Elliot Friedland writing at the Clarion Project utilizes the R-rated 2004 satire puppet-animation movie “Team America: World Police” to illustrate how the ironic humor of the past might be the scary truth of today’s current events.
Team America, an international police force dedicated to maintaining global stability, learns that a power hungry dictator is brokering weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. The heroes embark upon a harrowing mission to save the world. To infiltrate the terrorist network, Team America recruits Gary Johnston, a rising star on Broadway to go undercover. Although initially reluctant to sacrifice his promising career, Gary realizes that his acting gift is needed for a higher cause. With the help of Team America leader Spotswoode and fellow members Chris, Sarah, Lisa and Joe, Gary slips into an arms dealer's hideout where he discovers that the terrorists' plot has already begun to unfold. From the pyramids of Cairo to the Panama Canal and finally to the palace of power-mad dictator Kim Jong-Il, Team America criss-crosses the globe on a desperate mission to preserve the very fabric of civilization.
Now that you have the gist of the satire’s plot, read how Friedland weave the past into the present.
WARNING: This article discusses an R-Rated satire movie with crude sexual themes, violence, racism etc. If you are easily offended, please do not read this article.
This week’s news is almost identical to the plot of the 2004 smash hit movie Team America: World Police, made by the creators of South Park.
Don’t believe me?
North Korea’s program of weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the lives of millions of people, not to mention the stability of the fragile international order. There is strong evidence they are cooperating with Islamist extremists in Iran to secure nuclear weapons capabilities for both countries. Left-wing activist movements with a strong media presence urge restraint and negotiations and blame American aggression for the crisis. An effete and ineffectual United Nations meddles and hand-wrings, but ultimately does nothing. Meanwhile erstwhile allies look on askance at what they see as America’s crass, boorish, cowboy approach, lamenting that force alone cannot solve geopolitical problems. Many are asking if America’s time is over.
And America’s leader stands before the world to make a gung-ho speech putting “America First.”
That movie saw a superhero team of elite American soldiers called Team America infiltrate a terror cell to discover a North Korean-Islamist plot to destroy the world and bring equality through reducing everything to radioactive rubble. Like the best satire, it skirts the line between irony and earnestness in a larger than life take-down of America’s war on terror.
So what can this 13-year-old R-rated movie tell us about the contemporary crisis intersecting Islamic extremism, North Korean belligerence and changing power structures?
Absolutely Everything. Let’s dive in:
America’s Enemies Collaborate
“Saying death to America is easy. We need to express death to America with action.” — Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani.
In 2004 when the movie was made, the idea that the North Koreans would sell nuclear weapons to terrorists in order to fight America was pretty far out. However, as Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro has repeatedly warned, North Korea and Iran are now working closely together.
North Korea opened an embassy in Tehran in August. Shortly after, the head of the North Korean Parliament, Kim Yong Nam traveled to Iran for a 10-day trip. Iranian nuclear scientists reportedly attended North Korean nuclear tests, according to CNBC.
“There’s been fairly extensive cooperation on missiles,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear proliferation expert and professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “And in fact, early generations of Iranian missiles were thought to be basically modestly adapted North Korean missiles.”
This nightmare scenario is alarmingly similar to the plot of Team America, in which the leader of North Korea supplies weapons of mass destruction to “terrorists” from “Durka-Durkastan” in order to bring down the existing international order.
What exactly about this prevailing international order do they object to so badly that they wish to overturn it…?
America Sees Itself as Number One
“Americans are asking “Why do they hate us?’ They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” — President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001.
Everyone sees themselves as the star of their own story. It is no accident that Team America: World Police was made with puppets. The aesthetic of the film is based on Thunderbirds, the British 1960s TV-series chronicling the exploits of “International Rescue.” What Team America lampoons so viscerally is the peculiarly American brand of self confidence which views America as not only “the greatest country in the world,” but also the greatest country that has ever existed.
The founding myth sees a country forged in revolution, the only country in world history to have been consciously created, not as an ethnic or religious homeland, but founded on enlightenment principles of rationality, justice and freedom. There’s a reason that religious freedom and free speech are the First Amendment, not the 5th or 17th — it’s because they are the same thing and the bedrock of all other rights (held up by the Second Amendment, which ensures that the state cannot take the First Amendment away without a fight).
This patriotic attitude is best parodied/encapsulated in the Team America theme song “America: F**k Yeah, coming again to save the mother f*****g day yeah.”
America’s commitment is these values is in direct opposition not only to the goals of dictators like Kim Jong-Un, but also of Islamists like leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both of those countries see the ideology and the state as of prime importance. American style freedom as being anathema to that ideology. They see the freedom Americans hold dear as being an assault on their way of life and their religion.
Why do they see it this way? America’s very faith in the rightness of its founding principles can make it blindly confident in some of its shortcomings…
America’s History of Racism and Recklessness Causes Resentment
“This country was born on violence. Violence is as American as cherry pie.” — Black American Activist H. Rap Brown, 1967.
When former President Ronald Reagan funded jihadi fighters in 1980s Afghanistan, the long-term impact was not considered. When George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, the occupation of the country that followed was mismanaged to the point that by 2014 a terrorist group was able to take over a third of the country (ISIS).
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was held in American military prison Camp Bucca for five years and was able to use the detention facility as a networking opportunity to build his terror support base — not to mention that at the same time, America lost track of $1 billion worth of military equipment given to Iraq and Kuwait, much of which may have ended up in Islamic State hands.
U.S. drone strikes wiped out at least eight wedding parties from 2001 to 2011 in Afghanistan alone, according to The Nation. America has also abandoned the Kurds, who have been perhaps the only effective force on the ground against ISIS in Syria and is even putting pressure on Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani to cancel Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence referendumscheduled for September 25.
To hostile observers, recklessness can be tied with a seeming lack of caring.
Team America brings this home in typically blunt style. In the movie, America paints their spy (who is really a crack actor) with blackface, puts a towel on his head and airdrop him into Cairo with all the subtlety a loud military-grade helicopter can muster (none). The only things the terrorists say in the movie are “durka durka,” “Muhammed,” “Jihad” and DurkAllah.”
This sort of crude stereotyping is routinely attacked in American media. Actors from Middle Eastern and South Asian ethnic backgrounds routinely complaining about being typecast in roles as terrorists, with little opportunity for them to play more complex roles. A 2015 poll saw 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats supported bombing Agrabah, the fictional country from the Disney movie, Aladdin.
In the film, this callousness incurs the wrath of the left-wing Film Actors Guild (FAG) who preach a path of nonviolence but end up accidentally supporting terrorists. Their name parodies notions of “toxic-masculinity” which slurs homosexuality and femininity as a form of submissive weakness (note the alt-right preferred slur is “cuck,” which refers to a man who willingly allows his wife to sleep with other men).
However, negotiating alone will never work because…
Force, Not Diplomacy, Underpins the International Order
“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” — George Orwell
One of the best scenes in Team America comes when UN Inspector Hans Blix demands access to North Korea’s facilities. “Or else what,” Kim Jong Il asks.
“Or we will be very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are,” Blix replies. Pretending to be convinced, Kim asks Blix to move a little to the left, presses a button and drops him into the shark tank.
The scene is a brutal reminder that, ultimately, power is the only thing that matters.
In some ways, left-wing critiques of Western foreign policy are valid. One of the greatest strengths of America is its robust free press and the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens to criticize the government. It is vital that state excesses are called out as part of the democratic process, in order to improve the country and its governance. In many cases, diplomacy and negotiations are a far better alternative to the use of force.
But this doesn’t mean we should undermine the underlying values of America itself and throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sadly, the reality is that it is only by force of arms that the free press and their rights to criticize the state are safeguarded.
In July this year, to take just two examples, a group of left-wing activists protested against gay-rights activists from the Middle East on the grounds that fighting for the rights of Iranian gays somehow empowers anti-Muslim bigots. British Labour politician Christine Shawcroft’s proposed that British soldiers have cups of tea with ISIS rather than bomb them.
These examples underscore everything Team America mocked over 10 years ago about the left.
Some argue that there are better systems out there than democracy. Maybe there are, but do they exist today?
The West is the Best Civilizational Option We Have Right Now
“…it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” — Winston Churchill
If you could live and work in any country in the world, which country would it be? Which countries offer the best opportunities for economic advancement, for personal freedoms, for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”
Iran is a country that hangs gay people from cranes. Kim Jong Un reportedly executed his own uncle by stripping him naked and feeding him to 120 dogs alive while officials watched. There is no free press, free elections or ability of people living in such countries to petition their government for the redress of grievances.
Anyone who thinks that the world would be safer, more prosperous and more just with these countries having more influence and America having less is frankly delusional. Iranian militiamen in Iraq have no compunction about murdering civilians. Broadly speaking, America does its best to support international human rights standards.
No one should deny that America’s past and present have been replete with examples of jingoism, racism, violence, callousness and more. Yet it is possible to name another country or another system of government that we have right now that is better?
Although there are those in Europe who would prefer it not to be so, since 1945. America has been the leader of the West. Through the force of American arms and the coffers of the American treasury, Western civilization is protected.
The history of the world has been one of savage rulers murdering each other and their hapless subjects. It is only in the last couple of hundred years that humanity has begun to inch out of that brutal mode of operation.
If you want to keep struggling — inch by bloody inch — out of the abyss, then when the chips are down, stand with America.
The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.
About Clarion Project
Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.
Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 85-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.
The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.
Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.
Clarion Project is a registered 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.
Our experts are available to speak in your community. Please contact us with your speaker request.
Ryan Mauro is Clarion Project’s Shillman Fellow and National Security Analyst. A professor of homeland security, counter-terrorism and political science, he consults to government agencies, and policy-makers.
Mauro has made over 1,000 appearances on international radio and TV programs from both the left of the right, including …READ THE REST
The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released an open letter that was also sent to President Trump pertaining to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For clarity’s sake, the JCPOA was not a treaty confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Constitution stipulates for binding international agreements. Rather Obama chose to by-pass the Senate and made largely Classified undisclosed agreement components (AIM – 9/8/16 and Fox News – 2/7/17) with Iran allegedly to prevent militarization of nuclear power for – GET THIS – only ten years.
Obama’s JCPOA is a classic 21st century version of pre-WWII agreements between Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Germany’s Fuehrer Adolf Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain declared he negotiated a successful peace for our time. That peace was delusional as Hitler was permitted to carve up Czechoslovakia in the name of peace which emboldened Hitler to invade Poland which began WWII.
