1720 Victoria Toensig’s article in the WSJ “Investigate the CIA”

As excerpted in Powerline. Read this and then tell me again why they are wasting my tax money investigating Scooter Libby when they need to be investigating Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and whoever at the CIA is trying to undo the Bush presidency. Seven questions the reporters haven't been asking. They need a blogfire.

• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

[My question 1-a: Is Ms. Plame involved in the misinformation about WMD that lead up to the war? 1-b: Did she need to cover her tracks, throw off the scent? 1-c Does Ms. Plame have more power in the CIA that we have been told? After all, she's making assignments related to WMD.]

• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.

[My question: 2-a: Does this mean Mr. Wilson was not a CIA employee, but just an ordinary citizen since he didn't sign any agreement normal for an employee? 2-b Was the reason his wife wasn't sent was that she had already botched the WMD investigation?]

• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

[My question: 3-a: Does this mean Mr. Wilson was a common tourist to Niger? 3-b: Why did the CIA put so little weight on v.p. Cheney's request. 3-c: Were they already aware of their misinformation about WMD and didn't want to raise the issue?]

• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

[My question: 4-a: Who does Ms. Plame know on that Review Board who would pass on this? Or is she much higher up than we've been led to believe and can just go over their heads? 4-b: Why didn't NYT ask about the CIA clearance? 4-c: Was Wilson so naive that he didn't know he needed permission, and the CIA did act because then their ineptness in sending him would have to come out?]

• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

[My question 5-a: Was Ms. Plame's career and reputation (because of WMD misinformation) in the toilet so they didn't care how she was outed? 5-b: Is Wilson as hungry for publicity as Cindy Sheehan?]

• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

[My question 6-a: so is Novak off the hook? 6-b: Did he have no obligation to ask just in case he was talking to a lunch time substitute.]

• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC.

[My question 7-a: Why hasn't Plame been fired for this if it's against the rules? 7-b: Has she been fired and no one told us? 7-c: Did she know she was violating the rules?]

The CIA's art collection

Nothing about the government should surprise me, but I didn't know the CIA has its own art collection. Today I picked up the CSI's Studies in Intelligence Journal, vol.52, no.2, 2008, to read

"By the end of 2008, 52 percent of CIA’s workforce will have entered on duty since 11 September 2001. CIA’s history and museum programs provide institutional cohesion to communicate CIA’s corporate culture and identity during this demographic revolution. Recent additions to the Agency’s historical holdings include intelligence-themed paintings and sculpture that record for posterity the experiences of intelligence officers in peace and war."

It was a non-circ item (from OSUL), but it is available on the web, or at least parts of it. Here's a sample of the art. The painting depicts Virginia Hall, a Baltimore native who joined the State Department in the 1930s, with many assignments abroad until an accident cost her a leg and she resigned. At the outbreak of WWII, she "joined the British Special Operations Executive (SOE). . . Her fluency in French landed her a clandestine assignment in Lyons, where she went to work developing the area’s resistance operations. Over the next 15 months, every British agent arriving in France passed through her flat for instructions, counterfeit money, and contacts. In addition, she orchestrated supply drops and helped endangered agents escape to England. Betrayed in November 1942, she had to use her own escape route out of France, just steps ahead of her now infamous pursuer, Klaus Barbie, “the butcher of Lyons.”

Hall then joined the Special Operations Branch of the Office of Strategic Services in March 1944 and asked to return to occupied France. OSS promptly granted her request and reinfiltrated her aboard a British PT boat. Disguised as a farmwoman, she carried cheese to local villages to count German troops and identify drop zones for the Allied invasion to come." After the war she received the Distinguished Service Cross—the only one given to a civilian woman during that war. "Hall later worked for the CIA, serving in many jobs as one of CIA’s first female operations officers."

Throw in some romance (Branjelina?) and this would be a great movie. She married her husband, Paul, in 1950 who was also an OSS officer. Her story was told in The Wolves at the Door : The True Story of America's Greatest Female Spy by Judith L. Pearson, The Lyons Press, 2005. That left leg looks pretty real to me in the painting. Maybe the artist didn't know?

Do you suppose the election got in the way of the truth? Ya think?

