Trump O human casualties 1 Purple Heart Dog…McCraven well…and…

 

The moment you realize U really need to CYA. &.

Editor’s Note: For the clueless fascist puppets at CNN. U are 1000 steps behind. &. BART from EXTORTION 17 says HI ALOHA III.

SUA has proprietary information concerning the modus operandi of crime scene staging by the Deep State and the globalist fascists that do not have America First and do not want The Constitution to survive. Start thinking CNN.

 

READ: Trump Announcement On Baghdadi’s Death

Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead, President Trump announced on Sunday. The ISIS founder died in a U.S. special operation on Saturday.

In an address from the White House, Trump said Baghdadi died after being cornered by U.S. forces and detonating his own suicide vest. Trump said Baghdadi’s remains had been positively identified.

“He died like a dog. He died like a coward,” the president said.

Trump also thanked Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and the Syrian Kurds for supporting the mission.

Video and a transcript of the president’s full address, including his Q&A with reporters, is available.

Last night, the United States brought the world’s number one terrorist leader to justice. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead. He was the founder and leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization anywhere in the world.

The United States has been searching for Baghdadi for many years. Capturing or killing Baghdadi has been the top national security priority of my administration. U.S. Special Operations Forces executed a dangerous and daring nighttime raid in northwestern Syria and accomplished their mission in grand style. The U.S. personnel were incredible. I got to watch much of it.

No personnel were lost in the operation, while a large number of Baghdadi’s fighters and companions were killed with him. He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way. The compound had been cleared by this time, with people either surrendering or being shot and killed. Eleven young children were moved out of the house and are uninjured. The only ones remaining were Baghdadi in the tunnel, and he had dragged three of his young children with him. They were led to certain death.

He reached the end of the tunnel, as our dogs chased him down. He ignited his vest, killing himself and the three children. His body was mutilated by the blast. The tunnel had caved in on it, in addition. But test results gave certain immediate and totally positive identification. It was him.

The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him.

We were in the compound for approximately two hours, and after the mission was accomplished, we took highly sensitive material and information from the raid, much having to do with ISIS origins, future plans, things that we very much want.

Baghdadi’s demise demonstrates America’s relentless pursuit of terrorist leaders and our commitment to the enduring and total defeat of ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

Our reach is very long. As you know, last month, we announced that we recently killed Hamza bin Laden, the very violent son of Osama bin Laden, who was saying very bad things about people, about our country, about the world. He was the heir apparent to al Qaeda.

Terrorists who oppress and murder innocent people should never sleep soundly, knowing that we will completely destroy them. These savage monsters will not escape their fate, and they will not escape the final judgment of God.

Baghdadi has been on the run for many years, long before I took office. But at my direction, as Commander-in-Chief of the United States, we obliterated his caliphate, 100 percent, in March of this year.

Today’s events are another reminder that we will continue to pursue the remaining ISIS terrorists to their brutal end. That also goes for other terrorist organizations. They are, likewise, in our sights.

Baghdadi and the losers who worked for him — and losers they are — they had no idea what they were getting into. In some cases, they were very frightened puppies. In other cases, they were hardcore killers. But they killed many, many people. Their murder of innocent Americans — James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller — were especially heinous.

The shocking publicized murder of a Jordanian pilot, a wonderful young man — spoke to the King of Jordan; they all knew him, they all loved him — he was burned alive in a cage for all to see. And the execution of Christians in Libya and Egypt, as well as the genocidal mass murder of Yazidis, rank ISIS among the most depraved organizations in the history of our world.

The forced religious conversions, the orange suits prior to so many beheadings, all of which were openly displayed for the world to see, this was all that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — this is what he wanted. This is what he was proud of. He was a sick and depraved man, and now he’s gone. Baghdadi was vicious and violent, and he died in a vicious and violent way, as a coward, running and crying.

This raid was impeccable, and could only have taken place with the acknowledgement and help of certain other nations and people.

I want to thank the nations of Russia, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. And I also want to thank the Syrian Kurds for certain support they were able to give us. This was a very, very dangerous mission.

Thank you, as well, to the great intelligence professionals who helped make this very successful journey possible.

I want to thank the soldiers, and sailors, airmen, and Marines involved in last tonight’s operation. You are the very best there is anywhere in the world. No matter where you go, there is nobody even close.

I want to thank General Mark Milley and our Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I also want to thank our professionals who work in other agencies of the United States government and were critical to the mission’s unbelievable success.

Last night was a great night for the United States and for the world. A brutal killer, one who has caused so much hardship and death, has violently been eliminated. He will never again harm another innocent man, woman, or child. He died like a dog. He died like a coward. The world is now a much safer place.

God bless America. Thank you.

Any questions?

Q: When did you first hear that this was — operation was going to get started?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve had him under surveillance for a couple of weeks. We knew a little bit about where he was going, where he was heading. We had very good information that he was going to another location. He didn’t go. Two or three efforts were cancelled because he decided to change his mind — constantly changing his mind. And, finally, we saw that he was here, held up here. We knew something about the compound. We knew it had tunnels. The tunnels were a dead-end, for the most part. There was one, we think, that wasn’t. But we had that covered too, just in case.

The level of intelligence, the level of work, was pretty amazing. When we landed with eight helicopters, a large crew of brilliant fighters ran out of those helicopters and blew holes into the side of the building, not wanting to go through the main door because that was booby-trapped. And there was something — it was something really amazing to see. I got to watch it, along with General Milley, Vice President Pence, others, in the Situation Room. And we watched it so clearly.

Editors Note:
Except the video feed was down during the Gameboy raid. Now back to all the activities being monitored during the Benghazi events.


Q
: They had body cameras? Or how did you watch the —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t want to say how, but we had absolutely perfect — as though you were watching a movie. It was — that — the technology there alone is really great.

A big part of the trip that was of great danger was the — it was approximately an hour and 10-minute flight, and we were flying over very, very dangerous territory. In fact, some of our leaders said that that could be the most dangerous — flying in and flying out. And that’s why, last night, we were so quiet about it. We didn’t say anything, and I didn’t make my remark until after they had landed safely in a certain area.

But the flight in, the flight out, was a very, very dangerous part. There was a chance that we would have met unbelievable fire. Russia treated us great. They opened up. We had to fly over certain Russia areas, Russia-held areas. Russia was great. Iraq was excellent. We really had great cooperation.

And you have to understand: They didn’t know what we were doing and where we were going, exactly. But the ISIS fighters are hated as much by Russia and some of these other countries as they are by us. And that’s why I say they should start doing a lot of the fighting now, and they’ll be able to. I really believe they’ll be able to.

Yes, Jennifer?

Q: Sir, can you say what role the Kurds played in this, just generally?

THE PRESIDENT: They gave us not a military role at all, but they gave us some information that turned out to be helpful, the Kurds.

Q: And can you tell us what the role of Turkey might have been, and Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Who?

Q: What was the role of Turkey? How did they help?

THE PRESIDENT: Turkey — we dealt with them. They know we were going in. We flew over some territory. They were terrific. No problem. They were not a problem. You know, they could start shooting, and then we will take them out. But a lot of bad things can happen. Plus, it was a very secret mission. We flew very, very low and very, very fast. But it was a big — it was a very dangerous part of the mission. Getting in and getting out too, equal. We went in identical — we took an identical route. We met with gunfire coming in, but it was local gunfire. That gunfire was immediately terminated. These people are amazing. They had the gunfire terminated immediately, meaning they were shot from the airships.