Bolton’s alternative to the JCPOA is not a renegotiation with Iran, rather it’s a strategic alternative to check Iranian expansionism and nuclear militarization.
Trump has been falling for the lie Iran has been complying to the JCPOA and thus has recertified that idiotic agreement contrary to the campaign promises. I pray the President listens to the signatories of this letter.
(Washington, D.C.): Today 45 national security experts, many of whom held senior positions in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw the United States from the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) using a comprehensive plan drafted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.
The signatories believe President Trump was exactly right during the campaign when he said the JCPOA is one of the worst agreements ever negotiated. They believe this agreement is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons while the deal is in effect, has extremely weak verification provisions, and ignores Iran’s increasingly destabilizing behavior. Because of the enormous risks the JCPOA poses to American and international security and the impossibility of convincing Iran to amend the agreement, the signers believe the only option is for the United States to withdraw and initiate a new, more comprehensive approach that addresses all of the threats posed by Iran – including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism – with a broad alliance that includes Israel and America’s Gulf State allies.
The signatories endorse Ambassador Bolton’s plan to implement this approach by withdrawing from the JCPOA in coordination with America’s allies. The signers believe the Bolton plan is the best way to reverse the damage done by the reckless concessions that Obama officials made to Iran to negotiate the JCPOA and to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from spinning out of control as North Korea’s nuclear effort has.
Some of the eminent individuals who signed the letter include:
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Ambassador Henry F. “Hank” Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director
Dr. Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Mr. Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Dr. William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories
Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet
The full text of the letter is below.
September 21, 2017
The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dear President Trump:
We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.
We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.
We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal. Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor. Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years. In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.
We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.
In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement. This has not happened. To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened. Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches. There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget. Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria. Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.
Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.
We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.
Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years. A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it. Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic. Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation. The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.
Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran. This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.
We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.
As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month. It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.
ATTACHMENT: “Abrogating The Iran Deal: The Way Forward” By Ambassador John Bolton [Blog Editor: The “ATTACHMENT” at the end of the signatures in this CSP email. But if you are impatient, here is theNational Review version by John Bolton]
Winston Lewis Amselem
U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Ambassador Henry F. Cooper
Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy
Paula A. DeSutter
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance
Joseph E. diGenova
Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia
Jessie Jane Duff
Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.)
Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research
Dr. Manfred Eimer
Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Retired CIA officer. Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council
Douglas J. Feith
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)
Daniel J. Gallington
Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks
D. Scott George
Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.
Dr. William R. Graham
Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament
Larry K. Grundhauser
Brigadier General, USAF Retired
Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer
George William Heiser II
Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff
Richard T. Higgins
Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council
President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security
Ambassador Eric M. Javits
Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Ambassador Robert G. Joseph
Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission
Morton A. Klein
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President
Dr. Charles M. Kupperman
Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament
Herbert I. London
President, London Center for Policy Research
Robert L. Luaces
Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs
Admiral James A. Lyons
U.S. Navy (Ret.). Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet
Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.)
Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review
Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.). Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency
Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA
Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant
Major General Edward M. Reeder
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Ambassador C. Paul Robinson
Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories. Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks
Founder and President, Gatestone Institute
Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy. Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.
Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret)
Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research. Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative
Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)
Kenneth R. Timmerman
President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran
Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee
General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)
J. Michael Waller
Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications
Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney
ABROGATING THE IRAN DEAL: THE WAY FORWARD
By Ambassador John Bolton
The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.
Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:
(i) Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;
(ii) Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;
(iii) Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and
(iv) Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –
(I) appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and
(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.
U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.
Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.
But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.
The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.
Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.
We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.
II.Campaign Plan Components
There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:
1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.
3. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.
III. Execution Concepts and Tactics
1. Early, quiet consultations with key players
It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.
This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.
The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case
The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.
Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.
A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.
The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.
Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.
After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.
Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.
Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.
In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts
The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.
Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.
The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:
End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;
End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;
Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;
Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;
Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;
Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;
Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.
This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.
1. Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.
45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan
About The Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org
Asia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian that has been languishing in a Pakistani jail for a better of a decade wondering if the Pakistan government will ever proceed on the death sentence passed against her for breaking the anti-religious freedom Blasphemy Law.
Asia has been nominated for a prestigious award from the EU that I pray places more pressure on the Pakistan government to release her with the ability of Asia Bibi and family to receive political asylum in a more civilized nation. The award is called the Sakharov Prize.
About the Sakharov Prize:
The European Parliament also supports human rights through the annual Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, established in 1988. The prize is awarded to individuals who have made an exceptional contribution to the fight for human rights across the globe, drawing attention to human rights violations as well as supporting the laureates and their cause. (The European Parliament supports human rights; European Parliament)
The nominees were announced on September 14, 2017. Here is the nominee list which Asia Bibi is listed first:
The nominees for this year's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought are:
Asia Bibi (Aasiya Noreen), a Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death in 2010 under the country´s blasphemy law. Bibi is on a death row for almost seven years and her appeal to the supreme court has been postponed to an undetermined date. She was nominated by ECR.
Aura Lolita Chavez Ixcaquic, a human rights defender from Guatemala. She is a member from the Council of Ki’che’ Peoples (CPK), an organisation that fights to protect natural resources and human rights from the expansion of mining, logging, hydroelectric and agro-industry sectors in the territory and has been subject to threats. She was nominated by Greens/EFA.
Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag, co-chairs of the pro-kurdish People's Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey arrested in November 2016 on terrorism charges after their parliamentary immunity was lifted. They were nominated by GUE/NGL.
Democratic Opposition in Venezuela: National Assembly (Julio Borges) and all political prisoners as listed by Foro Penal Venezolano represented by Leopoldo López, Antonio Ledezma, Daniel Ceballos, Yon Goicoechea, Lorent Saleh, Alfredo Ramos and Andrea González. The situation in Venezuela has been seriously deteriorating as regards democracy, human rights and socio-economy, in a climate of growing political and social instability. Nominated by EPP and ALDE. Political prisoners in Venezuela as well as the democratic opposition in Venezuela were also shortlisted for the Sakharov Prize in 2015.
Dawit Isaak, a Swedish-Eritrean playwright, journalist and writer, who was arrested in 2001 by the Eritrean authorities during a political crackdown. He has been imprisoned without a trial since and was last seen in 2005. Isaak was Sakharov finalist in 2009. He was nominated by S&D as well as by Wikström and 46 other MEPs.
Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, a Burundian human rights activist and founder of the Association for the Protection of Human Rights and Detained Persons (APRODH). He was detained in 2014, escaped an assassination attempt in 2015 and is now living in Belgium. He was nominated by EFDD. (Sakharov Prize 2017: discover the nominees; EU affairs; 9/14/17 18:05)
In case you have been out of the loop or have forgotten the idiotic reason for Asia’s death sentence, here is an excerpt from a past post which was dated 7/25/15:
The women said in their charge that Bibi asked "My Christ died for me, what did Muhammad do for you?" — a statement considered blasphemous in the South Asian country. (Bold Text Mine – Christian Post)
To her neighbors, Aasiya Noreen “Asia” Bibi, a poor mother of five in the tiny village of Ittan Wali in central Pakistan, was guilty — guilty of being Christian in a nation that is 97% Muslim. For four years she has languished in a prison cell for this, facing death by hanging.
Her new memoir, “Blasphemy,” was dictated to her husband from jail, who relayed it to French journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet. Fifty percent of the proceeds the book will go to support Bibi and her family. Tollet says the situation is dire.
Embarrassed by Bibi’s case but still refusing to release her because of angry protests by extremists, the Pakistan government has transferred her to a more remote prison, hoping the 42-year-old dies quietly behind bars, perhaps poisoned by another inmate. Already two government officials who have spoken out on her behalf have been murdered, including Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti, who was killed by the Taliban. In this excerpt, Bibi explains the simple “transgression” that led to her plight.
… I want the whole world to know that I’m going to be hanged for helping my neighbor. I’m guilty of having shown someone sympathy. What did I do wrong? I drank water from a well belonging to Muslim women, using “their” cup, in the burning heat of the midday sun.
I, Asia Bibi, have been sentenced to death because I was thirsty. I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as those Muslim women, because water served by a Christian woman was regarded as unclean by my stupid fellow fruit-pickers.
That day, June 14, 2009, is imprinted on my memory. I can still see every detail.
That morning I got up earlier than usual, to take part in the big falsa-berry harvest. I’d been told about it by Farah, our lovely local shopkeeper. “Why don’t you go falsa picking tomorrow in that field just outside the village? You know the one; it belongs to the Nadeems, the rich family who live in Lahore. The pay is 250 rupees.”
When I got to the field, around 15 women were already at work, picking away, their backs hidden by the tall bushes. It was going to be a physically exhausting day in such heat, but I needed those 250 rupees.
A hard-faced woman dressed in clothes that had been mended many times came over to me with an old yellow bowl.
“If you fill the bowl you get 250 rupees,” she said without really looking at me.
I looked at the huge bowl and thought I would never finish before sunset. Looking at the other women’s bowls, I also realized mine was much bigger. They were reminding me that I’m a Christian.
The sun was beating down, and by midday it was like working in an oven. …
But since the river was nowhere near, I freed myself from my bushes and walked over to the nearby well. Already I could sense the coolness rising up from the depths.
I pull up a bucketful of water and dip in the old metal cup resting on the side of the well. The cool water is all I can think of. I gulp it down and I feel better; I pull myself together.
Then I start to hear muttering. I pay no attention and fill the cup again, this time holding it out to a woman next to me who looks like she’s in pain. She smiles and reaches out . . . At exactly the moment Musarat pokes her ferrety nose out from the bush, her eyes full of hate:
“Don’t drink that water, it’s haram!”
Musarat addresses all the pickers, who have suddenly stopped work at the sound of the word “haram,” the Islamic term for anything forbidden by God.
“Listen, all of you, this Christian has dirtied the water in the well by drinking from our cup and dipping it back several times. Now the water is unclean and we can’t drink it! Because of her!”
It’s so unfair that for once I decide to defend myself and stand up to the old witch.
“I think Jesus would see if differently from Mohammed.”
Musarat is furious. “How dare you think for the Prophet, you filthy animal!”
It’s been over two years since I posted the original excerpt above. As far as I know, NOTHING HAS CHANGED! Asia Bibi (or her less well-known name - Aasiya Noreen) is still languishing in jail.
The closest update I have found is from an online French Catholic publication called Aleteia which also publishes in English:
Condemned to death in 2009 for insulting Islam, the Pakistani Catholic is still awaiting her final verdict.