This story is from ABC, after the Petraeus testimony today.  But half the electorate knew the White House was lying on September 12 just by knowing the date and the amount of ammunition used.  Why couldn’t the media connect the dots and ask more questions?  Because they didn’t want to hurt Obama’s election to another term.

"Former CIA Director David Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee today that it's unclear why the Obama administration's original talking points on the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, don't match the CIA's original talking points.

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters that Petraeus insisted today that he was clear with Congress from the start that the event was a terrorist attack.

However, King added, Petraeus said that after the CIA prepared its talking points, they were vetted by agencies including the Justice Department and the State Department, but "no one knows yet exactly who came up with the final talking points."

"The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out," King said. Originally, he said, they were "much more specific on al Qaeda involvement."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-chief-petraeus-grilled-house-senate-intel-panels/story?id=17736952#.UKZ5rIZqCSo

1655 The Name Plame and who's to Blame

Returning from Indianapolis yesterday, we were listening to NPR. OK, OK. I know it’s not the most unbiased source in the world, but my taxes support them too! Anyway, the story was the “Valerie Plame” case and who is the only person interviewed? A Washington Post reporter--missed his name. That’s it. No one else.

Here’s what Robert Novak, whose column started it all, said over two years ago:

“First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.”

I still don’t know why he revealed her name in his column when he was asked not to by a CIA official, and I have no idea why Novak didn’t get in trouble, however, he continues (Oct. 1, 2003)

“At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.”

So can you leak something that everyone knows? Apparently, in Washington you can. If you’re reporting for NPR, you don’t even have to ask that question.

Saying hello and good-bye at the public library

I waited for the woman at the library to load her returned books in the bin so I could return my one book. But I had another book in my hand I was going to donate to the library. "The Secrets we Kept" by Lara Prescott, an historical fiction about women who worked for the CIA in the 1950s to get "Dr. Zhivago" smuggled INTO the USSR to help create unrest and distrust for the Soviet government. The cover was classy and colorful (red), so she asked me what it was about. I told her I didn't particularly like it (although it is about history). It was 2014 before the CIA involvement was revealed in its role of Pasternak's famous semi-autobiographical novel about the Russian revolution. Prescott filled in the gaps with fictional D.C. women, of course, but included the actual mistress and wife of Pasternak (from diaries/letters). The stranger I'd just met expressed interest, so I handed it to her instead of donating back to the library sale. I told her I'd studied Russian in college, and she said she did too! до свида́ния we two strangers said as we parted at the library today (Russian for good-bye).

 
Prescott had a good story going, she's a fine writer, although the CIA is so creepy and the actual story of using a book to destabilize the USSR is true. But she then revealed she really wanted to write about lesbians. I finished the book, but wasn't interested in keeping it, so I gave it to a stranger.

The Secrets We Kept by Lara Prescott Reveals the Story Behind Doctor Zhivago - Historical Novel Society

When the CIA Used 'Dr. Zhivago' as a Cold War Weapon | HISTORY

Catholics in the CIA

"The United States is a country in which – with the recent exception of the Supreme Court – Catholics have never dominated the highest offices. Only one out of 44 US Presidents has been Catholic. The first and only Catholic Vice President is the current one, Joe Biden. Before John Kerry, the last Catholic Secretary of State was Alexander Haig, who left the post in 1982. Catholics are a rarity in other top positions such as Secretary of Defence.

By contrast, three out of the last five CIA directors have been Catholic: Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, and the current director, John Brennan. Looking back, a number of Catholics led the agency in critical periods during the Cold War. (There were no Catholic directors in the 1990s.)

Some of the most influential directors in CIA history have been Catholic – men such as Walter Bedell Smith, John McCone, William Colby and William Casey. They were not just casual Catholics. They were devout Mass-goers – in many cases, members of groups like the Knights of Malta. The conspiracy theorists usually start there, with nefarious plots about the Vatican steering world affairs. Of course, they never ask why an all-powerful Vatican can’t engineer more Catholic presidents."

Why so strong in the CIA?  A possible explanation.

1273 Kerfuffle: Taranto's Favorite Word

Taranto's reasoning on the Rove kerfuffle (used 3 times in this article alone) is a bit obtuse, I think, because the Bush White House rarely does things the way you would expect, and the Dems get hysterical and unglued about everything these days, especially facts:

"Let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Suppose that people in Washington generally had the sense that Karl Rove was soon to be indicted in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. How would they react?

