http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9908260/Barack-Obama-a-dithering-controlling-risk-averse-US-president.html

Barack Obama a 'dithering, controlling, risk-averse' US president

Barack Obama is a "dithering" president whose controlling tendencies and extreme risk-averse attitude to foreign policy has damaged US interests in the Middle East, according to a new book by a senior former State Department adviser.

The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, left, and Hillary Clinton tried to argue the dangers caused by the overuse of drones Photo: AP/AFP

By Peter Foster, Washington

6:18PM GMT 04 Mar 2013

463 Comments

The insider-account of the damaging divisions between the White House and the State Department comes as diplomats around the world wait to see if John Kerry, the new US secretary of state, can persuade Mr Obama to greater engagement on Syria, Egypt and the wider Middle East.

Vali Nasr, a university professor who was seconded in 2009 to work with Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, records his profound disillusion at how a "Berlin Wall" of domestic-focused advisers was erected to protect Mr Obama.

"The president had a truly disturbing habit of funnelling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics," Mr Nasr writes in The Dispensable Nation: America Foreign policy in Retreat.

The book sets out in detail how Mr Holbrooke, appointed with great fanfare in 2009, was systematically cut out of decision making as both he and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, tried to argue the merits of engaging with the Taliban and the dangers caused by the overuse of drones.

^(AFP)

Related Articles

• Rodman: Kim wants Obama phonecall 
  04 Mar 2013
• US aircraft carrier in front line of Obama's battle over $85 billion cuts 
  02 Mar 2013
• Obama attacks 'inexcusable' cuts 
  02 Mar 2013
• Obama signs order on $85bn cuts 
  02 Mar 2013
• Obama lays blame on Republicans 
  01 Mar 2013
• Obama attacks 'dumb' sequester cuts 
  01 Mar 2013

"The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much," Prof Nasr writes, "The goal was to spare the president the risks that necessarily come with playing the leadership role that America claims to play in this region."

Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until September 2011, is quoted lamenting how little support Mrs Clinton received from the White House, even though she remained on good personal terms with Mr Obama.

"They want to control everything," Admiral Mullen is quoted as saying of a White House that Prof Nasr says was "ravenous" in its desire to manage foreign policy, even by the to-be-expected standards of turf wars between diplomatic and national security teams.

As Mr Kerry prepares to return home from his first trip abroad in his new role, Western diplomats in Washington say they are watching carefully to see whether he will be able to put meat on the bones of his promise yesterday to "empower" Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad regime.

^{John Kerry and Moaz Al Khatib in Rome on Friday (AFP)}

Last week Mr Kerry pledged $60m in new support, including medical kits and food aid, which will go direct to rebel fighters for the first time, but still falls far short of British and French ambitions to provide more military materials such as flak jackets and night-vision goggles.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, is expected to announce a British aid package this week and has done little to hide his impatience on the issue.

Diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Kerry had been "left under no illusion" by his European allies of the desire for greater action, but that it was still very far from clear if the White House was serious about stepping up aid. Rebel groups remain openly sceptical.

Analysts looking for signs that Mr Obama might be prepared to be more engaged on foreign policy in his second term found little to suggest a change of heart in his Second Inaugural speech and last month's State of the Union address.

"American foreign policy has been on a four-year autopilot, which I argue has been excessively risk averse and domestically focused. I don't see any clear decision yet to change that," said Mr Nasr in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"I wrote this book to problematise the way Obama has approached this whole region, and that it is dangerous to disengage and confuse a low-level foreign policy with success in foreign policy," he concluded.

"My hope is that Kerry will be able to do more, but it is still early. He's definitely trying to create more US engagement, but there has to be a fundamental, strategic decision in the White House to reorientate our approach."

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/34-universities-ask-to-fly-spy-drones/

34 UNIVERSITIES ASK TO FLY SPY DRONES

But data on those already in air hard to find

Published: 12 hours ago

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

493

Ads by Google

• Do You Hate Republicans?Check this out and ask yourself this one question.OnePoliticalPlaza.com

A 2012 list off applicants for Federal Aviation Administration permission to fly drones overhead shows 34 universities want to operate the spy machines.

