Your Smart TV Spying on You is Old News

When Wikileaks dumped thousands of documents, apparently sourced from the CIA, people were shocked to find out that their Smart TV's and phones could be spying on them, even if their TV was turned off. But, this is old news.  CNN reported this back in 2013.  How-to-Geek even instructed us how to keep your TV on the straight and narrow. And how not to have "god-knows-what's going on in your home" revealed to some unknown entity.

The simple fact is; if you are connected to the Internet, you can be spied on.  More importantly, if you have WIFI in your home, someone as far as a half-mile away can be intercepting data that you are sending and receiving on your laptops, PC's, tablets or whatever.  You should protect yourself with a strong password of at least 12 characters that make absolutely no sense.  Using names of things or people as part of a password only opens the door to eavesdropping.  That's because software used to crack your WIFI's password has an embedded "dictionary" which can be used to easily detect when your encryption coding is broken. This software is out there, and in many cases, free to download.

So, if you don't want your neighbor's kid listening in on your network, create a strong WIFI password.

References:

Wikileaks Unveils 'Vault 7': "The Largest Ever Publication Of Confidential CIA Documents"; Another Snowden Emerges: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/wikileaks-hold-press-conference-vault-7-release-8am-eastern

Your TV might be watching you: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/technology/security/tv-hack/

How to Stop Your Smart TV From Spying on You: https://www.howtogeek.com/233742/how-to-stop-your-smart-tv-from-spying-on-you/

How to Create a Strong Password (and Remember It): https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4551919160687115242#editor/target=post;postID=9081434618056028466

Russian Hack: Obama Orders an Investigation?

There has never been an official CIA or presidential declaration that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's Campaign email servers.  Instead, we get a story from the Washington Post that a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed by the CIA and that the hacking was in fact done by the "Russians" at the behest of Vlad Putin to give Trump his win.

So, if the CIA is already sure that the Russians did it, why did Obama publicly order an investigation into the hacking on the very same day that the "Post" reported that fact.  At the same time, he announces that he wants to have the results of that investigation on his desk before he leaves office.  Also, why back in late November, did the White House insist that the hacking didn't sway the election?  These facts alone, call into question the whole Russian-hacking story. Are we dealing with more fake news?  It certainly makes the President look as if he was the last in his administration to know.  Last I heard, the CIA still reports to Obama and he would have been briefed well before a "handful" of senators.  Is it also possible, that it is a "false flag" operation, as claimed by Ambassador John Bolton, and that Obama could be behind the hacking and not the Russians?

One thing is certain.  The DNC and the Hillary campaign emails were hacked because of the lack of strict security on the servers.   Can't blame the Russians for that!

References:

Washington Post: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.c3ac526d25f5

Obama Orders Investigation Into Election-Related Hacking - Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-09/obama-orders-investigation-into-election-related-hacking-attacks-iwhy9nww

Nov. 26: White House insists hackers didn't sway election, even as recount begins: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849

Bolton: Russian hacks could actually have been by Obama administration: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-russia-hack-a-false-flag-232490

CIA: Russians Hacked the Election to Give Trump the Win

Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign email servers were hacked into by the Russians to help Trump win the election.  And, that Vladimir Putin had personally directed the hack.  This from an anonymous source that said a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed on this in a closed door session by the CIA.  But, the CIA also stressed that not all national security agencies agree on this.

So, once again, we're being fed a story from an anonymous source that can't be verified.  We don't even know what Senators were briefed.  In the era of "fake news"stories, this may just be another one. Before this latest story, the Washington Post did a hit-job on the Trump win on Thanksgiving by declaring that the Russians created "fake news" on hundreds of Internet sites in order to give Trump the win.  One has to wonder if the "Post" has an agenda here, and why they are the sole provocateur on these Russian/Trump stories.

My biggest problem is believing the whole concept of Putin wanting Trump to win. It doesn't pass the smell test.   I cannot imagine Putin preferring Trump because of all the ways in which Trump could hurt the Russian state.

