From: CBS Philly
Just days after CBS News confirmed that reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computer had indeed been hacked, Attkisson spoke to Dom Giordano about the investigation.
“This suspicious activity has been going on for quite some time – both on my CBS computer and my personal computer,” Attkisson said. “CBS then hired its own independent cyber security firm, which has been conducting a thorough forensic exam … they were able to rule out malware, phishing programs, that sort of thing.”
Attkisson described some of the bizarre things that were happening with her computer.
“There were just signs of unusual happenings for many months, odd behavior like the computers just turning themselves on at night and then turning themselves back off again. I was basically able to verify and obtain information from my sources on the suspicious activity and I reported it to CBS News in January because of course it included CBS equipment and systems.”
Attkisson could not speak about whether the hacking was related to her questions about Benghazi because of “legal counsel,” but she did say her work at that time was primarily on the occurrence.
“Whoever was in my work computer, the only thing I was working on were work-related things with CBS were big stories I guess during the time period in questions were I guess Benghazi and ‘Fast and Furious.’ The intruders did have access to personal information including passwords to my financial accounts and so on, but didn’t tamper with those, so they weren’t interested in stealing my identity or doing things to my finances. So people can decide on their own what they might have been trying to do in there.”
When asked how she felt about being hacked, Attkisson had this to say:
“Even apart from this specific incident with my computers … I operate as though someone is looking at what I do, just because that’s the safest thing,” Attkisson said. “While it’s upsetting to have that sort of intrusion done, it’s also not that unexpected.”
Attkisson also confirmed that the investigation is still ongoing, and that she still has questions about the way the Benghazi incident was handled.
“We’re continuing to move forward aggressively, CBS News takes this very seriously, as do I. I think whenever an unauthorized party comes into the home of an American, whether it’s any private citizen or journalist and gets in their house, searches their computers — these are computers my family uses — and they’re inserting or removing material for whatever their reasons are, I think that’s a really serious and disturbing matter and we’re gonna follow it up and keep pursuing it.”
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Monday, June 17, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Obama, Clinton, Rice 'All Told Me About The Reason This Happened Was the Video’
From: CNS News
The mother of diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, said that at her son’s memorial service President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Susan Rice told her that the attack occurred because of an anti-Muslim video, although evidence now shows the White House was told by the CIA “that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and that the agency never mentioned a “video.”
It is also now known that White House and State Department officials edited the talking points provided by the CIA to remove any references to the al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia and earlier warnings from the agency about terrorist threats against the Benghazi compound. The talking points, in their various versions, never mentioned the anti-Muslim video touted by the president, Clinton and Rice.
Sean Smith, killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was 34 years old and worked for the U.S. Foreign Service as an Information Management Officer. He was married and had two children. The memorial service for Smith and the other three Americans killed occurred on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama spoke at the service.
Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, was interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor on May 9 about congressional hearings into the attack and new testimony by whistleblowers about what happened on Sept. 11, 2012.
Part of the exchange between host Bill O’Reilly and Pat Smith about events at the memorial service is presented below:
Bill O’Reilly: “Did Hillary Clinton say anything to you? Did President Obama, did they say anything to you on that day?”
Pat Smith: “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video. Every one of them told me that.”
O’Reilly: “They actually told you it was the video? Both Secretary of State Clinton and the president told you it was the videotape?"
Pat Smith: “Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also.”
O’Reilly: “Face to face?”
Pat Smith: “Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me."
O’Reilly: “And that was 3 days after the attack, correct? The 14th?"
Pat Smith: “Well, whenever it was – it was at the ceremony [at Andrews Air Force base].”
O’Reilly: “September 14, three days after the attack.”
While the talking points used by the Obama administration do not mention a video, Secretary Clinton did issue a statement on Sept. 11, while the attack was still ongoing in Benghazi, stating that, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
When CNSNews.com asked the State Department who gave Clinton that information, while the Benghazi attack was still unfolding, spokesman Patrick Ventrell would not answer.
The mother of diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, said that at her son’s memorial service President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Susan Rice told her that the attack occurred because of an anti-Muslim video, although evidence now shows the White House was told by the CIA “that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and that the agency never mentioned a “video.”
It is also now known that White House and State Department officials edited the talking points provided by the CIA to remove any references to the al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia and earlier warnings from the agency about terrorist threats against the Benghazi compound. The talking points, in their various versions, never mentioned the anti-Muslim video touted by the president, Clinton and Rice.
Sean Smith, killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was 34 years old and worked for the U.S. Foreign Service as an Information Management Officer. He was married and had two children. The memorial service for Smith and the other three Americans killed occurred on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama spoke at the service.
Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, was interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor on May 9 about congressional hearings into the attack and new testimony by whistleblowers about what happened on Sept. 11, 2012.
Part of the exchange between host Bill O’Reilly and Pat Smith about events at the memorial service is presented below:
Bill O’Reilly: “Did Hillary Clinton say anything to you? Did President Obama, did they say anything to you on that day?”
Pat Smith: “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video. Every one of them told me that.”
O’Reilly: “They actually told you it was the video? Both Secretary of State Clinton and the president told you it was the videotape?"
Pat Smith: “Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also.”
O’Reilly: “Face to face?”
Pat Smith: “Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me."
O’Reilly: “And that was 3 days after the attack, correct? The 14th?"
Pat Smith: “Well, whenever it was – it was at the ceremony [at Andrews Air Force base].”
O’Reilly: “September 14, three days after the attack.”
While the talking points used by the Obama administration do not mention a video, Secretary Clinton did issue a statement on Sept. 11, while the attack was still ongoing in Benghazi, stating that, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
When CNSNews.com asked the State Department who gave Clinton that information, while the Benghazi attack was still unfolding, spokesman Patrick Ventrell would not answer.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Fundamentalists driving Christians out of Libya
From: The Daily Star
Christians are being driven out of eastern Libya by Muslim fundamentalists, the Catholic Church’s main clergyman in the country told the Vatican missionary news agency Fides.
The situation was “critical” and the “atmosphere very tense” in the Cyrenaica region, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli said in the interview Thursday.
He said two religious communities are leaving “after being pressured by fundamentalists,” adding that the Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi was cautioned to take shelter ahead of a large-scale demonstration on Feb. 20.
“In past days, the Congregation of the Holy Family of Spoleto who had been there for nearly 100 years were forced to abandon Derna,” east of the main eastern city of Benghazi, he said.
“In Barce [located between Benghazi and Derna] the Franciscan Sisters of the Child Jesus will leave their home in coming days.”
Friday, Martinelli told Vatican Radio that for some time now fundamentalism has governed decisions in Libya.
Christians have voiced fear of a rise in sectarian sentiment in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation following the 2011 revolt that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi and in which hard-line Islamists played a major part.
Before the uprising, 3 percent of Libya’s population of around 6.3 million were Christian. Now only a couple thousand of them remain, with the majority of them expatriates.
In December, two Egyptians died in a blast at a Christian Coptic church in the Libyan town of Dafniya, and two others were wounded.
Christians are being driven out of eastern Libya by Muslim fundamentalists, the Catholic Church’s main clergyman in the country told the Vatican missionary news agency Fides.
The situation was “critical” and the “atmosphere very tense” in the Cyrenaica region, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli said in the interview Thursday.
He said two religious communities are leaving “after being pressured by fundamentalists,” adding that the Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi was cautioned to take shelter ahead of a large-scale demonstration on Feb. 20.
“In past days, the Congregation of the Holy Family of Spoleto who had been there for nearly 100 years were forced to abandon Derna,” east of the main eastern city of Benghazi, he said.
“In Barce [located between Benghazi and Derna] the Franciscan Sisters of the Child Jesus will leave their home in coming days.”
Friday, Martinelli told Vatican Radio that for some time now fundamentalism has governed decisions in Libya.
Christians have voiced fear of a rise in sectarian sentiment in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation following the 2011 revolt that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi and in which hard-line Islamists played a major part.
Before the uprising, 3 percent of Libya’s population of around 6.3 million were Christian. Now only a couple thousand of them remain, with the majority of them expatriates.
In December, two Egyptians died in a blast at a Christian Coptic church in the Libyan town of Dafniya, and two others were wounded.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 08, 2012
Reporter Lara Logan brings ominous news from Middle East
From: Chicago Sun-Times
This was no ordinary rubber chicken affair. That was my reaction to the extraordinary keynoter at Tuesday’s Better Government Association annual luncheon.
Lara Logan, a correspondent for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” delivered a provocative speech to about 1,100 influentials from government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas. Such downtown gatherings are a regular on Chicago’s networking circuit. (I am a member of the BGA’s Civic Leadership Committee, and the Chicago Sun-Times was a sponsor).
Her ominous and frightening message was gleaned from years of covering our wars in the Middle East. She arrived in Chicago on the heels of her Sept. 30 report, “The Longest War.” It examined the Afghanistan conflict and exposed the perils that still confront America, 11 years after 9/11.
Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.
She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”
Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
As a journalist, I was queasy. Reporters should tell the story, not be the story. As an American, I was frightened.
Logan even called for retribution for the recent terrorist killings of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other officials. The event is a harbinger of our vulnerability, she said. Logan hopes that America will “exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”
In the “good old days,” reporters did not advocate, crusade or call for revenge.
In these “new” days in a post-9/11 world, perhaps we need more reporters who are willing to break the rules.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
President Obama Declares The Future Must Not Belong to Practicing Christian
From: Red State
Pay careful attention to what he says.
Pay careful attention to what he says.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Muslim Brotherhood website demands that West criminalize 'assaults' on Islam
From: The Times of Israel
Without the “criminalization of assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions,” the Muslim
Brotherhood warned on Thursday, insults to Islam “will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA.”
The remarks were part of a statement posted on the English-language website of the Brotherhood in response to a trailer for a new film, which the Egyptian ruling party says is insulting to Islam.
Since the publication of the trailer earlier this week, violent anti-American riots have been raging at US diplomatic missions throughout the Middle East. In Benghazi, Libya, the American ambassador and three others were killed in a violent takeover of the consulate, and in Cairo and Sanaa, enraged mobs converged on the US embassies.
According to the statement, “one and a half billion Muslims [were] subjected to humiliation and abuse in the person of their leader, Mohammed, the Messenger of God, the Prophet of Islam,” due to the film.
The statement cited bigotry and hatred as motives for “repeated abuse,” and denounced as “ignorant” those who permit the abuse — a reference to Western authorities. Islam guarantees all people freedom of belief and freedom of opinion and expression, the statement said, but these freedoms should not extend to attacks on Islam.
“They are crimes and assaults against Muslim sanctities and must not be tolerated by the countries where they are produced or launched.”
The statement cited restrictions on Holocaust denial as an example of legislation that prohibits offensive speech, and suggested that laws should be passed that criminalize insults to Islam. Although legislation against Holocaust denial is in place in Europe, the US does not have similar laws.
According to the statement, Western condemnation of the film would not have been issued were it not for the riots. ”[The West] never made a move regarding the abuse [film] until after the strong reaction seen across the Muslim world,” the statement said.
The Muslim Brotherhood condemned the “bloodshed and violent response” of recent days, but asserted that Muslim peoples and governments had the right to peacefully and legally condemn “this new violation and heinous attack” — a reference to the film — and “to take appropriate action to deter repeats of such acts of barbaric aggression.”
“Those who insult the sanctities wish to poison budding relations between the peoples, to disrupt the efforts to build bridges between civilizations, and to sow discord between the peoples,” the statement said.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
US Foreign Policy: Abandoning Middle Eastern Christianity
From: AINA
The US State Department has quietly ceased cataloging violations of religious freedom in its "Country Reports on Human Rights." Of course, it's just a coincidence that this comes at a time when Washington is allying with radical Islamists in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. As CNS reports:
"The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.
"The new human rights reports--purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered--are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
"Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.
"For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011 and instead referred the public to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report -- a full two years behind the times -- or to the annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which was released last September and covers events in 2010 but not 2011."
Part of the reason could be that the state of religious freedom in the US isn't all that great since the Obama administration tried to force Catholic institutions -- hospitals, clinics, etc. -- to provide the "full-range" of contraceptive services, including abortion, to their employees. Then there's the Chick-fil-a controversy, where the city governments of Chicago, New York, and San Francisco want to punish the company whose CEO opposes gay marriage on religious grounds.
Hostility to organized religion -- unless you're a Unitarian, or one of these guys -- has long been a feature of contemporary American liberalism, but the kind of radical anti-clericalism that has roiled Europe (and Mexico) hasn't reared its ugly head in this country until now. The Catholic Church is a favorite anti-clericalist target, but the State Department isn't discriminating on sectarian grounds: they've simply eliminated accounts of all anti-Christian measures taken by foreign governments from their Country Reports.
This makes sense, if you think about it: after all, if you're allying with radical Islamists in order to overthrow the government of Syria -- which has long been a bulwark against Islamic jihadists in the Middle East -- then official propaganda has got to reflect this strategy.
In Egypt, where we're trying to retain some influence in the wake of longtime ally Hosni Mubarak's ouster, the Islamists have gone on a rampage, burning Coptic Christian churches, murdering churchgoers, and making it impossible for a public Christian presence to exist alongside the Muslim majority. As the Muslim Brotherhood takes the presidency and the parliament, with US support, the country's Christians have plenty of reason to worry -- or emigrate.
In Libya, where a supposedly "secular" party won a plurality in the elections after US-backed rebels took power, one of their first public pronouncements was to disavow the secular label -- and reinstate polygamy.
You're only allowed four, but hey, don't be a hog. And in an economic reform that may resonate in certain quarters in Washington, the charging of interest by banks is controversial if not yet forbidden. Persecution of Libya's Christians has remained the one constant since the fall of Gadhafi, and vigilante violence is on the uptick.
In Syria, the anti-Christian jihad is well underway, churches are being occupied and ransacked by the rebels and Christian communities targeted in a sectarian "cleansing" campaign:
"Asked whether it was the Free Syrian Army that was telling Christians to get out, Agnes Miriam, Mother Superior of the Monastery of St. James at Qara in the Diocese of Homs, said, 'Yes … it was the commander on the ground, Abdel Salam Harba, who decided that there was to be no more negotiations with Christians.'
"She said Christians refused to back the rebels, so the rebels used them as human shields."
The Vatican has echoed the Mother Superior's human shields charge, but the Obama administration is an unlikely source of sympathy for the plight of Syria's Catholics, given their war on the Church here on the home front. Indeed, anti-Catholicism is back in fashion in this country, particularly among the sort of secular liberals likely to be strong supporters of the President. Why should the Obamaites be concerned about the fate of Syrian Christians at the hands of US-backedjihadists rebels? There's no political pay-off.
I know this argument isn't going to be popular with my liberal-lefty readers, of which there are plenty, but listen: this is a deadly dangerous geopolitical game our grand strategists in Washington are playing. From North Africa to the mountain passes of Afghanistan, this administration is linking up with radical Sunni Islamists, some of which are openly associated with or sympathetic to Al Qaeda, as a prelude to their coming showdown with the Iranian Shi'ite theocracy. Their regime-change operation in Syria is but a dress rehearsal for a much wider and more devastating conflict.
Washington's playing the Sunni card condemns the peoples of the Middle East to the tyranny of sharia law: it means the utter destruction of ancient Christian communities from Tripoli to Chaldea. This has been a consistent pattern of US foreign policy since the Bush administration, which, after all, launched our disastrous invasion of Iraq and thus condemned its heretofore safe and relatively free Christian community to death.
It is undeniable that the Obama administration's strenuous efforts to attach itself to the coattails of the "Arab Spring" have radically accelerated the threat: indeed, it is fair to say that one of the main consequences of our "successful" policy has been and will continue to be a regional Christian pogrom. The only question is whether this is the inevitable albeit inadvertent consequence of a broader policy, or an intentional campaign to eradicate Christianity from the Middle East.
So where are the much-vaunted and politically powerful "Christian" groups in the US, who are supposed to exert so much influence over the Republican party and its candidates? While the Christians of the Middle East are sinking beneath an Islamist wave, as Washington cheers (and funds the jihadists), such Christian "leaders" as the Rev. John Hagee are too busy anticipating World War III and supporting Israel to notice.
As this administration pursues a policy that puts the Christians of the Middle East and North Africa in mortal danger, where oh where is the so-called Religious Right? They're carrying the banner of Mitt Romney, who wants the US to openly arm the Syrian rebels. Being a former Mormon bishop and all, Romney no doubt knows about the existence of the tiny Mormon community in Syria: is he concerned about their fate when the jihadists come to town? From the tone of this Mormon propaganda -- no.
In Syria, and throughout the region, it is the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that will be razed to the ground as radical Sunnis backed by the US take power and impose sharia law. If these groups have any lobbying power in the US, I have yet to see them exercise it on behalf of their beleaguered co-religionists. The mainstream media in the Western world, no friend of organized religion of any sort, is content to close its collective eye to the pogrom, whilst cheerleading and covering up for the supposedly heroic rebels. This BBC reporter doesn't hesitate to ask a nun reporting rebel atrocities if she knows "many people consider you a liar." Imagine some reporter -- particularly one from the BBC -- saying that to a Kosovar during the Balkan war. It would never have happened.
If the Obama administration is trying to reinforce the wacky idea that the President is really a secret Muslim, then they are certainly doing a bang-up job of it. As for me, my view is that, like all statists, the Obamaites are hostile to all religion, just on general principles. The church, after all, is a rival power center to the State. In any case, sympathy for the plight of Christians in the Middle East is not likely to be found in those quarters -- but, Christ Almighty, what about the rest of the country? Have we completely lost our moral compass, or is the triumph of militant secularism so complete that we can comfortably ignore our own government's war on Christianity in the Middle East?
"The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.
"The new human rights reports--purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered--are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
"Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.
"For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011 and instead referred the public to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report -- a full two years behind the times -- or to the annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which was released last September and covers events in 2010 but not 2011."
Part of the reason could be that the state of religious freedom in the US isn't all that great since the Obama administration tried to force Catholic institutions -- hospitals, clinics, etc. -- to provide the "full-range" of contraceptive services, including abortion, to their employees. Then there's the Chick-fil-a controversy, where the city governments of Chicago, New York, and San Francisco want to punish the company whose CEO opposes gay marriage on religious grounds.
Hostility to organized religion -- unless you're a Unitarian, or one of these guys -- has long been a feature of contemporary American liberalism, but the kind of radical anti-clericalism that has roiled Europe (and Mexico) hasn't reared its ugly head in this country until now. The Catholic Church is a favorite anti-clericalist target, but the State Department isn't discriminating on sectarian grounds: they've simply eliminated accounts of all anti-Christian measures taken by foreign governments from their Country Reports.
This makes sense, if you think about it: after all, if you're allying with radical Islamists in order to overthrow the government of Syria -- which has long been a bulwark against Islamic jihadists in the Middle East -- then official propaganda has got to reflect this strategy.
In Egypt, where we're trying to retain some influence in the wake of longtime ally Hosni Mubarak's ouster, the Islamists have gone on a rampage, burning Coptic Christian churches, murdering churchgoers, and making it impossible for a public Christian presence to exist alongside the Muslim majority. As the Muslim Brotherhood takes the presidency and the parliament, with US support, the country's Christians have plenty of reason to worry -- or emigrate.
In Libya, where a supposedly "secular" party won a plurality in the elections after US-backed rebels took power, one of their first public pronouncements was to disavow the secular label -- and reinstate polygamy.
You're only allowed four, but hey, don't be a hog. And in an economic reform that may resonate in certain quarters in Washington, the charging of interest by banks is controversial if not yet forbidden. Persecution of Libya's Christians has remained the one constant since the fall of Gadhafi, and vigilante violence is on the uptick.
