Kevin's Korner

According to several news outlets, including ABC News, Reuters, The Associated Press, and many others, U.S. Government Sources say that Syria, is moving their Chemical Weapons, in an indication that they are preparing to use them. The United States warned Syria that using Chemical Weapons crosses the “red line”, and would prompt an immediate “response”.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen also warned Syria.

“The possible use of chemical weapons would be completely unacceptable for the whole international community and if anybody resorts to these terrible weapons I would expect an immediate reaction from the international community,” Rasmussen told reporters at the start of a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

From Reuters:
http://reut.rs/YKoDBR

Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton also warned Syria.

“We have made our views very clear. This is a red line for the United States. I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against his own people, but suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur,” Clinton said at a press conference in Prague.

A U.S. official confirmed to ABC News that late last week U.S. intelligence determined that Syria, in addition to moving some of its chemical stockpiles, had taken preparatory steps with regards to some of the stockpile.

The concern is over the movement of weapons that could be used to contain sarin gas – a fast but short-acting nerve agent, according to another U.S. official. He said attention is focused on the number of items the Syrians moved and what those items contained. Congress was notified over the weekend about this development.

Yahoo News:

http://yhoo.it/YvZyM1

Of course, no one is saying exactly what action the US and NATO would take, but it seems pretty obvious it would be a military reaction.

If these reports are true, then Syria has seriously misjudged world opinion. If they think that somehow the U.S., NATO or others won’t act in response to this, then they are seriously mistaken.

I certainly don’t want the United States involved in the Syrian civil war, however, if they do use chemical weapons it changes everything. Israel and Turkey would also have to feel threatened if Syria does this.

Hopefully someone, anyone, in Syria will come to their senses, and stop any attempt at using these chemical weapons. If not, then there may not be any other choice, but to take military action against Syria.

Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad

What if, sometime in the future, Mexico elected a very Anti-American government. Things go ok for a while, but the government arms anti-American gangs in the north. The gangs become organized and the government arms them with more “advanced” weapons. Not long after that, several small missiles are fired over Texas and New Mexico. No One gets hurt and there is only minor property Damage.

Let’s pause the scenario here a moment. What do you think the American people would do? I don’t think there is any question what they would do, they would demand that our leaders do something, and do it right away. We would demand a military response, and a strong one too.

But, let’s continue with our little scenario. We will assume our leaders have made “strong” statements, but no real military action. However, they do send more troops to the Mexican border.

So, over the next few weeks, missiles are shot at us on a daily basis. Our “luck” runs out and several U.S. citizens are killed. Now, would we want some foreign government, or the UN telling us we need to use restraint? Would our citizens even give a damn what anyone else in the world thought about the US retaliating?

Of course not. Citizens would demand a military response. If one had not been taken already, then Washington DC, and other locations, would be filled with thousands upon thousands of protesters. None of which, would be very happy about the lack of a response.

Let’s shift back to today, and where Israel is. They are surrounded by enemies who want to kill all of them, literally. If Israel were to be overrun, they would be massacred. It would be horrific.

Thousand of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel over the last few years. Hamas is in control and they are a terrorist organization with a stated goal of destroying Israel. They have always been terrorists.

We are on the eve of an invasion of Gaza, by Israel. They have moved significant arms and soldiers near the border. Also, Israel has activated 75,000 reservists. Frankly, this is long overdue.

Israel has ever right to defend herself. Hamas targets civilians. They put rocket launchers near schools, hospitals, and mosques. Then, when Israel strikes back, they try to blame them for killing children and other innocent civilians. It is almost like, these people have no soul. They certainly have little in the way of morality.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has little choice. I’m sure he would love to have peace, but war against his people has literally forced his hand. The United States should support the Israeli action 100%. It is time to stand with a friend, and do it now.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

A week after President Obama’s reelection, we have so many telling us what the “lessons” are for the GOP. Some claim it is Social Conservatives and their influence. Others, claim Republicans don’t reach out enough to minorities. Still Others, say the GOP needs to move to the Center or move more to the right.

But let’s look at reality a moment here. First, the election for President had little to do with ideology. The whole Obama campaign was to demonize Mitt Romney, and basically say that at least President Obama wasn’t as “bad” as Mitt Romney. That’s not a strategy employed if you are “winning” an ideological debate.

If you look back at other reelection campaigns, you will see a very stark difference. In 1984 the Reagan reelection campaign’s slogan was “Morning in America”, and was focused on President Reagan and what he had done. In fact, if all you did was watch the Reagan campaign commercials you might not even know who he was running against.