First of all, Trump is a climate denier who believes that we should back off from restricting the usage of fossil fuels; especially oil.  For Russia, this is a problem since their economy is so dependent on oil.  Any increased production under a Trump presidency will lower the price and economically depress the Russian economy.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has promised to rebuild our military.  Does anyone really think Putin wants the U.S.military to get stronger and more advanced?  On top of that, Donald Trump is more likely to deploy a missile defense system in Europe.  Something that Putin does not want to happen.  Further, Trump has never once stated that he wouldn't put boots on the ground, and Hillary clearly stated that wouldn't happen in her administration. Also, Trump may ignore the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty signed by Obama without Senate approval as mandated by law.  Thus we could be on track to rebuild our nuclear weapons power.

Lastly, Trump's temperament is a great unknown with respect to how he would deal with any conflicts that occur between Russia and the U.S.   This could force Putin to give pause when attempting to take over another country or area such as Crimea. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton have long held the belief that Trump was the last person they wanted with his finger on the nuclear button.

What I'm more concerned about, is that this election could be totally discredited and Trump's win nullified.  What then?  Could Hillary sue in federal court and take the win away from Trump on the basis that he won unfairly?  Would the whole election process have to be rerun?  If so,  would Obama remain in office while that process was completed. That is certainly a possibility since he has ordered a completed intelligence review on his desk before he leaves office.  And, if the election is rerun, for sure, the voter turnout for the Democrats would be great.  This is certainly a mess that our founding fathers never anticipated as they drafted the Constitution.

References:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.f799ed76f51b

CIA Concludes Russia Interfered with U.S. Election to Help Trump: http://fortune.com/2016/12/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-with-u-s-election-to-help-trump/

CIA: Russia Interfered With U.S. Elections: Politicians and pundits are calling for further investigation into the matter: http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Oil, taxes — and big problems for Russia's economy - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/oil-taxes--and-big-problems-for-russias-economy.html

Hillary's Reckless Endangerment of a CIA Agent

I would hope that no one has forgotten the outrage shown by the political left, when it was falsely assumed that the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, was supposedly leaked to the public by someone close to George Bush.  In her angry testimony before Congress, Plame said this:

“the harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave” . . . “breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents” . . . “lives are literally at stake”

Well, it now appears that Hillary Clinton, in an e-mail exchange with close friend, Sydney Blumenthal, has essentially done the same thing by outing the classified name of a CIA operative in Libya.  As expressed by a former CIA lawyer on MSNBC, the consequences of this are grave:

We already know that Sydney Blumethal's emails were hacked.  Thus, that CIA operative's name is already out there.  If Hillary's private email server was also hacked, that person's name may also be in the hands of another foreign government and his/her life might already be in danger.

So, where are all the outraged Democrats that wanted to have Bush's head over the outing of Plame?  Their silence simply proves how politically motivated the whole Plame affair was.

References:

Gowdy says new emails show Clinton confidant naming CIA source, pushing Libya interests: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/benghazi-committee-blumenthal-promoted-passed-along-name-cia-source-pushed-for/

The Outing of Valerie Plame: http://nypost.com/2014/12/22/outing-valerie-plame/

In March 2013, an adviser to Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, had his e-mail hacked by "Guccifer": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/

Americans Don't Share Feinstein's (and Obama's) Outrage Over CIA Torture

Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost so big in November's elections.   I think the answer is simple:  Americans don't share the extreme liberal viewpoints of the Democrat party.

A perfect example, was the partisan Torture Report that Senator Dianne Feinstein  released a week ago.  In three new polls, Americans say that what the CIA did was necessary when put in the context of 9/11. 

In a PEW poll, 51% say torture was justified and only 43% thought the report should have been released.

A Washington Post/ABC poll showed an even more dramatic difference with 59% in support of the CIA interrogations; while only 31% agreed with Feinstein.  Then, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that just 28% believed that the interrogations "went too far and were wrong."  On the other hand, 51% supported what was done.