On June 14, 2009, Asia Bibi was thrown into jail. A year later she was sentenced to death for blasphemy, and since 2013, after two transfers, she has been languishing in one of the three windowless cells on death row in the southern province of Multan in the Punjab Penitentiary. A year after the Supreme Court of Pakistan postponed her appeal amid death threats by 150 muftis (Muslim legal experts) against anyone who would assist “blasphemers,” the case has not progressed by one iota. On August 30, Asia Bibi had spent 3,000 days in prison.
Her family lives underground. The only thing we know comes from her lawyer, the Muslim Saif ul Malook, who has visited her in recent months. He says she is doing well and is still hoping for her release. On the other hand, the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten the case, and has still not decided whether to confirm her death sentence or to release her.
During those 3,000 days Asia Bibi has never stopped praying and asking for prayers. As a tribute to this Christian who has become an icon for all those who struggle in Pakistan and the world against all violence in the name of religion, this is the prayer she composed last year on the occasion of the Easter celebrations, and which accompanies her in her detention:
Resurrected Lord, allow your daughter Asia to rise again with you. Break my chains, make my heart free and go beyond these bars, and accompany my soul so that it is close to those who are dear to me, and that it remains always near you. Do not abandon me in the day of trouble, do not deprive me of your presence. You who have suffered torture and the cross, alleviate my suffering. Hold me near you, Lord Jesus. On the day of your resurrection, Jesus, I want to pray for my enemies, for those who hurt me. I pray for them and I beg you to forgive them for the harm they have done me. I ask you, Lord, to remove all obstacles so that I may obtain the blessing of freedom. I ask you to protect me and protect my family.
PAKISTAN (ANS – September 17, 2017) -- Pakistan’s most famous Christian prisoner, Asia Bibi, has been nominated for the European Union’s high-status award, the Sakharov Prize.
Ms. Bibi, a mother-of-five, who is currently behind the bars waiting for a hearing of her appeal against capital punishment, was nominated by a group of European legislators.
According to Madeeha Bakhsh, writing for Christians in Pakistan (https://www.christiansinpakistan.com/), “Asia has been nominated for ‘Freedom of Thought’ by the legislators who form an influential group European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR). This European Conservatives and Reformists Group is the third largest group in the European Parliament,” she wrote. “The European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), nominated Asia Bibi late on Wednesday, September 13.”
Peter van Dalen, a Dutch European parliamentarian and member of ECR’s faction, ChristenUnion-SGP, said: “Her case is a symbol for others hurt in their freedom of expression and especially freedom of religion. It is good that my colleagues in the ECR and I continue to defend the rights of [Asia] Bibi and many others.”
Members of the entire European Parliament will soon be casting their votes in favor of their favorite candidate.
“If a majority casts [their] votes in favor of Asia Bibi; she could win the €50,000 ($59,670 USD) award for the Sakharov Prize, which is considered Europe’s most prestigious human rights award,” said Madeeha Bakhsh. “This award is named after Andrei Sakharov, a scientist and dissident hailing from the Soviet era.”
Sakharov died on December 14, 1989, and the award ceremony will be held in Strasbourg, France, on December 10.
Asia Bibi, a berry picker, was accused of committing blasphemy by her co-workers back in 2009. Later on, in 2010, a court in the Punjab district of Nankana found her guilty and she was sentenced to death by hanging, a verdict later challenged and upheld by a two-member bench of Lahore High Court in 2014.
Her appeal case is currently pending with the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
“Supposedly her final appeal hearing on October 13, 2016, was meant to wind up the most high profile case of the country, however, it was delayed as one of the judges refused to be a part of the three member bench that was to hear the case,” added Bakhsh.
She said that on the date of the hearing, Justice Iqbal Hameed ur Rehman, one of the three judges due to hear Asia Bibi’s appeal case, suddenly withdrew saying, “I was a part of the bench that was hearing the case of Salmaan Taseer, and this case is related to that.”
The judge was referring to the case of the then governor of Punjab, who was assassinated on January 4, 2011, at the Kohsar Market in Islamabad by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, who disagreed with Taseer’s opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law and his support for Asia Bibi. Qadri was later sentenced to death by a Pakistani Anti-Terrorist court at Islamabad for murdering Taseer, and was executed on February 29, 2016.
Consequently, the hearing was adjourned and Ms. Bibi is still on death row in her lonely prison cell.
Note: Christians in Pakistan is a non-profit organization and a leading source of news related to Pakistani Christians. They can be contacted by e-mail at: ChristiansinPak@gmail.com.
Photo captions: 1) Asia Bibi. 2) Andrei Sakharov on the cover of Time magazine. 3) Salmaan Taseer meeting with Asia Bibi after her arrest. Many believe that this meeting cost him his life. 4) Ashiq Masih, the husband of Asia Bibi with some of the children. 5) Dan Wooding
About the writer: Dan Wooding, 75, is an award-winning author, broadcaster and
journalist, who was born in Nigeria, West Africa, of British missionary parents, Alfred and Anne Wooding, who then worked with the Sudan Interior Mission, now known as SIM. Dan now lives in Southern California with his wife Norma, to whom he has been married for some 54 years. They have two sons, Andrew and Peter, and six grandchildren who all live in the UK. Dan is the founder/president of the ASSIST News Service (ANS), and is also the author of numerous books. He has a radio show and two television programs, all based in Southern California.
Persecuted Pakistan Christian Sakharov Prize Nominee
ASIA BIBI NOMINATED FOR EU’S PRESTIGIOUS SAKHAROV PRIZE
** You may republish this or any of our ANS stories with attribution to the ASSIST News Service (www.assistnews.net). Please tell your friends and colleagues that they can receive a complimentary subscription to ANS by going to the above website and signing up there.
I found a series of emails from Judicial Watch that exposes the workings of the Deep State that is working to thwart the promises of President Donald Trump.
Per the emails, I have three cross posts:
A video on the Comey memos.
Thanks to FOIA and Law suits, the revelation of more Crooked Hillary emails revealing classified materials on her nefarious private email server which includes Huma Abedin and the exposure actual Pay-To-Play deals with the Clinton Foundation.
Ending with a Judicial Watch Facebook video of On Watch with Chris Farrell exposing more details of Crooked Hillary’s State Department silencing private security contractors in relation to the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack.
All these Judicial Watch information reporting relating to Crooked Hillary shows good reasons for her to be locked up. ALSO, you should realize if any DOJ courage exists to take on the Deep State protection of Crooked Hillary, then the Obama Deep State “Resistance” means all clandestine options will be made to protect Obama and his nefarious minions. Why? The answer is obvious! If Crooked Hillary begins to go down for any of her crimes including her husband, then Obama’s Deep State Resistance will be exposed. Crooked Hillary will take the whole Manchurian Left down with her if she is prosecuted. That would mean all things Barack Hussein Obama would tumble like a reverse domino theory.
In this installment of "Inside Judicial Watch," Carter Clews joins Mark Tapscott, the Executive Editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, to discuss the missing memos of James Comey and the controversy surrounding the former FBI director.
Documents also show more instances of pay to play with Clinton Foundation donors
Abedin’s controversial mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to ‘democracy/elections/freedom’ and ‘empowerment of women’ for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 1,617 new pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.
The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.
The emails are the 20th production of documents obtained in response to a court order in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). Judicial Watch sued after State failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”
On September 11, 2009, the highly sensitive name and email address of the person giving the classified Presidential Daily Brief was included in an email forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account by State Department official Dan Fogerty.
The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecured emails that were classified:
On April 16, 2009, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account classified information about an unknown subject.
On June 18, 2009, Abedin sent classified information summarizing a June 18, 2009, “Middle East Breakfast” meeting between various senators, representatives and State Department officials, at which Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and George Mitchell briefed the congressmen with “an update on our discussions with the [Middle East] parties.”
On June 23, 2009, U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, who had his security clearance suspended in 2000 for “possible sloppiness” in the handling of classified information, sent a memo containing classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The memo, written for Clinton, pertained to Indyk’s discussions with top Israeli officials:
Could I ask you to review the memo below that I wrote yesterday on my return from Israel? If you think it worthwhile, I’d be very grateful if you showed it to HRC (I have already shared it with Mitchell and Feltman). A confrontation with Bibi appears imminent. I’ve never been one to shy away from that, as she may know. But it has to be done carefully, and that doesn’t appear to be happening. And I’m concerned that she will be tarred with the same brush if this leads to a bad end. So I think she needs to make sure that the friction is productive. I’ve made some suggestions at the end of the memo
On August 1, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information from State Department official Richard Verma to her unsecure email account. The email from Senator Russ Feingold was sent to Hillary Clinton regarding her upcoming Africa trip.
On August 4, 2009, Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent classified information about discussions with Kuwaiti officials to Abedin’s unsecure email account. Feltman noted that the Kuwaitis felt a lunch they had with Obama was “chilly.” The discussions concerned Guantanamo as well as Kuwait’s treatment of detainees.
On Sept 20, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information to her unsecure email account. The email was from State Department official Esther Brimmer and concerned foreign leaders’ discussions regarding a UNESCO leadership appointment.
On November 1, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the UAE Rick Olson sent classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The email shows that Olsen was traveling with Hillary in the Middle East, and Abedin asked him to “work on a list of everything covered in the mbz [presumably Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi] meeting for Hillary.” Olson asks: “do you want it on this system (I can sanitize), or on the other system.” She replies: “This system easier. We are staying without class[ified] computers. Thx.”
On December 1, 2009, Abedin sent classified information about foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her unsecure email account. The email originated with State official Sean Misko who wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan that he first “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was resending.
On December 25, 2009, Abedin sent to her unsecure email account classified information prepared by Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Francis Ricciardone concerning the Afghan elections.
On December 26, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual sent a memo to Clinton, which was found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained extensive classified information involving U.S. and Mexican counter-drug operations in Mexico.
On March 22, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information about a telephone conversation between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
On April 13, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information from Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman regarding diplomatic discussions with the foreign ministers of Algeria and Morocco.
On May 24, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information about the minutes of a State Department senior staff meeting regarding State Department officials’ meetings in Uganda.
Among Abedin’s unsecure email records is a document that is simply titled “NOTE” with the date September 12, 2010. The contents are entirely redacted as classified.
On January 28, 2011, Abedin sent Clinton an unsecure email containing classified information relating to a briefing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave.
On March 21, 2012, Clinton received a memo from State Department officials Joseph Yun and Derek Mitchell marked “Sensitive But Unclassified” and sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained classified information about elections in Burma.
