Editor’s Note – The subject of media bias is not new, nor is it new that many in the media are closely tied to this administration through marriage, familial relationships, or as close friends. The Washington Post ran a story back in 2013 about these relationships and posted the following excerpts:
It’s all but a journalistic commandment: Thou shalt not have a vested interest in the story you’re covering. Otherwise, a personal entanglement could color a reporter’s neutrality or cloud public perceptions of fairness. An obvious area of concern: when a journalist’s relatives or spouse is part of the news.
So what to make of all the family ties between the news media and the Obama administration?…
The list of prominent news people with close White House relations includes ABC News President Ben Sherwood, who is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama. His counterpart at CBS, news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist. CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Further, White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC. And NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.
Of course, since this story ran, Hillary Clinton is no longer the Secretary of State and Jay Carney has been voluntarily replaced as the White House Press Secretary by Josh Earnest. The names may change from time to time, but the ties continue, and the coziness is still palpable even as Obama’s numbers nose dive at this critical midterm election cycle.
But no one shows us in more detail about the bias than Sharyl Attkisson, formerly of CBS in her new book “Stonewalled.” Her tell all book has just been released and the following post reviews the book. Her integrity and veracity have been questioned and she has revealed how she was hacked and bugged while at CBS by the government, but here at SUA, we trust Sharyl because we know her attackers are not even close to being trustworthy.
Sharyl Attkisson says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” at what the analysis revealed.
“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.
This is a must read because she shows how stories are crafted, where the pressure comes from, what the relationships are, and how decisions are made on what to cover and how, and what not to cover or investigate.
Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama
Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”
That was when Sharyl was being nice.
Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper),
Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.
‘Not until the stock split’
Calling herself “politically agnostic,” Attkisson, a five-time Emmy winner, says she simply follows the story, and the money, wherever it leads her.
In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.
Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).
Meanwhile, she notes, “CBS This Morning” is airing blatant advertorials such as a three-minute segment pushing TGI Fridays’ all-you-can-eat appetizer promotion or four minutes plugging a Doritos taco shell sold at Taco Bell.
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.
Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.
Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’ ” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”
Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.
A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”
‘Let’s not pile on’
Attkisson mischievously cites what she calls the “Substitution Game”: She likes to imagine how a story about today’s administration would have been handled if it made Republicans look bad.
In green energy, for instance: “Imagine a parallel scenario in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally appeared at groundbreakings for, and used billions of tax dollars to support, multiple giant corporate ventures whose investors were sometimes major campaign bundlers, only to have one (or two, or three) go bankrupt . . . when they knew in advance the companies’ credit ratings were junk.”
Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.
“Many in the media,” she writes, “are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
In mid-October 2012, with the presidential election coming up, Attkisson says CBS suddenly lost interest in airing her reporting on the Benghazi attacks. “The light switch turns off,” she writes. “Most of my Benghazi stories from that point on would be reported not on television, but on the Web.”
Two expressions that became especially popular with CBS News brass, she says, were “incremental” and “piling on.” These are code for “excuses for stories they really don’t want, even as we observe that developments on stories they like are aired in the tiniest of increments.”
Hey, kids, we found two more Americans who say they like their ObamaCare! Let’s do a lengthy segment.
Friends in high places
When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.
The administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned “Benghazi” into a word associated with nutters, like “Roswell” or “grassy knoll,” but Attkisson notes that “the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”
Similarly, though the major media can’t mention the Fast and Furious scandal without a world-weary eyeroll, Attkisson points out that the story led to the resignation of a US attorney and the head of the ATF and led President Obama to invoke for the first time “executive privilege” to stanch the flow of damaging information.
Attkisson, who received an Emmy and the Edward R. Murrow award for her trailblazing work on the story, says she made top CBS brass “incensed” when she appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show and mentioned that Obama administration officials called her up to literally scream at her while she was working the story.
