US to go it alone in Libya against ISIS?

GENERALS FEAR BENGHAZI 2 IN LIBYA

By F. Michael Maloof – WND

WASHINGTON – As Washington prepares to take “decisive military action” in Libya against the alarming growth of ISIS, retired generals have told G2 Bulletin they are concerned that the United States may go it alone, according to a new report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

They ask which allies, if any, will join a coalition and attempt to work with a Libyan government that barely exists.

The late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi
The late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi

At a news conference last week, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. said the U.S. is “looking to take decisive military action” against ISIS in Libya and that a decision would be coming “in weeks” but “not hours.”

“It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIS in conjunction with the political process” in Libya, Dunford said. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”

ISIS is thought to have more than 3,000 fighters, with more flowing into Libya from Syria and Iraq, where the U.S., Russia and other countries have been carrying out intense airstrikes against the jihadist fighters.

Another ‘trillion-dollar failure’?

In October 2011, the U.S., France and Britain launched attacks that led to the overthrow of the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. Since then, the country has not had a functional government. Warring factions of local jihadist groups are preoccupied fighting among themselves for dominance rather than taking on ISIS or coming together to form a government of national accord.

U.S. action in Libya, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney told G2Bulletin in an email, “is the last thing we need to do!”

“Why spend (a trillion dollars) for another COIN (counterinsurgency) failure?”

Retired U.S. Adm. James Lyons Jr., who served as commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985-1987, told G2Bulletin that McInerney’s concern about the possibility of unilateral U.S. action is “Spot on!”

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely expressed similar concerns to G2Bulletin, concluding Dunford’s comments represent a military invasion by the Obama administration.

“I can’t even see Obama taking any offensive action anywhere like that,” Vallely said.

Vallely is chairman of the non-profit Stand Up America and the private Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which is looking into the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

He said that if there is to be any such military action, it needs to include Egypt, which bombed ISIS locations in Libya after the February 2015 beheading of some 21 Libyan Coptic Christians who were working in the country.

Vallely also thought the Russians could join, especially if asked by Egypt, since Moscow has just concluded a $2 billion military arms deal with Cairo that includes helicopters, fighter jets, Kornet anti-tank weapons, the anti-ballistic missile system Antey-2500 and the Buk-2 surface-to-air missile system.

Get the rest of this report, and others, at Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/generals-fear-benghazi-2-in-libya/#cg3TDbtqr1Rm6Guz.99

IS 'Moles' as Refugees, Malik's Violent Jihad on Social Sites

Editor’s Note – As each day goes by since the December 2nd terror event in San Bernardino, California, the plot thickens and expands. The connections become more complicated and the fears that terrorists can get into America so easily has most frightened despite the President’s assurances. Of course, we think he is delusional, as is John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Say what you will about Donald Trump regarding a temporary ban on Muslims being allowed to enter the country, we are now seeing that our Homeland Security and State Departments have dropped the ball frequently. In fact, the NY Times reported today that they missed obvious issues with Tashfeen Malik when she was allowed to enter under a K1 fiance visa:

Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. But none uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

… Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.

How confidant are you that those being brought in will not include ISIS “moles”? How about the knowledge that Canada just admitted its first contingent of Syrian refugees yesterday with our very open northern border?

With such political correctness controlling decision makers in the DHS who are more worried about “appropriateness” than your safety, we think it is time to worry more, not less. We wonder what the pond in San Bernardino will reveal and what will arise from the fact that Enrique Martinez bragged to his friends about ‘sleeper cells’ and that he was paid to be in a sham marriage.

Islamic State Manifesto: Sleeper Cells Sent To Europe Posing As Refugees

By John Rossomando – IPT News

The Islamic State claims it sent highly trained sleeper agents to Europe through Turkey posing as refugees as far back as 2012. A 99-page manifesto issued in January, “Black Flags from Rome,” also details the Islamic State (ISIS)’s desire to spark a Europe-wide Islamic insurgency using “Muslim No Go Zones” as bases of operations.

