Tag Archives: Hillary clinton

George W. Bush Tells Jeb to ‘Run,’ Says Jeb vs. Hillary Would Make ‘Fantastic Photo’


George W. Bush Tells Jeb to ‘Run,’ Says Jeb vs. Hillary Would Make ‘Fantastic Photo’

Rick Klein

By Rick Klein

UNIVERSITY PARK, Texas — Former President George W. Bush says he isn’t interested in playing on the national political stage any longer. But for family, he’s making an exception.

Asked in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer whether he thinks his brother former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush should run for president in 2016, the ex-president was unequivocal.

“He’d be a marvelous candidate if he chooses to do so. He doesn’t need my counsel ’cause he knows what it is, which is ‘run,’ ” the elder Bush brother said about Jeb’s possible candidacy, in an interview that first aired Wednesday on “World News with Diane Sawyer.” “But whether he does or not, it’s a very personal decision.”

The former president even allowed himself to picture the potential 2016 matchup: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It would be a family rematch of the 1992 election, when George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton.

“It’ll be a fantastic photo here. It would certainly eclipse the museum and the center,” Bush said on the eve of the formal opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University, just outside Dallas. “I’m interested in politics. I’m, you know, I’m fascinated by all the gossip and stuff that goes on. But the field won’t be become clear ’til after the midterms.”

Asked for a word of advice to the Republican Party, the former president struck an optimistic note amid rounds of GOP soul-searching: “You will exist in the future,” he said with a smile.

On several major issues, though, Bush made clear he’s staying away from day-to-day political battles.

With some Republicans calling for immigration reform to be slowed down in the wake of terrorist attack in Boston apparently carried out by two immigrants, the former president brought up his previous support for comprehensive reform but said he wouldn’t be commenting on specific legislation.

“I’m a strong advocate in reforming a broken system,” Bush said. “It’s a difficult issue for members of Congress to deal with. And they’re just gonna have to figure out how best to deal with a very complex issue. And I don’t know all the particulars of the bill. I do know the system is not working.”

Bush also took a pass on the issue of gun control and expanded background checks, which he voiced support for as president.

“There’s a lotta issues that people would like to get my opinion on, and I really decided to stay out of the public arena,” he said.

He took a similar tack on gay marriage, which Bush opposes — a position that puts him at odds with his former vice president, Dick Cheney; his 2004 campaign manager, Ken Mehlman; and his wife, Laura, and daughter Barbara.

“No, but thank you for trying,” Bush said when asked whether he’d like to explain his position in that fast-evolving debate. “I’m not weighing in on issues. … See, you’re either in or out.”
SOURCE

Election Predictions and All That Rot

Why 2012 election predictions are rubbish: Fear the Black Swan!

You want to know who’s going to be the next president of the United States? Happy to oblige.

Just tell me who’s going to win Ohio. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. And only one Democrat has done it—JFK by a whisker—in the past 50 years.

Or tell me what will happen to real personal income growth in the third quarter of 2012.

Or tell me what the jobless rate will be in the fall, since (all together now), no incumbent since FDR has been re-elected when the unemployment rate has been higher than 7.2 percent.

What’s that? You can’t do that because it’s only April?

That doesn’t stop an army of soothsayers — including ones at Yahoo! — from offering up formulas to calculate, with scientific precision, the shape of the November vote. As common-sense guides, they make sense: incumbents and incumbent parties suffer when the economy is bad; a deeply divided party has a hard time winning a general election. As “laws” with the predictive capacity of knowing when ice melts … not so much. (Back in 2000, the most trusted academic models of the election forecast a comfortable-to-overwhelming Democratic popular vote victory based on the glowing economy; what we got was an effective tie).

I received an early lesson in caution after boldly predicting that John Lindsay would win the White House in 1972. Even stronger lessons were provided over the years by the appearance of a hugely influential factor in Presidential elections: the Black Swan.

The term comes, not from that Natalie Portman ballet movie, but from a best-selling book in 2007 by Nassim Nicholas Taleb that examines our persistent “ability” to ignore the potentially huge effects of unlikely, random events. Given what happened a year later–when we woke up on a mid-September day to find the financial universe on the brink of collapse–the book seemed prescient. In political terms, “Black Swans” have shown up often enough to make even the boldest soothsayer hold his tongue.

