U.S. Suspects More Direct Threats Beyond ISIS

21 Sep

OBAMA VIEWED AS SLUGGISH ON TERROR THREATS

By MARK MAZZETTI, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and BEN HUBBARD

SEPT. 20, 2014

ISLAMIC STATE IN BLACK

WEARY TRAVELERS Thousands of people journey daily between Iraqi Kurdistan and territory controlled by the Islamic State. Credit Andrea Bruce for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — As the United States begins what could be a lengthy military campaign against the Islamic State, intelligence and law enforcement officials said another Syrian group, led by a shadowy figure who was once among Osama bin Laden’s inner circle, posed a more direct threat to America and Europe.

American officials said that the group called Khorasan had emerged in the past year as the cell in Syria that may be the most intent on hitting the United States or its installations overseas with a terror attack. The officials said that the group is led by Muhsin al-Fadhli, a senior Qaeda operative who, according to the State Department, was so close to Bin Laden that he was among a small group of people who knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks before they were launched.

There is almost no public information about the Khorasan group, which was described by several intelligence, law enforcement and military officials as being made up of Qaeda operatives from across the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Members of the cell are said to be particularly interested in devising terror plots using concealed explosives. It is unclear who, besides Mr. Fadhli, is part of the Khorasan group.

JAME CLAPPER

The director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., said on Thursday that “in terms of threat to the homeland, Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State.”

Some American officials and national security experts said the intense focus on the Islamic State had distorted the picture of the terrorism threat that has emerged from the chaos of Syria’s civil war, and that the more immediate threats still come from traditional terror groups like Khorasan and the Nusra Front, which is Al Qaeda’s designated affiliate in Syria.

Mr. Fadhli, 33, has been tracked by American intelligence agencies for at least a decade. According to the State Department, before Mr. Fadhli arrived in Syria, he had been living in Iran as part of a small group of Qaeda operatives who had fled to the country from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. Iran’s government said the group was living under house arrest, but the exact circumstances of the Qaeda operatives were disputed for years, and many members of the group ultimately left Iran for Pakistan, Syria and other countries.

OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

In 2012, the State Department identified Mr. Fadhli as Al Qaeda’s leader in Iran, directing “the movement of funds and operatives” through the country. A $7 million reward was offered for information leading to his capture. The same State Department release said he was working with wealthy “jihadist donors” in Kuwait, his native country, to raise money for Qaeda-allied rebels in Syria.

In a speech in Brussels in 2005, President George W. Bush referred to Mr. Fadhli as he thanked European countries for their counterterrorism assistance, noting that Mr. Fadhli had assisted terrorists who bombed a French oil tanker in 2002 off the coast of Yemen. That attack killed one and spilled 50,000 barrels of oil that stretched across 45 miles of coastline.

The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is viewed as more focused on consolidating territory it has amassed in Syria and Iraq than on attacking the West. Some even caution that military strikes against the Islamic State could antagonize that group into planning attacks on Western targets, and even benefit other militant organizations if more moderate factions of the rebellion are not ready to take power on the ground.

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, identified the group called Khorasan as a danger “to the homeland.” Credit T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images

The Islamic State’s recent statements, including a video using a British captive as a spokesman, have sought to deter American action against the group and threatened attacks only as revenge for American strikes.

At the same time, the rise of the Islamic State has blunted the momentum of its rival groups in Syria, including the Nusra Front, once considered to be among the most capable in the array of Syrian rebel groups. The Islamic State’s expansion across northern Iraq and in oil-rich regions of eastern Syria has sapped some of the Nusra Front’s resources and siphoned some of its fighters — who are drawn by the Islamic State’s battlefield successes and declaration of a caliphate, the longtime dream of many jihadists.

It is difficult to assess the seriousness and scope of any terror plots that Khorasan, the Nusra Front or other groups in Syria might be planning. In several instances in the past year, Nusra and the Islamic State have used Americans who have joined their ranks to carry out attacks inside Syria — including at least one suicide bombing — rather than returning them to the United States to strike there.

Beyond the militant groups fighting for control of territory, Syria has become a magnet for Islamic extremists from other nations who have used parts of the country as a sanctuary to plot attacks.

“What you have is a growing body of extremists from around the world who are coming in and taking advantage of the ungoverned areas and creating informal ad hoc groups that are not directly aligned with ISIS or Nusra,” a former senior law enforcement official said.

isis

Spokesmen for the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment for this article.