Syrian refugees check their baggage at the beginning of an airlift to Canada, at the Beirut International airport December 10, 2015 in a photo provided by the Canadian military. REUTERS/Corporal Darcy Lefebvre/Canadian Forces Combat Camera/Handout via Reuters
Syrian refugees check their baggage at the beginning of an airlift to Canada, at the Beirut International airport December 10, 2015 in a photo provided by the Canadian military. REUTERS/Corporal Darcy Lefebvre/Canadian Forces Combat Camera/Handout via Reuters

As an example, it claims that some Syrian refugees fled to Italy. “No doubt, some of these refugees were undercover fighters of Al Qa’idah and the Islamic State,” the manifesto says.

“They were quick to take the opportunity of entering into the different countries of Europe (most probably as early as 2012).

All this was happening under the nose of the European intelligence services whose job during this time (2012) was only to prevent European Muslims from entering Syria. (This shows how quick the Islamic groups were in planning ahead.

Years before Europe even knew where its Muslim citizens were going – experienced Islamic fighters had already found safety in Europe.)”

These highly trained fighters were instructed to form secret cells and wait until called on by the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. At that time they would “continue the Jihad and … seek revenge for the Western occupation of Muslim lands.

“Black Flags From Rome” claims the sleeper agents were well-trained in urban combat tactics similar to this month’s Paris attacks. It proudly contrasts past Al-Qaida’s terrorists with its fighters, whom it describes as “untrained” and “vulnerable,” noting that Western intelligence agencies never faced professionally trained fighters with combat experience.”

“These young Europeans had been professionally trained, and given training most specific to the context of the war they would battle within Europe,” the manifesto says.

ISIS training included instruction on buying and firing weapons and making improvised explosives. Such training could explain the sophistication of the Paris attacks and the attackers’ competence in making suicide vests, which experts say takes weeks of training.

“Their locations were unknown, and police raids wouldn’t even have the same impact as unarmed lone wolf terrorists’ (sic), because these young men were armed and able to shoot back in groups. There were small armies of the Islamic State within every country of Europe by late 2014, and the intelligence agencies didn’t even know about it!” the manifesto says.

ISIS propagandists based in Syria were quick to take responsibility for the attacks. An updated edition titled “Black Flags From the Islamic State,” written in the past week,calls them “one of the first organised attacks done by the Islamic State in Europe which involved a Network of Cells working together in an organized way.”

Police described the Paris attackers as “seasoned fighters by the looks of it and perfectly trained, with witnesses describing them as quite young and cool-headed,” the London Daily Telegraph reports.

Furthermore, during the attacks, a mid-level Syrian Islamic State leader known as @Jazrawi_Oooud tweeted during the attacks: “… Syrian refugees sent by Islamic state carried out today’s offensive names battle of Paris. More to come.”

This statement came out a day before the media or French authorities mentioned any possibility that people who might have infiltrated the wave of refugees from Syria could have been responsible for the attacks. A fake Syrian passport bearing the name “Ahmad alMohammad” was found next to a suicide bomber who blew himself up at the soccer stadium. Two other stadium bombers arrived on Oct. 3, blending in with scores of refugees on the Greek island of Leros.

Several of the Paris attackers fought for ISIS in Syria and their leader, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, freely traveled to and from Europe. The Islamic State claims it selected Abaaoud to lead the mission and trained him in insurgency skills before sending him to France to create clandestine cells with the aim of starting a jihad in France. Abaaoud hid among the flow of refugees from Syria, and travelled to Turkey and Greece before making his way to France, according to “Black Flags From the Islamic State.”

 ISIS map claims to depict plans to "surround and capture Europe"

ISIS map claims to depict plans to “surround and capture Europe”

If what “Black Flags From Rome” and “Black Flags From the Islamic State” say is true, it could influence subsequent debate over the flood of refugees from Syria and Iraq into Europe and possibly America.

It could mean that the attacks in Paris weren’t just a sign of a wounded Islamic State lashing out at Europe in retaliation for lost territory in Iraq as some suggest.

The Black Flag manifestos, and a third called “How to Survive in the West: A Mujahid’s Guide,” all show a greater strategy to import the group’s jihad to Europe.

“Once the media attention dies down, the Islamic State will tell another “sleeper Cell” (secret Cell which has not yet activated) to do another attack again,” Black Flags From the Islamic State says..

