John Brennan

Custom Search

  

  

Obama's personal spook
 

     

 


help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items are archived in order of discovery . . .

Brennan Scrubs Obama's Passport Files

Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, headed a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to "cauterize" the records of potentially embarrassing information.  "They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion," one knowledgeable source said. "But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file."

At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

The passport files include "personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number," according to the inspector general report.

The files may contain additional information including "original copies of the associated documents," the report added.  Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July.  Although it is stamped "Sensitive but Unclassified," the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely."

This guy should be in prison, not in the Executive Office Building.

"Lt." Quarles Harris
During the investigation into the passport breach, The Washington Times reported that a key witness in passport fraud case was fatally shot in front of a Washington, DC, church.  The report said Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with federal investigators in a passport case, was found late slumped dead inside a car.  The reports said that Lt. Harris' death remains unsolved, and mysteriously, unreported until one year later, when the blogosphere discovered the murder, and conflated Harris' murder with the passport breach.

"Lt." Quarles Harris was a petty street punk con-artist.  His name was "Leiutenant" (note spelling), he was not a lieutenant in anything.  He was arrested in the possession of many phony credit cards that he had acquired via an identity theft scheme which involved stealing personal information from passport applications.

Leiutenant Harris was in court for that case three days before his murder.  "He felt like he was going to do jail time. He was willing to do jail time," said his mother.

Police had stopped her son and found 20 credit cards and eight completed passport applications.  According to court documents, Leiutenant Harris told police he and someone inside the State Department were taking information off passport applications, which they used to get fraudulent credit cards.  Another conspirator, inside the Postal Service, intercepted the cards before they could get to the actual people.

There IS no connection between "Lt." Quarles Harris and the scrubbing of Obama's passport files.

Counter Terrorism In Obama's Washington

Daniel Pipes, writing in FrontPage magazine, directs our attention towards Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, who conveniently outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans."

To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president."  Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One.  This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.

Specifics are no better.  Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent."  Which legitimate needs and grievances, one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?

Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent extremism."  But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter.  This elementary mistake undermines his entire analysis.

He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.  Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself."

This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S. Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign" developed by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.

It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists.  The George W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse.  But Brennan informs us that his boss now bases U.S. policy on it. 

Well, Obama did say this about Muslims:  "I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."  Once again, he's just doing what he said he'd do.

The speech contains disquieting signs of ineptitude.  We learn that Obama considers nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists to be "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security."  Fine.  But how does he respond?  With three feeble and nearly irrelevant steps: "leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation regime, launching an international effort to secure the world's vulnerable nuclear material …, and hosting a global nuclear summit."

Nor can Brennan think straight.  One example, requiring a lengthy quote.

"Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism.  Lack of education does not cause terrorism.  But just as there is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death."

Even though most of the terrorists that have made the big time come from financially fixed families, and are well-educated, even holding professional degrees.

Summary:  Poverty and a lack of education do not cause terrorism, but a lack of education and a job make people more susceptible to the ideas leading to terrorism.  What is the distinction?  Woe on us when the White House accepts illogic as analysis.

Further, let's focus on the statement, "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death," for it contains two stunning errors.  First, it assumes the socialist fiction that governments provide basic needs.  No.  Other than in a few commodity-rich states, governments protect and offer legal structures, while the market provides.

Second, every study on the subject finds no connection between personal stress (poverty, lack of education, unemployment) and attraction to radical Islam.  If anything, massive transfers of wealth to the Middle East since 1970 contributed to the rise of radical Islam.  The administration is basing its policy on a falsehood.

Where, as they say, is the adult supervision?  Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies.  The bitter consequences of these mistakes soon enough will become apparent.

Brennan is just another gangster serving in the Obama administration.  He's the guy that breached Obama passport file during the campaign in order to "cauterize" Obama's travel records of potentially embarrassing information.  "They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion," one knowledgeable source said.  "But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file."

At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

This guy should be in prison for breaking into the the State Department and breaching it's passport files, not in the Executive Office Building.

More Nonsense From Obama's Terrorism Expert
The Obama administration official who declared there was "no smoking gun" that could have alerted authorities about an al-Qaida plot to bring down a U.S. airliner over Detroit had received a personal, high-level briefing in October warning of a new al-Qaida tactic of hiding a bomb in an attacker's underwear.