The grinding war in Syria, well into its fourth year, has led to a constant shifting of alliances among the hard-line rebel groups.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda, anointed the Nusra Front as its official branch in Syria and cut ties with the Islamic State early this year after it refused to follow his orders to fight only in Iraq. Officials said that Khorasan was an offshoot of the Nusra Front. According to fight only in Iraq. Officials said that Khorasan was an offshoot of the Nusra Front. According to a new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, the rifts among these various groups “threaten to create a conflict throughout the jihadist movement that is no longer confined to Syria and Iraq.”

While Nusra has been weakened, it remains one of the few rebel organizations that has active branches throughout Syria. Analysts view the organization as well placed to benefit from American strikes that might weaken the Islamic State.

Jennifer Cafarella, a Syria analyst with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, said that American strikes could benefit the Nusra Front if the United States did not ensure that there was another force ready to take power on the ground.

“There is definitely a threat that, if not conducted as a component of a properly tailored strategy within Syria, the American strikes would allow the Nusra Front to fill a vacuum in eastern Syria,” she said.

She noted that the Nusra Front had been the primary force in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour before it was pushed out by the Islamic State earlier this year, and that the group had maintained better relationships with the local tribes than ISIS had. This could make it easier for the group to return if ISIS is chased out by American airstrikes.

MILITARY AIR

While the Nusra Front does not openly call for attacks on the West, it remains loyal to Mr. Zawahiri, whose clout among jihadists has waned with the rise of the Islamic State.

A great deal remains uncertain about the Nusra Front’s ultimate aims inside Syria. Hamza al-Shimali, the head of the American-backed rebel group the Hazm Movement, said that he and his allies did not trust the Nusra Front. He said he feared that one day he would have to fight the Nusra Front in addition to the Syrian government and the Islamic State.

American intelligence officials estimate that since the Syrian conflict began, about 15,000 foreigners, including more than 100 Americans and 2,000 Europeans, have traveled to the country to fight alongside rebel groups. Syria’s porous borders make it relatively easy to get in and out of the country, raising concerns among Western officials that without markings on their passports they could slip back undetected into Europe or the United States.

isis 2

Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Ben Hubbard from Gaziantep, Turkey. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.

Tags:

Rand Paul blisters Obama and Clinton, calls for GOP diversity

21 Sep

RAND USE

By Cathleen Decker contact the reporter

Fewer than 50 days before an election that may give Republicans control of the Senate as well as the House, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Saturday skipped past those contests entirely to focus on one in which he may play a more central role — the 2016 presidential race.

Paul, the featured speaker at the California Republican convention, made no mention of the party’s national advantages this year. He blasted President Obama and potential Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton as insufficient present or future commanders-in-chief. He insisted that the GOP must dramatically expand its reach in order to win presidential contests — a strategy that coincides with his pre-presidential efforts.

He accused Obama of confounding the Constitution when he expanded Obamacare, moved against overseas targets without specific congressional authorization, and announced plans — since delayed — to use executive action to change the nation’s immigration laws.

“It is a terrible tragedy, it is a danger to us as a country, and we need to do everything we can to stop him from abusing our laws,” Paul said. He said later, “We have a president who basically has created a lawless atmosphere in Washington.”

Speaking about Clinton, he used her famous 2008 primary ad, which argued that she more than Obama would be the president capable of answering a phone call about a middle-of-the-night crisis:

“I think she had a 3 a.m. moment. She didn’t answer the phone, and I think it absolutely should preclude her from being [president],” he said after detailing what he termed her failings leading up to the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. (His final word was obscured by applause from the strongly anti-Clinton crowd.)

HILLARY

Those were the easy targets, however.  Paul’s more passionate appeal was one that he has forwarded across the country in such unlikely venues as UC Berkeley. Paul’s argument — that the party needs to expand from its older and white base, groups amply represented among the delegates — was framed as one that could reverse the party’s long record of thumpings in California and its national presidential losses.

We’ve got to go out and we’ve got to broaden our party, and when we do, we’ll be a national party again. We will win again.- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

“When our party looks like America — with earrings and without earrings, with ponytails and without ponytails, with tattoos and without tattoos — when we look like the rest of America — white, black, brown — we’re going to win again,” he told an audience gathered near LAX. “We’ve got to go out and we’ve got to broaden our party, and when we do, we’ll be a national party again. We will win again.”