Rome’s Apocalyptic Prophecy

The manifesto’s title, “Black Flags From Rome,” draws from the Islamic State’s apocalyptic theology. Islamic prophecy states that Rome will be conquered by Muslims before the appearance of Islam’s Antichrist, the dajjal, appears. ISIS hopes to help that along.

In a hadith found in Sahih Muslim, Muhammad says:

“You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi’ said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) would be conquered.”

The Islamic State, however, interprets this hadith as referring to Rome, Italy, rather than a region controlled by the Roman Empire in Muhammad’s day.

The dream of conquering Rome appears in other Islamic State propaganda such as issue four of, which shows an Islamic State flag fluttering atop the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square.

“We have to defend our communities in Europe, and buy time for the Armageddon in Syria to finish and for the Roman invaders to be defeated. The day these Roman (NATO) armies set off with their 960,000 soldiers to fight the Muslims in Dabiq (Syria), they should realise half the prophecy has already come into effect. The 2nd half of the prophecy is that they will lose, and Muslims will take over Rome … The next stop? The Anti-Christ (al-Dajjal) in Israel,” a subsequent manifesto published in July, “Muslim Gangs: The Future of Muslims In The West,” states.

Both “Muslim Gangs” and “Black Flags” urge exploiting anti-Muslim sentiment to radicalize European Muslims to build an army to fulfill this prophecy. The authors of “Muslim Gangs” advise using propaganda to unite Muslims around local humanitarian efforts.1272

“The Propaganda Arm is using soft power techniques to build a united Muslim community which appreciates self-defence, a community which can support fellow believers in (future) times of difficulty and war,” “Muslim Gangs” advises.

It urges Islamic propagandists to claim that aspects of Islam are being criminalized, and to frame police as enemies of the Muslims. This, it says, helps to build a sense of alienation:

“Tell them stories of how we feel unsafe and how they make it a crime for us to morally support Muslims around the world, and they do not even let us leave the West if we want to. Tell them that they should not talk openly with the police, or else they could be taken away from their parents. These are realities Muslims face everyday, we need to make them aware. “This will make the young generation stay distant from the police. They will hate it. The police will try to come to their schools to win their hearts and minds, but tell the kids: ‘Who do you trust more? Your fellow Muslim brothers, or the ones who imprison Muslims?'”

It urges establishing “no-go zones” and creating a culture of hostility to the police where lawlessness reigns and the jihadists can flourish.

“Al Qa’idah, the Islamic State and many Mujahideen groups thrived in areas where there was lawlessness because they could buy smuggled goods from the blackmarket and train without fear of police. If police did come, the people in the area would inform everyone because this was a no-go zone for the police,” “Muslim Gangs” states.

Abaaoud and his fellow Paris attackers used such a place in the Brussels, Belgium suburb of Molenbeek, which has been the source of the highest concentrations of jihadi foreign fighters who have left to fight in Iraq and Syria. Belgian authorities admit they have lost control of the suburb.

Other tactics include aligning with left-wing activists to fight neo-Nazis and using them to do undercover work for Muslims to “pave the way for the conquest of Rome.” It suggests that Muslims can use leftists to fight and sabotage the “financial elite.”

“War: right now you can do lone wolf attacks, but the West is not fertile for a full on war yet. Rather, the increasing amount of attacks from both sides will gradually create a state of war,” “Muslim Gangs” states.

White Muslim converts are seen as the Islamic State’s “secret weapon” because they can blend in more easily.

Additionally, the Islamic State wants followers to infiltrate gangs to learn how they operate, then develop into larger militias by using fear as a tactic to intimidate enemies and inspire recruits, which observers call “jihadi cool.”

“Black Flags” suggests using mosques as operating bases and exploiting attacks by neo-Nazi groups. It predicts that Muslims and neo-Nazis will launch reprisals against each other.

Early stages of the proposed Islamic insurgency would use primitive weapons like Molotov cocktails, pellet guns and slingshots against neo-Nazi gangs. It suggests copying tactics used during the early stages of Syria’s civil war, such as making attacks using homemade weapons and capturing more advanced weapons.

