Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Libya Suspects Islamist Group In Consulate Attack As U.S. Prepares Retaliation

Libya suspects head of Islamist group as commander of consulate attack

Posted By Mary Casey, Jennifer Parker Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 8:54 AM Share

Libyan authorities have said they suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala, the leader of Libya's Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sharia, to have led the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Witnesses have reported seeing Abu Khattala at the site, but his exact role is unclear, as is whether or not he shared leadership with others. But, the allegations provide the most direct link yet between Ansar al-Sharia and the assault. The F.B.I. has been investigating the attack from Tripoli, almost 400 miles from Benghazi, and a U.S. official said they had been tracking Abu Khattala who remains at large. Having not yet established central control of security since last year's revolution, Libyan authorities rely on local militias for law enforcement. The government-allied militias say that haven't been directed to arrest Abu Khattala, and the government is concerned about exacerbating tensions between rival militia groups.

Syria

Syrian human rights groups say that at least 28,000 people have "disappeared" in Syria since the beginning of the 19-month long uprising, and some estimate the number of missing to be as high as 80,000. According to a director at the online activist group Avazza, "Syrians are being plucked off the street by Syrian security forces and paramilitaries and being ‘disappeared' into torture cells. Whether it is women buying groceries or farmers going for fuel, nobody is safe." The group plans to request an investigation by the U.N. Human Rights Council. Damascus has started to feel the strain of the country's civil war, from which it had been relatively isolated until recently. Meanwhile, U.N. and Arab League envoy to Syria, Lahkdar Brahimi, has warned of regional spillover of the conflict. After meeting with Lebanese officials seeking international support for a ceasefire over an upcoming holiday, which Turkey and Iran have backed, he said, "The crisis cannot remain within Syrian borders indefinitely. Either it will be addressed or it will increase ... and be all-consuming." Brahimi's remarks came shortly before reports of Syrian and Lebanese border clashes.

source: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/18/libya_suspects_head_of_islamist_group_as_commander_of_consulate_attack

US Consulate attack in Benghazi: America ponders a strike over Libya attack

The White House, under political pressure to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate inBenghazi, is readying strike forces and drones but first has to find a target.

And if the administration does find a target, officials say it still has to weigh whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight the group in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

In another effort to bolster Libyan security, the Pentagon and State Department have been developing a plan to train and equip a special operations force in Libya, according to a senior defense official.

The efforts show the tension of the White House's need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to al-Qaida, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.

Vice President Joe Biden pledged in his debate last week with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to find those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

"We will find and bring to justice the men who did this," Biden said in response to a question about whether intelligence failures led to lax security around Stevens and the consulate. Referring back to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year, Biden said American counterterror policy should be, "if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be."

The White House declined to comment on the debate over how best to respond to the Benghazi attack.

The attack has become an issue in the U.S. election season, with Republicans accusing the Obama administration of being slow to label the assault an act of terrorism and slow to strike back at those responsible. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday night that the security of State Department operations was her responsibility.

The White House is "aiming for a small pop, a flash in the pan, so as to be able to say, 'Hey, we're doing something about it,'" said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rudy Attalah, the former Africa counterterrorism director for Defense Department under President George W. Bush.

US consulate in Benghazi was attacked over anti-Islam film in September 2012.

Attalah noted that in 1998, after the embassy bombing in Nairobi, the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles to take out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that may have been producing chemical weapons for al-Qaida.

"It was a way to say, 'Look, we did something,'" he said.

On the subject of developing a special operations unit, U.S. officials received approval from Congress well before the Benghazi attack to reprogram some funding in the budget that could be used for the commando program in Libya. But the details are still being discussed with the Libyans and also must get final approval from Congress, according to the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The initial cost is estimated at about $6.2 million.

The defense official said U.S. leaders have recognized the need to train Libyan commando forces, but details such as the size, mission and composition of the forces are still being finalized.

A Washington-based analyst with extensive experience in Africa said administration officials have approached him for help in connecting the dots to Mali, whose northern half fell to al-Qaida-linked rebels this spring. They wanted to know if he could suggest potential targets, which he says he was not able to do.

"The civilian side is looking into doing something and is running into a lot of pushback from the military side," the analyst said. "The resistance that is coming from the military side is because the military has both worked in the region and trained in the region. So they are more realistic."

