%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  "Putting on the Game Face" |
  This blog is a doorway into the mind of Percy Goodfellow. Don't be shocked at the lost boys of Namby-Pamby Land and the women they cavort with. Watch as his caricatures blunder about the space between audacious hope and the wake-up calls of tomorrow. Behold their scrawl on the CRT, like graffitti on a subway wall. Examine it through your own lens...Step up my friends, and separate the pepper from the rat poop. Welcome to my abode...the armpit of yesterday, the blinking of an eye and a plank to the edge of Eternity. Note: This blog is my journal. I've no interest in persuading anyone to adopt my views. What I write is whatever happens to interest me when I start pounding the keys. |
| I know my readers are wondering about the sudden transition into “Morality” and how Plato’s Republic fits into the scheme of things. The whole exercise spun up in my mind as I considered the actions of the President with regard to approving the use of the Cypberwearpon referred to as STUXNET. The Golden Category as envisioned by Plato was a council of wise men. In practice it came to mean The King. The Silver classification translated to the nobles or aristocracy. The King was accountable only to “Divine Law” whatever that is. It is an unconstrained realm way above Common Law, and still higher than the Code of Chivalry. It's anything the King says it is. The Silver Category, was envisioned as a group of high quality citizens who were candidates aspiring for inclusion into the Golden Category. These citizens were above the common law but bound to a higher standard, defined in a code of Chivalry that was embodied by a sense of honor. The idea was that if someone was meeting the higher standard then there was no need to be concerned about the lower rungs. A Knight was supposed to protect the weak, venerate womanhood and be a force for good. Good was loosely defined as those positive commandments that it’s hard to put your finger on. For example love your neighbor, protect the downtrodden, venerate womanhood and behave like Jesus… to the extent possible. While there were no checks on a King’s power the power of the nobles was constrained (not much) by the Code of Chivalry. The nobles and knights through peer pressure supposedly policed chivalry. Thus an Aristocrat could behave for better or worse and only if his actions proved extremely despicable did he risk sanction by the order. “Black Knights” feared only being caught in their nefarious deeds and even that wasn’t toxic. Having the deed publicly aired and then being called to account were the next two steps in the remediation process. Here the honor of a dark night was impugned and these were “Fighting Words” and trial by combat usually followed. The idea was that God would decide the winner. The idea of “Duels” to settle matters of ”Honor” persisted among our founding fathers. There are two points to keep in mind here. First is that since there was no judicial system as we know it that applied to the silver citizen, then. Even behavior illegal under common law was OK as long as it was not attributed. The mistake rested not so much in doing a bad thing but rather getting caught at it. Worse than getting caught was having the misdeed publicly reported and known and the final straw was having it sanctioned by a member of the peer order. At this point honor was "impugned", these were “fighting words” and trial by combat generally followed. If you think this philosophy has vanished, think again. Parts of it are alive and well in the world we live in. At the Military Academies a low form of “Honor” is still taught. I say “low” because it has survived as “A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those that do.” Lying, cheating and stealing are negative commandments and are easy to codify. We find them in common law. For example stealing, bearing false witness and fraud are proscribed behaviors. Honor lies not in meeting these simple tests but a whole lot higher than that. What failing to meet these low standards does show is that an individual is “Honor-less” because if someone can’t meet the lower standard than there is no way they qualify for the higher. It follows that this is proof that an individual is not Silver Citizen material and does not merit membership in this exclusive club. The second part, “…and not tolerate those who do” goes right back to the Chivalry code where it is the peer group that must sanction members who are supposedly operating at a level that fails to meet the standards of chivalry or worse common law. It is easy to see how this peer group, the aristocracy, became a mutual protection society and were unable to sanction the bad behavior of its members. There's an old saying… “You can’t get a pig to slaughter itself.” |
| Plato had this philosophy of a four-tiered society. There were the golden citizens, the silver citizens, the bronze citizens and everybody else. Everybody else was a catchall for serf or slaves. These divisions were predicated on an assumption that most people are unfit to lead and need “big brother” to show and tell them what to do. Now in this ideal state the Goldens were to be the smartest and most qualified to determine BEST. By placing them in charge society would have those individuals most qualified to decide what’s best for everyone else. In addition the Goldens would have the authority to make them do it. The Dream of this ideology was to have a Philosopher King, someone with the smarts to know best and the power to get people to act upon it. This class would be constrained by no laws, (moral or common), and be guided only by the law of wisdom, the ability to know best, for which they would be the semi-divine spokesperson. To qualify for this class a person had to be someone from a lower category that demonstrated wisdom and leadership. Someone who was smart and had the ability to persuade or compel the people to follow. A major problem with this idea was that the Philosophers were not the ones in power. In those times and still today, “Might is Right.” It is not the acuity of a person’s mind that is the deciding factor but rather the size of a bicep. It is common for the person in charge to possess a low cunning, and through terror and intimidation acquire the reins of social leadership. As a consequence the best the intellectuals could hope for was a Philosopher king. Knowing they would never acquire the reins of social leadership they decided that second best was to be in a position to educate the youth, find the talent early and train them in their idealistic, failed and unworkable doctrines. Then as today, many intellectual elitists, custodians of knowledge, teachers of our youth feel they are most qualified to know what BEST is. They often disparage GOD and feel that through diminishing the role of the sprit, they can gain a market advantage from the priests who advocate a presence that is unprovable by the exercise of reason. Then there were the silver citizens who were striving for upward mobility and naturally felt they belonged in the gold category. Below Silver were the bronzes who were the merchants and craftsmen. These were people that actually worked and not parasites who had imposed themselves upon the system. Finally the unwashed occupied the bottom tier. There was supposed to be some upward mobility in this system but somewhere along the line that never got realized. This philosophy provided an “Intellectual” underpinning used to justify and explain the feudal system that evolved during the dark ages.. The rulers definitely had the power and supposedly the wisdom to know best. The nobles had power in their jurisdictions and acted upon the general directions of the rulers and supposedly dispensed that power in the best interests of the people. (That was a joke) It was one of the darkest and least productive times in the social development of mankind. It was a huge step backward from the bar set by the Greeks and still way below that set by the Romans. The idea was that the ruling class would be the wisest and thus know where to lead. They believed GOD chose them for this role. Where this led was they began thinking they were god, not bound by any sort of law and held their position based upon birthright. Demonstrated “wisdom” or ability has never really entered into the equation. |