Think back to 1960, when Republicans could still compete for the black vote, and when an influential figure like Martin Luther King Sr. endorsed Richard Nixon out of concern about a Catholic in the White House. Then, on October 25, King’s son was arrested on a bogus parole-violation charge and transferred to a rural state prison where, his family feared, his life might be endangered. After John Kennedy called King’s wife, and Robert Kennedy called the governor of Georgia (and after Richard Nixon’s efforts to have the Justice Department intercede were ignored), King was released, and his father announced he was transferring his “suitcase full of votes” to Kennedy. On Election Day, black voters were crucial to Kennedy’s razor-thin margins not just in Illinois (8,000 controversially counted votes), but also in Michigan, New Jersey and Missouri.

Or consider 1968, when Hubert Humphrey had closed the once-cavernous gap between himself and Richard Nixon. With days to go before Election Day, the United States and North Vietnam were very close to an agreement on peace negotiations. Thanks to the intervention by Anna Chennault, an unofficial but well-connected Nixon campaign emissary, the South Vietnamese government balked. Had that deal been concluded by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, there’s good reason to think that Vice President Humphrey would have won the election.

Go back to the last days of the 2000 campaign, and the disclosure of a drunk-driving arrest of a young George W. Bush. Karl Rove maintained that the story cost Bush the popular vote by keeping a few million evangelicals away from the polls. And for Democrats, that butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County will always be a Black Swan of pterodactyl-sized proportions.

Or look again at the financial collapse of mid-September 2008. I’m skeptical of claims that John McCain could have won that contest under any circumstances, given the financial resources of Barack Obama’s campaign and the country’s unhappiness with President Bush. Without question, though, the fear of economic meltdown meant a shift in the tenor of the campaign, one that that redounded in Obama’s favor.

Not every late-breaking event changes the outcome of an election. John Kerry believed that the release of an Osama Bin Laden video just before the 2004 election cost him the White House; I lean more toward a superior get-out-the-vote operation in Ohio by the Bush campaign.

And it’s not that fundamental things don’t apply. If you think in terms of probabilities rather than predictive certainty, the fall economic data is a sound guide for placing bets.

But until someone can take a quick trip into the future and tell me how Ohio’s going to vote, I’ll say no sooth.

SOURCE

What is the establishment grooming Hillary for?

Just take a look at that “serious” cover. I especially like the title of the puff piece: “Hillary Clinton and the Rise of Smart Power.” (“Smart Power.” Oooooh.) Hitlery has always been the one the Banksters wanted in the White House. One way or another (I’ll leave that up to your imagination), she will be the first woman Puppet-in-Chief.

Custom Search

There is a woman inside Hillary Clinton, I suppose, from a very, very long time ago. But that woman is locked up in a deep dungeon and kept prisoner inside her by her own constructions that have gone on for so many, many years. Her personality has become buried. What we see is a distortion, a constructed creature. Because of these internal conflicts and her job and the course she has chosen and built, she is under great strain. Living lies is extremely trying. This is my guess, solely a guess. I pity her. I could be way off base. She might be immensely happy and comfortable in the belief that she is doing good in the world. But to me she doesn’t look happy. She looks uptight.

This cover suggests to me the huge disparity between Time’s positive assessment of Hillary Clinton’s behavior in public office and my own personal negative assessment. The world to me is a strange place in which human beings inhabit worlds of their own perception. Trouble is they think their perceptions are truth. Trouble comes when they succeed in getting the power to impose those perceptions on everyone. Hillary is ready to butt in anywhere on earth, lately in Africa, based on her perceptions of doing the right thing. My own foreign policy doesn’t involve butting in to my neighbors or to people 15 miles down the road, much less those in Nigeria or Uganda. I wouldn’t mind her butting in if she did it on her own dime and time and bore the consequences, but she has this national power. That’s the devilish fact of it, but that again is that pesky perception. Time doesn’t think it’s devilish and neither do many others.