Paul suggested a freshening of the GOP message — he did not, he said, mean to suggest that the party “dilute” its principles and “be more like Democrats” — in order to attract young voters and the Latino and African American voters who have spurned the party in California and elsewhere.

He specifically cited issues he has pressed for months, including the NSA’s mining of data from cell phones, what he termed excessive sentences for drug use and expanding the ability of voters to cast ballots.

“What you say or do on your cell phone is none of the government’s damn business,” he said.

But as he made his argument there was a bit of a reality check in the room — Neel Kashkari, the party’s nominee for governor.

The child of immigrants from India, Kashkari has conducted an unusual campaign: He spent time posing as a homeless person to underscore his criticism of Democratic policies on poverty, and he marched in a gay rights parade in San Diego.

And he remains the longest of long shots in November, trailing Democratic incumbent Jerry Brown by 21 points among likely voters in a recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

The same poll found that state Republicans were the antithesis of Paul’s vision of a diverse party: 74% were white and only 25% either Latino, African American or Asian.  (Among Democrats, half were non-white, far more similar to the state overall.) Almost 6 in 10 state Republicans were 50 or older, meaning that the party serves to suffer as its members are replaced by younger voters who are far more likely to be Democratic or nonpartisan.

In an interview after his speech, Paul lauded Kashkari’s candidacy and described him as someone who “could be the face of a new GOP.” But when reminded of Kashkari’s distant second-place standing, he acknowledged that change could be slow in coming, even if the Republican party follows his advice.

“We became the minority party in California over, what, 20 years?” he asked. “It didn’t happen  overnight. To reverse it takes a while, but I think he’s saying and doing all the right things.”

“Without trying,” he added, “we’ll never win. “

GOP

For political news and analysis, follow me on Twitter: @cathleendecker

Tags:

TELL THE EPA TO BACK OFF!

20 Sep
IMPORTANT!!!  IMPORTANT!!!  IMPORTANT!!!

COAL 1
All my friends who support coal:

It’s time to stand up for coal. Send the EPA an email on behalf of WV and Congressman Nick Joe Rahall. He has requested West Virginians take advantage of the newly extended deadline for public input on the EPA’s proposed rule limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants. The EPA has moved its deadline for public comment on the Clean Power Plant Proposed Rule from October 16, to December 1, 2014, giving citizens an additional 45 days to weigh in. Please share this information. This is a way we can make a difference!

Send email to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
In subject line type: ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

COAL 2

Here is a letter you may copy and paste into an email. Feel free to modify:

Dear EPA representative:

I stand with Congressman Nick Joe Rahall against the war on coal.

Coal is not only the life blood of West Virginians, millions of people outside of our state will be affected adversely in higher utility costs.
We are all for an “all of the above” strategy for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil from nations which really don’t like us very much.
But the Obama administration has repeatedly shown its disdain for anything and everything to do with fossil fuels. His goal is one of singularity: Bankrupt the coal industry.
As one of these great “’United States’ of America”, West Virginia and surrounding coal states like Kentucky and Pennsylvania will be crippled. Our people will be more deeply suppressed into a poverty the rest of the nation could not possibly fathom or frankly, understand.
Our children will not be able to compete on a national level and we will wither into the ever-growing safety net of the U.S. government – at her mercy and under her wing of sustenance.
Americans and West Virginians deserve better. We implore you to honor our state’s service to the country in providing abundant energy for all Americans. Work with Congressman Rahall to develop clean coal technology.
Give coal the chance the Obama administration has offered other forms of energy. West Virginia will not let our country down!
And as West Virginians, we honor the efforts of Congressman Rahall. He stands with us in this fight.

Respectfully,

Your name

COAL 3

Tags: ,

These days, Democrats aren’t talking much about Obama in congressional speeches.

20 Sep

Washington Post

dems turn

File: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) (center) and other Democrats including Rep. George Miller D-CA (at right with hands to his mouth) react as President Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a Joint Session of Congress on Capitol Hill on Jan. 27, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

When President Obama took office in 2009, congressional Democrats were euphoric. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Obama and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them achieve.

In that first month, congressional Democrats mentioned Obama during floor speeches 200 or so more times than Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats.

