Faux Pas While Telling the Truth

For John, BLUF:  Beneth the talk of Candidate Trump trash talking some of our allies is the question of if alliances like NATO are still worth the effort.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Whether it’s Donald Trump or Joe Biden, Nato’s in trouble

Here is the sub-headline:

Alliance cannot count on a Trump-led America to join it in repelling Putin or a Biden-led America to free up social funds for the nation’s military

From The Sunday Times, by Dr Iarwin Stelzer, Sunday 18 February 2024, 12.04am GMT.

Here is the lede plus four:

Donald Trump did it again. The 450 senior decision-makers gathered at the Munich Security Conference this weekend had Trump and more Trump on their minds. Which is what Trump, for whom attention is the oxygen he breathes, had in mind when he invited Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to any Nato member that has not met its informal commitment to spend 2 per cent of its GDP on its military.

Embarrassing Germany was undoubtedly an added attraction to the man who never forgets a slight, which Angela Merkel dished out more than once when she was chancellor.

Eighteen of the 31 European alliance members will hit the 2 per cent target this year. So will the alliance taken as a whole. Germany will not. Relatively rich, with a GDP per capita of more than $50,000, Germany spends a mere 1.4 per cent of its GDP on defence.

In 2022, the head of the Bundeswehr admitted: “The army that I am allowed to lead is more or less empty.” Experts reckon it would take four-to-ten years of enhanced spending to create a military that would be able to defend the nation from a Russian attack.

Poland, with a GDP per capita of only slightly more than $18,000, devotes 3.9 per cent of its GDP to its defence, and has about twice the number of active-duty personnel as Germany. History and proximity to Putin does that to a nation’s priorities.

From The Washington Examiner we have a similar view, but from The Wall Street Journal we have a voice saying "As Trump sows doubt about U.S. commitment to NATO, allies warn deterrence is fraying."  .

we have two questions to ask ourselves:

1. Does having allies enhance our national security?
2. Is the cost of any particular alliance more than the cost of providing equivient capabilities ourselves?

Given our own limitations in terms of available personnel and the value of forward basing,♠, I would say allies are a benefit.  However, allies who increase our risk of involvement in a regional war, but bring little to nothing to the fight ♥ are of dubious value.

Mt Trump's problem is he has a tendency to say the silent part out loud.  It makes him a poor diplomat.  But, perhaps, it makes him a good negotiator.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And the risks.
♥  Perhaps increasing the risk of such a fight.

President Cranky is Wrong

For John, BLUF:  President Joseph Biden, a forgetful, cranky old man, is failing to lead the nation to fix the border wall and also help friends currently engaged in war.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden urges House to take up Ukraine and Israel aid package:  "Pass this bill immediately"

From CBS News, by Reporter Kaia Hubbard, Updated on 13 February 2024, 2:52 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus one:

Washington — President Biden urged House Republicans to "immediately" take up a $95 billion foreign aid bill that includes assistance to Ukraine and Israel after the Senate passed the measure early Tuesday, saying that "there's no question" that it would pass if brought to the House floor.

"I call on the speaker to let the full House speak its mind and not allow a minority of the most extreme voices in the House to block this bill even from being voted on," the president said in remarks at the White House, which came hours after the Senate's 70-29 vote to approve the measure.  "This is a critical act for the House to move."

Later in his talk the President said:

"History is watching.  Failure to support Ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten."

As is his wont, the President repreated himself with regard to that sentence, for emphasis.

I fully support our efforts to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.  I believe the United States must support the Budapest Memorandum.  I am even willing to talk about restoring nuclear weapons to Ukraine, in light of Russia's violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

President Biden, in his talk, seems to be ignoring two considerations.

