Bad News For Barack And Hillary – Leon Panetta And Michael Morell Endorse Benghazi Select Committee

Panetta And Morell Endorse The Select Committee Investigation Of Benghazi – Powerline

The case against a Select Committee investigation of Benghazi took a hit when former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell agreed that the investigation is a good idea. Panetta was Defense Secretary at the time of the Benghazi attack; Morell was Deputy CIA Director at that time.

.

.
Speaking at a press conference, Panetta said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. “The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out” that raise more questions, he explained. Panetta added that he hopes House Democrats participate.

Morell, speaking at the same press conference, concurred. He stated:

It might be surprising for you to hear me say this, but I am a supporter of the creation of this committee because I want all the facts to come together in one place and be presented… as one thing, so the American people can see all of this.

Panetta and Morell are saying, in effect, that they have nothing to hide – Panetta in terms of the lack of a military response; Morell in terms of an intelligence failure and/or an intelligence doctoring.

Can the same by said for then-Secretary of State Clinton and for the White House? Or do they have things they want to hide? If they don’t, then they too should welcome the Select Committee investigation, or at least not bad-mouth it. And House Democrats should be willing to participate.

It has always been a bad idea for the Dems to boycott the Select Committee investigation. Now that Panetta and Morell have endorsed that investigation, it’s a terrible idea.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The most basic question about Benghazi? Why

Why were so many stand down orders given? Why was an effort, made to save those Americans? Was there something there to hide? We keep hearing about weapons being traded. But it all comes down to one question for me. Why? Bob Owens looks at why some of the military options were not taken

Writing in The American Thinker, Jonathan Moseley exposes both former Defense Secretary Gates and current Defense Secretary Panetta as liars attempting to protect a feckless administration:

Elite U.S. troops were completely capable of saving Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi Consulate attacks on September 11, 2012.  Elements of the highly specialized Combatant Commanders In-Extremis (CIF) units are always on alert, on forward deployment, ready to respond.  Their job description is to hit the ground in 3 to 5 hours.  CIF elements are ready to engage in active combat anywhere in their region, 3 to 5 hours after the call.

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense at the time, either misled the U.S.  Congress or was incompetent.  Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, 2013 that the U.S. military could not have responded in less than 9 to 12 hours.

Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, told CBS’sFace the Nation on May 12, 2013 that “[w]e don’t have a ready force standing by” in that region.

But we absolutely do “have a ready force standing by” to reach any trouble spot in a few hours.  Insider reports previously revealed that CIF elements were training in Croatia and could have been in Benghazi in three and a half hours.

Although rotating out of the United States, some CIF elements are always forward-deployed within each military command region, always on stand-by.  Their training includes expertise within each local region.  Some of each region’s unit is always ready.  They don’t need to pack.  Being ready to go — immediately — is their job description.  It’s the reason they exist.

Note that Moseley doesn’t even touch on the 100-strong Recon Marine force spinning up at Naval Air Station Sigonella roughly two hours away, nor the Special Forces team already in Libya at Tripoli that was ordered to stand down when they were attempting to board a flight to Benghazi after the initial attack.

There were at least three special operations or special operation capable units within four hours of Benghazi numbering more than 120 men, along with ground attack aircraft, allegedly including an AC-130 gunship that CIA Operator Ty Woods was attempting to lase targets for, believing it was an on-call asset… just another one that never showed up.

So, again, why? Why did we leave Americans to die? Incompetence? Fear of bringing on a bigger conflict? Fear of having weapons trading exposed? Whatever the reason, it is not good enough, because we, as a nation should NEVER abandon our own. And to those who would say no rescue mission would have done any good, consider what kind of hell two former SEALs brought on the terrorist attackers. Two SEALs that I would remind everyone were ordered to stand down. Men who were too patriotic to let fellow Americans die. If not for those men, more Americans would have died. 

Politically correcting our military

The United States military is second to none, but there are two looming threats to that superiority. first there is defense cuts, which could leave our military impotent, then there is the threat of P. C. Here are some very bad signs

Military orders crosses removed from forward operating base after atheists complain

Via Fox News:

The U.S. military reportedly ordered soldiers to remove a cross and a steeple from atop a chapel and to board up cross-shaped windows at a remote American forward operating base in Afghanistan.

The removal of Christian symbols from the chapel at Forward Operating Base Orgun-E came after a solider complained — leading American Atheists president David Silverman to send a letter to the Pentagon.