Lastly, the NJ.com (New Jersey.com) website has been conducting an online poll. While the voting is a small sample and multiple votes are possible, it does show that those being polled don't think that it was appropriate for Feinstein to have released the report:

Americans get it.  Given what happened on 9/11, our government should have done everything possible, within reason, to protect us, and in the minds of most Americans, enhanced interrogations were within reason.

References:

PEW Research: About Half See CIA Interrogation Methods as Justified: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/15/about-half-see-cia-interrogation-methods-as-justified/

Washington Post/ABC Poll: New poll finds majority of Americans believe torture justified after 9/11 attacks: http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after/article_69fb9c64-6aff-52cc-a292-805bf61537d6.html

Americans don't share outrage on CIA techniques: Poll: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102273140

NJ.com: Poll: Should the Senate have released its report on CIA torture?: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/12/poll_should_the_senate_have_released_its_report_on_cia_torture_during_the_bush_administration.html

Torture Under Clinton Was Far Worse Than Under Bush

Senator Dianne Feinstein has released her Democrat-staff-written report on CIA torture during the George W. Bush years following 9/11.  In that report, we will find that the CIA used various forms of "psychological" interrogation techniques -- which Feinstein calls torture -- such as water boarding; which makes the person feel that they are drowning, when in fact, they are not, or, we see that we used various forms of sleep deprivation.

But, nowhere in that report will you find extreme forms of physical torture used like those seen in other countries where people are left bloodied by constant blows, have their bones broken, have certain parts of their bodies electrocuted, or have fingers and toes cut off.

As a country, we don't torture people in those ways. We've signed both the Geneva and UN Conventions that ban tortured interrogations on any prisoners or prisoners of war.

However, other countries are well versed in those physical torture techniques and, there is nothing in either the Geneva or UN Conventions that prevent us from using those countries to obtain information by those means that we, ourselves, are prevented from using.

That is why President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to use something called "extraordinary rendition" to transfer abducted enemies-of-the-U.S. to countries who practiced true physical torture.  In this way, America could (theoretically) keep its hands clean in the process.  When Bush took office, that practice was stopped and the CIA used "enhanced interrogation" techniques at American facilities.  Techniques that were well restrained in comparison to what Bill Clinton authorized and which the Bush Administration felt were acceptable under previously signed Conventions.

Another thing that Feinstein doesn't seem remember is the fact Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, used sleep deprivation against the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.  Yes, that's right Texas.  For days, loud music and high intensity spotlights were used to deprive the Dividians of sleep.

It is interesting that Dianne Feinstein solely focused on the Bush years, and never once, thought of  including the Clinton years in her report, when the torture process was totally unrestrained. 

Lastly, Senator Feinstein claims the interrogation techniques used were ineffective because they yielded false information that was purely being given to the CIA interrogators in order to stop what she calls torture.  Really?  Does anyone really think our CIA was so stupid to think that people wouldn't attempt to lie to them during an interrogation?  Everything that was learned had to be verifiable.  This was especially true when enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the disclosure of Bin Laden's personal courier's name.  It was the courier's house that Bin Laden was staying in when he was killed by our Special Forces team.  Also, if enhanced interrogation was so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it for six years after 9/11?

References:

CIA torture report brands post-9/11 program as brutal and ineffective: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Extraordinary rendition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

January 2009: Panetta faces rendition queries: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/?page=all

The deaths of Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams and Steve Willis resulted in a prolonged stand-off involving psychological operations tactics from the mission to capture Manuel Noriega in 1989. These included the playing of loud music, recordings of planes and chanting in addition to the use of spotlights to deprive the Branch Davidians of sleep: https://www.hsdl.org/blog/view/s_4524


United Nations Convention against Torture - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

Did Harsh Interrogation Tactics Lead To Bin Laden?: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136005405/did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-lead-to-bin-laden

Why ISIS 'Is' A Credible Threat

We keep hearing from the Obama Administration (specifically the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security) that ISIS poses no direct credible threat to the United States.  My only problem with that is that it was the FBI who interviewed both the Fort Hood shooter and the Boston Marathon bomber before they committed their acts of violence and, who seemed not to think these people posed a threat either.

