The anti-Trump media jumped into a level of gleeful frenzy today amid a required security filing noticing that Senior Trump Adviser Steve Bannon was no longer a member of the “principals committee” on the National Security Council.
The hilarity cemented itself when competing media outlets were arguing about Steve Bannon being on the NSC, or being kicked-off the NSC, while Bannon walked past them en route to today’s NSC meeting. Wait, wha… huh? Yeah -{Insert Laugh Track HERE}-
Nothing ever happens in a vacuum, and today is no exception. No, Steve Bannon is not being removed from the Senior advisory role to President Trump and will attend NSC meetings with the President. Bannon’s security clearance therein remains unchanged.
However, Bannon is removing himself from the Principal’s Committee of the H.R. McMaster NSC (*note* he never attended the committee meetings, well, that is, he did, once), now that the political weaponization of NSC intelligence operations has been removed; and McMaster has recalibrated the incoming intelligence agencies to remove the political intelligence they were previously used to sending.
What does that prior paragraph mean?
Start by reminding yourself of the current headlines about National Security Adviser Susan Rice requesting raw intelligence to the NSC based on Obama’s political agendas’, not national security.
HR McMaster, the current National Security Adviser of President Trump, had to reset and re-instruct each of the heads of the intelligence agencies who provide intelligence to the NSC to remove the political intelligence.
McMaster needed to visit with each agency, CIA, NSA, State Department and Defense to reorient them on what national intelligence the Trump administration wishes to receive within the National Security Council.
President Trump doesn’t want the national intelligence agencies sending him updates on what Senator Schumer had for lunch, where and who he dined with. Instead President Trump prefers the intelligence agencies focus on global security issues that are actually vital to the national security interests of the country.
H.R McMasters instructions toward he intelligence agencies has just freed up thousands of hours of operational intelligence (spying and analysis) to focus on real threats unrelated to domestic politics. Subsequently with the new direction established, Steve Bannon doesn’t need to be a pre-filter for NSC raw intel any longer. Bannon can now be a consumer of that intelligence, just like President Trump.
White House Chief Legal Counsel Don McGahn’s job also just got a lot less stressful.
Secondly, with the anticipation of President Obama’s Nat Sec Adviser Susan Rice remaining in the headlines as more is discovered about her role in the weaponization of intelligence for political use, there’s no better time for political Bannon to exit the NSC Principals Committee than right now.
It would be a little sketchy for Rice’s political weaponization of the NSC to be exposed in the media headlines while Steve Bannon, painted as a pure political partisan, sat on the Principals Committee of the Trump NSC.
Today, Catherine Herridge is reporting the unmasking requests made by former National Security Adviser were requests for details of daily surveillance of President Trump’s transition team regarding their daily life activity.
(New York) The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.
“This is information about their everyday lives,” Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. “Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”
On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines.
Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow. (read more)
France holds its first round of voting on the 23rd of April, 2017. Unless one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, the two leading contenders will go to a second round on May 7th. The French Debate took place and of course Emmanuel Macron the press is cheering as the victor. Of course, we have seen how the press tries to manipulate the public in Britain against BREXIT and in the USA against Trump. The press agenda in France is no less corrupt.
Macron attacked Ms Le Pen’s nationalist proposals declaring “Nationalism is war. I know it. I come from a region that is full of graveyards,”Reported Reuters. Macron is showing how nasty he really is as a person. He then attacked Le Pen’ dead father “You are saying the same lies that we’ve heard from your father for 40 years.”
Francois Fillon, the scandal plagued conservative who paid his wife to be an assistant more than the President of the United States is paid, said that France needed Europe when up against the US and China. Fillon would never change anything and doom France in the process the same as Macron. Indeed, Fillon tried to also attack Le Pen and she responded to Mr Fillon: “You shouldn’t pretend to be something new when you are speaking like fossils that are at least 50 years old.”
Francois Asselineau, who is the nationalist right-wing outsider, chimed in and said that he was “the only true candidate of Frexit”, and promised to trigger Article 50 as has Britain to begin the divorce from the EU immediately if he were to win power.