Q: I’m trying to understand the timing. You talked earlier — you know, several weeks — about pulling troops out, you know, and then troops were put back in. And then, you know — I’m trying to understand the timing of when this operation — how it fits —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ll tell you, from the first day I came to office — and now we’re getting close to three years — I would say, “Where’s al-Baghdadi? I want al-Baghdadi.” And we would kill terrorist leaders, but they were names I never heard of. They were names that weren’t recognizable and they weren’t the big names. Some good ones, some important ones, but they weren’t the big names. I kept saying, “Where’s al-Baghdadi?” And a couple of weeks ago, they were able to scope him out.

You know, these people are very smart. They’re not into the use of cellphones anymore. They’re not — they’re very technically brilliant. You know, they use the Internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump. But they use the Internet incredibly well.

And what they’ve done with the Internet, through recruiting and everything — and that’s why he died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying. And, frankly, I think it’s something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries, including the United States, they should see how he died. He didn’t die a hero. He died a coward — crying, whimpering, screaming, and bringing three kids with him to die a certain death. And he knew the tunnel had no end. I mean, it was a — it was a closed-end — they call it a closed-end tunnel. Not a good place to be.

Q: So this was going on before you made the announcement that you’re pulling them out?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve been looking for him for three years. I’ve been looking for him. I started getting some very positive feedback about a month ago, and we had some incredible intelligence officials that did a great job. That’s what they should be focused on.

Q: And about what time did this operation start yesterday, sir? And have you notified the leaders on —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this operation started two weeks ago, in terms of the real operation, because we had him scoped. We thought he’d be in a certain location. He was. Things started checking out very well. We were involved, on our own team, with some brilliant people who I’ve gotten to know. Brilliant people that love our country. Highly intelligent people. And we — we’ve had it pretty well scoped out for a couple of weeks.

But he tends to change immediately. He had a lot of cash. He tends to change, like, on a dime, where he’ll be going to a certain location. All of a sudden, he’ll go someplace else and you’ll have to cancel.

But this was one where we knew he was there. And you can never be 100 percent sure because you’re basing it on technology, more than anything else. But we thought he was there, and then we got a confirmation. And when we went in, they were greeted with a lot of firepower. A lot of firepower.

I’ll tell you, these guys, they do a job. They are so brave and so good. And, so importantly, many of his people were killed. And we’ll announce the exact number over the next 24 hours. But many were killed. We lost nobody. Think of that. It’s incredible.

Q: And when you told the Russians, you requested permission —

THE PRESIDENT: Our dog was hurt. Actually, the K-9 was hurt, went into the tunnel. But we lost nobody.

Q: And so you requested to the Russians to fly over this area they controlled. What did you tell them —

THE PRESIDENT: We spoke to the Russians.

Q: What did you tell them you were going to do?

THE PRESIDENT: We told them we’re coming in.

Q: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And they said, “Thank you for telling us.” They were very good.

Q: But did you tell them why? No? You just —

THE PRESIDENT: No. They did not know why.

Q: Was any other country given —

THE PRESIDENT: We did tell them, “We think you’re going to be very happy.” Because, you know, again, they hate ISIS as much as we do. You know what ISIS has done to Russia. So, no, we did not tell — they did not know the mission, but they knew we were going over an area that they had — they had a lot of firepower.

Q: And have you notified the congressional leaders about this? Pelosi? Mitch McConnell?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve notified some. Others are being notified now, as I speak. We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before. There’s nothing — there’s no country in the world that leaks like we do. And Washington is a leaking machine. And I told my people we will not notify them until the — our great people are out. Not just in, but out. I don’t want to have them greeted with firepower like you wouldn’t believe.

So we were able to get in. It was top secret. It was kept. There were no leaks, no nothing. The only people that knew were the few people that I dealt with. And again, Mark Milley and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were incredible. We had some tremendous backup. Robert O’Brien, Secretary Esper, Secretary Pompeo. Pence, I told you, he was great. There’s a very small group of people that knew about this. We had very, very few people. A leak — a leak could have cost the death of all of them.

Now, they’re so good that I think nothing was going to stop them anyway, if you want to know the truth. That’s how good they were. We had them also surrounded by massive airpower. Up in the air, yesterday, surrounded at very high levels. We were very low. We had tremendous airpower.

Q: And you watched all this from the Sit Room? Who were you with in the Sit Room when you watched this?

THE PRESIDENT: Secretary Esper, a few of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, some generals. We had some very great military people in that room. And we had some great intelligence people — Robert O’ Brien. It was really great.

Yes.

Q: Was the pullout of the U.S. troops in Syria last month strategically tied in with this raid? Was it —

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, the pullout —

Q: Is this a red herring?

THE PRESIDENT: Right. Sure. It’s a great question. And you’re doing a great job, by the way. Your network is fantastic. They’re really doing a great job. Please let them know.

Q: Yes, sir. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: No, the pullout had nothing to do with this. In fact, we found this out at a similar time. It’s a very good question — because we found this out at a similar time.

No, we’re after these leaders. And we have others in sight, very bad ones. But this was the big one. This is the biggest one, perhaps, that we’ve ever captured, because this is the one that built ISIS, and beyond, and was looking to rebuild it again. Very, very strongly looking to build it again. That’s why he went to this province; this is why he went to this area.

You know, a lot of people — I was watching, this morning, and hearing, and they said, “Why was he there?” People were so surprised. Well, that’s where he was trying to rebuild from because that was the place that made most sense, if you’re looking to rebuild.

Yeah.

Q: You sent out your tweet last night. At what moment did you decide to send that?

THE PRESIDENT: So, I sent that right after I knew they had landed safely.

Q: When they had returned?

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And that was to notify you guys that you have something big this morning, so you wouldn’t be out playing golf or tennis, or otherwise being indisposed.

Q: Where did they land? Where were they safe? Where had they landed?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d rather not say. But we landed in a very friendly port in a friendly country.

Q: Does this give you any pause by your decision to withdraw the troops?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it’s great. Look, we don’t want to keep soldiers between Syria and Turkey for the next 200 years. They’ve been fighting for hundreds of years. We’re out. But we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil. It’s okay. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight. But there’s massive amounts of oil.

And we’re securing it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it stops ISIS, because ISIS got tremendous wealth from that oil. We have taken it. It’s secured.

Number two — and again, somebody else may claim it, but either we’ll negotiate a deal with whoever is claiming it, if we think it’s fair, or we will militarily stop them very quickly. We have tremendous power in that part of the world. We have — you know, the airport is right nearby. A very big, very monstrous, very powerful airport, and very expensive airport that was built years ago. We were in there — we’re in that Middle East now for $8 trillion.

So we don’t want to be keeping Syria and Turkey. They’re going to have to make their own decision. The Kurds have worked along incredibly with us, but in all fairness, it was much easier dealing with the Kurds after they went through three days of fighting, because that was a brutal three days. And if I — we would have said to the Kurds, “Hey, do you mind moving over seven miles?” Because, you know, they were in the middle, mostly. So you have seven or eight miles. “Could you mind moving over?”

Because, I have to say, Turkey has taken tremendous deaths from that part of the world. You know, we call it a safe zone. But it was anything but a safe zone. Turkey has lost thousands and thousands people from that safe zone. So they’ve always wanted that safe zone, for many years. I’m glad I was able to help them get it. But we don’t want to be there; we want to be home. I want our soldiers home or fighting something that’s meaningful.

I’ll tell you who loves us being there: Russia and China. Because while they build their military, we’re depleting our military there. So, Russia loves us being there. Now, Russia likes us being there for two reasons: because we kill ISIS, we kill terrorists, and they’re very close to Russia. We’re 8,000 miles away. Now, maybe they can get here, but we’ve done very well with Homeland Security and the ban, which, by the way, is approved by the United States Supreme Court, as you know. You know, there was a reporter that said we lost the case. And he was right, in the early court. He refu- — he didn’t want to say; just refused to say that we won the case in the Supreme Court. So, you know.