In my opinion, ISIS should literally scare the whatever out of every American.

First of all, they are growing in size and strength.  In June, they were 10,000 strong. Now, the CIA has estimated their number to be at about 31,500.  That's a growth rate of almost 7,000 fighters per month.  If this continues, it could mean that, in just 10 more months, ISIS could reach 100,000.   That is a force that could easily takeover much of the territory in the Middle East besides major chunks of both Syria and Iraq.

What should be more worrisome to the U.S. and the world is the fact that passport carrying Europeans and American citizens are also joining. The problem with ISIS-friendly passport holders is that they can freely enter many European countries and the U.S. without having to apply for a visa.  They can simply buy an airplane ticket, say they are tourists, and land anywhere in the U.S. on a 24/7 basis with no one really questioning their purpose or intent.  As a result, there is now an unprecedented access to our homeland that hasn't been seen before with any other terrorist group; including Al Qaeda.

But, the biggest threat to our safety is the huge amounts of cash that ISIS is amassing.  It is now estimated that they have acquired $2 billion dollars from contributions and from looting, ransoming, and theft activities.  When they took Mosul, for example, their looting of that city's bank gave them half a billion dollars in gold and cash.  Beyond that, their newly found access to oil wells in Syria and Iraq is netting them an estimated $3 million a day from oil sold on the black market.

With all that cash ISIS doesn't need to hijack an aircraft in a 9/11-style terrorist attack.  They could simply buy some used commercial cargo jets at a cost of less than $2 million dollars each.  That cash also gives them the ability to buy shoulder-mounted rocket launchers and grenade launchers on the black market.  Both weapons can be used to bring down planes in takeoff or landing or to do serious damage to land-based targets like shopping malls or railroad trains. It also means that they could buy radioactive material to build a dirty bomb or acquire highly explosive C-4 to take out bridges and other infrastructure. Smuggling these weapons into the U.S. might be as simple as paying "coyotes" to cross them over our currently porous southern border.

To say that ISIS is not a credible threat is simply irresponsible.  They are a threat and they have the money, manpower, weapons, and potential access to carry out horrendous attacks on our own soil. The two video beheadings of Americans proved we are a target, with Obama's name clearly spoken in both. Further, they have already said that their goal is to fly their flag over the White House.  In the late 1990's the then-President ignored Bin Laden, and the result was 9/11.  Now, we seem to have another President ignoring the ISIS threat.  Will we, once again, wait for the next attack before we seriously take this enemy out?

References:

FBI: No credible threats to US from Islamic State: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/22/fbi-no-credible-threats-to-us-from-islamic-state/

FBI & DHS: Islamic State Poses No Credible Threat to US: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/25/FBI-DHS-Islamic-State-Poses-No-Credible-Threat-to-US-Sec-Hagel-Says-Opposite

 FBI interviewed dead Boston bombing suspect years ago: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-interviewed-dead-boston-bombing-suspect-years-ago/

 Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Ignored Evidence Against Nidal Hasan For Political Correctness, Report Says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/fort-hood-shooting-fbi-nidal-hasan-political-correctness_n_1685653.html

Number of ISIS fighters has swelled to as many as 31,500, CIA says: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/number-isis-fighters-has-swelled-to-as-many-as-31500-cia-says/

ISIS' half-a-billion-dollar bank heist makes it world's richest terror group: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10899995/ISIS-half-a-billion-dollar-bank-heist-makes-it-worlds-richest-terror-group.html

How ISIS managed to acquire $2B in assets: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101761986

Boeing 727-200 for Sale: http://www.globalplanesearch.com/jets/airliners/boeing/727_200.htm

Corruption, greed fuel black market for arms: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-08-14/news/0308140153_1_surface-to-air-missile-weapons-of-war-black-market

New ISIS Video: ‘We Will Raise Black Flag Over White House’: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/08/new-isis-video-%E2%80%98we-will-raise-black-flag-over-white-house%E2%80%99

The CIA's Center On Climate Change And The Maytag Repariman

For years, appliance maker Maytag had one advertising campaign: The lonely Maytag repairman.  The commercials basically featured a repairman with nothing to do because Maytag appliances supposedly never broke down.