On Fox News Sunday, John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security, told host Chris Wallace, "There was no smoking gun.  There was no piece of intelligence that said, 'This guy's a terrorist.  He's going to get on a plane.'  No, not whatsoever."

Brennan's comment evoked derision from international expert Arnaud de Borchgrave Monday during an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter.

"I would call that twaddle in all its unrational splendor," said de Borchgrave, author, syndicated columnist, and director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  "It's ridiculous to maintain such a thing.  But [Brennan] is trying to put the best face possible on a very difficult situation.  I've known him a long time, he's a highly competent man."

Despite Brennan's contention that no smoking gun preceded the attack, Newsweek reported that Brennan received a personal briefing in October from Muhammad bin Nayef, the Saudi Prince who narrowly survived an al-Qaida assassination attempt in August.  Nayef was wounded in the explosion, which used the same technique, and the same PETN explosive material, that authorities say Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab employed to try to bring down a Northwest airliner on Christmas Day.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for both attacks.

An intelligence source told Newsweek bin Nayef personally briefed Brennan because "he didn't think [U.S. officials] were paying enough attention" to the growing al-Qaida threat in Yemen.

U.S. intelligence sources say they believe the same bomb maker built both devices.

Brennan told CNN that, although he personally toured the site of the bombing in Saudi Arabia and met with bin Nayef, "There was no indication, though, that al-Qaida was trying to use that type of attack and that modus operandi against aircraft."

Continue reading here . . .

I guess Brennan never heard of the "Shoe Bomber."  Other than that, Brennan is a worse liar than Obama.
Obama's Spook Lies
Last Sunday, Obama's spook, John Brennan, who got his job because he scrubbed Obama's passport files, was interviewed by Fox News' Chris Wallace about the circumstances surrounding the events of Christmas and the Crotch Bomber (transcript).

Yesterday, Pete Hoekstra said Brennan lied about the facts in his interview with Wallace.
    

Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) disputes Brennan's claims about Christmas briefing  (05:01)
    
At 3:29 in the video, during a previous interview (03:29) with Perky, Katie Couric asks Obama if he has ruled out conducting the KSM trial in the Big Apple.  Obama responds, "I have not ruled it out."

He didn't say the attorney general has not ruled it out.  I contend that confirms my opinion from the previous item.
Obama's Complacent Terror Czar
Associated Content is reporting that Obama's Terror Czar John Brennan says that 20% of the released terrorists going back to the battlefield to kill Americans and others "isn't that bad."  In another "What the hell did you just say?!"-moment that's becoming, sadly, increasingly common with Obama's rogue terror czar, John Brennan was speaking at -- of all places! -- the Islamic Center of New York University just this past Saturday.  Since it was the Islamic Center and all, what better venue for John Brennan to spout another completely shocking and widely condemnable opinion that just confirms all the prior criticism that's rightfully been swirling around him for months!  You know, just the same old, same old criticism that he's not up to the job, is inept, or simply is too liberal to be effective at his post as terror czar.

Brennan's stunning attitude of complacency toward the very real statistic that one-fifth of all released terrorists will immediately return to kill Americans referred to a now-notorious figure that made an appearance in a letter to Nancy Pelosi earlier this month.  This 20%-figure was first found in a Pentagon study on recidivism rates of the terrorists who were held at Guantanamo Bay.

The context in which Brennan used that 20%-figure during his speech at the ironically appropriate Islamic Center at New York University was his comparison of terrorists and recidivism to mere, common criminals in the American penal system and recidivism there.  In fact, as you will witness yourself in the following video, Brennan's exact words on the subject were:

"People sometimes use that figure, 20%, say, 'Oh, my goodness, one out of five detainees returned to some type of extremist activity.'  You know, the American penal system, the recidivism is up to something about 50% or so, as far as return to crime. 20% isn't that bad."

Watch the video and continue reading here . . .
John Brennan And The Politics Of Capitulation
Michelle Malkin says it’s bad enough that John Brennan, Obama’s national security deputy, thinks Gitmo jihadi recidivism is "not that bad."  But in his talk last week with Islamic law students at New York University, Brennan made even more reckless comments about our counterterrorism programs while pandering to one of the worst Muslim grievance-mongers and sharia peddlers in America.

