Obama CIA Director Admits Enhanced Interrogations Helped Lead U.S. To Bin Laden (Video)

Boom! CIA Director Brennan Admits Info From Enhanced Interrogations Led US To Osama Bin Laden – Gateway Pundit

.
………………….

.
CIA Director Brennan just admitted that the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) provided information that was useful & was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin Laden.

“There was information obtained from the EIT that was useful in the Bin Laden operation.”

.

.
On Monday CIA Director John Brennan rebutted two of the central premises of the Democratic Senate report on CIA’s enhanced interrogating techniques. Brennan said the controversial program produced evidence that helped avert potential strikes against the U.S. Today he admitted the information led to Bin Laden.

.

.

Obama State Department Hasn’t Cancelled Passports Of Any American ISIS Recruits (Video)

State Dept. Has Not Cancelled Passports Of Any ‘ISIS Or Foreign Fighters’ Returning To U.S. – CNS

.

.
The United States must use “all of the tools at our disposal” to deal with the threat posed by Americans and other Westerners who go to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS, a State Department official told Congress on Tuesday.

But so far, that does not include revoking the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled to Syria to fight with ISIS.

“Has the State Department cancelled the passports of any U.S. citizens who have joined any terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq?” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked Ambassador Robert Bradtke on Tuesday at a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

.

.
“To my knowledge, the State Department has not cancelled any passports,” responded Bradtke, a senior adviser with the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism who was called out of retirement to focus on foreign fighters.

“As Secretary Kerry said, he does have the authority to revoke passports. And this is something we would only do in relatively rare and unique circumstances because of the importance for average Americans (to) have the freedom to travel,” Bradtke said.

“We would only do it also in consultations with law enforcement authorities. And we have not yet had any requests from law enforcement authorities to cancel the passports of ISIS or foreign fighters. So again, we have the authority; it is one tool; we do have other tools to use as well in this regard.”

A second government official told lawmakers that the no-fly list is one of those other tools:

“Congressman, if we have indications that someone on the no-fly list is trying to fly back to the United States, we would deny them boarding,” said Thomas Warrick, a deputy assistant secretary for counter-terrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security.

“If someone shows up in the United States and there’s indications that that person has been a foreign fighter in Syria, it would be referred to the FBI, and then it would be a matter for law enforcement,” Warrick explained.

“We would have the ability at the border to ask any questions that were necessary and appropriate; we would have the ability and the authority to inspect their luggage, inspect their personal possessions, in order to determine whether they were or were not a foreign fighter who had been fighting with ISIL. Anything like this, I can assure you, is taken extremely seriously.”

Later in the hearing, Warrick was asked what would happen if an Irish national, for example, tried to come to the U.S. after fighting with terrorists in Syria.

“Where somebody has been identified as a foreign fighter fighting for ISIL in Syria… they’re going to be in all likelihood on a no-fly list or another list of the U.S. government that is going to attract a great deal of attention before they’re allowed to get on board an airplane for the United States.”

But Warrick admitted that the no-fly list can’t guarantee that foreign fighters will be kept out of this country:

“Well, they wouldn’t be able to fly here,” he said. “The no-fly list obviously doesn’t apply to other modes of transportation. However, I can assure you that there are equal or equivalent measures in place so that somebody on the no-fly list is almost certainly not going to be allowed entry into the United States, if they come by cruise ship or if they fly to Canada, for example… and they were to try, let’s say, to come across the U.S.-Canadian border.”

No one mentioned the U.S.-Mexico border, which was overwhelmed by an influx of people from Central America just a few months ago.

Warrick put the number of U.S. citizens fighting with ISIS/ISIL at “greater than a hundred,” and he said some of those returning fighters have been arrested on arrival in this country. He did not say how many have been arrested, but when it happens, he said the returning fighters move from DHS purview to FBI purview.

Two Democrats on the subcommittee asked why the State Department has not hired its own expert on Islamic law.

“It is incredibly important that we get Islamic scholars, experts and jurists to issue rulings adverse to ISIS and favorable to the United States,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).

“It is about time that the State Department hire its first Islamic legal expert to work full time on that – maybe a couple (of experts). And it is time that at least somebody be hired at the State Department, not because they went to a fancy American school or because they did well on the foreign service exam.”

Sherman said he’s been told that the State Department is relying on outsiders to provide expertise on Islamic law and issue statements that are favorable to the United States.

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) said the Middle East is “unraveling,” posing “a threat to us and the West.”

“As the United States moves forward, it just seems that the State Department needs to be promoting leadership from within that has particular focus on this region, since that’s what we’re dealing with… I do think Mr. Sherman has a point, that longer term, the United States has got to get serious about this region and expertise in this region if we’re going to address the challenges we face.”

.

.

