1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

A complicated gotcha

Discussion in 'Intelligence' started by Flanders, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hussein asking Moscow to help him get a second term is infinitely more complicated than him simply tripping over his tongue. Admittedly, the story is new; nevertheless, I’ve not seen a single article that pulls all of the pieces together. I’ll try to tie together a few of the pieces by quoting from several different sources. I am posting the full article that I think is most germane.

    The betrayal began long before Hussein was born:


    Irrespective of the rosy picture Reuters paints it does answer the question “What specifically was President Obama referring to . . .”:

    Obama vows to pursue further nuclear cuts with Russia
    Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:15am GMT
    By Matt Spetalnick and Jeremy Laurence

    http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE82P01020120326

    Remember that Hussein got a Nobel Peace Prize for his touchy-feely rhetoric. The things he’s done, namely getting the New START Treaty ratified, is more than the rhetoric of a demagogue. His betrayals justify his Nobel to the International community if not to Americans. Even if he is nothing more than a fool, the only option he leaves Americans is to beat off enemies with his Nobel after his International pals are strong enough to attack a weakened America. I’m sure that must have Moscow and Peking shaking in their boots.

    This next two quotes also come from the Reuters piece:


    Who the hell constitutes “our”? And if he has a vision he better tell the rest of us how he plans to change human nature. It is human nature that will forever keep Socialist/Communist utopian garbage out of reach.

    And you can take this one to the bank. You know it is a cover for treason whenever an influential Communist falls back on saying everybody who disagrees is wrong.

    On a lighter note:


    It was nice to see that Goofy Annan still has a hand in the game. I miss the old Goofer. He was a fun guy when he had the secretary-general’s job.

    New START


    And this:

    Turner to Obama: What Flexibility?
    BY: Bill Gertz - March 26, 2012 1:19 pm

    http://freebeacon.com/turner-to-obama-what-flexibility/

    Why would anyone believe a liar like Hussein in the first place? Democrats have a long history of making promises to get what they want —— then completely ignoring the promises when it suits them. Domestic promises like the ones they gave Ronald Reagan to get the first amnesty for illegals are bad enough, but Hussein’s broken promises betrays the country to foreign powers.

    The popular image of traitors has them working for their country’s sworn enemies. Traitors in Hollywood movies meet their contacts in secret places in order to pass top secret documents to foreign governments; sometimes because they are true believers; sometimes for money; often because they are being blackmailed, or because they are just plain old-fashioned scoundrels.

    Is it treason in real life when favors are given to an enemy on the diplomatic level? No dark deed from the past need be used as leverage. It comes down to one Socialist innocently talking to another for the purpose of advancing an agreed upon global agenda. These little exchanges could take place over dinner, or perhaps on the golf course —— certainly not during a debriefing session in a windowless cement room. Where would the harm to the United States be if a couple of Socialist big shots talk a little politics? In Hussein’s case no money changed hands unless you make the case that Russia helping him to a second term is payment of a sort.

    The cynics among us insist the US is harmed.

    What about the others?

    Every Democrat senator voted to ratify New START. There is no doubt in my mind that every one of them is in complete agreement with Hussein and Russia. Not a one of today’s Democrats has any connection to the last good Democrat, Harry Truman:


    They can try to coverup by saying they did not fully understand their president until now, but that does not explain all of the betrayals since 1945. Nor does it explain why House Democrats made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of House knowing full-well what she is.

    The problem is one the intelligence community should be handing. Unfortunately, Democrats now control every intelligence agency. There’s not a freaking chance any high-ranking Democrat traitor will be investigated let alone convicted. At least in the early years of the Cold War traitors had to be careful. Today, they operate with impunity so long as they do their dirty business for the International community and/or the United Nations.
    Finally. Will anybody ask the eight RINO who helped the Democrats ratify New Start be asked how they feel about their vote now? Specifically, will Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, the worst RINO of the eight who voted to ratify, pay the price in his reelection fight for the Republican nomination? Will Lugar’s opponent have the courage to make the New START vote a campaign issue as it should be? After all, Hussein provided the opening. So if the Republican mantra is “Anybody But Obama” should that not include those Republicans who helped him?

    Here’s a foundation article that puts all of the others in perspective. It’s in two parts:


    Is THIS the 'flexibility' Obama promised Russia on nukes?
    President caught on mic asking Moscow for 'space' until 2nd term.
    Published: 8 hours ago
    by AARON KLEIN

    TEL AVIV – What specifically was President Obama referring to when he told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have “more flexibility” after the November election to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense?

    In remarks caught on mic and later broadcast around the world, Obama asked Medvedev to tell incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to give him more “space,” indicating missile issues can be resolved during a second term in office.

    Obama made the remarks in a bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul.

    Stated Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

    Medvedev replied: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you. …”

    Obama then stated: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

    Last year, Obama committed to reducing stocks of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium and signed an agreement that will lower the country’s deployed nuclear arsenals.

    Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, long petitioned for the moves in a magazine whose personnel were used for the benefit of Soviet propaganda in an attempt to disarm America, according to a former top intelligence official during the Soviet era.

    The magazine’s founders were accused of providing vital nuclear secrets that helped the Soviets develop an atomic bomb.
     
    Archer0915 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PART TWO:

    The magazine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has been urging the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control.

    In April 2010, the U.S. and Russia signed a deal reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium, officials in both nations said at the time.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signed a non-binding protocol to a 2000 agreement on eliminating excess weapons-grade plutonium from defense programs.

    U.S. officials have said each country is to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium by burning it in reactors.

    One week earlier, Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing them to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, with Holdren on the board of directors from 1984 until recently, has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, this kind of work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.

    Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chairman of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.

    Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

    In 1994, Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, identified Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.

    “The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard,” wrote Sudoplatov.

    Sudoplatov wrote the Soviet Union “received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on.”

    Oppenheimer was accused in Senate hearings of bringing communists into the Manhattan Project. He brought his brother Frank and three former graduate students into the project, all of whom, according to Senate hearings, were well known to him to be “members of the Communist Party or closely associated with activities of the Communist Party.”

    Oppenheimer admitted he knew by August 1943 that two of the scientists working under him were Communist Party members. Three of five scientists under Oppenheimer’s direct supervision were accused of leaking secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviets.

    On Oct. 25, 1945, Oppenheimer met with President Truman at the White House, urging him to surrender the U.S. nuclear monopoly to international control. Truman was outraged, reportedly telling Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “I don’t want to see that son-of-a-b*tch in this office ever again.”

    Magazine used for ‘Soviet propaganda’

    Oppenheimer and Szilard were stripped of their work in the Manhattan Project, but they continued to use the bulletin to petition for the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control.

    “[Soviet politician and security chief Lavrentiy] Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Szilard and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage,” wrote Sudoplatov.

    Sudoplatov said his spymasters knew the lobby efforts of the bulletin editors would be a “crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this.”

    Another bulletin founding sponsor, Edward U. Condon, was mentioned by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in a May 1947 letter as having contact with an alleged spy who had passed information to the Soviets from 1941 to 1944.

    Holdren worked alongside communist sympathizers

    When Holdren started work on the bulletin in 1984, communist and socialist sympathizers still occupied the magazine’s masthead.

    The New Zeal blog notes the bulletin’s board of directors in 1984 included:

    Board chairman Aaron Adler, who also served on the board of the Chicago Center for U.S./USSR Relations and Exchanges, alongside Larry McGurty of the Communist Party USA.Adler was also a member of what New Zeal labels a Communist Party front, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights. He was also involved in a committee to celebrate the 100th birthday of Communist Party member Paul Robeson.

    Bernard Weissbourd, a former Manhattan Project scientist who later served on the transition oversight committee for incoming Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who was active in Communist Party fronts.Weissbourds’ son, Robert M. Weissbourd, later served as chairman of the Obama for America Campaign Urban and Metropolitan Policy Committee and on the Obama Transition Housing and Urban Development Agency Review Team in 2008.

    Ruth Adams, bulletin editor, who served in the 1960s on the Advisory Committee of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center. Other center members included lifelong communist-front activist Robert Havighurst, communist activist and radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and Quentin Young, an avowed communist who has advised Obama on health care.

    Holdren in Cold War

    WND first reported Holdren visited the Soviet Union during the Cold War as vice chairman of a group whose founder was accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviets build an atom bomb.

    The original leaders of the group, the Federation of American Scientists, also served on the board of the bulletin magazine.

    Just after President Reagan’s March 1983 “Star Wars” speech in which he proposed a missile-defense shield to protect the U.S., a group of Soviet academicians sent a letter to the U.S. scientific community asking about the feasibility of such a shield.

    The only group that responded directly to the Soviet scientists was the Federation of American Scientists, or FAS, leading to an invitation to visit from Evgeny Velikov, director of the Soviet Kurchatov Institute of Science.