In Syria, the anti-Christian jihad is well underway, churches are being occupied and ransacked by the rebels and Christian communities targeted in a sectarian "cleansing" campaign:
"Asked whether it was the Free Syrian Army that was telling Christians to get out, Agnes Miriam, Mother Superior of the Monastery of St. James at Qara in the Diocese of Homs, said, 'Yes … it was the commander on the ground, Abdel Salam Harba, who decided that there was to be no more negotiations with Christians.'
"She said Christians refused to back the rebels, so the rebels used them as human shields."
The Vatican has echoed the Mother Superior's human shields charge, but the Obama administration is an unlikely source of sympathy for the plight of Syria's Catholics, given their war on the Church here on the home front. Indeed, anti-Catholicism is back in fashion in this country, particularly among the sort of secular liberals likely to be strong supporters of the President. Why should the Obamaites be concerned about the fate of Syrian Christians at the hands of US-backed
I know this argument isn't going to be popular with my liberal-lefty readers, of which there are plenty, but listen: this is a deadly dangerous geopolitical game our grand strategists in Washington are playing. From North Africa to the mountain passes of Afghanistan, this administration is linking up with radical Sunni Islamists, some of which are openly associated with or sympathetic to Al Qaeda, as a prelude to their coming showdown with the Iranian Shi'ite theocracy. Their regime-change operation in Syria is but a dress rehearsal for a much wider and more devastating conflict.
Washington's playing the Sunni card condemns the peoples of the Middle East to the tyranny of sharia law: it means the utter destruction of ancient Christian communities from Tripoli to Chaldea. This has been a consistent pattern of US foreign policy since the Bush administration, which, after all, launched our disastrous invasion of Iraq and thus condemned its heretofore safe and relatively free Christian community to death.
It is undeniable that the Obama administration's strenuous efforts to attach itself to the coattails of the "Arab Spring" have radically accelerated the threat: indeed, it is fair to say that one of the main consequences of our "successful" policy has been and will continue to be a regional Christian pogrom. The only question is whether this is the inevitable albeit inadvertent consequence of a broader policy, or an intentional campaign to eradicate Christianity from the Middle East.
So where are the much-vaunted and politically powerful "Christian" groups in the US, who are supposed to exert so much influence over the Republican party and its candidates? While the Christians of the Middle East are sinking beneath an Islamist wave, as Washington cheers (and funds the jihadists), such Christian "leaders" as the Rev. John Hagee are too busy anticipating World War III and supporting Israel to notice.
As this administration pursues a policy that puts the Christians of the Middle East and North Africa in mortal danger, where oh where is the so-called Religious Right? They're carrying the banner of Mitt Romney, who wants the US to openly arm the Syrian rebels. Being a former Mormon bishop and all, Romney no doubt knows about the existence of the tiny Mormon community in Syria: is he concerned about their fate when the jihadists come to town? From the tone of this Mormon propaganda -- no.
In Syria, and throughout the region, it is the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that will be razed to the ground as radical Sunnis backed by the US take power and impose sharia law. If these groups have any lobbying power in the US, I have yet to see them exercise it on behalf of their beleaguered co-religionists. The mainstream media in the Western world, no friend of organized religion of any sort, is content to close its collective eye to the pogrom, whilst cheerleading and covering up for the supposedly heroic rebels. This BBC reporter doesn't hesitate to ask a nun reporting rebel atrocities if she knows "many people consider you a liar." Imagine some reporter -- particularly one from the BBC -- saying that to a Kosovar during the Balkan war. It would never have happened.
If the Obama administration is trying to reinforce the wacky idea that the President is really a secret Muslim, then they are certainly doing a bang-up job of it. As for me, my view is that, like all statists, the Obamaites are hostile to all religion, just on general principles. The church, after all, is a rival power center to the State. In any case, sympathy for the plight of Christians in the Middle East is not likely to be found in those quarters -- but, Christ Almighty, what about the rest of the country? Have we completely lost our moral compass, or is the triumph of militant secularism so complete that we can comfortably ignore our own government's war on Christianity in the Middle East?
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Libya May Be NATO’s Last Mission
From: Fiscal Times
Even before outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates caused a ruckus earlier this month when he declared that NATO faced “a dim if not dismal future,” the long-term viability of the alliance was in jeopardy.
While America’s financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and defense has remained steady, European spending in both areas has decreased, forcing the United States to shoulder the largest portion of NATO’s $2.8 billion annual budget in the alliance’s 62-year history. And the war in Afghanistan and fledging NATO mission in Libya shows how member states individually undermine the alliance’s global strategy and cause political problems at home.
Gates’ speech led to a lot of diplomatic handwringing in European capitals, where politicians have become comfortable with the U.S. as NATO’s primary sponsor and military point man. In recent years, according to Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, Europeans have become complacent about the mission of the alliance.
“Russia’s not a threat, and Europeans don’t like expeditionary missions,” said Volker. “They don’t believe they work very well.”
There is no argument that America is NATO’s sugar daddy. In 2009 and 2010, the United States kicked in $408 million and $430 million, respectively, to NATO’s military budget; $462.5 million is earmarked for 2011 spending.
The U.S. contributed $66.1 million and $84.1 million to NATO’s civil budget in 2009 and 2010
respectively. Some $90 million has been appropriated for this year’s budget.