One angry CBS exec called to tell Attkisson that Ingraham is “extremely, extremely far right” and that Attkisson shouldn’t appear on her show anymore. Attkisson was puzzled, noting that CBS reporters aren’t barred from appearing on lefty MSNBC shows.
She was turning up leads tying the Fast and Furious scandal (which involved so many guns that ATF officials initially worried that a firearm used in the Tucson shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords might have been one of them) to an ever-expanding network of cases when she got an e-mail from Katie Couric asking if it was OK for Couric to interview Eric Holder, whom Couric knew socially, about the scandal. Sure, replied Attkisson.
No interview with Holder aired but “after that weekend e-mail exchange, nothing is the same at work,” Attkisson writes. “The Evening News” began killing her stories on Fast and Furious, with one producer telling Attkisson, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”
Readers are left to wonder whether Holder told Couric to stand down on the story.
Attkisson left CBS News in frustration earlier this year. In the book she cites the complete loss of interest in investigative stories at “CBS Evening News” under new host Scott Pelley and new executive producer Shevlin.
She notes that the program, which under previous hosts Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer largely gave her free rein, became so hostile to real reporting that investigative journalist Armen Keteyian and his producer Keith Summa asked for their unit to be taken off the program’s budget (so they could pitch stories to other CBS News programs), then Summa left the network entirely.
When Attkisson had an exclusive, on-camera interview lined up with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the YouTube filmmaker Hillary Clinton blamed for the Benghazi attacks, CBS News president Rhodes nixed the idea: “That’s kind of old news, isn’t it?” he said.
Sensing the political waters had become too treacherous, Attkisson did what she thought was an easy sell on a school-lunch fraud story that “CBS This Morning” “enthusiastically accepted,” she says, and was racing to get on air, when suddenly “the light switch went off . . . we couldn’t figure out what they saw as a political angle to this story.”
The story had nothing to do with Michelle Obama, but Attkisson figures that the first lady’s association with school lunches, and/or her friendship with “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King, might have had something to do with execs now telling her the story “wasn’t interesting to their audience, after all.”
A story on waste at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, planned for the CBS Weekend News, was watered down and turned into a “bland non-story” before airing: An exec she doesn’t identify who was Shevlin’s “number two,” she says, “reacted as if the story had disparaged his best friend. As if his best friend were Mr. Federal Government. ‘Well, this is all the states’ fault!’ . . . he sputtered.”
Meanwhile, she says, though no one confronted her directly, a “whisper campaign” began; “If I offered a story on pretty much any legitimate controversy involving government, instead of being considered a good journalistic watchdog, I was anti-Obama.”
Yet it was Attkisson who broke the story that the Bush administration had once run a gun-walking program similar to Fast and Furious, called Wide Receiver. She did dozens of tough-minded stories on Bush’s FDA, the TARP program and contractors such as Halliburton. She once inspired a seven-minute segment on “The Rachel Maddow Show” with her reporting on the suspicious charity of a Republican congressman, Steve Buyer.
Attkisson is a born whistleblower, but CBS lost interest in the noise she was making.
‘They’ll sacrifice you’
Ignoring Attkisson proved damaging to CBS in other ways. When a senior producer she doesn’t identify came to her in 2004 bubbling about documents that supposedly showed then-President George W. Bush shirked his duties during the Vietnam War, she took one look at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”
Asked to do a followup story on the documents, she flatly refused, citing an ethics clause in her contract. “And if you make me, I’ll have to call my lawyer,” she said. “Nobody ever said another word” to her about reporting on the documents, which turned out to be unverifiable and probably fake.
After Pelley and Shevlin aired a report that wrongly tarnished reports by Attkisson (and Jonathan Karl of ABC News) on how the administration scrubbed its talking points of references to terrorism after Benghazi, and did so without mentioning that the author of some of the talking points, Ben Rhodes, was the brother of the president of CBS News, she says a colleague told her, “[CBS] is selling you down the river. They’ll gladly sacrifice your reputation to save their own. If you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody will.”
After reading the book, you won’t question whether CBS News or Attkisson is more trustworthy.