Islamists in the region are preparing for a reaction from the U.S.

Possible US Attack in Libya Faces Opposition

The United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya is seen in flames during an attack that killed four U.S. staffers, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens on September 11, 2012.

Elizabeth Arrott

October 17, 2012

CAIRO — The United States is said to be weighing the option of a military strike against those found responsible for the September 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that killed four American embassy personnel dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

One of the first hurdles they face is identifying who carried out the attack. The main suspects in the case, the militant Ansar al Sharia, have denied responsibility, despite witness accounts of their involvement. They are but one of dozens of militias across Libya that lie beyond government control.

But some analysts warn of the consequences to the fledgling Libyan state should the United States intervene. The former opposition spokesman during last year's uprising, Mustafa Gheriani, argues any justice must be served by Libya itself.

“If you want to be a country of law and not to be like Afghanistan or Pakistan, then we need to take matters through the proper channels," Gheriani said. "It might be later date if there is a question about their strength at the present time, but definitely not to have anything irrational taking place at this moment.”

The compound attack plays large in the American presidential campaign, raising concerns the United States could act soon. But Washington also has longer term plans in Libya, including training a core Libyan military group aimed at reining in the militias.

Political analyst Said Sadek of the American University in Cairo says a danger of this tack is it could make the Libyan government appear a puppet of the Americans. It also would negate a key point of the NATO mission that helped bring the new government to power - keeping foreign troops off Libyan soil.

Sadek believes a faster and more practical solution would be a political effort to unite competing militias against extremists - a practice dubbed al sahawat, or awakening - that the United States tried in Iraq.

“It will take a long time to prepare and get a professional force ready for action and stability in the country," said Sadek. "So the only option for them in the short term, in the immediate urgency of the matter, is to try al sahawat experience from Iraq and try to apply it in Libya,” he said.

Libya's prime minister-designate has vowed to tackle the security problem, calling it the nation's foremost problem.
Ali Zeidan said earlier this week the key will be an inclusive government.

But Islamist militias are not the only groups whose role is threatening to undermine Libya's democratic future.

source: http://www.voanews.com/content/possible-us-attack-in-libya-faces-opposition/1528142.html

White House reportedly preps strike team to take out terrorists tied to Libya attack

Published October 15, 2012

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali — if investigators can find the Al Qaeda-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on Al Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

The dilemma shows the tension of the White House's need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to Al Qaeda, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.

The White House declined to comment on the debate over how best to respond to the Benghazi attack.

The attack has become an issue in the U.S. election season, with Republicans accusing the Obama administration of being slow to label the assault an act of terrorism early on, and slow to strike back at those responsible.

"They are aiming for a small pop, a flash in the pan, so as to be able to say, 'Hey, we're doing something about it,'" said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rudy Attalah, the former Africa counterterrorism director for the Department of Defense under President George W. Bush.

"It was a way to say, 'Look, we did something,'" he said.

A Washington-based analyst with extensive experience in Africa said that administration officials have approached him asking for help in connecting the dots to Mali, whose northern half fell to Al Qaeda-linked rebels this spring. They wanted to know if he could suggest potential targets, which he says he was not able to do.

"The civilian side is looking into doing something, and is running into a lot of pushback from the military side," the analyst said. "The resistance that is coming from the military side is because the military has both worked in the region and trained in the region. So they are more realistic."

Islamists in the region are preparing for a reaction from the U.S.

"If America hits us, I promise you that we will multiply the Sept. 11 attack by 10," said Oumar Ould Hamaha, a spokesman for the Islamists in northern Mali, while denying that his group or Al Qaeda fighters based in Mali played a role in the Benghazi attack.

Finding the militants who overwhelmed a small security force at the consulate isn't going to be easy.

The key suspects are members of the Libyan militia group Ansar al-Shariah. The group has denied responsibility, but eyewitnesses saw Ansar fighters at the consulate, and U.S. intelligence intercepted phone calls after the attack from Ansar fighters to leaders of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, bragging about it. The affiliate's leaders are known to be mostly in northern Mali, where they have seized a territory as large as Texas following a coup in the country's capital.

But U.S. investigators have only loosely linked "one or two names" to the attack, and they lack proof that it was planned ahead of time, or that the local fighters had any help from the larger Al Qaeda affiliate, officials say.