And U.S. contributions to the organization’s security investment program, which pays for NATO installations and facilities, were $330 million and $197 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with $259 million earmarked for 2011.
Total U.S. financial contributions make up 25 percent of NATO’s budget. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest NATO contributors behind the U.S. Yet the differences between the contribution amounts are substantial.
Germany contributes 18 percent, while France and the United Kingdom contribute 9 percent. From 2000 to 2003 between 3.1 and 3.2 percent of America’s GDP to NATO, while Western Europe contributed between 2 and 1.9 percent of its GDP.
At the same time, Germany and the U.K. are in the midst of deep defense cuts that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned could cause long-term damage to strategic alliances, including NATO.
“The United States has decided it needs to behave in a way in which it undertakes any problem it sees fit,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “The Germans haven’t made that decision, and neither have most of the other NATO countries.”
Past U.S. Defense secretaries have defended the size of the U.S. contribution as necessary to secure national security interests. Gates’ speech was a clear break from this policy.
Afghanistan and Libya
While America’s financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and defense has remained steady, European spending in both areas has decreased, forcing the United States to shoulder the largest portion of NATO’s $2.8 billion annual budget in the alliance’s 62-year history. And the war in Afghanistan and fledging NATO mission in Libya shows how member states individually undermine the alliance’s global strategy and cause political problems at home.
Gates’ speech led to a lot of diplomatic handwringing in European capitals, where politicians have become comfortable with the U.S. as NATO’s primary sponsor and military point man. In recent years, according to Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, Europeans have become complacent about the mission of the alliance.
“Russia’s not a threat, and Europeans don’t like expeditionary missions,” said Volker. “They don’t believe they work very well.”
There is no argument that America is NATO’s sugar daddy. In 2009 and 2010, the United States kicked in $408 million and $430 million, respectively, to NATO’s military budget; $462.5 million is earmarked for 2011 spending.
The U.S. contributed $66.1 million and $84.1 million to NATO’s civil budget in 2009 and 2010
respectively. Some $90 million has been appropriated for this year’s budget.
And U.S. contributions to the organization’s security investment program, which pays for NATO installations and facilities, were $330 million and $197 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with $259 million earmarked for 2011.
Total U.S. financial contributions make up 25 percent of NATO’s budget. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest NATO contributors behind the U.S. Yet the differences between the contribution amounts are substantial.
Germany contributes 18 percent, while France and the United Kingdom contribute 9 percent. From 2000 to 2003 between 3.1 and 3.2 percent of America’s GDP to NATO, while Western Europe contributed between 2 and 1.9 percent of its GDP.
At the same time, Germany and the U.K. are in the midst of deep defense cuts that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned could cause long-term damage to strategic alliances, including NATO.
“The United States has decided it needs to behave in a way in which it undertakes any problem it sees fit,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “The Germans haven’t made that decision, and neither have most of the other NATO countries.”
Past U.S. Defense secretaries have defended the size of the U.S. contribution as necessary to secure national security interests. Gates’ speech was a clear break from this policy.
Afghanistan and Libya
Monday, June 20, 2011
John McCain and Lindsey Graham's Pathetic Definition of "Isolationism"
Well, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are at it again. Every neoconservatives favorite pair of Senators have subjected opponents of action in Libya and the future of Afghanistan as "isolationist". I'll address the ignorance of the neo conservatives regarding over extension of force in a future post, but right now they need to be called out for their pathetic defense of our current interventions.
Let me say that like most or all conservatives I supported invading Afghanistan because as we all know they were harboring Bin Laden. No brainer. I supported the invasion of Iraq on the basis he had weapons of mass destruction even though we now know that's not the case. Ok, bad Intel, but we still got rid of the Saddam headache. I support using drones in Yemen precisely because it's targeting Al Qaeda in a strategic locale and we are not deployed beyond drones. That works for me.
Senator McCain's criticism and false application of "isolationism" to decry the GOP field of Presidential candidates position on Libya and Afghanistan is wrong for the following reasons. First and foremost it implies that any criticism of the use of force as authorized by the President without the consent of Congress is itself "isolationist'. Moreover, Senator McCain has said that our "values" represent our vital national interests. With the exception of Ron Paul every candidate in the GOP field has supported action against Afghanistan and Iraq so to state they are being isolationist in assessing our current state of affairs is patently absurd.
As far as our values representing our vital national interests are concerned one must ask where is the line? Khadafy is a ritual human rights abuser and he did threaten a massacre in Benghazi. Ok, fair enough. Did Senator McCain call for us to bomb China after the massacre in Tienanmen Square? China's human rights record is as bad and frankly worse than Khadafy and we know they massacred their own people who had foisted a makeshift Statue of Liberty in that same square where they were murdered. No defense,no aid,no bombs for freedom loving Chinese wanting to live an American version of a free life? China's record is no better today, but where is the call to defend our "values" from Senators McCain and Graham? Well, seeing as how we must keep borrowing money from Chinese bankers to continue these excursions maybe that's why we have silence in that regard. Oh well, I guess dissenters in China's version of the gulag will have to wait for us to pay back their overlords before our enlightened Senators McCain and Graham look into their plight.