Recruits are obtained by “showing the glamorous nature of Jihad” and emphasizing great spiritual rewards for those who engage in jihadi attacks. Video recordings of“spectacular attacks” can put potential recruits in awe of jihad, “Muslim Gangs” says. It also suggests using such recordings to fundraise among Muslims who “might be willing to donate” to defending Muslim neighborhoods.

In the process, “Black Flags” suggests forming militias that would take over buildings, roads and weapons depots.

“As the Islamic militias begin to arm themselves and train each other, they will be able to fight more battles … This will make them even richer and more financially independent, buy even more advanced weaponry from the black market and cause even more damage to the enemies,” “Black Flags” says.

Muslim gangs are urged to fight to seize territory outside Muslim neighborhoods and build alliances with other gangs with the goal of creating a large army.

“Muslim fighters from all European countries will continue the fight, breaking borders until they can reach; Northern Rome,” “Black Flags” says.

Adm. Lyons – Can you tell whose side Obama is on?

Editor’s Note – When it comes to National Security we really should be listening to those that are experienced military advisors, not political advisors pretending to be National Security advisors.

Obama’s distorted strategy

The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost

Washington Times

While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey November 12th.

During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.

However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.

But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.

Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.

In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best — Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism.
Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.

No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is now a member of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely

What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.

As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.

There can be no peace or co-existence between Islam and non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation of Islam.

Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.

This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.

Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.

It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:

  • The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.
  • Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”
  • The purging of all our military training manuals that links Islam with terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.
  • Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.
  • Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.
  • Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.
  • Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.
  • Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.

When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.

Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”

Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.


James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Obama Scolds, Kerry Says Hebdo Attackers Had 'Legitimacy'

Legitimate Fears in US Over Da’esh Attacks Possibly Here Next

By Scott W. Winchell

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Bernie Sanders live in an alternate universe – it is no longer in doubt. If it were not so sad and dangerous, one would have to laugh.

Talk about delusional people, it’s time we re-examine that old r/K selection theory again to understand people who cannot face adversity with the words necessary, yet they spout inanities and scold us when we do not agree.

Why didn’t Kerry and/or Obama show up for the unity parade in Paris last winter after the Charlie Hebdo attack while Mr. Kerry did say that the attackers had “legitimacy” and then immediately realize he had to correct himself now? Why, because that was what you really meant, delusional:

...open mouth, remove all doubt!
…open mouth, remove all doubt!

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.” (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller.)

Benjamin Netanyahu showed up, and dared to march arm-in-arm despite very serious threats to his well-being, while we get our own President once again complaining about our Republican candidates and anyone who just wants to keep their families safe here while he is on foreign soil.

It is just amazing how Obama bad-mouths Americans for wanting to be safe when 53% indicated they do not want any refugees here after what happened. Embarrassing displays both – again. Are you watching the same planet we are Mr. Obama?

“Widows and children,” really Mr. Obama? Where was Kerry and Obama when Al Assad was barrel-bombing women and children, or gassing them with chlorine in Syria?

What about the female terrorist who blew herself up killing a police dog today in a wild firefight with French authorities. Can’t women strap on suicide vests and aren’t children being trained by Da’esh now? Didn’t we hear that over 5,000 rounds were fired in that Saint Denis raid in France today where she blew herself up after learning that another attack was imminent?

The worst thing is the manner in which Obama spoke in yesterday, his delivery, the facial expressions, body language – he is a very petty man, just embarrassing, and so reprehensible. He scolds a very large swath of his own countrymen, no wonder Josh Earnest and the White House were walking their statements back today.

ied-isis-dabiqRemember, this was followed up by the Russian admission that their plane was blown up in the air and Da’esh even showed us a similar version of the bomb they used in their Da’biq magazine.

All this just in the last several days while our own homeland officials talk of Da’esh threats to Washington, D.C. and fears of major misdeeds over our holiday season.

What happens when a real bomb goes off on a plane in someone’s luggage over Kansas, or Ohio like it did over the Sinai? With TSA failing test after test, what’s to say another Sharm-el-Sheikh moment does not visit us here?