If that proof is found, the White House must decide whether to ask Libyan security forces to arrest the suspects with an eye to extraditing them to the U.S. for trial, or to simply target the suspects with U.S. covert action.

U.S. officials say covert action is more likely. The FBI couldn't gain access to the consulate until weeks after the attack, so it is unlikely it will be able to build a strong criminal case. The U.S. is also leery of trusting the arrest and questioning of the suspects to the fledgling Libyan security forces and legal system still building after the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

The burden of proof for U.S. covert action is far lower, but action by the CIA or special operations forces still requires a body of evidence that shows the suspect either took part in the violence or presents a "continuing and persistent, imminent threat" to U.S. targets, current and former officials said.

"If the people who were targeted were themselves directly complicit in this attack or directly affiliated with a group strongly implicated in the attack, then you can make an argument of imminence of threat," said Robert Grenier, former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

But if the U.S. acts alone to target them in Africa, " it raises all kinds of sovereignty issues ... and makes people very uncomfortable," said Grenier, who has criticized the CIA's heavy use of drones in Pakistan without that government's support.

Even a strike that happens with permission could prove problematic, especially in Libya or Mali where Al Qaeda supporters are currently based. Both countries have fragile, interim governments that could lose popular support if they are seen allowing the U.S. unfettered access to hunt Al Qaeda.

The Libyan government is so wary of the U.S. investigation expanding into unilateral action that it refused requests to arm the drones now being flown over Libya. Libyan officials have complained publicly that they were unaware of how large the U.S. intelligence presence was in Benghazi until a couple of dozen U.S. officials showed up at the airport after the attack, waiting to be evacuated — roughly twice the number of U.S. staff the Libyans thought were there. A number of those waiting to be evacuated worked for U.S. intelligence, according to two American officials.

In Mali, U.S. officials have urged the government to allow special operations trainers to return, to work with Mali's forces to push Al Qaeda out of that country's northern area. AQIM is among the groups that filled the power vacuum after a coup by rebellious Malian forces in March. U.S. special operations forces trainers left Mali just days after the coup. While such trainers have not been invited to return, the U.S. has expanded its intelligence effort on Mali, focusing satellite and spy flights over the contested northern region to track and map the militant groups vying for control of the territory, officials say.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

What Makes a Great Leader? Character? Policy? Who Are You Selecting?

Character, Policy and the Selection of Leaders

By George Friedman

The end of Labor Day weekend in the United States traditionally has represented the beginning of U.S. presidential campaigns, though these days the campaign appears to be perpetual. In any case, Americans will be called on to vote for president in about two months, and the question is on what basis they ought to choose.

Many observers want to see intense debate over the issues, with matters of personality pushed to the background. But personality can also be viewed as character, and in some ways character is more important than policy in choosing a country's leadership.

Policy and Personality

A candidate for office naturally lays out his plans should he win the election. Those plans, which may derive from an ideology or from personal values, represent his public presentation of what he would do if he won office. An ideology is a broadly held system of beliefs -- an identifiable intellectual movement with specific positions on a range of topics. Personal values are more idiosyncratic than those derived from an ideology, but both represent a desire to govern from principle and policy.

As we all know, in many cases the presentation of intentions has less to do with what the candidate would actually do than it does with what he thinks will persuade the voters to vote for him. But such a candidate, possessing personal ambition more than principle, would not be opposed to doing what he said, since it suited the public. He has no plans himself beyond remaining in office.

Then there are those who profoundly believe in their policies. They sincerely intend to govern based on what they have said. This is what many think elections ought to be about: ideas, policies, ideologies and beliefs. Thus, in the case of the current American election, many are searching for what the candidates believe and asking whether they actually mean what they say.

Mitt Romney Mitt Romney Campaigns In Des Moines

In the United States and other countries, policy experts decry the fact that the public frequently appears ignorant of and indifferent to the policies the candidates stand for. Voters can be driven by fatuous slogans or simply by their perception of the kind of person the candidate is. The "beauty pageant" approach to presidential elections infuriates ideologues and policy experts who believe that the election should not turn on matters as trivial as personality. They recognize the personal dimension of the campaign but deplore it as being a diversion from the real issues of the day.