SOURCE

Congressman: Secret Report On TSA Pat Downs, Body Scanner Failures Will “Knock Your Socks Off

Congressman: Secret Report On TSA Pat Downs, Body Scanner Failures Will “Knock Your Socks Off

Steve Watson


“Off the charts”
failure rate “sort of like the record of the Marx Brothers”

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees the TSA, has asserted that the release of a classified report on TSA security failures will renew calls for the replacement of the agency with private airport security personnel.

The failure rate (for body scanning equipment) is classified but it would absolutely knock your socks off,” Florida Republican, Rep. John L. Mica told reporters during a briefing Monday.

Mica also asserted that recorded instances of pat downs failing to detect contraband are “off the charts.” This information is also currently still classified, but is due to be released within weeks as part of an upcoming committee report on the TSA’s first decade.

Mica suggested that the TSA’s performance report would read “sort of like the record of the Marx Brothers”.

The TSA has withheld results of its official security tests, despite repeated requests to release the information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Department of Homeland Security has classified the results of the most recent random, covert “red team tests,” where undercover agents try to see what they can get past airport security. The reason they have done so, according to MIca, is because the results have been so shockingly and consistently bad for the past nine years.

Mica further slammed the TSA Monday, ripping into the agency’s latest experimental security “chat down” procedure.

The chairman referred to the pilot program of “behaviour detection” being tested at Boston Logan airport as an “idiotic mess”.

Describing the program as a poor man’s version of Israeli interrogation security techniques, Mica noted that that the pilot is merely an extension of an already existing program that the Government Accountability Office concluded had little scientific credibility and had cost “a quarter billion” in hiring additional TSA officers.

“This is no joke,” Mica told reporters at the briefing, adding that he had personally visited Logan airport and witnessed first hand the failures of the program.

“I put my ear up and listened to some idiotic questions,” Mica said of the “chat down” procedure, also noting that TSA officers expressed a lack of understanding of the program they had supposedly been trained to engage in.

“I talked to them about their training, which was minimal,” Mica said, adding “It’s almost idiotic… It’s still not a risk-based system. It’s not a thinking system.”

The program is set to be beta tested in Detroit next, before being rolled out nationwide.

Mica repeatedly argued that the TSA’s role at airports could be undertaken in a more efficient and less costly manner by private companies, albeit ultimately still under the supervision of the federal government.

Back in March, the Congressman charged that the TSA intentionally fixed data to ensure that federal workers were employed to screen airport passengers, rather than private contractors.

“TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” said Mica at the time.

The Congressman was referring to revelations from federal auditors that cost differentials between federal employees and private contractors were overstated by the TSA.

Though the agency contends it was an “error”, The TSA made it appear that it was more cost effective for airports to use federal government workers for security “by increasing the costs for private-contractor screeners relative to federal screeners,” government auditors wrote.

The 2001 Aviation Transportation Security Act, which created the TSA, contained an option written in by Congress allowing airports to choose between using TSA workers and private screeners. It is known as the Security Partnership Program (SPP).

Currently, sixteen airports throughout the country use private contractors under the SPP, however, the TSA has since actively prevented other airports from joining the program, as more and more express an interest in dropping the federal workforce in wake of an epidemic of TSA scandals and failures.

Mica, who helped create the TSA after 9/11, has repeatedly stated that he believes the agency is now completely out of control and believes it should be radically reformed.

SOURCE

Prepare For Armageddon

Prepare For Armageddon
by Raja Mujtaba

We will do it with or without you, US tells Pakistan

Armageddon (commonly known as the battle against the anti-Christ) according to the Bible, is the site of a battle during the end times, variously interpreted as either a literal or symbolic location. The term is also used in a generic sense to refer to any end-of-the-world scenario.

According to some Muslim and Christian interpretations, the Messiah will return to earth and defeat the Antichrist, Satan the Devil, in the battle of Armageddon. According to the Muslim belief, it would be Imam Mehdi who would precede Prophet Jesus who would fight the one eyed beast called Dajjal (Anti Christ). Then Satan will be put into the “bottomless pit” or abyss for 1,000 years, known as the Millennial Age. After being released from the abyss, Satan will gather Gog and Magog (peoples of two specific nations) from the four corners of the earth. They will encamp surrounding the “holy ones” and the “beloved city” (this refers to Jerusalem). Fire will come down from God, out of heaven and devour Gog and Magog after the Millennium.