While the press is now touting Macron as the leader, what is very clear is that the failure to elect Le Pen will really be devastating for the EU. Why? Because a Le Pen victory would be far more of a soft-landing for the EU and actually raise hope that Brussels would be forced back to just a trade union rather than a political union demanding the surrender of individual nation sovereignty. That will actually raise the risk far greater for a European war. Brussels will wipe its brow and declare “populism” is dead and press full stream ahead to federalized Europe.
But the economics of the EU are crumbling and this indicates that no matter how hard Brussels tries to keep this mess together, it will crumble and fall apart. A Le Pen victory would be the soft-landing and political reform would then be possible in Europe. A Le Pen defeat, will only invite civil unrest that can turn to war within Europe because Brussels will not reform and it will only get worse.
You have already the Arrogance of Brussels telling Poland and Hungary they MUST accept the refugees or get out of the EU. That is a totalitarian position and the sovereignty of individual states will no longer matter. The argument are akin to surrendering the United States to be ruled by the United Nations.
As part of its daily wrap of the Susan Rice newsflow, which focused on her first media appearance since she was “outed” as the persona responsible for “unmasking” members of team Trump, the WSJ provides two new pieces of incremental information: i) in addition to Michael Flynn, at least one more member of the Trump transition team was “unmasked” in intelligence reports due to multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia; and ii) Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking, confirming there is at least one more high-level official giving “unmasking” orders.
But first, a brief detour.
“Unmasking” is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example, be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak classified information generated by the process.
It is the accusation that Rice unmasked members for purely political reasons – ostensibly in coordination with president Obama – that has gotten Republican smelling blood in the water. Republicans have for weeks signaled that they saw unmasking as the key to investigating the source of media leaks damaging to the Trump administration — such as the exposure of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of his discussions with the Russian ambassador.
To that end, earlier this month, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pressed FBI Director James Comey in a public Intelligence Committee hearing: “It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name… because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.”
He went on to press Comey on whether specific Obama officials, including Rice, would have had the authority to request that a name be unmasked. “Yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business,” Comey answered.
Shortly thereafter, The Hill notes Nunes made his shocking announcement that he — and he alone — had viewed documents that showed inappropriate unmasking by Obama-era officials.
Today, Susan Rice came out to defend herself and told MSNBC that “the allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false.”
She added that “The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false. There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”
And yet, that is precisely what many republicans are suggesting because otherwise there is no explanation for how the WaPo and NYT received, on a virtual silver platter, stories about Mike Flynn’s communications with intel-level detail.
Perhaps Rice is simply lying as she lied on March 22 when in a PBS interview she said “I know nothing” about unmasking Trump officials. Less than two weeks later, we learn that she did.
But perhaps there is more to the story than what we know so far.
* * *
And this is where the WSJ comes in, with the new info that according to a Republican official familiar with deliberations by GOP lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee said that the names of two U.S. citizens who were part of Mr. Trump’s transition team have been unmasked in intelligence reports. One is Mr. Flynn and the other hasn’t been identified. The report involving Mr. Flynn documented phone conversations he had in late December with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The WSJ then reports that Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition official — not Mr. Flynn — who was part of multiple foreign conversations that weren’t related to Russia.
And the punchline: “The Republican official and others said Ms. Rice wasn’t the administration official who instigated Mr. Flynn’s unmasking.”
In other words, the story that Susan Rice is the unmasker is incomplete as there is at least one more person exposing the identities of people in Trump’s circle, and that the NSA and other intel agencies have been surveiling, accidentally or otherwise, at least one, so far unnamed individual, from Trump’s circle. It may well be someone that the WaPo and NYT have already published about, or it may be someone who has yet to hit the newswire, delivering the latest twist of the ongoing intelligence-fed news cycle.
For now the answer is unknown, although when Rice testifies under oath before the House Intel Committee, we hope that all outstanding questions will finally get answers.
Since her awkward March speech in which Hillary vowed she was “ready to come out of the woods,” the world has been anxiously waiting for the two time failed presidential candidate to announce her next move. In the absence of facts, rumors have swirled that she might consider a run for Mayor of New York, start working on a 2020 presidential bid or just return to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, courtesy of The Hill, it seems we can at least knock a return to the Clinton Foundation off the list of possible future careers.
“She’s taking a look at her life and wants to try some different things,” said one ally who has spoken to Clinton in recent weeks. “She’s not tying herself to something that’s always been an option. She wants to figure out what she wants to do.”
Still, those familiar with Clinton’s immediate future say that just because she won’t take an active role in the organization doesn’t mean she won’t give occasional foundation-related speeches or participate in its programs.
“Everyone knows they’ll have access to her whenever they need her,” the confidant said. “This has really become President Clinton and Chelsea’s thing.”
Perhaps the true catalyst is that with prospects for a “Clinton” being the next president no longer imminent – unless of course Hillary or Chelsea confirm their plans to run again – former donors such as Norway and Australia have quietly stopped handing over their cash?
Of course, with the various pay-to-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation during her last presidential campaign, including that time she was offered $12 million for a “meeting” in Morocco, it’s not terribly surprising that Hillary would look to distance herself from the organization if she’s considering a return to public life.
Clinton took an active role in the family’s foundation after leaving the State Department in 2013, working on early childhood development and other issues involving women and girls.
“I am thrilled to fully join this remarkable organization that [former President] Bill [Clinton] started a dozen years ago, and to call it my home for the work I will be doing,” she said in remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013.
At the same time, in 2013, the foundation changed its name to the Bill, -Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, though it changed back to the Clinton Foundation in 2015.
And while we still don’t know Hillary’s ultimate ambitions, The Hill notes that she’s hard at work making more money and playing with her grandchildren.
For now, Hillary Clinton is focused on her upcoming book, which she is writing with two campaign speechwriters: Dan Schwerin — who also helped write the former secretary of State’s 2014 book, “Hard Choices” — and Megan Rooney.
She is also scheduled for several speeches, including a commencement speech in May at her alma mater, Wellesley College.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” Chelsea Clinton was asked what her mother’s plans might look like in the coming months.
“She’s focused, thankfully, on her grandchildren,” the former first daughter said. “She’s focused on what she can do to help support work that she’s been engaged in for longer than I’ve been alive, around children, around women, around families.”
Have we seen the end of Hillary’s campaigning days or does she have one more tour of duty in her? A 2020 rematch could be good fun
We’ve covered the hidden story of manipulation within Syria quite extensively. And in the example today of Chemical Weapons being used against the Syrian People, all indications do not point toward Bashir Assad doing it.
The entire event looks like an horrific operation by anti-Assad forces trying to create assistance for their regime change efforts by killing their own people. Yes, they are that desperate; and yes, there are vested interests in the U.S., including the CIA, who would support such an objective.
Remember, as a direct outcome of the Obama/Kerry U.S. policy we have been arming the anti-Assad Syrian elements for several years. This is not hidden.
With President Obama out of office; with President Trump not supportive of foreign policy based on regime change; and with Trump’s Secretary of State Tillerson saying just a few days ago that “Syrians will determine the future of Syria” the anti-Assad Syrians are now desperate.
There is ZERO motive for President Bashir Assad to weaponize chemical weapons against his people. Assad’s forces are winning the war, Syria is more stable now than ever in the past six years, Assad has nothing to fear from a Trump administration, and using chemical weapons just doesn’t serve his interests.
However, in their desperation, there is ample motive for the anti-Assad elements to give the appearance of ‘war-crimes’ in an effort to try and gain some desperate positioning in their remaining moments. Additionally, there is more than ample evidence the perpetual war machine, the Deep State and their alignment with global ideologues, would trigger such an optic.
It is not accidental this happens right after Secretary Tillerson’s statement.
So lets go back and review what we already know as fact – Beyond the U.S. policy change, we must remember that Secretary John Kerry essentially told the anti-Assad forces they would need to pull off this type of a ruse.
♦ In August of 2014 President Obama (wearing a tan business suit) gave a press conference where he stated he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS. –Video Link–
♦ Two months later, in October of 2014, Josh Earnest gave a press conference where he stated: “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” –Video Link–
However, on September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.
When you listen to the audio recording (embed below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on when both of those 2014 statements were made by the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to over 5 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans. What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the two objectives, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully before continuing. Because this audio (below), along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
The revelations within this leaked audio are simply astounding. The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
Listen to the audio.
Key Kerry moments at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
@18:30 Secretary John Kerry:
[…] Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.
We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.
Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.
And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.
The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.
So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.
Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer to ISIS (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:
Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.
So it a, uh, it’s…
[Interrupted]
Question: But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?
Kerry: Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.
The interview continues with anti-Assad Syrians expressing their frustration that multiple social media and social justice type efforts (the Pallywood type scripted activity targeting the United Nations to take action) have yielded no positive results in the international community stepping in to take down Bashir Assad directly.
Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
2012:WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)
Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our previous research as it is contained with the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria:
(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”
“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)
al-Qaeda’s goal was to establish the Islamic State, that’s the origin of ISIS. Against the backdrop of ISIS formation in Syria, and understanding the Obama objectives were regime change first and foremost, we can now reconcile all of Obama’s foreign policy surrounding Syria.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party, were willing to support ISIS (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…
Representative Adam Kinzinger, Senator John McCain, candidate Evan McMullin
What you are about to read is specifically how the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, connect to the Republicans outlined above – and how their individual behaviors within the 2016 election begin to make sense. And how their continuing behavior in 2017 reconciles against the backdrop of their interventionist, deep state, foreign policy objectives.
Perhaps, like us, you will have an ah-ha moment.
The “Never Trump” coalition has always consisted of a few noisy and indecent politicians within Washington DC. Senator John McCain, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Jeff Flake and House Representative Adam Kinzinger the most noteworthy and vitriolic.
However, whenever CNN, or for that matter any media, want a republican voice to argue against Donald Trump, in the “current days’ outrage du jour”, they call upon Kinzinger first and foremost.
Kinzinger loves the spotlight as much as he enjoys promoting himself on social media. In essence, he was a proud #NeverTrumper and continues to be a useful media mouthpiece when they need an anti-Trump opinion embedded using a Republican.
We’ll come back to Kinzinger and McMullin in a moment. But first we must place the second set of puzzle pieces on the table.
When we did all the exhaustive research into the Benghazi Brief three years ago, one of the pictures that continued to draw our interest was this one:
The picture above was taken during a time when Senator John McCain visited Syria, and the Western media were proclaiming there were “moderates” in the opposition to Bashir Assad. Senator McCain proclaimed this 2012 visit to be meeting with the “Free Syrian Army”. [Coincidentally, this was on the same trip where he met Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi courthouse in Libya for the last time].
However, at the same time McCain was trying to convince the world of moderate Syrian resistance, multiple voices within non-traditional journalism, and a large number of people doing independent research, reached the conclusion that al-qaeda and al-Nusra extremists had completely infiltrated the Syrian resistance groups, and a new militant Islamic network was forming.
“2012 NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
That network ultimately evidenced and defined itself as the Islamic State, or ISIS.
In 2013 and 2014, even though ISIS initially did not have a name, as the hardline extremists in Syria became more openly visible, eventually the western media accepted Raqqa and Aleppo had become the de-facto center of Syrian ISIS operations. In August of 2014 President Obama finally admitted the problem and stated his administration was caught off guard and did not have a strategy to combat them.
Back To The Photograph – The importance of the McCain photograph became increasingly interesting because ISIS as an extremist force became increasingly visible. As a direct consequence we were able to identify the ideology of the people in the picture:
There has been some skepticism as to #2 being al-Baghdadi himself, and Senator John McCain has strongly refuted this claim. However, there is more evidence to prove it is Baghdadi than to refute it’s not Baghdadi. Person #2 looks just like him:
In addition, one of the important bits of evidence to prove #2 is indeed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is actually found in #1 Abu Mosa (ISIS Press Officer).
Abu Mosa was killed in August 2014. In 2012, during organization, Baghdadi would have a man with this level of importance to the Islamic State around him at the time this picture was taken.
However, lets look at #5 – “Mouaz Moustafa”, because he is the current person that should be of interest to everyone in the 2016 presidential discussion. Moustafa is the connective tissue per se’. In the photograph, he’s also Senator McCain’s intermediary:
Fast forward two intense years later and look where #5, Mouaz Moustafa shows up in 2014. And more specifically the two faces that show up with him:
Well lookie there. During a trip to Turkey in 2014 to discuss arming Syrian rebel groups, under the auspices of fighting ISIS, you see Representative Adam Kinzinger appear. Oh yeah, and who’s that other fellow circled in the meeting? ….why that’s our anti-Trump candidate Evan McMullin.
Huh, fancy that.
Spotting Evan McMullin conspicuously standing there in the picture made us want to go back to the CNN file footage from the time and see if he was actually visible in the report they filed from Turkey. Yup, he’s there alright.
Watch and spot him in the background during quite a bit of the footage:
Long before anyone heard about Evan McMullin running for President, there he is paling around with #NeverTrump Adam Kinzinger in Turkey chatting with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates (guise SETF) who are essentially the political arm of ISIS under a differing name.
The declared purpose of the meeting was to discuss who and how to arm the entities within Syria. However, just like in 2012/2013 these same Brotherhood voices in 2014 are simply trying to present themselves as one thing, only to gain the goal of another.
That reality is ultimately the story behind the arms deals within The Benghazi Brief. That’s the lesson that should have been learned if the truth contained within the brief were ever to have larger public interest.
Additionally, all that said – it’s connections like these that make other things, like the opposition to Donald Trump, make much more sense.
Just step back and look at the landscape from the elevated position. Who are the Washington DC politicians most invested in, and public about, the removal of Bashir Assad?
There’s some seriously sketchy activity here, and it is not recent. Activity that carries solid and visible connective tissue to a much larger objective. There’s just no doubt Senator McCain is leading a foreign policy that continues to be his own construct.
Every nation McCain has involved himself within, has resulted in chaos or civil war as a direct result of his engagement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Who is paying these characters.
My God, dozens -perhaps hundreds- of Syrians were killed toward the objective of getting rid of Bashir Assad. Who are these Deep State creeps?
QUESTION: You once said you could fix the mess in 30 days or less but they would assassinate you. How can you ever make our politicians responsible? My second question is, why are the really smart people not running government?
KW
ANSWER: The term limits are mandatory, but you have to cut off the incentive as well. No pension or salary after one term. People want to run for Congress and you are taken care of for life if you served even just one day. As for taking a cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury, well you have to sell all your stock in whatever bank you are leaving and because you MUST do this, you get to sell everything tax free. They have rules to exempt themselves from everything.
Eliminate all special perks. Social Security should be for all as should the healthcare. Why should they get benefits we cannot even buy? If you limit the terms to one-time-and-out, eliminate pensions, and you subject everyone to the same benefits even while in office, then you will see things shape up. Drug Companies lobby the most. Politicians need money for re-election. If you make it one-term-and-out, you eliminate the lobbying since there is no re-election and you subject them to the same healthcare we have. Then they will not vote for things that will deprive themselves.
This is basic human nature.
As to why really smart people are not in government? That is simple. Knowledge comes from ONLY experience. I was asked if I would take the position as Chief Economic Advisor in the Bush, Jr. White House. I laughed. First, I had a real company. I could not put that in some blind trust. Then, could you image a confirmation hearing in the Senate? I would have been accused by the Democrats or helping the Japanese and German auto manufactures against GM. They would have had a field day turning that into some sort of treason. On top of that, the only way to gain experience is doing something and that means we must make mistakes in order to learn. Do you keep putting your wet finger in a light socket assuming one time you will not get socked if you just keep it up?
Nobody I know who would be qualified to do anything in banking or the economy would EVER take such a job. Who needs that sort of magnification of every aspect of your entire life? There are only two types of people who will take such jobs. Either you do it for the perks, or you do it because you want to be remembered. You are better off with someone like Trump on that score for he cannot be bribed with money. They either have it and do it for the ego or they do it to get money and status like the Clintons. There really seems to be no in between these days.
With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, which necessitates the optic.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice is now hugging the security of the Presidency. No space. To take Rice down, means to take down President Obama – safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in media or congress is going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice. They have no choice.
[Also note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”.]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and asses it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review….
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
!["NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD" - members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year. They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/no-islam-without-jihad.jpg)
As to why really smart people are not in government? That is simple. Knowledge comes from ONLY experience. I was asked if I would take the position as Chief Economic Advisor in the Bush, Jr. White House. I laughed. First, I had a real company. I could not put that in some blind trust. Then, could you image a confirmation hearing in the Senate? I would have been accused by the Democrats or helping the Japanese and German auto manufactures against GM. They would have had a field day turning that into some sort of treason. On top of that, the only way to gain experience is doing something and that means we must make mistakes in order to learn. Do you keep putting your wet finger in a light socket assuming one time you will not get socked if you just keep it up?
Centinel2012 