Jake Sullivan emailed to Hillary’s unsecure email account classified information in which Sullivan discussed the content of conversations with UK Prime Minister Gordon regarding “the situation” in Northern Ireland. The date of this email is not included on the document.
On April 8, 2012, Abedin sent classified information to her unsecure email regarding a call sheet and an “Action Memo” for Clinton relating to a call with Malawi President Joyce Banda. On April 9, 2012, Monica Hanley again forwarded the classified information to Clinton’s unsecure email account.
Other emails contain sensitive information that was sent via Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email servers.
On August 18, 2009, confidential assistant Monica Hanley provided Abedin with laptop and fob (a physical device that provides a login code) logins and passwords to log onto a laptop, as well as a secure State Department website at https://one.state.gov. Included were a PIN number and instructions on how to access her email from the secure State Department website. Abedin forwarded this information to her unsecure account.
(The FBI interviewed Clinton’s confidential assistant Monica Hanley in its probe of Clinton’s email practices, and State’s Diplomatic Security staff reprimanded her after she left classified material behind in a Moscow hotel room. Hanley was the staffer tasked with finding BlackBerry phones for Clinton to use.)
On August 19, 2009, Hanley asked Abedin to call her and provide Abedin’s computer password so that she could download a UN document for Cheryl Mills from Abedin’s computer. Instead of calling Hanley, Abedin apparently provided the computer password in her unsecure reply email, saying, “Its [redacted].”
On April 17, 2009, Clinton aide Lona Valmoro emailed Clinton’s sensitive daily schedule for April 18 to various Clinton Foundation officials, including Doug Band, Terry Krinvic and Justin Cooper. She also forwarded Clinton’s daily schedule for July 16 to numerous Clinton Foundation officials. She did the same thing on September 8, 2009. She did so again on January 10, January 14 and April 11, 2010.
The details of Hillary’s arrival on November 18, 2009, in war-torn Kabul, Afghanistan, for the inauguration of President Karzai, were found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. Included were precise times of landing at Kabul Airport, the occupants of her vehicle, arrival and departure times at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, and meeting times with U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.
On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a XL Keystone lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking. Band forwarded the email to Abedin, saying, “Can u get him in?” Abedin replied: “Yes will get him in.” Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns.
On July 16, 2009, Zachary Schwartz asked Band for help getting visas to travel to Cuba for a film production crew from Shangri La Entertainment. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, telling her, “Please call zach asap on this. [Redacted.] Important.” Abedin responded, “I’ll call zach when we land in India.” Abedin concludes with “Enjoy. Cuba is complicated. Am sure you aren’t surprised to hear that.” Schwartz worked for Steve Bing, a mega-donor to the Clintons and owner of Shangri La Entertainment. Bing has reportedly donated $10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton personally $2.5 million a year to be an adviser to a green construction company Bing owned.
On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange “government appointments” for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, “fyi.” Abedin responded to Duffy’s email, saying she would “follow up” with Duffy’s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Abedin, using her email@example.com address, later told Joyce, “Would like to get some more information and details so we can try to help.” Further along in the exchange, Joyce responds “We would also like some help in arranging meetings with some key govt officials in both locations, such as the Prime Minister of Singapore, and would appreciate any help you may be able to provide.”
On September 29, 2009, Abedin followed up with Duffy, telling him that “we are happy to assist with any and all meetings” and that she had “discussed you and your trip with our assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs,” suggesting that Duffy write the assistant secretary, Kurt Campbell. Duffy replied, “Thank you very much. I did connect with Kurt Campbell today.”
On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor and real estate developer Eddie Trump forwarded to “Dougie” Band a request for assistance from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, “Can we get this done/mtg set.” As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for “public diplomacy.”
Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000 for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010. Clinton did speak to the Japan Society’s annual conference in 2011.
The emails also provide insight on the inner workings of the Clinton State Department, in particular her engagement with her staff.
In a May 19, 2009, “Global Press Conference” memo, Clinton was given in advance the “proposed questions” of four of the seven foreign reporters. Examples include: “What is the Obama administration’s view of Australian PM Rudd’s proposal to form an Asia-Pacific Community” and “Why can’t American drones not find, detect and destroy the insurgency supply line?”
In a document entitled “HRC Pakistan Notes” prepared for Clinton by her staff, Clinton apparently had to be reminded about all her trips to Pakistan and of “stories that you have told/remember.” Her reminder instructions include: “You loved Faisal mosque, and it was especially meaningful to have CVC [Chelsea] with you.” And: “Your first Pakistani friend was in College. She introduced you to Pakistani food and clothes.” And: “You have had lots of Pakistani and Pakistani American friends over the years. From Chicago to California to Washington, DC, you have friends all over the country. They know how much you love Pakistani food …”
On February 12, 2010, Case Button, a Clinton speechwriter, asked Abedin if her mother, a professor at Dar Al Hekma, a women’s university in Saudi Arabia where Clinton held a town hall meeting, would be willing to give him advice on talking points he was preparing for Clinton. Abedin responded, “Talk to my mom for sure. She will have good points for you.” After reviewing Hillary’s draft remarks, Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, (a controversialIslamistactivist), offered some advice: “Do not use the political terms such as ‘democracy/elections/freedom.’ Do not use the term ‘empowerment of women’ instead say ‘enabling women’ Do not even mention driving for women! Don’t sound sympathetic to ‘women’s plight’ or be ‘patronizing’ as other visitors have done and made the students extremely annoyed. They rightly consider these as in-house issues …” No references to these issues appear in Clinton’s speech.
Abedin’s involvement in a major appointment at the State Department is controversial given that Abedin’s mother was an Islamist activist. On July 24, 2009, Cheryl Mills forwarded to Abedin a CV for someone being considered for the position of Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It had been sent to Mills from State Department recruiter Margaret Carpenter. Rather than forwarding the resume on to Clinton for her approval, Abedin simply responds to Mills: “I’m a hundred percent fine with him.”
Abedin also offered her opinion to Clinton on administration leaders: On January 21, 2011, while on a trip to Mexico, Abedin emailed Hillary that “Biden is a disaster here.”
On February 20, 2012, Clinton expresses outrage over an apparent wardrobe miscommunication for a meeting in Mexico and sent an email to Abedin with the subject line “I’m venting.” Clinton admonished:
So, here I sit in the meeting surrounded by ever other person dressed in a white shirt provided by the Mexicans. Patricia is not wearing the exact style that all others are but her own white shirt. But, since no one ever told me about this, and instead assumed I didn’t need to know, I had no idea about any of this until I just walked into the large meeting in front of the entire press corps and I’m wearing a green top. So, what’s my answer when asked why I think I’m different than all my colleagues and why I’m dissing our hosts?
I am sick of people deciding what I should know rather than giving me the info so I can make a decision. This really annoys me and I told Monica [Hanley] I just didn’t understand.
“The emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.”
To read more about Huma Abedin’s emails, click here.
On this edition of On Watch, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell discussed the September 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack. New reports show just how dire security at the compound really was and how security officials charged with protecting the compound were later pressured by the Clinton State Department to keep quiet.
Fellow Community member Viana posted an excerpt of the Yahya Cholil Staquf interview at Time.com (of all the ironic Left Wing MSM places) who is an Islamic scholar from Indonesia. The reason the interview is significant is because the Muslim scholar proclaims the violence perpetrated by Islamic terrorists has EVERYTHING to do with Islam!
Yahya Cholil Staquf is the General Secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama a Sunni Islam organization in Indonesia. Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) may be located in Indonesia, but it is the largest Islamic organization in the world. Here is a Wikipedia excerpt on NU to give you a bit of a backgrounder:
Nahdlatul Ulama (also Nahdatul Ulama or NU) is a traditionalist SunniIslam movement in Indonesia following the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. NU was established on January 31, 1926 in Surabaya as a response to the rise of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and Islamic modernism in Indonesia.:59 The NU is the largest independent Islamic organization in the world with membership of 40 million in 2003.NU also is a charitable body funding schools and hospitals as well as organizing communities to help alleviate poverty.
Nahdlatul Ulama is known as an ardent advocate of Islam Nusantara; a distinctive brand of Islam that has undergone interaction, contextualization, indigenization, interpretation and vernacularization according to socio-cultural condition of Indonesia.IslamNusantara promotes moderation, compassion, anti-radicalism, inclusiveness and tolerance.
…READ THE REST (Nahdlatul Ulama; Wikipedia; last edited on 9/7/17 03:51)
Take Multicultural Diversity Leftists in America and Europe. When the leader of the largest Islamic organization in the world says Islamic violence is directly related to the tenets of Islam, you should really pay attention!
Now I do find it interesting that Time Mag published an interview that is essentially anti-Multiculturalism and irritating to Muslim Apologists. Loraine County Community College has published a guide on where various publications lean toward politically. Fascinating to me LCCC labels Time as centrist but with a proviso which I do concur:
Time. Similar in content and format to the two other major U. S. newsmagazines, this periodical covers the news from a centrist point of view. [NOTE: Others label Time liberal or leftist.] (Bold text is Blog Editor’s but the brackets are the proviso by LCCC - Leanings of Magazines, Newspapers; LCCC Library - LibGuides - Detecting Bias; Last Updated 9/7/17 1:21 PM)
Media Bias/Fact Check has this evaluation of Time:
Notes: Time is an American weekly news magazine published in New York City. It was founded in 1923. Time has the world’s largest circulation for a weekly news magazine. Time Magazine is factual in reporting and well sourced. Has a left-center bias in story selection. (5/18/2016) Updated (1/12/2017) (Time Magazine; Media Bias/Fact Check)
Yes friends, if the word “Left” is there, there is a promotion of the evil of Multiculturalism. This is the reason I consider it incredulous that Time.com has such a counter-Multiculturalist interview.
Below is Viana’s excerpt of the Time.com interview of Yahya Cholil Staquf. But if you get a chance you should read the entire article at Time.com.
Appropriate on this, the 16th anniversary of 9/11. More and more Muslim leaders are making this admission. Indonesia is the world’s most populous Islamic nation.-Viana
Yahya Cholil Staquf states: “Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.… Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity. … To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.… we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence.
Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.
Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. … There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. … I understand their fear …
The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. …Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.…
Europe, and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course you cannot close your eyes to those in need. … the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world. … there's an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as _de facto_ proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.…”
The video is actually the Christian testimony and journey of Imran Firasat. Imran was born a Muslim in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In adulthood he met a gal from Indonesia (Jenny Setiawan) was a Buddhist in Pakistan. I had to wonder why a Buddhist gal would be in Pakistan where some of the most vicious Muslims live who believe in violently protecting the Religion of Peace from non-Muslim religions and ideologies.