“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.”

Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger.

“It enflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.

The Army released a statement to NBC acknowledging board had also been placed over the cross-shaped windows while the base ordered new doors.

Here we go, better not risk offending an Atheist or an Islamist. I wonder what George Patton would have to say about this inanity. But there is more. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seems to be obsessed with a gender neutral military

(CNSNews.com) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that whether they are male or female “everyone is entitled to a chance” to become a combat soldier in a military that will now adopt “gender neutral” standards.

“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job–and let me be clear, we’re not talking about reducing the qualifications for a job–if they can meet the qualifications for the job then they should have the right to serve,” Panetta said at a Pentagon press conference.

The Defense Department announced today that it would rescind its 1994 policy restricting women from serving in combat-focused positions such as infantry units, potentially opening up 230,000 positions to female service members.

Sure, IF the standards are not lowered or altered fine. Problem is, I do not trust a Liberal like Panetta, or a Leftist like his boss, to NOT change he standards. Then there is always the threat of our government caving in to UN pressure and surrendering part or all of our right to protect ourselves

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has launched an investigation into drone strikes and will review resultant civilian casualties to determine whether the attacks constitute a war crime.

Ben Emmerson, a UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, formally launched the inquiry on Thursday, in response to requests from Russia, China and Pakistan.

A statement released by the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights states that the inquiry will provide a “critical examination of the factual evidence concerning civilian casualties”. [...]

At a press conference on Thursday in London, Emmerson said that the British government had already agreed to co-operate with the investigation and that he was “optimistic” that the US would do the same.

He also requested the US to release “before and after” videos of the drone strikes and internal reports of those killed, including civilians.

Of course our only statement to the UN should be short, very short. I am think two words long, care to guess which two words? Here is a hint the first words starts with a big fat “F”. Again, let this serve as a reminder that Leftists are a threat to everything that makes America free and strong. You might be feeling like you were kicked in the groin ever since election day. Well shake it off. Politics are cyclical, and do not even think of packing it is, we have too much to lose, including our opportunity to retake and rebuild our republic that the Founders gave us.

 

 

Proof that President Obama responsible for not saving Benghazi victims?

Just saw this on Twitter, via Pat Dollard

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.

The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.

“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized in the Washington Daybook–a planning service to which news organizations subscribe–and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself.

It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there.

“At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle.”

But the battle was far from over.

“Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time.”

The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the “early morning” that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded.

There you are, you decide for yourself

 

Leon Panetta bashes our troops for “Lack of Professionalism”?

I really try not to throw out a bunch of four-letter words on this blog, but sometimes, sometimes some asshole who frankly is not fit to shovel camel shit says something insulting to our military, and well….

Via Politico:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called on American soldiers to remember that when serving abroad they are representing the United States — and that incidents involving the desecration of enemy corpses shows “a lack of professionalism” among American forces.

Speaking to troops at Fort Benning, Ga., Panetta said that the high profile cases involving servicemembers urinating on Afghan corpses and posing for pictures with body parts “show a lack of judgment, a lack of professionalism, and a lack of leadership,” according to the L.A. Times.

“These days, it takes only seconds for one picture to suddenly become an international headline,” Panetta said. “And those headlines can impact the mission we’re engaged in, they can put your fellow service members at risk, they can hurt morale, and they can damage our standing in the world.”

Hmmm, it seems to me that the asinine rules of engagement our troops are forced to fight under and having a Defense Secretary that could not find his ass with both hands might endanger our troops and threaten morale. Who wants to bet the troops would agree with me?

*VIDEO* Obama Defense Secretary: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

.
H/T Breitbart

.

Vote for the Usedul Idiot of the Month

At The Conservative Hideout

Well folks, I’d like to thank the readers for all the nominees for Useful Idiot of the Month.  Here are your nominees…

1.  Barak Obama:  For the suggestion that pond scum is a great power source, as well as the Useful Idiot Lifetime Achievement Award.  Nominated by Steve Dennis, JimLC Aggie Sith, and Infidel de Manahatta.