1. A large portion of the American Public thinks illegal immigration should be our first priority.  A prioity ahead of Ukraine.  The Republican (thin) majority in the House of Reprsentatives thinks it should use its political power to fix the US Southern Border.  In this belief it believes it is reflecting the will of the American People.
2. Given the way the US Government works, a party that commands only one House of Congress may use that power to force a President of another party to move in their direction, thus forcing a compromise.  The President is deeming this normal, contitutional, interaction as unpatriotic,  It is not and he is wrong.
3. As an aside, today, on his WRKO Afternoon Program, Reporter Howie Carr suggested that a bill such as the Ukraine funding bill should originate in the House of Representatives, per the Constitution.

The President is not only wrong on this issue, he is also being irascible.  And, he is further failing to keep his campaign promise to bring us all together.

Fix the border and then aid, Ukraine, Israil, Taiwan, and other allies and friends in trouble.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Eye for the Long Term

For John, BLUF:  A lot of us go for the quip that captures the moment, but ignores the long run.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It’s time to admit it:  Mitt Romney was right about Russia

From CNN, by Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza, 22 February 2022, 3:42 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus three:

A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.

“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” Romney, who would be the Republican presidential nominee in the 2012 race against President Barack Obama, told Wolf Blitzer in March of that year.  “They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Obama and his team pounced on the comment, insisting that it showed Romney was hopelessly out of touch when it came to the threats facing the US.

In the third presidential debate between the two candidates in October 2012, Obama went directly after Romney for that remark.  “When you were asked, ‘What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,’ you said ‘Russia.’  Not al Qaeda; you said Russia,” Obama said.  “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

That is the way it is with National Security, with Foreign Affairs.  There are the immediate threats and there are the long term threats, the threats that existed decades ago and will still exist decades from now.  We should remember that 400 years ago China was the world's largest economy and 500 and some years ago China had the biggist "Truasure Fleet", in numbers and in size of ships.  China dismantled that fleet and it is taking a long time to recover.

It is nice to see CNN admit this error of the moment, back a decade ago.

Regards  —  Cliff

Canceling Israeli Defense

For John, BLUF:  It is shocking to me to see the anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, flow in the Democratic Party.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Pull Funding For Israel’s Iron Dome Defensive System

Here is the sub-headline:

Republicans Blast The Move

From The Lid Blog, by Mr Jeff Dunetz, 21 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Until today, Sept. 21, the Democrats’ stopgap spending bill that the House plans to vote on this week included $1 billion for Israel’s Iron Dome defensive anti-rocket system. A group of progressive Democrats threatened to block the legislation unless the defensive aid was withdrawn, continuing the anti-Israel policies which have dominated the Democratic Party since Barack Obama became POTUS.

To put that $1 billion in context, President Biden left over $80 billion worth of military equipment behind for the terrorist Taliban during the Afghan pull-out.

According to Politico, the group that threatened to block the continuing resolution unless the defensive funding for Israel was removed. included Rep. Mark Pocan (D., Wis), the Squad, and other members who signed onto unsuccessful legislation to block arms sales to Israel in May and have made both Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic statements in the past.

To be clear, the Iron Dome is a defensive system, which protects all residents of Israel, regardless of faith, from missile attacks.

The Spectator talks to this kind of thing,"The New York Times tips its anti-Semitic hand".  It wasn't that long ago that we all pledged, never again.  Have we forgotten so quickly?  Or was that just a Caucasian, European, thing?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Final Frontier, Deferred

For John, BLUF:  William Schatner is going into space, the final frontier, but democrats wish to ground his space force.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dems Plan To Scuttle Space Force

Here is the sub-headline:

Jared Huffman, Rashida Tlaib aim to 'abolish' military branch

From The Washington Free Beacon, Mr Jack Beyrer, 23 September 2021, 4:30 pm.

Here is the lede plus two:

House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a measure in the 2022 defense budget to eliminate the Space Force.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D., Calif.) led a resolution, cosigned by fellow Democratic representatives Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), and Jésus García (Calif.), to "abolish" America's newest military branch.  The measure received support from the Koch-funded National Taxpayers Union and radical anti-war groups such as Peace Action and Demand Progress.