But consider the relationships between intentions and outcomes in American presidencies. During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush made the case that the American war in Kosovo, undertaken by President Bill Clinton, was a mistake because it forced the United States into nation-building, a difficult policy usually ending in failure. There is every reason to believe that at the time he articulated this policy, he both meant it and intended to follow it. What he believed and intended turned out to mean very little. His presidency was determined not by what he intended to do but by something he did not expect nor plan for: Sept. 11, 2001.

This is not unique to Bush. John F. Kennedy's presidency, in terms of foreign policy, was defined by the Cuban missile crisis, Lyndon Johnson's by Vietnam. Jimmy Carter's presidency was about the Iranian hostage crisis. None of these presidents expected their presidency to be focused on these things, although perhaps they should have. And these were only the major themes. They had no policies, plans or ideological guidelines for the hundreds of lesser issues and decisions that constitute the fabric of a presidency.

Barack and Michelle Obama and Joe and Dr. Jill Biden in Portsmith, NH - September 7th

Consider Barack Obama. When he started his campaign, his major theme was the need to end the Iraq war, but soon after Labor Day in 2008, the Iraq issue had become secondary to the global financial crisis. It was not clear that Obama had any better idea than anyone else as to how to handle it, and by the time he took office, the pattern of dealing with it had been established by the Bush administration. The plan was to prevent the market from inflicting punishment on major financial institutions because of the broader consequences and to redefine the market by flooding it with money designed to stabilize these institutions. Obama continued and intensified this policy.

Frequently, a campaign's policy papers seem to imply that the leader is simply in control of events. All too often, events control the leader, defining his agenda and limiting his choices. Sometimes, as with the Sept. 11 attacks, it is a matter of the unexpected redefining the presidency. In other cases, it is the unintended and unexpected consequences of a policy that redefine what the presidency is about. Johnson's presidency is perhaps the best case study for this: His policy in Vietnam grew far beyond what he anticipated and overwhelmed his intentions for his time in office. No president has had a clearer set of policy intentions, none was more initially successful in adhering to those intentions and few have so quickly lost control of the presidency when unintended consequences took over.

Fortune and Virtue

Machiavelli argues in The Prince that political life is divided between fortuna, the unexpected event that must be dealt with, and virtu, not the virtue of the religious -- the virtue of abstinence from sin -- but rather the virtue of the cunning man who knows how to deal with the unexpected. None can deal with fortuna completely, but some can control, shape and mitigate it. These are the best princes. The worst are simply overwhelmed by the unexpected.

People who are concerned with policies assume two things. The first is that the political landscape is benign and will allow the leader the time to do what he wishes. The second is that should the terrain shift the leader will have time to plan, to think through what ought to be done. Ideally, that would be the case, but frequently the unexpected must be dealt with in its own time frame. Crises frequently force a leader to go in directions other than he planned to or even opposite to what he wanted.

Michelle Obama President Obama And First Lady Visit Arlington National Cemetery On 9/11 Anniversary

Policies -- and ideology -- are testaments to what leaders wish to do. Fortune determines the degree to which they will get to do it. If they want to pursue their policies, their political virtue -- understood as cunning, will, and the ability to cope with the unexpected -- are far better indicators of what will happen under a leader than his intentions.

Policies and ideology are, in my view, the wrong place to evaluate a candidate. First, the cunning candidate is the one least likely to take his policy statements and ideology seriously. He is saying what he thinks he needs to say in order to be elected. Second, the likelihood that he will get the opportunity to pursue his policies -- that they are anything more than a wish list casually attached to reality -- is low. Whether or not a voter agrees with the candidate's ideology and policies, it is unlikely that the candidate-turned-leader will have the opportunity to pursue them.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Obama To Declare Martial Law, Hinging On Israel's Reaction To Iran, Halting U.S. Elections.

By now you may have heard the rumors about Obama declaring Martial Law to halt the elections so that he can remain president and have total control over the U.S. people. To me, it sounds outlandish. However, outlandish things have happened before. Here is the current story as I can give it to you with current news stories to show the possibilities. Of course, this is the Internet, so believe these things as far as the Internet is believable. I will first try to define martial law and then go forward with the news articles that paint a path either toward martial law or against it.

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric ups the ante

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Either Israel is engaged in the most elaborate ruse since the Trojan Horse or it is on the cusp of a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

What’s alarming is not just Iran’s increasing store of uranium or the growing sophistication of its rocketry. It’s also the increasingly menacing annihilationist threats emanating from Iran’s leaders. Israel’s existence is “an insult to all humanity”, says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime.”