2.  Sec. of the Navy, Ray Mabus:  For catastrophic fleet reductions.  Nominated by Bob Mack.

3.  Leon Panetta: because loose lips sink ships. Nominated by our very own Don.

4.  Anyone  who plans on voting for Obama in November: for obvious reasons.  Nominated by Beth.

5.  Kathleen Sebelius: For complete contempt for anything good and Holy.  Nominated by King Shamus.

6.  Jay Carney:  For propaganda and hypocrisy.  Nominated by LC Aggie Sith.

Now, I have to make a rather controversial nomination…

7.  Catholics:  For so many being duped into voting for Obama, and supporting ObamaCare.

Well, go, VOTE!

Leon Panetta is a national disgrace, and a useful idiot for anti-Semites and terrorists

What an absolutely pathetic excuse for a man. Blaming Israel because its enemies want to destroy it. How can anyone be so stupid? And make no mistake, Panetta’s remarks are further proof that this administration detests Israel. Watch the video at the link, then go here and check out Charles Krauthammer’s response. Also check out what Rick Perry had to say

And Israel shares a commitment to our core principles of personal freedom. And yet President Obama has systematically undermined America’s relationship with Israel, specifically on the question of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinian People.

I want to be clear I support the goal of a Palestinian state, but it should be the Palestinians who meet certain pre-conditions.

And those pre-conditions must include statehood that is directly negotiated between Israeli and the Palestinian leaders; second, a Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and third, Palestinian leaders must renounce the terrorist activities of Hamas.

Instead, the Administration has insisted on previously unheard-of preconditions for Israel, such as an immediate stop to all settlement activity. President Obama has suggested the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations.  And he has instituted the practice of “indirect talks”, subverting the Oslo Accords.

Then Perry hits Panetta, and Obama

Israel does not need our President demanding gratitude for being the best friend Israel has ever had while his Secretary of Defense rails that Israel has to “get back to the damn table” with the Palestinians, and his Secretary of State questions the viability of Israel’s democracy, even as his Ambassador to Belgium blames anti-Semitism among Muslims on Israel’s failure to accommodate the Palestinians all of which happened in the last week alone.

This torrent of hostility towards Israel does not seem to have been coordinated, but rather is the natural expression of this administration’s attitude towards Israel.

I want you to know American-Israeli policy is not a box to be checked as part of my campaign. It is both a deeply personal issue for me, and is also a cornerstone of my larger global strategy.

Perry also talked of the need to support Israel if it decides to strike Iran. This is another reason this election is so important. We need a leader who supports our allies, and we have no better ally than Israel. President Obama cannot throw our allies, especially Israel under the bus fast enough.

So, Obama is the best friend Israel ever had?

Give me a break! Just look at what members of Team Obama say about hatred towards Israel

Via Weekly Standard:

The U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel is to blame for growing anti-Semitism harbored by people of Muslim faith.

“A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”

So, I guess SOME anti-Semitism, and yes violence IS acceptable then? But wait there is more! Take it away Leon Panetta

(AFP) — US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Israel to try and end its increasing regional “isolation” by repairing diplomatic ties with Egypt and Turkey and renewing peace efforts with the Palestinians.

“Unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow, and the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace has effectively been put on hold,” he said.

It was crucial for Israel to reach out and “mend fences” with countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan that he said share an interest in regional stability, said Panetta, who issued similar appeals in a visit to the region in October.

As for Egypt, he said the United States shared Israel’s concerns about security in the Sinai peninsula and over the recent attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

But the best response was to step up “communication and cooperation with Egyptian authorities” instead of “stepping away from them,” he said.

Israel needed “to lean forward on efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians,” Panetta said at an event organized by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for the Middle East, a Washington think-tank.

Is Panetta REALLY this stupid? Apparently so. It is obvious he does not live in the real world. But, again, we see more radicalism oozing from the cesspool that is the Obama administration! Just another reason why 2012 is SO important! WE have to elect a Republican president, AND get the majority in the Senate!

Obama’s dream come true?

Zip at Weasel Zippers asks the question that popped into my mind the second I heard the news that the “Super Committee” had failed to reach a decision on spending cuts

Was gutting the military his plan all along or is that giving him too much credit?

Was the Leftist dream of more gun control behind Fast and Furious? Will ObamaCare ultimately lead to rationing? Seems that some question pretty much answer themselves don’t they? Obama will have his defense cuts, and he will veto any attempt to thwart him

(National Journal) — President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans for the failure of the super committee to meet its deadline for a debt plan and warned that he will veto any attempt to eliminate the automatic spending cuts that go into effect with that failure.