Editor’s Note – We now have yet another Czar reporting to the White House, this time, a political hack to oversee the Ebola crisis. Did you know we have another unnamed Czar in charge of cover-ups?
It appears we have had an unannounced Czar, the “Cover-up Czar” who goes by another title: “Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs,” better known as Valerie Jarrett.
It is clear that our POTUS is more an “Observer-in-Chief” and his no spine of his own, Valerie Jarrett is his spine. It is clear that she is behind every cover-up as we see may be proven once again in regard to Fast and Furious..
Again, it is Judicial Watch, through their diligent work in unearthing evidence hidden by this administration that reveals just how transparent the administration really is, or as we all know now, are clearly not transparent.
Valerie Jarrett Key Player in Fast and Furious Cover-Up After Holder Lied to Congress
President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.
The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious.
JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.
Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sheryl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documentsshowing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010.
The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.
This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.
The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.”
Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.
UPDATE 8:30 PM Eastern, 10/10/14 – SUA has received further information in regard to the analysis in this posted article from multiple, high ranking sources in the Middle East that affirm that the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey have agreed to allow Kobani to fall to the ISIS (Daesh) forces. They have decided to deal with ISIS later, and that the US will fall in line with decisions made by this group.
The intent is to allow Bashir al Assad to remain in power in Syria, despite Turkey’s protests to affirm that Iran will then control Syria and Iraq. Additionally, SUA was told that these leaders do not want the Kurds to ever have a formal state of their own despite its current semi-autonomous stature to placate the Turks and the Iranians. SUA also learned that aid from the United States is not being delivered to the Peshmurga (Kurds) in Northern Iraq but is being held in Baghdad to ensure this end.
Please read the original article as well:
Iran Wins, the World Loses – Thanks Mr. Obama
By Denise Simon – SUA Analyst and Associate Editor
Have you wondered why Barack Obama says that a war to crush Daesh (IS) may take as much as three years to contain their terrorism? Have you wondered why we will not commit ground forces?
Have you wondered why we never attempted to removed Bashar al Assad or clean up Syria? Have you wondered about the GCC and those relationships and why there are splits in relationships in the region?
The Obama administration is on a single tracked mission to have a ‘nuclear accord’ with Iran, and nothing will be allowed to impede this objective.
There will be no consideration for historical terror globally at the hands of Iran, no allowance for millions of Syrian refugees displaced throughout the region and no attention paid to 300,000 dead in Syria and Iraq.
All of these facts are dismissed at the hands of John Kerry and his carefully selected team to engage Iran and bring them into the worldwide community demanding that leadership of other countries accept this agenda.
It is proven that John Kerry, the White House, and the NSC knows very well why and the players include as many as 100 notable DC insiders, a team of people you need to reacquaint yourself with. It is an interesting mix of strange bedfellows.
First, the administration engaged a delegation out of Switzerland to open and prod talks with Iran. Then after Hillary Clinton, who virtually had no interest in the matter knowing she had future Oval Office dreams left, John Kerry mobilized this team.
This analysis is on part four of a four part series signed by the following:
For next week: European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet in Vienna next week, October 14-15. They have a looming deadline for a final nuclear deal with Iran less than two months away, European and Iranian officials said Wednesday.
US negotiators, including Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and senior advisor Jake Sullivan, will meet with their Iranian counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday Oct. 14, a day ahead of Kerry joining the Ashton Zarif meeting, the State Department said. The meetings come as there is a growing sense in the Washington policy community and beyond that concluding a comprehensive accord by the Nov. 24 deadline is unlikely.
So for some background here are some chilling facts gleaned from their report:
In 2002 George W. Bush called Iran as being a part of an “Axis of Evil” causing an escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran. Since then, the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore the Bush proclamation and has engaged Iran in all aspects of middle east policy with sights on a nuclear weapons/enrichment accord.
There is no intention to stop the nuclear enrichment program but merely to contain it at a level that has not yet been determined. The U.S. using all the power-brokers listed above have purposely installed Iran as a peace partner and an emerging power in the Middle East. Through 2014-2016, Kerry et al, has deferred to Iran to maintain and manage al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan once we exit fully.
Today there is even chatter to remove Iran from being officially listed by the U.S as a ‘state sponsor or terror.’
John Kerry et al, have determined that Iran is now moderate and no longer a pariah such that all recent and future talks with Iran are aimed to integrate them into the world community on par with all other legitimate nations.
This is being accomplished by lifting sanctions, encouraging trade and investment in Iran, and by including Iran in not only on the diplomatic stage, but also militarily when it comes to Iraq and Syria.
At the behest of Iran, the U.S. has not taken on Syria or Assad fearing that it will fall further and become a failed state like Somalia. Syria is Iran’s beach-head. Early on, John Kerry asked Russia to take on Syria/Assad and work to impose a transitional government all for the sake of the ‘nuclear talks’. Russia declined.
It has been officially declared, though silently, that there is no military solution to Syria, either before or ‘after’ the nuclear agreement with Iran, and once the agreement is agreed to and signed, only then will a robust humanitarian solution begin at a Geneva lll meeting.
At that time, talks of a ‘unity’ state for Syria will begin and those invited to this future session will include: Saudi Arabia, Russian, Iran, Turkey, and Assad. In the meantime human slaughter continues in the region.
Israel is left out completely and after the nuclear accord is completed, the U.S. will then sell the program to Israel. Then they will sell it to Turkey to bridge all ‘gaps’ between Iran and Turkey, although those tensions have moderated since Erdogan was re-elected.
After this ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, the U.S. will aid Iran’s energy production to bolster Europe’s energy supply reducing their dependence on Russia. This will include pipelines, power grids, and natural gas delivery with cross border projects.
If no ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, certain blow-back triggers will begin and will include additional sanctions and renewed threats solicited from the West. At that point the U.S. will begin their blame game on Iran and will then reach out to Israel to clean up the mess militarily. Additionally, the U.S will threaten to wean herself completely from the Middle East interests for the next ten years.
The talks between the West and Iran are being positioned such that the entire plank is created and the approval and signing will go directly to Rouhani and Barack Obama. To date, Obama has successfully finessed and minimized Congress, Israel, and all lobby groups with regard to these talks.
There is only a feeble border between Afghanistan and Iran and Iran will use Afghani refugees as a bargaining chip in order to keep the new Afghan government in check economically as America and NATO exit the country and we will be taking our money with us.
To date, the John Kerry nuclear talks team has virtually ignored all countries in the GCC and Iran will be forced on those countries in spite of their positions today. Ignoring current and future ground conditions, the building of terror networks and the continued killing machines known as Daesh, along with al Qaeda factions merging, the outlook for global stability is grim such that even Leon Panetta and others have predicted a 30 year war.
John Kerry is playing a hidden hand with this nefarious objective such that the world is at risk due to Iran’s red carpet treatment at the hands of the Obama administration. Nuclear weapons are in the future for other countries due to Iran. This is not a Cold War Part Two building, rather it is a real hot war at genesis.
Here are some important excerpts to read from their report:
2.5.3 Improving reforms.
The Gulf States understandably fear Iran’s military capability, particularly its navy and ballistic missile arsenal; but the real threat is an ideological one. Gulf rulers believe that Iran is determined to subvert their domestic politics by exploiting aggrieved segments of their citizenry. One way to mitigate this challenge would be through domestic reform. This could help reduce Iran’s influence in internal Gulf State affairs. As of now, the kings and autocratic rulers in the region remain wary of an Iran that still symbolizes popular, Shi’ite-influenced revolution. U.S. encouragement of such reforms, while desirable, is problematic.