Well, back in 2009, right after Obama took office, our liberal President wanted to satisfy his environmental base by establishing an office in the CIA that was dedicated to studying the security impact of climate change.  Apparently, this office, The Center on Climate Change and National Security, was a lot like that lonely Maytag repairman because, just three years later, the Obama Administration is shutting the center's doors.

I think it's interesting that the closing of this office comes just 5 days after the election.  My guess is that this office was known to be a useless waste for a very long time; but, Obama probably waited to close it until after the election in order to preserve his pro-environmental voting base.  More "opacity" from an Obama Administration that is supposed to be the most transparent administration in the history of the United States.

--- New York Times Green Blog: C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/c-i-a-closes-its-climate-change-office/?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Perplexing General Petraeus Resignation

I can't remember the last time when such a well-known public figure outed himself as a two-timer on his wife but, General Petraeus, the head of the CIA, did just that.  And, it was done in the midst of an increasing controversy over the Benghazi consulate attack and the killing of four Americans.  Certainly, Petraeus' CIA was highly involved in this incident since the CIA dominated our presence in Benghazi.  The "annex" that is always being talked about -- just a mile away from the consulate --  was a  CIA installation.  Two of the four dead, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy Seals under contract by the CIA and stationed at the annex.

Normally, an affair becomes public and the offender -- after the fact -- has to respond with some public affirmation, humility, and an apology.  But, because Petraeus came forward before any public knowledge of his affair, it almost seems like he was being blackmailed in some way; and, he decided to thwart the blackmailing by going public on his own.

This, then, leads to other speculation.  Was the threat of a public exposure of his infidelity being used to force him into "modifying" his upcoming Benghazi testimony before Congress?  Perhaps, take the fall for the Obama Administration? Certainly, the timing of Petraeus' disclosure and resignation would suggest something like that.  If so, was this an extension of the currently suspected coverup over Benghazi?  And, at what levels within the Obama Administration was this "blackmailing" effort being conducted?  Was President Obama involved?

The Last Three Terrorists: Zero Degrees Of Separation

It amazes me that the Obama Administration didn't know of the Times Square Bomber "before" that bomb was placed and set to go off. I believe that this would-be terrorist should have been under surveillance following the capture of and information obtained from the Underwear Bomber and the Fort Hood Shooter. However, it is evident, now, that the obvious was being ignored because the last three terrorist acts -- the Fort Hood Shooter, the Underwear Bomber, and the Times Square Bomber -- all had one thing in common: Communications with the American born and radical Yemeni-based cleric, Abu Bakr al-Awlaki.

I would have thought that our brilliant national security departments such as Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA, would have had an early bead on the Times Square Bomber by virtue of his now-known communications with al-Awlaki. But, the zero degrees of separation between all three of the last terrorists actions appears to have been completely ignored. I would hope, by now, and for the sake of us all, that a mistake like this is no longer possible and that any American having communications with al-Awlaki is closely monitored by our law enforcement and security agencies. Maybe if the Obama Administration would drop their "lone wolf" mentality about terrorist acts and start connecting the dots to radical Muslim ties, we might just be a lot safer.

On the Secret CIA/Cheney Plan, the Democrats Are The One's Looking Bad!

Right now, there's a big flap on Capitol Hill about a secret plan within the CIA that was intended to hunt down and kill or assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. Apparently, Dick Cheney is at the heart of this flap because he advised the CIA to develop the plan and keep it secret (See Full Story). All indications are that this plan was never really implemented. Now, the Congressional Democrats are all upset because they weren't ever advised of this supposedly "phantom" program.