*PICTURES/VIDEOS* Violent, Racist Leftists Go On Devastating Rampage In Ferguson, MO


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Businesses looted and/or burned:

St.Louis Fish & Chicken Grill
Family Dollar
Dollar Tree
O’Reilly’s Auto Parts
Beauty Mart
A.J. & R. Pawn Shop
Walgreens
FedEx
Cakes and More
JC Wireless
AT&T
STL Bread Company
Conoco
Auto Buy Credit
Phillips 66
McDonald’s
Red’s Barbecue
Taco Bell
CVS
Beauty Town
Little Caesar’s
Ferguson Liquor
Public Storage
Sam’s Meat Market
Medicine Shop
Commerce Bank
Auto Zone
Toys R Us
Amoco
Quiznos
Dellwood Market
Chop Suey restaurant
TitleMax
Antonio French’s Heal Stl Community Center

.

Useless Douchebag Hagel Forced By Useless Douchebag Obama To Step Down As Defense Secretary

Chuck Hagel Forced To Step Down As US Defense Secretary – The Guardian

The US defense secretary has been fired after less than two years in office as the White House re-orders a national security strategy upended by the Islamic State (Isis).

.

.
Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama’s third Pentagon chief and a former Republican senator, will leave the Department of Defense just weeks after his spokesman said Hagel was looking forward to serving “for the remainder” of the Obama administration.

Two senior administration officials told the Guardian on Monday that a New York Times report of his exit was “correct”, and said more details would be announced shortly by the White House.

Obama is expected to confirm his defense secretary’s departure in a “personnel announcement” scheduled in the State Dining Room at 11.10am ET. It was not clear if Obama would announce another change to his Iraq-Syria war strategy to correspond with Hagel’s departure.

The first national security casualty of Obama’s midterm elections defeat was one who, despite his Capitol Hill pedigree and Republican registration, never won the confidence of the congressional GOP, who considered him a water-carrier for the administration.

Before Obama’s announcement, a senior administration official praised Hagel as “a steady hand,” and said Hagel had been speaking with Obama in October about leaving “given the natural post-midterms transition time.” Hagel’s spokesman, Rear Admiral John Kirby, told Pentagon reporters on November 7 that Hagel expected to stay on.

Hagel was out of step with the administration on Isis, having urged the White House to clarify its stance on ushering Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad out of power and bizarrely inflating the threat Isis posed, calling it “an imminent threat to every interest we have” in an August press conference. While the administration has publicly ruled out using US ground forces in combat in Iraq, Hagel and particularly the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, floated precisely that as an option in testimony earlier this month.

A man who never quite found his footing as Pentagon chief, Hagel also testified that the US strategy against Isis – which focuses on Iraq primarily and Syria peripherally – was working, even as it undergoes frequent adjustment and revision.

Yet the strategy has come under criticism from hawks as well as doves. Hawks want a deeper US commitment of air as well as ground forces to beating Isis back, while doves are alarmed at the shifting of US war aims and commensurate resources. The next chairman of the Senate armed services committee, Arizona Republican John McCain, wants a more forceful US response to Isis and had long fallen out with his former friend Hagel.

In the five months since Isis seized Mosul, Obama has authorized 3,000 new troops to advise and train Iraqis, and expanded an air war into Syria. Pentagon efforts to field a Syrian proxy force have barely begun and are expected to take a year before yielding the first capable units.

Hagel, a Vietnam combat veteran and a non-commissioned army officer, was not expected to be a wartime defense secretary, instead brought in to manage the downsizing of US ground forces and shore up the administration’s at-times uneasy relationship with the military. His Senate confirmation hearing saw the former senator rambling and unfocused; he mischaracterized the administration’s position on Iran. Amongst Hagel’s more forceful positions early in office was to warn against US involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Several oft-mentioned names to replace Hagel have already surfaced. Former defense policy chief Michele Flournoy, a figure deeply identified with the troop surge in Afghanistan, would be the first woman to run the Pentagon. The Times reported that Rhode Island Senate Democrat Jack Reed is in the running, as is Ashton Carter, a senior official noted for his management and budgetary skills who was Robert Gates’ acquisitions chief and Leon Panetta’s deputy secretary.

The senior official said a successor would be nominated in “short order” and Hagel will serve until his successor’s confirmation.

.

.

How Many Lies Have Democrats Told To Sabotage The War On Terror? (David Horowitz)

How Many Lies Have Democrats Told To Sabotage The War On Terror? – David Horowitz

.

.
Start with Obama’s claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) is not Islamic. Say what? In fact, the so-called war on terror is clearly a war that Islamic jihadists have declared on us. Yet Obama is so hostile to this war that even the subterfuge “war on terror” was too much for him and he purged it from official government statements and replaced it with “Overseas Contingency Operations,” which describes nothing. Why would he do this? To avoid confronting the actual threat from what is obviously the most dynamic movement in Islam today: the jihadist war to purge the world of infidels and establish a global Islamic state. The same impulse to deny this threat can be seen in the Obama administration’s characterization of domestic acts of Islamic terror like the recent beheading in Oklahoma and the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.”