"Since its creation under the former Trump administration, the Space Force has threatened longstanding peace and flagrantly wasted billions of taxpayer dollars," said Huffman.  "It's time we turn our attention back to where it belongs:  addressing urgent domestic and international priorities like battling COVID-19, climate change, and growing economic inequality.  Our mission must be to support the American people, not spend billions on the militarization of space."

Oh great, just when everybody gets the new uniforms, we force them back into their previous uniforms.

I wonder to what degree this was thought out.  I fear it is like much of the Democratic Party plan for 2021—not thought out beyond the first step.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fortress Washington

For John, BLUF:  i can remember when Pennsylvania Avenue, in front of the White House, was closed to vehicular traffic, on a temporary basis.  Now it appears permanen.  I hope the fencing around Capitol Hill does not become permanent.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Demands Intensify for Security Fence Around Capitol to Come Down

From The Epoch Times, by Writer Mark Tapscott, 19 February 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

Forty-one House Republicans want Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to take down the razor-wire-topped steel barrier surrounding the U.S. Capitol complex and send the troops manning it home as soon as possible.

“We write with concerns about the security measures and enhanced fencing around the U.S. Capitol even though high-profile events like the inauguration are over,” the group said in a Feb. 5 letter to Pelosi.

“In particular, we are concerned with recent reports that the fencing surrounding the Capitol may become permanent.  We are willing to have an honest debate about providing Capitol Hill Police (CHP) with the resources they need to be better prepared without turning the Capitol into a permanent fortress.

“To that end, we urge you to remove the barbed wire fencing surrounding the Capitol and send the National Guard troops home to their families.  It’s time.  It’s time for healing and it’s time for the removal of the fencing so the nation may move forward.”

It is interesting that we, the Citizens, have not yet been told about the specific threat or threats justifying the fencing and the retention of the Nation Guard.  We were warned about threats to all the State Capitols on Inauguration Day.  However, nothing happened.

Perhaps the leadership on Capitol Hill, all Democrat, thinks the Impeachment Trial will bring out the worst.  Maybe they are hoping, as a sort of reverse time justification for the trial.

Regardless, it is time to "tear down this wall!"

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dealing With The nKorean Threat

For John, BLUF:  Mr William Aikin is not a known "Right Wing" crank.  On the other hand, as a "defense analyst" he has been known to question the conventional wisdom.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Say what you will about Trump, but his tactics on North Korea are working

Here is the sub-headline:

US officials warn of a president who is a dangerous wildcard, but Trump should be supported in his denuclearization plan

From The Guardian, Analyst William M Arkin, 25 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

When Donald Trump sits down with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi this week to further discuss eliminating North Korea’s nuclear capability, there are lots of reasons to doubt that the American president can pull it off.

Yet denuclearization is exactly the right goal and the president should be cheered on to succeed.

And yet, ever since the president announced last year that he would pursue “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”, jeering has been the near universal response.&Nbsp; It’s come from almost every imaginable American quarter: Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, expert and amateur.

Former president Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan has been the most vociferous, saying that a president “prone to flattery” and oblivious to North Korea’s “agile feint” has taken Kim’s “bait”, canceling exercises and contemplating reductions of forces.  Meanwhile, the news media is filled with leaks and speculation that North Korea clandestinely continues to manufacture nuclear materials and work on long-range missiles.  Ahead of the meeting, US officials promise that troop withdrawals from the Korean peninsula won’t happen, more of a hope as to the actual agenda, given the portrayal of Trump as a dangerous wildcard.

The picture painted is of an unmanageable patriarch who desires to give away the family fortune.  That family fortune of course is in the possession of the national security establishment.  On North Korea, but not only with regard to Korea – look also at Syria and Afghanistan – expert Washington is the master at adhering to their own preferred solutions.  Their passive-aggressive ways – whether applied to Trump on Korea or Obama on issues like Guantánamo and general nuclear disarmament – perpetuate stagnancy, any real change stymied through the imposition of conditions that are never quite achievable.

