Trump's Red Line--Will He Fold?

If CIA Loses Personnel To Trump's Comments, Is That Bad? Should The Incoming President Not Challenge The Status Quo?

Ex-CIA director: Trump's comments will lead to 'wave' of resignations

BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 01/07/17 12:23 PM EST 743

2,958

3K

© Getty

Former CIA acting director Michael Morell said President-elect Donald Trump’s rhetoric will undermine the agency by causing a “wave of resignations” and affecting its ability to work with foreign intelligence services.

“First, expect a wave of resignations. Attrition at the C.I.A., which has been remarkably low since Sept. 11, 2001, will skyrocket,” Morell wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Friday.

“The primary motivator for some of our smartest minds to go to work at the C.I.A. is to make a difference to national security, to play a role in keeping the country safe. All of the sacrifices — from the long hours, polygraph tests, unfair media criticism, not to mention the real dangers to life and limb — are worth it, if you are making a difference.”

Morell’s latest criticism of the president-elect comes as the intelligence community issued a declassified report that found Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to help Trump win the presidency.

Morell said Trump’s rejection of the CIA’s assessment about Russia’s interference is “an unprecedented political challenge for our national security establishment” and “a danger to the nation.”

While Morell called Trump’s Friday intelligence briefing “a step in the right direction,” he also said “his disparagement of American intelligence officers over the last few months is likely to cause significant damage to the CIA.”

Trump’s comments will make it difficult for the agency to work with other foreign intelligence services and develop foreign assets, Morell explained.

“Why would a foreign intelligence service take the CIA seriously (and share important information with it) when the American president doesn’t?” he wrote.

Trump, who signaled throughout his presidential campaign that he wanted to improve relations with Russia, has criticized the Intelligence Community for its assessments about Russia’s interference in the United States election.

After the Washington Post reported last month on a CIA assessment that concluded Russia meddled in the election in an effort to help Trump win, Trump’s transition team slammed the CIA, citing its intelligence about supposed weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Morell previously criticized Trump in an August op-ed for the New York Times in which he declared his support for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He also argued that Trump posed a threat to national security.

Those Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Rocks And That Goes For Trump Critics Especially!!

Trump's national security critics shouldn't ignore their mistakes

By Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)

AddThis Sharing Buttons

3

 4

Getty Images

There’s a lot of buzz from opponents and critics of Donald Trump on the fact that 50 national security experts—all Republicans—have proclaimed they are unable to support Trump because he’ll put America at risk as Commander in Chief.  

I have deep respect for many of the individuals in the group of 50 experts.  In fact, many of them were serving in government and influenced American foreign policy in the post 9-11 era as I and many other Americans served in combat overseas.  

All of them have earned the right to express their collective viewpoint, but they too are not devoid of criticism for their mistakes—some of which still have an impact on U.S. security today.

As part of President George W. Bush’s leadership team, a core group of these experts were repeatedly tested in the fight against global terrorism after the 9-11 attacks.  After all, Bush was a wartime President.  And to their credit the U.S. did not experience another attack under President Bush’s watch.   Though with each test they faced, not all were handled with the artfulness and foresight that Donald Trump has been excoriated for lacking.  

To illustrate, look no further than the war in Iraq, not including the [failed] intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. 

Perhaps the most significant error, with consequences still felt today, was the decision to disband the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion to ouster Saddam Hussein—a decision that can be painfully cited as part of the cause for the rise of the Islamic State.  The absence of the Iraqi Army created a vacuum that was soon filled by a Sunni insurgency that battled U.S. troops and interests in the years that followed and created a destabilizing headwind.  Propelled by the insurgency, the Islamic State has since recruited some of the top commanders and fighters that once served in the same Iraqi Army that was dissolved against the better judgment of many military leaders.

The Iraq War was eventually won militarily due to the surge of an additional 30,000 troops in 2007, but only after the Bush Administration was faced with the risk of losing a ground war in which thousands of Americans were killed and more were injured.  The idea of a surge is not something the Bush Administration accepted at first.  That resistance continued, until the pressure became too great and a realization emerged within the White House that the U.S. was on the cusp of possible defeat.  The delay in the surge created an heavier burden for the U.S. military, which had already sacrificed greatly, but the surge that was resisted at first ultimately proved effective. 