| Don’t look for morality in a State. A state isn't alive. Only people have a sense of morality and it isn't hard wired into the DNA. Morality is a sliding scale, a slippery slope and people see it in different terms depending on the conditions of their lives. It is something we have to keep reminding ourselves about until it becomes a habit. It is a sense of righteousness that finds a level among men and becomes what it is. Mankind is inclined toward good and each of us as individuals uses it as best we can to regulate and give direction to our lives. Humanity has survived because it learned to network. The human brain is too small to accomplish much on its own. Our creator believed in a distributed database rather than a hive and for better or worse that is what we’re stuck with. Our ability to work together collectively and network our minds and skills requires at times subordinating our individuality to the focus of a larger enterprise. This larger enterprise is called many things, a family, a tribe, a community, and a state, a Nation. These structures are designed to achieve a tradeoff between our desire for self-actualization and our needs to survive and acquire a decent quality of life. Collective networking creates a framework of mores, regulations and laws that protect the young, provide for basic needs, higher needs and promote the common defense. It’s a social contract that guides endeavor, balancing an individual's right to choose with the needs of society. It might be comforting to think of a “Collective” as a living entity but it isn’t. Only the people who comprise it are alive. The structures and rules are as lifeless as the materialism that raises and fills the world around us. At best a government reconciles personal and collective needs and at worse it doesn’t. Like anything else a social structure is made up of elements arranged in a manner to promote the public good or protect the self interest of those in power. It can be liberating or enslaving. In these arrangements we will never be truly free but we will be alive… but what is life without freedom? To think that a Collective has a heart, or a sense of righteousness, or some sort of morality that goes beyond the decency and fairness of people is nonsense. Collectives are amoral, and if the collective rules do not capture that elusive sense of decency in a spiritual code, laws, rules and regulations it isn’t going to be evidenced by the culture. If it demonstrates these attributes it is because these are the values of the individuals who make up the society. For the state to survive from one generation to the next the people must buy into, believe in and express their support for these values. These are what make us who we are and not the collection of operating laws, rules and regulations we happen to be read in on at a given point in our history. If we believe that the laws that regulate our society are necessary we need to obey them. These laws represent the minimum standards below which we will not suffer our members to behave. However, the law is a low standard designed to make the hurdles something every citizen can manage. Obeying the law should be second nature and not something to feel self-righteous about. Then there is the higher law, those positive behaviors that are difficult to codify but which make the world a truly fit place to live. When I talk about morality those are the high standards I'm referring to. Some examples are love your neighbor as you love yourself. Let those without sin cast the first stones. My personal favorite is “What would Jesus do?” These are the standards that separate the pretenders from the real deal. Families, governments, and institutions are important but they are not alive. Only people are alive. |
| The Unholy Alliance Israel has been allied with the United States for as long as I can remember. As a kid I recall reading Exodus and Mila 18, written by Leon Uris and finding a strong sympathy for the struggle the Jews have faced in my lifetime. I still feel that sentiment for I see in the Isrealis a sense of morality I don’t see in their Middle Eastern neighbors. Israel has always had their back up against a wall facing relentless foes committed to their destruction. It is no surprise that they take threats to their survival seriously. One of these is Iran’s threat to expunge them using a nuclear weapon. Some will claim that this is all bluster and posturing and once Iran gets a “nuke” the world will see that their actions weigh in well short of all the rhetoric. Then Hitler was once dismissed as “All Rhetoric.” Israel is not willing to take that chance. The analogy is that if a person threatens suicide or mayhem, those standing around need to take the threat seriously. The US concern is that bombing will lead to destabilization and escalate the region into war. Many, but not all Israelis, believe the threat needs to be nipped in the bud--- like they did in Iraq and Syria. What makes Iran any different? In the first term, the Obama administration cast itself in the role of an impartial magistrate determined to broker a peace deal in the Middle East. This went nowhere. Pressure from Israel grew to support or at least look the other way while they did the heavy lifting. We should have taken them up on the offer. Instead the President became enamored with the cyber war option that wasn’t really much of an option. It was merely a different attack strategy and the reason for its attractiveness was the Administration’s belief they wouldn’t get caught exercising it. Well, the bug got loose on the Internet and the cat was out of the bag. Not only was the United States involved in unlawful aggression but also partnered with the most hated of Islam’s enemies… so much for the fairness and honesty. It was a crock and those who suspected it now know it. Our credibility in foreign policy is close to zero. Not only were we involved in naked aggression but also we partnered with Israel to make it happen. The drone issue is another example where we chose the low moral ground. Personally I think the action is justifiable but only if war is declared. The preface to the War Powers Act should have been such a declaration. Why can’t we say that 911 was the same thing as what happened at Pearl Harbor? It involved roughly the same loss of life. Why are we so afraid of a bunch of radical Muslims? It’s pathetic. Trying to weasel around has resulted in our taking actions that are violations of International Law. We had a unique opportunity to rewrite the book of waging war on terror and failed to take advantage of it. Terrorist groups are not the same as nation states. They do not follow the rules of civilized society. They strap suicide vests on children and target civilians. They are a scourge on humanity and spurn the very concept of human decency. Terrorists are the ones who should be expunged and since most are Middle Eastern Muslims we should quit soft shoe pretense and using euphemisms like “work place violence.” Today I saw a poll that showed the current administration has only a 50% approval rating on Foreign Policy. I am surprised it’s that high. The White House does not have a foreign policy that is substantively different from the Bush Administration. Where it differs is that matters have gotten worse. The aggression the Administration has fostered to end-run the “Nuclear Iran” issue has squandered moral capital and any good will we might have previously enjoyed. All that remains is one of several attack options and a blank checkbook. |