According to the Muslim belief, the forces to battle the one eyed beast would rise from the area of Khurasan that comprises of portion of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and part of Central Asia. If the anti-Christ forces have assembled in Afghanistan, it’s not a coincidence but well thought out Zionist strategy to take on Pakistan, the nuclear power of the Muslim world so its free to advance other Muslim territories without any fear.

Most historians and scholars believe that the present stretching of the US and NATO Forces far and beyond their legitimate areas of interests, is a sign of final showdown. The placement of US forces in Afghanistan is seen as the final buildup to attack the Muslim lands. This could well become the graveyard of the US troops from where they may never escape death. Presently, the grouping of pro and anti Christ Forces is seen to be taking place. The US and NATO clearly appear to be on the side of the Anti-Christ and siding with the Zionists the real anti-Christ Forces. Zionists are known to be Satan worshipers in their secret hideouts therefore are working to create a godless world and control the entire resources.

Sensing these developments, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin prior to his departure for China, cautioned his generals to prepare for Armageddon. A similar message was also delivered to the Chinese leadership that has the Chinese Forces also on high alert. Apparently in the same context, Putin has resolved all differences with China to forge a clear unity for times ahead.

Sino-Russian alliance is very timely, seeing the hard threatening statements of Hillary Clinton that she fired at Pakistan from Kabul before flying to Islamabad is very alarming. Pakistan has some hard decisions to make.

Commander William Guy Carr, in his book ‘Pawns In The Game’ probably written in 1948 stated that third revolution and third world war are in the offing for which the grouping is taking place. He also stated categorically that the third world war would be against Islam.

Plans for this “Total Global War” or the war against Islam the Americans are preparing to launch were first revealed to China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) by a former Blackwater agent Bryan Underwood who has been apprehended by the US authorities for spying.

If one observes the way the US and NATO are waging their wars in Muslim countries proves William Carr to be correct.

Blackwater, the global contractor for CIA is operating in almost all the target countries, arrest of Raymond Davis in Pakistan did expose the US designs; had he been retained and grilled for some indefinite time, much more would have been revealed. Pakistan is infested with Blackwater, they have made inroads in ethnic political parties more so in Karachi, the port city of Pakistan. Balochistan has also become a hotbed where secessionists forces are being patronized by CIA, MI6, Mossad and RAW. As believed now, the US has also launched biological warfare in Pakistan where dengue is killing people on daily basis.

On reading the situation of the coming US plans for Total Global War, Putin spelt out an alliance to integrate the former Soviet Republics into closer cooperation. He scheduled an emergency trip to China to meet with Hu, and ordered the FSB (Russian Agency) to notify China’s MSS of the arrest and detention of their spy Tun Sheniyun who was captured last year for attempting to steal sensitive information on Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft system.

Today Libya has fallen, how the Libyans would benefit from it only time would tell but one thing is sure that US and her allies have formed a bridgehead in Africa. Further deployment of the US troops in Africa are taking place, its China encirclement there where China has friends in the Muslim countries. Sudan has been split, and Obama plans to occupy some other countries like Uganda, Somalia, Morocco etc. In Africa, says Obama, the “humanitarian mission” is to assist the government of Uganda defeat the Lord’s resistance Army (LRA), which “has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa”. Incidentally, Africa also happens to be the Chinese success story therefore by taking over Africa, China would also be chocked. Libya was one of the major oil suppliers to China now that hangs in air. Gaddafi was trying to dump dollar for gold that instigated the US to attack her through a cleverly manipulated and orchestrated moves.

After having been deceived in Libya where the US assured both Russia and China that it will not attack but did quite contrary to what was promised. Sensing that US plans to attack Syria, Russia and China were quick to veto the American resolution in the security council that infuriated the US Ambassador Susan Rice who left the session in rage.