One can reasonably assume that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing. As positive public opinion of Obama began to dip after his first year, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Obama grew wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Obama by name nearly as much as Republicans.

dems turn 2

The gap is particularly notable in the last year as seen in the chart above by the Sunlight Foundation, which measures how often any given word is spoken against all words in floor speeches and debates collected by the Congressional Record. Last fall, at the height of the government shutdown and the Obamacare rollout, Republicans were predictably discussing (bashing) Obama more.

But the trend has continued.

Much has been written this election cycle about the Democrats distancing themselves from Obama ahead of the midterm elections. Some Democratic candidates in tough races regularly emphasize their differences with the president. And Obama is persona non grata on the campaign trail (unless it’s inside private high-dollar fundraiser dinners).

If the number of times they bring him up in front of the C-SPAN cameras is a measure, the Democrats detachment from the president is even evident on Capitol Hill – where every spoken word is recorded forever, so it’s especially crucial to choose them carefully.

As my grandmother always said, “You can’t take back the spoken word.”

She also often said, “If you can’t say anything, nice don’t say anything at all.” And perhaps Democrats simply don’t have very many nice things to say.

dems turn 3

Tags:

Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession

19 Sep

By Scott Malone

A girl holds a U.S. flag next to a sculpture after a naturalization ceremony in New York July 22, 2014. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

A girl holds a U.S. flag next to a sculpture after a naturalization ceremony in New York July 22, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

 BOSTON (Reuters) – The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama’s handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

“I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done,” said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. “The state would be better off handling things on its own.”

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority – such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada’s Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights – is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

“It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama,” said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

‘OBAMACARE’ A FACTOR

Republicans were more inclined to support the idea, with 29.7 percent favoring it compared with 21 percent of Democrats.

Brittany Royal, a 31-year-old nurse from Wilkesboro, North Carolina, said anger over the “Obamacare” healthcare reform law made her wonder if her state would be better off on its own.

“That has really hurt a lot of people here, myself included. My insurance went from $40 a week for a family of four up to over $600 a month for a family of four,” said Royal, a Republican. “The North Carolina government itself is sustainable. Governor (Pat) McCrory, I think he has a better healthcare plan than President Obama.”

By region, the idea was least popular in New England, the cradle of the Revolutionary War, with just 17.4 percent of respondents open to pulling their state out.

It was most popular in the Southwest, where 34.1 percent of respondents back the idea.

That region includes Texas, where an activist group is calling the state’s legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot. One Texan respondent said he was confident his state could get by without the rest of the country.

“Texas has everything we need. We have the manufacturing, we have the oil, and we don’t need them,” said Mark Denny, a 59-year-old retiree living outside Dallas on disability payments.

Denny, a Republican, had cheered on the Scottish independence movement.

“I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever,” he said.

Even in Texas, some respondents said talk about breaking away was more of a sign of their anger with Washington than evidence of a real desire to go it alone. Democrat Lila Guzman, of Round Rock, said the threat could persuade Washington lawmakers and the White House to listen more closely to average people’s concerns.

“When I say secede, I’m not like (former National Rifle Association president) Charlton Heston with my gun up in the air, ‘my cold dead hands.’ It’s more like – we could do it if we had to,” said Guzman, 62. “But the first option is, golly, get it back on the right track. Not all is lost. But there might come a point that we say, ‘Hey, y’all, we’re dusting our hands and we’re moving on.'”

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Obama owns the war on ISIS

18 Sep

`obama isis 1

Sep. 18, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The year was 2007. Americans were weary of the war in Iraq and pressures were mounting to bring our troops home.

The U.S. had stated the intent was to remove “a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.” The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated in a joint resolution of Congress, known as the “Iraq Resolution” and had the support of Democrats like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid.

But the Bush administration struggled to produce the suspected weapons of mass destruction and the mission became increasingly clouded by the speculation of poor intelligence. Many began to challenge our motivation for remaining in the region. Although the United States had successfully toppled the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, the value of the service, once performed, began to decrease. A pivotal point had been reached in the war.

In a January speech to the nation, President Bush took to the podium to announce a major tactical shift where he planned to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to provide additional security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. “The surge,” as it’s become known, operated under the working title “The New Way Forward.”

obama isis 2

But the idea of sending additional troops wasn’t popular with Americans or the president’s naysayers who opportunistically leveraged the decision politically. The president’s approval ratings plummeted over the next few months as slow progress made it appear their assertions about the surge may have been correct.