Here’s a mystery I have grown weary of searching to solve. I have had difficulty finding anything Imran Firasat. The latest post I could find is dated 5/2/16 found at Jan Sandviks blogg, but the information is only up to date to 2014. The mystery is Imran has disappeared from normal Internet searches for a guy like me that only knows how to use Google, Bing, Yahoo and a few less known search engines.
The I Support Israel website sent an alert of this Imran video on 9/10/17. The Youtube video itself is dated 6/14/14. I have no idea of the reason a Pro-Israel website showing a three-year-old video to garner support for a person that seems to have disappeared from the Internet.
I can tell you the reason I believe you should watch this video. The summary of Imran’s story which I began above, is this: A Muslim falls in-love with a non-Muslim from another nation other than Pakistan. Sharia prevents marriage so they cohabitate. A child is born of the relationship in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Sharia police show up at the door and rape the mother of his child because she is a non-Muslim living with a Muslim. The incident challenges Imran’s belief in Islam. He eventually becomes an atheist. For safety, they move to Spain. Imran eventually converts to Christianity and becomes a Counterjihad writer. Spain exercise its idiotic Multiculturalist hate speech laws which always exonerates Islam of hate speech and convicts the critics of hate speech against Islam. Spain moves to deport Imran. Imran tries Norway. Norway doesn’t want him for the same reasons Spain wants to deport Imran back to Pakistan. A deportation back to Pakistan would be a death sentence for breaking the Islamic Republic’s Blasphemy Law. I probably left out some details but I think you get the gist of what happens to an ex-Muslim refugee in Europe and in the Muslim world.
The reason then for watching this video: to understand Islam and the idiocy of the West’s Multiculturalist Left to emphasize diversity over Western Culture that will lead to the West’s destruction.
ERGO, here’s the Youtube Channel’s version of Imran’s journey from 2014:
In my social media surfing yesterday, a couple of groups/communities I belong to had posted excellent videos exposing the Islamic religion’s adherents screwing up Western Culture by giving the Supremacist religion its way.
The first video has about eleven-minutes of a Pat Condell presentation doing usual excellent job editorializing on how Islam is being destroyed largely by the Multicultural ruling elites permitting the destruction of Europe by Muslim migrants, refugees and immigrants. Condell presents the source links for his verbal editorial. Also Condell does a little self-promotion by linking to books for purchase both hardcopies and Internet versions.
The second video is from the Youtube channel Breaking News Today. This video exposes Dr. Abdul El-Sayed trying to be the first Muslim governor in the USA for the State of Michigan utilizing the deceptive principles of the Obama Dems to get elected. In the description area of this Youtube is a bit of a transcript of the presentation.
Man Trying To Be First Muslim Governor Just Got NASTY Surprise From Trump After What He Found Out It was only a matter of time before Muslims took the reign of power in Michigan by claiming government roles. What has started in this state is the first step in the bigger picture to get a traditional Muslim in the White House as president of the United States.
Globalists found the “perfect” Muslim to take this position and fits the bill to stealthily infiltrate Islam into every facet of society and change the way America functions to cater to their deranged beliefs.
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is young, intelligent, clean cut, and presents himself with an attractive facade to hide the hate he harbors. He recently began referring to himself “the new Obama” to appeal to the people desperate have a dictator like this back in office.
His assimilation to the former Democratic president is accurate, as the two deceitful men have a lot in common, none of which needs to be in the White House again. Now, he’s breaking laws and hiding a lot to get what he wants.
The 32-year-old Muslim has a way to go to get to his goal in 2020 of a presidential run, which begins with essentially taking control of the state of Michigan. His fate for this state position is to be decided in November, but the current Commander-in-Chief just slapped him with a nasty surprise that could derail the “first Muslim governor’s” plans indefinitely.
The quiet approach Democrats, Globalists, and El-Sayed himself are using to gain control over the state is no coincidence. That have to sneak him on people with strategic moves for the plan to work since it requires him breaking federal law to make it happen. Trump was wise to Barack Obama’s manipulation of the American people and sees the same in El-Sayed with a common tactic they have both employed.
Democrats know that handouts to their minions are the easiest way to get what they want in return, as well as to maintain power over people. One of the main reasons that Obama overhauled healthcare and put it in government control in his final months in office, is because it’s the ultimate control the government can have over citizens.
Here’s a fear that keeps counter-terrorism officials up at night: Extremists might use drones to drop dirty bombs or poison on Western cities.
It could just be a matter of time before Islamic State fighters take drone usage from the battlefield in Syria and Iraq to urban areas of the West, security officials say.
“I understand that an openly available drone, such as a quadcopter, which is able to hold a camera, can drop some dirty explosive device,” Friedrich Grommes, Germany’s top international terrorism official, told McClatchy on the sidelines of a national security forum.
“Even if only a few people are affected, it serves completely the idea of terrorism,” Grommes added. The payload would be “something which is poisonous. It could be a chemical or whatever is commercially available.”
Concerns about such tactics grew after Australian federal police said on Aug. 3 that they had disrupted an Islamic State plot to build an “improvised chemical dispersion device” that terrorists sought to deploy in urban areas. Plotters aimed to spread hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas.
Such a flying dirty bomb could be attached to a drone and used in Europe or North America, counter-terrorism officials said.
“That technology hasn’t quite crossed the Atlantic. It actually hasn’t left the battlefield,” said Chris Rousseau, director of Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, based in Ottawa.
Rousseau and other counter-terror experts spoke at the two-day Intelligence & National Security Summit 2017 in Washington.
After the panel, Rousseau spoke further about a drone carrying a terrorist weapon: “The question is at what point somebody’s going to get the idea to use that here.”
Extremists may not have the knowhow to manufacture deadly nerve or chemical agents, choosing simpler chemical components and combining them with an explosive, Grommes said.
“They will refrain from developing the complex chemical or biological attacks because they want to have the sudden spectacular blast,” said Grommes, who heads a directorate focused on international terrorism at Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND.
Counter-terrorism officials, speaking about other facets of the war on terrorism, said nations must not get complacent about a possible strengthening of al-Qaida, the extremist faction that launched the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, eventually retreating from Afghanistan to the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa amid sustained U.S.-led military pressure. The group has been overshadowed by the Islamic State.
In a reversal of al-Qaida’s earlier tactics, Sheikh Hamza bin Laden, son of the deceased al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, called in May for the group’s followers to embrace the kinds of “lone wolf attacks” used by Islamic State, its bitter rival, in which jihadists execute terror operations acting largely on their own and without direction.
Experts said the latest crop of terror attacks in Europe were largely carried out by men afflicted by anger more than driven by religious fanaticism.
Khalid Masood, a 52-year-old Briton who plowed a car into pedestrians on London’s Westminster Bridge on March 22, killing five people and injuring 50, left behind writings with “almost no real ideological content,” said Paddy McGuinness, Britain’s deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience.
Attackers find an outlet for rage in radical interpretations of Islam, McGuinness said.
“They are looking for something and they stick a sticker on it and they find their justification,” McGuinness said. “Their grip on their religion is so superficial as to be less than what you’d get by watching a television documentary.”
Rousseau, the Canadian official, echoed that belief.
“Religious ideology is very much the excuse,” Rousseau said, noting that little differentiates the anger of white supremacists and Islamic radicals.
McGuinness called on Britain’s allies to do more to remove radical Islamic content from the internet, where he said it becomes an echo chamber for radicals.
“People can radicalize very, very quickly,” McGuinness said. Just as some countries bar pedophiles from putting content on line, he said Western countries need to fight the presence of extremists online, “not allow them to be there.”
InHomelandSecurity.com is a top online resource for breaking homeland security news and analysis, brought to you by American Military University. InHomelandSecurity.com is maintained by a network of field experts who cover topics dealing with terrorism research, emergency preparedness, disaster response, border security, transportation and logistics, military intelligence, law enforcement, cybersecurity, and national security.
Check back daily for detailed analysis on breaking homeland security news from around the world.
Follow us on TwitterorFacebookfor breaking news analysis or to discuss critical homeland security topics. Please join the conversation and provide your feedback.
Contribute to InHomelandSecurity.com
Permitted Usage of Our Information
You are welcome to use, for any lawful purpose, the information that is posted to this site, provided that you link to and attribute InHomelandSecurity.com and the author of the content. Any 3rd-party material linked to or referenced on this site is subject to the rights of the owners of that material.
Sixteen years ago, on September 11, 2001 Americans awoke to the morning news reporting a hijacked airline was flown into one of the then existing towers of the World Trade Center. Then if you were watching your TV a certainty was realized it was no accident when another airline flew into another tower of the World Trade Center.
All of a sudden the news was reporting other airlines had been hijacked and we later learned that one flew into the Pentagon and another mysteriously crashed in Pennsylvania.
Then the news reported that Islamic terrorists belonging to a group of terrorists called al Qaeda perpetrated the attack. Then we were told the Muslim in charge of these terrorists was Usama (aka Osama) bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was holed-up in a nation most Americans barely knew about called Afghanistan. If you did know about Afghanistan it was because you were a news hound in the ‘80s aware that our Intelligence services were helping a group of Muslims rebel against their Soviet controlled Communist government. The irony of our aid to these Muslim rebels: Usama bin Ladin – a Saudi national – learned or earned his chops fighting the Soviets propping up the Afghan Communist government.
Justin Smith has submitted a bit of a memorial which will give the reason why we are at war with Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan who too often sneak across the border to Pakistan to regroup.
Sixteen long years have passed, since the clear blue sky above New York City exploded in a fiery inferno, toxic smoke and the stench of burning flesh and death on September 11, 2001, and for many, the memories of the murder of nearly three thousand Americans, friends and relatives and fellow countrymen, remains as fresh as this morning's dew. Those of us, who remember all too well, have the solemn obligation and duty to ensure America's future generations do not soon forget, that Islamic jihadists struck the single deadliest attack on U.S. soil by any foe since the War of 1812.
Two thousand nine-hundred and seventy-seven (CNN Library) Americans never could have imagined the horror they would soon face the morning of 9/11, as they headed to work at the Twin Towers. Their thoughts were filled with work, schedules, and perhaps returning home to play softball with their children or having dinner with a fiancée, or a husband or wife.
It was 8:46 a.m. (EST), when nineteen Muslim terrorists, following the edicts of the evil ideology of Islam and their false "prophet" Mohammed, flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Seventeen minutes later, 9:03 a.m., Muslim terrorists hit the South Tower with United Airlines Flight 175, and 34 minutes later American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.