During the question-and-answer session, Brennan welcomed a question from Omar Shahin.  He identified himself as the head of the "North American Imams Federation."  What he didn’t mention was his role as the chief ringleader of the infamous flying imams.  You remember them: They were the six Muslim clerics whose suspicious behavior -- provocatively shouting "Allahu Akbar!" before boarding the plane, fanning out in the cabin before take-off, refusing to sit in their assigned seats, requesting seat-belt extenders, which they placed on the floor -- led to their removal by a U.S. Airways crew in 2006.

In coordination with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Shahin and his radical delegation attempted to shake down the airline with a discrimination lawsuit and bully the citizen "John Does" who flagged the imams’ security-undermining behavior.  CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Hooper blasted "anti-Muslim hysteria" by those who saw something and said something about the imams’ in-flight shenanigans.  Shahin ranted in a teleconference strategy session in 2007 that, indeed, he and his cohorts were spoiling for the incident and planning to engineer "many, many cases" to sabotage airline security efforts.

As head of the Islamic Center of Tucson in Arizona -- described as the first cell of al-Qaida in the United States and home to past jihadi dry-run plotters -- Shahin preached that his followers must put Islamic sharia law above Western laws.  He told the Arizona Republic that he doubted Muslims were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concluding: "All of these, they make it up."  Brennan didn’t appear to know who Shahin was.  Somebody around him should have briefed him.  Shahin’s involvement in Hamas-linked charities and radical Wahhabi "youth groups" has earned the Jordanian-born naturalized citizen increased FBI scrutiny over the years.

Instead, Brennan treated him as just another innocent Muslim with "reasonable" concerns about the government.

Shahin began with faux, flag-waving emotion,
    

"We came to this country to enjoy freedom."

"We feel that since September 11, we aren’t enjoying these values anymore. … Also, we feel that there’s a big lack of trust between Muslims’ community and our government. … My question: Is there anything being done by our government to rebuild this trust?"

    
Instead of countering the narrative, exposing Shahin’s true intentions and vigorously defending America’s homeland security apparatus, Brennan dutifully genuflected to the gods of political correctness. Obama, he told the militant 9/11 inside-job theorist and jihad white-washer, is "determined to put America on a strong course."

No, not a "strong course" that includes national security profiling of Islamic radicals pretending they care about our country’s best interests.  By "strong course," Brennan assured Shahin, he meant a course toward assuaging the civil rights groups who have objected to every security program at airports, borders, train stations and visa offices for the past nine years.

Brennan told Shahin that the post-9/11 response of the Bush administration was a "reaction some people might say was over the top in some areas" (insert indignant grievance-monger nodding and mmm-hmming here), and that "in an overabundance of caution, (we) implemented a number of security measures and activities that upon reflection now we look back, after the heat of the battle has died down a bit, we say they were excessive, OK."

It gets worse: Brennan then went on to decry the "ignorant feelings" of Americans outraged at the jihadi attacks on American soil.  And then he told Shahin and the audience of Muslim students that he "was very concerned after the attack in Fort Hood as well as the December 25 attack that all of sudden there were people who went back into this fearful position that lashed out not thinking through what was reasonable and appropriate."

The Fort Hood jihadist slaughtered 14 innocent soldiers and an unborn baby after an Army career of openly threatening the lives of our soldiers, and Brennan is wringing his hands about the rest of us "lashing out" over government incompetence.  He believes our true sin is not in the systemic under-reaction from the military, homeland security, intel and White House officials in charge, but in the "overreacting" of the American public.

With clueless capitulationists like Brennan in charge of our safety, who needs enemies?
Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad As "Legitimate Tenet Of Islam"
FOXNews.com is reporting that Obama's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it.  But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims.  However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.

Brennan is either an idiot or a foreign agent.  He may believe that jihad means "to purify oneself or one's community," but click here to see what "jihad" really is.
White House Linked To Flotilla Organizers
Jerome R. Corsi says a top adviser to Obama is the contact person within the White House for communications with the Free Gaza Movement over plans to challenge Israel's blockade of the terrorist Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, according to a reputable source close to the Netanyahu government.