| Often in the murky world of Classified Programs, disinformation and half-truths it is necessary to put more weight to bear on assumptions than might otherwise be warranted. When events take place where what actually happened is obscured (for the right reasons as well as the wrong) it is necessary to take the evidence and fit it into a hypothesis that fits best with the context of surrounding events. Below is my opinion. 1.There is a distinction between offensive and defensive cyberwar activities. An offensive cyberwar activity takes place where a nation state, enters the sovereign territory of another to kill inhabitants or destroy infrastructure. It is this physical destruction that identifies an activity as offensive in nature. Examples are sending a cloud of poison gas drifting across the border, detonating a nuclear device in the heartland, sending a drone to kill a terrorist, exploding a bomb in an underground cavern, or launching a cyber weapon to shake apart a centrifuge. It is fundamentally all the same thing. It is an overt act of aggression. The precision, collateral damage or nature of the attack is not the issue. The key words are, “Loss of Life” and “Destruction of Physical Infrastructure.” 2. Defensive cyber-activities include hacking, cyber snooping, and information gathering and to a limited extent computer degrading activities. These are more or less accepted and have historical precedent. Whether it is getting into the mind of an individual, getting inside another’s decision cycle, examining the contents of a file or the information in a computer, efforts to determine another nation state’s intentions and capabilities are considered prudent and legitimate activities a nation can take in the interests of defense. The key word is that the activity stays within "A Computer." However, the line is crossed when there are injuries or deaths among citizens of a foreign state or the result is a physical destruction of infrastructure. That is what Director Hayden described as, “crossing the Rubicon.” The distinction is made clear regarding the use of satellites or drones. Flying them high overhead is one thing. An offended state might rile and complain about airspace infractions, but as long as the activity is information gathering it represents a grey area. However when a drone fires a missile at a vehicle presumed to be carrying a terrorist, then that crosses the line. For this to be legitimate there needs to be a declaration of war. A declaration of war does not necessarily have to be directed against a nation state. Terrorists are frequently not aligned with a Nation state, nor do they feel bound by the rules of land warfare. As a consequence it would seem a case could be made, once war is declared, for doing whatever it takes to neutralize their ability to exercise combat power… to include crossing boarders of states that offer safe havens which willingly or unwillingly permit them to operate. 3. That information gathering and defensive cyber-activities do not in themselves constitute an act of war. Espionage is a well-known practice and a nation has a right to protect itself. Thus defensive cyber activities have some legitimacy. If the cyber infringement does not exceed changing source code that impairs a computer’s ability to function properly, that’s one thing, however getting a computer to tell a piece of ancillary hardware to destroy itself is quite another. |
In case anyone in my “Army of Readers”  has doubts and thinks I might be making this up, I invite you to read Sanger’s Book. In my blog two days ago I promised to discuss the facts and assumptions bearing on the issues he identifies. This discussion will examine the facts. I will state a numbered fact, use material from Sanger’s book to illuminate it and make a brief comment.Facts Bearing on the Problem 1. Up to Natanz, cyberwarfare has been limited to hacking into computers, implanting viruses, monitoring and information gathering. “Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers.” Here Sanger is referring to Michael D. Hayden, a former head of the CIA. “This was the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect a physical destruction….” The point is that cyber warfare has gone from hacking computers to destroying the hardware they control. It is a logical step from passively knowing something about an enemy to actively trying to destroy them. 2. At Natanz cyberwar was taken to a new level. It was expanded to include the physical destruction of industrial capacity “…Somebody had crossed the Rubicon,” Hayden observed. “We have a legion on the other side of the river now. .. this is like August 1945, the month the world saw capabilities of a new weapon dropped over Hiroshima.” The point here is that the United States is a pioneer in developing this new cyberwar capability and has been at it for some time. An analogy is the development of drone technology. Initially the mission was information gathering but the logical step that followed was adding Hellfire missiles to kill terrorists. 3. Most worldwide commercial industrial capacity has only a limited capability to withstand a cyber attack. “The good news for the American cyberwar strategists (Technicians? Tacticians? Have we really grown any cyberwar "Strategists" worthy of note?) was that these controllers are virtually undefended; like the first personal computer they were designed in an era when no one thought that they might come under attack. They carried no virus protections, not even something as simple as Norton 360. Greg Shaffer, a DHS official said. “We’re connecting equipment that has never been connected before to this global network. As we do we have the potential for problems. That indeed, is a space our adversaries are paying attention to. They are knocking on the doors of these systems. In some cases, there have been intrusions.” The message here is that civilian commercial infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to a cyberattack. In my series, The Car Maker and the Real Estate Agent, young women are being recruited to run a sensitive criminal enterprise. This enterprise is conducting operations and securing illegal business records. (Cautionary Note: The training cycle of these young women involves sexually implicit prose… so be forewarned of the graphic content, if you decide to examine these episodes to get to the underlying purpose of the screening process.) What it will take to protect commercial facilities is something similar to what Harden and Associates are doing in the basement vaults of their real estate empire. It is a process that involves 3 by 5 cards, couriers and old technology. 4. Once the STUXNET got loose on the Internet any nation with cyber savvy had an opportunity to pull it apart and study its configuration. “Then in the early summer of 2010 big trouble hit.” The bug operating inside Natanz got loose and into the Internet. “Within days the code was being picked apart by experts from Silicon Valley to Germany, where Ralph Langer, an independent computer security expert, began dissecting the bug... the very fact that he had a copy…” was a problem. “As Langer later said… The STUXNET virus provides a sophisticated model for constructing an offensive cyperweapon." There are questions regarding who is to blame… “but no question that the unexpected leak was a “major f***-up." "Now that STUXNET’s in the wild,” Langer said, “you don’t need to be a rocket scientist. You have a blueprint for how to do it.” The thing to remember here is that the STUXNET virus is a worm we developed hand in hand with the Israelis. It is a "How to" model floating around cyberspace, showing the state of the art in sophisticated cyber weaponry. Another point to keep in mind is that STUXNET has a lot of artificial intelligence built in. It is like a hungry baby waking up in a crib--- who climbs out, looks about and crawls off in search of a bottle. 5. While Military Command and Control infrastructure in developed countries have firewalls to resist cyberattack, commercial facilities worldwide are extremely vulnerable. “In September of 2011 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invited reporters for the first time to the cyber-emergency response center it built in Idaho Falls…DHS installed a simulated chemical company and connected its equipment to computer controllers built by Honeywell, Siemens, and other major manufacturers.” A team of “defenders” trying to protect the mock company from cyberattack was quickly overwhelmed.” The point here is that civilian commercial infrastructure which includes power grids and industrial manufacturing is extremely vulnerable to interdiction and disruption. 6. Simply having a facility disconnected from the Internet is no real defense against cyberattack. “It had already occurred to the Iranians that the computer systems running the centrifuges at Natanz were huge targets. But they solved that problem in the same naïve way that many American corporations, power stations or even the US military once relied on in a more innocent age: They made sure to not connect them to the Internet.” The idea to protect sensitive facilities begins with a moat or "Airspace" around the physical plant that is DEFINITELY NOT connected to the Internet. However, just as we send texts over the airspace of the Internet and pictures from one cell phone to another, this space is readily breached. At Natanz (we're told) it was accomplished the old fashioned way when thumb drives used on laptops were carried across the moat and used to infect the controller programming hardware that operated the centrifuges. 7. Just because information exists does not mean those who gather it, understand its meaning, appreciate its importance, see it in broader context or realize its consequences. This is such a huge fact that a single passage or two cannot do it justice. What it means is that just because a fact is known does not mean that it will jump out at an analyst or even if it does find its way up the chain (through a sea of tier three intellects) and eventually get noticed by somebody with the intelligence, power and willingness to use it. |