It seems to us the White House would be working to distance itself from Rove, possibly planning for him to make a quiet exit, much as John Kerry's campaign "disappeared" Joe Wilson last summer when Wilson's credibility fell apart. The Democrats, on the other hand, would act high-minded and talk of "letting the process work," at least as long as Rove remained on the job. An actual indictment, after all, would do maximal political damage to the Bush administration.

Instead, the White House (which knows a lot more about the investigation than any of us) is confidently standing behind Rove, while the Democrats are waging a hysterical attack that would be premature if it were based on anything real. Partisan Democrats don't want to talk about the facts of the case (facts are irrelevant, as a former Enron adviser insists) or about the law. They just want to pound the table and insist that Rove is metaphysically guilty." James Taranto, July 15

One thing that has bothered me all along. Didn't Bob Novak tell the whole world about Valerie Plame? What's his responsibility in blowing her cover? Also, do Democrats assume that anyone who "works at the CIA" is an undercover agent? Don't they have secretaries, gofers and librarians?

Update--so much for secrecy--today's AP report: "Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source."

Good source of book reviews

I read more reviews than books--occasionally even send a suggestion to my local PL. Studies in Intelligence at the CIA website is a good source, but I'd hurry. Who knows what Obama will allow in the future if he finds you (you're probably a right wing pro-life terrorist Iraq War veteran) visiting a CIA website. The latest issue reviews a book about Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) The physical journal is quite handsome, with really well balanced reviews. The reviewer makes careful note of things that matter to me--summaries, footnotes, bibliography, index, etc. I don't want a reviewer who writes like the new best friend of the author, or someone who only picks it apart.

Another book review source I really enjoy is JAMA--any issue. If you're not reading those, you're missing some excellent, thoughtful writing, even if the book might be over your level of medical knowledge. Plus, the poetry and essays are good. Great cover art. The April 1 issue has a painting of some government officials mulling over the economy.

Most of my actual links to government sources pre-date the current administration, so they may not be valid, but here's some interesting stuff about the CIA, including that 15 years ago they had their eye on religious groups.

What exactly is collusion?

 The definition is "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose: "acting in collusion with the enemy."  John Brennan, Obama's head of CIA, is a good example.

Working with British and Estonian spies, "John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.” "  From The Spectator, April 17, using The Guardian, April 13.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-brennan-hostility-between-putin-clintons-drove-russias-actions/article/2623908

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/did_brennan_collude_with_foreign_spies_to_help_hillary.html

Can you handle one more conspiracy theory about JFK?

                            

I know nothing about the author of the book review, the author of the book, the murder of this particular lover of JFK, or the website that posted the review, but after I started reading the very lengthy book review, I did sort of get interested. http://www.fff.org/comment/com1204g.asp

“In early 1976 the National Enquirer published a story that shocked the elite political class in Washington, D.C. The story disclosed that a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was a divorced spouse of a high CIA official named Cord Meyer, had been engaged in a two-year sexual affair with President John F. Kennedy. By the time the article was published, JFK had been assassinated, and Mary Pinchot Meyer herself was dead, a victim of a murder that took place in Washington on October 12, 1964.

The murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer is the subject of a fascinating and gripping new book by Peter Janney,  Mary’s Mosaic, who was childhood friends with Mary Meyer’s three sons and whose father himself was a high CIA official. Janney’s father and mother socialized in the 1950s with the Meyers and other high-level CIA officials.”

One of the clerks at the coffee shop loves “true crime” type books, so I may print this out for her. For me, just reading the review was enough. The further away we get from 1963, the less we know it seems.

New York Times outs an undercover spy

In an article published Friday, The New York Times outed the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization’s efforts in Iran. The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is “leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.” This is how much the media hates Donald Trump. For all progressives, Communists, leftists and Democrats, treason is just fine. Just don't use the N-word or say a 10 year old boy isn't a girl.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/02/new-york-times-just-outed-cia-chief-iran/

Feinstein apologizes for CIA during Bush years with report prepared only by Democrats

Republicans didn't participate in the so-called "Senate" torture report. Will this be another case that the narrative matters more than the truth? The Intelligence committee's Democratic staff who are researchers but not experience in what happened after 9/11 prepared the $40 million classified 6,300-page report and its 600-page, declassified executive summary. What could possibly go wrong with only one party in charge? Like with the ACA? All the major players signed off on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released-senate

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-09/cia-misled-congress-about-terror-interrogations-report-finds

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/12/09/democrats-on-waterboarding-then-versus-now/

And it just had to come out the day of Jonathan Gruber’s testimony on how he helped confuse Democrats (called them “stupid”) with his expert advice (received about $6 million through 3 administrations), which the mainstream probably would have ignored anyway.