Senators McCain and Graham do not recognize the fundamentals of our place in the world. I will also post on this point in future, but in a nutshell our foreign policy has been adrift since the end of the cold war. Rather than a set of governing principles driving a consistent policy through administrations of both parties we have become largely reactionary in the administration of foreign affairs. In conducting ourselves in the international arena it is essential to have a consistent and coherent policy in determining the proper course of action as events dictate. It is policy that defines value(s). John McCain and Lindsey Graham are far more damaging to this nation in expressing their view of our place in the world because they have never placed a clear definition of what they consider our "values" and the limits in their defense.
Let me take this moment to state that like many I have definite reservations about the constitutionality of the "War Powers Act". In this respect I agree with McCain and Graham. Its constitutionality is not the point. I cannot see outside of Ron Paul supporters any mainstream elements of the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement who advocate retreating from the global stage. We all know the world wouldn't let us anyway. McCain and Graham are wrong because of the reflexive application of "isolationist" whenever anyone questions their as yet undefined policy based on our "values". Lindsey Graham actually said we need to "shut up" about Libya. Of course Lindsey Graham has a rather authoritarian view of dissent when its contrary to his sense of civility. You can see his views on free speech during wartime HERE.
Senator McCain as is often the case cites the isolationism of the 1930's as a perennial defense for refusing oversight into the application of force overseas. A history lesson for the Senator. It was not American isolationism that invited the Second World War, but European appeasement. If every American had a moral fervor to take on Imperial Japan over China or Nazi Germany over the Rhineland and Sudetenland just how far would we have gotten with Britain and France bending over backwards for Hitler? The notion that our unwillingness to fight a war in Europe aided and abetted the rise of the Nazis is also absurd. I seem to recall it was Neville Chamberlain, not Franklin Roosevelt who flew off to Munich in a frenzy to keep "peace in our time". Or did things play out differently in the history of McCain and Graham's Bizarro World?
McCain's citation of the 1930's as a parallel is all the more puzzling because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were wildly popular with the American people and for good reason. People were skeptical of Libya, but generally if mildly supportive. Does anyone even mention Yemen? The pre war, Depression era Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to a war overseas because they were often too busy trying to put food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. This attitude prevailed up to Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, why would any American willingly place their son on foreign shores to defend nations that were indifferent or ignorant of the immediate peril of imperial and fascist designs?
Americans today understand our place in the world better than John McCain and Lindsey Graham give us credit, but to label anyone who would question the degree of sacrifice as "isolationist" or by inference an "appeaser" does an injustice to those who demand accountability from those who compel the ultimate sacrifice of their sons and daughters. Why should Americans continue to have our tax dollars after ten years do no more than prop up a crook named Hamid Karzai who just yesterday referred to our troops as "occupiers"?
There actually is a valid reason for sustaining troop levels but is it so much to ask of our leaders that they spell it out? So far all we've imported from Afghanistan is heroin produced from the poppy fields of Karzai's brother. Our tax dollars at work. American lives fighting Al Qaeda and defending drug lords.
John McCain's assertion that Ronald Reagan would not approve of comments opposing force in Libya is at first foolish because it presumes an opinion upon the deceased. It is despicable because it defies Reagan's record. Reagan initiated what amounted to the final phase in winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviet Union. Without firing a shot. Ronald Reagan engaged American troops on three occasions. The first was Lebanon which resulted in a massacre of marines in their barracks. Reagan stated it was his worst decision. He invaded Grenada after its government was toppled with the aid of Castro within a few days of the car bomb in Beirut. He was criticized unfairly for using Grenada to distract from the debacle in Lebanon. Finally, he bombed Libya and nearly took out Khadafy himself. That was in response to the disco bombings in Germany. His actions against Libya went no further than that. No prolonged air war.No ground war. He sent his message. Citing Reagan is ridiculous.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham ought to be ashamed of their sophomoric interpretation of the GOP field of candidates. They should be embarrassed to tell anyone to "shut up" when lives are at stake. They should take a moment to educate themselves and reconsider false historic narratives in defense of their positions. The actions in doubt are worthy of debate and consideration regardless of where we come down, but McCain and Graham's comments are born of resentment of those in dissent. Obviously they never learned that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Let me say that like most or all conservatives I supported invading Afghanistan because as we all know they were harboring Bin Laden. No brainer. I supported the invasion of Iraq on the basis he had weapons of mass destruction even though we now know that's not the case. Ok, bad Intel, but we still got rid of the Saddam headache. I support using drones in Yemen precisely because it's targeting Al Qaeda in a strategic locale and we are not deployed beyond drones. That works for me.
Senator McCain's criticism and false application of "isolationism" to decry the GOP field of Presidential candidates position on Libya and Afghanistan is wrong for the following reasons. First and foremost it implies that any criticism of the use of force as authorized by the President without the consent of Congress is itself "isolationist'. Moreover, Senator McCain has said that our "values" represent our vital national interests. With the exception of Ron Paul every candidate in the GOP field has supported action against Afghanistan and Iraq so to state they are being isolationist in assessing our current state of affairs is patently absurd.