The list posted online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation also shows that the FBI, the city of Herington, Kan., the Mesa, Colo., sheriff’s office, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army, and the Forest Service applied for permission.

Ads by Google

• Repeal Obamacare?Should Congress Repeal Obama's Policies? Vote Here Now.www.newsmax.com/surveys
• Support the 2nd AmendmentTell Congress to support the 2nd Amendment. Sign petition!Townhall.com/2nd-Amendment

Also the U.S. Department of State, now run by John Kerry, as well as the Department of Energy, U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy also applied.

The educational requests were highlighted in a report by CampusReform.org, which said most of the requests were for “academic research.”

But EFF spokeswoman Rebecca Jeschke told Campus Reform  concerns remain about privacy.

“I think it is really important that no matter what you are using the drones for that there is an appropriate privacy policy,” she said. “You should think through what happens if you catch someone on video. How long do you keep that video? Do you cut that part out before you save it? What if someone is caught on camera doing something embarrassing.”

She also said schools need to let students know if they are being recorded and why.

Campus Reform reported just a few weeks earlier on a failed request from Georgia Tech University’s policy agency for such a permit to “follow individuals” and “locate threats.”

But bigger questions raised by the EFF are how many drones are in operation over the U.S., and what are they doing.

In a posting this week, EFF said some reports indicate the FAA has issued 1,428 permits to fly drones over the U.S. since 2007.

“This new number points out again how difficult it is to answer the most common questions EFF gets from reporters about drones – just how many agencies have applied for drone licenses?” wrote EFF’s Jennifer Lynch. “How many licenses has the FAA issued since it started issuing licenses … and how much has domestic drone use increased over the years?”

The EFF report said it’s really impossible to answer.

“We’ve been tracking drone flights in the United States for several years now through our two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the Federal Aviation Administration, and we currently have more information on domestic drone flights than anyone other than the FAA. But thanks to discrepancies among various drone numbers the FAA has released – to EFF, to the Government Accountability Office and to members of Congress – it’s anyone’s guess exactly how much drone authorizations have increased over the years,” the report said.

What has been made available is that in July 2010, the FAA said there were 71 experimental certificates active. Then, in April 2012, the FAA said 61 public “proponents” had applied for drone licenses. Three months later the GAO said the FAA had issued 201 Certificates of Authorization to 106 local, state and federal entities.

Last September, the GAO said from Jan. 1 to July 13, the FAA “issued 342 COAs to 106 federal, state, and local government entities.” In the same month the FAA told members of Congress 228 public drone license “sponsors” had a current, expired or disapproved COA.

In January, then, the FAA said 81 public drone license proponents had applied between July 2011 and October 2012. This month, the GAO reported the FAA has issued 1,428 permits since January 2007.

“There are other discrepancies,” the EFF report said. “Of the 228 entities on the list released to Reps. Markey and Barton in September 2012, at least 28 are not on either of the lists the FAA provided to EFF.”

They include disparate groups such as the Colorado Department of Transportation; El Dorado, Kan.; Minnesota’s Becker Soil & Water Conservation District; and the Texas Rangers.

“Is it that the FAA, itself, doesn’t know because it hasn’t kept track of its own program?” the EFF report questioned.

In just the past few weeks, the London Daily Mail reported the U.S. Air Force is developing fly-size drones that can sneak up on someone and execute him. The report said it was a project was of the Air Vehicles Directorate, a research center, that was working with Micro Air Vehicles.

The Hill also recently reported that 18 states have considered plans that would restrict the use of drones because of civil liberty and private protection concerns.

.99 

Exclusive: Gen. Patrick Brady rejects imam Clown car in the white house candidates for top Cabinet posts

h/t GW



http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

Kerry & Hagel: Both unfit for duty

Exclusive: Gen. Patrick Brady rejects Obama candidates for top Cabinet posts

Published: 2 days ago

By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)

 

 

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady

As the nation recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War, two veterans of that war are front-runners for high office: John Kerry for secretary of state and Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Unfortunately, neither one possesses the exceptional qualities of the typical Vietnam veteran. Both are willing pawns of a president who has no clue on foreign relations and is emasculating our military – our surest guarantor of peace and the one governmental institution that still works.