But we have a very effective ban, and it’s very hard for people to come to our country. But it’s many thousands of miles away, whereas Russia is right there, Turkey is right there. Syria is there. They’re all right there. Excuse me, Iran is right there. Iraq is right there. They all hate ISIS. So, we don’t — you know, in theory, they should do something.

And I’ll give you something else: The European nations have been a tremendous disappointment because I personally called, but my people called a lot. “Take your ISIS fighters.” And they didn’t want them. They said, “We don’t want them.” They came from France, they came from Germany, they came from the UK. They came from a lot of countries. And I actually said to them, “If you don’t take them, I’m going to drop them right on your border. And you can have fun capturing them again.”

But the United States taxpayer is not going to pay for the next 50 years. You see what Guantanamo costs. We’re not going to pay tens of billions of dollars because we were good enough to capture people that want to go back to Germany, France, UK, and other parts of Europe. And they can walk back. They can’t walk to our country. We have lots of water in between our country and them.

So, yeah. Go.

Q: You mentioned that you met some — gotten to know some brilliant people along this process who really helped provide information and advice along the way. Is there anyone in particular, or would you like to give anyone credit for getting to this point today?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would, but if I mentioned one, I have to mention so many. I spoke to Senator Richard Burr this morning. And, as you know, he’s very involved with intelligence and the committee. And he’s a great gentleman.

I spoke with Lindsey Graham just a little while ago. In fact, Lindsey Graham is right over here. And he’s been very much involved in this subject. And he’s — he’s a very strong hawk. But I think Lindsey agrees with what we’re doing now.

And, again, there are plenty of other countries that can help them patrol. I don’t want to leave 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers on the border.

But where Lindsey and I totally agree is the oil. The oil is, you know, so valuable for many reasons. It fueled ISIS, number one. Number two, it helps the Kurds, because it’s basically been taken away from the Kurds. They were able to live with that oil. And number three, it can help us because we should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an Exxon Mobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly. Right now, it’s not big. It’s big oil underground, but it’s not big oil up top, and much of the machinery has been shot and dead. It’s been through wars. But — and — and spread out the wealth.

But, no, we’re protecting the oil. We’re securing the oil. Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t make a deal at some point. But I don’t want to be — they’re fighting for 1,000 years, they’re fighting for centuries. I want to bring our soldiers back home. But I do want to secure the oil.

If you read about the history of Donald Trump — I was a civilian. I had absolutely nothing to do with going into Iraq, and I was totally against it. But I always used to say, “If they’re going to go in…” — nobody cared that much, but it got written about. “If they’re going to go in…” — I’m sure you’ve heard the statement, because I made it more than any human being alive. “If they’re going into Iraq, keep the oil.” They never did. They never did. I know Lindsey Graham had a bill where basically we would have been paid back for all of the billions of dollars that we’ve spent — many, many billions of dollars. I mean, I hate to say it, it’s actually trillions of dollars, but many, many billions of dollars. And, by one vote, they were unable to get that approved in the Senate. They had some pretty big opposition from people that shouldn’t have opposed, like a president. And they weren’t able. If you did that, Iraq would be a much different story today because they would be owing us a lot of money. They would be treating us much differently.

But I will say, Iraq was very good with respect to the raid last night.

Q: Sir, just to pin down the timing a little bit better here: You got back to the White House around 4:30 yesterday afternoon. Did you immediately go to the Situation Room?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I knew all about this for three days.

Q: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We thought, for three days, this is what was going to happen. It was actually — look, nobody was even hurt. Our K-9, as they call — I call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog — was injured and brought back. But we had no soldier injured. And they did a lot of shooting, and they did a lot of blasting, even not going through the front door. You know, you would think you go through the door. If you’re a normal person, you say, “Knock, knock. May I come in?” The fact is that they blasted their way into the house and a very heavy wall, and it took them literally seconds. By the time those things went off, they had a beautiful, big hole, and they ran in and they got everybody by surprise.

Unbelievably brilliant, as fighters. I don’t — I can’t imagine there could be anybody better. And these, as you know, are our top operations people.

Q: And Baghdadi apparently had been in bad health for some time. Was there any indication of that? Or —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don’t know that. But he was the last one out, and his people had either been killed, which there were many, or gave up and came out. Because with the 11 children that came out, we were able to do that. We don’t know if they were his children. They might have been. But as I said, three died in the tunnel. And the tunnel collapsed with the explosion. But you had other fighters coming out also. And they’re being brought back. They’re being — they’re — right now, we have them imprisoned.

Q: I was going to ask whose children they were, but do you remember what time you went into the Situation Room?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I started at five o’clock. We were pretty much gathered at five o’clock yesterday. We were in contact all day long through, hopefully, secure phones. I’ll let you know tomorrow. But nothing seemed to leak, so I guess they were secure, for a change.

But we gathered more or less at five. The attack started moments after that. The — the liftoff started moments after that. Again, the element of attack that they were most afraid of was getting from our base into that compound. Because there’s tremendous firepower that we were, you know, flying over.

And I won’t go into it, but you had a very big Russian presence in one area, you had a Turkish presence, you had a Syrian presence. And you’re flying low. It’s very dangerous. And there were shots made, but we think these were people that were shooting that were indiscriminately shooting. The helicopters took some shots, but we think that these were people that were just random people that don’t like to see helicopters, I guess.

Q: Sir, was there any kind of DNA test done? Or where is the body? You know —

THE PRESIDENT: So, that’s another part of the genius of these people. They brought his — they have his DNA. More of it than they want, even. And they brought it with them with lab technicians who were with them. And they assumed that this was Baghdadi. They thought, visually, it was him. But they assumed it was him, and they did a site — an onsite test. They got samples.

And to get to his body, they had to remove a lot of debris because the tunnel had collapsed. But these people are very good at that. And — and they, as I said, they brought body parts back with them, et cetera, et cetera. There wasn’t much left. The — the vest blew up, but there are still substantial pieces that they brought back. So they did an onsite test because we had to know this. And it was a very quick call that took place about 15 minutes after he was killed, and it was positive. It was — it’s, “This is a confirmation, sir.”

Q: There was also a report that his wife had detonated — or one of his wives had detonated a vest. Is that —

THE PRESIDENT: So, there were two women. There were two women. Both wives, both wearing vests. They had not detonated. But the fact that they were dead and they had vests on made it very difficult for our men, because they had vests on. And it made it very difficult for our men. Because you never know what’s going to happen. They’re lying, they’re dead. They never detonated. But they were dead.

Q: And if (inaudible) on the successor — the possible successors, have you been briefed on who would possibly fill in the seats?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We know the successors. And we’ve already got them in our sights. And we’ll tell you that right now, but we know the successors. Hamza bin Laden was a big thing, but this is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever.

Osama bin Laden was very big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center. This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it, “a country,” a caliphate, and was trying to do it again.

And I had not heard too much about his health. I’ve heard stories about he may not have been in good health. But he died a — he died in a ruthless, vicious manner. That, I can tell you.

Q: Were any prisoners taken, sir? Were any adults taken for intel purposes?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have people that were taken. We have — many of the people died on the site. But we have people that were taken, yes. And — and the children, we are — we left them under care of somebody, that we understand.

Q: Can you say how many? Or do you believe that these were —

THE PRESIDENT: Eleven children.

Q: Eleven children. How many adults?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d rather not say. I’d leave that to the generals. But —

Q: These were —

THE PRESIDENT: — a small group. More dead than alive.

Q: Which operations teams were involved? Which Special Operations teams were involved?