The source, a career official whose reliability was established through his tips for the book, "Why Israel Can't Wait," identified Obama's personal "black bag" guy, John O. Brennan, Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, as the contact.

The allegation raises the bizarre possibility that the Free Gaza Movement's flotilla action in the Mediterranean was being coordinated with the White House, something that would align with a shift in U.S. policy toward Israel being debated within the Obama administration.

Brennan's activities in his "counterterrorism" work have involved him in situations with domestic groups known to have ties to Middle East terrorism.

WorldNetDaily has previously reported that Brennan participated in a meeting with Muslim law students, facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America, a group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a case where the founders of the Holy Land Foundation of Texas were given life sentences "for funneling $12 million" to Hamas, the group currently in political control of Gaza.

There are additional reports that at a meeting with Muslim law students at New York University, Brennan declared himself a "citizen of the world" who believed the United States government should never engage in "profiling" in pursuit of national security.

The New York Times reported this week that the Obama administration's policy toward Israel was changing in a re-evaluation that now considers Israel's blockade of Gaza to be untenable.  But Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted in a special press conference in his office Thursday that "Israel will not apologize for defending itself," which strongly suggested Israel fully intends to continue its blockade.

In a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and archived on the White House website, Brennan commented that using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" to describe terrorists "risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself."

In a July 2008 article in The Annals, a publication of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Brennan argued it "would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence."

Continued Brennan: "Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's political future from within government institutions. This involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping and violence."

At the August 2009 press conference for the CSIS, Brennan declared, "Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization."

Middle Eastern terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah frequently maintain civilian units of doctors and lawyers so as to emphasize their outreach with local politicians and increase their political acceptance in the international arena.

Conceivably, the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, better known by the Turkish acronym IHH, would fit Brennan's definition of the charitable side of organizations such as Hezbollah, despite IHH's ties to al-Qaida that have been documented by experts such as former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary's counter-terrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 2007.

The IHH, in fact, is not included on the U.S. State Department's current list of 45 groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are listed.

In his speech to the New York University law school students posted on YouTube by the White House, Brennan included a lengthy statement in Arabic that he did not translate for his English-speaking audience.

Noting that he spent time spent as an undergraduate with the American University in Cairo during the 1970s, Brennan proceeded to use only the Arabic name "Al Quds" when referring to Jerusalem, commenting that during his 25 years in government he spent considerable time in the Middle East, as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

"In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina," he said. "I marveled at the majesty of the hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims of making that pilgrimage."
Terrorists Are The Real Victims?
The Washington Times says the Obama administration legitimizes the terrorist viewpoint, and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser knows very little about terrorism -- that's scary for America.

John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, asserted in a speech last month that the United States cannot be at war with terrorism because terrorism is only a "tactic."  Terrorism, however, is also a strategy and method, with a long history and extensive theoretical literature.  This is why it is an "-ism" and not simply "terror."  It is bewildering that Mr. Brennan would make such a glaring error on such a fundamental concept.

Mr. Brennan also asserted that "violent extremists" are victims of "political, economic and social forces."  This dense statement implies that counterterrorism should focus not on terrorists themselves but the underlying causes that purportedly "victimized" them.  It's similar to the discredited argument that the way to fight urban crime is through big-government social programs rather than putting more police on the beat.  Making terrorists into victims also legitimates their grievances, which is a strange way to fight them.

Mr. Brennan's curious views may be part of a larger move by the O Force to redefine terrorism.  According to Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, an effort is under way to revise counterterrorism strategy.  Last week, at a speech at the Center for a New American Security, she said, "one of the discussions we're having in that context is what are the root causes of extremism."

The anguished quest for the "root causes" of political violence is hardly new.  The root cause of terrorism has been the holy grail of counterterrorism research for decades.  Most scholars have ruled out the simplistic notion that terrorism is the product of vague social or economic forces or that terrorism arises from backwardness or privation.  Were that the case, there would be a great deal more terrorism in the world, and it would not be the hobby of a billionaire's son like Osama bin Laden.  So a strategy that focuses on mitigating supposed root causes is hamstrung by the fact that the causes cannot reasonably be determined and that the United States is incapable of solving the world's social and economic problems.