Compare that to the Obama campaign. For over six months they did nothing, but attack Romney. They kept insisting the President needed “more time”. Former President Clinton even said that no President could have had a recovery in one term, with the terrible economy Obama was left with.

And here we get to the real key to what happened. The Obama campaign won in large part because they successfully painted Romney as this evil, terrible person. They claimed he was a “possible felon”, tax cheat, murderer yes a murderer, and also claimed that Romney lied about everything, among many other accusations.

I don’t believe that the Romney campaign was especially “bad”, but in hindsight, they needed to answer every, single attack. Keep attacking the President’s record, but also go after anything and everything that you can. Once the Obama Campaign crawled out of the sewer, it was time to get in the gutter and attack them. I know, some will say that is not the “right thing” to do, but you have to defend yourself.

Also remember, the U.S. House was kept Republican by the voters. The Democrats picked up a few seats but the pickup was well below what is average for a reelected President.

So the lesson is to get in the gutter? The Lesson is that every, single attack must be answered, and the GOP can’t be afraid to “get their hands dirty”. The attack ads, against Romney, went on for months, and in some states, they were not responded to until much later in the campaign. You can’t let the other side “define” you like that before you even have a chance to “introduce” yourself to voters.

President Barack Obama

When I was growing up, I remember being taught to be pretty skeptical about things. One phrase I remember hearing several times, was the old saying, “Don’t believe everything you read and only half of what you see”. There are several different variations on that saying, but they all point to the same thing, always look for deeper meaning or clearer meaning.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last night in Peru; “I take Responsibility” for the security in Benghazi, Libya. She goes on to explain that it is her responsibility to make sure all American Diplomatic outposts have the proper security.

“I take responsibility,” Clinton said during a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

CNN.com:
http://bit.ly/R7RI48

On the surface, this looks like she has “fallen on her sword” for the Obama Administration. She certainly takes ownership and it makes her look like she is doing the right or maybe even noble thing for the situation. But, is that really what is going on here?

First, let me just say, I have no inside sources or political contacts that could give me anything about this. I have, however, been an observer of politics for a while now and I have developed my own “political instincts” along the way. That’s not saying I might not be wrong, of course I could be wrong, but I have learned to trust my instincts and that old saying I learned growing up, because it may apply to politics more then anything else on earth.

So, back to our question, is Hillary really taking the fall here, or is it something else? If not, what is this “something else”?

Let’s look at some context here. This Libya attack happened over a month ago, and the fallout has been slow coming out. But the pressure has been building, so much so, that the Obama campaign thought it advisable to take to the Sunday talk shows to denounce the Romney campaign for “making this an issue”. That, my friends, reeks of desperation. I don’t think there is any question they are worried.

But right before this, we have a Vice-Presidential debate where Vice President Joe Biden seems to throw the State Department and intelligence departments under the bus, saying the White House didn’t know about any requests for increased security in Benghazi.

So here we are, Hillary on the verge of being the complete scapegoat for the whole thing. So what does she do? She takes responsibility before the White House can completely throw her under the bus. And when does she do it? She does it within 24 hours of a Presidential debate.

By doing this, Hillary has made sure that Libya will be front and center at the debate tonight. The Obama campaign must be scrambling, as we speak, to get a hold of this whole thing. The President can’t throw her under the bus, she has already beaten him to it. If he does that now, it will only reinforce the whole “empty chair” attacks against him. He is the President, so the question would become why didn’t he know.

So what does President Obama do? Does he take responsibility for it? Right before the election, that could be a really risky thing to do AND might just fan the flames instead of pushing the issue aside. It has “upped the ante” and probably forced the hand of the White House to either take or dodge responsibility for this whole thing.

This changes the whole debate for Obama, and gives him very little time to figure out a good “out” for his campaign. My guess is, he will try to avoid answering the question at all, which in fact, could be the worst thing he could do.

What about Governor Romney? Well, he has been handed the Libya issue on a silver platter. He can simply reference Hillary’s comments and go from there. In that way, he won’t look like the one trying to take advantage of the situation for political reasons.

Let’s go just a little deeper now into what Hillary said. She basically blamed the “fog of war” for the “confusion” over the fact that there were no protests and this was all along a preplanned Terrorist attack.