Democrats who were told exactly what was going on are running for cover, lying as they go.  Better to use drones, as Obama does, and don’t take any prisoners who could provide information. Just wipe out residential neighborhoods where they might be hiding.

4424

CIA Freedom of Information web site

In 2000, before 9/11 and the current war, the CIA prepared a 15 year forecast. [These are scanned, not digitized, so not particularly easy to read.] It is really instructive to go back and see what career government intelligence employees were warning our elected leaders about. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)were probably the most consistent warning. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq were said to have "the capability to strike the U.S. and the potential for unconventional delivery of WMD by both states and nonstate actors." I'm sure this is not the only document in there with this information, because we know a number of prominent Democrats like Kennedy, Edwards and Kerry were beating the WMD drum in the late 90s, but then backed off when a President not of their party took their warnings seriously.

There were erroneous predictions about the global economy, and we were in a down turn then and no one foresaw the incredible boom of the 21st century. Although reading between the lines, they were general enough to be true--such has Europe and Japan needed to manage their aging work force or there would be consequences (well, duh!). If the global energy supplies were disrupted, it could have a devastating affect on the whole world (take that you "it's all about oil" peaceniks!). Also, this interesting tidbit: "Recent estimates indicate 80% of the world's available oil still remains in the ground, as does 95% of the world's natural gas." p. 17

I'd say the report was spot on about information technology and biotechnology predictions, if anything, it is a bit sluggish as those fields blossom like mold in a damp basement. The report was pretty accurate here, too: "Most anti-U.S. terrorism will be based on perceived ethnic religious or cultural grievances." Now, I wonder who plays that up and then asks, "What can we do to regain our place in the world and get along?"

For a 51 page report, the amount devoted to global climate change/warming is extremely modest, or maybe it just seems that way given the constant coverage we have today. It did address the "environmental neglect" of the formerly Marxist countries as a problem, and predicted the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, not because of the danger of a Republican administration, but because of the growing economies of China and India.

But it was soooo on target with comments about religion, I almost couldn't believe it: "Activist components** of [Christians and Muslims] and other religious groupings will emerge to contest such issues as genetic manipulation, women's rights, and the income gap between rich and poor. A wider religious or spiritual movement also may emerge, possibly linked to environmental values." Someone in the CIA spotted the rise of pantheism as a world religion. Good job!

You can do a dual search: first search your topic (Iraq= >1000 documents) then limit by year (2007=26). The date will most likely refer to the year it was "released," so you can easily see what was being said or researched in the 90s and review how that works out today. Check out NIE 2002-16HC, "Iraq's continuing programs for WMD, October 2002" which makes a "key judgement" that Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the UN restrictions. It estimated 100-500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents including mustard, sarin, GF and VX stockpiles.

**"Religious voices are part of a two-week-long United Nations conference on climate change being held in Bali. Delegations from the World Council of Churches, the Vatican, and many Catholic orders are among the participants. The conference plans to develop an international pact to battle global warming. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and other religious leaders urged the delegates to take aggressive action to protect the environment." Report from Bali

The buck stops with Obama

“Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”. . .

“It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?”

 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html

Aliens or angels?

I haven't paid a lot of attention, but there's been some buzz on the news lately about space aliens/extraterrestrial beings visiting earth--that the government is investigating? A quick search shows a January release, but I've heard something more recent, or maybe reporters and producers are catching up on the TBR pile now that they don't have Trump to kick around and consume their every thought.

"Based on the CIA’s recent release, on January 14, 2021, of nearly 3,000 pages of documents that detail a wealth of fascinating data about UFO behavior and capabilities , it seems they know a lot and have known a lot about this topic for quite some time. These freshly declassified US government UFO info documents (published in their entirety on The Black Vault ) reveal the truth about harrowing and awe-inspiring encounters between reliable witnesses and “unidentified aerial phenomena” of unknown origin that have been occurring since the 1950s."