THE PRESIDENT: Many of them, and at the top level. And people that were truly incredible at their craft. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Q: And were there — as far as partnerships goes, were there any other forces involved? Or was this only American troops in this raid?

THE PRESIDENT: No, only American forces.

Q: And did the U.S. —

THE PRESIDENT: Only American forces. But we were given great cooperation.

Q: Did the U.S. rely on —

THE PRESIDENT: We told the Russians we’re coming in, because we had to go over them. And they were curious, but — but we said, “We’re coming.” How we said — one way or the other, “Hey, look, we’re coming.” But they were very cooperative. They really were good. And we did say it would be a mission that they’d like, too. Because, you know, again, they hate ISIS as much as we do.

Q: Sir, I meant for intel purposes, was there any foreign intel that proved useful along the way in this operation?

THE PRESIDENT: So, we had our own intel. We got very little help. We didn’t need very much help. We have some incredible people. When we use our intelligence correctly, what we can do is incredible. When we waste our time with intelligence, that hurts our country, because we had poor leadership at the top. That’s not good.

But I’ve gotten to know many of the intel people, and I will say that they are spectacular. Now, they’re not going to want to talk about it. They want to keep it quiet. The last thing they want, because these are — these are great patriots. But the people that I’ve been dealing with are incredible people. And it’s really a deserving name: “intelligence.” I’ve dealt with some people that aren’t very intelligent, having to do with intel, but this is the top people and it was incredible. It was flawless. And it was very complicated.

But — so, I do appreciate Russia, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, to an extent, because, you know, we’re flying into Syria, and a lot of Syrian people with lots of guns.

So we had good cover for probably the most dangerous part. It would not sound to — you know, when you fly in, it doesn’t sound like that would be the most dangerous when you’re going into shooting nests and all of the things that happened once they broke into that pretty powerful compound. That was a very strong compound and, as I said, had tunnels.

But the most dangerous part, we had great cooperation with.

Yes, ma’am.

Q: Did you inform Speaker Pelosi ahead of time?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I didn’t. I didn’t do — I didn’t do that. I wanted to make sure this kept secret. I don’t want to have men lost — and women. I don’t want to have people lost.

Q: Do you anticipate inviting the Special Forces teams to the White House after this?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah. They’ll be invited. I don’t know if they’ll want to have their faces shown, to be honest with you. You know, they want to — they’re incredible for the country. They’re not looking for public relations.

But they love doing what they’re doing. I’ve seen it. The First Lady was out there, recently, looking at what they do. She came back, she said, “Wow, I’ve never seen anything like that.” The training — you know, all of the training — and the power of the people. The men and women, the strength, the physical strength, the mental strength. These are incredible people. These are very unique individuals.

Q: You mentioned whimpering. Could you hear that on your video hookup?

THE PRESIDENT: Mentioned what?

Q: The whimpering of Baghdadi. Did you hear it?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to talk about it, but —

Q: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: — he was screaming, crying, and whimpering. And he was scared out of his mind.

And think of James Foley. Think of Kayla. Think of the things he did to Kayla; what he did to Foley and so many others. And for those people that say, “Oh, isn’t this a little violent? Think of how many times have you seen men — I think, in all cases, men, for the most part — but in terms of this, where you see the orange suits, and you see the ocean and they’re beheaded. Or how many of you got to see — because it was out there — the Jordanian pilot whose plane went down, they captured him, they put him in a cage, and they set him on fire.

And the King of Jordan actually attacked, very powerfully, when that happened. They’ve never seen anything like that. But he set him on fire. This was al-Baghdadi. And you should never, ever hopefully see a thing like that again.

Now, there’ll be new people emerged, but this was the worst of this particular world. This was the worst. Probably, in certain ways, the smartest. He was also a coward. And he didn’t want to die. But think of it: Everybody was out, and we were able to search him down and find him in the tunnel. We knew the tunnel existed. And that’s where he was.

Q: And you’ve taken a lot of heat for the Syria pullout. Do you think this will change the standing — your standing —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t have a Syria pullout. I just don’t want to guard Turkey and Syria for the rest of our lives. I mean, I don’t want to do it. It’s very expensive. It’s very dangerous. They’ve been fighting for centuries. I don’t want to have my people — 2,000 men and women, or 1,000, or 28. We had 28 guards. And I said, “I don’t want them there anyway. I don’t want them.”

Now, I will secure the oil that happens to be in a certain part. But that’s tremendous money involved. I would love to — you know, the oil in — I mean, I’ll tell you a story. In Iraq — so they spent — President Bush went in. I strongly disagreed with it, even though it wasn’t my expertise at the time, but I had a — I have a very good instinct about things. They went in and I said, “That’s a tremendous mistake.” And there were no weapons of mass destruction. It turned out I was right. I was right for other reasons, but it turned out, on top of everything else, they had no weapons of mass destruction, because that would be a reason to go in. But they had none.

But I heard recently that Iraq, over the last number of years, actually discriminates against America in oil leases. In other words, some oil companies from other countries, after all we’ve done, have an advantage Iraq for the oil. I said, “Keep the oil. Give them what they need. Keep the oil.” Why should we — we go in, we lose thousands of lives, spend trillions of dollars, and our companies don’t even have an advantage in getting the oil leases. So I just tell you that story. That’s what I heard.

Q: Did Gina Haspel play a role in this? Can you talk a little bit about that? And I saw your NSC counter-terrorism director out in the hallway. Was there a role with NSC counter-terrorism?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Everybody. Gina was great. Everybody played a role. Joe was great. Gina was great. They were all great.

Q: Just to follow up, did your Syria pullout, did that generate the intelligence that led to this operation?

THE PRESIDENT: No. We were looking at this — look, as I said, Steve, I’ve been looking at this — I’m here almost three years. I’ve been looking at this for three years. They’d come in, “Sir, we have somebody under…” — I said, “I don’t want somebody. I want al-Baghdadi. That’s the one I want.” They’d said, “Well, we have somebody else.” I said, “That’s great. Fine. Take them out. But I want al-Baghdadi. That’s who I want. I don’t want other people.”

And then I also wanted Hamza bin Laden because he’s a young man, around 30, looks just like his father. Tall, very handsome. And he was talking bad things, just like his father.

You know, if you read my book — there was a book just before the World Trade Center came down. And I don’t get any credit for this, but that’s okay. I never do. But here we are. I wrote a book — a, really, very successful book. And in that book, about a year before the World Trade Center was blown up, I said, “There is somebody named Osama bin Laden. You better kill him or take him out.” Something to that effect. “He’s big trouble.”

Now, I wasn’t in government. I was building buildings and doing what I did. But I always found it fascinating. But I saw this man — tall, handsome, very charismatic — making horrible statements about wanting to destroy our country. And I’m writing a book. I think I wrote 12 books. All did very well. And I’m writing a book. The World Trade Center had not come down. I think it was about — if you check, it was about a year before the World Trade Center came down. And I’m saying to people, “Take out Osama bin Laden,” that nobody ever heard of. Nobody ever heard of. I mean, al-Baghdadi everybody hears because he’s built this monster for a long time. But nobody ever heard of Osama bin Laden until, really, the World Trade Center.

But about a year — you’ll have to check — a year, year and a half before the World Trade Center came down, the book came out. I was talking about Osama bin Laden. I said, “You have to kill him. You have to take him out.” Nobody listened to me.

And to this day, I get people coming up to me, and they said, “You know what one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen about you? Is that you predicted that Osama bin Laden had to be killed before he knocked down the World Trade Center.” It’s true. Now, most of the press doesn’t want to write that, but you know — but it is true. If you go back, look at my book. I think it was “The America We Deserve.” I made a prediction, and I — let’s put it this way: If they would have listened to me, a lot of things would have been different.