Now, Hillary isn’t stupid. I don’t agree with her on much, but she and her husband have good political instincts, and they know as many tricks as Obama’s Democrat Chicago Machine does. The “fog of war” is so weak that it is begging for a challenge. Her claim that the President and Vice President wouldn’t be “knowledgeable” about the security decisions is almost laughable, if it wasn’t so serious.

In fact, the number one priority for any US President is the security of America and the American people. The United States was recently involved in the civil war in Libya and the overthrow of the government. It should be more then obvious, that in all this turmoil security at American diplomatic posts in Libya should be very tight, especially considering it was on the anniversary of 9/11.

So does President Obama, ask Hillary to resign? Before the election? That would contradict everything they have been saying, that this was only an issue because of the Romney campaign trying to make political hay from it. If he does ask her to resign, it could only further escalate the scandal not contain it.

This puts Obama and his campaign in an incredibly tough spot. The issue is now far from going away, it could only get bigger after the debate.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have proved, once again, to be very politically astute. They know the game, and they know how to fight back, even when it needs to look like they are doing just the opposite. This move, may or may note save any hope for Hillary in 2016, but it now puts the ball right back in the White House’s hands. The question will be asked “If the President didn’t know, why didn’t he?” and “What did the President know and when did he know it?”.

The next 3 weeks are going to be very interesting indeed.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Peru

In testimony before the Senate, Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first member of the Obama Administration to admit the attack in Libya, on 9/11/2012, was actually from terrorists, and not some spontaneous “protest”.

So finally, after 8 days, one, just one, Obama Administration official, admitted the obvious.

FP,Foreign Policy:
http://bit.ly/SBN8cc

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

“We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” Olsen said.

Also admitted, was that these terrorists, most likely, had connections to Al-Qaea or it’s friends. This is deplorable. Where is the media? They have gone from simply being cheerleaders for Obama, into a propaganda machine for him.

Almost at the very same time, White House spokesman Jay Carney, was sticking to the script of the attack being “spontaneous”. Does anyone in this administration have a shred of honesty or integrity left? It seems unlikely.

Also, Fox News, was reporting that the attack may have been led by Sufyan Ben Qumu.

“Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News’ intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”

FoxNews.com:
http://fxn.ws/VdRXwh

So, in essence, President Obama’s Libyan policy has blown up in his face. America, and those 4 Americans, ultimately, paid the price for it.

This thing just keeps getting worse and worse. This Administration has shown, again, that it is unwilling to take responsibly for anything. This is simply outrageous.

We need a real leader. We need a new administration. If President Obama is reelected, then maybe the Media should apologize to President Nixon.

UPDATE 9/20/2012:
CBS News reports this morning that witnesses are saying there never was a protest outside the U.S. consulate, in Benghazi, Libya. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack.

http://bit.ly/Sa8PoU

President Obama

The attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle east have continued, and worsened in some areas. The Obama administration is still in denial mode as to the source of the “riots”. They were pre-planned, Terrorist attacks, not “protests” about a movie. Yes, the terrorists used the protests as a cover, but spontaneous protests normally doesn’t involve RPGs. The Libyan government has said that the U.S. knew in advance of this attack, and that is indeed just as troubling as the attacks themselves.

The focus of the Obama administration, has been to claim this was all spontaneous and all about a movie. The anger over the movie, “Innocence of Muslims” is certainly real. But blaming a movie for murder of a U.S. Ambassador simply defies any logic whatsoever.

In any event, the reaction against the movie in the United States is especially troubling. Speaking out against a movie is one thing, but the Obama administration is in the process of trampling all over Freedom of Speech.

The intimidation of the producer of this film, is sickening. What else, beside intimidation, is it when you drag the guy in for “questioning” at Midnight? Why do you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, call the producer to try and get him to pull the video?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been pushing this version of events hard. Why else would she speak of a stupid movie, in front of dead Americans in coffins? It was utterly shameful.

Even some in Hollywood got in on the anti-Free Speech train. Apparently, Bette Midler wants the filmmaker charged with Murder. Cher wants something to “happen” to Reverend Terry Jones, even though he had nothing to do with this film. Russell Simmons (of Def Jam records) said that making this film could “possibly be illegal”.

http://bit.ly/QJZ4vb

The White House Press secretary has repeatedly put all the blame for this on the maker of this film. He fails to mention that if it “offended” any other religion, there would have not been anything like this reaction.

Frankly, this whole thing stinks. The Administration trying to duck any responsibility whatsoever. The early “apology” issued in the name of the American Government to these thugs. The attack on Free Speech. The attacks on Americans and our diplomatic outposts.