The Bible is full of references to beings which God created that are higher, wiser, more intelligent and flexible in appearance than human beings. Depending on the interpretation of certain words, there are at least 7 levels higher than us. And they are not chubby little cuties and we don't become angels when we die, because "they aren't us." Just two mentions, then you can search.

Ps 34:7 "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them." 

Good to know!

Heb. 1:14 "Are not all angels spirits in the divine service sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?"

Based on what's going on in the swamp with the CIA and FBI, and the self appointed, unelected rulers in Big Tech, perhaps we're just having more appearances of angels looking out for us than usual.

CIA Document Dump Reveals 70 Years Of US Government UFO Info | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

ISIS has grown 4,400% under Obama!

“CIA Director John Brennan talked about his thoughts on the Paris attacks, ISIS and the possibility of terrorism on U.S. soil Monday.

In a previously arranged appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, Brennan said it is likely that ISIS has other attacks planned.”

“I don’t think we are underestimating at all the capabilities of ISIL. Its growth over the last several years in particular – but as you know, that it had its roots in al-Qaida in Iraq. It was, you know, pretty much decimated when U.S. forces were there in Iraq. It had maybe 700-or-so adherents left. And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al-Qaida in Syria, and set up its own organization.”

http://time.com/4114870/paris-attacks-cia-john-brennan/

What else has no evidence?

Despite no evidence, the media have run with a suspicion of collusion and have 55% of Democrats believing that the individual elections in November were hacked by the Russians. Despite not a single leak of a meeting or discussion of Trump with Russians although there are leaks on everything else, the Democrats are preparing for impeachment. So the real threat to our free elections and constitution are the Democrats with their media handlers, not a foreign government.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/23/poll-55-democrats-think-probably-definitely-true-russia-tampered-vote-totals-get-trump-elected/

Another charge for which there is no evidence, but people believe it anyway, just like the Russia-Trump collusion, is that John Brennan, the CIA director,  is a Muslim. There's no evidence he isn't. Try to prove it. But he did vote Communist in 1976. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-communist-vote/

There's also no evidence that cradle to grave health insurance offered by the government creates a healthier nation.  Take the American Indians for example. We have 5 government health plans not counting the failing Obamacare. Democrats don't want unfairness or gaps so they are hoping we can all have the same wonderful care and health results as the Bureau of Indian Affairs has produced. Never mind that death rates for heart disease among American Indian and Alaska Native people are twice as high as the overall US population. Diabetes accounts for up to 75 percent of all cardiovascular events. Kidney disease—including chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis—represents an important epidemic among American Indian and Alaska Native people. We must all be equal and accept what the government offers native peoples. (from Healthaffairs.org)

Defund Obamacare; don’t try to fix it

I called Steve Stivers, my representative, talked to a real person and after giving her my name told her, "Please tell Mr. Stivers I want him to vote for defunding Obamacare." She asked my address and thanked me for calling. To sweeten the deal for Congress and staff to get their support, Obama will give them a $4,500 subsidy for individuals and $10,000 for family coverage to help pay the cost of their Obamacare exchange. In the rest of the country, you lose assistance after an income of about $46,000 (Source: WSJ, August 8, 2013; Affordable Care Act) A number of companies and unions have been exempt, but HHS still mandates Christians will pay for abortifacients and birth control, and we all know that's just the nose of the camel in the tent.

Meanwhile according to today’s Washington Post, the U.S. continues to supply rebel forces, some of which are al-qaeda, in Syria despite our protests. And if we could ever get the media to do investigative journalism, we might find out what happened to all the arms we lost in Libya (Benghazi).

The CIA shipments are to flow through a network of clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year as the agency sought to help Middle Eastern allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, direct weapons to moderate Syrian rebel forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

Looking through the Fall opportunitites

Our community has a wealth of opportunities for adults to learn, to create and to think. I have laid out on the kitchen counter Center Stage, the programming for the Senior Center (adults 50 and over), UAPL Fall Programs 08, with programs for adults, teens and children, and UA Lifelong Learning & Leisure, Fall 2008. I could be busy morning to night, and with the exception of a few pricey trips ($1800 for a trip to Charleston & Savannah or $900 for Tulip Time at the Greenbrier), at a very reasonable price or free. At the Senior Center I could hear on Friday at 10 a.m. Ed Lentz, local historian, talk about the American Presidential Elections for $5 per class ($30 for 6). Or I could go Tuesday evenings to 4 lectures in the City Council Chambers for $40 to hear various university professors, including John Quigley, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State. After looking up his research , I think I'll pass. Another blame US first guy.