6.1.2 Syrian support during Iran–Iraq War.
When in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, Saddam had been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to topple Syria’s president, and Hafiz al-Assad at once committed his country to Tehran’s defense.1 Iran’s leaders named the war, which lasted until 1988, “the Sacred Defense” (of the revolution), and ever since has been meticulously building a Shi’ite sphere of influence. Called the “Shi’ite Crescent” by some detractors and the “Resistance Front” by those who belong to it, Iran’s network stretches across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. The Resistance Front, which was originally made up only of Hezbollah and Syria but which today includes Iraq, has been a central pillar of Iranian defense since the Islamic revolution. Without it, Tehran believes that its enemies could further isolate Iran and even bring about regime change. As one local cleric recently explained, “If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”2 Among Iranian leaders, this rhetoric is widespread. Major General Qassem Suleimani, the principal architect of Iran’s military effort in Syria and head of its Qods Force, has asserted, “Syria is the front line of the resistance.”3
8.2.4.b Evidence of Iran–Al Qaeda antagonism.
Documents captured from the 2011 Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden support the insurance/bargaining-chip interpretation. According to bin Laden’s letters, relations between Iran and Al Qaeda was hostile, characterized by disagreements over releasing Al Qaeda members and their families, as well as over covert actions taken by Al Qaeda against Iran. A complex series of negotiations and hostage exchanges, all detailed in bin Laden’s letters, confirms their antagonism. The relationship has become even more troubled since Hezbollah and Al Qaeda affiliates began killing each other in Syria.
8.3.1 Terrorist designation remains a major obstacle.
Any nuclear accord that includes significant relief from sanctions will have to deal with the fact that some sanctions against Iran enacted by Congress have been keyed to terrorism. Thus removing Iran from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list would be difficult. The relevant legislation requires that the Secretary of State provide evidence either that the state has a new government (as was the case in Libya and Iraq) or that it has not engaged in terrorist activities in the prior six months and is committed not to do so in the future (as was argued in de-listing North Korea). Neither is the case here. Meanwhile, the Iranian public’s expectations for relief from sanctions are a major factor moving the Rouhani government toward agreement. The sanctions linked to terrorism mean that, even if a nuclear deal is struck, the domestic politics in both countries may make it difficult to sustain a positive momentum. This could lead to a new phase of U.S.–Iranian tension.
Editor’s Note – The charade that is Obama’s assault on Daesh (ISIS), meant to degrade and destroy is obvious now – it is just a political ploy to get him through the midterms. Once again, Obama and team place politics ahead of policy, and sadly, American and allied national security.
In addition to the article below that shows that Daesh is ready to ruin Baghdad’s days ahead, especially the lifeline international airport, they are now poised to take Kobani in Syria on the Turkish border. The experts believe that if they take it, there will be a bloodbath amongst the refugee population if the Turks do not intercede.
The Turks are poised in a defensive front, but will they take offensive action?
Intense street fighting raged in the Syrian city of Kobani Monday as ISIS came closer to capturing a key area on the border with Turkey.
ISIS fighters planted their flag on a hill on the eastern side of Kobani, then punched through defenses to open up the route for more troops, one witness inside the city told CNN.
CNN crews on Monday also spotted what appeared to be the black flag of ISIS flying from a hilltop on the eastern side of the city. The flag was farther east into the city from one shown flying atop a building in video from Reuters and also seen by the CNN crews.
Many Kurdish forces defending the city were wounded and killed, and many ISIS fighters were also killed as clashes spread from street to street, the witness said.
The fall of the city would carry huge symbolic and strategic weight, giving ISIS sway over an uninterrupted swatch of land between the Turkish border and its self-declared capital in Raqqa, Syria, 100 kilometers (62 miles) away.
The Turkish military, which has bulked up its defenses along the border in recent days as the fighting has flared, blocked people fleeing the embattled city from crossing the border. (Read the rest here.)
America – take note, Obama needs to take ownership for all of the carnage – he earned it!
The United States appears to be losing its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, experts say, as the jihadist group adapts to U.S. airstrikes and advances toward Baghdad and a strategic town on the Syrian-Turkish border.