Q: Sir, can you talk about some of the difficult decisions you had along the way here in this operation? Anything that weighed on you or that you had to —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, just death. I mean, you know, I’m sending a large number of brilliant fighters. These are the greatest fighters in the world.

Q: How many?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d rather let the generals tell you, but a large number. We had eight helicopters and we had many other ships and planes.

It was a large group. And again, this is a large group heading over very, very strong firepower areas where — that was decision one: Will they make it? And they made it, but they took fire, but they made it. They didn’t take — we don’t believe, again, it was nation fire; we believe it was individual group fire or gang fire, as they call it. So, they made it, so that was a big relief.

Then they went in, they blasted their way in — you’ve heard. They blasted their way in so quickly. It was incredible. Because this building was quite powerful, strong. They blasted their way in, and then all hell broke loose. It’s incredible that nobody was killed — or hurt. We had nobody even hurt. And that’s why the dog was so great. We actually had a robot to go in the tunnel, but we didn’t get it because we were tracking him very closely. But we had a robot, just in case. Because we were afraid he had a suicide vest on, and if you get close to him and he blows it up, you’re going to die. You’re going to die. He had a very powerful suicide vest.

Q: Did you have to make any decisions in the moment, while troops were on the ground?

THE PRESIDENT: No, they had it just incredible. We were getting full reports on literally a minute-by-minute basis. “Sir, we just broke in.” “Sir, the wall is down.” “Sir,” you know, “we’ve captured.” “Sir, two people are coming out right now. Hands up.” Fighters. Then, the 11 children out. Numerous people were dead within the building that they killed.

Then, it turned out, they gave us a report: “Sir, there’s only one person in the building. We are sure he’s in the tunnel trying to escape.” But it’s a dead-end tunnel. And it was brutal. But it was over. And as I said, when he blew himself up, the tunnel collapsed on top of him, on top of everything — and his children. I mean, so he led his three children to death. So, you know —

Q: And in the tunnel, that’s when the robot (?typo: kidney machine?) followed him in? That’s why no troops died?

THE PRESIDENT: The robot was set to, but we didn’t hook it up because we were too — they were moving too fast. We were moving fast. We weren’t 100 percent sure about the tunnel being dead-ended. It’s possible that there could have been an escape hatch somewhere along that we didn’t know about.

So we moved very, very quickly. I mean —

Q: Was he being chased then?

THE PRESIDENT: — these people, they were moving — they were chasing, yeah. They were chasing. But again, because the suicide vest, you can’t get too close.

Again, one of the reasons with the wives is if they have a suicide vest, you know, you have to be very, very careful. These vests are brutal. Brutal. And they go for a long distance.

Yes, please.

Q: Have you spoken or will you speak to the families, like the Foley family?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m calling the families now. It will be a pleasure to do that. The Foley family, who I know. We’ll be calling Kayla’s family. What — what he did to her was incredible. It’s a well-known story, and I’m not going to say it, but you know that. He kept her in captivity for a long period of time. He kept her in his captivity, his personal captivity. She was a beautiful woman, beautiful young woman. Helped people. She was there to help people. And he saw her and he thought she was beautiful, and he brought her into captivity for a long period of time and then he killed her. He was an animal, and he was a gutless animal.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. It’s a very great day for our country.

Article

White House Briefing

 

 

…”Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”…

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Deep State’s Total Control with Beijing as the Mother of Managers

 

A Status Review

The good news is that our Mother of Managers, RED China, continues to franchise its “One World, One Dream” surveillance and control solution based on its own Golden Shield initiative which produces “Happy Populations and Consumers” that our actuarily our LRUs for predictable profit margin percentages.

Even though Hillary missed her moment again, Diane and her driver, Nancy, the FBI, DOJ, State, NSA, and “Central” have been very helpful.

On the downside, NAFTA and the TPP were exposed, however, the drug trade, human trafficking, and organ harvesting ventures are thriving. Others should implement the “Planned Parenthood” disguise.

Also, the Village Idiots have still not figured out the pretext and goal of Arab Spring, and we really cut it close with The Thing from 1890’s, SSN # 042-68-4425, fake war on Libya and used the crisis to expand our pretext of the Global War on Terror into Europe to ultimately benefit RED China’s loan sharking and total control blueprint.

Syria was never on the Arab Spring list, but we also turned it into an opportunity for “Sustainable Development Wherever the UN Goes or Doesn’t Go When It Ideally Should” with less people as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia etc.

Trump like Reagan has interrupted the implementation of the blueprint, but we have some plans and eventually one will work to get the implementation back on track as we are so very close. The good news is Americans are getting dumber by the minute as well as being crushed with debt while thinking their “schooling” is giving them the skill sets for financial success while we have put all the roadblocks in place to prevent that from happening thanks to all our puppets in the U.S. Congress. Eventually they will succumb to the bait of free stuff and be totally dependent on us.

Eventually, with the success of RED China’s “One World, One Dream” solution, we will be able to overcome any resistance to our plan via its built in hostage taking and extortion. RED China’s partnership with NSA and “Central” has made good use of this in America. We must continue on this path and someday very soon all will wake up from The Dream and realize it is not their Dream but our Dream and they will not be able to do anything about it when it becomes their nightmare for our benefit.

Once again, election seasons are coming up again, and we must focus on placing more Emirs into our future areas of control so that we can remove all aspects of resistance. We must make Eichmann proud!

 

 

Editors Note: Farming, Mining, and Management of The Human Kind : The pretext of altruistic endeavors that just suddenly become predatory and parasitic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Blueprint for RED China’s One World One Dream:

How Arab governments use cyberspace laws to shut down activism

Critical Arab voices are being silenced on Twitter, and laws across the Middle East are created to further this cause.

by Yarno Ritzen
25 Jul 2019

In this series of articles, Al Jazeera examines how Twitter in the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring. 

Government talking points are being magnified through thousands of accounts during politically fraught times and silencing people on Twitter is only part of a large-scale effort by governments to stop human rights activists and opponents of the state from being heard. 

For human rights activists, journalists, dissidents and free speech campaigners, social media has long been a double-edged sword, representing both the positive and harmful aspects of open communication on the internet.

On the one hand, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow activists the opportunity to spread their message, reaching an audience they could only dream of before the internet.

But on the other, the nature of open communication raises the risk of being followed, exposed or worse, as some governments increase their digital surveillance capabilities.

As a result, governments around the world are turning social media against their citizens.

China is the country where government control of the internet is by far the most egregious, but many countries in the Middle East are not far behind when it comes to using the internet against those who fight for a more open society, the annual Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House concluded.

Mohamad Najem, executive director at Beirut-based SMEX, a digital rights organisation focusing on issues related to freedom of expression, online privacy and safety, said social media movements had taken the Middle East by surprise and governments adapted relatively quickly, using social media against protesters and civil rights activists.

Over the last decade, SMEX has tracked how the use of social media platforms like Twitter, both by activists and governments, has changed.

“In 2011, access to these tools was still kind of new and governments underestimated them,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

Meet the activists fighting the Great Chinese Firewall

Social media allowed people in the Middle East to voice their concerns and question those in power.

During the Arab Spring, protesters were able to organise on social media, a tool that connected their realities with the rest of the world.

But governments were watching, too, and continue to closely monitor.

“Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“The online sphere we used to go to in the Middle East to express ourselves, to talk about politics, has started to close down slowly because of all these regulations,” he added.

“People were prosecuted, thrown in jail, or they had to flee the country.”