Another example is personal.  I have vivid recollection as a Marine Corps officer in the first battle of Fallujah.  We entered the city and began to fight our way through, but the attack was prematurely called off and the Marines were moved out of Fallujah.  The decision to pull back did not come from our military, but rather it originated with the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer and had the blessing of White House.  There was too much concern for political sensitivities at the time.  To no surprise, Fallujah erupted again and Marines where sent back into the city in 2004 for what became one of the bloodiest battles of the entire war.  It’s a fight that very well could have been avoided, along with the death and injury of hundreds of Marines.    

And there shouldn’t be any overlooking the fact that in the early stages of the war, the U.S. military lacked sufficient protection—provided by body armor and up-armored vehicles—against the threat of roadside bombs, the primary cause for U.S. casualties throughout the war.  Much of it came later.  It’s one thing to enter a conflict without certain resources that just aren’t available or technically not feasible.  It’s another to let the bureaucratic process and decision makers in government slow-roll their delivery.

Some of these same problems persisted in Afghanistan, which existed as the forgotten war during the Iraq campaign.  The objective there was to create a democratic government under the foolish notion that Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan, with swaths of country still in the stone-age, could look, feel and act no different than the U.S.  Still, the Administration persisted with the imposition of a democratic central government.  And today, fifteen years after America’s longest running war began, Afghanistan and it’s government are in disarray. 

This criticism by no means absolves the responsibility of the Obama Administration of its failures in the Middle East and elsewhere, but it should serve to illustrate in a snapshot that composure or fitness on a Presidential podium doesn’t always translate into good decision making or inspire good leadership within an administration.  The post 9-11 world we live in today was forged in large part by many of the national security experts that are now criticizing Donald Trump.  They too bear responsibility for much of what either candidate for President—not just Donald Trump, should he win—will have to confront. 

When I think of national security expertise, I think of great Americans like Marine Corps Generals Jim Mattis and John Kelly, Army General Jack Keane and others who have actually demonstrated the right foresight and temperament under the harshest of conditions and circumstances.  I trust the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford.  I trust Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley and the rest of our military leadership.  These are the types of military leaders this country breeds and these are the types of experts who will matter most to any Commander in Chief.   

Trump, as President, will no doubt listen to our military leaders and respect their authority and judgment.  To suggest he won’t is ridiculous.  Something tells me that all of those 50 national security experts were looking for any reason not to support Donald Trump—because loyalty to the Bush legacy is not enough.  But in doing so, they shouldn’t be so quick to ignore their own mistakes and errors in judgement. 

At the very least, Tump has the resolve and fortitude to defend America’s security interests without compromising values and strength.  That makes for a strong foundation for any Commander in Chief. 

Hunter represents California’s 50th District and has served in the House since 2009. 

Are Our Lives Tied, Not To National Security But To Political Correctness?

When A Country Cannot Protect Its Citizens And Devolves Into Degradation, It Cannot Last Long.

THE BIGGEST NEWS MONTH OF OUR LIVES

Exclusive: Joseph Farah calls 2 events 'every bit as momentous' as Pearl Harbor, 9/11

Published: 15 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12/Joseph-Farah_avatar.jpg

 JOSEPH FARAH

Was June 2015 the biggest news month of our generation?

I would argue it was right up there with 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

Two stories broke this month that taken together or separately will have ramifications and reverberations every bit as momentous as the aftermath of Dec.7, 1941, and Sept. 11, 2001.

What are those two stories?

The first was the revelation of the greatest breach of national security in the history of the United States, when the identity of every single federal government employee – past and present – was permitted to fall into the hands of a hostile foreign power. It was the result of an epic failure by those in charge in Washington more than a skillful act of derring-do by China.

Staggering as it may seem, it means America no longer has any covert intelligence agents. They’ve all been compromised – CIA, NSA, DIA, you name it. Same is true with all military personnel, including our beloved and invaluable Special Forces units, whose protected identity can be a matter of life and death.