Mr. Brennan also has been waging his own crusade on jihad.  He claims "jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children."  It's true that the term jihad can refer to the inner struggle for purification, something known as the "greater jihad" in Islamic theology. But jihad also can mean the violent struggle against non-Muslims for the defense or extension of the Islamic faith, something known as the "lesser jihad," which to the United States is the greater threat.  Mr. Brennan chooses to blind himself to this definition of the word, which is like not understanding that the word "prey" can be both a noun and a verb, each with very different implications.

Mr. Brennan believes attacks on the United States should not be justified in religious terms, but this is how terrorists in fact do justify them.  His obtuseness is dangerous.  Knowing the enemy is a necessary precondition for victory.  A good starting point is bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to the American People" in which he explicitly addresses the question of why al Qaeda is at war with the United States.  It is a comprehensive critique of American society, which he describes as the "worst civilization in the history of the world."  Bin Laden's missive is steeped in religious language and is the product of a radical Islamic intellectual tradition that goes back more than a century.

Mr. Brennan's view of Islam as a universally benign force may lead him to dismiss some of al Qaeda's justifications for violence, which reveals willful ignorance.  He may maintain that he knows more about Islam than our enemies, but they are dying to prove him wrong.
More Obama Chutzpah


        
Here's an old video, that I had not seen before (sorry about the commercial at the beginning).  It features a deeply disturbed Barack Obama, lamenting about the "accessing" of his passport files.

What he doesn't say, is that John Brennan, his personal spook, and the dhimmi he would appoint as Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, is the guy behind the passport breach -- Brennan was/is an Obama agent.

So, here we see Obama expressing outrage that someone tapped into his passport file, saying he expects a full and thorough investigation -- ha!

But here's the chutzpah.  Obama says, "Not, that I have any particular concerns.  I'm assuming any information that anybody obtained is available in other ways."

What a devious bastard!  He has spent millions keeping American citizens from access to ALL of his records.  He KNOWS whatever is in, excuse me, WAS in those passport files that may have been prejudicial is long gone.

Brennan's employee at Analysis, Inc, where Brennan was CEO, not only looked at Obama's file, but also hacked into McCain's file.  That guy has been disciplined, but not fired -- of course not -- he or she is on the team.

"That individual no longer has access to that kind of information," a State Department spokesman said.

The passport files would provide basic information like birth dates and background on where candidates have traveled, but the files would also include sensitive information like Social Security numbers, which could be used to track down credit reports and other personal information.

Hell, Obama's two-dozen Social Security numbers have been posted on the Internet for almost two years.

It's really quite unbelievable, Obama directs his spook to scrub his passport files, and then calls for a full and thorough investigation.

Read the whole thing here -- and just check out that "What, me guilty?" look in the image associated with the video above -- priceless!
The FactCheck Link Between The Obama Campaign And Passportgate
This technical analysis was provided by John F. Sweeney, who reminds us that the two-year anniversary of "Passportgate" was this past Monday, March 14.  Passportgate was the covert "accessing" of passport records by three contractors at the State Department.  Two of the contractors were fired.  The contractor who was not fired, but only disciplined, worked for The Analysis Corporation.  John O. Brennan was the president of The Analysis Corporation.  He is also a former CIA official and is now Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

The dates of access are January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008.  The initial reports indicated only a breach of Obama’s records.  Later it was reported that Clinton and McCain’s records had been accessed.  The names of the individuals, including the one still working at the State Department, have never been released.  Officially, it was a simple matter of snooping; no criminal charges were filed and it was handled only with "disciplinary" action.  For such a serious breach, the penalties were light.

So what is the relevance of Passportgate and March 14, 2008?  One must go back two days to March 12, 2008 for the answer.  This is because from all available information, background, verifiable data and facts, March 12, 2008 is the first verifiable history of the now infamous Obama internet COLB, exactly two days prior to the last passport break-in.  Specifically, the first documentable record of the COLB starts at the hour of 22:41:37 on March 12, 2008.  This is the date and time stamp from the digital photo that is shown on the FactCheck.org website dedicated to Obama’s COLB.