| Before continuing into the STUXNET with an explanation of facts and assumptions allow me to comment on a few things happening on the the world at large. First, as many of my readers are already aware, Mr. Snowdon is being debriefed by the Russians in the Moscow Airport. As I mentioned before, his earlier revelations were regarding how to use telephone records to catch terrorists and how to enter and manipulate computer records. It appears that Snowdon knows a bit more than that. Yesterday I heard that the Soviets are searching around for old style typewriters and intend to convert all their Top Secret documents from an electronic format into a paper copy. That is a staggering undertaking and it appears our defector has told the Russians things that boggle the imagination. I'm beginning to suspect that we know more about the electronic files of our neighbors than they realize. Think about it. How long would it take you to manually convert all your computer files using a manual Underwood typewriter? It would have to be a pretty serious threat to consider such a giant step backward and investing that amount of time and effort. But then think about what was accomplished in slowing the Iranian Nuclear Program. The bug got through the firewall and subtly started wreaking havoc on the centrifuges operated by a computer controlled nerve center. Heck! If you can do that you don’t have to try and shoot down an ICBM the old fashioned way--- you simply get inside and reprogram the impact coordinates for wherever the missile launched from. Now that would constitute a headache for a would be aggressor. Is that real deterrence or what? Most of us understand about hacking and stealing information but the implications of a cyber weapon that can shake apart a machine hooked to a computer hasn’t sunk into most people’s minds. So what do the Russians intend to do once they get that room full of clerks going on their mechanical typewriters. Well, the next step is to reprogram their missiles going from a digital/electronic guidance system format to a mechanical one. What would that entail? It would mean dusting off key punch typewriters, that once produced those eighty-column cards and using them to set the guidance components of the missiles. I guess the next thing the Russians will be doing is searching museums for those old IBM workstations with a tandem setup to make sure two operators produced an identical card. If that isn’t absurd I don’t know what is. One of the purposes of STUXNET was to get into the minds of the Iranian scientists. To me this result is even more important than shaking a few centrifuges apart. Anybody who has ever tried to program knows how complicated it can get--- trouble shooting and finding out where all the glitches are. Usually, once the bugs are worked out, a programmer can move onto the next stage in development. Well forget that! Consider what changing a a few characters in the source code can do to an operating system. Offensive Cypher warfare is going to take computer hacking from the horse drawn era into orbit. |
| STUXNET Sanger’s book gives the reader a glimpse into how a computer worm was used to slow the development of the Iranian nuclear program. It actually happened and reads like a spy thriller. Most anyone who keeps up with the news knows that the Israelis have long wanted to bomb Iran’s nuclear bomb making capacity. The White House felt this was a bad idea and to prevent it the President first tried the usual diplomatic and economic approaches. These were unsufccessful. There was however an option that President Bush handed off to Obama. This was to launch a cyber attack on the Iranian enrichment facility at Natanz. The idea was to set the centrifuges to racing in excess of their design capacity. Imagine thousands of automobile engines running at normal operating speeds that suddenly get spun up two to three times that and begin tearing apart on the shop floor. That was what STUXNET was designed to do. It worked. Metal started flying and Iran’s nuclear efforts were slowed. If you want to read more go to Chapter 8 (Olympic Games) of Sanger’s book . My interest is not the story line but rather the implications of what this all means. To facilitate this understanding I’ll use the problem solving process learned in Science 101. Problem Definition: To determine the implications of the US/Isreali cyberattack on Natanz. Facts Bearing on the Problem 1. Up to Natanz, cyber warefare has been limited to hacking into computers, implanting viruses, monitoring and information gathering. 2. At Natanz, cyber-war was taken to a new level. It was expanded to include the physical destruction of industrial capacity. 3. Most worldwide commercial industrial capacity has only a limited capability to withstand a cyber attack. 4. Once the STUXNET got loose on the Internet any nation with a remedial cyber security understanding had an opportunity to pull the virus apart and study it. 5. The STUXNET virus provides a sophisticated model for constructing an offensive cyber weapon. 6. While Military Command and Control Infrastructure has firewalls to resist cyber-attack, commercial facilities worldwide are extremely vulnerable. 7. Simply having a facility unconnected to the Internet is no assured defense against a cyber-attack. 8. Just because information exists does not mean those who gather it understand its context, appreciate its importance, grasp its meaning or realize its consequences. Assumptions Bearing on The Problem 1. There is a distinction between offensive and defensive cyberwar activities. 2. Defensive cyber-activities include hacking, cyper snooping, cyber theft and other forms of cyberwar information gathering. It is a form of espionage that has ample precedent. 3. Offensive cyber-activites are defined as the willful destructive of Nation State’ cyber infrastructure or the hardware it controls. 4. That information gathering and defensive cybr-activities do not constitute an act of war. Espionage is a well known practice and a Nation has a right to protect itself. 5. That offensive cyber-activities certainly constitute an act of war. It is no different than any other form of physical attack. Making recourse to this option crosses the line between espionage/defense and is legally no different than exploding a bunker blasting bomb. 6. The United States should consider getting Congress to formally declare a war on terrorism. This provides a justification for using offensive cyber-weapons against Nation States that aid and abet terrorists. We need to wake up an begin using our legal talent offensively, to explain why this recourse is necessary rather than letting it become a roadblock. In future blogs I will be discussing these facts and assumptions. |
| We all say things we come to regret. It happens in our personal lives and a popular saying these days is “Once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no getting it back in. The Wikileaks showed the gulf of separation that often exists between public policy and private views. Shown below are two examples. The lesson to be taken from these is that anything that is recorded electronically and poked into a file is subject to compromise. “A State Department Cable, dated April of 2009 that appeared on WikiLeaks demonstrated that Biden was particularly skeptical from the start that the United States could build a legitimate Afgan government.” With regard to the Vice President I am not saying that having a differing view makes someone a leaker. He is well known for the colorful manner in which he expresses himself. However, showing the world, even if he turns out to be right, that his views conflicted with his boss is not something that engenders trust and confidence. What I am saying is that because his position was opposed he might come under suspicion as one. As my daddy used to say, “If you can’t say something good about a situation, it is often a good idea to shut up….” unless pressed by the boss to speak otherwise. The next WikiLeak example shows the importance of reporting in an impersonal and dispassionate manner even if your think your communications are protected by a security classification. The lesson learned is one that everybody who writes should understand. This is that if you would be uncomfortable with what you write being displayed on the church bulletin board, then don’t write it. This is particularly true regarding e-mails. Eikenberry’s impassioned cable, once aired openly, destroyed his relationship with the head of state he interfaced with. “But right before the new strategy was announced another critical leak emerged.” Ambassador Eikenberry made a blunt assessment of Karzi, decried Pakistan and counseled against an expanded role in Afghanistan.