Explains the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Israel is “a true cancer tumour on this region that should be cut off”.

Everyone wants to avoid military action, surely the Israelis above all. They can expect a massive counter-attack from Iran, 50,000 rockets launched from Lebanon, Islamic Jihad firing from Gaza, and worldwide terror against Jewish and Israeli targets, as happened last month in Bulgaria.

Yet Israel will not sit idly by in the face of the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi Germany. The result then was 6 million murdered Jews. There are 6 million living in Israel today.

Time is short. Last-ditch negotiations in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow have failed abjectly. The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy is delay until they get the bomb.

What to do? The sagest advice comes from Anthony Cordesman, military analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, hard-headed realist and a believer that “multilateralism and soft power must still be the rule and not the exception”.

He may have found his exception. “There are times when the best way to prevent war is to clearly communicate that it is possible,” he argues. Today, the threat of a US attack is not taken seriously. Not by the region. Not by Iran. Not by the Israelis, who therefore increasingly feel forced to act before Israel’s more limited munitions – far less powerful and effective than those in the US arsenal – can no longer penetrate Iran’s ever-hardening facilities.

Cordesman therefore proposes threefold action.

1. Clear US redlines

It’s time to end the ambiguity about American intentions. Establish real limits on negotiations – to convince Iran that the only alternative to a deal is pre-emptive strikes, and to convince Israel to stay its hand.

2. Make it clear to Iran that it has no successful options

Either their program must be abandoned in a negotiated deal (see point 1, above) on generous terms from the West (see point 3, below) or their facilities will be physically destroyed. Ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities – how deep and extensive a campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military-industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power.

3. Give Iran a face-saving way out

Offer Iran the most generous possible terms – economic, diplomatic and political. End of sanctions, assistance in economic and energy development, trade incentives and a regional security architecture. Even Russian nuclear fuel.

Tellingly, however, Cordesman does not join those who suggest yielding on nuclear enrichment. That’s important because a prominently leaked proposed “compromise” would guarantee Iran’s right to enrich, though not to high levels.

Israel, U.S. divided over latest IAEA report on Iran

Israel believes the report backs up claims that Tehran has sped up its nuclear project, while the White House insists that findings don’t change the working assumption that there is still time to resolve the crisis diplomatically.

By Barak Ravid | Aug.26, 2012

Iran and IAEA envoys after talks in Vienna, August 24, 2012.

The IAEA's Herman Nackaerts, Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh after talks at the permanent mission of Iran, Vienna, August 24, 2012.

Israel and the United States are split over the significance of a new International Atomic Energy Agency report expected to accuse Iran of installing hundreds of new centrifuges at its underground enrichment facility near Qom.

Israel believes that the IAEA report, due to be published this week, backs up claims that Tehran has accelerated its nuclear project. The White House, however, insists that the findings do nothing to alter the working assumption that there is still time to resolve the crisis diplomatically.

The new centrifuges are thought to be capable of enriching uranium to a level higher than the 20 percent needed for research purposes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who met on Friday in Jerusalem with U.S. Congressmen Mike Rogers, who heads the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said that the new information contained in the soon-to-be-released report is "further proof that Iran is galloping toward obtaining nuclear capability and that it continues to ignore the demands of the international community."

In contrast to Netanyahu's unequivocal interpretation of the new IAEA report, the White House was more circumspect. Speaking to the New York Times, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that "there is time and space" for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Another senior American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the New York Times that the new information contained in the IAEA report is "not a game-changer."

According to the official, while it is true that Iran has increased the rate at which it is enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent, any move to enrich uranium to a level of 90 percent - the level needed for military purposes - "would not be a quiet affair." The official added that "the IAEA is in the facility regularly and they would detect a move" to build a weapon.

Over the weekend, representatives of the IAEA met with Iranian officials to discuss a demand to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the Parchin facility. Iran has been accused of researching and developing its military nuclear project at Parchin. This weekend's contacts - which come after a two-month hiatus - ended without agreement and without a date being set for the next round of negotiations.

Meanwhile, a U.S. think tank published satellite imagery on Friday which it said showed "pink colored material" covering a building at a sensitive military site in Iran which UN nuclear inspectors want to visit.