McClatchy reported on Friday that ISIL had established an operational presence in Abu Ghraib, a town within miles of the capital Baghdad that could enable the militants to shell the Baghdad International Airport with artillery. The airport serves as a key transit point for Western embassies and houses a joint operations center with U.S. military advisers.
A Defense Department spokeswoman said there were no indications yet that ISIL had taken over Abu Ghraib.
ISIL has also made significant gains in recent days in Iraq’s western Anbar province, where it has seized the town of Hit and launched assaults on other military bases in the region. Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers have been captured, and U.S. and allied airstrikes appear to have failed to push back ISIL from its strongholds in Anbar.
In Syria, ISIL engaged in intense fighting on Monday with Kurdish forces in Kobani—a key town near the Turkish border that could grant Islamic militants new smuggling lines for fighters and supplies if they control it. U.S. airstrikes have also failed to relieve ISIL’s siege of Kobani.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journalreported on Sunday that ISIL fighters have adopted new tactics to evade airstrikes and retain control of territory, including avoiding the use of cell phones and radios, removing their leaders and weapons from bases in Syria, and blending in with the civilian population.
Wayne Hsieh, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and a former State Department official who served in Iraq, said in an interview that “things are not going well.”
”The problem at the end of the day is how seriously [President Obama] takes this,” he said.
”Is this the president’s response to political pressure placed on him after the execution of [American journalist James] Foley, or does he really want to degrade and destroy the Islamic State? If he really does want to degrade and destroy the Islamic State, I think you’re going to have to see escalation, but the situation on the ground militarily is so problematic.”
Hsieh said he did not believe Baghdad was close to falling to ISIL, but added that sustained attacks on the airport there would pose a serious threat to supplies for Western embassies and the U.S. military personnel that are stationed there. He questioned why the United States had not provided arms to the YPG, the Syrian Kurdish forces battling ISIL in Kobani that previously helped save tens of thousands of Yazidis in Iraq.
Turkey, whose parliament voted last week to authorize strikes in Iraq and Syria, still has not aided the Syrian Kurds because of their ties to the PKK, a group that both Ankara and Washington have designated as a terrorist organization.
Hsieh noted that the U.S. military and its allies are largely using bases in the Persian Gulf to strike ISIL in Iraq and Syria, meaning their planes have to cover longer distances and must spend more time refueling than if they had bases in Iraq. Operating from Iraq would likely require more U.S. troops on the ground to secure the bases.
Navy officials have said they are relying on ships and aircraft that are already in the region and do not plan on deploying another carrier due to the limited nature of the strikes. Those limitations could be contributing to the inability so far of the airstrikes to uproot ISIL from its positions, Hsieh argued.
“That just shows you how not seriously they’re taking this,” he said.
U.S. forces also used Apache AH-64 attack helicopters for the first time over the weekend to strike ISIL militants near Fallujah. Helicopters are more vulnerable to small arms fire and missiles than warplanes.
“[The Obama administration’s] sort of doing this slow-motion escalation,” Hsieh said. “I don’t know if they’re thinking all this through.”
Commander Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, defended the Obama administration’s strategy against ISIL in an emailed statement.
“Our airstrikes have been effective in achieving our goal of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL,” she said. “It is important to remember that this is a long campaign, and we have been clear that it will take time to roll ISIL back.”
Smith added that there will soon be about 1,600 military personnel in Iraq, but “the Defense Department has said that there won’t be any ground combat forces and we don’t comment on future operations.”
However, some analysts say Obama’s strategy still does not match his stated goal of eliminating ISIL.
Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq during the George W. Bush administration, said in an email that the United States’ current anti-ISIL efforts are “long on symbolism and short on substance.”
“To avoid targeting ISIL forces attacking Kobani is like Franklin Delano Roosevelt declaring war on Japan, and then concentrating the American attacks on Argentina,” Rubin said. “What we have is war as a neighborhood organizer would fight it, not as anyone who knows anything about the military or the Middle East or simply the real world would advise.”
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.