Regardless what the movie “says”, it is not the cause of anything. This guy is now in hiding to protect his life. And no, I refuse to reprint his name, but I will say that he is, apparently, a Coptic Christian from Egypt.

In America, we should never be afraid to speak our mind. Fear of our government, is not the way a free country should conduct itself. No, no one has to like this movie, but the filmmaker has every right to produce and show it. This is America.

Free Speech isn’t just for things and people you like and admire. It is also for those, who you may not like, and for things that you strongly disagree with. If not, then you don’t have free speech.

As most of you already know, U.S. Diplomatic outposts were attacked in Libya and Egypt, leaving 4 Americans dead and several more wounded. The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens was among the Americans killed.

First, let me just say, that our hearts go out to all the families and friends of those killed and wounded. Sometimes we forget how dangerous some countries are, and how brave these people have to be to serve America there.

As far as this administration, I find it very disturbing that the first thing our government does is apologize for a still unknown video that supposedly sparked this. Never should we apologize for free speech, and never, ever, should we apologize to people who have just attacked us.

Reports are now that 2 U.S. warships are headed to the coast of Libya and President Obama has vowed that the attackers will be brought to justice. I am not holding my breath on that.

What should the United States do now? The first thing we should have done, after condemning these attacks, is contact both Egyptian and Libyan governments and demand they protect our diplomatic people still in their countries. It is the responsibility of ALL host countries, to protect all foreign diplomats and foreign outposts from these types of things.

The first direct action that should be taken is to remove all diplomats from Egypt and Libya. We tell them we will NOT return until WE determine it is safe to do so, if we do return at all.

To do that, we would move warships off the coasts of the 2 countries to help evacuate them immediately. But, we also must tell Egypt and Libya that we hold them directly responsible for this. So, we then freeze all foreign aid to these 2 countries. Honestly, we should never have been funding these 2 countries in the first place.

As far as any military action goes, we need to be patient with that. It is pretty obvious that this was a pre-planned, terrorist attack, on the anniversary of the original attacks of 9/11/2001. If we do find training camps, or even small “hideouts” of them, then we should hit them. However, I don’t think killing a lot of innocent people is the right thing to do. Many of us are angry, and rightly so, but we must never act because of emotion.

There seems to be a large number of Muslims that hate us, but it really is hard to know. Sometimes we only hear and see the radicals. The ones who shout the loudest, and intimidate others into silence. Hopefully, this will change, but I am not optimistic on this. We must assume, they are serious, when any of them say they want to kill Americans.

We can never hope to prevent any and all terrorist attacks. But we must certainly be prepared. Frankly, I do not believe this administration was prepared for this. At least one of the diplomatic outposts, there were no U.S. Marines there. In such a violent area it seems crazy, not to have extra heavy security and caution.

In the end, I think we just need to stay out of these countries. The guys running the show in both countries are not “the good guys”. In reality, they hate us and only try to “humor” us to get us to give them money. That must end. American tax dollars should no longer be wasted on such countries. If this administration will not do what is needed, then we need a new Administration that will do the right thing.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Killed on 9/11/2012

According to Israel National News, senior officials in the Obama Administration have sent word to Iran, that the United States wouldn’t join an Israeli strike against them. According to the report, word was sent to Iran, in the last couple of days. Apparently the Obama administration is afraid that Iran may strike at US military installations in the Persian Gulf region, if Israel Strikes Iran.

Story Here:
http://bit.ly/QV2TiZ

The reports are coming from Israel’s second largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot.

Just a little over a week ago, Amnon Lord, one of Israel’s veteran journalists, writing in Makor Rishon, said the Obama administration is in collusion with a Top Israeli Newspaper, to stymie Israel’s efforts to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and the IDF knows it.

Quote from Article:

“There is a concern that the Americans will learn of the date for an attack and try to prevent it in different ways. The Americans have not given the Israelis a feeling that they are true partners in the operative arena, in the past two years. On the contrary, the IDF has identified preventive American activity against an Iran operation.”

Article Link:
http://bit.ly/N7WfEr

If these allegations are true, it is very troubling, and could result in a serious rupture of Israel-American relations.

The Obama Administration must be held accountable. Americans deserve to know what message, if any, has been sent to Iran.

This also raises the obvious question, did the Obama administration just disclose to Iran, that Israel, is about to strike them? If so, what other information has been sent to Iran? Just sending the message, could indicate that the Obama administration believes, that a strike against Iran, by Israel, is imminent.