Specifically, it is the photo named "birth_certificate_3.jpg."  FactCheck has removed the original embedded data, known as EXIF data, from its website, but an original version with the EXIF data can be found at the 24ahead.com website [discussion and amplification here].

What is known about this photo named "birth_certificate_3.jpg"?  As stated above, the date/time stamp digitally recorded when the photo was taken indicates the photo was taken March 12, 2008 and the time is recorded as 22:41:37 or 10:41 p.m.  Other data available from the EXIF data indicates the camera used was a Canon PowerShot A570IS.  It was in Auto mode with red-eye reduction mode on, the flash did not fire during the photo, the exposure time was 1/60th (relatively slow), and the F-stop (aperture) was 4.00.

While these values are shown in the EXIF data, we know they were automatically selected by the camera and not the photographer because we can also see the camera was set to full auto mode -- simply point and shoot.  The result was a slightly blurred, overexposed photo of printed, greenish-tint document.

In the photo, a document is being held up to a light source.  The light source is behind the photographer since the shadow of his arm is over the document.  The light source is also the predominant lighting since the background is dark and the overhead office lights are off in the background.  Analysis of the background finds: a) the overhead office lights off, and b) no natural light coming in from the large windows that can be seen.  The conclusion is that that photo was taken at night.  Was it at 10:41 p.m.?  There is nothing in the photo to contradict that digitally-captured time.

Continue reading here -- this is Good Stuff . . .

Drip, drip, drip . . .
Brennan "Went Native" Years Ago

Alan Caruba says there's a YouTube video of John Brennan, the President’s national security advisor, praising Islam and the Arab culture to an unidentified group of Arabs that is so revealing it should be probable cause for his removal from office. At one point, he addresses them in fluent Arabic, a language acquired in his studies and CIA posts over the years.

 

When the British Empire spanned much of the globe there was a term for men who embraced the culture and nations to which they were assigned. They were deemed to have “gone native”, often wearing Arab garb and becoming apologists or advocates. Among the most famous was Lawrence of Arabia, but there were many others such as Lieutenant-General, Sir John Bagot Glub, called “Glub Pasha” and best known for leading and training Jordan’s Arab Legion from 1939 to 1956; the same Legion that took part in attacks on Israel after it declared independence in 1948.

 

In the video, Brennan waxes poetic about Arab culture. In 1977 Brennan had received a degree in political science from Fordham University. During his studies he had spent his junior year learning Arabic and taking Middle Eastern Studies courses at the American University in Cairo. He received a Master of Arts degree in government with a concentration in Middle East studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.

 

His career in the Central Intelligence Agency was one in which he reached the highest rungs as an analyst, serving at one point as a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. In 1996, he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers, a housing complex, was blown up by a truck bomb, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen billeted there. He would serve under CIA Director George Tenet as the director of its newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004. He would serve as director of the CIA’s National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005.

 

One might assume from such an impressive resume that Brennan was the ideal man to be appointed President Barack Hussein Obama’s chief counterintelligence advisor with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

 

One might assume that, but Brennan, from his earliest days in that post made a number of statements and authored a USA Today opinion editorial that revealed deeply felt sympathies for the very people who were and are attacking Americans at home and overseas. In his USA Today opinion, Brennan criticized “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering that only serve the goals of al Qaeda.”

 

Commenting on Brennan’s USA Today opinion, Jeb Babbin, in an article for Human Events on February 11, 2010, wrote of Brennan and the Obama administration’s incomprehensible national security actions, “Consider their consistent record of bad decisions only one year into Obama’s presidency: to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; to move Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other al Qaeda varsity out of the military commissions system and try them in civilian criminal court; to war against the intelligence community; to put the White House in charge of interrogations of captured terrorists; and, most recently, the hasty decision to put the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in civilian custody thus preventing professional intelligence interrogators from having access to him.”

  

Babbin characterized Brennan’s USA Today article as “a string of fibs and misleading statements so easily disproved (that) it leaves observers wondering about Brennan’s sanity.”

  

Writing in the Washington Observer on May 26, 2010, Spencer Ackerman reported that “Brennan signaled as well that the administration is concerned that blowback from civilians killed by drones could turn tactical success into strategic failure.” Brennan said the U.S. had an obligation to destroy al Qaeda proactively, “but also has a responsibility not to overreact in the event of a successful attack.”