In an appearance in the White House briefing room a little more than an hour after the committee officially conceded failure, the president said his answer to those who want to eliminate those cuts “is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

Turns out that this super committee was a joke, didn’t we all kinda know it would be? And it turns out that this turns out to be a victory for Obama. He can gleefully slash defense spending, AND blame the Republicans at the same time!

By the way, here is what will get cut because the GOP “leaders” played ball on this.

In his straightforward and scathing piece for today’s New York Post, Heritage senior fellow Peter Brookes discussed the devastating impact a sequestration of the defense budget would have on America’s military.

If the congressional “super committee” cannot find $1.5 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years by November 23, the law would trigger automatic spending “sequestration” cuts of $1.2 trillion—of which roughly half a trillion or more would be from the defense budget. This spells major trouble for U.S. national security.

Since President Obama has been in office, Brookes points out, there have already been some $850 billion in Defense Department spending cuts (past, present, and future) over a 10-year period. These cuts eliminate 50 major weapons programs, and any more cuts would, in the words of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “be shooting ourselves in the head.”

According to the report, the cuts would effectively “hollow out” America’s military. They would deeply undermine the Marine Corps and the expeditionary fighting force, leading to the smallest force in 50 years and compromising their ability to deploy to hot spots quickly in the event of a crisis—a hard-learned lesson from the Korean War. The cuts would take the Army below pre-9/11 troop levels and lead to an Air Force with two-thirds fewer fighters and strategic bombers than in 1990.

And last but not least, the Navy would have to mothball over 60 ships, including two carrier battle groups, shrinking it below pre–World War I levels.

America’s nuclear deterrent force—the foundation of U.S. national security—would be undermined as we would likely lose one of the legs of the U.S. nuclear triad. As the U.S. nuclear deterrent shrinks and loses credibility, some of the 31 countries that enjoy protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella may consider going nuclear out of growing fears about their vulnerability. This would be extremely destabilizing and could lead to costly conflicts.

Unbelievable, God help us get to January20, 2013 quickly. This administration is absolutely dismantling this great nation. The economy, the military, spitting on our allies, kissing the collective asses of our enemies, and on, and on, and………….

Will The Senate Pick Anti-Defense CIA Chief With Red Ties As SecDef?; More Damaging Disclosures About Leon Panetta

Will The Senate Pick Anti-Defense CIA Chief With Red Ties As SecDef?; More Damaging Disclosures About Leon Panetta – New Zeal

Researchers Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid are warning the Senate to examine CIA Director Leon Panetta’s anti-defense record, associations with identified communists, and support for the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies before voting on his nomination as Secretary of Defense. A vote could come as early as Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Panetta opposed President Reagan’s military build-up in the 1980s, which was a decisive factor in the ultimate fall of Soviet-style communism, and he was on the side of the communists in Central America,” they said in a joint statement. “There is every reason to believe, based on his public record, that he will cut major weapons systems and even military personnel as defense secretary, putting the U.S. into a weak international position vis-à-vis China and radical Islamists in the critical years ahead.”

Loudon and Kincaid point to disturbing evidence of Panetta’s long-time friendly relationship with identified Communist Party figure Hugh DeLacy, who had ties to identified communist spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service. The evidence shows that, in addition to his friendly ties to communist spies, DeLacy had traveled to Communist China and Sandinista Nicaragua in support of those regimes.


………………………..Leon Panetta………………………………………………….Hugh DeLacy

This evidence – and more – is contained in the “Hugh DeLacy Papers” reviewed and obtained by Loudon during a fact-finding trip to the University of Washington, where the material is stored. Kincaid reviewed evidence of DeLacy’s communist background in hearings conducted on “Communist Political Subversion” by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and “Un-American Activities in California” by the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities. It is not apparent that any of this material has been obtained or reviewed by the Senate or the FBI.

In addition to this evidence, which involves communist espionage activities, Loudon and Kincaid say that Panetta’s record as a member of Congress, especially during the 1980s, must be probed in order to understand what policies he will pursue as defense secretary. They point to a series of “Dear Hugh” and “Dear Leon” letters that reveal that Panetta and DeLacy shared the same ideological perspective on domestic issues, such as cutting the defense budget, and foreign affairs, in terms of failing to confront the challenge of international communism. The letters also reveal that Panetta, as a member of Congress, provided DeLacy with a summary of a document on military affairs that was not available to the public. Another letter from Panetta to DeLacy refers to “trying to locate the documents you requested” and providing them “as soon as they are received in my office.”

