Category Archives: foreign policy

Terror Sponsors

Posted on by
Reply

And yet we’re going to let them have nuclear weapons.

James Clapper, DNI, has made the call.

Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its ability to influence regional crises and conduct terrorism. This has been the consistent view of the IC [Intelligence Community] for more than three decades.

And

Iran and Hizballah’s efforts in Syria have been instrumental in preventing the collapse of the Assad regime, which they view as critical to maintaining their “axis of resistance” against Israel and the West.

Hmm….

Paying Ransom

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama on Wednesday announced a new US government policy for dealing with Americans who are kidnapped abroad, and as always he stressed compassion for the hostages and their families.

Compassion? Where’s Obama’s compassion for the kidnap victim, who’s exposed to further kidnapping, since snatching him clearly pays off? Where’s Obama’s compassion for other Americans, now at increased risk or kidnapping themselves, by ransom paying that is nothing more than aiding and abetting the criminals/terrorists masqueraded as “compassion?”

…a government-wide review of US hostage policy, which has drawn criticism for inconsistency and lack of coordination. “The families of hostages have told us—and they’ve told me directly—about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government: How different departments and agencies aren’t always coordinated,” Mr. Obama said[.]

Those departments also don’t inform very much, if at all, the victim’s families of the status of efforts to get the victim back. The right answer, though, is not to reward the kidnappers for their efforts but to create consistency and coordination—and to summarily fire those bureaucrats who fail at this—and to pass information freely and on demand to the victims’ families. Certainly, many efforts are and should remain secret, but in those events, swear the families to secrecy—they need to be inside the loop, not outside of it.

Personal Servers are Secure

Posted on by
Reply

Sure they are. They were inside Hillary Clinton’s house, which itself was guarded by the Secret Service. Furthermore, we have it on the highest authority that there was nothing untoward on those servers. Clinton has said, after all,

I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

Ex-UN Ambassador John Bolton had some thoughts on one thread of emails, and he disagreed with the UNCLASSIFIED marking at the bottom of the first email in the thread.

I think the information in the email is clearly classified. If I were engaged in the negotiation on that subject reporting back to Washington, my reporting cable would be classified.

They’re dealing with the possible US military operation, sensitive negotiations among NATO partners, talking about US objectives and political arrangements and possible objections to the deal from key partners so all of these at secretary of state level is extraordinarily sensitive.

Apart from hackers, the security of an email server is only as good as the security of the users of the email server. When folks send classified email, the server(s) handling it become classified, whether that was the intent or not.

Clinton is mistaken in claiming her personal server did not handle classified emails.

No Heart

Posted on by
Reply

According to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the US has successfully trained about 7,000 Iraqi soldiers and about 2,000 counterterrorism service personnel out of a goal of 24,000 in total. Carter said this about that rather large shortfall:

We simply haven’t received enough recruits[.]

Hmm….

Yet President Barack Obama thinks it’ll be cool to send 450 more US soldiers to Iraq to train the Iraqis.

Again I say, Hmm….

Iran and our State Department

Posted on by
Reply

The guy who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair, John Kerry, had this to say regarding this administration’s “negotiations” about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. In particular, he was talking about this administration’s give a hoot attitude toward nearby history.

The possible military dimensions, frankly, gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussions in that we’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another.

We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward. It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped, and that we can account for that in a legitimate way.

But that’s how you know they might be telling the truth about “those activities” going forward. You match what you know with absolute knowledge (Kerry’s naïveté regarding the perfection of intelligence would be cute if it weren’t so dangerous) with what the Iranians tell you. Deviations between the two—since you already know these things without doubt—are demonstrations of Iran lying, and so you have no way of knowing that they’ve stopped “those activities.”

One more thing regarding “military dimensions…gets distorted a little bit:” for what do you think the Iranians are building their nuclear weapons except for those weapons’ military dimension?

It’s going to be a long and dangerous 18 months.