People jumped and fell from all four sides of both towers. There's no way of accurately telling how many people died this way, but the horror they experienced just before their deaths is unimaginable, as they plummeted towards the earth at 150 miles per hour.
The end to this heinous attack and the final blow arrived, with the horrifying news that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, while its passengers bravely fought the terrorists. From start to finish, nearly an hour and a half had elapsed. By 10:03 a.m. nearly 3000 innocent Americans -- loved ones, friends and neighbors -- were dead.
Set aside any emotional impulse to block 9/11 from one's mind and embrace the gut-wrenching memory. Remember that America was attacked because of Her freedom and liberty and Her stand against oppression and tyranny worldwide. And there are many other things America should never forget, while we lower the flag, lay wreaths and ring bells in memory of the dead this September 11th.
Never forget, America received many warnings that a clash between Islam and the West, a clash of civilizations, was on the way, with tragedies like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the U.S. Embassy in Kenya and the suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole. We were even informed ahead of 9/11 that it was coming soon.
The first real warning occurred on February 26, 1993, when Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, master bomb-designer, detonated a bomb under the World Trade Center, on orders from Al Qaeda's Blind Sheikh, that carved out a stories deep crater, injured a thousand people and killed six. The bomb was supposed to kill thousands by releasing a cyanide cloud, however, the explosion incinerated the gas.
Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheikh'
Never forget, since 9/11, at least thirteen Islamic inspired terrorist attacks have been carried out across America, by Muslims following Mohammed's "perfect" example, such as we witnessed in the Boston Bombing, the D.C. sniper murders, the shootings at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, San Bernardino, Chattanooga and several others. There have been numerous attacks by Muslims that the press refuses to call "terrorism", and there have been scores of terror plots and attempted terrorist acts foiled by the authorities.
Never Forget, the nineteen Muslim terrorists were able to attack America on September 11, 2001, because they were trained and funded by Wahhabist imams and members of the Saudi Royal Family, as revealed by the 9/11 Commission Report. And recall, that they also had some large degree of help from Shiite Muslims in the Islamic Republic of Iran, having spent significant time in Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.
The fires of that September morning burned for 100 days and moved America to seek an accounting from these Sons of Allah in wars we are still fighting. Islam is at war with Western civilization, Europe and America, just as Islam fought us (infidels and Westerners) under the Ottoman Empire, or a thousand years ago, now that Islam is in a new ascendancy.
America is still in an ongoing war against us, being waged by Islam, its imams and jihadi terrorists, who want to do the very same thing today that they did sixteen years ago, except on a grander scale.
The United States intelligence community acknowledges that all Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have had some recent, if limited, success in acquiring chemical weapons, like anthrax, VX nerve agents and ricin. More troubling and dangerous, they seek nuclear weapons, as Graham Allison notes in a policy brief for Harvard's Belfer Center; and though many may see any success towards this as unlikely, it is certainly not implausible, given Iran's, Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's duplicitous, self-serving roles in the "war on terror".
No one ever envisioned jet airliners would be used as Muslim terrorist's instruments of death against us, however, September 11th brought a new visual reality, as officials sworn to protect America were forced to stare into a vast, smoking pit scooped out of lower Manhattan. As then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice repeatedly stated: "If you were in the White House that day ... every day since has been September twelfth. And your great fear is that it may be September tenth."
In his book 'The Field of Fight', former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn wrote: "We're in a world war, but very few Americans recognize it, and fewer still have any idea how to win it."
Americans have the agonizing images of the horrible and unimaginable calamity of September 11th seared into their minds and hearts. We never forgot the lives so brutally and callously cut short, the children who lost mothers and fathers, and the sorrow that followed; and, we clearly remember the depths of inhumanity to which these Islamic terrorists are willing to sink, as we ring the bells, read the names and honor our dead: September 11, 2001 forced many Americans to the understanding, that America must gather the strength and courage to stop Islam's violent ascendancy and expansion, at home and abroad, by driving their "holy warriors" into the ground, killing them, and even killing their families, until they grow weary of death and make war no more, if that is the only way to end their insanity.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Most source links are by Justin Smith, a few are by the Editor.
Yesterday I posted Justin Smith’s critique of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster entitled “A Bitter Struggle”. Justin’s theme is the obvious purge of Trump loyalists from the Trump National Security teams and the incomprehensible protection of Obama holdovers.
If you read Justin’s submission, and you should, you must have come away wondering: Why in the world would President Trump allow people supportive of Obama’s destructive to the USA agenda to remain when the President promised to drain the swamp?
After you read Ryan Mauro’s “25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster,” the question should be a question you cannot get out of your head.
I need to stipulate my position for clarity to show you where I stand. I’m a Conservative that subscribes to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda and to be honest, I have some of the Neocon tendencies that lead to American Exceptionalism in foreign policy but have abandoned the concept of nation building in the Muslim world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that Western Concepts of Liberty and Islamic culture are totally inimical to each other. Yet a strong America needs a strong-superior military to enforce American National Interests.
Also, years of a cursory study of Islam has not on has shown that American Constitutional Liberty and Islamic theopolitical ideology are incompatible, but as a Christian I can say Islam revered writings are deceptively as well as completely immersed in Antichrist ideology. I’m a Christian but every single Jew should be aware the Islamic revered writings even have more hate for Jews than for Christians.
AND pertaining to Israel, I am a Christian Zionist that believes the entirety of the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are to their descendants which today embodies the Jews. A term applied to all twelve tribes of the Hebrews that King David ruled as Israel. There NEVER has been a nation or national people called Palestinians.
Every single thing I mentioned – as you will soon discover – is something H.R. McMaster is diametrically opposed to!
National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster is moving aggressively—and successfully—to maximize his power in the Trump Administration. President Trump is standing by his side as anti-Islamist writers and think-tanks like the Center for Security Policy call for his termination or reassignment.
McMaster’s ascent is a sudden change in the balance of power in the White House. President Trump was widely reported to be so disappointed with McMaster that Trump met with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to discuss replacing him. Trump and Bolton concluded it was not the right move.
Then, Secretary of Homeland Security General John Kelly became the new chief of staff. He told McMaster that he wanted him to stay. McMaster’s chief rivals, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, were then pressured into resigning.
The criticisms of McMaster are well-warranted and are not the fruits of overactive imaginations among bigoted “alt-right” smear-merchants, like Senator McCain characterizes them.
Here are 25 reasons that President Trump should fire National Security Adviser McMaster or, if he’s willing to, reassign him to a military position where he can excel on the battlefield as he did before.
1. He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).
You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.
In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”
In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”
A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”
In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”
Raheel Raza says it like it is. If calling out radical Islam is politically incorrect then so be it. Raheel is bold enough to criticize and challenge radical Islam, are you?
2. Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists
In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”
The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.
McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.
3. Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization
Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
4. Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism
McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.
This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S. policies.
The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.
5. The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas
Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”
“The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.
He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.
Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.
The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”
If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.
There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.
6. McMaster believes terrorism is caused by disenfranchisement and lack of education
In his endorsement of the book, McMaster said, “Terrorist organizations use a narrow and irreligious ideology to recruit undereducated and disenfranchised people to their cause.”
Remember when the Obama Administration’s State Department spokeswoman was mocked by the left and the right for suggesting that ISIS needs to be countered by reducing unemployment and poverty?
That same view is held by our current national security adviser.
7. Preserving the Iran deal
McMaster is in favor of keeping the nuclear deal with Iran. His position resulted in the U.S. certifying that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the agreement. By claiming that Iran has been obedient, it bolsters the regime’s credibility and makes America look worse if we leave the deal later.
Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz was on a conference call with McMaster before it was certified and explained to McMaster how Iran is violating the deal. When Fleitz asked why the administration would certify Iranian compliance despite evidence of non-compliance, McMaster failed to give a direct answer.
8. Failure to understand the Israeli-Palestinian theater of the war with Islamism
The ideological war against Islamism requires us to debunk Islamist propaganda against our allies.
It is now known that McMaster declined to defend our best ally in the Middle East when questioned about Israel’s conduct in its 2014 war with Hamas.
Israel’s extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties in the war have been well-documented. When McMaster was asked whether he would agree that the Israeli military fought ethically, he gave an incoherent answer and then admitted, “that’s kind of a non-answer, sorry, to your first question.”
McMaster tried to stop Trump from visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem and, when he realized he couldn’t win that argument, pressured Trump not to go with any Israeli official. McMaster twice refused to answer whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, saying, “That’s a policy decision.”
The Conservative Reviewreported that McMaster refers to Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power,” according to three current and former officials from Trump’s inner circle.
Senior Middle East Annalyst [sic] Caroline Glick substantiates the accounts with her own sources who describe McMaster as “deeply hostile” to Israel.
According to these reports, McMaster has characterized Israeli security measures as “excuses” to oppress Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs. These sources also claim that he is not supportive of U.S. support for Israeli counter-terrorism efforts and shut down a joint initiative aimed at Hezbollah.
The initiative was led by Derek Harvey, who McMaster fired (more on that later).
McMaster is a big reason why there are increasing danger signs for Israel from parts of the Trump Administration. This has been recognized by the Zionist Organization of America, which is asking for McMaster’s reassignment.
9.Appointing Kris Bauman as top National Security Council adviser on Israel.
Kris Bauman was chosen in May as the top adviser on Israel for the National Security Council. Journalist Daniel Greenfield reviewed Bauman’s 2009 dissertation and found highly disturbing content.
As Clarion reported earlier this month, Bauman blamed Israel and the West for failing to see “Hamas’s signals of willingness to moderate” and turning Gaza “into an open-air prison.” He advocated a policy that includes “Hamas in a solution,” dismissing Hamas’ oft-stated pledge to destroy Israel and kill Jews until the end of time.
In his dissertation, Bauman cites The Israel Lobby, a book that purports to disclose how Israel secretly manipulates the U.S. institutions of power from behind-the-scenes. He says the “Israel Lobby” “is a force that must be reckoned with, but it is a force that can be reckoned with.”
Bauman clearly depicts Israel as the aggressor in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and, as Greenfield points out, equates Jewish settlers in the West Bank with Palestinian terrorists.
“It is true that one could make an analogous argument regarding Palestinian terrorism, but there is one major difference between the two. Israeli government control over settlement expansion is far greater than Palestinian Authority control over terrorism,” Bauman writes.
As to the failure of the “peace process,” he blames Israel as well as the West for its “overwhelmingly favored Israeli interests.” Prime Minister Netanyahu is blamed for “inciting Palestinian violence” and deliberately undermining the prospects for peace.
