May 05 2009

Obama Picked Wrong Fight With Intelligence Community

Published by at 8:47 am under All General Discussions

The liberal lunatics who see only evil where there are normal Americans work tirelessly all day, every day to detect and stop terrorists attack have been a quaint, if not a wince invoking, embarrassment we could tolerate on the margins. Sort of like the crazy aunts and uncles of the family. You keep them in your heart, you don’t believe a word they say, you never act on their wild fantasies.

But President Obama made a neophytes mistake when he tried to give these paranoid delusionals credibility in the extreme interrogation method debate on a hand full of known terrorist threats with insider knowledge of the next pending attacks on America. The use of these methods (which fool the body, don’t actually invoke drowning) saved lives – thousands of them in LA so far as we know. Other places are likely to come to light if this witch hunt continues.

But by letting the mad aunts and uncles on the left (could you see putting David Duke on a civil rights commission???) push him into opening this subject up, Obama has probably picked the wrong fight with a very proud and deserving segment of our society. I predicted this might backfire a while back:

This could really blow up in Obama’s face. He is supposed to be chasing down terrorists and stopping their efforts to hit us. He is not supposed to be going after those trying to find and stop the terrorists, who are doing the job of protecting this nation. Obama is nuts to pick a legal fight with the intelligence community. 

The Dems better back off this quickly, or else those defending us will have to defend themselves, and they would be within their rights to expose the entire picture. Including those parts that indicate what threats were headed our way (many listed above already tied to KSM) and how many people could have died.

At a time of war, Obama and his cadre of mad aunts and uncles have not targeted the bad guys but the good guys. And the good guys are more than capable of fighting back. And some see indications this may very well be happening:

The CIA’s war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it’s personal.

Many are furious about his disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held two hush hush meetings with CIA Director Leon Panetta and Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee last week.

“Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months, wrote Jed Babbin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, in Human Events May 1. “Pelosi learned that her actions and those of President Obama have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger.”

Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern, an officer of the DGSE, France’s military intelligence agency, told my friend Jack Wheeler (the real life Indiana
Jones) last week.

“All of us in our little community are worried — us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv,” the DGSE officer told Jack. “It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates.”

The Dems own the government and all its failures now. You don’t go after the defenders if you want your house defended. No person would allow an attack to happen for vengeance or pay back – that is more mad aunt and uncle talk coming from drama queens watching this season’s abysmal 24 TV show.

But these defenders need to focus, to discern a small hint from a mountain of information slamming them each and every day. Without focus, having to watch their own back from congressional witch hunts and ABC News crews violating the Plame Game rules of exposing CIA members, they can miss something important and deadly.

It was not like we wanted 9-11 to happen. We set up the circumstances to miss the signs in front of us. We set up the environment were people raising alarms were attacked for not being sensitive or for violating civil rights. We had a world view that worried more about those defending us than those attacking us. President Obama may have brought us another pre 9-11 blind spot by letting the mad aunts and uncles lose in DC.

He should have known better. A more seasoned leader would have known better.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Obama Picked Wrong Fight With Intelligence Community”

  1. daniel ortega says:

    I do not comprehend why the people who are the controllers of
    the Obama allowed this to happen.
    I can only think it was a loss of control.
    All the secret organizations, including the CIA, I think have enough
    information about the Obama to end his rule of the USA on any day they
    choose to make their secret information known.

    Maybe they are waiting.

    As it is now, the damage to your CIA is not fixable.
    Imagine if you worked there and your next job is to do something
    that is illegal somewhere in the world. You will just not say yes.
    You will know that the UN or The Hague Court will prosecute against
    you and your own president will turn you over with that funny smile
    he does not even bother to conceal.

    We can only guess that the MI6 and the Mossad are equal in the

    Here is my guess. Your CIA wants to be very sure of it next shot.
    A famous Israel man, who predicted our London Underground
    bombs in a week, says there will be multiple and at the same time
    bombings in your most popular places, like in Las Vegas, in the
    next three months. If he is right again, then I think the CIA will say
    what they know.

    That will be Adios Obama.

  2. Rick C says:

    I think we should also add that some of this is “blow back”. After the CIA spent so much time attacking and leaking against Bush, there are many who believe anything Bush and the CIA did was wrong. So, that leads to a culture of exposure.

    If the CIA wants to be a secretive agency, it needs to be secretive itself.


  3. Rob says:

    The FBI destroyed Nixon for internal bureaucratic reasons. The CIA tried to destroy Bush, but basically so did all the rest of the leftist elite power structure.
    These things are very dangerous to the life of a democracy.

    Now these same leftist and bureaucratic forces are attacking the people who kept us safe for 7 years.
    This is juvenile.
    This is suicide.
    This is stupid.
    This is tragic.
    I weep!

  4. Terrye says:

    Known better? Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He just does not care.

  5. Frogg says:

    Source: Charges Unlikely for Lawyers Over Interrogation Memos

    A person familiar with the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says investigators recommended referring two of the three lawyers to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action.

    Disciplinary action????? For what? Making a judgement call? Obama is still nuts.

  6. conman says:


    I wish Obama’s decision on this issue was as easy as you suppose. Like it or not, Obama wants to abandon the EIT and disassociate his presidency from this approach to the GWOT. If he did this quietly, without releasing the information to give Americans a more complete picture of what really is at stake and what really happened, if another terrorist attack occurs on his watch (there is no way to guarantee it won’t happen, regardless of our policies) Obama would be accused of treason and jeopardizing our safety by the right. It wouldn’t matter if there was no connection between how the attack got past our intelligence and the lack of EIT – the right would crucify him on this point and he wouldn’t be able to assemble and release the intelligence to prove otherwise for quite some time. If this occured, he would be weakened at a time when we would need strong support behind the President – like Bush had right after 9-11 when people didn’t focus on how we let this happen, but rather on how we respond.

    Unfortunately, we need to air it out to get to the truth of the key facts. There is plenty of evidence already that the EIT was not effective or crucial in stopping terrorist plots. The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos. Even the May 30, 2005 Justice Dept. memo the right is primarily relying on as proof that the EIT program was effective conceded that “As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks. And because the CIA has used enhanced techniques sparingly, ‘there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness'”.

    As I have repeatedly mentioned in previous post, the claim that
    the EIT saved thousands of live is Los Angeles has already been debunked. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine]. A fact sheet later released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.” Sheikh Mohammed, who is claimed to have divulged the information about the attack after being waterboarded, wasn’t captured until March 2003. I have yet to see anyone, including you, explain away these glaring timeline problems.

    Lastly, we are now undercovering that fact that the Bush White House and CIA were far more divided over the EIT program than previously assumed. Specifically, the CIA halted the EIT program temporarily after the CIA inspector general’s 2004 report for fear of being the fall-guys. Even when Bush reauthorized the program, the use of waterboarding was not reauthorized. So if Bush administration officials were so torn over the legaility and wisdom of the EIT program, how can you say it is so cut and dry?