Didn’t two French planes that where threatened today have to abort their planned trips to Paris to return to the ground for inspection?

Da’esh has proven they can strike anywhere, are we next? Just now we learn that another video came out with threats to New York City and Las Vegas.

But Obama scolds us over the refusal of so many governors and American citizens for taking Syrian refugees in and Kerry says the attacks last January were legitimate. All while Sanders and Hillary can’t utter the words “Islamic Terror” in the Debate last Saturday night like Obama and Kerry.

What would the state of fears be if Da’esh or any terror group pulled off something as the busiest flying days approach next week or a football stadium has to be cleared on Thanksgiving Day or any other day on national television like what Germany had to do last night in Hannover? Will we be allowed to express our fears then?

America may have “bought crazy” in 2008 and 2012, but we ain’t buying anymore on this street corner – go sell crazy somewhere else Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders.

It would be insane to accept refugees now so take your strawman arguments somewhere else as well – in our universe, our citizens’ safety comes first. We are just insulted and embarrassed.

White House on defense over Kerry, Obama comments on terror threat

By Fox News

The White House was on the defense Wednesday morning for statements made by President Obama — who labeled Friday’s Paris massacre that left 129 dead a “setback” — and Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a “rationale.”

Asked about the comments during a contentious interview on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials’ words.

“I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president’s actions as you do his words,” Earnest said on “Fox & Friends.”

Earnest noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks “sickening.” Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support — while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response.

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.

Earnest said the president is consulting on “what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies.”

But the words of both Obama and Kerry have stirred concerns about the gravity with which the administration is treating the threat.

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack — an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons — during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris.

He at first suggested there was “legitimacy” to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a “rationale.”

He said: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that.

%CODE%

There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Afterward, State Department spokesman John Kirby defended the secretary’s remarks.

The administration’s comments on the terror threat, though, have even started to draw some Democratic criticism.

After Obama said, in an interview shortly before Friday’s attacks, that ISIS is “contained,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told MSNBC that “ISIL is not contained.”

“ISIL is expanding,” she said.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

“Obama’s tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong,” he wrote. “At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.

The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy.”

Meanwhile, Earnest continued to defend the military strategy and stand by plans to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“That is still the plan,” Earnest said of the refugee plan. “The reason for that is quite simple. The first thing that people should understand, refugees who are admitted to the United States undergo more rigorous screening than anybody else who tries to enter the country.

Typically, it takes between 18 and 24 months for people to be cleared. … These are the victims of ISIL. These are the victims of that terrible war inside of Syria.”

Dem Lies, Memes, Bush and WMD to Fit Lack of ME Policy

Editor’s Note – As we see Obama spin and twist the story about Russia entering the war in Syria as a sign of Russian weakness, he deflects by calling his detractors’ ideas as “half-baked” and “mumbo jumbo”, and apparently he forgot about Hillary Clinton’s idea for a “no-fly” zone.

Major Garret posed that question to him yesterday and his answer called for a quick two-step and then referred to the fact that she being a candidate and being President were two different things.

“Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” Obama said carefully, reminding reporters she served in his administration as Secretary of State. But Obama pointed out that Clinton’s rhetoric on Syria is merely campaign rhetoric.

“I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president,” he said carefully, pointing out that he was having specific discussions with his military advisors about the right way forward in Syria. “If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments and she’s been there enough that she knows that, you know, these are tough calls,” he said. (Read more here at Breitbart.)

Classic Obama deflection, or twist in the wind like he has done on almost everything Iraq related, including sticking to old lies and societal memes that have long since been disproved as bunk. But it is not just Obama dancing fast and loose with the facts, it seems every single Democrat is as well. Victor Davis Hanson shows us the proof below and reminds us of the stunning flips and flops, lies and half-truths, and stark regularity you can bank on at a Reno Casino in all likelihood.

The Left would rather forget its old slogan, “Bush lied, thousands died.”

By Victor Davis Hanson – National Review

The very mention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq was toxic for Republicans by 2005. They wanted to forget about the supposed absence of recently manufactured WMD in great quantities in Iraq; Democrats saw Republican defensiveness as key to their recovery in 2006.

george w

By the time Obama was elected, the issue had been demagogued to death, was no longer of any political utility, and so vanished.