The Institute for Science and International Security said the tarp at the Parchin military complex might be an attempt to conceal alleged clean-up work there at a time when Iran is under growing international pressure to open up its disputed nuclear program to scrutiny.

read more at: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-divided-over-latest-iaea-report-on-iran.premium-1.460690

An Israeli attack on Iran would help, not harm, Obama’s reelection

Hard to believe that a seasoned Americanologist such as PM Netanyahu would think otherwise.

By Chemi Shalev

President Barack Obama pauses during an interview with The Associated Press at the White House, Aug. 23, 2012, in Washington.

In many of the conspiracy theories that have been presented in recent weeks in the Israeli press concerning the possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran, one theme has been constant: it would put President Barack Obama in a bind and possibly hurt his chances in the November elections as well.

Both developments, according to press reports, were part and parcel of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu considerations in pressing for an early attack. Republicans, it was said, not only subscribed to this assessment but also were egging Netanyahu on to in order to help Mitt Romney’s chances in November.

The Israeli commentators, it sometimes seemed, accepted this conventional wisdom as if it was cast in stone.

It was left to political strategist Karl Rove, grandmaster of Republican tactics and chief advisor to the pro-Republican super-PAC “American Crossroads”, to blow this cockamamie theory out of the water.

Appearing on Fox News last week, Rove made clear that any flare up with Iran would only serve Obama’s interests. Americans, he said, would instinctively rally around their Commander in Chief and Obama’s standing in the polls would immediately improve.

Rove went a step further and more or less warned Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities too early. In a comment that did not receive the media attention it deserved, Rove said that a military strike on Iran needs to wait until what Rove described as “a moment of vulnerability” - and that won’t happen until the Iranians bring all their fissile material “to a central site in order to be machined into a weapon or weapons.”

“They’ve got to wait until it’s brought together”, Rove said, and one can assume that such a moment won’t arrive, according to Rove’s strategic calculated, before November 6.

All four panelists on NBC’s Chris Matthews show this Sunday concurred with the political part of Rove’s analyses. A war with Iran, former ABC broadcaster Sam Donaldson said, would change the dynamics of the election campaign, draw attention away from the troubled economy and allow Obama to showcase his experience while accentuating Mitt Romney’s lack thereof. Foreign affairs and national security, after all, is the one area in which Obama enjoys a clear advantage over Romney in all the public opinion polls, they noted.

Another misplaced piece of the misguided conventional wisdom in Jerusalem is that an Israeli attack that would take place before the elections would force Obama to suppress his supposedly natural inclination to abandon Israel in its time of need. He would have to succumb to overwhelming public pressure and support Israel, both diplomatically and militarily, because of pure electoral considerations, according to this theory.

But this assessment may also be light years away from reality, a by product of the irrationally critical view of Obama’s shared by strident Republican Jewish critics who are close to Netanyahu and to some of his officials and who genuinely believe that Obama is a socialist/pacifist who would like nothing better than to see Israeli cities burn. Only his sense of self-preservation before the elections, they believe, might cause Obama to act against his usual anti-Jewish instincts.

Back on earth, however, it is far from clear that there would be any real pressure by the American public to get the US involved in another Middle East war. Opinion polls on the American public’s attitude towards US military involvement in Iran are all over the place, depending on the wording of the questions, but they consistently show wide support for Obama’s policy of exploring all other options first. They may very well accept the President’s judgment even if he opts against committing the US to a military confrontation.
Secondly, most people who know Obama maintain that if his hand is forced, either by Iran or by Israel, the President would not hesitate to send the American bombers on their way, elections or no elections, not only if Iran attacks American targets directly but also to help Israel, if it turns out that it cannot fend for itself. At the height of an election campaign, such a crisis would doubtlessly entail the fringe benefit of forcing Republican candidates Romney and Paul Ryan to support the President and to put aside their criticism while guns are blazing and American lives are in danger. And any reckoning with Jerusalem over its refusal to accede to the Administration’s demand to give peace another chance my indeed come - but only after the situation has stabilized and the elections are long over.