To show what laws Middle East governments have introduced in recent years, SMEX launched Cyrilla, a website listing all proposed and passed legislation aimed at curbing free speech.

The database, which offers texts in Arabic and English and covers the entire region, shows clearly how digital liberties in the Middle East have come under attack.

Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech.

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

It also lists several countries outside of the Middle East, including RussiaVietnam and Fiji.

“Across the Middle East, there is a large number of countries that have specifically instituted anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that contain vague prohibitions on free speech,” Jillian York told Al Jazeera.

York is the Berlin-based director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which aims to protect civil liberties in the digital world.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Qatar; all these countries have instituted cybercrime laws and in most cases, the laws are vague – quite broad,” she said.

As an example, York cited Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation from 2014, which criminalises defamation of the state and defines calling for atheist thought as a “terrorist” action.

Recently, prominent Norway-based pro-democracy activist Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Palestinian who has been outspoken in his criticism of Saudi authority figures, made a plea for his safety after US intelligence agency CIA found a credible threat to his life from authorities in the kingdom.

El-Baghdadi is behind The Arab Tyrant Manual, which focuses on global authoritarianism and the struggle for democratic liberties in the Arab region. He is also a fellow at Civita, a leading liberal think-tank in Norway, where he sought asylum after he was forced to leave his home in the United Arab Emirates in 2015.

İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي

@iyad_elbaghdadi

Spare a thought for all the dissidents, activists, journalists, and private citizens in the Arab world who get beaten, arrested, tortured, murdered without being passed tips and without being offered protection. They are the real heroes, and they are the real victims. Not me.

54 people are talking about this

But it is not just Saudi Arabia, as documented by organisations including Amnesty International and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights show.

Governments in the Middle East have started using platforms such as Twitter as amplifiers, using both automated bot accounts and well-known social media influencers to promote state-approved messaging, Najem said.

So, while activist voices are being drowned out by government-approved messages, sometimes amplified by fake Twitter accounts, campaigners also risk being jailed or are forced to leave the country because of newly implemented cybercrime or “antiterrorism” laws.

Last April, Saudi Arabia arrested three bloggers without giving any reasons for their arrest.

Similarly, the Turkish government cracked down hard last year on Twitter users who used the platform to voice their criticism of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria, claiming they were spreading “terrorist propaganda”.

The UAE, meanwhile, made it a criminal offence to show support for Qatar in the ongoing GCC crisis, claiming people who did so violated the federal decree on Combating Information Technology Crimes, possibly facing a jail term from three to 15 years, and a fine not less than 500,000 dirhams ($136,000).

According to both Najem and York, it is not just governments that are to blame for the crackdown on activists.

Part of the responsibility falls on social media companies for failing to address the issue of automated propaganda accounts and willingly helping governments in the region.

“One of the challenges with companies like Twitter – and most tech companies – is that they are based in Dubai. This is an issue because this is a country that has no respect for human rights, which means they have no respect for digital rights either,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“We have a problem that all these companies that are being used for free speech, such as Twitter, are based in the Gulf. These are countries that are not signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [giving everyone a right to freedom of opinion and expression] is not part of their mandate and freedom of expression is not something they care about.”

To add, York explained, the opaque deals these companies make with governments lead to more censorship, which is often hard to notice.

I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.

JILLIAN YORK, EFF

“Governments sort of wisened up and, due to a number of other factors, they began instead utilising these companies to do this censorship for them,” she said.

“This is a more palatable form of censorship for the people because they don’t notice what is missing. Instead of getting an error page when you visit a website like Twitter or Facebook, the content is just missing – it has disappeared,” she added.

“That has allowed these companies to continue to engage and grow in these markets while not being blamed for the censorship.”

York believes that these companies should be incredibly limited in how they regulate speech.

Another problem, she says, is that these companies consider the Middle East as a single monolithic entity and fail to look at the nuances between different countries.

“It’s very culturally ignorant to think that Lebanese people would want the same rules as the Saudis,” she said.

“To give a concrete example of this, search engine Microsoft Bing for years censored its results in the entire Middle East based on what Saudi Arabia asked them to censor.”

As a result, York explained, Bing instituted a blanket ban for certain keywords in the whole Middle East, so, for example, because Saudi Arabia wanted all mentions of the word “breast” removed from search results, people in Lebanon were not able to use Bing to search for “chicken breast”.

Meanwhile, accessing pornographic websites directly was still possible in Lebanon.

“So, I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.”

“These days they just do it, they don’t push back on it any more.”

Wael Abbas, an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, used to document police brutality in Egypt.

“It’s quite clear from Abbas’s case that he was being attacked by trolls on Twitter that he alleges were government paid, but we don’t know that for sure,” York said.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy.”

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

“Nevertheless, he was attacked by government supporters on Twitter, he fought back and then his account was shut down by Twitter, probably because he used language that was in their rules considered hate speech.”

His account remains suspended.

“In Wael’s example, they should not have kicked him off of the platform for using harsh language,” York said.

These sustained efforts have instilled fear among activists, many of whom have largely moved away from public platforms like Twitter and Facebook to more closed systems.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy,” Najem said.

While the increased privacy of closed platforms provides some more safety for activists, reaching an audience as they did during the Arab Spring seems impossible.

Saudi women’s rights activist Souad al-Shammary looks at her Twitter account on her mobile phone. She is a liberal feminist who was jailed for her views [File: AP]

Article

GO RED China! GO RED China!

 

 

A Message To President Trump from MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.) on Murder!

A Message To President Trump from MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.) with an Update on Murder and the Benghazi Cover Up!

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army, Ret.) was recently on Conservative Commandos Radio Show to discuss new information he has on Benghazi. Was there a stand-down order while the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex were under attack that night in 2012? Why didn’t the military send forces to attempt to help those Americans attack in Benghazi that night?

What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?

SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.

STEALING HOME.

Important information on “Secretary of State” Hillary Clinton and the Department of State:

 

More VIP Revealing Facts on Benghazi!
White House notified immediately! Assets available were told to stand down!

MG Paul Vallely and American patriots involved in communications during the Benghazi murders by omission and crime scene staging and the 13 hours and a Training Mission at the time are interviewed by Audrey Russo.

Audio Interview


Editor’s Note:

Diplomatic cables and much more were exposed for years prior!

 

“Cybersecurity”

EU Investigating Report of Massive Hacking on Diplomatic Cables

The European Union is investigating “a potential leak of sensitive information” following a report that hackers breached the bloc’s diplomatic communications network.

Using techniques similar to those used by an elite unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army, hackers downloaded cables over a period of three years, according to the report by the New York Times published late Tuesday.

In response, a spokeswoman for the European Council said Wednesday they were “aware of the allegations” and “actively investigating the issue.”

Article

China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR

FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM

By Darren Pauli

Sophisticated Beijing-backed hackers raided civilian organisations responsible for the movements of US troops and equipment 20 times in one year of which only two were detected by the responsible agency, an audit report has found.

Contractors underneath the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) agency were hacked a total of 50 times, which included less sophisticated attacks made by actors not identified by the US Government as being on China’s payroll.

The audit was conducted in the 12 months to June 2013 based on information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defense Security Services, Defense Cyber Crime Centre, and the US Air Force and 11 contractors.

TRANSCOM was responsible for tapping civil transport organisations for wartime operations described as “key” in the report Inquiry into Cyber Intrusions Affecting U.S. Transportation Command Contractors [pdf] declassified overnight.

Senate Armed Services Committee members said the intrusions were unacceptable and a sign of aggression on the part of Beijing.

“These peacetime intrusions into the networks of key defense contractors are more evidence of China’s aggressive actions in cyberspace,” committee chairman Senator Carl Levin said.