Dick Cheney pointed out in his 1990s “defence strategy” plan, America simply wishes to rule the world so that’s forging ahead following the Nixonian doctrine, ‘seize the moment.’

Reported by the EU Times, the “New Great Game” moves being planned by the Americans is to strike fear into both Russia and China that includes:

1.) The deliberate implosion of both the US and EU economies in order to destroy the Global Financial System that has been in place since the ending of World War II

2.) The launching of a massive conventional war by the US and EU on the North American, African and Asian Continents to include the Middle East

3.) During this all-out war the deliberate releasing of bio-warfare agents meant to kill off millions, if not billions, of innocent civilians

4.) At the height of this war the US and its allies will sue for peace and call for a new global order to be established in order to prevent the total destruction of our planet.

Confirming the fears, an unidentified source within the US Department of Defense (DOD) warned that the Obama regime was preparing for a massive “tank-on-tank” war and that US military forces are “expecting something conventional, and big, coming down the pipe relatively soon.”

To how close this war may be the FSB in their report states that it will be “much sooner than later” as the Americans have pre-positioned in Iraq nearly 2,000 of their M1 Abrams main battle tanks, have pre-positioned another 2,000 of them in Afghanistan, and between the Middle East and Asia have, likewise, put into these war theaters tens-of-thousands of other typed armored vehicles. This should be a grave cause of concern for Pakistan.

Being at war, the US can also effect “Full Mobilization” of over 1.5 million American reserve forces which can occur at “at a moment’s notice” for which US needs no Congressional approval to expand their areas of operation is also being examined when America is fully poised to advance in Asia and Middle East.

Now that Hillary Clinton is on her Pakistan visit accompanied by the new CIA Chief, David Petraeus, Chairman US Joint Staff, General Martin Dempsey and Marc Grossman. Keeping the armoured buildup in the region and having an Armour Officer as the new Chairman of Joint Staff, could one say it a coincidence or a planned strategy?

Hillary, as expected that I mentioned in my CNBC News analysis on 19th October, has arrived with a tough warning for Pakistan, saying, “We will do it with or without you.” This has certainly placed Pakistan in a very trying situation. Pakistan has other options to join the third force that is in formation led by Russia and China to counter the US moves in the region. If Pakistan, Iran, Syria and other Muslim states including Saudi Arabia join this alliance, that would certainly deter the US and her allies, if not then every Muslim country would fall one after the other without exception and their assets would be frozen.

Important to note about the American plan for global domination through massive warfare is that it is not really a secret, and as (curiously) revealed on the tenth anniversary of the 11 September attacks upon the United States when the US National Security Archive released a memo written by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in September 2001 wherein he warned “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the US will not achieve its aim.”

To what the “aim” of the United States is as their war against the world has now entered its 10th year, the FSB says, is to prevent “at all costs” the implosion of the US Dollar as the main reserve currency of the present global economic system before the West’s envisioned “New World Order” can be established.

The first threat to the Americans “master plan” for global hegemony came in November 2000 when the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein quit accepting US Dollars for oil and, instead, stated his country would only accept Euros. In less than 10 months an attack on the US was engineered and used that as an excuse to topple Hussein and reestablish the US Dollar as the world’s main reserve currency.

Interesting to note is the failure of Libya’s former leader Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the US Dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth, but which like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein “plan” brought a swift and brutal invasion by the Americans and their Western allies to keep it from happening.

The only nation that has successfully abandoned the US Dollar is Iran, who since February 2009 abandoned all American currency opting instead to value their oil and gas in Euros. Iran, however, and unlike oil rich Iraq and Libya, has not been attacked due to the Iranians having acquired from Ukraine between 6-10 nuclear armed X-55 missiles (range of 3,000km [2,000 miles]) in 2005. Although the former Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko denies that the missiles contain their nuclear tips, a statement disputed by the FSB who states they were armed and “ready to fire.”

As a preemption, to counter the planned American blitzkrieg into Central Asia and Pakistan from Afghanistan, Indian Army Chief General VK Singh warned yesterday that thousands of Chinese military forces have now moved into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir joining an estimated 11,000 more of them believed to have entered that region in the past year.