Hagel, who once denounced the ambassadorial appointment of a homosexual and homosexual conduct in the military under “don’t ask don’t tell,” now supports a quad sexual (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and transgender) military. As a tribute to his loyalty and military prescience, he turned on his commander in chief, President Bush, denouncing the war in Iraq, which he voted for, and called President Bush’s successful surge “the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” He also said, “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic. … But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships.” Our relationship with Israel, by definition, affects our relationship with Arabs and Muslims. Change one and you change the other, which may be Obama’s goal.

Hagel joins political turncoats such as Sen. James Webb who sniff out media opinion and polls to determine what they believe and to fulfill their selfish ambitions. This man is an opportunist and a mediaphobe low on character and conviction.

But with all his shortfalls, Vietnam veteran Hagel cannot match the duplicity and dishonor of our most infamous Vietnam veteran, John Kerry. Kerry once defined patriotism as “keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of this country.” By his own definition he is not a patriot. In his bid for the presidency, he often played the “hero” card – but before Kerry played his “hero” card, he played the atrocity card. When Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971 denounced “those who wear the uniform” as terrorist-like rapists and assassins who “cut off heads, taped wires … to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks” – and said he “committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others.” He made these charges under oath.

The very day Kerry was calling Vietnam veterans war criminals the family of one of those “war criminals,” Michael Blanchfield, was posthumously receiving the Medal of Honor for Michael who had thrown himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. How different from Kerry was the way this man kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. How different from Kerry was the manner Michael defended his country.

Kerry could have attacked the war without attacking the warrior. He could have questioned policy without supporting the communists’ claim that our soldiers were war criminals. He could have kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. But he did not, and he should be held accountable. Kerry’s “hero” card is based on medals he received in Vietnam and is much celebrated, and unchallenged, by the mainstream media. I know many Medal of Honor recipients who have received less publicity for their medal than Kerry has for his. But medals don’t make a hero. It is goodness and how one uses medals that make a hero. Every honest soldier knows that medals are a function of circumstance, even happenstance, but most of all the support of one’s fellow warriors.

I was awarded the Medal of Honor; but my fellow soldiers who supported me in the actions and took the time to write it up earned it. I wear it for them; they own my medals. And every Medal of Honor recipient and hero I know believes as I do. Medals should be a sign of patriotism, a symbol of sacrifice, support and defense of a great nation. The highest form of patriotism is service to our youth; heroes also wear their medal for them to signal the importance of courage. Heroes do not use their medals for personal political gain. As I said, they are not theirs to use. What Kerry/Fonda and the media elite did to the Vietnam veteran and his family is deplorable. Not just the living but also those who died and their families who questioned if a loved one is a war criminal. And the POWs, some who believed the Kerry/Fonda cartel extended the war, increased their torture and filled more body bags.

Sen. Kerry threw his medals away (or ribbons, they are symbolically the same), a political act very difficult for any veteran to understand. He must have been proud of them, for he wore them even on his fatigues, in violation of all regulations. But they were not his. They belonged to those whom

he served. By that act he symbolically denounced his fellow veterans – again. Does one keep faith with those who wear the uniform by throwing away their medals?

But perhaps most telling of his leadership qualities is his use of his Purple Hearts to abandon his band of brothers, his command, on a technicality. Kerry may be the only person in history who took advantage of a Navy regulation that allowed him to leave his command after four months for three Purple Hearts, none of which ever caused him to miss a day of duty. In my experience men fought to stay with their band of brothers, especially commanders.

All the commanders I know would get out of a hospital bed to be with their men. Today I see limbless troops, struggling to recuperate, with one goal – return to their fellow warriors. Someone had to take Kerry’s place; someone probably less experienced who would have to learn the ropes. That put his command more at risk than if he stayed. It is not hard to understand why those who witnessed Kerry’s actions, and served their time, deplore his desertion of his command. His abuse of veterans and misuse of his medals should bring into serious question his loyalty, integrity and character, all of which equal leadership. He is not fit for high office.

Sadly these are exactly the kind of men one would expect President Obama to select, men lacking leadership qualities, political grovelers who fit perfectly with the Obama/Panetta doctrine defined by Panetta to excuse the disaster at Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. …” That statement is a contradiction of the ethos of this country and every warrior who ever fought for it.