These letters to an identified communist — named as such in Congressional hearings as well as by Communist attorney John Abt – raise questions as to whether Panetta was safeguarding sensitive information he may have had access to.

“After Obama’s selection of Panetta as CIA director,” note Loudon and Kincaid, “observers commented on his lack of intelligence experience. Attention should have been focused on his relationship with DeLacy, which raises the question of whether he is entitled to have access to classified information of the highest order as CIA director. The DeLacy connection suggests that Panetta was particularly responsive to a ‘constituency,’ as he called it in one letter, detrimental to the national security interests of the United States. It is this same ‘constituency,’ which includes members of Democratic Socialists of America and the neo-Marxist New American Movement, as well as the Communist Party, which backed Barack Obama’s political career. This commonality has to be the explanation of why Obama picked Panetta for the CIA post. They were ideological soul-mates.”

In terms of national defense, even before Reagan took office, Panetta was complaining about “wasteful spending that goes into needless weapons systems,” according to one letter to DeLacy. In 1981, after Reagan took office, Panetta attacked “sharp increases for defense proposed by the Reagan Administration” as “a blank check to the Pentagon…” This was the build-up that confronted Soviet power in Europe and around the world.

As Soviet- and Cuban-backed communists were vying for complete control of Central America, after having already seized the government of Nicaragua through the Sandinista takeover under President Jimmy Carter, Panetta sent a “Dear Hugh” letter saying that “I have always been a strong and vocal opponent of the Reagan Administration’s slide toward military intervention in Nicaragua.” Such a stance effectively put Panetta on the side of the communists in Central America, backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba.

In fact, Reagan was reacting to international communism’s attempt to take the countries of the region one by one. In response, Reagan liberated Grenada from foreign-backed communists, backed the democratically-elected government of El Salvador, and supported anti-communist freedom fighters in Nicaragua. But Panetta boasted to DeLacy in one letter that he had even voted against a House amendment declaring that the introduction of Soviet MIG fighters in Central America was a national security threat to the United States.


Leon Panetta addresses rally against President Reagan’s policies in Central America, October 7, 1986

Another disturbing aspect of the Panetta record involves his close collaboration with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Marxist think tank supportive of communist regimes such as Cuba and Sandinista Nicaragua. Indeed, Chilean Marxist Orlando Letelier, exposed as a Cuban agent by documents found in his briefcase after his death, was operating under the cover of the IPS.

Panetta was a member of the Congressional committee that celebrated the 20th anniversary of IPS in 1983, the same year the organization launched a series of conferences with the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada, a front for Soviet intelligence activities.

The DeLacy relationship involves more than DeLacy himself, since Panetta addressed one letter to “Dear Hugh and Dorothy,” a reference to DeLacy’s wife, a former senior Communist Party activist in Missouri, and identified in a congressional report as an alleged organizer for the Party in California. Panetta spoke at Hugh DeLacy’s memorial service in 1986 and put a tribute to both of them in the Congressional Record in 1983. “I am very pleased to transmit to you the enclosed tributes from the Congressional Record,” Panetta wrote to them. In turn, DeLacy wrote a “Dear Leon” letter to Panetta thanking him not only for the tribute but for attending a private “celebration” with them. DeLacy quickly added, however, that he wanted Panetta to turn his attention to “the need for cutting back the military boondoggle…”

While the Senate Armed Services Committee is the proper venue for examining Panetta’s anti-defense record, the Senate Intelligence Committee is the body that should have probed the Panetta-DeLacy relationship, DeLacy’s ties to identified communist spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service, and Panetta’s handling of sensitive information as a member of Congress. But there is no record of the Senate Intelligence Committee having done so.


Albert Epstein, Solomon Adler, Mao Zedong, Frank Coe in Wuhan, Hubei province, 1965

“Panetta’s nomination was rushed through the Senate for CIA director and is now being rushed through the Senate for Secretary of Defense,” Loudon and Kincaid said. “This is not the way national security and intelligence matters should be handled by Congress. We are waiting for just one member of the Senate to put a hold on this nomination.”

They urge American citizens to contact their Senate members immediately at 202-224-3121

Click HERE For Rest Of Story