And then there are the some 32 million other, mostly civilian, federal employees. They now represent 32 million opportunities for America’s enemies to compromise, bribe, blackmail and turn.

Remember the outrage over the outing of one CIA agent named Valerie Plame? Multiply the danger and destructiveness by a factor of 32 million.

Yet, unlike the Valerie Plame incident, for which one high-ranking Bush administration figure actually went to jail, there’s been no hint or suggestion of accountability for this mother of all national security breakdowns.

Keep your eye on this.

Americans will be paying a price for this colossal breakdown for decades to come – if the nation can survive it that long.

The second monumental story of the month, of course, was the Supreme Court edict that marriage is no longer about the union of men and women.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

It was hardly a surprise, given previous decisions by the activist court dominated by cultural anarchists, but it was shocking how quickly this absurd idea of redefining marriage captured the wicked imaginations of the country’s power elite and how fast average Americans capitulated in fear of being called “bigots” and “hatemongers” for standing up for marriage as it has always been known.

These two stories represent political and news earthquakes that happened within weeks of each other.

But what else do they have in common, if anything?

They have everything in common, because they both illustrate how pathetic Big Government is at handling any serious matter.

National security secrets? We would have been better off if we outsourced our vital national security secrets to Amazon. After warning America endlessly about the need for better cyber security, Washington apparently forgot to take its own advice. It left the back door open, the front door open and the keys in the mailbox.

How could anyone in his right mind ever consider the federal government as competent to handle matters of national security again?

And if Washington bureaucrats can’t guard national security secrets, should nine unaccountable men and women in black robes have the authority to rewrite the moral code written by the finger of God on stone tablets that came down from Mount Sinai with Moses?

Hmmmm. Let me see – Ruth Bader Ginsburg or hand of God? Elena Kagan or Moses?

It’s a bit of an understatement to say the federal government is broken.

It’s not just incompetent; it’s totally corrupt. It’s not just the Supreme Court that is unaccountable to the law and the people. It’s the entire government – one branch worse than the other.

That’s what I think was spectacular about June 2015.

The total breakdown of American government was on display. Yet still some people clamor to give more power and authority to Washington. Go figure.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/the-biggest-news-month-of-our-lives/#cRS9qlfjSSz1MBkV.99

Mexico Verses Drug Dealers Is Getting Bad

WARNING GRAPHIC – Scores dead in firefight near U.S. Border

 Rlgrimes05/23/2015

A police spokesperson said today that at least 43 people died Friday in what authorities described as a fierce, three-hour gun battle between federal forces and suspected drug gang gunmen on a ranch in western Mexico, the deadliest such confrontation in recent memory.

The dead were all suspected criminals with the exception of one federal police officer, National Security Commissioner Monte Alejandro Rubido said. The officer died trying to help a fellow officer that had been wounded in the shootout. Photographs of the scene showed many bodies, some with semi-automatic rifles and others without weapons, lying in fields, near farm equipment and on a blood-stained patio strewn with clothes, mattresses and sleeping bags.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-3.jpg

Rubido said the suspects were members of “a criminal organization operating in Jalisco state,” but did not mention the Jalisco New Generation, the drug cartel that dominates the area where the battle erupted and has grown rapidly in recent years to become one of Mexico’s biggest organized crime groups.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-4.jpg

Rubido went on to say, the confrontation started Friday morning in the municipality of Tanhauto on the border between Jalisco and Michoacan states when soldiers, federal police and state and federal investigators responded to a report of the sudden appearance of armed men on a ranch. During the operation, federal forces encountered a truck full of armed men who opened fire and when they chased the gunmen onto the ranch, they came under heavy fire by others. “The rest of the presumed criminals on the property started to attack with intensity,” Rubido said.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-5.jpg

The federal force called for air and ground support, which included a police helicopter. The size of the ranch, 277 acres, complicated the battle, which lasted for three hours, Rubido said. He said the investigation continued but that so far authorities had detained three people and confiscated 36 semi-automatic weapons, two smaller arms, a grenade launcher that had been fired and a .50-caliber rifle.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-6.jpg