Yes, North Korea still has nuclear weapons.  But, we are talking and there have been no recent tests.  I judge the new normal to be better than the old normal.  As for Chairman Kim's belief that if he gives up his nuclear weapons he makes his position less secure, we can thank then Secretary of State Clinton.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fight, Mr President

For John, BLUF:  Some don't wish for the President to back down.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Presidential Trump MUST Stand Firm On the Wall and Comprehensive Border Security For the Sake of His Presidency...

Here is the sub-headline:

....AND THE LONG-TERM SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  IT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

From Webutante, 8 January 2018.

And this from Fox News:

Sen. Graham:  Republicans 'Deserve to Be Punished' If They Give in on Border Security

Here is the lede plus three:

President Trump now needs to back up his very fine speech tonight in favor of legal immigration by controlling illegal entry to the United States.

He must not back down. Congress certainly has as it has dilly dallied on this issue for decades, making promises, passing bills to fund a border wall which has never been implemented.  Mr.Trump has drawn the line for the American people and forced a crisis that's long, long overdue.  Good for him.  Now the president must not let this crisis go to waste.  He must not back down. Real leadership is taking a stand and letting the chips fall where they may.

President Trump is doing the right thing for the American people.  He's doing the right thing for his presidency.  Trump needs to hang tough for as long as it takes.  He must not back down.

He can not back down now.  Thank you President Trump for taking this tough, hard stand against the entrenched powers and principalities of the air.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Access to Classified Info Without Duty to the President

For John, BLUF:  Nobody told me I could keep my security clearance, once I left the Service, and for Code Word tickets, once I left a job.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Privately, Intel Officials Back Shutting Out Brennan, Clapper

From Real Clear Investigations, by Reporter Lee Smith, 2 August 2018.

Here is the lede:

President Trump has been criticized for politicizing the intelligence community by threatening to strip the security clearances of former top officials including John Brennan and James Clapper.  But numerous past and present senior intelligence officials say that the Obama administration started the politicization -- and that revoking the clearances of those who abuse the privilege for partisan purposes may help right the ship.

Further down, the article states:

Security clearances are commonly extended for the top leaders of the intelligence community after they leave their jobs, on the rare chance that they should be called upon to consult with their successors.

“The Trump administration is not going to call in Susan Rice for advice, never mind John Brennan,” said one active intelligence officer.  “And if someone does get called in from a previous administration they can get a temporary clearance, akin to a one-day non-disclosure agreement.”

Courtesy is one thing, but feeding your enemies is another.  This smacks of Deep State.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Justice Messed Up

For John, BLUF:  You should never lie to the person doing your Poly (Polygraph), the Priest hearing your confession (he could be another Father John Vianny or a Padre Pio) or Government Officials (but look for them to lie to you).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Former general pleads guilty in false statements probe

This is from the AP, yesterday, and the Reporters are Messrs Sam Hananel and Eric Tucker.  The lede plus three:

A former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pleaded guilty Monday to making false statements during an investigation into a leak of classified information about a covert cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright entered the plea at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, convened just a few hours after the Justice Department announced the charges.

The plea ends a Justice Department investigation that began after the 2012 leak to reporters of information about use of a computer virus called Stuxnet that disabled equipment the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

The offense carries a maximum of five years in prison, but under a plea agreement, the government is recommending a sentence in the range of zero to six months.  Cartwright is scheduled to be sentenced on January 17, and it will be up to Leon to decide the sentence.

First Off:  I think it is wrong that we have a law that says it is a crime to lie to a Federal Official (what is sworn testimony for, after all), but it is perfectly legal for a Federal Official to lie to your average citizen.  Those folks on Capitol Hill need to change this.  And they should have changed it years ago, like when Mr Scooter Libby was jacked up over the disclosure of the CIA status of Ms Valerie Plame, when he was not actually connected to the actual crime.  Shame.