In fact, the very foundations of a theory that a war before elections would hurt Obama’s chances in the elections are so far fetched that it is actually unreasonable to believe that a seasoned Americanologist such as Netanyahu would subscribe to it. But now that Republicans appear to be actually warning him off – does this mean that war has been postponed? On the other hand, would Netanyahu’s Republican benefactors ever forgive him if it turned out that it was his decision to pull the trigger that actually ensured Obama’s second term?

source: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/an-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-help-not-harm-obama-s-reelection.premium-1.460819

ALERT: A BRAND NEW Executive Order

just signed by Barack Hussein Obama on July 6th, ONCE AGAIN brings America a step closer to finding itself under MARTIAL LAW with Obama -- this time by giving him dictator-type powers over ALL communications during any so-called "crisis" that he might declare!

As reported by "Tea Party Economist" blogger, Dr. Gary North:

“Obama has signed an executive order outlining the nationalization of the entire communications system. It is written in bureaucratese. I have no doubt that it was not understood by Obama. It is too detailed. It sets up a powerful new bureaucracy. The language is limited to a national emergency. But an emergency on this scale is almost inconceivable. The government never discusses what could justify an executive order this comprehensive.

If such a threat to the nation (and the world) really exists, the voters should be given a detailed description of its nature. Congress should debate this. Solving it should be a high national priority. If the answer is, "discussing this would create panic," then democracy is a sham. If the answer is, "we don't know what might happen, so we are asserting total control in advance," then this executive order should never have been signed. It transfers too much power to bureaucrats to determine when to implement it.

As Dr. North declares, "This is no longer a nation run by the Constitution."

The executive order itself is long, and very few people will actually bother to read it. But what it does is very clear: it authorizes the White House to take over the entire communications system, simply on "the authority of the President."

The bottom line is this: Obama thinks that this power belongs to the President.

It's more and more obvious that Barack Obama is preparing to DECLAREMARTIAL LAW -- we MUST STOP HIM NOW!

We’ve seen this coming. We even reported on how, just recently, a government"whistleblower" inside the Obama regime has blown the lid off of why Barack Hussein Obama has recently signed Executive Orders that give him the power todeclare martial law across America!

Obama, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies and "czars," is plotting a major "Reichstag" event to generate racial riots and produce the justification for martial law, delaying the November 2012 elections... possibly indefinitely!

A DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press"that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that 'a civil war' is the more appropriate term. 'Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.'"

A "Reichstag event" refers to a fire started in Germany's legislature during Hitler's rise to power. The fire allowed him to grab emergency powers and eliminate his opposition. While he blamed it on Communists, historians have long believed that Hitler started the fire himself.

According to the anonymous "whistleblower" inside Obama's DHS, this "Reichstag event" would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, "carefully choreographed" and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on "white supremacists" and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.

The Obama administration would then use the violence and chaos they created as justification for the imposition of martial law in major urban cities in America, the creation of DHS checkpoints, restriction of travel, and the indefinite delay of the November 2012 elections:

"The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don't think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos," he added.

This is getting TOO BIG to hide -- now, even the MEDIA is starting to pick up on the shocking news:

Barack Hussein Obama has signed Executive Orders giving him the power todeclare MARTIAL LAW in America!

Source: http://www.rightmarch.com/martiallaw.htm

Tennessee lawmaker warns of fake Obama assassination plot to stop 2012 elections

By Eric W. Dolan

Tennessee state Rep. Kelly Keisling (R) on Tuesday morning forwarded an email to his constituents that warned President Barack Obama was planning to impose martial law and indefinitely delay the November elections.

The Huffington Post reported that the email was sent from Keisling’s state email account to residents across the state’s 38th district.

“Republicans in the legislature are bound and determined to turn Tennessee into a laughing stock with their ridiculous antics,” Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester said. “For Kelly Keisling to use state resources to send out a rumor-filled and dangerous email is an egregious abuse of power and tax payer dollars.”

The email, originally written by Florida-based conservative blogger Joe Angione, said there were unconfirmed rumors that Obama planned to stage an assassination attempt on his own life. The incident would be blamed on white supremacists, stirring racial unrest and allowing the President to impose martial law across the nation.

“The more we talk about the potential for a staged, bogus presidential assassination that would trigger massive civil unrest and possible martial law, the stronger is our defense against it actually occurring,” Angione wrote.

The email warned that the Department of Homeland Security was helping to coordinate the “false flag” operation. The federal agency, according to the email, was “taking their orders from the White House” and hoped to delay the November elections indefinitely.

Keisling has expressed regret for sending out the email.

Will Obama attempt to declare martial law before November election?