The lop-sided results were similar to a controversial case last June 30 in which Mexico’s army said its troops had engaged in a shootout with alleged criminals in which 22 suspects were killed but only one soldier injured. An investigation by The Associated Press revealed that many of suspects had been killed after they surrendered.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-1.jpg

Rubido emphasized that both state and national human rights teams were dispatched immediately to investigate Friday’s bloodshed at the ranch, which residents of the area said is called Rancho del Sol. The border of Michoacan and Jalisco states is an area dominated by the Jalisco New Generation cartel and it has been the scene of numerous incidents of cartel violence in recent years. In the nearby town of La Barca, authorities in 2013 found more than five dozen bodies in mass graves linked to the Jalisco cartel. In 2014, gunmen killed the mayor of a nearby town, Tanhuato.

image: http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mex-2.jpg

Jalisco New Generation has mounted several large-scale attacks on federal and state forces in recent weeks. In April, gunmen believed linked to the cartel ambushed a police convoy in Jalisco, killing 15 state officers and wounding five. Earlier this month, New Generation gunmen shot down a military helicopter with a rocket launcher in Jalisco, killing eight aboard.

In just a few years, New Generation has grown from a small faction of the powerful Sinaloa cartel to one of Mexico’s strongest criminal groups in its own right, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, whose Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains a “black list” of drug trafficking organizations. New Generation’s quick rise reflects a rapidly changing organized-crime landscape in Mexico as the government targets top leaders of established cartels. More than any other criminal group, New Generation has taken advantage of the government strategy, strengthening and grabbing territory as its rivals are weakened.

One source within the Department of Homeland Security has stated that it knew of over 2000 members of the New Generation group that has already infiltrated into the United States, but because of the age of the members, they cannot be deported unless they commit crimes in this country. Thanks again Mr. President.

Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/warning-graphic-scores-dead-in-firefight-near-u-s-border/

Obama, Our Part-Time President. When He Is Not Playing Golf, He Is Ignoring His Presidential Duties

Homeland Security Chairman: Obama Just Not That Into National Security

November 18, 2013 by Ben Bullard

 37 11

 0 159

UPI FILE

The National Security Agency may be bigger and badder than ever before, Federal agencies may be militarizing and expanding their law enforcement roles in unprecedented ways, local police departments may be lapping up the government’s cast-off tanks and riot gear under the guise of dealing with worst-case terrorism encounters, and the United States may be ready to sell the farm to court nuclear wild cards like Iran.

But don’t let anyone fool you: Whatever he may say to justify America baring its teeth at its own citizens while lying down like a lamb for our known enemies, President Barack Obama must have other motives at heart. According to the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, at the end of the day, Obama just isn’t all that interested in National security.

Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) told The Heritage Foundation last week Obama “denies reality and tried to wish things away” — when he even bothers to attend national security briefings at all.

The long and short of it is, the leadership starts at the top. And when the leadership denies reality and tries to wish things away, and creates a narrative that defies reality, it’s very hard to work in a bipartisan way. At the end of the day, National security issues above all should be bipartisan. I have attempted to govern my committee, as chairman of Homeland Security in a bipartisan way. In fact every bill that I’ve gotten out of my committee has passed in a bipartisan way, and I think that’s the way we need to govern. I think that’s important that we try to do that. Certainly, when it comes to National security issues we should. I just personally think this President is weak on national security, and I don’t think, frankly, he’s interested in it. It’s not where his interest lies, which is why he doesn’t attend many of his National security briefings.

McCaul’s remarks echo those of American Enterprise Institute fellow Marc A. Thiessen, who observed in an opinion piece for The Washington Post last year that Obama’s campaign rhetoric made him out to be a leader with a deep personal investment in matters of National security.

In reality, though, his handlers were observing a man whose scheduling choices suggested he couldn’t care less — so long as he could go along to get along.

“It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting,” Thiessen wrote:

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

…When Obama forgoes this daily intelligence meeting, he is consciously placing other priorities ahead of national security. As The Post story that the Obama White House sent me put it, “Process tells you something about an administration. How a president structures his regular morning meeting on intelligence and national security is one way to measure his personal approach to foreign policy.”

Indeed it is. So is how often he holds it. With President Obama, it seems, the regular morning meeting on intelligence is not so regular.