Secondly:  I really don't see General Cartwright as doing something egregious with regard to national security, not like Mrs Hillary Clinton and her unsecured homebrew server.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ms Clinton and Classified Materials

For John, BLUF:  Just think about what it will be like when she is signing the Executive Orders.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over on Facebook, Ms Lynne Lupien posted this article with the lead in of "But we all know facts don't matter…":

FBI to GOP: For the last time, Hillary’s ‘extreme carelessness’ does not mean ‘gross negligence’

The reporter is Sky Palma and the publication is Dead State.

This was based on a Tuesday letter from FBI Assistant Director James V. Herring to the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (GOP), and the ranking minority member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Dem). Here is the passage from the article, meant to minimize what was done:

As the director stated, the FBI did find evidence that Secretary Clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless in their handling of certain, very sensitive, highly classified information,” the letter said. “The term ‘extremely careless’ was intended to be a common sense way of describing the actions of Secretary Clinton and her colleagues.

I think that is exactly correct.  Secretary Clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless in their handling of certain, very sensitive, highly classified information. So, what is the point?  It surely is not that Ms Clinton sent classified information.  It is that she ignored the written rules from the President and did what she thought was right and proper, or necessary for her convenience.

Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, "Classified National Security Information", lays out the rules for classification of information, protection of the information and its declassification.

Based upon past understanding [and EO 13526, Sec 1.3 (a) (2)], the Secretary of State has original classification authority.  So, if the United States is in negotiations with Lower Slabbovia over certain landing rights for aircraft engaged in supporting military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Secretary of Stzte could classify the fact of and contents of the negotiations as TOP SECRET, perhaps because the Government of Lower Slobbovia wanted it that way.  In a way she is her own boss.

But, there is that extreme carelessness thing hanging out there.

There is this little item:

Sec. 5.4. General Responsibilities.
Heads of agencies that originate or handle classified information shall:
(a) demonstrate personal commitment and commit senior management to the successful implementation of the program established under this order;

Well, there is that.

And,

(c) ensure that agency records systems are designed and maintained to optimize the appropriate sharing and safeguarding of classified information, and to facilitate its declassification under the terms of this order when it no longer meets the standards for continued classification;

Of course facts matter.

So, once again, the fact is that Ms Clinton was not indicted.  The other fact is that she became a law unto herself as Secretary of State.

So, she was "extremely careless in … handling of certain, very sensitive, highly classified information".  Not indictable, but surely worthy of consideration at the Voting Booth.

Regards  —  Cliff

Blowback From Director Comey's Decision

For John, BLUF:  Nothing in this world is without some consequence.  Director Comey's recommendation regarding Hunny Bunny will have consequences, which he should have foreseen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Attorneys Intend to Ask for 'the Clinton Deal'

Here is the sub-headline:

Will other careless security-clearance holders get a pass?  Time will tell.

This article is from Mr Steven Nelson, a Staff Writer for US News and World Report.  It is from early last week, but it is still pertinent.  Here is the lede plus three:

Attorneys for people who allegedly mishandled classified information say the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton could be good news for their clients.

Though many see a double standard in FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against the former secretary of state who used a personal and unsecured email system for official business, others see possibilities.

Mark Zaid, a defense attorney for national security whistleblowers and people accused of mishandling secrets, says he plans to ask for “the Clinton deal” in the future.

And Zaid says he probably can get it.

And then Attorney Zaid goes on to expand upon his comments.

I believe there is a natural equilibrium and we will return to a reasonable regime for dealing with security breaches, accidental and deliberate, but it will take some time.  In that gap the defense lawyers will have a fine time, mostly getting deals for their clients and when they don't having the fun of seeing the Government squirm.

But, in the end the secrets must be kept and we will see new legislation and we will see recent precedents overthrown.  But, that is in the future.  And, I don't see most people being careless just because The Honorable Hillary Clinton got off.  Most people who handle classified will face administrative punishments for carelessness, if they avoid the criminal.  That could include the loss of a security clearance, which could mean the loss of a job.  For most of us that is punishment enough for a lifetime.