Quigley points to a series of interventions by the United States after assuming dominance of the region in the 1950s: the facilitation of a coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically elected regime and replaced it with the totalitarian Shah; a similar attempted CIA-backed coup in Syria; CIA backing of Western-loyal parliamentary candidates in Lebanon precipitating a civil war; and the backing of U.S. friendly totalitarian King Hussein in Jordan.

“In the United States, none of these interventionist actions gained public attention,” he writes. “But in the Middle East, a perception developed that the United States was out to promote its own interests.” These anti-U.S. perceptions were further solidified by the continued one-sided U.S. backing of Israel and Cold War decisions to support causes like the Islamist revolutionary Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Quigley writes.

Ultimately, anti-American sentiment caused by these actions coalesced into the current Islamist movement that gave us 911 and the resultant “War in Terrorism,” he writes. “Osama bin Laden’s militias grew out of the Afghan resistance,” Quigley writes. “Bin Laden framed his anti-United States arguments in the language of Islam, but he was voicing the same anti-colonialist sentiments that had been directed against France and Britain in the early 20th Century.”

I heard enough of this at the Lakeside programming this summer to last awhile.

Then for more enrichment, I could go to classes offered by something called "Dating Directions Certified Matchmakers," which will teach me how to flirt, go online, and set dating goals. Hmmm. I've been married 48 years, so I think I'm beyond that. Oh, here's a good one: Exploring past lives with guided regression--wear comfortable clothing! Or I could do a 2 session "Living your Passions" with guided visualization and positive thoughts. Whew! This is getting way too hot.

I could study near death experiences with someone doing it for 20 years (and it has fundamentally altered her viewpoint on death!) or observe a real life death autopsy (90 minutes on tape) at COSI or attend a session with a certified laughter Yoga instructor--wear comfortable clothing!

Also the city offers belly dancing basics with finger cymbals (this should work well with the flirting class), composting the worms (might work with the autopsy class), and introduction to beer (for the laughing Yoga?).

One trip the Senior Center offers that looks within my price range if I could find a girl friend to go is a trip to two of the homes of Rosemary Clooney, girl singer of the 40s, 50s and beyond, actress and author (and aunt of what's his name). We would stay overnight in the French Quarter Inn (of Maysville, KY), and make rolls at a bakery. This is $269 per person, double occupancy. This doesn't sound like something my husband would be interested in, but mid-October would be lovely in Kentucky. Then for $15 I could do the Holiday Wildlights at the Columbus Zoo--that would be Christmas, you know. There are some financial classes that look good--tax free investing, investment and stock market trends and indicators, how to down size and organize, legal counseling and investment counseling one-on-one. Medically there is a hearing screening and Life Line Screen for various blockages like abdominal aortic aneurysm (I think a lot of communities are offering this) and nutrition classes.

The UAPL has some interesting art and movie series, like "Objects of Wonder," which will coincide with the Museum of Art's offering this fall. We're members, so that might be an interesting peek ahead of time of what we'll see at the opening. "Objects of Wonder" features "a trove of treasures held in the more than 300 libraries and collections at OSU. The curator of the exhibit will be speaking--free, no registration required. There's an Italy travel show--having just been there, that looks good. I'll skip the movie on Darfur and the Afghani cabbie who died in military custody, but Young @ Heart was at Lakeside this summer and I missed it. There are several law topics, like Domestic and Probate Law 101, and General Law. There's a guy talking about the war between Woody and Bo. Of course, there are classes about the internet and book clubs to join. There are two art lectures, one on Manet and one on Cassat that look good.

A Brit observes President Pantywaist and asks why?

Gerald Warner at Telegraph.co.uk writes and wonders as do many of us on this side of the pond--why does Obama hate America so much?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia, to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. . .

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

I really wish there were evidence to refute this.