I don't know about you but, I would have thought that a plan to assassinate Al Qaeda leadership was a "given" following 9/11. Did Congress actually think that such a plan wasn't on the table in the wake of those murderous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon building? How stupid are these people who call themselves members of our Congress? Even if the CIA didn't tell them, wouldn't they, as concerned leaders of our country, ask if the CIA had formulated any plans to hunt down Al Qaeda and ask for the details? If the CIA didn't have a plan, wouldn't you or I, if we were members of Congress, tell them to come up with one. Are the Democrats implying that they went to dozens upon dozens of CIA briefings and had no input or questions about what seems to be an obvious reaction or response to the events of 9/11?

For this reason, it sure looks like this whole Cheney/CIA thing is being hyped for the purely political reason of protecting Nancy Pelosi from her own stupidity in saying that the CIA consistently lied to Congress. Of course, if the Democrats say that it isn't about politics; then, one can only conclude that they are admitting to their own, complete stupidity and their complete lack of the kind of leadership that is needed to protect this country! Either way, it makes them look very bad!

AP's Bush Hating Continues

The above is a sampling of headlines from most of the major news outlets on the Internet with regard to Nancy Pelosi's latest iteration on her ignorance of the CIA interrogation techniques. Only the Associated Press (AP) has sought fit to twist Nancy Pelosi's comments by blaming George W. Bush in its headline -- something that no other agency sought fit to do! Even the far left, always-Bush-hating New York Times and MSNBC legitimately and appropriately left Bush out of their headlines.

In my blog, I have consistently caught AP in their attempts to smear George W. Bush -- a habit that it seems they still can't break!

UPDATE: As of this evening, AP has dropped "Bush" from the headlines and now is in line with all the other news agencies.

The Lamest Excuse For Leon Panetta Heading Up The CIA

Ever since it has been known that Leon Panetta will head the CIA under Obama, I have heard a variety of excuses as to why he "should" be the chief of that extremely important intelligence group. But, no one has actually given any commentary as to why he is really qualified to run that show. Some say he is a smart guy and that's important because we don't want anymore dummies than we already have running things in Washington. Some say he is a proven organizer, but so is every gaffer on a movie set; but, I don't think any of them should be running the CIA. When it comes to his actual intelligence experience, I have consistently heard the same and lamest excuse that I have ever heard in support of his nomination. That dumb statement that seems to be getting a lot of traction among Panetta supporters is that he (Panetta) was the Chief of Staff under Clinton and he saw Intelligence reports every day from the CIA. That's like me saying I should be the managing editor at Time Magazine because I read it every week. Give me a break! Now I really know why Democrats have a jackass as their party's symbol.

Image by jaxxon's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. Some rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

Intentional Atrophy?

The apparent appointment of Leon Panetta as the CIA chief just shows how little regard Mr. Obama has for our National Security. At a time when there could be serious consequences in having a nuclear Iran, Obama has decided to appoint a weak leader in the top spot for intelligence gathering. Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, India are all hot spots that need the closest scrutiny and we are literally going to put a middle manager in a job that needs a highly trained professional. He's going to spend the next two years or more just getting up to speed. A lot can happen in that time.

I think he is an intentional pick to clean out the CIA of those who would put our national security ahead of an extremely liberal viewpoint of what human rights are or should be. His pick also follows the liberal viewpoint that all mankind has rights under our Constitution; even those who could give a flying-whatever about our Constitution and our way of life and would kill every one of us if they had a chance. Somehow the liberals always feel that we should be superior in our beliefs, even if it is to our dying breath. To me, the Leon Panetta choice is a choice to intentionally weaken the CIA. No more eavesdropping, rendition Guantanamo Bay, and water boarding.

Under Clinton, the intelligence capabilities of this country were extremely weakened and we were blindsided by 9/11. Since 9/11, Bush has put some teeth back into that agency. Now, with another former Clinton person in charge of the CIA, we could easily find ourselves on the precipice of another 9/11 or worse? Sometimes we never learn.

The Hear No Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil image is by Horatio3k's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. Some rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).