By that standard there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact I cannot think of a war we fought in which we did not go into harm’s way without real-time information; or to save lives – something the president and secretary of defense refused to do in Benghazi. It contradicts the essence of compassion and courage, the foundation of all our wars – indeed, even of policeman and fireman.

We need a secretary of state who denounces the Obama/Panetta doctrine, who would not have abandoned the Americans at Benghazi. Kerry is not that man; he abandoned his command in Vietnam. We need a secretary of defense who reflects the character and conviction of the warriors in the Department of Defense, Hagel is not that man.

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.

 

Navy SEALS Start ‘Swift-Boating’ El Presidente

Special ops group attacks Obama over bin Laden bragging, leaks

POSTED: TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2012 09:17PM

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.
Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.
In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry's Vietnam War service.
The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.
"Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not," Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.
"As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy," Smith continues. "It will get Americans killed."
An Obama campaign official said: "No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it's clear they've resorted to making things up for purely political reasons."
Obama has highlighted his foreign policy record on the campaign trail, emphasizing how he presided over the killing of bin Laden, as well as how he ended the war in Iraq and set a timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan.
However, Obama has come under sharp attack from Republican lawmakers who have accused his administration of being behind high-level leaks of classified information.
They have pointed to media reports about clandestine drone attacks, informants planted in al Qaeda affiliates and alleged cyber-warfare against Iran that Republicans say were calculated to promote Obama's image as a strong leader in an election year.
The White House has denied leaking classified information.
The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia.
Calling itself "OPSEC" for short - which in spy jargon means "operational security" - the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.
It also set itself up as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. Tax Code, allowing it to keep donors' identities secret. Spokesmen for the group declined to discuss its sources of financing.
Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.
In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a "watchdog organization" but added that the current administration "has certainly leaked more than others."
OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.
Following the film's release, OPSEC's spokesmen said, the group expects to produce TV spots on the anti-leak theme that will air in a number of states, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada - key battleground states.
Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was "not a partisan concern." But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets "to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples' lives.... We want to see that they don't do this again."
Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group's message and make-up are nonpolitical.
"You'll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship," he said.
Responding to criticism about the president taking credit for the bin Laden raid, an Obama campaign official pointed to an interview with CNN last month in which Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the raid, said: "At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him."
"I think Admiral McRaven knows more about the President's role in the bin Laden operation than this group," the campaign official said.
(Additional reporting by Lauren French and Alexander Cohen in Washington. Editing by Claudia Parsons and Ciro Scotti)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

http://wtax.com/Special-ops-group-attacks-Obama-over-bin-Laden-bra/11472119?newsId=160702

Navy SEALS Start ‘Swift-Boating’ Obama

Posted on August 15, 2012 by Conservative Byte

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War service.

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/08/navy-seals-start-swift-boating-obama/

John Kerry (he is a Vietnam War Hero you know) trying to gin up money for El Presidente

To ask a clowncar like Kerry, the dims must be really desperate

Subscribe by email

Dear Charlotte in 2012 Supporter,

I’ve been to my fair share of Democratic Conventions and in 2004 I had the unique honor of receiving the Democratic nomination for president in my hometown of Boston -- a convention where we also had the privilege of introducing to the country a certain State Senator from Chicago named Barack Obama.

Make no mistake -- our conventions are magical -- and they're important.

Each convention highlights a different part of our country’s history, its present, and its future -- I can’t wait to see what's in store in Charlotte this September. Convention week is a time for Democrats to come together, work on the Party’s business and share in a common vision for our country.

I want to make sure you are a part of the action.

Give $5 or whatever you can right now – become a part of this grassroots network and your name will be automatically entered to win free airfare and accommodations for the week in Charlotte.

Charlotte has been working hard to make sure this is the best and most open convention to date. For the first time in modern history, they are relying on a large grassroots network – people just like you, to make contributions of $5, $10 or whatever you can to help fund this convention.

Your grassroots donation is what making this convention possible. Please donate what you can today.

I look forward to Charlotte -- and to marking the start of our Party's sprint towards an historic election in November.

Onwards!

Senator John Kerry
Massachusetts