The origin of the Democratic lies that fog the nature of the war against the Islamists and make us vulnerable to their attacks can be traced to the Democrats’ defection from the war in Iraq, the second front in the so-called “war on terror.” “Bush Lied People Died.” This was the disgusting charge with which progressives and Democrats sought successfully to demonize America’s commander-in-chief and demoralize the nation as it went to war to take down the terrorist-supporting monster regime of Saddam Hussein and eventually defeat Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, Bush didn’t lie about the reasons for taking on the terrorist regime in Iraq, as the Democrats claimed. Democrats, including senators John Kerry and Diane Feinstein sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of data about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and the reasons for going to war that George Bush did. If they had any doubts about these reasons all they had to do was pick up the phone to CIA director George Tenet – a Bill Clinton appointee – and ask him. The reprehensible claim that Bush lied was concocted by Democrats to justify their defection from a war they had just authorized betraying their country in time of war along with the young men and women they had sent into the battlefield.

The Democrats lied in claiming that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that therefore the war was unnecessary and therefore immoral. This was actually two lies in one. In the first place the decision to go to war wasn’t about Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was about his determination to build and use weapons of mass destruction and his violation of 17 Security Council resolutions designed to stop him from doing just that. Saddam violated all 17 of the UN resolutions, beginning with those that constituted the Gulf War Truce and culminating in the ultimatum to disclose and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction. His defiance of that ultimatum is why we went to war with him.

But it was the second lie – that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction – that the Democrats used to discredit the president and the war we were fighting. In fact, the Saddam regime did have weapons of mass destruction, including a chemical weapons storage plant recently discovered by ISIS along with 2200 rockets filled with deadly Sarin gas. Here’s the report from the Daily News of July 9, 2014:

“A terrorist group bent on turning Iraq into an Islamic state has seized a chemical weapons depot near Baghdad stockpiled with sarin-filled rockets left over from the Saddam Hussein era… The site, about 35 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once operated by Saddam’s army and is believed to contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with potentially deadly sarin and mustard gas.”

Not a single Democrat has apologized for the monstrous defamation campaign they conducted around this lie to cripple their president and their country in a time of war.

The Democrats began their sabotage campaign against the war in Iraq in June 2003, claiming that Bush lied when he cited a British report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger for his nuclear weapons program. Two official reports, one by the British and the other by the U.S. Senate confirmed that Bush’s statement was correct, but this was long after the Democrats had so demonized America’s commander-in-chief as a cynical and dangerous liar that his ability to mobilize American citizens to support the war against the Iraqi terrorists was severely damaged. No apologies from Democrats or the media, which abetted their lies, in this case either. Here is a recent testimony about the facts of Saddam’s quest for fissionable yellow cake uranium:

“As someone who led the company that transported 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium – enough to make fourteen Hiroshima-size bombs – from Saddam’s nuclear complex in the Iraq War’s notorious ‘Triangle of Death’ for air shipment out of the country, I know Baathist Iraq’s WMD potential existed.”

Not content with these lies, the Democrats reached into their Marxist pocket for another. The progressive slogan “No Blood For Oil” was a maliciously false claim designed to undermine the moral basis for the war by accusing President Bush of serving the interests of his Texas oil cronies beginning with Vice President Cheney, former president of Halliburton, instead of the American people. In the Democrats’ telling, evil corporations in the Republicans’ pocket pushed the country into a needless and “imperialist” war that cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But the fact is that despite spending trillions of dollars on a war that cost thousands of American lives, America got no oil out of the war in Iraq, which has wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists and the People’s Republic of China. No apologies for this myth either.

Perhaps the most destructive lie that Democrats have used to sabotage the war against the Islamist fanatics is that fighting terrorists creates more of them. Nancy Pelosi actually told 60 Minutes’ Steve Croft that if America left Iraq the terrorists would leave too. The argument has been used by progressives to oppose a serious military effort to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq rather than having to fight them here at home. But aggressive pre-emptive war against the terrorists in their homelands rather than ours has the opposite effect as the victory in Iraq showed before Obama undid it.

The six-year retreat of the Obama Administration from the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and appeasement of the terrorist state of Iran, has created more terrorists than we have ever seen. The weakness displayed by the chief defender of freedom under the leadership of an anti-American president has been a provocation to terrorists. The terror threat diminished under Bush but has grown dramatically under Obama. That is because fighting terrorists does not produce them. ISIS is able to recruit thousands of new terrorists because Islamist radicals are inspired by what Osama bin Laden called “the strong horse,” by beheadings and the slaughter of Christians without a serious reprisal. This is the face of the evil that confronts us, and we better wake up to that threat before it is too late.

.

.