As far as our values representing our vital national interests are concerned one must ask where is the line? Khadafy is a ritual human rights abuser and he did threaten a massacre in Benghazi. Ok, fair enough. Did Senator McCain call for us to bomb China after the massacre in Tienanmen Square? China's human rights record is as bad and frankly worse than Khadafy and we know they massacred their own people who had foisted a makeshift Statue of Liberty in that same square where they were murdered. No defense,no aid,no bombs for freedom loving Chinese wanting to live an American version of a free life? China's record is no better today, but where is the call to defend our "values" from Senators McCain and Graham? Well, seeing as how we must keep borrowing money from Chinese bankers to continue these excursions maybe that's why we have silence in that regard. Oh well, I guess dissenters in China's version of the gulag will have to wait for us to pay back their overlords before our enlightened Senators McCain and Graham look into their plight.
Senators McCain and Graham do not recognize the fundamentals of our place in the world. I will also post on this point in future, but in a nutshell our foreign policy has been adrift since the end of the cold war. Rather than a set of governing principles driving a consistent policy through administrations of both parties we have become largely reactionary in the administration of foreign affairs. In conducting ourselves in the international arena it is essential to have a consistent and coherent policy in determining the proper course of action as events dictate. It is policy that defines value(s). John McCain and Lindsey Graham are far more damaging to this nation in expressing their view of our place in the world because they have never placed a clear definition of what they consider our "values" and the limits in their defense.
Let me take this moment to state that like many I have definite reservations about the constitutionality of the "War Powers Act". In this respect I agree with McCain and Graham. Its constitutionality is not the point. I cannot see outside of Ron Paul supporters any mainstream elements of the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement who advocate retreating from the global stage. We all know the world wouldn't let us anyway. McCain and Graham are wrong because of the reflexive application of "isolationist" whenever anyone questions their as yet undefined policy based on our "values". Lindsey Graham actually said we need to "shut up" about Libya. Of course Lindsey Graham has a rather authoritarian view of dissent when its contrary to his sense of civility. You can see his views on free speech during wartime HERE.
Senator McCain as is often the case cites the isolationism of the 1930's as a perennial defense for refusing oversight into the application of force overseas. A history lesson for the Senator. It was not American isolationism that invited the Second World War, but European appeasement. If every American had a moral fervor to take on Imperial Japan over China or Nazi Germany over the Rhineland and Sudetenland just how far would we have gotten with Britain and France bending over backwards for Hitler? The notion that our unwillingness to fight a war in Europe aided and abetted the rise of the Nazis is also absurd. I seem to recall it was Neville Chamberlain, not Franklin Roosevelt who flew off to Munich in a frenzy to keep "peace in our time". Or did things play out differently in the history of McCain and Graham's Bizarro World?
McCain's citation of the 1930's as a parallel is all the more puzzling because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were wildly popular with the American people and for good reason. People were skeptical of Libya, but generally if mildly supportive. Does anyone even mention Yemen? The pre war, Depression era Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to a war overseas because they were often too busy trying to put food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. This attitude prevailed up to Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, why would any American willingly place their son on foreign shores to defend nations that were indifferent or ignorant of the immediate peril of imperial and fascist designs?
Americans today understand our place in the world better than John McCain and Lindsey Graham give us credit, but to label anyone who would question the degree of sacrifice as "isolationist" or by inference an "appeaser" does an injustice to those who demand accountability from those who compel the ultimate sacrifice of their sons and daughters. Why should Americans continue to have our tax dollars after ten years do no more than prop up a crook named Hamid Karzai who just yesterday referred to our troops as "occupiers"?
There actually is a valid reason for sustaining troop levels but is it so much to ask of our leaders that they spell it out? So far all we've imported from Afghanistan is heroin produced from the poppy fields of Karzai's brother. Our tax dollars at work. American lives fighting Al Qaeda and defending drug lords.
John McCain's assertion that Ronald Reagan would not approve of comments opposing force in Libya is at first foolish because it presumes an opinion upon the deceased. It is despicable because it defies Reagan's record. Reagan initiated what amounted to the final phase in winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviet Union. Without firing a shot. Ronald Reagan engaged American troops on three occasions. The first was Lebanon which resulted in a massacre of marines in their barracks. Reagan stated it was his worst decision. He invaded Grenada after its government was toppled with the aid of Castro within a few days of the car bomb in Beirut. He was criticized unfairly for using Grenada to distract from the debacle in Lebanon. Finally, he bombed Libya and nearly took out Khadafy himself. That was in response to the disco bombings in Germany. His actions against Libya went no further than that. No prolonged air war.No ground war. He sent his message. Citing Reagan is ridiculous.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham ought to be ashamed of their sophomoric interpretation of the GOP field of candidates. They should be embarrassed to tell anyone to "shut up" when lives are at stake. They should take a moment to educate themselves and reconsider false historic narratives in defense of their positions. The actions in doubt are worthy of debate and consideration regardless of where we come down, but McCain and Graham's comments are born of resentment of those in dissent. Obviously they never learned that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