    Physicist David W. Hafemeister relates in his book, “Physics and Nuclear Arms Today,” how he was part of the FAS delegation to the USSR along with Holdren, who at the time was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

    The FAS is a non-profit organization formed in 1945 by scientists from the Manhattan Project. The FAS has long petitioned for nuclear disarmament.

    Szilard was a principal founder of the FAS. Founders of the FAS also were board members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

    Along with Szilard and Oppenheimer, WND found other FAS founders that served on the bulletin’s board, including nuclear physicists Eugene Rabinowitch, Hans Bethe and V. F. Weisskopf

    Surrender to planetary regime

    Holdren, meanwhile, has been a longtime climate-change alarmist who has advocated ideas such as enforcing limits to world population growth.

    Holdren’s name was in the emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., which show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, conspired to rig data and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

    FrontPageMag.com noted Holdren has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would control all of the world’s resources; direct global redistribution of wealth; oversee the “de-development” of the West; control a world army and taxation regime; and enforce world population limits.

    Holdren collaborated with conspiracy theorist Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” in which it was proclaimed: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”

    WND previously reported Holdren also predicted 1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide-induced famines” in a coming new ice age by 2020.

    Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe causing global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

    But Holdren also argued “global warming” might cancel global cooling. In their 1970s textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment,” last revised in 1977, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that “a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/is-this-flexibility-obama-promised-russia-on-nukes/
     
  3. Archer0915

    Archer0915 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting posts.
     
  4. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Charles Krauthammer is the only pundit I came across who addressed Hussein’s motives. Bill O’Reilly is perplexed. More than likely he cannot find a way to pooh-pooh everybody who dares look into Hussein’s betrayal.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreil...as-open-mic-gaffe-indicate/?playlist_id=86923

    My question is: What’s it going to take for the American people to see what Hussein is doing to them?

    John Griffing takes it further than did Krauthammer:

    March 28, 2012
    What Happened to Preserve, Protect, and Defend?
    By John Griffing

    How does a president of the United States whose allegiance is to his country knowingly and in plain sight sabotage his nation's defenses? Until recently, the discussions of severe military cuts remained in the appropriate realm of working groups, and few seriously considered Obama's radical campaign promises to eliminate nuclear weapons from the U.S. arsenal to be of any real validity. After all, many Democrat presidential contenders before Obama had pandered to pacifists and the armies of the naïve swelling the Democratic base in order to get elected. But none of these individuals actually took proactive steps to completely remove America's nuclear triad from the list of strategic options. Our ability to instill fear in the hearts of our enemies, both current and future, was left unquestioned by all previous presidents, minor reductions in stockpiles notwithstanding.

    Obama has done what no guardian of America would do: systematically tear down the most vital of America's defenses, all while America's enemies wait with bated breath for the nation that owes trillions in debt to be left standing defenseless. What happens when America lays down its arms? It seems Obama would like to find out. Americans may be the unintended (intended?) victims of a perverse social experiment.

    Leaks from high-level defense sources reveal that in addition to commitments under the New START agreement, which brings the total number of deliverable U.S. warheads to 1,000 -- an unacceptably low number that prevents the U.S. from being able to destroy the 3,000 priority strategic targets identified by the DoD -- Obama now plans to implement an 80-percent force reduction that will leave America with only 300 deliverable warheads. Such a move is suicidal. Such a low number is wholly insufficient to protect America from the growing list of dangerous and erratic nuclear regimes with global ambitions. Even more crucial to understanding the risk inherent in such a decision is the role of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles as a deterrent.

    Americans have only been able to live the cushy, carefree existence of the last half-century -- now taken for granted by new generations of youngsters who have known only prosperity and for whom Cold War politics are moot -- because the U.S. possessed a credible nuclear arsenal capable of devastating any adversary. It is because of, not in spite of, America's nuclear assets that America has survived multiple existential threats.

    The danger of nuclear confrontation has increased, not decreased, since the end of the Cold War. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has increased rapidly, mirroring the acquisition of nuclear weapons by small and medium-sized states, with multiple hostile nuclear powers now vying for global influence. Obama is at best gravely naïve if he is pursuing drastic and suicidal cuts to our arsenal at the present time.

    Obama has been busy gutting American conventional forces as well.