A consistent theme appears in Bauman’s thesis: Israel is the instigator of terrorism. To defeat terrorism, stop Israel. And now he is in a strong position in the National Security Council to try to make that happen.
10. Insubordination and constant drama
McMaster goes beyond honestly expressing himself to the president and crosses into insubordination, undermining the president’s agenda and contributing to dysfunction.
A strong example of McMaster’s well-known temper and ego was published in May by a prominent author who recalled how McMaster “went a bit batshit” because of an article he wrote where 95% of the content celebrated McMaster’s remarkable success in Iraq.
The other five percent focused on his forces’ initial mistakes and “mediocre” performance before adapting to the situation. And that set McMaster off. The author even quoted an expert who said McMaster’s success would become a “case study in classic counterinsurgency, the way it is supposed to be done.”
Even major supporters of McMaster who know him personally admit “he can be very intense.” The left-leaning Politico, which is more inclined to favor McMaster than his rivals, reports that his “temper is legendary” and he “frequently blows his top in high-level meetings.”
Politico described McMaster as an “increasingly volatile presence in the West Wing.” Three administration officials told the Daily Caller the same thing, with one describing the National Security Council as having a “poisonous environment.”
In addition to targeting Bannon and Gorka and anyone he sees as being in their camp, McMaster reportedly couldn’t even get along with Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who should be on his team. (The relationship is said to have improved, though.)
He also clashes with Secretary of Defense Mattis over military matters and Afghanistan. Mattis gave a dismissive response to these charges, however.
At his very first National Security Council meeting, McMaster immediately told those under him that President Trump is wrong to use the term “radical Islam” because the terrorists are “un-Islamic.”
Right away, he got to work building a coalition to wage internal battles.
When it came time for Trump’s Joint Address to Congress, McMaster fought tooth and nail to stop him from using the “radical Islam” terminology. He wrote and widely distributed throughout the government a memo criticizing the president.
Trump was very open that this would be his view. If McMaster couldn’t stand it, then he shouldn’t have accepted the appointment.
When President Trump and Chief Strategist Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers from the Obama Administration that may be leaking inappropriate information to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.
When President Trump said South Korea would have to help cover the cost of a missile defense system to defend them from North Korea, McMaster immediately told the South Koreans that Trump’s words weren’t actual policy. Trump was furious and screamed at him on the phone.
Trump is said to have confronted McMaster about the “general undermining of my policy.”
McMaster has worked hard to expand his fan club in the Trump Administration at the expense of those he disagrees with, particularly those closest to the president’s views.
The Washington Free Beaconreported earlier this month, “A White House official said McMaster appears to be trying to clear out anyone from the NSC staff who is outspokenly pro-Trump and has been slow-rolling the president’s directives that he disagrees with.”
In his resignation letter, Dr. Gorka wrote to Trump, “Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months.”
As these internal battles have been waged, a steady stream of derogatory leaks have appeared in the media. Bannon has been blamed for anti-McMaster coverage at Breitbart, but McMaster somehow isn’t blamed for the leaks favorable to his side that appeared in the mainstream media. The pro-McMaster leaks substantiate why top generals saw him as a “publicity hound” in the military who advanced because of his closeness to General Petraeus.
11. Pushing out Chief Strategist Steve Bannon
On issues related to Islamism, Bannon was an important voice to have in the White House. He was a main proponent of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and of waging an ideological war on Islamism.
Bannon understood the need to promote Muslim reform versus McMaster’s promotion of “non-Militant” Islamists. Shortly before his resignation on August 18, Bannon met with Dr. Daniel Pipes and Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum, one of the most effective anti-Islamist organizations and promoters of Muslim modernist reformers.
Bannon was McMaster’s top target. McMaster had forced out many officials that he felt were too close to Bannon, personally and politically, apparently attempting to monopolize power as much as possible. After resigning, Bannon said, “No administration in history has been so divided.”
Bannon disagreed with McMaster on the April 6 airstrike on a Syrian airbase and the new strategy for Afghanistan. Although there are serious merits to the airstrikes and the new strategy for Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential to have the views Bannon represents be a part of the decision-making process. A good teammate can disagree with a decision but still improve the option that is ultimately chosen.
12. Pressuring Dr. Sebastian Gorka to resign
Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to the president and author of Defeating Jihad, resigned reportedly due to pressure from McMaster and Chief of Staff Kelly.
Gorka and Bannon were the main proponents of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Trump’s satisfaction with Gorka and his success in handling the media should be considered important assets for an administration that struggles with messaging and perception. His book shows he is focused on a long-term plan for victory over Islamism.
Unfortunately for him, Chief of Staff Kelly disagreed with Trump and was reportedly “displeased” with Gorka’s popular television segments and McMaster saw him as part of the Team Bannon that he sought to conquer.
Gorka was also probably seen as too much of a political liability, as he had become the victim of one of the most vicious and meritless smear campaigns in recent memory.
However, Gorka’s media appearances, input and the ridiculousness of his enemies made him a political asset.
13. Sidelining K.T. McFarland
Shortly after McMaster took his post, Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland was transferred out. McMaster had the leading role in making it happen.
She became the ambassador to Singapore; not exactly a position where her national security experience is being used to its full potential. Among her viewpoints is supporting designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
14. Firing Ezra Cohen-Watnick
McMaster wanted to fire Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, right from the start. Watnick was initially saved by Bannon and Kushner.
Before joining the government, Cohen-Watnick organized an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event on his campus. He understands the issue of Islamist extremism and is passionate about it.
Watnick joined the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2010, became an intelligence officer and left in January 2017 for his senior National Security Council spot. He is believed to have entered the Defense Clandestine Service in 2012 and went to the CIA’s training facility known as “The Farm” in Virginia. He obviously had a strong background.
He was brought into the NSC by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and, therefore, was seen as an ally of the Bannon-Gorka team inside the administration.
We don’t know much about what Watnick advocated while in the National Security Council aside from expanding U.S. operations against Iranian-backed militias in Syria.
Watnick was accused of improperly sharing intelligence with Rep. Devin Nunes, but there is disagreement over whether he did anything wrong. However, we know McMaster wanted to get rid of him right from the beginning, so this was probably just a good opportunity for a power play.
15. Trying to Hire Linda Weissgold
McMaster had already begun interviewing CIA official Linda Weissgold as Watnick’s replacement before Bannon and Kushner initially stopped him.
Under the Obama Administration, Weissgold was the director of the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis. That means she was responsible for the false talking points about the terrorist attack in Benghazi in September 2012.
16. Firing Retired Col. Derek Harvey
Last month, McMaster fired President Trump’s top Middle East adviser from the National Security Council. The reason, as explained by one senior White House official, is that McMaster “wants his own guy.”
Harvey had an exemplary record and was thought to have a good relationship with McMaster, going back to when they served together under General Petraeus. He was described as one of Petraeus’ “most trusted intelligence advisors in Iraq” during the remarkably successful surge that turned the situation around.
Harvey was fired because of policy differences and McMaster’s desire to win the internal power struggle and cement his group over the National Security Council. McMaster and Harvey disagreed on “nearly every” area, particularly when it came to radical Islam and Iran. Harvey advocated working more closely with Israel, Egyptian President Sisi and Saudi Arabia.
Harvey had also put together a proposal for how the Trump Administration could scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. McMaster “blasted” his performance on Iran policy but according to a senior official who spoke to the left-wing Daily Beast, Harvey “was stuck in a Catch-22 situation” because lower-level staff dragged their feet in helping him.
According to the Weekly Standard—a publication that is certainly not in the Bannon/Trump camp—McMaster fired him because he didn’t like how close Harvey was to Bannon. Another detailed account said McMaster was also irked by his closeness to Kushner.
The most complete story says that McMaster directly told Harvey not to get too close to Bannon and Kushner. Shortly before he was fired, McMaster saw him leaving Bannon’s office. The sources say Harvey actually didn’t talk to Bannon too much, but McMaster had asked for information about Trump’s foreign policy priorities and that necessitated a meeting with Bannon.
McMaster saw Harvey at Bannon’s office on a Friday. When Monday came around, McMaster’s executive officer, Ylli Bajraktari (a Pentagon official from the Obama Administration) reminded Harvey it is not a “good idea” to talk to Bannon. He was fired four days later.
One other report states that Defense Secretary Mattis complained to McMaster about Harvey. The more exhaustive account based on sources close to Harvey dispute elements of that account.
17. Replacing Harvey with Michael Bell
McMaster replaced Harvey with Michael Bell, who was the National Security Council’s director for Persian Gulf affairs.
Not surprisingly, Bell is on record for harshly criticizing then-Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka to the Washington Post. Bell claimed that Gorka was too biased on Islam-related issues, stopping just a few steps shy of hitting him with the “Islamophobe” label.
Clearly, McMaster was picking a team to go to war with the White House. There’s no other way to interpret this decision.
18. Ousting of Adam Lovinger
In May, National Security Counil [sic] analyst Adam Lovinger had his security clearance revoked for unclear reasons that Lovinger described as “puzzling and baseless.” He was then fired.
Lovinger was at the council on loan from the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, where he had served as a strategic affairs analyst for 12 years. He was a known Trump supporter and was brought into the council by Flynn. Therefore, he would have been seen by McMaster as a Bannon ally.
Caroline Glick described Lovinger as a “seasoned strategic analyst” who clashed with McMaster because he favored India over Pakistan. He also opposed the nuclear deal with Iran and supported the use of terminology like “radical Islam.”
Lovinger confirmed that his conservative views on foreign policy had irked bureaucrats, and he believes his clearance was taken away for political reasons.
The Washington Free Beaconreported on May 1 that “security clearances granting access to state secrets have become increasingly politicized in a bid by opponents to block senior advisers to President Trump.”
Another example of this happening is Robin Townley, who held a top secret clearance and was picked by former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn as the council’s senior director for Africa. The CIA declined to grant him the necessary security clearance for Sensitive Compartmented Information. A source close to Townley said it was a politically-motivated “hit job.
19. Ousting Tera Dahl
Tera Dahl, the National Security Council’s deputy chief of staff, transferred out of the council in June. She will likely be working at the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Dahl was a writer for Breitbart and therefore seen as belonging to Bannon’s camp. She also co-founded a foreign policy think tank with Katharine Gorka, wife of now-former Deputy Assistant Sebastian Gorka (Katharine Gorka is currently an official adviser to the Department of Homeland Security’s policy office.)