Regards  —  Cliff

Best Explanation to Date

For John, BLUF:  I think Charles Krauthammer has it, Director Comey didn't want to change the course of history on his own.  He is leaving it to the voters.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comey: A Theory

Yesterdays edition of The Washington Post, an OpEd by Dr Charles Krauthammer.

After reviewing the story, Dr Krauthammer sums up his views:

Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process.  In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.

And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover.  Imagine that scenario:  You knock out of the race the most likely next president – and she ultimately gets acquitted!  Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.

I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt.  But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history.

I don’t endorse his decision.  (Nor did I Roberts’.)  But I think I understand it.

Maybe Director Comey glanced South, to Brazil and decided he didn't wish to be a part of a similar unwinding of the political process in the United States.

Makes sense.

But, that means it is up to us voters, in November.

Hat tip to the Fortuna's Corner.

Regards  —  Cliff

Madeleine Albright on Security in the Dep't of State

For John, BLUF:  The idea she didn't understand is ludicrous.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The internet presence, The Cipher Brief posted in its 8 July "Dead Drop" the following:

But what caught The Dead Drop's eye was Comey's comment that:  "While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."  That is reminiscent of charges made 16 years ago when the Department was accused of systemic failure to protect secrets.  The charges stung at the time, causing then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to say:  "I don't care how skilled you are as a diplomat, how brilliant you may be at meetings, or how creative you are as an administrator... if you are not professional about security, you are a failure."

To repeat, "you are a failure." Regards  —  Cliff

Edward Snowden Update

For John, BLUF:  Well, by the Clinton Rule, maybe we should back off.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Kremlin Admits Snowden is a Russian Agent

From John Schindler, on his XX Committee blog, 2 July.  Here is the yield:

In the three years since Edward Snowden landed in Moscow, his relationship with his hosts has been a source of much speculation and controversy.  The American IT contractor, who worked for the CIA and NSA until he fled Hawaii with more than a million purloined secret files, has not left Russia since he arrived at Sheremetyevo airport on 23 June 2013, on a flight from Hong Kong.

And here is how the author winds it up:

In truth, Snowden was never all that well informed about American intelligence.  Contrary to the myths that he and his mouthpieces have propagated, he was no more than an IT systems administrator.  Snowden was never any sort of bona fide spy.  There are no indications he really understands most of what he stole from NSA.

The FSB therefore milked Snowden of any valuable information rather quickly.  He likely had little light to shed on the million-plus secret files he stole.  Instead, his value to Moscow has been as a key player in Kremlin propaganda designed to discredit the Western intelligence alliance.

In that role, Snowden has done a great deal of damage to the West.  But he was never a "mole" for Moscow inside NSA.  In reality, the Snowden Operation is probably a cover to deflect attention from the one or more actual Russian moles who have been lurking inside NSA for years, undetected.

Based on the cases of previous Western intelligence defectors to Moscow, Edward Snowden faces an unhappy future.  Whatever happens to him is up to his hosts, who control all aspects of any defector's life.  There no longer can be any honest debate about his relationship with the Kremlin, which has settled the matter once and for all.  Putin and his special services consider Snowden to be nash – there is no question about that now.

Regards  —  Cliff

Diversity in Government

For John, BLUF:  Diverse is not necessarily better>  This lady also needs to bring something to the table.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This Homeland Security Adviser Said '9/11 Changed the World for Good'

From Conservative Review and Reporter Phil Shiver we have this lede:

Laila Alawa, a 25-year-old Syrian immigrant is a sitting member on the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism. Shockingly Alawa has stated that the 9/11 attacks “changed the world for good.” Alawa has also exhaustively blasted America, free speech, and white male “privilege” on social media, as first pointed out by this Daily Caller report.

I am sure if Ms Alawa thought about it she would say "Caucasian" vice "White", and I notice she uses male, to modify the term, so she excuses herself, she being another Caucasian (White).