    The Army and the Marines are to be significantly downsized, even as their global commitments expand. Consequently, America can no longer simultaneously fight two major wars in two theaters of deployment, a capability deemed vital by defense insiders to ensuring America's defense against coalitions of aggressor states, and now a plausible scenario owing to the Russian military buildup in the Middle East and the increasingly belligerent actions of China on every front. Both nations are in a Warsaw-Pact prototype alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that openly challenges U.S. leadership and engages in maneuvers in which the United States is the target. Iran is also a member of this organization. Eliminating the two-war capability would seem ill-advised. But then, Obama probably knows this.

    The Navy thinly escaped Obama's hacksaw. Recent studies commissioned by DoD indicate that the present number of aircraft carrier battle groups is not sufficient to maintain an adequate defensive posture in the Pacific, where U.S.-Taiwanese forces are under constant threat of nuclear exchange with China. Even though the number of carrier groups is already below normal, Obama had wanted to cut another carrier battle group from the fleet. The Navy torpedoed the move, but not without cost. Modernization efforts have been canned, and shipbuilding will be greatly slowed, which will cause the fleet to shrink by approximately 70 ships in the 2020s.

    Enter and exit the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has been forced to lose several hundred planes, even though its present number is already below the threshold admittedly needed to carry out tactical bombing campaigns. In Bosnia, when the Air Force was a few times larger than today, it took 40 percent of active aircraft to execute the campaign. Can anyone seriously argue that the U.S. Air Force, which needed nearly half of its resources to prosecute Bosnia, can actually manage a conflict involving multiple major powers at one time, especially if cuts of the magnitude enacted go unchallenged?

    America's president has done more to harm American security than our greatest foes could ever dream of doing, and he has done it with both eyes wide open, willingly, with full knowledge of the implications, which raises the obvious question: what word describes a president who will do this to his own country? The recent Medvedev revelations are a good indicator of Obama's interest in satisfying Russian demands in ways that would be unpopular with the American people.

    Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Even if a case can be made for a reduced U.S. footprint worldwide or for a less interventionist foreign policy, would a loyal American knowingly seek to undermine his or her nation's greatness merely to satisfy some philosophical pretense to equality with "everybody else"?

    The time for pretense is over. Obama is no friend of America.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/03/what_happened_to_preserve_protect_and_defend.html
     
  5. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    323
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is really overhyped.

    Obama basically said, let's continue talking.. after I am re elected..

    Childish attack.. once again.
     
  6. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To Margot: How would you know? You could not have watched a 4 minute 54 second video, read the Griffing article, and responded in one minute.
     
  7. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    323
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just find your "intellectual" gyrations and unstudied opinions to be consistently ridiculous.
     
  8. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To Margot: What I find is that you’re a message board dabbler attacking the messenger because you lack the intellect to attack the message. You might even be a Democrat party operative assigned to disparage anyone who is critical of Hussein and Islamic fundamentalism; the two topics that never fail to animate you.
     
  9. mrmeangenes

    mrmeangenes New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Offhand, I'd say anyone who persists in addressing the President of the United States as "Hussein" is pretty much self-defining.

    Reading even a few paragraphs of that screed tends to confirm that unfortunate first impression.

    I suppose, if I were a masochist, I would read further; but-since I am not-I won't.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,322
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree. I find that when anybody calls world leaders by shldish names, they other remarks are equally childish.

    I pretty much tune out all of his posts. Other then to occasionally comment in them. Flanders is basically a Right Wing version of Horhey.

    Tons of attack posts that wander all over the place, tons of massive quotes from other sources, almost impossible to follow because there is little logic other then they are attacks on President Obama.

    Yea, the President does not like Missile Defense. This is no shock, he talked about shutting it down while he was in Congress. As do most Democrats. Even President Clinton frequently talked about shutting it down (until his second term, when he actually stopped talking about it then increased funding).
     
  11. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really don’t get Goofy Annan’s resurrection:

    Clinton to Assad: Don't delay implementing peace plan
    ISTANBUL | Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:55am EDT

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/us-syria-clinton-idUSBRE8300C220120401

    Annan was a joke for the 10 years he was secretary-general. The Oil-For-Food scandal was the high point of his tenure. Now, suddenly he is proposing peace plans? Couldn’t Secretary General Ban Ki-moon come up with a peace plan? I hate to think Ban roll-on-deodorant is dumber than the old Goofer.

    Or is it that the Clinton co-presidents installed Goofy Annan as secretary-general and he still owes them? Remember it was Clinton that denied Boutros Boutros-Ghali a second term; replacing him with Annan.

    Finally, I’d have to side with Bashar the Syrian if he tells Hillary Clinton to mind her own freaking business. Let’s face it, Egypt and Libya are not exactly intelligence community success stories.
     

Share This Page