“ When the cable was published in the New York Times, Eikenberry feared his relationship with Karzai was over. He was right.” The next type of leak I want to discuss is letting your emotional feelings color the climate of the organization you lead. It happens all the time and it was toxic for Gen McChrystal who was a pretty good commander in other regards. As president Obama was to learn the hard way, subordinates take their cues from the boss. When the President openly criticized the Supreme Court at his State of the Union address it sent a bad message to some of his minions who saw an opportunity to ingratiate themselves. Bad behavior in a leader translates into bad behavior down the chain of command. “In the summer of 2010 Gen Stanley McChrystal made the inexplicable decision to participate in a Rolling Stone profile on how he was conducting the war. In an article “The Runaway General,” Michael Hasting reported a series of profanity—laced conversations in which McChrystal and his staff were portrayed as openly disparaging of Obama, Vice President Biden and other senior civilian officials.” McChrystal was fired. |
| The Deep Throat Leak, Everybody is familiar about “Deep Throat” and how an insider leaked to the press illegal activities that brought down the Nixon Administration. This type of leak is different from a parting shot, or someone high in the Administration trying to fortify their case by airing it publicly. The Deep Throat Leak is one not designed to promote a point of view but one designed to sabotage a trend the leaker believes is contrary to the public good. In short such a leaker is more interested in disqualifying or arresting momentum than in advocating something different. It is a defensive rather than an offensive play in the game plan. Two good examples are provided in Sanger’s book. “Just after the first meeting to review the strategy, General McChrystal’s secret report recommending a multiyear counterinsurgency campaign was leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post… McChrystal’s leaked report contained no troop numbers. He handed his troop requests--- in hard copy, no electronic versions…Soon these numbers were leaked too.” These leaks raise the question of who in the Administration was so disenchanted by the option of expanding the war in Afghanistan that they would sandbag the Presidents inclination to “double down?” The book shows that any number of Obama’s advisors, felt expanding the war was a bad idea. Can you imagine somebody in the inner circle doing such a dastardly thing? This is serious treachery! It’s a betrayal of the worst sort. When this happened the red flag went up and the President should have gasped “Whoa!” It shows how our inexperienced chief executive got a big time wake up call on a growing problem--- one he failed to adequately address and tried kicking down the road. It would take Benghazi to fully realize the extent of the festering wound. By that time the cure was so toxic it created its own set of unintended consequences. |
| Sanger’s Book, is all about Foreign Policy and makes little mention of Domestic Policy. It is my experience in life, both in the study of politics and the organizations I served in, that a Commander or Director, always enjoys playing with the operational toy rather than dealing with the myriad of social problems that come along with organizational leadership. These People problems become so daunting that the leader is drawn to the operational aspects of the organization’s mission when their energy would have been better spent on pulling the strings of the enablers that surround them. The Obama administration is a good case in point. In Sanger’s book he makes reference to ”Rookie” mistakes and like other chroniclers points to errors of inexperience that began small and snowballed. Perhaps the President’s greatest single error, one that exemplifies this point, is letting the leak problem go viral. It wasn’t that the President surrounded himself with “Idiots” but rather that the personalities of those he chose were often not compatible. As a sports fan he must have appreciated the importance of “Chemistry” in a teams success. It is the chemistry that surrounds one or two “Franchise” players that makes the team and not a team where everyone thinks and behaves like an All-Star.” From the beginning the team Obama refers to as “My Whitehouse” played as individuals rather than together. One of the most telling nuggets in Sanger’s book is the following “tongue in cheek” observation. “…In the surge debate, White House discipline broke down and after each meeting participants in the arguments were pressing their case to reporters… Obama erupted with an (angry outburst)… He made an impression: the leaking stopped for several hours.” The culture Obama engendered, which saw leaks as a page in the playbook, should have been nipped in the bud. Allowed to propagate it grew into a monster that let directly to the AP and Rosen scandals and continued on into the NSA phone monitoring revelations. A leader involved either in Corporate or Military enterprises would have learned basic skills that a political action organizer never had the opportunity to master. In his first term the President squandered his political capital on pushing through a Health Care bill that was unworkable. That botched initiative cost him the House of Representatives. While the momentum he enjoyed carried him into a second term all that crested the Night of Benghazi. That night, there occurred what is called in the writing vernacular, “A Life Changing Event.” Suddenly there was a need to cover up something that was so damning that there was no room for any more leaks. Something happened that was so toxic, it sent a chill reverberating through the inner circles of the Administration. It was the truth of what is now termed the President’s “Disengagement" and it goes far beyond the Death of an Ambassador and three other Americans. |
| Oh my Goodness Gracious! Sanger’s book, Confront and Conceal is informative but it is like reading Clausewitz. It reads for long periods interspersed with nuggets of revelation. These nuggets peel back the onion several layers and shine some light onto the worm scheme that is claimed to have set the Iranian nuclear program back several years. It is based on truth but cluttered with omission and amateurish attempts at deception and other forms of disinformation. In a sense it is like Shaffer’s book without all the redactions, where the author tries to use some slight of hand to keep from making what he knows are serious disclosures. I’m not surprised that the Administration was caught off guard. Sanger was seen by insiders as a “good guy” and was often invited into sensitive discussions to serve as a sort of fly on the wall of history. The current President is very much interested in insuring a favorable legacy of his term in office. Anyway, there are no redactions in Sanger’s book, only heavy-handed attempts to misdirect, mute and cushion some of the revelations he knew would get his sources in trouble. To explain this better let me give an example from my own distant past. On an operation in Vietnam a Special Forces Lieutenant, training a CIDG (Vietnamese Para Military Group) wanted to know the location of my ambush site so if the questionable individuals he was training decided to betray him, he’d know where to run. As we talked it was clear to me that my colleague was even more nervous than I was. Still there was no way on this God’s earth that I was going to give him the grid coordinates of where I was operating at night. So he suggested that we use a point of origin technique… that I would pass him the location if he got in trouble. Instead of an encrypted grid coordinate I would use instead a key word. He labeled several grid intersections on the map, which he called “Sports Car, ”Girly Name" and "Vacation Spot." When passing my grid he said, “Say from Porsche, (Or Corvette) go down two and a half grid squares and right three more.) This was how he avoided the cumbersome encryption system that was damn near impossible to use at night and substitute it for something that could be retained readily in mind. I couldn’t believe that this system was what his organization was routinely using. The deception was that instead of saying, “from Sports Car” I would use a different subset word in the clear with the idea that those listening were too dumb to figure out it was referring to the same point of origin. This is the sort of workaround that writers use in trying to skirt around an obvious revelation of classified information and still get it included in their books. Obviously the trick works with book censors who know much less than the writer often does. Once the book is released and someone knowledgeable reads the context and its implications face the light of day, the insiders gnash their teeth, clasp their hands to their heads and say “OH my goodness gracious… the cat’s out of the bag! We have another FRACKIN leak!” |