On July 12, Bush addressed the nation to answer his critics, warning of the consequences of failure in Iraq.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda,” Bush said at the time. “It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.”

He added that abandoning Iraq “would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

By the end of 2007, the surge was having an impact and Iraq began to stabilize. But the damage had been done politically. Americans were ready for a change.

In the 2008 presidential election Americans voted for Barack Obama, largely on his commitment to end the Iraq War. And as promised, in 2009 he began an 18-month drawdown of our troops, ignoring his military commander’s recommendation to leave 20,000 troops behind.

Today, just as Bush predicted, the void from Obama’s ill-timed exit from Iraq has been filled by the Islamic State forces, the horrific organization the world has come to know as ISIS or ISIL.

America now faces a new enemy. Does President Obama have the fortitude to do what’s necessary to “degrade and destroy” ISIS?

Only time will tell. But based on accurate history, Barack Obama owns this war on The Islamic State.

obama isis 3

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags:

OBAMA’S SHIP IS SINKING

14 Sep

Michael Goodwin – NY Post

obamaspast00

The rising clamor over the beheading of two Americans, and rapidly sinking polls, forced President Obama to reassure the nation last week he had a plan to deal with the Islamic State. He did some of what he had to do, but only some, and so most military analysts believe the expanded airstrikes will not be a sufficient match for the size and weaponry of the terrorist army.

They miss the point. The disjointed speech wasn’t really about terrorism and launching a new war. It was about saving Obama’s presidency.

He is sinking fast and could soon pass the point of no return. In fact, it may already be too late to save the SS Obama.

The whole second term has been a string of disasters, with the toxic brew of his Obamacare lies, middling economic growth and violent global breakdown casting doubt on the president’s stewardship. Six years into his tenure, nothing is going as promised.

Earlier on, he could have trotted out his teleprompters and turned public opinion his way, or at least stopped the damage. But the magic of his rhetoric is long gone, and not just because the public has tuned him out.

They’ve tuned him out because they’ve made up their minds about him. They no longer trust him and don’t think he’s a good leader.

Most ominously, they feel less safe now than they did when he took office. Americans know the war on terror isn’t over, no matter what their president claims.

Those findings turned up in a tsunami of recent polls that amount to a public vote of no confidence. They shook up the White House so much that the plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants was put on hold to try to protect Democratic candidates from voter wrath in November.

That was a necessary tactical retreat, but it doesn’t change the ­basic calculation. The president’s problem is that he has been wrong about virtually every major issue.

His worldview, his politics, his prejudices, his habits — they’ve been a mismatch for the country and its needs. He has been a dud even in the one area where he seemed a lock to make things better, racial relations. Only 10 percent believe race relations have improved under him, while 35 percent said they are worse, according to a New York Times survey. The remainder said there wasn’t much change either way.

That’s shocking — but not surprising. Barack Obama was not ready to be president, and still isn’t. It is a fantasy to believe he’ll master the art in his final two years.

The lasting image will be his yukking it up on the golf course minutes after giving a perfunctory speech on the beheading of James Foley. It revealed him as hollow, both to America and the world, and there is no way to un-see the emptiness.

That means, I fear, we are on the cusp of tragedy. It is reasonable to assume the worst-case scenarios about national security are growing increasingly likely to occur.

Obama’s fecklessness is so unique that our adversaries and enemies surely realize they will never face a weaker president. They must assume the next commander in chief will take a more muscular approach to America’s interests and be more determined to forge alliances than the estranged man who occupies the Oval Office now.

So Vladimir Putin, Iran, China, Islamic State, al Qaeda and any other number of despots and terrorists know they have two years to make their moves and advance their interests, and that resistance will be token, if there is any at all.

Throw in the fact that Europe largely has scrapped its military might to pay for its welfare states, and the entire West is a diminished, confused opponent, ripe for the taking. Redrawn maps and expanded spheres of influence could last for generations.

Of course, there is a possibility that America could rally around the president in a crisis, and there would be many voices demanding just that. But a national consensus requires a president who is able to tap into a reservoir of good will and have his leadership trusted.

