Category Archives: defense policy

Early Stage Alzheimer’s?

Posted on by
1

From the latest FBI document release last Friday, we learned or received a measure of clarification on a few things.

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the FBI during the interviews that were the subject of the document release that

Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department “related to the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information.”

And further,

Clinton recalled being briefed on Specific Access Program information (for classified material). But [she] could not recall any specific briefings on how to handle information associated with the SAPs[.]

And

she requested a secured BlackBerry while at State but could not recall why they were unable to provide one[.]

And

Clinton repeatedly claimed to have little training or understanding about the classification process—despite leading the department that handled such information on a regular basis and having a security clearance[.]

And this:

FBI agents also asked Clinton about three emails marked classified. They contained a “C” or portion marking, indicating the intelligence was at the lowest level, or confidential. Clinton said she thought the “C” was part of series like bullet points or a listing, like A, B, C.”

More than 30 times in the FBI’s Friday release, Clinton told the FBI agents interviewing her that she couldn’t remember this or that major briefing or training or similar event.

Recall that Clinton signed off on documents certifying that she had had security briefing when she became Secretary of State.  Recall that then-Senator Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which capacity she also was briefed and periodically trained in handling classified data and documents, and in which capacity she routinely handled classified data and documents.

Couple these memory lapses and instances of confusion with her deflections when reporters ask her questions that she doesn’t understand (back when she was interacting with them)—”You mean like with a cloth?”, her efforts to change the subject when told things she doesn’t understand, and her current months-long (more than 270 days) hiding from interactive meetings with the public (the TV interviews her campaign touts aren’t live; they’re “edited to fit the time slot”).

Assume she’s telling the truth about all of this, about her confusion concerning really quite routine classification protocols, about her not remembering.  Assume she’s not being evasive in response to simple questions when she deflects or changes the subject.

All of this may be why she’s hiding from interactive public meetings like press conferences.

All of this begins to look like Clinton is in the throes of early-stage Alzheimer’s.

Democrats and Security

Posted on by
Reply

First there was Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, personal and private email server on which she conducted official State Department business and which she used for handling over 2,000 classified emails—some of which also were marked classified.

Then there was the breathtakingly easy hack of Democratic National Committee email servers.

Then there was the similarly breathtakingly easy hack of Democratic National Convention Committee email servers.

Now there’s this.

[I]n 2009, Hillary Clinton’s top aide mistakenly left potentially classified papers in the front seat of the car she was traveling in.

Huma Abedin realized the significance of her error and sent an email to a fellow Clinton staffer asking that the papers be moved to the trunk.

“I’m going to have ambassador ride on next drive,” she wrote on July 20, 2009. “There’s a bunch of burn stuff in the pocket of my front seat.”

This displays an utter lack of concern by this highly experienced Clinton Aide for the classified documents with which care she’d been entrusted, both in her abandoning them on the front seat of her car and in her request to have them stored (however temporarily) in the unsecured trunk of her unsecured car rather than have them properly taken under control.

There’s also no indication Abedin gave any thought to whether her colleague had either the clearance or the need to know (both of which are necessary before an individual can be allowed to handle classified material) before she requested him to take possession of those abandoned documents.

Nor is there any indication that the unnamed staffer ever was debriefed on his handling of the documents.

There clearly were no sanctions applied to Abedin for her extreme carelessness in her handling of these classified documents.

It seems pretty evident that Democrats, at least senior Democrats, don’t understand security, or they don’t care about security.  Either way, our nation cannot afford such as these in our government.

Is the Arabian Gulf a Safe Space for Iranian Combat Ships?

Posted on by
Reply

The US seems to think so.  Four Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps light attack vessels last Tuesday

carried out a “high-speed intercept,” with two of the vessels coming within 300 yards of the USS Nitze.

The US reacted without verve or élan.  The best “a US Navy official” could say was that the incident was

“unsafe and unprofessional,” adding that the Iranian ships “created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation.”

And then the Nitze backed down and changed course away from the IRGC’s naval vessels.  Plainly, the decision to escalate or not was given over entirely to Iran.

This display encouraged Iran’s next-day light attack vessels to approach within 200 yards of another US vessel, the USS Squall, which finally drew a warning shot response from the Squall.

This weakness only encourages Iran to push further.  The present feinting is beginning to look an awful lot like preparation for an attack of the type carried out against the USS Cole, wherein a similar small boat, whose intention was misread, was allowed to make physical contact with the Cole, upon which the boat detonated the bomb it was carrying, disabling the Cole and killing 17 American sailors.

This is one of the inevitable outcomes of the Obama administration’s timidity toward Iran.

Another Obama/Clinton Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

Russia now is running airstrikes against Syrian targets from an airbase in Iran.  Russia also is making use of these missions to exercise its Cold War military assets in the process, running many of these strikes with one of its long-range bombers, a TU-22 variant.  Other runs are being made with its newer Su-34 tactical bomber, and all of them are being escorted by Russia’s newer Su-30 and Su-35 fighter aircraft, giving all those pilots valuable live fire, combat experience.

This isn’t just the fact of a few runs, either—it’s a broad range of aircraft, with a commensurately broad range of support crews, and with all of that, a broad range of compatibility training with their Iranian hosts.

Of as great importance as that use of Iranian basing facilities is the fact that those Russian striking aircraft have to overfly Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria, and Russia has been working cooperation deals with both of those nations—even after the kerfuffle involving Turkey’s shootdown of a Russian fighter.

President Barack Obama’s (D) and Democratic Party Presidential candidate and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reset with Russia once again is proving enormously expensive.

This is Dumb

Posted on by
Reply

And it adds to the national security threat our nation faces; unfortunately, though, it’s of a piece with President Barack Obama’s (D) forcing the US to retreat from the world stage [emphasis added].

A senior US military official says an advanced US missile defense system that is to be deployed in South Korea only targets North Korea, not China.

Vice Adm James D Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system will never be used against China.

Whatever possesses men who know (or should know) better to take cards off the table when facing our enemies?  Whatever possesses men who know (or should know) better to assure our enemies that there are certain things we will not do in defense of ourselves or our friends and allies, no matter what those enemies do to us or our friends and allies?

No.  Say, rather, that we will use this system and others like it against any nation or any other entity that launches on us or on our friends or allies.