| I'm reading the new book by David E. Sanger, “Confront And Conceal.” This is the book that Marine General James Cartwright, a member of the Joint Chief’s of Staff is in such hot water over. General Cartwright, once a favorite of the President, is alleged to have leaked classified information to Sanger who included it in his book. As I read the book I can only shake my head. This has to be the “Leakiest” administration in the history of the Republic. A “sieve” would be a generous analogy, however, “ hemorrhage” might be more accurate. As long as these leaks served the current administration’s political agenda they were treated with a blind eye and or maybe with that all-knowing wink. That all changed after the fateful night of Benghazi. Suddenly there was a political secret that was the White House’s worst nightmare. The missing hours where the President was disengaged had to be concealed at all costs. For the White house the reason was political, however for the enablers who have helped shroud it, the motivation is perhaps a misguided notion of National Security. Anyway, as I read Sanger’s book, it’s written in a manner that casts the current administration in a generally favorable light. This is because Sanger is as close to a “favored Insider” as a writer can be. At least this was the case before his latest book came out. In my next few blogs I will try and point out what the book says, (and doesn’t say) that the CIA, DIA and/or NSA finds so troubling. Before continuing let me say that I have no information that is not available from the sources I quote. I don’t have a particularly partisan point of view and consider myself a moderate, independent voter. I will say that I am no fan of the current president and this administration. However, I am delighted to find in Sanger’s book a sympathetic voice to those currently in power and will attempt to convey both the good and the bad. On my first read I’ll set my filters on the “Leak” issue and show some of the many forms this dragon takes as it rears its ugly head. The first example I see is called the “Parthian Volley.” This is when a high government leader gives a bitter parting shot. “Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, stood in front of the US Senate and delivered remarks that would have likely gotten him fired if he were not already halfway out the door… he called the Haqqani network a veritable arm of the ISI. (This is the same Adm. Mullen who gave Secretary of State Clinton a free pass on Benghazi. Haqqani: A group that existed in the netherworld between an insurgent group and a criminal cartel, and lived unmolested in Pakistani territory. ISI: Pakistani Intelligence Agency).” |
| Judge Andrew Napolitano is a contributor for Fox news. He is what I would term a “Constitutional Watchdog.” I don’t agree with everything he has to say but he is an expert on the Constitution. Where we disagree is that I think we are at war with terrorists and it is appropriate to try them before a Military Tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. He thinks it is better to try them in our Civil Court System, largely I think because he fears the potential for abuse with an offshore capability to circumvent the protections offered by our constitutional framework. Anyone who sees the abuses taking place under the current administration should have sympathy at least for his arguments. Who would want to give the government any more power than it already has, particularly the Executive Branch? Where many Americans don’t agree with the Judge is that he is glad that Mr. Snowdon made the NSA revelations. He doesn’t go into Snowdon’s motives, which he sees as irrelevant. Again, Judge Napolitano sees these programs as infringing on the constitutional rights of all Americans. He isn’t as concerned about a few terrorists as he is about the assault that is taking place on the fabric of our social structure. Our founding fathers were pretty astute. They knew that putting too much power in the hands of a chief executive was a bad thing. They knew that the law was an important, albeit a rather low standard of human conduct. They set the Supreme Court with watching over the law as it related to our system of government. Then there were the two legislative branches that traditionally worked well, one representing the HAVES and the other the HAVE NOTS. Then they separated church and state because they knew all about religious zealots and persecution. Still, they saw the importance of the morals contained in Christian ethics as laudable standards of conduct that everyone should try and live up to. What should concern all Americans is that when a political party starts mucking around with the Constitution citizens must cry HOLD! As much as the socialists and intellectual elite want to scrap the structure of our society, citizens must cry out ENOUGH! We do not want European Socialism in the United States of America. Fortunately we have a reprieve. It is not the result of the Tea Party or the Republicans but rather the ineptitude of the Democrats. They pooped in their mess kit and the smell could no longer be ignored. The cruise ship of our current administration is dead in the water. The onslaught on our civil liberties and the fire that has burned out of control for the past five years is temporarily contained. The effort to reshape the Constitution with some new form of socialism has come to a temporary halt. If the current administration succeeds in wrecking the economy it could take on a new life but for now the ship of state is dead in the water. Yesterday I saw our chief executive, feet propped against the edge of a conference table trying to look “Presidential” as he gathered his top advisors to debate what to do about Egypt. The image of those seated in the room is still etched in my mind. As he postured and tried to look “Cool” I got the distinct feeling that he was “Creeping” everybody out. Familiarity breeds contempt and the true character of "The Amateur" must have been transparent to those seated about the room. Close to the stage the facade no longer fools anybody and makes the puppets fretful. |
| In 1999 LTC Shaffer was working in Tampa Florida in a program called Stratus Ivy that was part of a larger effort called Able Danger. His mission was to discover “The Global Body of al Qaeda.. and prepare offensive operations options.” To do this… “I used… LIWA and its massive data crunching ability. The idea was to use high-powered software to bore into just about everything: Any data that was available--- and I mean anything. Open-source Internet data, e-mails believed to be terrorist related, non-secret government data, commercial records, information on foreign companies, logs of visitors to mosques, obtained by an outside researcher and much much more.” Thirteen years have passed since Tony Shaffer was involved in this effort… hold that thought. “…LIWA had begun looking at global terrorist infrastructures. Over six months in 1999 it had acquire a vast four-terabyte database… and assembled the scattered pieces of information about al Qaeda into a comprehensive global picture.” Chew on that for a minute. “Its researchers did huge sweeps of the Internet and used highly advanced algorithms to compare and amalgamate data. It was a powerful way to link individuals and organizations and make sense of disparate streams of data. It was like Google on steroids.” Are you beginning to get a picture of what that gigantic new NSA facility in Utah will be involved in? Is this that “Prism” program everybody