So why all of a sudden is the New York Times strangely focused on old WMD stockpiles showing up in Iraq? Is the subtext perhaps that the rise of ISIS poses an existential threat in such a dangerous landscape (and by extension offers an explanation for the current bombing)?

Or are we to be reminded that Bush stirred up a WMD hornets’ nest that Obama was forced to deal with? Or is the sudden interest intended to preempt the story now before we learn that ISIS routinely employs WMD against the Kurds? How strange that Iraq, WMD, bombing, and preemption reappear in the news, but now without the hysteria of the Bush era.

Indeed, for the last two years, reports of WMD of some sort have popped up weekly in Kurds and Iraq. Bashar Assad has used them, apparently with strategic profit, both in deterring his enemies and in embarrassing the red lines of Barack Obama, who had threatened to bomb him if he dared use them.

ISIS is rumored to have attempted to use mustard gas against the Kurds. Iraqi depots are periodically found, even as they are often dismissed as ossified beyond the point of easy use, or as already calibrated and rendered inert by either U.N. inspectors or U.S. occupation forces. But where did all the WMD come from, and why the sudden fright now about these stockpiles’ being deployed?

For much of the Bush administration we heard from the Left the refrain, “Bush lied, thousands died,” as if the president had cooked intelligence reports to conjure up a nonexistent threat from Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of WMD — stockpiles that Bill Clinton had insisted until his last days in office posed an existential threat to the United States.

Apparently if a horde of gas shells of 20th-century vintage was found, it was then deemed irrelevant — as if WMD in Iraq could only be defined as huge Iraqi plants turning out 21st-century stockpiles weeks before the invasion.

The smear of Bush was the bookend of another popular canard, the anti-Bush slogan “No blood for oil.” Once the fact that the U.S. did not want Iraqi oil was indisputable, that slander metamorphosed. Almost immediately the Left pivoted and charged that we were not so much oil sinister as oil stupid.

If the Iraqi oil ministry, for the first time in its history, was both acting transparently and selling oil concessions to almost anyone except American companies, it was now cast as typically ungracious in not appreciating the huge American expenditure of blood and treasure that had allowed it such latitude.

Was the Iraq War then a stupid war that helped Russia and the Chinese? Poor Bush ended up not so much sinister as a naïf.

Although we don’t hear much any more about “No blood for oil,” the lie about “Bush lied, thousands died” has never been put to rest.

What was odd about the untruth was not just that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the anti-war street crowd become popular icons through spreading such lies, but that the Democratic party — whose kingpins (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al.) had all given fiery speeches in favor of invading Iraq — refined the slur into an effective 2006 talking point.

That Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid had looked at the same intelligence from CIA Director (and Clinton appointee) George “slam-dunk” Tenet (who authored a self-serving memoir ankle-biting George W. Bush while still in office), and had agreed with Tenet’s assessments, at least until the insurgency destroyed public support for the war, was conveniently forgotten.

The Bush administration did not help much. It never replied to its critics that fear of stockpiled WMD had originally been a Clinton-administration fear, a congressional fear, an international fear — and a legitimate fear.

I suppose that the Bush people wanted the issue of WMD to just go away, given the insurgency raging in Iraq and the effective Democratic campaign to reinvent fear of WMD as a sinister Bush conspiracy. (Do we remember Colin Powell’s U.N. testimony and the years that followed — cf. the Valerie Plame/Richard Armitage fiasco — in which he licked his wounds while harboring anger at his former associates for his own career-ending presentation?)

In sum, the Bush White House certainly did not remind the country that most of the Clinton-era liberal politicians in the 1990s had warned us about Iraqi WMD (do we even remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act?).

Nor were we reminded that foreign leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak had predicted mass death for any invaders who challenged Saddam’s WMD arsenal. (“General Franks, you must be very, very careful.

We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops.”) Was part of the Bush administration’s WMD conspiracy forcing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to lug about chemical suits and masks in the desert?