  

One wonders if he thought that President George W. Bush overreacted to the al Qaeda attack on 9/11. One can only assume he agreed with President Obama’s decision to send a SEAL team to assassinate Osama bin Ladin. In his defense of the decision to have Adulmatalleb read his Miranda rights, Brennan said, “Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lacks foundation.” This ignores the long history of trying people who commit acts of war against the United States the use of military courts.

  

The fact that Brennan is one of the chief advisors to President Obama explains a lot about the decisions Obama has made since taking office with regard to protecting the nation against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It explains Obama’s now famous “apology tour” of the Middle East that he took in 2009 and his conciliatory speech delivered at the University of Cairo.

  

Egypt has now moved outside the nation’s zone of influence and Iran openly mocks the Obama policies of using diplomacy and sanctions to stop their quest for nuclear weapons. Israel, despite Obama’s latest reassurances, was earlier told to stop building housing in its capitol city and to retreat to indefensible 1967 borders.

  

Inside the White House, Obama continues to be advised by a man whose sympathies, despite his long service in the CIA, appear to be with the Islamic enemies of the nation. It is no surprise that Brennan has maintained a very low profile since 2009-2010.

  

There have been many calls for Brennan’s resignation or firing, but he remains in Obama’s good graces. That, too, is no surprise.

"Too Much Freedom Is Possible"

Charles C. Johnson is reporting that In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, John Brennan denied the existence of "absolute human rights" and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the Egyptian dictatorship.

"Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship," Brennan wrote. "Inflamatory [sic] articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political systems."

Brennan serves as President Barack Obama"s national security advisor. Obama has nominated him to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

The thesis, "Human Rights: A Case Study of Egypt," was a requirement for Brennan"s Master of Arts degree in government with a Middle Eastern studies concentration. It grew out of his time studying at the American University in Cairo.
 

"These four rights reflect not only my own moral concept of human rights [but] also my interpretation of the Western human rights perspective," Brennan wrote in his introduction.
 
"I don"t feel that the possible forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances precludes their inalienability."
 
Brennan ultimately concluded that human rights do not exist because they cannot be "classified as universal."
 
"The United States should be expected to pass a more strict human rights test [than Egypt] because its environment is more conducive to the realization of those rights," Brennan concluded. "An economic comparison between Egypt and one of its wealthy Arab neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would be equally unfair due to the wealth of those countries."
 
"[T]he stage of economic development and political development have a direct impact on human rights," he wrote. "The former enables a political system to offer its citizens welfare (e.g. health services) and security (e.g. military defense)."
 
Paradoxically, Brennan also claimed Egyptian rulers" repressive regimes were part of that nation"s move toward democracy.
 
"[I]f democracy is a process rather than a state, the democratic process may involve, at some point, the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice," he wrote. "[Anwar] Sadat"s undemocratic methods, therefore, may aim at the ultimate preservation of democracy rather than its demise."
 
Brennan justified Sadat"s use of emergency powers to crack down on protests from communists because Egyptian citizens" "exercis[e] of democratic rights would have an adverse affect on stability and even on democracy itself. This implies that too much freedom is possible and in the end, even detrimental to the cause of democracy."
 
"[W]ould the ability to demonstrate effectively increase human rights and democracy in Egypt?" Brennan asked rhetorically. "In the light of the political environment, probably not. At the present stage of political development in Egypt widespread open opposition to the administration would be beyond the capacity of the system to handle."
 
Brennan conceded that his explanation of why it is sometimes acceptable to abuse human rights "can provide a convenient excuse for any authoritarian leader in any country of the world."
 
"Can human rights violations in the Soviet Union be as easily justified in terms of the preservation of the communist ideology? Unfortunately (looking at events from a democratic perspective), yes. Since the absolute status of human rights has been denied, the justification for the violation of any of those rights has to be pursued from a particular ideological perspective. Leonid Brezhnev could justify human rights violations in the Soviet Union as a necessary part of the preservation of the communist ideological system."

There's More On Brennan In The Forum


click image to follow Brennan in the forum
Comments . . .
***  
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2013
All right reserved