is whispering about? “Its model was based on targeting methodology developed by J. D. Smith, an analyst for Orion Scientific Systems (a LIWA contractor) who deconstructed every individual involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing into basis data points--- the year they were born, their associates, tribal affiliation, mosque memberships and so on--- and built an algorithm. It was then used to examine immense amounts of publicly available data and identify other potential terrorists by comparing them to the original ’93 World Trade Center terrorists… we looked at their associations with other like individuals… and started to create a map of a worldwide organization and its direct links with al Qaeda leadership.” It was through these efforts that the face of Mohammad Atta first flashed on the DIA’s radar, a year prior to 911. This capability was up and running over a decade ago. Think about the enhancements since then. If a political appointee can set a cell at the IRS to achieve a partisan political purpose, think about the mischief this NSA capability could cause? The only difference between the NSA and the IRS is that the NSA can hide any abuse under a security blanket. We already see this happening in the cloaking of the missing hours when the President was “Disengaged” the night of Benghazi. “Honorable” men and women are enabling the most disingenuous cover-up in history at the very highest levels of government. What we are creating is a tool that is a double-edged sword. With the one edge it can protect us, while with the other, cut the juglar of our Democracy. How long can we flounder in a sea of Susan Rice and Lois Learner look alikes? Source: Operation Dark Heart, Anthony Shaffer, Chapter 14 Able Danger, Pages164-169. |
| One thing about IGs and Investigatory Committees is that they don’t bite the hand that feeds them. An IG works for a Commander or a Director of a large federal bureaucracy. Both do a fairly good job of getting to the facts as long as they don’t threaten the Commander, Director or Appointing Authority. When those at the top feel threatened by a situation they set the IG to investigating or appoint a special fact finding committee to “Get to the Bottom of things.” What this translates to is that if the matter under investigation can be contained at mid-management levels or below, then the results usually provide some useful insights. However, when the scandal points to or embarrasses those at the top that is when the old Amoeba Trick kicks in. That is when the investigators begin to weasel around, skirting the truth and leading the trail in another direction. This is especially true when the process is conducted behind "Closed Doors." We saw a great example of this during the Benghazi scandal when the Appointing Authority at the State Department was not even questioned. Then there were the infamous "Talking Points." It wasn’t that they lied but rather that when it looked like a lead might threaten the boss they steered the process away, moved around or pushed off on a tangent. It's a world of JELLO where anything goes in protecting a patron. In his book Operation Dark Heart, LTC Shaffer was naive to believe that the special committee investigating 911 was seriously bent on discovering the truth. Sure they would report a bunch of benign findings but the last thing they wanted to uncover was revelation that showed the mistakes made at top levels of government. When Shaffer testified the Chief Investigators politely thanked him and quietly reported to his higher ups the testimony he'd provided. Can you imagine the Bombshell that would have followed had it been known that the DIA knew about Mohammad Atta a year prior to 911? The lesson learned is that only a fool would trust an IG or an Investigatory Committee with testimony where the Commander, Director or Appointing authority would be open to embarrassment, second guessing or ridicule. When it comes to the top tiers of leadership these investigatory instruments are tools more for misdirection than ones designed to uncover the truth. This is why Mr. George's report at the IRS was such an anomaly and took everybody by surprise. One of the first lessons a top Bureaucrat learns is never appoint a person to such a position, whose personal loyalty is not tied to the apron strings of the boss. The type of character who makes a good IG or Special Committee chief is someone with a flexible and pragmatic morality, and understands The Old Amoeba Trick. |
| Church and State Our Republic is a great deal more fragile than I think we realize. What we are seeing in Egypt, where a religious zealot won by a narrow margin and began acting like a tyrant should send a shiver down the spine of most Americans. The military intervened as riots took the country to the brink of Civil War. A secular majority arose in opposition, the President was removed and an interim government set in place. There is a fine line between our religious beliefs and the notion that religious zealots are suited to govern. In the Methodist Church I have seen the ranks of church leadership infiltrated by “Do Gooders” who see the institution as an instrument to further their political and social agendas. Our religious institutions have a mission, which is to steward the moral growth and development of those who believe. It is that basic sense of morality, taught in the scriptures that guide us in our daily lives in the ongoing struggle to be decent human beings. As long as the church sticks to this important task and does not allow itself to become politicalized it serves an important good. However like all goods it is corruptible and easily used for a purpose it was never intended or suited for. Our country was built upon a separation of church and state. While separate and vital to each other they are like water and vinegar. On the one hand the Church teaches and fosters a philosophy for how to lead a decent life. On the other it is not an institution intended to lead social enterprise. The church instills guidelines for human behavior and believers take these ideals and apply them to the imperfect world of collective social enterprise. Neither Government nor Church can exist independently however, neither is the substitute for the other. When liberals scoff at the spirit like it’s a fairy tale they are seeing the world for what it isn’t rather than what is. The human spirit is amorphous. It is immeasurable. Yet from the beginning mankind has realized its presence. Indeed the very survival of corporate endeavor invoked the spirit in the constant struggle to survive the rigors of day-to-day life. Virtually every civilization had or has an institution that venerates the spirit. The truth of its existence is wired into our DNA and in times of great suffering an awareness of the divine sweeps over us and becomes illuminated. I feel sorry for those who have never experienced the warm glow of a religious experience as we at last come to the end of excuse and quit trying to make deals with a power that rules the universe. However, believing in something beyond us is more than about comfort, peace of mind and tranquility. It is about discipline and training our rebellious natures to use the inclination of a restless spirit to do good in the world that surrounds us. For those who think Christ and Santa Clause are one in the same, the question becomes, if you don’t believe in the spirit than what do you believe in. Before we trash an imperfect and somewhat fanciful doctrine, one that guides our lives and feeds the humanity inside, think about what we are going to replace it with. If it doesn’t answer all our questions it does provide a moral compass and tests for understanding the difference between right and wrong. Look around and see the consequences of what happens when a basic sense of decency is replaced by a “Feel Good” set of personal or corporate values. |