If true, this would be a very serious betrayal of a long time ally. Stabbing Israel in the back like this, could make the situation, much, much worse. I can’t even imagine the damage this will do to American Foreign policy in the Middle East. And the damage it would do to, what should be, a very close friend.

It has been clear for a while now, that President Obama is no friend of Israel. He is friendlier to the Muslim Brotherhood then Israel. This is the exact opposite of what it should be.

This insanity, must stop. Iran is a serious threat to the whole region, not just Israel. If the United States doesn’t act, then we need to support Israel in is right to defend itself. The Obama Administration is not conducting a foreign policy, that is in our, or our friend’s best interests. It is truly shameful.

Israel’s Channel 10 News, on Monday night, is reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is determined to attack Iran before the US elections”. The TV station’s military reporter Alon Ben-David, says that after 2 months of “enhanced” sanctions against Iran, that Prime Minister Netanyahu feels the time for military action is “closer then ever”.

Alon Ben-David also says, that PM Netanyahu was determined to attack Iran before the election in the United States, this November. Apparently, a meeting with U.S. President Obama scheduled for late next month, after a UN General Assembly gathering in New York, may not even happen. Even if the meeting were to occur, Ben-David says he “doubts Obama could say anything that would convince Netanyahu to delay a possible attack.”

Since the attack would happen before the elections in the U.S., apparently PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, feel President Obama would have no choice but to back the attack.

Here is the link to the article in The Times of Israel:
http://bit.ly/NV9xSk

Iran has further complicated the situation, by unveiling an upgraded version of one of its short-range, surface-to-surface, ballistic missiles Tuesday. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims the upgraded Fateh-110, or Conqueror missile, was upgraded “not in an aggressive context, but as a deterrence.”

“We do not seek it for conquest, domination of neighboring countries and the world. We do not want it because of defiance,” said Ahmadinejad, according to state TV.

Iran has earlier claimed that this missile has a range of 185 miles. The official IRNA news agency reported Tuesday that the new version of Fateh-110 has a quicker launch capability, a longer life and can be used in adverse weather conditions, but gave no other details.

Fox News article:
http://fxn.ws/OVEZn4

No doubt, Israel is taking this threat very seriously. Iran’s repeated threats against Israel, and pronouncements that Israel should be wiped off the map, seem to be finally coming to a head.

Israel has every right to defend itself. The threat from Iran is real and urgent. But where is the United States in all this? It seems painfully obvious, that the Obama administration, has no plans whatsoever to attack Iran, no matter what Iran does.

President Obama should be supporting Israel in all this. We cannot expect the Israelis to sit and wait to be nuked from Iran, or one of her agents, like Hezbollah. We should be helping Israel in any way we can, and stop begging them not to attack. The time for action seems to have indeed come, and the United States should stand firmly with it’s ally Israel.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

In case you missed it, a Turkish unarmed RF-4E reconnaissance jet was shot down a mile inside international airspace on Friday by Syria. It has been admitted,by Turkey, that the plane had entered Syrian air space. The Syrians have claimed they shot down the aircraft as it was flying low over Syrian territory with a short-range anti-aircraft gun. Turkey has claimed the plane did enter, but at the time it was shot down it was over international waters and was hit with a laser-guided or heat-guided missile.

Turkey has also claimed a search and rescue plane sent to find the plane that was shot down, was also fired on. It is unclear if that plane was also hit.

Turkey, as a member of NATO, has requested a meeting of NATO countries under article 4 of the treaty. NATO has agreed to a meeting on Tuesday.

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, has made it known that Turkey will request that NATO will consider this an “article 5″ situation. Article 5 basically states that an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all NATO countries.

Arinc also said that Turkey had no intention of going to war with anyone, but that Turkey retained it’s “right to retaliate”.

The situation looks to be very serious at this point. Will Turkey hit some Syrian anti-aircraft installments? Will NATO invoke article 5 and if they do invoke it, what exactly will they do about it?

A full scale military response seems remote and a bit of an overreaction, but it is not hard to imagine the situation spiraling out of control.

If NATO does invoke article 5, it needs to move cautiously. I would think that NATO may not respond militarily, but that Turkey would have a small scale military response.

NATO could move some forces closer to the situation as a “show of strength”.

To further complicate this, Russia has a Naval base in Syria and has acknowledged that they have supplied Syria with spare helicopter parts and anti-aircraft weaponry.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is traveling to the Middle East this week. He is scheduled to visit Israel and Jordan. Also he is to meet with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas.

President Assad of Syria