Dahl was especially interested in Egypt. She is supportive of Egyptian President el-Sisi, arguing that his actions are helping to transition the country towards democracy and stability. She visited Egypt and believes he is getting unfair treatment by some Western media outlets and think-tanks who want to demonize him and exonerate his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.
The left-wing Buzzfeed described the change as a result of warring factions inside the White House over foreign policy. It explained, “The move frees up National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to install another staffer of his choosing in his drive to reshape the NSC to his liking.”
Dahl is said to have expressed interest in transferring because she was close to National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, whose tensions with McMaster have “created an uncomfortable working environment at the NSC.”
The council’s spokesperson Michael Anton claims “it was always her intent to move into a policy role once this task [at NSC] was completed.”
20. Firing Rich Higgins
McMaster and/or his deputy, Ricky Waddell, fired the NSC’s director of strategic planning, Rich Higgins, on July 21.
Higgins has an extensive background of national security service and has a deep understanding of the Islamist ideology, its associated doctrines and how it interacts with political movements that Islamists find common cause with.
Higgins had a deep understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and how Islamists got political access and impacted policy under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He studied how political correctness had resulted in cleansing counter-terrorism training and national security policy documents from references to the ideological basis of the threat.
Higgins was pushing for the declassification of documents related to radical Islam and Iran and, more specifically, Presidential Study Directive 11. He had good reason to do so.
There were reports that the previous administration was not disclosing important documents, including ones from Bin Laden’s compounds that contradicted its narratives about the nature of the Al-Qaeda threat and the group’s relationship with Iran.
Presidential Study Directive 11 is reportedly an assessment of Islamist movements in 2010-2011 by the Obama Administration that resulted in a secret recommendation to align with “moderate” Islamists in handling the Arab Spring.
If this is indeed what happened, the directive’s declassification is of the utmost importance for understanding the Islamist threat, the fruits of this strategy and the dynamics of the region, not to mention historical documentation.
Alarmingly, according to a Gulf News report, the Presidential Study Directive 11 documents were obtained by the Al-Hewar Center in Washington, D.C. and show that the U.S. decided to back the “political Islamists” including the Muslim Brotherhood.
McMaster reportedly “detonated” after coming across a seven-page memo that Higgins wrote which warned about a campaign by Islamists, Marxists, “bankers,” establishment Republicans and “globalists” to destroy the Trump presidency. The memo was given to Donald Trump Jr. and the president himself, who is said to have “gushed over it.”
Such a political memo would be inappropriate for the National Security Council. Its tone gives the impression of an author who sees all opposition to the Trump Administration as part of a seditious conspiracy. Its first reference is an interview between a member of the conspiratorial John Birch Society and a Soviet defector about “Jewish Marxist ideology.”
However, the memo was not intended for the NSC. It was a personal political analysis of how parties with various interests are trying to undermine the administration’s agenda.
According to Breitbart, Higgins used his personal computer to write the memo and did not use NSC time. He didn’t even use his NSC email to send it to anyone but himself. (He sent it from his personal email to his work email to print out.)
Another comprehensive Breitbart account says Higgins was fired on July 21 with several holdovers from the Obama Administration present and a Muslim woman with a hijab who worked as an equal employment officer. McMaster’s deputy, Ricky Waddell, told him it was his last day because “we’ve lost confidence in you.”
According to this account, McMaster was not responsible for the firing and hadn’t even read the memo. It was entirely the responsibility of Waddell. After the termination, parts of the memo were leaked to media outlets that would be most hostile to Higgins.
Regardless of whether Higgins’ firing was due to McMaster or Waddell, it was still done under McMaster’s leadership and was part of a broader push against perceived competitors.
President Trump was said to be “furious” at Higgins’ firing.
21. CAIR Comes to McMaster’s Defense
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a deceptive Islamist bulldog that tears into any opponent by falsely branding them as an Islamophobic bigot. The Justice Department identified the organization as a Muslim Brotherhood “entity” set up to support Hamas and designated it as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial.
CAIR slaps the “Islamophobe” label on practically everyone, obviously including almost every member of the Trump Administration. It has done so to Muslim adversaries, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic supporters of gun control measures to stop terrorists from obtaining firearms and White House Chief of Staff Kelly whose name was referenced in a letter thanking CAIR’s Florida branch.
But not McMaster.
When McMaster came under heavy criticism for his stances on Islamism-related issues, CAIR came to his defense. It branded his opponents as “Islamophobes” and “white supremacists.”
22. Reports of a possible CAIR official on his staff
Ayaan Hirsi Ali from presenting a paper on Islamist extremism to the National Security Council. There are unconfirmedreports that it was one of McMaster’s appointees who blocked Hirsi Ali. One account of the incident says she was also blocked from seeing President Trump.
Hirsi Ali is one of the most prominent women’s rights activists and anti-Islamist voices in the world. She is executive producer of the Clarion Project’s Honor Diaries documentary about the oppression of women in the Muslim world. She is a strong advocate for secular-democratic Muslim reformers.
The person who is said to have blocked her is Mustafa Javed Ali, who protested that she is an “Islamophobe.” According to one of the reports, a source said that Mustafa said “that the only way she could present the paper would be to have someone from CAIR come in to refute her work.”
Mustafa Javed Ali is reportedly a former “diversity outreach coordinator” for CAIR. However, there is no public confirmation to confirm this as his name does not appear on CAIR’s website.
An analysis by the Daily Caller found that about 40 of the 250 National Security Council officials are holdovers from the Obama Administration. Presumably, these officials would be very hostile to the Trump Administration’s agenda. They should be the first suspects in the ongoing stream of leaks from the NSC.
National security expert Jed Babbin identified four NSC officials who previously reported directly to Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the Obama Administration official who boasted of creating an “echo chamber” in the media to promote the nuclear deal with Iran using “compadres” in the media to influence reporters who “literally know nothing.”
In July, McMaster told NSC staffers, “There’s no such thing as a holdover.” He was professing confidence that those who worked in the Obama Administration would loyally serve President Trump.
Likewise, NSC spokesperson Michael Anton defended the holdovers as “stalwarts.”
As mentioned before, when Trump and Bannon asked McMaster for a list of holdovers that may be leaking to the press, he refused to cooperate and to fire them. He said hiring and firing was his prerogative and that most would be leaving anyway.
One former NSC staffer told the Daily Caller that McMaster has “protected and coddled them.”
Iran expert and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Ken Timmerman wrote a book titled Shadow Warriors in 2007 about how the Bush Administration was undermined by opponents within the governmental bureaucracies.
Timmerman’s observation should serve as a contemporary warning:
“George W. Bush never got the first rule of Washington: People are policy. He allowed his political enemies to run roughshod over his administration through a vast underground he never dismantled and never dominated.”
24. McMaster was an 11-Year Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies
Breitbartdiscovered that McMaster was a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies from September 2006 until February 2017 when he became national security adviser. IISS was part of a campaign to promote the nuclear deal with Iran and gets funding from Islamist allies.
Its website shows that one of its top donors is the Open Society Foundation, formerly named the Open Society Institute, whose founder and chairman is left-wing partisan activist George Soros. The foundation donated between 100,000 and 500,000 euros (roughly $120,000-$600,000) to the IISS.
The Open Society Foundation is motivated by hyper-partisanship and works hard to defend American Islamists and slander opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood as bigots.
For example, it financed the Fear Inc. reports about the “Islamophobia Network” that is a powerful weapon in the Islamists’ and Regressive Left’s arsenal for character assassination and protecting groups like CAIR.
IISS also has Ploughshares Fund as a major donor, giving between 25,000 and 100,000 euros (about $30,000-$119,000). The Plougshares Fund is also funded by Soros and his entities like Open Society.
When Ben Rhodes boasted about orchestrating the “echo chamber” to promote the nuclear deal with Iran, he specifically mentioned Ploughshares as his example of an outside group he utilized.
The president of Ploughshares, Joseph Cirincione, is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Plougshares specifically listed IISS, the group that McMaster belonged to, as the recipient of a grant for work on Iran issues in 2016.
Soros’ Open Society Foundation/Institute donated about $70,000 overall to selling the Iran deal, but other entities funded by Soros gave more. Ploughshares donated at least $800,000.
Ploughshares also donated over $400,000 to the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has long been accused of being a lobby for the Iranian regime. Ploughshares also awarded $70,000 to Princeton University to sponsor the work of former Iranian regime official Seyed Hossein Mousavian. The Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips writes, “This essentially amounted to subsidizing Iran’s propaganda efforts inside the United States.”
As Breitbart’s Aaron Klein shows, IISS was a loyal contributor to the Rhodes-Plougshares “echochamber.” It supported the deal and defended Iran against accusations of violations. It cast doubt on concerns that Iran and North Korea work on WMD together. And it criticized Trump’s attitude towards Iran.
IISS also receives funding from many companies that profited from the Iran deal like ExxonMobil. Its list of donors includes many governments, both allies and adversaries of the U.S.
Governmental donors of concern include Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Brunei, Kuwait, Russia and China.
25. President Trump is frequently unhappy with McMaster’s performance.
As mentioned before, President Trump has confronted McMaster about his “general undermining of my policy” and was furious at him for telling South Korea to basically ignore Trump’s words.
Trump complains that McMaster talks too much at meetings and has described him as a “pain.” There have been multiple articles indicating that Trump might be on the cusp of firing McMaster.
“I am at a pain to find an issue that H.R. actually aligns with the president, except for the desire to actually win and beat ISIS. That’s the only one,” said one administration official.
A former senior NSC official said, “I know that the president isn’t a big fan of what McMaster’s doing. I don’t understand why he’s allowing a guy who is subverting his foreign policy at every turn to remain in place.”
Trump has reportedly said in private that he regrets choosing McMaster as national security adviser and went so far as to meet with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton to float the possibility of him replacing McMaster. Bolton and Trump agreed that it was not the right move.
At the time, McMaster blasted the media for its downplaying of Iran’s role in murdering U.S. troops.
This led to many people’s (including this author’s) initial enthusiasm for him as national security adviser despite his statement in 2014 that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.”
Thinking it unfathomable that Trump would choose someone who is so fundamentally at odds with his national security vision, many chalked up the statement to a clumsy articulation of the U.S. position that ISIS shouldn’t be treated as the representative of the Muslim world.
But what was once unfathomable has become reality.
McMaster performed well as a military commander fighting an insurgency. If he is to continue serving the Trump Administration, then he should be reassigned to focus on taking his success in Iraq and repeating it in Afghanistan.
Ryan Maurois ClarionProject.org's Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.
The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.
This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.