Before the US ventures into other Muslim lands, the US would want a submissive or a broken and denuclearized Pakistan. In both the scenarios it would mean Pakistan’s death. In such a scenario, Pakistan maybe compelled to go for non conventional weapons; if such a development takes place, India, Israel and the US installations in the region would not be safe. Can the US risk such a situation would only depend on the arrogance and sanity level of the US leadership.

SOURCE

Foregone Conclusion? The Reality of an Obama-Hillary ticket

The allure of an Obama-Hillary ticket

LAURA WASHINGTON [email protected]

Hillary to the rescue? That rumor-theory-speculation-spin-Hail Mary pass has been circulating around the political hustings for the last year.

The Washington mouths are blabbering that Vice President Joe Biden will take a political bullet for his president and step off the 2012 presidential ticket. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama’s archrival-turned-secretary of state, is tired of the international fly-arounds and serving as red meat for America’s attack dogs.

She could step off the world stage and into the vice presidential nomination. It’s a way, some political soothsayers say, to rekindle that old “black” magic.

Washington Post reporter and author Bob Woodward floated the prospect in an October 2010 interview. CNN Host John King suggested that “a lot of people think if the president’s a little weak going into 2012, he’ll have to do a switch there and run with Hillary Clinton as his running mate.”

“It’s on the table,”
Woodward replied. “President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries.” He added that it’s “not out of the question.

The idea still has juice. Little wonder. Politically, Obama has been having a very bad year. A recent ABC/Washington Post poll found that four in 10 Americans “strongly” disapprove of how Obama is handling his job. It’s “the highest that number has risen during his time in office and a sign of the hardening opposition to him,” the Post reported last week.

Of course, Obama’s posse has ridiculed the concept. The president is happy with Biden and Clinton in their current roles, they say. The idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket has been greeted with scorn, ridicule, incredulity or glee, depending on who’s talking.

Still, they natter on.

There are plenty of women and feminists of all genders who begrudgingly voted for Obama in 2008 but are still hankering for Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin punted and Michele Bachmann is imploding, but Democrats have one more chance to make 2012 the Year of the Woman.

I called my go-to guy on presidential matters. Michael Mezey pooh-poohed the idea as warmed-over grist from the D.C. rumor mills. “It’s very hard for a president to do that because it seems to me that what the president [would be] doing is admitting failure,” said Mezey, a DePaul University political science professor and expert on the American presidency. “The storyline will be that the campaign is desperate,” he added. “I just don’t think they’re at a point of desperation.”

I’m not so sure. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a potent and historic lure. It would pander to female voters, but I suspect they’ll go with it. It would open the door for a Clinton presidential bid in 2016.

And it would bring a tear to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s eye.

SOURCE

Defense Secretary: Libya Did Not Pose Threat to U.S., Was Not ‘Vital National Interest’ to Intervene, operation could last for months!

Defense Secretary: Libya Did Not Pose Threat to U.S., Was Not ‘Vital National Interest’ to Intervene

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You’ve had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.

So you had a potentially significantly destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk potentially the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt,” the Secretary said. “And that was another consideration I think we took into account.”

During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”

Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html

US officials: Libyan operation could last months

Mar 27, 9:14 AM (ET)

By BRADLEY KLAPPER

(AP) Libyan rebels jubilate on a checkpoint in Al-Egila, east of Ras Lanuf, eastern Libya, Sunday, March…
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

Ahead of President Barack Obama’s national address Monday to explain his decision to act against the Libyan leader, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in appearances on the Sunday talk shows that the intervention had effectively rendered Gadhafi’s forces defenseless against air attacks and created the conditions for opposition advances westward.

In interviews taped Saturday, Gates and Clinton also defended the narrowly defined U.N. mandate to prevent atrocities against Libyan civilians and said the U.S. had largely accomplished its goals.

“We have taken out his armor,” Gates said, adding that the U.S. soon would relinquish its leading role in enforcing a no-fly zone and striking pro-Gadhafi ground targets intent on violence.


Clinton said “we’re beginning to see, because of the good work of the coalition, his troops begin to turn back toward the west – and to see the opposition begin to reclaim the ground they had lost.”

