Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Enter Benghazi. This is an electoral year. Obama is absolutely terrified of another Benghazi - which Republicans have been trying non-stop to blame on his administration's incompetence. The last thing Obama needs is the Caliph's goons killing 'diplomats' in Erbil. "That would certainly raise a tsunami of questions all over again about the shady CIA weapon-smuggling racket - as in arming Syrian 'rebels' with weapons from Libya - at the time Benghazi took place. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, of course, also knew about it all. But then, and especially now, no one should know that the CIA was weaponizing the bulk of the future Caliph's forces." Yup. It's the same reason that the House investigation of the Benghazi incident will never punch through to the truth. The War Party doesn't want its Benghazi CIA ratline for Libyan weapons to Turkey being exposed because that leads directly to the fact that ISIS is a U.S.-Saudi creation. Remember Wayne Madsen's article on why Obama backed down from his planned missile and bombing attack on Syria after the Ghouta false flag Sarin attack in August 2013: ""Some within the Pentagon ranks are so displeased with Obama's policies on Syria, they have let certain members of Congress of both parties know that «smoking gun» proof exists that Obama and CIA director John O. Brennan personally authorized the transfer of arms and personnel from Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al Sharia Islamist rebels in Libya to Syria's Jabhat al Nusra rebels, who are also linked to Al Qaeda, in what amounts to an illegal «Iran-contra»-like scandal." http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/09/04/american-generals-stand-between-war-and-peace.html And the detailed confirmation that events had actually transpired in accordance with that plan by Yossef Bodansky - Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004 and the center of an enormous global

Highlighted statements are scattered and buried deep in an article mostly about new accusations against Russia. Coup government President Poroshenko's statement that he is working toward a peace roadmap represents an abrupt departure from that government's stance since it began its invasion of separatist-held territory in eastern Ukraine, that only the unconditional surrender of the separatists could halt the coup government's attack. Lying behind that statement (from other reports) is the fact that the tide of battle has turned sharply; the coup government's mostly-conscript army forces are variously surrounded or retreating as the separatists gain the upper hand. Moreover, nearly all of the coup government attack airplanes and helicopters have been destroyed by separatist MANPAD shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles.  On coup government Prime Minister Yatseniuk's expressed need for "'practical help' and 'momentous decisions' from NATO at an alliance summit next month," I'd love to be a fly on wall during that meeting if the coup government's military situation continues to deteriorate. The U.S. is the only NATO member that wants further confrontation in Ukraine. Notwithstanding U.S. rhetoric threatening military action against Russia, it's doubtful that any military officers holding the rank needed to attend that NATO meeting would support NATO action against Russia so close to its own backyard. Russia has nukes aplenty, so it comes down to the ability to win a conventional war against Russia in Russia and the Ukraine. Far easier said than done, as both Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolph Hitler learned the hard way. Russia remains the nation with the second post powerful military in the world and would be playing on the home court with the ferocity of the Russian Bear. The U.S. would bring the most powerful force, both augmented and semi-crippled by taking the lead among reluctant NATO nation military forces. All to protect the U.S. dollar's dwindling purchasing powe

In a Matt Taibbi-quality lengthy report, William Cohan takes the reader inside the lengthy negotiations of JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement with state and federal prosecutors. JPMorgan admitted to criminal wrongdoing, and the settlement does not include immunity from criminal prosecution for anybody. But the author notes that there is not even a hint that anyone is working on criminal charges. There's a lot of discussion of dissension within the ranks of different state and federal attorneys involved. The article paints Ben Wagner, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, as the hero.  In my book, no one involved deserves hero status because no criminal charges have been filed against any JPMorgan managers or board members, hence there is still no incentive for any of the fraudsters who brought down the economy in 2008 to behave differently in the future. JPMorgan emains not too big to fail but too politically connected for its principals to be jailed. According to the article, the government lawyers had iron-clad proof that a group of JPMorgan managing directors had been informed that pools of mortages they were planning to buy were toxic but "buy two of the loan pools anyway, including those with the squirrelly mortgages. JPMorgan then proceeded to bundle "hundreds of millions of dollars of loans from those pools into one security." Wagner found that between the start of 2006 and the middle of 2007-when the mortgage securitization frenzy was at its peak-JPMorgan packaged and sold securities containing thousands of mortgages that were rated by a third-party evaluator to be of extremely low quality, meeting few, if any, of the bank's underwriting standards." If true, that is very serious fraud deserving of the directors' prosecution for criminal fraud and lengthy prison sentences.   The article touches on A.G. Holder's too big to jail argument but that argument, in my opinion, deserves no credibility before antitrust actions are filed to c