Canada Free Press contributor Doug Hagmann has reported that a longtime friend and Department of Homeland Security official revealed to him “…the uppermost echelon of the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States,” and not only “…expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

According to Hagmann’s DHS source, the Obama Regime—which initiates Department agenda and dominates its thinking—will proceed by implementing “economic chaos, chaos through racial division and chaos through class division, all joined by Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars.”

For three years, the Administration has worked to destroy the private sector and destabilize the value of the dollar. It has injected race and class into every argument, setting the stage for “summer riots” organized by Regime operatives. And when economic calamity and civil unrest are at their zenith, “…a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America’ ” will be crafted, its purpose, to “…evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison.”

At this juncture, the federal government will be “forced” to take a hand for the well-being of the nation and the American public, of course. Martial law will be declared by an appropriately “reluctant” Barack Obama, who will offer a television persona clearly dis-inclined to the exercise of such staggering authority. Naturally, he will promise the duration of his absolute power to be brief and its use, strictly and fairly measured. The 2012 election will–for the purposes of fairness and equity—be indefinitely postponed.

Although claims in the Canada Free Press article sound very much like the ravings of “tin foil hat”-wearing conspiracy theorists, it should be remembered who the enemy is, the extraordinary sweep and authority they have already attained, and the arrogance and lust for power that drives them.

Read More at Western Journalism. By Doug Book.

Martial Law will NOT be declared

By: Diane Sori

Lately all you see people posting on Facebook are articles that quote unnamed, so-called inside sources all saying that Barack Hussein Obama is going to declare Martial Law to stop the elections from going forward. The sources these articles are taken from are sources whose credibility is anything but stellar as any source that does not name names really has NO credibility whatsoever.

Yet these posts keep appearing all claiming that the Obama administration is working on creating a deliberate racial and/or economic war based on class warfare so that he can declare Martial Law and shut down the elections. However, concrete details are sketchy at best or are the stuff of urban legends. The urban legends are the worst, like the claim that the government is stockpiling every weapon possible to use against ‘We the People’ as they round us up once Martial Law is declared and put us in re-education centers or worse...concentration camps.

Now one ‘supposed’ credible site is even claiming that a staged assassination attempt will be made against Obama that would then be blamed on white supremacists and be used to inflame the black community to start rioting and looting.

Oh please...do you really think the black community will fall for this nonsense. Some like the New Black Panthers and their ilk might feed into this but the majority of the black population can see through this just as easily as you and I can.

Then we have those sites claiming that the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order signed back in March is a lead-in to Obama declaring Martial Law, and all because it authorizes the federal government to identify "requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand," and to "control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in this civilian market."

However, and a much as I dislike Obama and all he stands for, this order is just your standard government readiness policy. In fact it’s almost identical to those orders issued by administrations ever since the days of the Cold War, including by the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

With Obama losing support daily as Mitt Romney gains traction. Obama in desperation will try all sorts of bravado to try and keep us from getting out and voting and the fear of Martial Law is the mother lode of all bravado...or so he thinks.

First, you need to understand what Martial Law really is and that it is NOT that easy to declare. Martial Law is basically temporary rule by state or national military authorities, imposed on civilian populations during times of war or when civil authority has broken down.

Martial Law has been declared in this country on the national level only once and that was during the Civil War. On the regional level Martial Law was declared also only once and that was during World War II. Otherwise, it’s been limited to the states. Civil uprisings, massive political protests, labor strikes, and riots have caused a few state governors to rightly declare some measure of Martial Law at one time or another.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a declaration of Martial Law can be imposed by the president or Congress. A governor, on the other hand, may declare Martial Law within their state as the power to do so is usually in their state constitution.

However, both federal or state courts must first still rule if the implementation of Martial Law and the use of troops is justified because Martial Law is legally considered an act of last resort.

So armed with this knowledge you can see that Martial Law cannot just be declared at whim even by a sitting president. The circumstances would have to be extraneous with the chance of total chaos and violence being present for Martial Law to be approved by the courts .

Barack Hussein Obama and his minions might indeed try to instigate a course of events that could lead up to his being able to declare such an action but it’s up to us to NOT fall into that trap.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF THIS? MARTIAL LAW OR NO MARTIAL LAW? HALT OF THE ELECTIONS OR ELECTIONS GOING ON?

Issues On Call

Ad