Libyan rebels reclaimed an important oil town and kept pushed westward Sunday toward the capital, Tripoli. Brega, a main oil export terminal in eastern Libya, fell after a skirmish late Saturday. Rebel forces also seized the tiny desert town of Al-Egila on their way to the massive oil refining complex of Ras Lanouf.

U.S.-led airstrikes allowed anti-government forces to recapture the key eastern city of Ajdabiya.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

Gates said the no-fly zone was fully in place and could be sustained with “a lot less effort than it took to set it up.” He said the Pentagon was planning how to draw down resources that will be assigned to European and other countries pledging to take on a larger role.

But asked on ABC’s “This Week” if that would mean a U.S. military commitment until year’s end, Gates said, “I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that.”

The lack of clarity on that question reflects a worry for lawmakers clamoring to hear fuller explanations from the administration on why the U.S. was embroiling itself in another Muslim conflict and what the ultimate goals of the intervention are.

Clinton and Gates insisted that the objective was limited to protecting civilians, even as they hoped the pressure of concerted international penalties and isolation might strip away Gadhafi’s remaining loyalists and cause his government to crumble.

“One should not underestimate the possibility of the regime itself cracking,”
Gates said on NBC‘s “Meet The Press.”

He said Gadhafi shouldn’t feel too comfortable after 42 years of dictatorship: “I wouldn’t be hanging any new pictures if I were him.”

Clinton added that Gadhafi’s military and political advisers were increasingly seeking talks as they feel the international pressure.

The administration is “sending a message to the people around him,” she said. “Do you want to be a pariah? Do you really want to end up in the international criminal court? Now is your time to get out of this and to help change the direction.”

Yet even after a week of air strikes, Pentagon officials say forces loyal to Gadhafi are a potent threat to civilians. Defense officials are looking at plans to expand the firepower and airborne surveillance systems in the military campaign, including using the Air Force’s AC-130 gunship armed with cannons that shoot from the side doors, as well as helicopters and drones. Gates said the U.S. could supply rebels with arms, but the administration hadn’t made a decision.

Talk of any escalation will surely raise concerns. With the United States already trying to exit long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has gone to great efforts to define the Libya operations as limited in scope and duration – and necessary to prevent Gadhafi from possibly massacring civilians while his forces were reaching the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

Asked if the Libyan conflict posed a threat to the United States, Gates said it was “not a vital national interest” but he insisted that the situation nevertheless demanded U.S. involvement. With tenuous democratic transitions under way in the neighboring countries of Tunisia and – more important to the U.S. – Egypt, allowing the entire region to be destabilized was a dangerous option.

Clinton noted how the strife affects Europe’s key interests, from oil to immigration, and that their concerns were important. “We asked our allies, our NATO allies, to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago,” she said. “They have been there. And a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked.”

“When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the U.K., France, Italy, other of our NATO allies
,” she added. “This was in their vital national interest.”

Those themes will likely be taken up by Obama, who cited “significant success” in the war and defended the U.S. intervention as lawful and critical to save thousands of lives. In his weekend radio and Internet address, he noted that the U.S. cannot get involved in every world crisis, but said if Gadhafi was threatening a “bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region … it’s in our national interest to act. And it’s our responsibility.”

With the tumult spreading so widely throughout the Arab world, it has been hard for the U.S. to avoid questions of double-standards. The administration took some criticism as it gradually hardened its position against a long-time ally in Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak before he left power, and has faced the same with the decision to back the U.N.’s call for a Libyan no-fly zone and arms embargo with military force.

Clinton declined to say if the U.S. might be willing to enter other conflicts where governments attack their own people. She told CBS'”Face The Nation” that it was too early to talk of intervention in Syria, where security forces have opened fire on protesters amid nationwide unrest. Unlike Gadhafi, Syrian President Bashar Assad is a “different leader” and many members of Congress who have visited the country “believe he’s a reformer,” Clinton said.

Asked about Yemen, where the embattled U.S. ally Ali Abdullah Saleh was just barely holding on to his 33-year-old grip on power, Gates cited grave concerns.