That’s not the president we have.

crisis mode

Tags:

PRAYER FOR OBAMA: ONE WHICH WE SHOULD BEGIN PRAYING IMMEDIATELY

13 Sep

This will make you smile 🙂

Psalm 109:8 My wife and I were in slow-moving traffic the other day and We were stopped behind a car with an unusual Obama Bumper sticker on its bumper. It read: "Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8" When we got home my wife got out the Bible and opened it up to the scripture. She started laughing and laughing. Then she read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too. Psalm 109:8 ~ "Let his days be few and brief; And let others step forward to replace him." At last -- I can honestly voice a biblical prayer for our President! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters... can I get a big AMEN!
Tim Richards

Psalm 109:8
My wife and I were in slow-moving traffic the other day and
We were stopped behind a car with an unusual Obama
Bumper sticker on its bumper.
It read…: “Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8”

When we got home my wife got out the Bible and opened it
up to the scripture. She started laughing and laughing. Then she
read it to me. I couldn’t believe what it said. I had a good
laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 ~
“Let his days be few and brief;
And let others step forward to replace him.”

At last — I can honestly voice a biblical prayer for our
President!

Let us all bow our heads and pray.

Brothers and Sisters… can I get a big

AMEN!

Tags:

Obama’s ‘Strategy’ Has No Chance of Success

12 Sep

Just going through the motions…

• By FREDERICK W. KAGAN and KIMBERLY KAGAN

crisis mode

President Obama just announced that he is bringing a counter-terrorism strategy to an insurgency fight. He was at pains to repeat the phrase “counter-terror” four times in a short speech. Noting that ISIL is not a state (partly because the international community thankfully does not recognize it), he declared, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”  Neither of those sentences, unfortunately, is true.

ISIL is an insurgent group that controls enormous territory in Iraq and Syria that it governs. It maneuvers conventional light infantry forces supported by vehicles mounting machine guns and occasionally armored personnel carriers against the regular forces of the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga—and wins.

It is purely and simply not a terrorist organization any longer. Neither is it the simple manifestation of nihilistic evil the president makes out.

ISIL has described a very clear vision of seizing control of all of the territory of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories.  It intends to abolish all of the borders and redraw them according to a new structure of governance suitable to its hateful version of an old Islamic heresy.  That vision also makes it more than a simple terrorist organization.  It’s awfully hard to develop a sound strategy when you start by mis-diagnosing the problem so profoundly. That’s why the “strategy” the president just announced has no chance of success

Tags: ,

Benghazi team confirms getting stand-down orders

11 Sep

benghazi first

Sep. 11, 2014 @ 06:51 AM

MARK CASERTA

Two years ago today, on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Despite the obvious desires of the Obama administration and progressives for this tragic event to just “go away,” a few American heroes are working fervently to keep it alive.

Three members of a U.S. security team present during the Benghazi attack have now revealed they were indeed held back from immediately responding to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and information officer Sean Smith by a top CIA officer on the complex.

Prior to the release of their new book, “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” security contractors Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto, Mark (“Oz”) Geist and John (“Tig”) Teigen spoke candidly about the tragic events in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier.

Paronto, a former Army Ranger, said the team was ready to move within five minutes of hearing news of the attack just before 9:30 p.m., but were held back by the CIA base chief, whom they only refer to as “Bob.” “Five minutes, we’re ready,” said Paronto. “It was thumbs up, thumbs up, we’re ready to go.” “It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta – we need to get over there, we’re losing the initiative,” Tiegen said. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.'” Paronto said the security team was getting calls from the State Department employees begging for help, until finally the team defied orders and headed to the complex nearly 30 minutes later. Despite repeated requests for air support, it never came.

benghazi 2

When asked if the ambassador and Smith would still be alive without the delay, the security team all agreed. Yes, they would still be alive.

“Ambassador Stevens and Sean, yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said.

In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official insisted that “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.” Brett Baier asked the men about the denial.

“You use the words ‘stand down,’ ” Baier noted. “A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee, insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound … so what do you say to that?” “No, it happened,” said Tiegen.

“It happened on the ground – all I can talk about is what happened on the ground that night,” added Paronto. “To us. To myself, twice, and to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand – and stand down. We were delayed three times.” So why were these men ordered to stand down and why did this administration blatantly lie to Americans for so long?

President Obama has consistently avoided labeling Islamic violence against the U.S. as terrorism. Why?

In the face of terrorist threats from possibly the most ruthless group of radical Islamists the U.S. has ever faced – ISIS – Americans deserve to know.

benghazi 2

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags:

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →