It should not be a 5-4 split and majority decision, but that just goes to reflect how radical and structurally political the Supreme Court has become. In an important ruling today the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that illegal aliens can be prosecuted by the states for stealing the identity of U.S. persons on employment eligibility paperwork. [Direct pdf link]
Stunningly four justices (BREYER, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN) dissented from the majority decision; and instead gave their minority opinion that federally mandated I-9 employment eligibility certifications should not be permitted for use as evidence in cases surrounding identity theft.
According to the dissenting opinion, if your identity or social security number was stolen by an illegal alien; and used to falsify employment eligibility documents; that illegal action is not itself criminal conduct because the documents are not permissible as evidence to show the alien falsified information. An absolutely bizarre position in a nation of laws.
The primary issue surrounds federal laws that state employment affidavits, like an I-9 eligibility declaration, cannot be used to prosecute illegal aliens, unlawfully residing in the U.S. However, it is simultaneously unlawful under federal law to provide false information on those employment eligibility documents.
Thankfully the five majority justices (ALITO, ROBERTS, THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH) saw the abject stupidity of the lower court ruling (Supreme Court of Kansas) reversing and remanding the prior decision. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and pointed out the ridiculous outcomes if such considerations were extended.
[…] Suppose that an employee truthfully states on his I–9 that his name is Jim Smith. Under the interpretation of 8 U. S. C. §1324a(b)(5) that the Kansas Supreme Court seemingly adopted, no one could use Jim’s name for any purpose. If he robbed a bank, prosecutors could not use his name in an indictment. His employer could not cut a paycheck using that name. His sister could not use his name to mail him a birthday card. [pg 13]
Here’s the 37-page ruling. I would STRONGLY urge everyone to review it.
Chopper Pressers are the best Pressers. President Trump and members of the Coronavirus taskforce deliver remarks to the press pool after arriving back at the White House from a visit to the National Institute of Health in Maryland. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, we just got back. We had a great tour of NIH. And Dr. Fauci is here, along with our Secretary. And a lot of progress. Maybe, Alex, you’d like to start and then we’ll have the Doctor say something.
SECRETARY AZAR: Well, we just had an incredible visit up at NIH at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease that Dr. Fauci leads. And the President got to hear from the actual bench scientists who, within three days — within three days — developed a potential vaccine for the novel coronavirus.
And they reported some really important news to the President that, yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the entry of that vaccine into phase one safety clinical trials.
Dr. Fauci?
THE PRESIDENT: Which is a record. Yeah, please.
DR. FAUCI: So, what we did is we just had the opportunity to take the President and show him the actual individual researchers who are doing the things that we’ve been talking about. And what they were referring to is that the actual scientists — middle level, senior, junior — were there and explained to the President what I have actually been explaining to the press, but showed it on graphics: how after the virus was identified, the sequence was taken and put into this platform called messenger RNA. And what happened is that, literally, within a period of a couple of days, we were able to stick it in.
And now, as I said, we’re going to go into a phase one trial in about three months from that day — well, we’re probably, you know, a month or so — I mean, I don’t want to over promise. I said a month and a half the other day; it may be about a month or so. And then very soon, we’ll be sticking the first person with the vaccine.
But I want to caution everybody: That’s only the first stage of the development of the vaccine because we emphasized to the President that since we’ll be giving the vaccine to normal, healthy people, that safety is very important and you really need to know that it actually works.
That next phase is a phase two trial. We’re not going to be able to start that for at least another three or four months after we go in. So the whole process is going to take a year, a year and a half at least.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to talk about therapeutics?
DR. FAUCI: Yeah. The other thing that’s interesting that we explained to the President, and the Secretary already knew is that the difference between testing the vaccine and testing therapy are almost qualitatively different. Because with the therapy, you’re going to give it to someone who is already ill and you compare it to standard of care. So, within a reasonable period of time, you’re going to know if it works or not.
So, right now, as of like today, there are two large trials going on in China that are comparing one of the drugs — and there are several — one called remdesivir with the standard of care alone.
And when we get those results — which likely will be several months because you’re going to have to accumulate hundreds of patients to decide. We have our own trial right now in the United States with some people at the University of Nebraska who are infected and put there. So once you get the result with the therapy — unlike a vaccine, which takes quite a while — once you get a result, you can start distributing the medication.
Q So, Dr. Fauci, just to be clear: You’re saying three months away from treating people who already have coronavirus?
DR. FAUCI: No, I didn’t say that. I said, if the drug works and you prove it works, you will treat them. I am not saying that three months from now we’re going to have a drug to treat people. Okay?
THE PRESIDENT: If it works.
DR. FAUCI: Yeah.
Q So if it works, three months from now, it is possible —
DR. FAUCI: No, I — no. I didn’t say. I said you have to accumulate enough patients, when they get to 400 patients in each trial. That may take three months. That may take five months. I don’t know.
When the trial is over and they evaluate the data, if the drug works, then you’ll be able to apply it.
Q Mr. President, can you react to the market drop? Are you concerned about a recession?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t seen it. I’m focused on this. The country is in great shape. The market is in great shape. I’m focused on this. This is very important.
Q Do you want tax cuts, in addition to the Fed acting? The Fed acted and you’ve suggested that you also want tax cuts.
THE PRESIDENT: I like middle-income tax cuts. I think it would be a good time.
Q This year?
THE PRESIDENT: Middle-income tax cuts. If the Democrats would approve it, I’d go along with it.
Q And that’s a payroll tax cut, or did you —
THE PRESIDENT: It’s a payroll tax, yeah. Payroll tax cut.
Q And you want that to happen this year?
THE PRESIDENT: I would do it if they can approve it. I would do it.
Q And then, in terms of travel, obviously spring break is coming around the corner. Should Americans be concerned — are you concerned? For example, would you let your son go to Disney?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I think there’s — I think we have a lot of great places we could travel to, right in the United States. We have a lot of great places we can travel to. Okay?
Q Mr. President, we’ve heard about confirmed cases, but what are the estimates for how many people and how many cases we actually have? What are the estimates?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SECRETARY AZAR: You said how many cases we actually have right now?
Q We have confirmed cases, but what are the estimates that you guys have?
SECRETARY AZAR: Oh, estimates. Estimates. Well, we can only have confirmed cases. So we don’t estimate other than the 60 cases we have from here in the United States that are confirmed, as well as the 48 cases that we have that came from our repatriation activities.
We’re very careful to not try to extrapolate or predict with an unknown virus here in the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Q Mr. President, Google just — Google just canceled its big annual conference, sir. Are companies that are canceling conferences and travel doing the right thing or is that an overreaction, do you think?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to them. Hey, let them stay in the United States. If they don’t travel, if they stay here, that’s not a bad thing for us. I — I’ve been saying for a long time people should do that.
Q Do you think the Fed wasted its ammunition today? They cut rates and the Dow went down.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think they could have done — I think they should do more. I think they hinted that they’re not going to do much more and that’s unfortunate.
Earlier today President Trump delivered remarks to the 2020 Legislative Conference of the National Association of Counties (NACo), an organization representing 3,069 counties, nearly 40,000 elected county officials, and 3.6 million county employees who together serve more than 80% of the U.S. population.
At the beginning of his remarks President Trump announced he would be traveling on Friday to Tennessee to visit the area hit by last nights devastating tornado. The President noted “we are sending our love and our prayers to the 19 people killed by the deadly tornado in Tennessee” and promised “my administration will always be your partner, friend, and resource.”
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. What a nice group. And thank you, Mary Ann. I think you like Mary Ann a lot. I was listening. I said, “Who is out there that they like so much?” It was Mary Ann. (Laughter.)
Please sit down. Please.
Before I begin, I want to send my warm wishes to the great people of Tennessee in the wake of the horrible and very vicious tornado that killed at least 19 people and injured many more. We’re working with the leaders in Tennessee, including their great governor, Bill Lee, to make sure that everything is done properly. FEMA is already on the ground, and I’ll be going there on Friday.
Our hearts are full of sorrow for the lives that were lost. It’s a vicious thing. Those tornadoes — I’ve seen many of them during a three-year period, and I’ve gotten to see the results. And they are vicious if you’re in their path. It’s — bad things happen. It’s — really, bad things happened.
I went to Alabama nine months ago, and I saw the devastation that that left an Alabama too. And everybody was so incredible. The people were so incredible. But so many people get killed if you’re in the path. And we’ll be going, as I said, to Tennessee on Friday.
We send our love and our prayers of the nation to every family that was affected. And we will get there, and we will recover and we will rebuild, and we will help them. And condolences. Tough. Tough situation. It’s such bad news when you see that.
I’m honored to be here with the National Association of Counties at your annual legislative conference. It’s a great group of people. I’ve dealt with you for a long time over the years. And every once in a while, I’ll find one I don’t like, but generally speaking, you’re fantastic. (Laughter and applause.) It’s true.
And when one of you are in the way, it’s very tough to get that job done. (Laughter.) And when you’re helpful, it’s real easy and we get it done, and we produce a lot of jobs and good results. And I just want to say you’re very important.
And people that are doing what I do before I got here, we realize how important you are. Incredible job. Really, I’ve met some of the most incredible people doing exactly what you do. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
So, in this room, there are over 1,200 county leaders whose incredible devotion, talent, and drive directly and profoundly improve the lives of millions of Americans each and every day. I want you to know that my administration will always be your friend and partner and ally, and resource, as you work to deliver an amazing future for your counties and for your communities and for the country itself.
As I said in my State of the Union Address three years ago — I had just — this — I’ve had a number of State of the Unions already. Can you believe it? But this was three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. And we really did. We launched it with a vivor [sic] and with a — with a certain splash that nobody has seen in a long time. And what we’ve done in our country has really been incredible. Our country is so strong now. We’ve rebuilt our military. We’ve cut taxes. We’ve cut regulations. You know regulations. (Applause.)
You know the regulation business. I think you know the regulation business better than any group I can think of. (Laughter.) Now, sadly, about 5 percent of you are saying, “Oh, gee, I wish they wouldn’t have cut.” (Laughter.) But 95 percent of you are saying, “It was redundant and it was a problem.” And, you know, I talk about highways that would take years to get approved; it would take 18, 19, 20 years. I can give you many examples too. Not even big highways. Sometimes roadways.
But we’ve cut regulations at a level that nobody has ever thought possible. And we’ve done it with the extraordinary help of local officials, people like yourselves that worked with us and worked with the Department of Transportation and all of the other departments that we work with.
We’ve got it down where it would take sometimes 20, 21 years to get approvals for a highway. We think we have it down to two. I want to get it down to one, meaning — (applause) — meaning that it can get rejected. We have safety concerns that we have to look at. We have environmental concerns. Many concerns we have to look at.
But to go 20 years and then get a rejection, how about that? How many of those have — where you wait, let’s say, 10 years and then at the end of 10 years, they vote and they reject you? Okay? There’s been a couple. I guarantee there’s some people in the room.
I’ve been involved in a couple of that. (Laughter.) That’s not fun. You devote a big chunk of your life to something and then you lose three to two. (Laughter.) You go home: “How did you do, darling?” “Not good.” (Laughter.)
A lot of power in this room. You don’t know the power you have. Yes, you do.
But we’ve hosted nearly 50 White House events, welcoming over 3,000 county leaders from all 50 states to forge powerful new bonds of cooperation. (Applause.)
As we speak, my administration is working very closely with state and local leaders to confront the coronavirus. We’re really working hard on it. Vice President Mike Pence is leading the White House Coronavirus Task Force. He’s doing a really fantastic job too. (Applause.)
We have already met with state, county, and health officials in 30 states, and conducted regular briefings with governors to coordinate our response and contain the disease. And it just shows you what can happen. Six weeks ago, eight weeks ago, you never heard of this. All of a sudden, it’s got the world aflutter and — but it’ll work out.
But it’s — you know, just unseen. You have it all of the time — not to this extent; sometimes to a greater extent, relatively speaking. But things happen that you never would even think would happen, and then you have to confront it. You have to do a lot of good work. And you take care of the situation. You people do that better than anybody that I can think of.
America has the world’s most advanced public health system. We know that our county health officials play a frontline role in battling public health threats, and we are working with Congress very closely to pass supplemental legislation that ensures state and county health departments get everything they need.
I asked for $2.5 billion; it looks like they’re going to give us $8.5 billion. I don’t think that’s ever happened to me before. (Applause.) So I think I should say, “I’ll take it.” Right? Right? I asked for two and a half, they give me eight and a half — I say, “I’ll take it.” (Laughter.)
But, no, everyone is working together very well. To prevent the uncontrolled spread of the disease, I ordered sweeping travel restrictions and did them very early, as you probably have heard — earlier than people wanted me to do them. And it turned out to be a wise decision.
Increased — (applause) — we increased travel advisory levels, established screening measures, and imposed historic quarantines. We urge all of you to share information about basic health and safety practices with your communities back home. CDC has all of the information. It’s listed all over. And it’s a good thing to refer to. But that’s why, following my remarks today, you’ll hear from Dr. Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And they’re doing a fantastic job. They are working around the clock.
America has the world’s greatest professionals working, and they are working very, very hard. We’re moving aggressively to accelerate the process of developing a vaccine. I met, yesterday, with the biggest drug companies — Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson and many of the other great companies — and a lot of good things are happening, and they’re happening very fast. I said, “Do me a favor: Speed it up. Speed it up.” And they will. They’re working really hard and quick.
We’re moving at a maximum speed to develop the therapies, not only the vaccines, but the therapies. Therapies is sort of another word for cure, where you have it; it helps get the people better faster and take down the severity of the illness. And they’ve done so much — ff you look at what’s happened with AIDS and the tremendous job they’ve done there. We will be, as an example, AIDS free within nine years. Nobody would’ve thought that was possible. (Applause.) They are doing a fantastic job.
The revival of American strength over the last three years has put our country in the best possible position to deal with this challenge. Our economy is prospering like never before. We’ve relocated supply chains back to the United States. You know, a lot of the chains now are back in the United States.
And we’ve also — as you probably have noticed, for two years I’ve been complaining about the medicines are made outside of the United States. I want them to be back here. If there’s a reason why we can’t use a certain country for lots of reasons, I want it to be made here. And we’ve already started that process before this happened. (Applause.) But this sort of explains why we have to do it pretty well.
Jobs and growth have soared in the United States at a level that’s unprecedented — historic. And also, we’ve had historic new investment in our country.
No country on Earth has had greater power to overcome adversity. What we’ve done in so many different ways — we’ve rebuilt our military — $2.5 trillion. You know, it’s wonderful to have a good budget, but if we don’t have a strong military — (applause) — you never want to be in a position where you’re trying to explain people — to people that, “Well, at least we had a good budget,” as people are running up the front lawn of the White House. No, thank you. (Laughter.)
You look over and you say, “You know, we did a hell of a job on that budget. Should’ve spent a little more on the military, I guess.” Right? (Laughter.)
But when I took over, our military was totally depleted. It was an embarrassment. And we’ve totally rebuilt our military, most of the equipment. Much of it is already there –new planes, and new missiles, rockets. New everything. We make the greatest military equipment in the world, all made in the USA. (Applause.) All made in the USA. Yeah. All made in the USA. Every bit of it is made here. (Applause.)
Rebuilding our Navy. We’re rebuilding our Navy and we’re doing a job. And, frankly, $2.5 trillion is a lot, but it’s not a lot when you think of the importance of the military. You know, they say the most important thing that a President does is the court system, and in particular, Supreme Court judges. So I’ve named 218 new federal judges. Can you believe it? (Applause.) And that’s a record. That’s a record.
Only one person beat me percentagewise. You know who that is right? Does anybody know? Percentagewise, there’s only one. And when you look, 218 — because President Obama was very nice; he left 142 to start off with. Usually you’re left none; I had 142.
But you know who the one percentagewise was? George Washington. He had 100 percent. (Laughter and applause.) But it was like 12 people. (Laughter.) Twelve. At least I can say I named more than him. A lot more. It was a little smaller country at the time, but he had 100 percent.
In our great national renewal, my administration has made engagement with local leaders a top priority, because nobody understands the needs of local communities better than local officials — the people in this room. (Applause.) Nobody.
And with your help — and we keep in touch with you, as you know, all the time. We feel very strongly about that. Our economy is, right now, the envy of the world.
We have created — and, by the way, yesterday, did you notice? The market went up almost 1,300 points. (Applause.) That’s the highest, biggest — that’s the biggest one-day gain in points in the history of our country. Can you believe that one? That was a nice surprise. That was — that took about half of the hurt from the previous week out, caused by something, again, that we didn’t think would happen. So that was tremendous. And today it’s up.
And the Federal Reserve cut rates today, finally. Finally. Finally. (Applause.) Finally. Do it more. Do it a little bit more. You want to be competitive with these other countries. Other countries have lower rates because their Feds — their currencies are cut to a level and their rate is cut. They play with their currency, they play with the value of their currencies, and we don’t do that. We don’t do that. We have a different kind of a theory going, and it really puts us at — and I don’t say necessarily to do it, but we have to be competitive with other countries.
When we’re paying two points more than Germany, or we’re paying more than other countries, we should be paying less than everybody else. We have the dollar. We have the strength. We have the greatest country on Earth. We should be paying less.
So the Fed rate is too high. It’s very simple: It’s too high. It puts us at a competitive disadvantage, especially when it comes to exporting our product to other countries. The other countries love that; I don’t like it at all. (Applause.) So I’d like to see our Fed lead instead of being led.
We have created 7 million more jobs since the election. And if you would have said 7 million jobs, nobody would have believed that number. (Applause.) The optimistic projection by the previous administration was 2 million jobs — that it would be 2 million by this time — and it turned out to be now over 7 million jobs. So that’s something really incredible.
African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American unemployment have reached the lowest level in history. You know that. (Applause.)
Median household income has hit the highest level ever recorded. If you look back and you go to President Bush, it’s $450. If you go to President Obama — and that’s for eight years, remember. If you go to President Obama, for eight years, $975. And if you go to President Donald John Trump, over a period of three years, it’s almost $10,000. (Applause.) That’s a big difference.
So it’s much more over a much, much shorter period. And if you think about it — I mean, take a look at it and look at the result — our consumer is so powerful, so strong. It’s really what’s leading our country right now, the strength of our consumer. Nobody has a consumer like we have. So we’ve done a job.
For the first time in nearly three decades, every single metro area in the United States has seen their income rise. Every single area. The economy — (applause) — of rural America — I love rural America, all that red. (Applause.) Rural. I love rural America.
Look. (Applause.) Well, that’s nice. (Applause.) That’s great. You know, we have all those city slickers there in the back; they’re quiet. (Laughter.) They’re in the back. We put them in the back corners. That’s okay. (Laughter.) How are you doing back there? Well, they’re still waving. (Laughter.) Oh, I love those beautiful red areas, that middle of the map. There’s just a little blue here and a little blue. Everything else — everything else is bright red. (Applause.)
Well, what we did, you know, for your farmers or — you know, what — it’s been incredible. The USMCA — we got out of that horrible NAFTA deal, and now we have USMCA. It’s going to make a tremendous — like day and night. And then made the deal with China. Fifty billion dollars’ worth of purchases for the farmer. I don’t think the farmer is going to be able to produce it — $50 billion.
You know, the highest ever was $16 billion. The biggest purchase China ever made in a year was 16. So we made it 20 in the agreement, and then the day before the agreement was signed, I said, “How are we doing with the farmer?” You know, because they suffered. Of course, not too much because I gave them whatever they got taken — nobody else would do that — paid for by China out of the tariffs, right? And we had a lot left over. That wasn’t so bad. That’s why the other presidents never did it because they didn’t quite get it.
But I will say, the farmer — so they have $20 billion in the agreement. I said, “Do me a favor. Make it 50 — $50 billion.” They got 1.5 billion people, right? And they said, “No, no, no.” I said, “What does it matter to you? What does it matter? It doesn’t make any difference.” Anyway, they agreed to do it. So instead of $20 billion — highest ever was $16 billion in one year, two years ago. Instead of 20, they made it $50 billion.
And now my people look at me and say, “Sir, the American farmer will not be able to produce that much.” I said, “Trust me. They will produce that much.” (Applause.) Remember I said, “Tell them to go buy more land and get bigger tractors.” Right? (Applause.) We buy more land, assuming they get approval from your people. You got to approve them. (Laughter.)
But, no, the farmers — you know, they were so incredible, the farmer. Just — you know, the way when — when the CNNs of the world would go and interview them, looking for something to speak negatively, because when we’re negotiating — you know, China is very smart and they pulled back all their orders. They didn’t order almost anything. And they’d see the farmer and the farmers were hurt, I mean, until we started helping them out with money from China. But frankly — which was a tremendous thing, actually.
But the farmers never said anything bad. They said — you know, normally they say, “Oh, it’s terrible what he’s doing.” Well, you have to make the deal. You know, it’s — there’s suffering going on. It’s an operation. It’s like an operation.
And the farmer, the American farmer — I don’t know that I’ve seen almost anybody. And they tried to stick that micro- — “What do you think of the horrible thing where President Trump is in a trade war with China?” And they’d say, “Sir, it should’ve been done a long time ago. It’s painful, but this should’ve been done 15 and 20 years ago.” (Applause.)
And then CNN would pull that mic away — “I don’t like this guy. Let’s find somebody else” — and then put it in front of somebody else. And then they’d interview women in the rural communities. They’ll say, “Are you disappointed that you voted?” You know, like Democrats had voted for Trump, right? “Are you disappointed?” They had one about two weeks ago, right? You saw it. It was a classic. I think they convinced CNN that they were going to say bad things about me — ten just incredible women — and they convinced them. “And you are women that voted for President Trump last time. Who are you going to vote for this time?” Ten — all of them — they go, “Trump.” (Laughter and applause.)
What? What? What? That was incredible.
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. This is not supposed to be a political rally. (Laughter.) This is not a political rally. I don’t like talking politics. We’re talking about the economy, rural America. (Applause.) I don’t like talking about politics. This a pretty wild group you have here, I think. But it’s a great group of people. It’s a great — a great feeling. You can feel it. I mean, we have a great group of people, and I appreciate it.
The economy of rural America has grown 30 times faster under my administration than during the four years prior to my election. Think of that. (Applause.) Thirty. Thirty times. Even I — that sounds like an exaggeration. If it is, you’ll read about it tomorrow on the Wash- — (laughter). They’ll give me a Pinocchio. Well, that’s what they have. They had to get it somewhere. I know — one thing I know: It’s grown a hell of a lot faster. Thirty times sounds like a lot. But they are; they’re doing great.
Together, we’re building the most prosperous economy and the most inclusive society ever to exist in this country. Under our massive tax cuts, governors across the country have designated nearly 9,000 distressed community as Opportunity Zones, and neighborhoods are being revitalized every single day. You see that. (Applause.)
The Opportunity Zones — it’s Tim Scott. Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina has been so incredible. He came in with the idea of Opportunity Zones. And I don’t think there’s been anything like it. We have — all over the — thousands all over the country in areas that haven’t seen investment in 40 years. People are putting tremendous amounts of money. Investors. Sometimes you’d say rich people are putting money in. They’re creating jobs and they’re happy with it. I’ve — nobody has seen anything like it. It’s really prospering. Maybe because the economy is so good, but things like that help make the economy good.
So it’s been a very unusual — usually, that stuff — almost never does that stuff work. And then the government comes in with massive subsidies and loses their shirt. This is something where people are investing in areas that they would have never, ever in a million years invested in, and it’s become a tremendous success. The fake news doesn’t like talking about it, unfortunately, but one day they will. Because I think you can’t help it. It’s become one of the great successes.
We’re also promoting workforce development through our pledge to America’s workers. Four hundred and thirty companies have already committed to providing new jobs and training opportunities to over 15 million Americans. And I give my daughter, Ivanka, a lot of credit for that. She — she came in, she said, “Daddy…” (Applause.) It’s true. She had a great company in New York. She wanted to just come and just help people get jobs. I said, “Would you like to do this?” “No, I want to help people get jobs.”
So she started off with 500,000 jobs, and she just broke 15 million. She did the 500,000. If you know her, I’m not surprised. She did the 500,000 like the first week. But, you know, 500,000 jobs is a lot. So she’ll go to a Walmart and, you know, many of the great companies, and Johnson & Johnson, and they’ll hire large amounts. I think one of them did — I think it was Walmart — did a million people where they train them. And government is in no position to train them. You understand that. Government wouldn’t know where to begin. It’d just be another program that they have that would be a disaster. (Laughter.)
So she’d go to these — no, no, you can’t — you just can’t do that. The private companies — and then also, it’s very specific. They have very specific needs.
One of the problems we have is that we’re having tremendous amounts of companies moving back to the United States, moving into your communities. And the problem they have is — (applause) — in many cases, they can’t get help. And now what they’re doing is they’re taking people that didn’t have jobs, and they’re training them — specifically training them. And Ivanka has done that job, and it’s been incredible.
In the State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to support my plan to offer vocational and technical education in every high school. True. (Applause.) And I love the term “vocational schools,” because, to me, it says it. I mean, when I went to school, I had people. And one person in particular, he wasn’t very good as a student, but he could, after hours, take apart a motor or an engine of a car. And he could strip it blindfolded, put it back together in 15 minutes. It was the most incredible thing.
I said, “This is your real ability.” He just had an ability that was extraordinary. Not for sitting there, writing out tests, but for doing things like that, which are, frankly, just as important and high-paying jobs. They’re really high-paying jobs. (Applause.)
And I love the name “vocational school.” When I was growing up, we used to — Edison Vocational School, where they’ll train them for, you know, cars and for bricklaying and for plumbing and all the things that there’s tremendous talent involved. And it was incredible. You don’t see that. Now they call them “junior colleges.” And you don’t really — as junior colleges, you don’t really know what that means. What is a junior college? What does it mean?
So we’re getting back to the word “vocational.” I thought it was very important. And it’s something that they’re very proud of. And I would be very proud also. You know, people have that tremendous ability, and we don’t allow them to use it.
We want to help every American acquire cutting-edge skills that they need for the jobs today and for tomorrow. To put more money in American pockets, we’ve launched the groundbreaking regulatory reduction campaign by cutting regulations — (applause) — yeah. Yeah. By cutting regulations on one of the most exciting things that happened. If you look at the other side, they want to get rid of all energy. You know, “Let’s — let’s put up windmills all over your communities.” Right? “Let’s have windmills all over the place and solar.” I love solar, but it’s not powerful enough to power these massive factories and plants that we have being built all over.
But by cutting regulations on American energy — for example, we’re massively driving down energy prices — you see that happening — unless it’s an area or a community where they’re not allowing that to happen, in which case — New York as an example: We’re unable to build a pipeline through New York State, where they’d love the jobs of doing the pipeline. And because of that, New England has very, very high energy prices. We could cut the energy prices in New York and New England down by half — less than half, if they would allow. And we’re fighting them very hard, and I think we’ll be successful. But if they’d allow a pipeline to go through, we would cut the prices of energy down by half, and even more so than that. It’s a terrible thing. It’s a very unfair thing to the rest of the country.
The American energy revolution is now saving the typical family of four an average of $2,500 per year.
And I will say this: We are now energy independent. How nice is that? (Applause.) Energy independent. Energy independent.
That’s why you don’t see all those ships going out to the straits and coming back, and they keep looking for our ships. “What happened to the USA ships? I don’t see them too much anymore.” But we’re energy independent. And we’re the largest producer of energy, by far, in the world. It wasn’t that way not so long ago. So. (Applause.)
And we approved the Keystone XL Pipeline. You know that. (Applause.) And we approved — right? — the Dakota Access Pipeline. I came in — those two, I did them in my first week or less. And it was 48,000 jobs, but more importantly, it’s actually environmentally better. You’re taking it under the soil. Nobody even sees it. You’re under the soil as opposed to trains and the problems that can happen. So it’s been a tremendous thing.
But with us today is Rebecca Long, the commissioner of Lee County, New Mexico. (Applause.) Oh I love New — how am I doing in New Mexico? I hear we’re going to win New Mexico. (Applause.) We’re going to win New Mexico.
Rebecca, please come forward and say a little bit about what’s happening on the energy boom. And your state is right up at the forefront, and we’re very proud of New Mexico. Now, if I don’t win it, I won’t say that. I’ll take it. (Laughter.) I’ll come back and I’ll say next year, “I was only kidding about New Mexico.”
Please. Hi, how are you?
MS. LONG: It is such an honor to be here with you today.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s my honor. Thank you very much.
MS. LONG: And the remarks you were saying fit exactly in with what I’m going to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
MS. LONG: So thank you from Lee County, New Mexico, where your energy agenda is helping us with quicker right-of-way permits on BLM land and drilling permits. We’re getting those faster, so that’s heling America be energy independent.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s great. Thank you.
MS. LONG: So we appreciate that.
Let me give you a little bit of history. In December 2016, right before you came on, we had 17 active drilling rigs producing 7 million barrels of oil. In December of 2019, we had 53 active drilling rigs with 18.2 million barrels of oil. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Wow. That’s great.
MS. LONG: So right now, Lee County, New Mexico, is the second-largest oil and gas producer in the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Wow.
MS. LONG: And soon we will be first. And thank you so much for all you do for us.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s fantastic.
MS. LONG: Energy independence is so important, and we appreciate that you know where we are and who we are.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
MS. LONG: Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Wow. Good job. Now, again, we’re not getting political, because I refuse to be — do that, but — (laughter) — you know, Rebecca, that if Bernie or one of these characters get in, you can close up your energy. You do know.
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: They have little things like, “We don’t want petroleum products.” Well, that’s a lot of people. (Laughter.) That’s a lot.
We’re also building your wall right along the border to stop people from coming into our country illegally. Right? You know that. (Applause.) Say hello to the people of New Mexico. I’ll be there soon.
We’re reversing decades of calamitous trade policies that decimated so many of your communities. You know that. You know it probably better than anybody in the country, how bad it was. We have successfully renegotiated new trade deals with South Korea and Japan, who were really ripping us.
South Korea — remember, Hillary Clinton — the great Hillary Clinton — she said, “No, no we want this deal. It will produce 250,000 jobs.” And she was right, for South Korea. They produced — (laughter) — it’s true. It got South Korea 250. So you can’t say she was wrong. She wasn’t misleading us. She said, “250,000.” It was a horrible deal, and we’ve totally renegotiated that with South Korea. Now it’s a good deal for the United States and a fairer deal. You know, it’s — that was a ridiculous deal. (Applause.)
In January, we finally ended the NAFTA catastrophe, and I signed the brand-new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement into law, the USMCA. (Applause.)
And we also took the strongest-ever action to stand up to China’s trade abuses, which, frankly, for years — explain that one, what was happening with China. 500-billion-dollar-a-year deficits. Allowing us to reach a landmark agreement that will deliver vast benefits for our ranchers, growers, manufacturers, farmers.
Working closely with local officials, we’ve taken bold action to curb the opioid epidemic, which is such a problem no matter where you come from. (Applause.)
And for the first in 31 years, we actually went down a little bit. We went down. Some communities are down 17, 18, 19 percent. One is down 21 percent. But still, it is a massive, massive problem for our country. Drug overdose problems are just a terrible, terrible problem. And it’s a world problem too. It’s — no matter where you go, it’s — it’s pretty tough stuff.
And frankly, I should say, no matter where you go unless they have really, really strong measures against the dealers, in which case they have no problem. I wonder how that works. How does that work, Mary? When you go to a country where they have very, very stringent — unbelievably stringent, like probably we can’t do in our country — they have no drug problem.
You go into China, you say. “How’s your drug problem?” They don’t even know — President Xi doesn’t even know what you’re talking about. “We have no drug problem.” They have quick trials. Right? Quick trials. And I won’t even tell you what the punishment is, but let me just say it’s very swift. (Laughter.)
You go to Singapore — they don’t have a drug problem in Singapore. A lot of money, a lot of everything. Perfectly set up for a drug problem. Everything perfect. But they are very, very tough. And I just don’t know whether or not this country is ready for that, whether or not it can do it. But the only countries that don’t have a drug problem are countries where the retribution is unbelievably tough.
When we work together, we can dramatically improve public safety. (Applause.) It is especially vital that all state and local officials cooperate fully with all requests from our courageous ICE officers. I hope I don’t insult anybody, but the ICE officers are taking people out of your communities by the thousands, including MS-13 gang members.
If you didn’t have them — and your local enforcement doesn’t want to do that. And these are seriously tough, crazy people, in many cases, and we’re getting them the hell out of our country, and we’re bringing them back to where they came from. And we’re keeping them there and — Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador — so many of these countries.
And, you know, in the past administration, they couldn’t bring them back because they’d say, “No, no. You can’t bring them back. Get out. You can’t bring them back.” So they’d fly over; they wouldn’t let them land. They wouldn’t let buses go in with these people. We’d would have to bring them back.
They don’t do that with us. (Applause.) With us, they say, “Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you for bringing these wonderful citizens back.” MS-13 — you can have them. And now we bring them back and they take them immediately.
And we just have set records for coming through the border. We’re setting records now on not coming through the border. We built 128 miles of wall. We’ve already got 100, and we have some going up in New Mexico just now. But we have 128 miles.
And you think that was easy getting that thing for — I could do anything. I can rebuild the military for $2.5 trillion. But if you’re going to spend 10 cents on a wall, it was like you couldn’t do it. They would shut down the country. (Laughter.)
We actually did shut down the country for a little while, frankly, but we ended up getting the money, and the wall is under construction. We’re building a lot. We’re up to 128 miles, and we’ll have close to 500 miles sometime — pretty early next year. (Applause.)
And in the area where we have them, the walls — as you people know, because you’re also people of great common sense. You’re brilliant, but you have great common sense. That’s why you’re doing what you’re doing. At least the good ones do; the bad ones probably don’t, you know. There must be some bad ones in the room, right?
But it’s a matter of common — so much of life and so much of government is common sense. But where we have a wall, the numbers just went down to almost zero. Now they go around. That’s why the wall gets longer and longer. But the numbers have been incredible.
You know, the Democrats used to say, “We don’t want a wall. We’ll give you drones.” They wanted to give me drones. I said, “What good are drones? They’re going to be flying around in the air watching thousands of people cross the border. What good are drones?” (Laughter.) “No, no, we’ll give you technology.” They were saying, “Walls — walls are old-fashioned.”
Yeah, two things will never change: a wall and a wheel. Right? A wheel. (Applause.) Come back in 1,000 years; you’re going to have a wheel. Come back in 1,000 years; you’re going to have a wall. (Applause.) They’re probably the only two things that aren’t going to change in life. But it is true, when you think of it. (Laughter.)
So we have 128. We’re building it rapidly, and it’s exactly what Border Patrol wanted. They did tests on every form of wall you can have. And it’s an expensive wall in terms of — expensive — very expensive per square foot. But it’s the kind of wall we need. We might as well — if we’re going to do it, we might as well do it right.
They had a — (applause) — they had a big story, two weeks ago, that the wall fell down — my wall fell down. You know, I’m saying how strong it is. I always like to brag about it because it really is. It’s deep set into the ground, surrounded by heavy concrete and steel. It’s actually made of steel on the outside, concrete and rebar inside. You know, it’s got everything. Right?
And one of the big newscasters, they said, “The wall fell down.” I said, “Oh, this is bad. I’m building a wall and it falls down — that’s terrible.” So I go, “What the hell happened with the wall?” “Well, sir, they had a tremendous windstorm and we were just setting it in very wet concrete. The concrete had — and we were holding it up as much as we could until the concrete dried. And the wind came at 58 miles an hour, sir, and it blew the wall over. We put it back up, and we held it with cranes.”
I said, “You mean you were putting it up and the concrete was soaking wet?” “Yes, sir. We just put it in the concrete, and it fell down.” “Oh.” They didn’t say that. (Laughter.) They didn’t say that. They don’t say little things like that, do they? Oh, I don’t know how you put up with the fake news, you people. (Laughter and applause.)
Americans are safest when we support the heroes of federal, state, and local law enforcement. (Applause.) My administration — they’re incredible people. They do an incredible job. And I’ll tell you what: They’re very much appreciated in our country. You know, you read so many things, but they’re very much appreciated. And ICE has done an incredible job of getting very bad — some very bad people out of your communities.
My administration is also reshaping our nation’s approach to mental illness. My budget calls for almost $5 billion to improve access to inpatient mental healthcare through Medicaid. (Applause.)
And as you know, county jails were not meant to deal with the mental illness problem. (Applause.) They weren’t. They weren’t. Thank you. Thank you. I didn’t know that that was going to hit such a high note. Really. I mean, that’s incredible. I didn’t know that that was going to be appreciated the way it’s meant to be.
But you understand the situation. You understand — the people in this room understand all of the things we’re talking about, better than any people I can imagine, even people in Washington. They don’t — (applause) — you know, you’re on the ground. So when you make a statement like that, that’s very meaningful to me when you — when you give it that kind of a response. I wouldn’t have thought it would have had that response.
It’s also not compassionate to leave those with mental illness on the streets, and you see that. (Applause.) So we must get Americans the care that they need.
From day one, my administration has worked closely with you to overcome natural disasters such as the tornado in Tennessee.
Since I took office, 62 percent of counties have received major emergency or disaster declarations, with the federal government committing over $124 billion to support your citizens in very trying times. And we get you the money quickly. We check it. We do what we have to do. But I think everybody in this room would say that you get the money much quicker under our administration than in the past. (Applause.) It used to be unfair. It used to be very unfair, to a point where you really couldn’t even properly do the work. It would take you so long to get the money, you’re afraid to do the work. We get it to you quickly.
We’re joined today by Kathryn Starkey of Pasco County Florida. A good place. Kathryn, please come up and share your story about your community and recovering from a very big disaster that I know very well. Thank you. (Applause.) Hi, Kathryn.
MS. STARKEY: Thank you for the opportunity. In 2017, President Trump’s Office of Inter Government- — Intergovernmental Affairs started an innovative outreach program, inviting to D.C. commissioners from each state, regardless of party affiliation.
This opened a bridge for communication with federal agencies. And then hurricane Irma hit my state later that year, and soon we had an issue I needed to bring to the attention of your administration, sir.
Counties were getting into bidding wars over debris removal contracts, and they were creating unaffordable prices for other municipalities. Fortunately, I was able to call the IGA office, and they immediately set up a conference with the FEMA officials.
They quickly resolved the issue through an emergency rule change. And this would not have happened without the incredible outreach from the White House early on.
I’d like to thank you, sir, President Trump, the IGA office, and the federal agencies, who are being such incredible partners to local government. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
MS. STARKEY: Thank you for making America great again. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Wow, thank you, Kathryn. Thank you very much. Beautiful. And I have to say, Kathryn, that you had two governors — you had Rick Scott, previously, right? And he did a fantastic job. Now your Senator and your current governor, Ron DeSantis. And they would come to my office, say, “President, can we see you just for a minute? Oh, good.” Separately, but very similar, they wanted money. I said, “Well, what do you want?” “We don’t need much. We need a little bit more for the Panhandle,” as an example. And I said, “Oh, good. I love the Panhandle.” They got everything they needed, that I can tell you. But they’d say, “We need another little bit of money.” “How much do you need?” “$500 million more.” “$500 million? That’s a lot. You’ve got it.” (Laughter.)
But they’d come up — you know, it goes to the Panhandle. It goes to — look, these people — having the right governor in a state is so important. The good ones, they bug me, bug me, bug me. (Applause.) And you have great ones in this country. You have so many great ones. And Governor Lee is a great one, in Tennessee. You have so many — Texas, Greg Abbott. But Ron DeSantis, the job he’s doing, the job that Rick did as governor, Rick Scott, it’s — it’s so important. If you have the wrong governor, it’s not helpful.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Absolutely. But if you have the wrong governor, you know understand that better than anybody: If you have the wrong governor, it doesn’t work. But they would come up and they’d want to get everything set and done. And they need it fast because you have to rebuild your community. And debris was the biggest thing, Kathryn, right? Debris. Debris was the biggest thing.
They’d bid it out, and they’d have bids that were so crazy. One would be very low and the others would be very high, and they weren’t allowed, through red tape, to use the low one. And I worked it so that they could use the low one. And, you know, we did a lot of great things. But Florida really has done — they have done a fantastic job.
Thank you very much. That was beautiful.
Everyone here is devoted — and, really, a devoted public servant. You love your neighbors, you love your country, you love this nation like nobody else.
Every day, we’re working with you to build a country where every town is booming, every community is prospering, and every child has the chance to reach the American Dream.
As long as I am President, the federal government is on your side 100 percent. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
You will always have a very important seat at the table, and you will always find an open door at the White House. Many of you have come to the White House, and we’ve had a lot of good discussions.
No matter what community you represent, we’re all united by our loyalty to the citizens we serve and the knowledge that America is the most exceptional nation anywhere in the history of the world.
To every county leader — and it’s so brilliant to have you here because you really are the people that know it the best. And I really know that much more from my previous life. This life is different, to put it mildly. (Laughter.) I thought it would be easier; it’s actually much tougher. But I know it from my previous life. I know the talent that you have, the insight that you have. It’s really incredible, and I want to thank you for your unbelievable service.
Thank you for your selfless devotion, and thank you for fighting for a glorious future of American greatness.
God bless you all. God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
As part of the overall administration effort to contain and respond to the Coronavirus issue President Trump is traveling to Maryland today to participate in a roundtable and tour of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Anticipated start time 2:30pm ET.
UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added
.
[Transcript] – DR. FAUCI: Mr. President, thank you very much for coming to the NIH today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. FAUCI: We really are very pleased —
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Tony.
DR. FAUCI: — with your visit. And I want just, again, thank you for your support of everything that we’ve been doing in this obviously very important problem.
What I’ve asked is just first to have Francis Collins —
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. FAUCI: — our director, just make a couple of comments about the NIH in general. And then I’ll talk to you about some of the things that you and I have been talking about for the past few weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Thank you.
DR. COLLINS: Well, Mr. President, welcome to NIH. It’s wonderful to have you here —
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Francis.
DR. COLLINS: — even though we are, in fact, faced with a very serious public health situation. We have a lot of people here that are working hard on it and are honored by your presence, and honored also by the presence of the Secretary, my boss, and a wonderful boss he is indeed.
Maybe I just quickly say who else is at the table so you understand who we’re with here. Starting over here, Dr. Barney Graham; he’s the Deputy Director of the Vaccine Research Center, and that’s where we are right now.
Next to him is Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is the front line on the bench, making this coronavirus vaccine happen.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. COLLINS: So a wonderfully talented young scientist in our midst.
You know Dr. Fauci, of course. Next to him, Dr. John Mascola, who’s the Director of the Vaccine Research Center. And next to him, Dr. Larry Tabek, who’s the Principal Deputy Director of NIH.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. COLLINS: And we are all thrilled to have you here.
I just wanted to say a word about NIH because we haven’t had the privilege of having you with us before, and just to sort of set the context for this remarkable institution — supported by your administration — the largest supporter of biomedical research in the world, the National Institutes of Health.
We distribute most of our funds — more than 80 percent — to institutions all over the country. So when you hear about a breakthrough in medical research that happened at the University of Illinois or Florida, it was probably supported by NIH. And we use the most rigorous peer review system in the world to decide what we’re going to fund.
And we do everything from fundamental discovery to clinical trials and everything in between. You could say we do Alzheimer’s to Zika, or A to Z, or some version of that.
And we also support infrastructure that makes it possible at a time like this to be able to move rapidly in terms of developing a vaccine. And you’ll hear more about that from Dr. Fauci.
The consequences of NIH research you could measure in various ways: extension and longevity. Reduction in deaths from heart attack down to 70 percent from what they used to be; strokes likewise. Cancer rates of death dropping about 1 or 2 percent a year. HIV, which used to be a death sentence, now compatible with long survival. Cystic fibrosis disease used to be maybe able to get kids to live for 8 or 10 years; now, just in the last few months, announcement of a drug therapy. That means a lot of those individuals are planning for retirement.
THE PRESIDENT: Wow. That’s great.
DR. COLLINS: What a big change that has been.
Economics: I think we could also say this is one of the government’s best investments, because the return on investment — every dollar that NIH spends is about 8 dollars and 38 cents, because of all of the other economic activity that that inspires.
But a major component of NIH — though it’s only about 11 percent of the budget — is the intramural program, and that’s where you are now on this campus. More than 5,000 MDs, PhDs, and MD-PhDs work here on a wide variety of things. A few hundred yards from here, the largest research hospital in the world, the NIH Clinical Center.
Among our achievements: the first chemotherapy for leukemia; the development of AZT for HIV; cancer immunotherapy now saving lives, including people who thought that there was no hope for them and are now being not just helped but cured; dramatic advances in treating depression. Lithium was invented here. Ketamine now turning to be a really exciting development for people with resistant depression.
The first gene therapy for humans done here at NIH and now evolving to a point where we are curing, on this campus, people with sickle cell disease with gene therapy.
And, of course, vaccines — vaccines — developed here for childhood meningitis, for HPV, for Ebola. And now we’re going to talk about coronavirus.
So for all these reasons, people call us the “National Institutes of Hope,” and we’re happy to embrace that particular description.
And you have next to you the — probably most highly regarded infectious disease expert in the country — I might even say in the world —
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
DR. COLLINS: — Dr. Tony Fauci. And we have been graced by his presence for many decades, and he is exactly the right person to tell you what we’re doing right now about coronavirus and how we’re going to address the need for a vaccine, in order to tackle this really difficult problem.
So thank you for being here. I hope that’s helpful.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you, Francis. Thank you very much.
DR. FAUCI: Okay. Again, thanks again. I just want to connect what we’ve been talking about over the past few weeks. So if I could just get the — see, this slide here, remember when I mentioned that the fastest from the time that you get a pathogen — you know what it is — to the time you do a phase one trial for safety?
So look at what’s happened. When SARS was in 2003, from the time we got the virus to the time we did the first phase one trial — remember, that doesn’t mean you have a vaccine; it means for safety — it was 20 months. Then, H5N1 influenza, we got it down to 11. H1N1 influenza, 4. Zika, 3.25. And now, we believe, as I’ve told you several times, it’s two to three months. I think it’s going to be two.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s fantastic. That’s great.
DR. FAUCI: So that kind of thing is what this place is all about. It’s kind of like the SWAT team of going out and responding to emerging microbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
DR. FAUCI: So, you know, this building, this entire center, was first started in response to making a vaccine for HIV. But the crew that we brought together — and we brought the best of the best from all over the country — Dr. John Mascola, who’s the director of this place — we do everything, from fundamental basic science to the clinical trials.
We would — I mean, and I say this with some pride but also with some modesty, is that there’s a lot questions and things that we need to do, but this group is so good at what they do that every time we have a challenge — and that challenge could be flu, that challenge could be Ebola, that challenge could be anything — we always turn to this team to do that. And it’s really something that we feel that is — we’re proud of, but I think the nation should know that these are the kind of things we have available for them.
John, do you want to —
DR. MASCOLA: I would just like to also welcome you, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary —
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, John.
DR. MASCOLA: — to our vaccine research center. We look
forward to a brief tour for you upstairs, where you can have Dr. Corbett and Dr. Graham tell you about how we’re working on the coronavirus vaccine.
DR. FAUCI: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
DR. FAUCI: Just to give you a comparison, because we always talk about SARS and we always talk about MERS and things like that — if we could have — just go through the slide. I just want to — go to the next slide.
(A presentation slide is displayed.)
Just — this is an article that I wrote a little while ago and I called it “Coronavirus Infections—More Than Just the Common Cold.” The reason is, up until recently, coronaviruses were like mild things. They were just common cold and they just — next slide.
In fact, those are all different kinds of viruses. The ones with the red circle around them are the four viruses that cause the common cold. That was until 2002. Then we got a big surprise. And the surprise was — next — is that we had the severe acute respiratory syndrome, and that was SARS.
Multiple years later, we got the Middle East respiratory syndrome. But a story that you may remember, if you — next slide. In China, in the Guangdong province — this sort of history repeats itself, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Right.
DR. FAUCI: In China, in the Guangdong province, there was this strange disease that came up that nobody knew what it was. The Chinese didn’t really tell anybody about it for a few months, November, until it got to Hong Kong. When it got to Hong Kong — next slide — in a hotel in Hong Kong — and this was way back in 2003 — someone from China went to the hotel, infected a bunch of people — next slide — and this is what you had: You had flights going — at the time, we didn’t make any restrictions the way you did, which I think saved us, really, a lot of — a lot of hurt. Next slide.
And then this is what happened: There were 8,000 cases, 774 deaths. And that’s how I get the number that I’ve been telling you that the mortality of SARS was about 9 or 10 percent. If you do that math, that’s what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Wow.
DR. FAUCI: Next slide. The other one is the MERS coronavirus, which was the one that was in Saudi Arabia. That was also from an animal reservoir. Next. In fact, it was from a bat. Next. From a bat to camel. And then for the people in the Middle East who got it, that was the infection there.
So these are the kind of things that go from an animal reservoir to a human. Sometimes it doesn’t go anywhere; it just goes one to two people. But sometimes it adapts itself to function very, very, very efficiently.
Next. And that’s what happened. We had MERS coronavirus in Saudi Arabia, we had a few cases in the United States, but not many.
And finally — next — this is where we are right now, with the coronavirus. And then, just getting back to the last — we got this sequence about a week after the Chinese were able to put it up on the board and — next — and then these are the things that we do: Therapeutics, vaccines.
So we’ll stop there, but we’d really like to hear some comments from you, Mr. President, if you want to —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to thank you all. This is incredible. And I’ve heard about you, and I know all of you by name, and now I get to meet you. unfortunately, I get to meet you, because we’re talking about this.
But we’ve made tremendous progress. I know you’re dealing with other nations to help them out because they really — they got hit, some of them very badly. And we’re talking to them also. And we’re making decisions as to whether or not we’re allowed to travel — they’re allowed to travel. They’ve been — we’ve been pretty severe on those restrictions, but I guess we did the right thing by being severe.
NIH is the home of — I mean, I see so many different factors, and it’s true — the greatest doctors. I’ve heard that for so long. I heard that from my uncle, Dr. John Trump. He — big fan of what you’ve done and how it started. And it’s really been an incredible situation.
But the scientists and researchers all over the world, they say this is the best there is. And I think the world is extremely happy that you’re involved.
And, Tony, your reputation is second to none. I think we all agree with that. You have to agree with that, John, right? I mean, you have no choice.
DR. MASCOLA: Indeed, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But the fact is, it is — in this case, it’s true. And we’re very lucky to have you.
I will say that the Vice President is over on the Hill. He’s just leaving now, and I told him to stay there and finish it up.
But we’re doing very well in terms of getting the funding we need, the necessary funding. And I asked for X, and they want to give us more than X. And that’s okay, as far as I’m concerned. In this case, Francis, that’s unusual, but that’s okay.
But I just want to thank everybody at NIH and all of the great scientists and doctors and everything. I know you’re working around the clock. I know you’ve made some great finds already, and that’s — really, it makes us feel very good.
We had some good meetings yesterday with the companies that — I guess you ultimately would go to the companies? You’d have to go to the companies. So we had Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson and some of the other great companies, and they were very positive as what — as to the outcome.
And therapeutics were a very big thing, because I guess therapeutics can happen faster than the actual vaccine. And certainly the result can happen a lot faster. So we’re looking for some good answers.
But I just want to thank you very much, Tony. And we really appreciate it. And, John, thank you. Thank you very much. Fantastic job. Thank you very much.
DR. COLLINS: Great to have you here.
THE PRESIDENT: And, you, I don’t have to shake hands with. (Laughter.) I see him every — I see him every day, so I don’t have to bother.
So thank you all very much. Great job. Appreciate it.
Q Mr. President, would you travel to Japan or Italy right now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t been asked to. But I think we’re making decisions on certain parts of those countries, as you know. We’ve already made a decision on parts of Italy.
And Japan — it’s very unfortunate because I’ve seen the incredible job they did on the Olympics. As you know, they’re building a facility; it’s really finished. It’s beautiful. It’s finished right on time — as usual, with the Japanese. The Prime Minister, a very good friend of mine. And — Prime Minister Abe. And so I don’t know what they’re going to do. They have this magnificent facility, and I don’t know what they’re going to do, but they’ll make the right decision, I know that.
But, yes, if it was necessary, I would do it. Yes.
Q What’s your timeline on further travel restrictions, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at different areas, and we’ll make that decision with these professionals. We made an early decision based on a little bit of luck, I suspect, but that was the original decision on China itself. And China, in all fairness to them, they never blamed us. It was, you know, a tough decision for them, but they fully understood. They were very reasonable about it. But that was a hard decision to make. But I guess we would have had a lot more people with difficulty if we didn’t make that decision very early on.
But we’ll be making additional decisions as they arise, I guess, Tony.
Q What about closing the southern border? Is that still on the table?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re not looking at it very strongly. We’re not seeing a lot of evidence in that area. We’re closing it, I guess, automatically because we have a very strong border there now. We didn’t have a strong border at all. We’ve built 129 miles of wall, and the wall area is 100 percent secure.
But we haven’t seen any great — I don’t think we’ve seen any great evidence of that area as a problem at this moment. So we won’t have to bother with that at this moment.
Anybody? You’re so nice today. I can’t believe it. (Laughter.)
DR. FAUCI: This is the NIH. That’s it.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s the NIH. It rubbed off.
Q What about Super Tuesday?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Tell us about Super Tuesday, how you’re watching the primaries that are taking place.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s going to be a very interesting evening of television. I think it’s really going to be something. It’s — they’ve got some races going on that didn’t seem to exist a few days ago. And now Biden has come up a little bit. And I don’t know what’s happened with Bernie. I think they’re trying to take it away from him. I don’t know if that’s fair, but I guess it’s politics when you get right down to it and what’s fair.
But I think it’s going to be a very interesting evening of television. And because of the time difference — California time difference — it’s going to go a little bit later than we’re accustomed to, right?
Q And who would you like to most —
THE PRESIDENT: And I will be watching — who would I like to win? Anybody. I’ll take anybody I have to. That’s the way it’s going to work. Doesn’t matter.
Q You have a favorite opponent?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have — I really just — you know, we’ve done a great job. We have the strongest economy on Earth. We — we’ve gone up and, you know — as you know, China’s economy has been hurt very badly, long before this. We’ve done a really good job, and I think people understand that. And I’m looking at polls that are very good.
But, you know, whoever it is, it is. We’ll take them on. We have no choice, right?
Anything else? Steve?
Q Do you have a reaction to the North Korean launch of those missiles yesterday?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have no reaction. Short-term missiles? No. No. None.
Q And on the Afghanistan — was that your first conversation with the leader of the Taliban?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to say that. But we had a very good conversation with the leader of the Taliban today, and they’re looking to get this ended, and we’re looking to get it ended. I think we all have a very common interest. We’ll find out about the country itself. But the country really has to get it ended. We’ve been there for 20 years. Other presidents have tried and they have been unable to get any kind of an agreement.
The relationship is very good that I have with the mullah. And we had a good, long conversation today. And, you know, they want to cease the violence. They’d like to cease violence also.
Q And the Afghan government seems reluctant to turn over those 5,000 prisoners.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they may be reluctant. You know, they’ve been — they’ve done very well with the United States for many years, far beyond military, if you look at all the money that we’ve spent in Afghanistan. We’ve spent trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars.
And we’re really a police force. We’re really not fighting, per se. It’s a fight that, if we had to, we’d win. But I don’t want to kill millions of people. We would win it fairly quickly, but I don’t want to kill millions of people. I think it’s crazy. And so we’ve been there — we’ll be very — very soon, it’ll be 20 years.
And I said, right from the beginning, not easy to get out of these conflicts. Very complex in terms of all of the people you have to deal with, including, frankly, people in the Senate, people in the House. And a lot of people feel differently about things. But I’ve been amazed at how positive the response is to getting out of Afghanistan and to moving on. And I really had a great conversation with him today.
Yes?
Q Back to coronavirus. Are you considering new guidelines for nursing homes, given the cluster in Washington State?
THE PRESIDENT: I could ask you to answer that question.
SECRETARY AZAR: So I —
DR. FAUCI: Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY AZAR: So, actually, we have been educating healthcare providers, really, from day one, back in January, about the need to be on guard against respiratory syndrome. And then, when we had this case of the long-term care facility in Washington, we sent out special alerts to long-term care facilities to be very mindful about infection control, isolation, with these most vulnerable of our seniors and other individuals who have comorbid conditions.
And that’s really — what we’ve been seeing around the world is the prevalence of fatalities have been in the elderly and those who have other forms of medical fragility, comorbid conditions. And so really being on very high alert in our nursing home community is called for.
Q Mr. Secretary, can you talk about your meeting with lawmakers today and what specifically they’re asking the federal government? What’s their biggest concern?
SECRETARY AZAR: Well, I think it’s the same concern that we’ve all had, which is getting testing out there rapidly into the community so that we can be testing as many people as possible.
As you know, our excellent teams down at the CDC developed the test really in record time, within weeks of getting the genetic sequence back in January. And we approved the diagnostic at CD- — at the FDA, under an emergency use authorization in record time.
We’ve been able to be testing at CDC throughout, without any backlog in testing. Our throughput has been great there. We’ve had 12 labs qualify to be able to do the testing. We did suffer a manufacturing issue on that test as it went out to the rest of the public health labs.
We’ve gotten that issue solved in the last week, so that’s up and running in the public health labs. We also have gotten this test produced by this contractor to get it out. So we will, this week, have up to 75,000 tests shipping out there to public health labs, as well as available to hospitals who order it.
And then something really important happened on Saturday morning. So one of the biggest issues around testing that people don’t understand is, during the Obama administration, the FDA, for the first time, asserted control and regulatory jurisdiction over what are called “lab developed tests.” Before that, if a hospital or a lab, like a Quest Diagnostics, a Lab Corps, or an academic medical center would develop a test on their own with reagents and tests, they could just do that if they were a certified clinical lab, called a CLIA lab.
But under the Obama administration, the FDA asserted jurisdiction and said, “You have to come to us first and get approval of that test before you can do it.” On Saturday morning, Commissioner Hahn issued guidance saying, under an emergency use authorization, we are permitting these labs — these public health labs, these hospital labs, commercial labs — to go ahead, get the test going, do your own test, make it available, and come to us for approval after the fact under emergency use authorization.
That will make, as Commissioner Hahn has said, millions of tests per week available quite rapidly.
Q Mr. Secretary, can I ask you about the study from the CDC today that showed the Americans most at risk of contracting coronavirus are the ones with people living with patients? So should Americans be less worried about catching the virus from, say, people on the street or people at an airport?
SECRETARY AZAR: So what we said at the press conference just yesterday is very consistent with that, which is: For the average American, in your daily life, the risk of getting coronavirus — the novel coronavirus — is very low. But if you are around individuals who have the novel coronavirus, the risk obviously is higher.
And that’s why the efforts we’re taking with the state of Washington and with Santa Clara County, and elsewhere in the country, are around what’s called “community mitigation,” which is to isolate individuals who have the disease, as well as to reduce social contact to bring the level of disease spreading down.
Q And, Mr. President, I don’t know if you had seen reports about the Vice President having shaken hands with students from a Florida school, one of whom have been placed in a voluntary self-quarantine. Does that concern you at all? What did you think about that?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t seen that report. No.
SECRETARY AZAR: I haven’t seen it either.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t seen it.
Q Mr. President, how much money should go to hospitals for the uninsured?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to look at the uninsured because they have a big problem. And we’re going to look at the uninsured people that — you know, this came — it was a surprise to all of us. It just happened. It shows what can happen in life. But we’re going to be looking at the uninsured and see if we can help them out.
SECRETARY AZAR: We’re working — as part of the emergency supplemental, we’ll work with Congress on programs to help hospitals as they care for the uninsured with novel coronavirus.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you.
The Intelligence Community’s lack of intelligence regarding the Middle East
Written and posted originally by Christopher Roach onMARCH 01, 2020 on the chronicles magazine
A pair of recent news items unintentionally demonstrated the ways the Intelligence Community is a primary source of our confused foreign policy in the Middle East, while also undermining President Trump here at home.
First, substantial doubts have arisen regarding the source and even the actuality of the 2018 gas attacks in Syria. These attacks allegedly took place in the Damascus suburb of Douma and were first publicized by the Soros-funded White Helmets. Later, the American Intelligence Community pinned the blame on Assad and the Syrian government. Rather swiftly, President Trump issued grave warnings about future attacks and our armed forces commenced modest, retaliatory bombing raids. Trump had directed a similar air strike after Syrian gas attacks were reported in 2017. In both cases, Trump’s commitment to reducing American engagement in the Middle East appeared to be in jeopardy. While his ideological fellow travelers, including Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter, were very critical, these bombing attacks garnered praise from interventionists like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Kristol.
Like Russian interference and other tall tales from overseas intelligence agencies, it turns out the United States may have been had. According to leaked internal discussions that became public in November 2019, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) downplayed dissenting views in its initial report regarding the 2018 gas attacks. In the words of one of the investigators, the report “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground.” Notably, the original OPCW report never conclusively blamed the attack on the Syrian regime. It now appears in doubt whether chemical weapons were used at all.
Second, CNN recently aired a report involving Susan Gordan, who resigned from her position as Deputy Director of National Intelligence over the summer after being passed over for promotion. According to CNN:
One of President Donald Trump’s most common responses to intelligence briefings is to doubt what he’s being told, former Deputy Director of Intelligence Susan Gordon said Tuesday.…Trump had two typical responses to briefings. ‘One, “I don’t think that’s true,”’ Gordon told the Women’s Foreign Policy Group.… ‘and the other is the second order and third order effects. “Why is that true? Why are we there? Why is this what you believe? Why do we do that?” Those sorts of things.’
The CNN report and Gordon’s implicit criticism of Trump is rather telling. The ruling class sounds exasperated that the president would not simply go along with the Intelligence Community’s conclusions about the facts, nor follow their recommendations. With Syria in particular, it turns out Trump’s more general skepticism was well warranted.
The idea that the Syrian regime would court disaster and guarantee Western involvement by using chemical weapons in 2018, just as the remnants of the ISIS caliphate were being defeated, never made logical sense. That the Intelligence Community never apparently took seriously the possibility that the gas attacks were a false flag used by rebels (or some other interested party) to direct American forces against the Syrian regime shows remarkable credulity—or cynicism—among those whose job is to provide useful information to the president.
Bad intelligence has been the source of America’s follies in the Middle East stretching back to the 2003 Iraq invasion and earlier. It has confused America about its friends and enemies, has ignited some conflicts while prolonging others, and, in nearly every case, has failed to support a sound and sustainable foreign policy. Bad intelligence tends to agitate and redirect the focus of America’s leadership according to the policy goals of the Intelligence Community. Every American politician is sensitive to the risks elucidated by the intelligence agencies, regardless of their political views; no politician wants a failure like 9/11 on his watch.
Even America First nationalists realize the need to confront certain threats before they materialize or become unmanageable. American civilian leadership is very deferential to and dependent on the military and the Intelligence Community because of their access to information, technical expertise, and patriotic bona fides. The Intelligence Community—including foreign intelligence sources like Israel and Saudi Arabia—have exploited American power using these predictable dynamics.
Most dramatically, George W. Bush went to war in Iraq after his advisors lined up against Iraq and pointed to its continued and dangerous possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). The evidence was a “slam dunk,” in the words of then-CIA director George Tenet. More recently, in its efforts to encourage American military strikes, Israel nearly every year for the last decade said Iran is “six months away” from a nuclear weapon. Heightened tension with Iran nearly led to a war over a downed drone in early 2019. Moreover, predictions of geopolitical disaster and genocide have been used to pressure Trump into keeping American troops in Syria indefinitely, in spite of his repeatedly expressed desire to withdraw.
While it claims to be evidence-based and cautious, the Intelligence Community’s reliability and results are mediocre. In some cases, it gets things entirely wrong, as with Iraq’s WMDs. In others, it’s simply in the dark, as it was with the rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 or the fall of Iran’s shah in 1979, which somehow escaped the attention of our intelligence analysts until the events were front-page news. No doubt, this is partly a function of intelligence work being inherently difficult, as it involves predictions about the future in countries where we have limited understanding. But the predominant problems, especially in recent years, have arisen from ideological and institutional biases.
The Intelligence Community has policy preferences, and its intelligence reporting often is fashioned to support those preferences. After all, the Intelligence Community is just part of a larger foreign policy conglomerate. Career foreign policy advisors, professors, spies, and think tankers tend to profess a common worldview, and describing them as a “community” is accurate. The term sounds less threatening than “spy agencies,” and much of government truly functions as a type of community. The anonymously written Z Blog observed:
Washington is the natural evolution of the managerial class that evolved in the 20th century. People move to the area through one of the many on-ramps of the managerial state. Over time, they slowly become part of the ruling community that controls the imperial government.
Part of that community’s worldview is external. Following the Cold War, with little debate, a consensus emerged among both the left and neoconservative right that the U.S. should work to ensure its status as the “sole superpower” and that this power should be used in the service of “liberal hegemony.” In other words, the Deep State has worked to maintain the U.S. as the world’s most powerful country, has actively prevented the rise of competing powers, and has used its power to mold other countries’ internal affairs to resemble the culture and institutions of the U.S. This governing philosophy is sometimes called the New World Order, the rules-based international order, the post-war system, or some other euphemism—but it really means American dominance. For obvious reasons, this approach is very expensive, leads to a lot of conflict, does little to distinguish core from ancillary interests, and is not looked at very kindly by other nations, who have an understandably jealous regard for their own sovereignty.
What this means in practice can be seen in the Intelligence Community’s behavior when it thinks no one is looking. Having conducted spying operations on our allies and fomented color revolutions abroad, its sense of the sacredness of elections, even at home, is rather limited. In 2014, the CIA admitted that it illegally spied on U.S. Senate staff when the CIA’s torture activities were under congressional investigation. More recently, the CIA participated in an entrapment operation directed at minor figures in the Trump campaign for the purpose of enabling FBI wiretaps of the president and his inner circle.
The Intelligence Community’s interference with and manipulation of elected leaders domestically is not limited to heavy-handed interference with the Trump campaign. It preceded Trump and has been evident in various information operations against presidents already in office. Elected leaders depend on intelligence reports to make decisions, whether from the military, the FBI, or the CIA. If they defy the intelligence services, then a narrative of a president dangerously ignoring his top advisors frequently emerges, with outlets like CNN and The Washington Post dutifully passing on these propaganda leaks as news.
George W. Bush faced a maelstrom over the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee—the sacredness of CIA agents’ secret identities being a core value in the Imperial City. Obama also received criticism and leaks from the Pentagon when he was reluctant to expand forces in Afghanistan in 2009. Of course, leaks and direct defiance by the Intelligence Community have been the foundation of many of the attacks on President Trump, including those by fanatical former CIA Director John Brennan.
For the foreign policy mob, democracy is not a process of majority rule, but a smokescreen for pursuing a series of substantive ends: free trade, open borders, globalism, gay rights, and other objectives of the global ruling class. Thus, for them, the democratically elected president’s mandate is not to pursue popular policies like avoiding Mideast wars or putting up tariffs against China, but rather to support the policies that distinguish the ruling class from the rubes in Peoria.
The Intelligence Community also demands, and usually receives, acquiescence toward its more whimsical impulses: supporting Muslims in Serbia, while attacking Muslims in Yemen; or secreting crocodile tears for Ukraine’s anti-Russian coup, while ignoring atrocities by our allies in Yemen and Ossetia. Objectives that are popular and democratic, but not in tune with the preferences of liberal elites—Brexit in the UK, for example, or a border wall here at home—are simply labeled a “threat to democracy” in Orwellian fashion. Such things cannot be permitted, at home or abroad.
With so much off the table, our elected leaders become virtual figureheads, barely in charge of the government’s unelected bureaucracy, which is theoretically supposed to be an instrument that they control. President Obama was very popular with the managerial class, including the Intelligence Community, because he did not have the energy or inclination to upset the status quo. His transformation of government simply made it bigger, more prestigious, and better paid, all at a time when the rest of the country was limping through an economic crisis. Consider the fawning profile of President Obama from The New Yorker in 2012:
Each night, an Obama aide hands the President a binder of documents to review. After his wife goes to bed, at around ten, Obama works in his study, the Treaty Room, on the second floor of the White House residence. President Bush preferred oral briefings; Obama likes his advice in writing. He marks up the decision memos and briefing materials with notes and questions in his neat cursive handwriting.…A single Presidential comment might change a legislative strategy, kill the proposal of a well-meaning adviser, or initiate a bureaucratic process to answer a Presidential question.
If the document is a decision memo, its author usually includes options for Obama to check at the end.
The last sentence is revealing. Obama was the perfectly compliant figurehead, neatly accepting the limited options presented to him and marking off boxes without Trump’s insouciant skepticism. His suave, superficially intellectual style was the perfect camouflage for the Deep State and its prerogatives.
The Intelligence Community’s own ideology was apparent in their support for the Arab Spring. While the old-line WASP figures from the first generation of CIA leadership had concluded that secular dictators and kings were the best governments Americans could hope for in the Middle East, the new guard—more feminine, diverse, and Jewish, just like the Ivy League schools from which it was recruited—was full of optimism about the social revolution in the Arab world. Samantha Power announced a doctrine of “humanitarian war,” and Hillary Clinton reported her desire to be “caught trying.”
Humility and restraint were in short supply among the smart set. While Obama had expressed an encouraging skepticism of U.S. interventionism in his electoral campaign, here the Wilsonian impulse triumphed. He wanted to be on the “right side of history.” In short order, the wisdom of the old guard became apparent. Egypt elected an Islamist, Libya devolved into chaos where jihadists murdered an American ambassador, and a crisis in Syria showed that the Intelligence Community was incapable of learning from very recent history.
Even after the Libyan disaster—and America’s earlier failures in Iraq and Afghanistan—Obama approved intervention in the complex Syrian civil war, declaring in the name of the international community that the Assad regime needed to go. His CIA soon began sending aid and arms to the so-called moderate rebels. Republican globalists like Lindsey Graham and John McCain applauded Obama’s courage.
Contrary to the plan, Assad didn’t go. Instead, he and his government have fought a war since 2011 against dozens of opposition groups, including jihadists like al Nusra. Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to Europe. A similar number died in the war itself. Christians faced genocide. ISIS rose and fell within the maelstrom. But the war and the regime have persisted right up to the present, having obtained new support along the way because of the Sunni jihadists’ fanaticism and barbarity.
Like the never-ending war in Afghanistan, the American interest in Syria only exists if you accept the paradigm of liberal hegemony ensured by American dominance. When the “international community”—the propaganda term the United States uses for itself when it really means business—demands Assad has to go, he is supposed to go, and go soon. This formula worked before in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and also in Panama, Liberia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia. Assad’s persistence exposes the natural limits of American power. The Syrian regime’s refusal to disappear has created a big problem for that so-called international community.
Russia intervened in Syria, in part, because of a longstanding alliance, but also because Russia’s foreign policy has a predictable and limited aim: to ensure that America’s involvement does not inevitably lead to regime change. Russia is not pro-terrorist or fanatically anti-American. It gave permission for American overflights of former Soviet Republics after 9/11, and its military has cooperated with ours for “de-confliction” purposes in Syria to support our common fight against ISIS. But Russia’s aims are one reason the Syrian civil war had such high stakes, and also why our nation’s moral compasses went haywire in Syria, just as it had 20 years earlier in Kosovo. In both cases, America undermined its own claimed values by teaming with terrorists and jihadis to prove the inevitability and righteousness of the “international community’s” demands.
Trump did not accept this paradigm. Thus, he quickly made opposition to ISIS the primary mission objective in Syria. After all, unlike Assad, ISIS was directing attacks at home and in Europe and was perpetrating horrors beyond comprehension. American forces and their proxies succeeded in short order, aided by the tacit cooperation of Russian and Syrian forces, and unleashed from the restraints and contradictory objectives of the Obama administration. Under Obama’s purview, according to a 2016 report from the Los Angeles Times, CIA-armed rebels were fighting at one point with other rebels armed by the DoD.
Trump declared victory. He ordered forces to leave. They dragged their feet, and General James Mattis resigned in protest when Trump told him that he meant business. Soon, the panoply of varying objectives sought by different factions within the Intelligence Community were reasserted, all requiring an indefinite deployment of U.S. forces, each accompanied by increasingly dire warnings about the costs of noncompliance. “Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, the war for the Greater Middle East has become a permanent fixture in American life and is accepted as such,” wrote Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and history professor at Boston University.
Trump ran for president in direct opposition to the legacy foreign policy common to both Democrats and Republicans. His overall policy was fundamentally nationalist, and thus his foreign policy was limited to specific and tangible issues directly related to national security and national flourishing. He expressed common-sense skepticism about many things, including our trading policies with China and our habitual animosity to Russia, but some of his strongest criticism was reserved for our involvement in Syria and the Middle East more generally.
Unlike many Republicans, Trump was always skeptical of the Iraq War. When he is unfiltered, he still expresses this view, as in a recent tweet:
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE…..
This stand was popular during the campaign and it is popular now. No amount of Washington Post sob stories about the stalwart Kurds have changed most Americans’ assessment of the matter. This is an issue that cuts across party lines, with both the Republican America Firsters and the Democratic Party’s peace caucus seeing no benefit from America’s efforts in the Middle East over the last four decades.
As with trade and immigration, Trump’s instincts were both politically and strategically correct. Unfortunately, he has not been fully consistent in this regard. In part, he himself is to blame for hiring individuals with polar opposite views, such as neoconservative John Bolton and establishment-approved Gen. Mattis. On the other hand, in Trump’s defense, appointees that shared his expressed worldview—such as Michael Flynn or Stephen Bannon—have been hobbled or run off. Now that the impeachment proceedings have concluded, Trump is only slowly getting a handle on the permanent bureaucracy, which has conducted a fierce counterattack against him since before he was sworn into office.
Trump’s presidency has been defined by conflict with the Intelligence Community. Indeed, their overreach during the 2016 election was something new and unusual in public life. They don’t want him in office and do not want to submit to accountability. They’re the vanguard of an aggrieved managerial class. While one thinks of the military and intelligence apparatus as being more conservative and hardheaded than, say, the Department of Justice or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the collective culture of Washington, D.C., has a significant influence and significant degree of consensus. The whole town is full of ambitious conformists who have been preparing to sit before congressional committees since they were nine years old. They lack the dash, humanity, and personality of the Yale classicists who formed the CIA’s 1940s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services.
When Obama arrived, he promoted Intelligence Community figures like John Brennan and Jim Comey and military leaders like General David Petraeus and Admiral William McRaven. They shared the ideological outlook of the new administration, whether on gay rights, women in combat, or the wisdom of dubious campaigns in Syria. Having tasted political power, the left’s outlook has now become more aggressively statist than any time since FDR. The dominant rhetorical trope is to contrast the “patriotism” and “service” ethics of people who are paid six-figure incomes to enjoy fine dining in Paris and Buenos Aires with the atavism and anger of Trump and his “deplorable” base.
While movies portray the CIA as sophisticated and omnicompetent, in real life it turns out the Intelligence Community is made up of people like we saw in the impeachment hearings, such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and former National Security Council official Fiona Hill: middlebrow, arrogant, liberal, unimaginative, and extremely concerned with preserving their managerial processes and imperatives. As defenders of a managerial system in which they are the elite, the various processes, reviews, and interagency discussions preserve the bureaucrats’ institutional and personal power. This method was demonstrated unwittingly by the “multiple choice” policymaking of Obama revealed in The New Yorker profile.
To the extent that the American people’s broad-based and bipartisan rejection of permanent war is to be given voice, the Intelligence Community needs to be brought to heel. Conservatives must recognize that the institutions they instinctually hold in high regard, the FBI, the CIA, and the military, are not merely part of the problem. They, or at least their leadership, are the primary problem. Trump’s nationalist and populist supporters hoped Trump would be able to take them on, but the tenacity and versatility of the “Resistance” has proven to be an enormous challenge. As Senator Chuck Schumer promised, “You take on the intelligence community—they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
The impeachment proceedings are simply the latest iteration of this resistance. After the Mueller probe went bust, the Ukraine scandal emerged from a whistleblower that worked for the CIA. The hearings were high managerial-class theater, featuring military officers, ambassadors, law professors, and other D.C. glitterati, who collectively have made it plain that they do not believe they are subordinate to the president, the American people—or anyone. They were supposed to wow us with their intellect and high-mindedness, but they really looked like hacks who lack the decency to be embarrassed by their preening self-regard and naked partisanship.
America’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been an enormous failure, a failure for which the Intelligence Community has not been significantly called to account. Straightfoward solutions like banning Muslim immigration have been ignored, while messianic ones like turning Syria into a functioning democracy are substituted in their place. Like Soviets sticking to their Five-Year Plans in the face of famines and penury, the nation’s spies have proceeded as if the disasters in Iraq, Syria, Libya, as well as the never-ending campaign in Afghanistan, were successes. The only thing surprising about a recent Washington Post exposé on the various lies told about our progress in Afghanistan is that anyone was surprised. It’s been apparent since 2002 that we were making no progress in Afghanistan, and that the place was simply a black hole in which American dollars and American lives were lost.
American foreign policy in the Middle East is inseparable from the Intelligence Community, which is just one arm of the permanent bureaucracy. Whether at home or abroad, they have proven to have a narrow and hubristic concept of American power, and their results have ranged from the mediocre to the terrible. Far from providing useful insight and sound predictions about the likely course of events, they either have ignored or downplayed real threats, like ISIS, or encouraged and managed foolhardy escapades like the arming of the so-called moderate rebels in Syria. Always missing from their report is a hardheaded account of Islam and the ways it is both prickly about foreign intervention and inimical to Western values like democracy or liberalism.
Not understanding the human terrain abroad, the Intelligence Community has also failed to understand the limits of the tools available from the homeland. While the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Peace Corps might think schools and clean water and elections will transform these regions, the U.S. military remains the primary tool. And it’s a blunt instrument that has often alienated more people than it manages to dispatch in its lumbering efforts of nation-building. Actionable intelligence is supposed to be intelligent. But here common sense and a rudimentary grasp of recent history—the kind candidate Trump and his voters had—are more than adequate to expose the “smart fools” behind recent events.
Before he ran for President, in 2013, Trump tweeted, “DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA—IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!” There is more intelligence in that sentence than the mountain of reports and predictions emanating from the Intelligence Community.
Tonight President Trump heads to Charlotte, NC, for another massive Keep America Great rally at The Bojangles Coliseum. President Trump is expected to speak at 7:00pm EST.
A federal judge has ruled that Hillary Clinton and her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills must sit for a deposition within 75 days (full ruling pdf below). Judicial Watch won the court ruling despite the ongoing efforts by the DOJ to block their inquiry. [JW Link]
From the Ruling – “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”
We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack. Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.
A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.
We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.
We also 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.
We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.
We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.
We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.
Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013
In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.
We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.
We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.
However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.
Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.
Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.
However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. Because of his previous role in constructing Zero Footprint, Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.
We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprintwas National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.
With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.
March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:
President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
*CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
[State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
[State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
[State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams
Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]
Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia
*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013. Khattala was later arrested.
In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was underway.
Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.
This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:
To wit you can easily add:
CIA Director General David Petraeus
Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes
Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:
This photo was taken on 9/11/12 at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.
We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.
In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.
Here’s where it gets interesting:
Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).
[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]
Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.
We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.
However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.
Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.
Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.
We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.
Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.
Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.
After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.
We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.
While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.
If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.
Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.
Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.
Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.
OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.
Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.
A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:
[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on. (link)
From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:
2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.
The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them. (link)
In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.
The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.
We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.
The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.
Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:
2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.
And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. (link)
There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.
Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 time frame is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.
Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.
Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publicly wrong.
If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.
Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.
Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk
It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.
We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.
We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.
Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.
During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.
While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.
From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.
Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.
Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.
However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.
The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.
We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.
From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.
The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.
The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.
We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.
We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.
“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.
The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)
We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:
“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.
Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.
[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.
Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”
We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.
If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.
But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).
Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.
But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.
The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.
Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.
The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.
Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.
Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.
Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.
But they did.
Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.
Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.
Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.
In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the following Reuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential findingwhich again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (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.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.
‘NERVE CENTER’
A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.
Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.
This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.
Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.
European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.
On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.
NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.
On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.
Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.
Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.
Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.
Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)
Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIL were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:
“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.
(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)
Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?
We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.
Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.
For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi=> Qatar=> Turkey=> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.
OR both.
The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.
We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.
Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.
The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personnel were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.
What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.
A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.
In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.
Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.
But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.
By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.
The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:
Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.
And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey. They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.
If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.
But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?”
By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus. According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”
We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.
In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):
Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.
The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”. No visible footprint.
We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.
We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.
We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.
All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.
Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?
Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.
Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.
To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.
In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.
Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.
The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?
The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.
Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?
Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.
The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.
The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.
It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.
Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.
Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.
How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.
The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.
Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.
Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.
In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.
At the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.
On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missile in Afghanistan.
The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.
The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.
In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.
We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS.
From 2002 through 2010 Combat Operations saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.
Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.
Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17”.
A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed.(link)
By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:
One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:
[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.
They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.
The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.
The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.
Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.
The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet jihad.
Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.
Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.
My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.
They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)
In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.
The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.
The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.
While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army were arguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.
God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.
Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.
Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:
March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.
Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”
Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)
Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.
“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)
However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:
(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.
This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.
Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”
Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.
The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)
Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.
Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.
Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.
Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.
Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.
Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.
This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.
What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan while willing to see Assad removed, was also well aware that these elements do not believe in borders. These rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region.
The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.
As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.
Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.
The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.
The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.
In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:
In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:
.
In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:
.
In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:
.
By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:
Author’s notes:
The primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.
If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.
Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.
The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.
However, they knew they were beyond the wire – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:
THEY KNEW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.
Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.
There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.
FUBAR.
~ Sundance
Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”
Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.
On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.
CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.
The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.
The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.
To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.
Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:
(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)
However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.
Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.
However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.
This is how the YouTube video came into play.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
Nothing about the YouTube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.
Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?
That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.
What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.
The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.
Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.
It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.
I do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point
Prior to bilateral discussions at the White House, President Trump and President Duque of Colombia held a press availability in the oval office. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s my honor to have the President of Colombia with us. We have many things to discuss, including borders and trade and, unfortunately, drugs and drug trafficking. And we’re going to have a good, long session.
This was scheduled very quickly, over the weekend, and we look forward to meeting. We’re going to have representatives on both sides. Many things to talk about.
And thank you very much, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT DUQUE: Thank you so much, Mr. President. It’s always an honor to be here. As you know, we have been strong allies, not only defending democracy in the region, but also fighting corruption and drug trafficking. You know the commitment we have jointly against those terrible threats.
So it’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you so much, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ve been working very well together on drugs and on trafficking — beyond drugs, trafficking and drugs, and trafficking and lots of other things. Unfortunately, human trafficking, which has become a very big problem.
Tonight, I’ll be going — as you know, we’ll be going to North Carolina. We have a big rally scheduled, and that should be, I think, terrific. It’s — thousands of people are already out there waiting. So we’re going to have, hopefully, a good time. We’re going to make a lot of different predictions tonight also.
Working very hard with CDC, with everybody in the — on a subject that has become a very big subject. The — our country is doing very well. Our professionals are doing, really, an incredible job.
We’re also working with other countries to help them because they really have a fear of the unknown. We’re working very much with a lot of other countries on — including Colombia — but we’re working with a lot of other countries on helping them with respect to this problem. And, again, we’re doing very well.
Some additional people were reported. They’re in good shape, but we have some additional people that were reported. Not very many in the United States. So we will be having a news conference later.
I’m also meeting with the pharmaceutical companies later on this afternoon. We have a big meeting with the biggest companies. Really, the most powerful companies — hopefully the smartest companies — anywhere in the world when it comes to drugs and vaccines, because we’re talking about a vaccine. Maybe a cure; it’s possible. So we’ll see about that. But we’re talking about a vaccine. And they’re moving along very quickly. All of the pharmaceutical companies are moving along very quickly.
But you’ll be invited to a part of that meeting, so we’ll see you a little bit later on in the afternoon. And thank you all very much. Thank you.
Q President Trump, what do you think about the efforts of Colombian government to fight against drugs? Do you agree with the aerial spraying with glyphosate?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you’re going to have to spray. If you don’t spray, you’re not going to get rid of them. So you have to spray, with regard to the drugs in Colombia. Yeah.
Q Are you going to talk about Venezuela?
PRESIDENT DUQUE: And let me —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, we will.
PRESIDENT DUQUE: — add something that is very important. We have to combine all the elements that we have: obviously, precision spraying, but also the record highs that we reached in 2019 on manual eradication and also dismantling the drug cartels.
So we have to work on all the elements, and we have to be very strong against crime. That crime is hurting our people and it’s hurting people everywhere. And we need to work jointly in that effort, as we have been doing so far.
Q Regarding Venezuela, what’s next steps from the United States, helping the region?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re talking about Venezuela. One of the things we’re talking about is Venezuela. A big subject for us. And they’re treating the people of Venezuela unbelievably badly. They don’t have water, they don’t have food. They don’t have anything. And we are talking about that. That’s a big — that’s a big topic of discussion.
Yes, Steve?
Q What do you want to hear from —
PRESIDENT DUQUE: Mr. President, if I may add something to that.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, please.
PRESIDENT DUQUE: It’s very important that we are stronger on sanctions against a dictatorship in Venezuela. Venezuela is running out of things. They have destroyed all the healthcare system. So we have to, in this year, work together jointly so there’s a political and democratic transition that is effective in Venezuela.
Q What do you want to hear from pharmaceutical executives about the vaccine?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re talking. You know, this meeting was set up before, and that was about drug pricing. This meeting was set up a long time ago with the pharmaceutical companies. And that meeting was about drug pricing, because we brought the numbers down last year — first time in 51 years that the drug prices, prescription, have come down.
And I have a meeting scheduled on drug prices, but now we’re going to make another subject and that will be — probably the first subject of that has to do with the vaccine, how are they doing.
Q Is it possible to accelerate the development of the vaccine?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, that’s what we’re going to find out. We’ll know that.
Q Dr. Fauci has said it could take a year.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’ve asked them to accelerate whatever they’re doing, in terms of a vaccine. Absolutely.
Q Mr. President, is it safe or appropriate to be holding rallies during a public health crisis like this?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, these were set up a long time ago. And others are. I mean, you could ask that to the Democrats because they’re having a lot of rallies. They’re all having rallies. That’s what they’re doing. They’re campaigning.
Q But do you think it’s safe? Are you worried at all?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think it’s very safe. Yeah. I think it’s very safe.
Q Mr. President, do you think that the inter-Afghan talks are going to actually start on the —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it?
Q Do you think that the inter-Afghan talks are really going to start as planned on (inaudible)?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re going to find out. But we’re getting out. We want to get out. We had good meetings with the Taliban. And we are going to be leaving, and we’re going to be bringing our soldiers back home. We’ve been there for almost 20 years. It’s a long time. We’ve done a great job in terms of getting rid of terrorists. Now it’s up to other countries to get rid of those terrorists.
Q What if the violence picks back up again?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re going to meet. We have discussions to go. But we’ve made a lot of progress. Okay? Thank you.
Former Brigadier General Robert Spalding full interview with Patrick Bet-David. Read Stealth War https://amzn.to/34ypyuo China’s Silent Takeover While Americas Elite Slept. Share your thoughts with Patrick Bet-David by texting 310.340.1132 or send a tweet to https://www.twitter.com/patrickbetdavid About Robert Spalding: Brig. Gen. Robert S. Spalding III assumed the duties of Special Assistant to the U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff in February 2018. Subscribe to Valuetainment for all new updates http://bit.ly/2aPEwD4 To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: info@valuetainment.com
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appears on Face The Nation with Margaret Brennan to discuss the negotiated peace agreement between the U.S. and Taliban in Afghanistan.
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