“Our findings are a warning that we must do much more to protect strategically significant systems from attack and to share information about intrusions when they do occur.”

Ranking member Senator Jim Inhofe called for a “central clearinghouse” for critical contractors to report possible hacks.

The audit found intrusions including the compromise or theft of email accounts, documents, passwords and code.

It also revealed a Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractor lost flight details, credentials and its email encryption key while systems on a TRANSCOM contractor ship were hacked multiple times.

The committee behind the report said TRANSCOM and its contractors lack a universal definition of what constituted a compromise.

It further criticised the reporting structure and said the FBI and Department of Defence knew but did not tell the Pentagon of nine separate intrusions of TRANSCOM contractors.

The committee updated its version of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to direct the Secretary of Defense to designate operationally critical contractors and impose tighter reporting requirements for breaches suspected to be pulled off by nation-states.

The audit findings follow the naming by the US Government of five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army it claimed were behind an eight-year hacking campaign against some American companies to steal commercially sensitive information. ®

Article

“Chinese military cyber attacks revealed in the report included a contractor who was compromised between 2009 and 2010 and lost emails, documents, user accounts, passwords and source code, indicating the penetration gain broad access. ”

Article

“From June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013, 50 successful intrusions were made into contractors’ systems, and of those, 20 were attributed to an advanced persistent threat (APT). But that wasn’t the most disconcerting finding, according to the report’s executive summary.

“Of those APT-linked intrusions, TRANSCOM was made aware of only two, a troubling finding given the potential impact of cyber intrusions on defense information and operations,” the report said.”

Article

 

Now over to Tivoli, Italy.

‘We could have been there’: Squadron member speaks out on stalled Benghazi response

By Fox News

May 12, 2016

His squadron got the alert: a “real world mission was going down.”

The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.

“There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi.

Only they were waiting for the order. It never came.

“The whole night we were told that we are waiting on a call,” he told Fox News.

This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night.

He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.

“I’m not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”

Namely, he said, that a team was ready to go that night to help protect Americans under fire in Benghazi – an account that runs counter to multiple official reports, including from a House committee, a timeline provided by the military and the controversial State Department Accountability Review Board investigation, which concluded the interagency response to Benghazi was “timely and appropriate.”

The source said: “I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day.”

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in that second wave. Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed in the initial attack on the main compound.

“We could have been there. That’s the worst part,” the source said.

The source who spoke with Fox News challenged the military claim that a re-fueling tanker wasn’t available. He said American jets routinely refuel by using what’s called a “hot pit maneuver,” which allows the jets to land and then get fuel without shutting off the engines.

Multiple sources say there were multiple locations available the night of the attack.

He said they were waiting on the call, though, through the night. The men say they didn’t truly learn about the mission they had missed until they returned home the next day from the airfield and saw the reports about the Benghazi attack on the news.

Many still don’t talk about the subject and some insist it has hurt morale within the squadron because “people know we were stationed there and didn’t respond.”

The same frustrations have compelled Mike, a former team sergeant for a military anti-terror quick reaction force, once known as the CIF, to talk.

“For some reason they were all shut down, and I think it leads back to a policymaker somewhere because nobody in the military is going to shut down an operation,” he said. On the night of the attack, Mike was at Delta Force headquarters in the U.S. monitoring the events as they happened.

“We had hours and hours and hours to do something … and we did nothing,” he said.

Despite the claim by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department that nothing more could have been done, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit recently revealed that Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash immediately offered assistance to the State Department on the night of Sept. 11, saying forces could move to Benghazi and “they are spinning up as we speak.”

Mike echoed that: “I know everything was spun up and nothing was done.”

He added: “At our level, we were doing everything we were supposed to be doing. At everybody else’s level above us, it was political.”

In June 2014, Delta Forces captured Abu Khattala, a man now charged in the attack.

Mike, though, said Khattala is a low-level operative and not one of the terror cell leaders. He said the U.S. could have collected intelligence leading to “bigger fish” had the U.S. acted sooner following the attack.

Meanwhile, while Democrats have called the House investigation into the Benghazi attacks a waste of time and money, committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., says his committee has uncovered new facts – but does admit they still are having issues finding witnesses.

“It’s been very frustrating,” Gowdy told Fox News.

In response to Fox News’ reporting, he also issued a statement saying it is “deeply troubling there are individuals who would like to share their stories, but have not because they are afraid of retaliation from their superiors.”

The two men who spoke with Fox News have not spoken with the committee.

Article

Crime Scene Staging 101 : LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy

Editor’s Note: From our great friend Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (ret) and our friends at WND.com (from 2014). With special thanks to The Citizens Committee on Benghazi and The Legacy National Security Group.

James A. Lyons, 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.

Travel Advisory:


The road to Benghazi = time and distance. En route. What to wear when visiting each city.

LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy

The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls

By James A. Lyons – – Monday, March 3, 2014

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.

Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.

The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.

There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.

On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.

On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.

Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.

On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.

The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.

At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.

The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.

The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?

According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?

On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.

This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?

Based on numerous reports, the Obama administration and every organization in the chain of command knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack on the SMC.

Within hours, it was known that the attack was executed by Ansar al Shariah, which is a coalition of Islamic and Salafist rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.

It should not be overlooked that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was tasked with supporting the U.K.-based Blue Mountain Security Group that had the contract from our State Department to provide security for the compound.

According to my source, who is a confidential informant for the FBI, the Blue Mountain Security Group is a cover company for MI-6. My source also told me that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade contract personnel were positioned near the compound the day of the attack and were ready to respond but never received orders to execute. Interesting.

My FBI confidential informant has also confirmed my assessment on the Lou Dobbs TV show in October 2012; namely, that this was an operation that went terribly wrong.

According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.

All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, appoint such a committee as called for by Resolution 36 put forth by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and restore integrity to the office of the speaker.

James A. Lyons, 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.

Editor’s Note: For a reason…

Article

 

Editor’s Note: Weapons to the wrong groups, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, fore a reason…to keep it going…and…

China to deploy troops to fight alongside Assad in Syria

By: The Middle East Monitor

 

China is planning to send troops to Syria to aid President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, according to the New Khaleej.

According to informed sources, the move comes as China becomes increasingly concerned with the presence of Islamic militants in the East Turkestan region, who have been sighted aiding opposition groups in Syria.

Last week, during a meeting with Syrian Presidential Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised the regime’s efforts at tackling the fighters from the Islamic East Turkistan Movement.

The Syrian regime has also claimed that some 5,000 fighters of Uyghur origin, an ethnic Muslim minority that Chinese authorities regularly accuse of terrorism, have arrived in Syria, illegally passing through Southeast Asia and Turkey.

The sources said that the Chinese Ministry of Defence intends to send two units known as the “Tigers of Siberia” and the “Night Tigers” from the Special Operations Forces to aid Syrian government troops.

Read: Russia to reduce forces in Syria by end of the year

This is not the first time Chinese troops have crossed into Syria; in 2015 the Syrian regime permitted some 5,000 soldiers to enter its territory as allied forces and stationed them in the Western region of Latakia. Chinese military advisors were also among the deployment, as well as naval and aerial assets.

China is one of the five veto-wielding powers of the UN Security Council and, along with Russia, has used its power on more than one occasion to protect the interests of the Syrian regime.

Russian support has given the government an upper hand in the six year-long civil war, especially as the battle against Daesh comes to an end.

More than half a million people are believed to have been killed since 2011, the vast majority by the Assad government and allied forces. The regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians and prevented aid from reaching those affected on the ground. UN officials further estimate that some ten million people have been displaced as a result of the fighting.

Article

Hillary Calls on RED China to Rescue her!
And Torqued Hillary makes another mistake! OOOPS!