No one, of course, noted that the initial success in Iraq also helped shut down Moammar Qaddafi’s WMD program in Libya and pressured the Pakistanis to arrest (for a while) the father of their bomb, Dr. A. Q. Khan. The latter nations apparently feared that the U.S. was considering removing dictators who that they knew had stockpiled WMD.

The current The Iran-Iraq War by Williamson Murray and Kevin Woods is a frightening reminder of how Saddam massacred the Kurds (perhaps well over 150,000 killed), often with gas, and how habitual was Saddam’s use of WMD against the Iranians in that medieval war.

Nor do we remember that James Clapper, in one of his earlier careerist contortions as a Bush-era intelligence officer, along with top-ranking officials in both the Iraqi and Syrian air forces, all warned us that WMD were stealthily transferred to Syria on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

The dutifully toadyish Clapper added the intensifier adverb “unquestionably” to emphasize his certainty. Clapper, remember, went on to become Obama’s director of national intelligence and a key adviser on much of the current Obama Middle East decision-making, including the near bombing of Syria.*

So there were stocks of at least older WMD throughout Iraq when we arrived in 2003, and it was plausible that many of the newer and more deployable versions somehow found their way into Syria.

So worried was Barack Obama about the likelihood of Syrian WMD that he almost started a preemptive war against Bashar Assad, but without authorization of Congress and with no attempt to go to the U.N., as Bush had done. (Indeed, we are now preemptively bombing Iraq on the basis of the 2002 authorizations that state legislator and memoirist Barack Obama derided at the time.)

There were all sorts of untold amnesias about Iraq. No one remembers the 23 writs that were part of the 2002 authorizations that apparently Obama believes are still in effect.

They included genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, an attempt to kill a former U.S. president, the harboring of terrorists (among them one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), and a whole litany of charges that transcended WMD and were utterly unaffected by the latter controversy.

How surreal is it that Obama is preemptively bombing Iraq on twelve-year-old congressional authorizations that he opposed as trumped up and now may be relevant in relationship to dealing with Syrian and Iraqi stockpiles of WMD?

We forget too how Harry Reid declared the surge a failure and the war lost even as it was being won. Or how Barack Obama predicted that the surge would make things worse, before scrubbing such editorializing from his website when the surge worked.

Do we remember those days of General Betray Us (the ad hominem ad that the New York Times, which supposedly will not allow purchased ad hominem ads, granted at a huge discount), and the charges from Hillary Clinton that Petraeus was lying (“suspension of disbelief”)?

As Obama megaphones call for national unity in damning Leon Panetta’s critiques during the present bombing, do we remember the glee with which the Left greeted the tell-all revelations of Paul O’Neill, George Tenet, and Scott McClellan during the tenure of George W. Bush, or how they disparaged the surge when Americans were dying to implement it?

It is hard to recall now the fantasy climate that surrounded “Bush lied, thousands died.” Cindy Sheehan is now utterly forgotten. So mostly is the buffoonish propagandist Michael Moore, except for an occasion tidbit about a nasty divorce and cat fights over his man-of-the-people sizable portfolio — and occasional attacks on Barack Obama’s supposed racial tokenism.

Hillary’s shrill outbursts about Iraq evolved into “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Barack Obama rode his anti-war distortions to the presidency only to adopt his own anti-terrorism protocols and preemptive wars using the Bush-era justifications, but without the candor and congressional authorizations.

The media went from “No blood for oil” and “Bush lied, thousands died” to noting strange discoveries of WMD and trumpeting near energy independence.

The U.S. is now nonchalantly referred to as the world’s largest oil producer, but largely because the Bush administration green-lighted fracking and horizontal drilling, which the present administration opposes and yet cites as one of its singular achievements in terms of lowering gas prices — the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal economic record.

So we live in an era of lies about everything from Benghazi and Obamacare to the alphabet soup of scandal and incompetence at the IRS, ICE, VA, USSS (Secret Service), NSA, GSA, and even the CDC.

But before we can correct the present lies, we should first address the greatest untruth in this collection: “Bush lied, thousands died” was an abject lie.


NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.


* Here is an excerpt from the October 2003 New York Times story:

The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq’s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq.

“I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.