The incident involving a CIA spy uncovered within the BND ranks was perceived by most Europeans as total nonsense: a total of 218 top secret documents were stolen from BND by a 31-year-old employee Marcus R. over a period of two years while he was cooperating with the "friendly" CIA. The White House was paying  "the loyal agent" according to the "banana republic," rates up to and including 25 thousand euros, omitting glass beads and colored feathers. However, according to the German newspaper Bild, the investigation found out this January that this double agent had provided the US intelligence with a list of 3,500 of BND employees, all who are currently working across the world. This can hardly be regarded as an expression of Washington's friendship towards Germany. However, according to the German newspaper Bild, the investigation found out this January that this double agent had provided the US intelligence with a list of 3,500 of BND employees, all who are currently working across the world. This can hardly be regarded as an expression of Washington's friendship towards Germany.

Interesting article that explores double standards in plea bargains for low and high ranking U.S. officials who leak classified information. In the Petraeus case, I recall a statement by Diane Feinstein, who praised Petreus for excellent service to the government in the same interview, to the effect that Petraeus deserved leniency because his fall from such a high position in the government was sufficient punishment.  That's a recurring canard when a high official gets a slap on the wrist rather than prison time: [i] "falling into prison" is a much higher fall than a fall from power; [ii] a high official with greater power should be held to a higher standard of public trust than lower level officials, not a lower standard; and [iii] certainty of not doing prison time because of one's power encourages misconduct rather than deterring it. But double standards for the very  rich and the very powerful are far from a recent development and hardly unique to the U.S.  

And no one but the lowest ranking staffer knew anything about it, not even the CIA lawyer who made the criminal referral to the Justice Dept., alleging that the Senate Intelligence Committee had accessed classified documents it wasn't authorized to access. So the Justice Dept. announces that there's insufficient evidence to warrant a criminal investigation. As though the CIA lawyer's allegations were not based on the unlawful surveillance of the Senate Intelligence Committee's network.  Can't we just get an official announcement that Attorney General Holder has decided that there shall be a cover-up? 

This is still a highly murky situation. Read the rest of the article for more detail and caveats.

 Though not touched on in the article, the real problem is that the A10 has no proponents at the higher ranks of the Air Force because it is already bought and paid for; there's nothing in the A10 for the big Air Force aircraft manufacturing defense contractors. The F35, on the other hand is, is a defense contractor wet dream. It's all pie in the sky and big contracts just to get the first one in the air, let alone outfit it with the gear and programming needed to use it to inflict harm. It's been one cost-overrun after another and delay after delay. It's a national disgrace that has grown to become the most expensive military purchase in history. And it will never match the A10 for the close air support role. It's minimum airspeed is too high and its close-in maneuverability will be horrible. The generals, of course, don't want to poison the well for their post-military careers working for the defense contractors by putting a halt to the boondobble. Their answer: eliminate the close air support mission for at least 10-12 years and then attempt it with the F35.   As a former ground troop, that's grounds for the Air Force generals' court-martial and dishonorable discharge. I would not be alive today were it not for close air support. And there are tens of thousands of veterans who can say that in all truth. The A10 wasn't available back in my day, but by all reports its the best close air support weapons platform ever developed. It's a tank killer and is heavily armored, with redundant systems for pilot and aircraft survivability. The A10 is literally built around a 30 mm rotary cannon that fires at 3,900 rounds per minute. It also carries air to ground rockets and is the only close air support aircraft still in the U.S. arsenal. Fortunately, John McCain "get it" on the close air support mission and has managed to mostly protect the A10 from the generals. If you want to learn  more about the F35 scandal, try this Wikipedia article section; although it's enoug

"September 10, 2001. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldt stated that 2.3 trillion dollar from the Pentagon's annual budget could not be accounted for. September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's accounting office and the Naval Command Center were targeted, allegedly by a plane. Survivors would report about explosions inside the Pentagon prior to the alleged plane impact. During a 2012 Forestall Lecture , Admiral James G. Stavridis noted that he was working as a newly selected 1-star accounting officer at the Pentagon and that he was lucky to have survived. By 2009 Stavridis would have been promoted to the rank of Admiral and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Responsible for NATO's 2011 military operations in Libya, Stavridis would describe NATO's intervention in Libya as "a teachable moment and model for future interventions". "

The ICC has jurisdiction because Afghanistan is a member of the Rome Statute that governs the ICC. It will be interesting to see if the ICC has the guts to prosecute high U.S. officials. (By law, the ICC is required to go for the highest ranking members of government who had responsibility. 'Twould be justice to see Bush 43, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in the dock. 

The chicken hawks are at it again, trying to get a new Authorization for Use of Military Forces ("AUMF") that would authorize perpetual war. So much for fiscal conservatism.