I roger the "caucasian male privilege, in that I think that is what allows me to strive to be nice to all around me.

Frankly, I don't object to Ms Alawa being on the Homeland Security Advisory Council Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism.  Such groups need a variety of points of view and it needs good leaders to make sure lateral thinking is not suppressed.

Hat tip to Rob Eno.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ms Clinton's EMail Server

For John, BLUF:  Equal justice for all.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is the Department of State Inspector General Report:  "Office of the Secretary:  Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements" (ESP-16-03).

In The Washington Post Reporters Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger give us "State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices".

Their lede is:

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private server and that agency staff members would not have given their blessing if it had been sought because of “security risks.”

Even the decidedly Progressive Nation of Change took an even tone on this report, playing it straight.

Reporter Alexandra Jacobo gives us "Hillary Clinton Criticized by the State Department for Improper Email Practices".

The lede and report quote follow are:

A new report released by the State Department Inspector General critics Hillary Clinton, stating that she failed to follow the rules in regards to her use of a private email server. Clinton also failed to inform key department staff of her practices:

At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

BINGO:  "Federal Records Act".  That is the Act of Congress that says records must be preserved.  Those records are the basis of the history of our nation.  While news coverage is the first draft of history, when the professional historians dig in they sometimes turn things around.  But they need those records to dig in.  The Department of State Historian needs those records to publish the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)

Ms Clinton done wrong.  Not a hanging offense.  But, nevertheless, something needs to be done.  I recommend that she have an office call with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  She admit to the facts and pay a $10,000 fine.  And she issue an official statement admitting that she shouldn't have done it.

It isn't so much that we need to punish Ms Clinton as we need to warn off the next Secretary of State.  Oh, and restore the confidence of the Citizenry in the idea that when it comes to the law, to justice, there is one standard for all.  Otherwise you get Bernie and The Donald.

Regards  —  Cliff

Not the Smoking Gun

For John, BLUF:  Just because one may not want Hunny Bunny for President is not a reason to abandon fairness in treatment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Clinton abandoned secure line to use home phone, new email shows"

From The Hill, by Reporter Julian Hattem, on Thursday, the 12th of May.

Here is the lede plus four:

New emails released by a conservative watchdog group on Thursday appear to show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directing a top aide to call her via an unsecured phone line when technical troubles prevented a secure phone conversation.

“I give up. Call me on my home #,” Clinton told then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills in a February 2009 email, after more than an hour of trouble trying to communicate via a secure line.

“I just spoke to ops and called you reg line - we have to wait until we see each other b/c [the] technology is not working,” Mills said in another email sent at almost exactly the same time.

“Pls try again,” responded Clinton, a few moments later.

It’s unclear whether the two did connect, or if they moderated any discussion they may have had to avoid sensitive topics while on an unsecure landline.

There are few who stand before me in deploying Ms Clinton's lack of concern for security of our Nation's Secrets.

At the same time, this is not the smoking gun.  This is a case where an "operator" (Ms Clinton) has to make a decision in defense of the nation and she finds that solving the problem is more important than the disclosure of classified information.  This is a problem faced by military commanders from time to time.  A decision is needed now and the consequences of now decision outweigh the risk of disclosing classified information.

I think former SecState Clinton gets a pass on this one, unless much more is forthcoming.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saying What You Mean

For John, BLUF:  Plain speaking is good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is the on-line publication Tom Dispatch, with an article by Retired Air Force Lt Col William Astore, "Tomgram: William Astore, Words About War Matter".

The article starts out like this.  It has a snarky tone, but it is mostly correct.

At the moment, there are a maximum of 3,870 U.S. military personnel (or 7,740 actual boots on the ground) in Iraq supporting the war against the Islamic State. That’s the “official cap” imposed by the Obama administration, because everyone knows that the president and his top officials are eager to end American wars in the Middle East, not expand them. Of course, that number doesn’t include the other 1,130 American military types (or 2,260 boots) -- give or take we don’t know how many -- who just happen to be there on what’s called... er, um... “temporary deployments,” or are the result of overlap from rotating deployments, but add up to perhaps 5,000 trainers and advisers, or maybe, for all we know, more, including 200 Special Operations forces whose numbers are officially acknowledged by no one but mentioned in press reports. And naturally that 5,000 figure doesn’t include the American private contractors also flowing into Iraq in growing numbers to support the U.S. military because everyone knows that they aren’t either troops or boots on the ground and so don’t get counted. Those are the rules.

Do keep in mind that this time around the whole American on-the-ground operation couldn’t be more limited. Though the numbers of U.S. trainers, advisers, and Special Ops types continue to creep up, they are, at least, helping the Iraqi military reconstitute itself on Iraqi bases. In other words, this round of Washington's Iraq wars bears no relation to the last one (2003-2011), when the Pentagon had its private contractors build hundreds of U.S. bases, ranging in size from American towns to tiny combat outposts. This time, the U.S. military has no bases of its own, not a single one... er, um... at least it didn’t until recently when an American Marine, a specialist in firing field artillery, died in an Islamic State rocket attack on what turned out to be an all-American Marine outpost, Fire Base Bell, in the northern part of the country. The artillery operations he was involved in supporting the Iraqi army in its (stalled) drive on the country’s second largest city, Mosul, are not, however, “combat operations” because it's well established that no American troops, Special Ops units possibly excepted, are in combat in that country (or Syria). In fact, U.S. officials point out that artillery doesn’t really count as combat. It’s more like U.S. air operations against the Islamic State except... er, um... it takes place on the ground.

Language is important and to the degree we distort the language, to that degree do we deceive ourselves as to what is going on around us.  I touched on this in a recent post.

There is one place that the author seems to go off the rails.  This is when he pointed out that we spend billions on weapons system that may or may not be appropriate to the guerre du jour, and then pointed out the cost effectiveness of "the 9/11 attacks on American soil were estimated to have cost Osama bin Laden at most a half-million dollars.”

Is Lt Col Astore advocating we go back to using dumb bombs and just laying waste to various Arab/Muslim cultural buildups, including towns and cities?  I would hope not.  Our kind of warfighting does cost more because (1) we do it over there and (2) we actually try to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, even if we fail a lot.  We try.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Look at President Obama's Foreign Policy Execution

For John, BLUF:  The bureaucracy is a powerful thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

By Opinion writer David Ignatius, we have, in The Washington Post, "Bob Gates unpacks Obama’s foreign policy, and offers advice to the next president".  Bob Gates would be former CIA Director and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.♠

Here is the meat of the article:

"The way things get done communicates reluctance to assert American power," Gates explained in an interview Wednesday.  "They often end up in the right place, but a day late and a dollar short.  The decisions are made seriatim.  It presents an image that he's being dragged kicking and screaming to each new stage, and it dilutes the implementation of what he's done."

Gates criticized the current National Security Council's implementation of policy, arguing that "micromanagement" by a very large NSC staff undercut Obama's efforts to use power against the Islamic State and contain China in the South China Sea.  "It becomes so incremental that the message is lost.  It makes them look reluctant," he said.

Gates's criticism of the NSC is noteworthy because he served as deputy to national security adviser Brent Scowcroft in President George H.W. Bush's NSC, which Obama has cited as a model for how policy should be managed.  By that standard, Gates implied, the current NSC team, led by Susan Rice, needs to lift its game.

In our Nation's Capitol, it is not the big Executive Departments, like State and Defense, that determine the course of the ship of state.  It is the National Security Council.

The passages quoted remind me of a quote attributed to President Harry S Truman, about Dwight David Eisenhower assuming the Presidency:

“He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this!  Do that!’  And nothing will happen.  Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army.  He’ll find it very frustrating.”

I am sure the same applies to President Obama.  Being President isn't easy.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Also the author of Duty:  Memoirs of a Secretary at War.