Article

 

How many hours…

All along the rooftop. And the writing is on the…

 


Christmas, Benghazi Document Dump

Editor’s Note – Not surprising the Obama Administration choose to release this information on Christmas Eve. In a Politico article, they report;

Thursday’s document dump, put out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, includes correspondence sent from American intelligence officials in 2011 and 2012.

benghazi car burning

The emails — edited to conceal what is considered to be sensitive information — provide few new details about the lethal September 2012 terrorist attack on the diplomatic mission in Libya or American-born Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the first email, only two of 17 lines of text were not blacked out.

Another email consists of the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” followed completely by blacked-out text.

Other emails consist of the text of news clippings from Reuters, the Washington Post and other organizations.

We at SUA must ask, ‘At this point, what difference does it make?’  Answer; it makes a lot of difference, we want to know what is being hidden?

Obama Administration Delivers Benghazi Document Dump for Christmas

By Sandy Fitzgerald – Newsmax 

The Obama administration dumped 16 pages of emails related to Benghazi on Christmas Eve, but the documents are heavily edited to conceal what was considered as sensitive information, so few new details have been revealed about the Benghazi attacks or al-Qaida recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.

Anwar al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki

The documents were released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reports Politico, and include intelligence officials’ communications from 2011 and 2012.

But only a few lines are visible in some of the emails. In one, just two of 17 lines of text were not redacted and in another, just the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” is visible.

Further emails share news clippings, one February email in 2011 was sent to respond to a State Department in regard to al-Awlaki’s passport being revoked.

Al-Awlaki was killed later that year, in September, during a drone strike in Yemen.

It wasn’t until the next year that it was reported that the State Department reported revoking his passport. There were also memos in Thursday’s dump that include details about using existing protocol to protect intelligence.

The Obama administration has also released such information during the holidays including in May, when it released a trove of 296 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server.

Left Now Calls For Hillary to Come Clean or Get Out

Editor’s Note – Last night we heard that the FBI was able to recover emails from Hillary Clinton’s server and now some on the left are calling for her head and noted columnist and talking head Ron Fournier lists the reason below.

In addition, even the State Department is challenging Hillary’s many excuses, most notably on the chain of events leading to her turning over the so-called non-private ones. Her story is so frought with lies and distractions it makes the head spin:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

It’s not just why and when they were turned over, it is also how. Remember, she had them printed out, thus hiding the meta-data and slowing down the search process. In any other criminal case, that is clearly obstruction of justice – 30,000 times. But we want to take Ron Fournier’s article one step further, like prison further.

Please read on as the left is learning and be sure to check on Ron’s 19 question for Hillary from September 9th, and then read here:

Hillary Clinton: Come Clean or Get Out

The email scandal is a distraction from the important work of the Democratic Party.

By Ron Fournier – National Journal

If the Demo­crat­ic Party cares to sal­vage a sliv­er of mor­al au­thor­ity, its lead­ers and early state voters need to send Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton an ur­gent mes­sage: Come clean or get out. Stop ly­ing and de­flect­ing about how and why you stashed State De­part­ment email on a secret serv­er—or stop run­ning.email-scandal-ron-fournier-has-19-questions-for-hillary_1

Tell her: We can’t have an­oth­er day like this:

Story 1: The State De­part­ment con­firmed that Clin­ton turned over her email only after Con­gress dis­covered that she had ex­clus­ively used a private email sys­tem. Ac­cord­ing to The Wash­ing­ton Post, the de­part­ment first con­tac­ted her in the sum­mer of 2014, at least three months be­fore the agency asked Clin­ton and three of her pre­de­cessors to provide their emails.

The story un­der­cuts Clin­ton’s claim that her de­cision to turn over self-se­lec­ted email was a re­sponse to a routine-sound­ing re­cords re­quest. She hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 2: A fed­er­al court has helped un­cov­er more emails re­lated to the Benghazi raid that were with­held from con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors. Clin­ton has in­sisted she turned over all her work-re­lated email and com­plied with con­gres­sion­al sub­poen­as.

Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 3: The FBI has re­covered per­son­al and work-re­lated e-mails from her private serv­er, rais­ing the pos­sib­il­ity that the de­leted in­form­a­tion be­comes pub­lic. “The FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing how and why clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion ended up on Clin­ton’s serv­er,” Bloomberg re­por­ted.

While the Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner still in­sists there was no clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion on the un­se­cured serv­er, the FBI has moved bey­ond wheth­er U.S. secrets were in­volved to how and why. In the lan­guage of law en­force­ment, the FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing her motive.

ron-fournier-360x220On Sunday, Clin­ton told Face the Na­tion host John Dick­er­son: “What I did was al­lowed. It was fully above board,” and “I tried to be fully trans­par­ent.” Both claims are ob­ject­ively and in­dis­put­ably false.

From the mo­ment this story broke in March, seni­or Demo­crats told me they were wor­ried about where the ques­tions would lead. Sev­er­al said they feared what the emails might show about the in­ter­sec­tion of Clin­ton’s work at the State De­part­ment and the fam­ily’s private found­a­tion.

One Clin­ton loy­al­ist, a cred­ible source who I’ve known for years, told me, “The emails are a re­lated but sec­ond­ary scan­dal. Fol­low the found­a­tion money.”

That is still spec­u­la­tion. But months of dis­hon­esty and de­cep­tion took their toll: A ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans don’t trust her, and the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion fight has shif­ted from a coron­a­tion to a com­pet­i­tion. A poll re­leased today by Bloomberg shows Clin­ton barely lead­ing so­cial­ist Bernie Sanders and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, who’s not even in the race.

For Demo­crats, this is an op­por­tun­ity wasted. A crowded GOP field has been taken host­age by a celebrity bil­lion­aire with a his­tory of bank­ruptcies, sex­ist be­ha­vi­or, and ra­cially of­fens­ive state­ments. Lack­ing a firm grip on policy or the truth, Don­ald Trump is the GOP front-run­ner.

His closest com­pet­i­tion, Dr. Ben Car­son, said Sunday he didn’t think a Muslim should be pres­id­ent, and his ef­forts to clean up the con­tro­versy have been as ham-handed as they are dis­hon­est.

Which brings me back to Clin­ton. Loy­al­ists ar­gue that her policy agenda speaks to Amer­ica’s new demo­graphy and ad­dresses 21st-cen­tury chal­lenges. Even if they’re right, the Clin­ton team has un­der­es­tim­ated the value that voters place on a can­did­ate’s char­ac­ter. One top Clin­ton ad­viser told me in the spring, “Trust doesn’t mat­ter.”

Hillary.Fournier

 

Oft-burned Amer­ic­ans un­der­stand that a policy agenda is a col­lec­tion of prom­ises. If they can’t count on Clin­ton to be hon­est, they can’t count on her to keep her word about in­come in­equal­ity, jobs, health care, and the en­vir­on­ment.

She an­nounced a plan Tues­day to re­duce pre­scrip­tion-drug costs, prom­ising to cap monthly out-of-pock­et ex­penses at $250 without curb­ing profits that fund re­search in­to life-sav­ing drugs. Can you be­lieve her?

Over­shad­ow­ing that news was her long-awaited de­cision on the Key­stone pipeline: Clin­ton now op­poses a pro­ject she was once in­clined to sup­port at the State De­part­ment, a flip-flop that she jus­ti­fied with a rhet­or­ic­al wave of the hand. “I think it is im­per­at­ive that we look at the Key­stone pipeline as what I be­lieve it is—a dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work we have to do to com­bat cli­mate change.”

A dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work. That could be her cam­paign slo­gan.