| Last night I saw the Fox News Special, Behind the Smokescreen Surrounding Benghazi. On the one hand I have to give the FOX network credit for keeping the story alive. On the other there was little more than a whisper of where the President was when all this was going on. The entire program dealt with the false scent leading away from where the President was that night between about 5 O’clock when he got a “Heads Up” from the SECDEF and 4 O’clock the next morning when we see him on the phone with the Secretary of State. Anybody who wants to know the character of our Chief Executive can read the book, “The Amateur.” Even his most ardent past supporters see a serious liability. However, of all the shortcomings, no ill-conceived action of this current Administration can top being “Disengaged” that fateful night. It will go down in history as the biggest betrayal of public trust in the history of the Republic. Assume a best-case scenario. After hearing an update at 5 O’clock, from the SECDEF, he went back to the White House, had dinner, went to sleep and didn’t wake up until the next morning. Assume that before he departed he made it clear that American forcers were not to be deployed into Libya without his express approval. Since the facts are being withheld for political reasons, the American People are justified in making these generous assumptions. The whisper of truth in last Nights Special came in the following words. “There were a number of power levers, at the president's disposal, that never got pulled.” Obviously, the reason they never got pulled was because he wasn't around to pull them. The President was “Disengaged.” So while the events played, out everybody stood around doing nothing, paralyzed and unable to take action. As least two centers of the National Command Authority filled with high paid talent, stood motionless waiting for someone to order them into action. That someone never materialized. The President had a date with destiny and never showed up. Most everything that has happened since that night is tied to our Chief Executive, being asleep at the switch. Never mind the Ambassador and three Americans who were killed. Instead, visualize a missing Chief Executive, with all the options in his pocked, unavailable to execute the duties of his office. If this wasn’t bad enough it is possible that concurrently, matters spun up out of control as the National Command Authority struggled desperately to find the missing President and protocols were set in motion that elevated the Nation’s alert posture. This is probably the, HUGE DARK SECRET. For the President it is a political embarrassment but for National Security it's a whole lot more. How else is it explained why the full powers of government have circled the wagons to conceal what happened during those missing hours? This brings us back to the secrecy issue. A case can certainly be made for concealing programs designed to keep Americans safe. However, when the custodians of these programs are threatened and they make an unwarranted use of the Classification System, something is wrong. We saw in the FOX Special a pathetic performance by the SECDEF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the SOCOM Commander trying to hide what happened. To the nation’s detriment they have done a pretty good job with the Command side of the equation letting the press run with the State Department Component. FOX news is barking up the wrong tree. This whole cover-up squanders the trust equity that government has with the American people. Our leaders, military and civilian, are complicit in hiding the truth from those they are sworn to serve. |
My experience is that disaster always comes from left field. This is to say that the things we fear most, those we anticipate, prepare for and try to prevent, never happen. What does happen is something totally unexpected and unanticipated. That I believe is what will rear up in opposition to the Benghazi cover-up. The revelation will come from out of Left Field. Most writers have a muse. A muse is a voice that does not originate from inside a person but which wafts past and the writer follows the scent like a hound, scribbling madly. I think of it as the immortal voice of the human spirit that can’t be extinguished. It is the source of all religion, a voice of conscience, and an awareness that our evolution is not something that happened by accident or evolved in some form of timeless chaos. Sometimes that voice comes in a dream, at others in a blinding flash or revelation and at still others in a whisper. Lately I have been thinking about Mr. Snowdon and my first thought is outrage that someone in his position could leak such sensitive information. Then I was reminded of the indignation I felt towards Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. Whispers, whispers, whispers. My dad once told me that I was too dumb to lie and should stick to the truth for the right reasons as well as the wrong. I think the wisdom of such thinking is being applied to the cover-up. In football they have the miss- direction play. The way it works is that an offense shows the flow going in one direction and the running back hides the ball and breaks against the grain. This is a clever and effective technique because it uses some truth to conceal a whole lot more. I am sure that those in the highest branches of government have managed to convince themselves that the cover-up is necessary. We all have a justification mechanism. That doesn’t make the lie any less deceitful. In Sunday school we were taught that lying is a bad thing. In Vietnam I tried to do the right thing and behave with honor and most would feel no shame for what I did. However, it bothers me because men died, men who were not so different from me, except for being on the wrong side of the ball. At the time I brushed my actions aside with the ease of a sociopath, but as the years passed reassurances of the ends justifying the means began holding less and less water. The right reason for abandoning this cover-up is because it immoral. The wrong reason is that it’s an overburdened boat, being rowed upstream. Those involved might be performing like superstars but the truth is they’re acting like Lois Learner. Nobody’s watching left field where the unexpected is going to rear its ugly head. |
| Night of Infamy As I have said in many past blogs there has been a cover up of what happened the night Benghazi took place. Everybody seems to be missing the point. While the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans was bad, something much worse was going on while the president was disengaged. Think about it. What is so bad about the President being briefed early in the evening, going home, going to sleep and finding out the following morning what happened? What is so bad is that while he was "asleep" some things happened that had nothing to do with Benghazi and everything to do with our National Command Authority. The facts strongly suggest that as Bengahzi was unfolding the Nation’s alert posture got spun up and what followed was an unprogrammed test of our strategic readiness. That is what was so bad and that is what our government is probably trying to cover up. For the life of me I can’t see why the hour by hour events can't shown (as they were in the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden) documenting what happened during the hours the President’s whereabouts can’t be accounted for. If he was home and asleep, what is so terrible about that? Unless of course there was something else going on that is a game changer for the President. Why can’t the Administration come clean and simply release the logs and names of the players and show what happened during the period he was allegedly asleep at the switch? The reason why this isn’t going to happen is because bad things took place that developed as a consequence of what was happening in Libya, so bad they could spell a coronary to a White House already beset with scandals. What happened that night of Infamy set in motion a cover-up that has opened one can of worms after another. The Rosen telephone records, the AP telephone records, computer hacking into even the darling media networks and most recently the NSA “Revelations” are all linked to that night and the Administrations paranoia to keep secret what really happened. The kettle continues to simmer and shake on the stove long after being shoved onto the back burner. Despite ample time for things to cool, the fire-storms continue to spin off showing the power inside the pressure cooker, the Administration is still desperately trying to keep a lid on. Well, the cover up seems to be working. As time passes the urgency of discovering something we need to know, something that can indeed hurt us, something every American is entitled to know, seems to be fading. Top leaders in the Nation’s Command Authority are complicit and do a great disservice to their nation in helping sweep the whole embarrassing matter under the rug. Don't you think that if you almost got incinerated, it's something you might want to know about? |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
Love it! Especially the safety measures for us homo sapiens...