“The most aggressive branch of al-Qaida … operates out of Yemen,” he said. “We have had a lot of counterterrorism cooperation from President Saleh and the Yemeni security services, so if the government collapses or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we’ll face some additional problems out of Yemen.

Saleh’s allies and opponents failed to make progress Saturday in talks on a possible exit for their president.

Islamic militants seized control of a weapons factory and a nearby town in Yemen’s south Sunday, according to a witness and security officials.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110327/D9M7JGB00.html

Why is Hillary not defending the Saudi’s “RIGHT” to protest?

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been exhaustively in front of cameras promoting the right for people to protest in Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, and Libya. She’s been touting the freedom to use social networking sites as a way for Arab people to organize against their oppressive regimes. Now, the Administration is even considering arming the opposition in Libya.

Clinton’s perpetual propaganda efforts exposed her blatant hypocrisy when a silent peaceful protester was violently removed from one of her recent speeches on the very subject. However, the hypocrisy now seems to go much deeper in her deafening silence over the prospect for protests in Saudi Arabia.

After Human Rights Watch revealed that a nationwide “Day of Rage” protest had been planned in Saudi Arabia for this week, March 11th, Bloomberg reported that the Saudi government claims that demonstrations and marches are “strictly” prohibited by law. A Saudi Interior Ministry official said protests “contradict Islamic values” and “They harm public interest, infringe on the rights of others, spread chaos and lead to bloodshed.”

This prohibition of popular dissent proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Saudi Arabia is indeed the most tyrannical authoritarian regime in the Arab world. Yet, U.S. Administration officials have been strangely silent about supporting the people’s uprising there.

Perhaps they think the protests won’t be large enough to warrant a response. Well, that certainly did stop their best propaganda push to stoke the puny protests in Iran, so the size or ferocity of unrest shouldn’t matter to their exploits of supposedly backing human freedom. And one would think that given what has happened to oil prices due to the unrest in Libya and Egypt, even a minor protest in the largest oil-producing dictatorship in the world would draw more public response from the White House.

Or perhaps the Administration believes that the hastily-crafted $35 billion social aid package ordered by King Abdullah will be enough to tamp down escalating tensions in Saudi Arabia. So far, there have only been reports of small Shiite protests in Saudi Arabia, mostly demanding the release of political prisoners held by the Sunni monarchy.

These protests would seem to be very minor in comparison to the sea of people revolting in Cairo. However, the revolutionary whispers must clearly be getting louder as the Saudi stock market plummeted 11% in just two days of wild trading to its 7-year low on fears of civil unrest. It’s noteworthy that the plunge was reportedly led by large banks and insurers.

If Clinton is to stand by her new-found rhetoric, certainly she’ll call for restraint on the part of the Saudi government should a protest erupt, right? And surely she’ll demand that the kings of Internet censorship in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, will open communication channels so the people can freely unite, right? And if push comes to shove in Saudi Arabia, she’ll definitely support arming the people’s opposition to the royal family, right? Eh hum . . . don’t count on it.

Regardless, many analysts believe the Saudi regime is the next to fall with or without the prodding of the U.S.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/why-is-hillary-not-defending-rights-of.html

Witness in the News:
Secular, pro-democracy protesters shouting “Allahu akbar” storm Libyan embassy in Berlin, vow to kill Gaddafi
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE71R1L720110228

Gaza: Muslims throw bomb at Christian’s car for preaching Christianity
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/gaza-muslims-throw-bomb-at-christians-car-for-preaching-christianity.html

Pakistan: Taliban destroy five schools for imparting “un-Islamic teachings”
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-156958.html

US State Department spends $770 million on mosques in Middle East
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index.html

Couric Buys Daughter Mosque-Shaped Alarm Clock That Wakes Her To ‘The Call To Prayers

Sacred War, Holy War: The Secret Combination of Islam and Communism
This article is 4 short pages. Be sure to click on 2-4 at the btm of each page to go to next section.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/30/sacred-war-holy-war-the-secret-combination-of-islam-and-communism/

Saudi Arabia sends tanks to riot-hit Bahrain – paper
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110301/162803894.html

In Tunisia, Islamist party emerges
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1565333&SM=1