The Petraeus/Broadwell Affair & Benghazi Massacre Cover-up

Many are asking, "So...the Petraeus scandal...why now?"  That is the ultimate question swirling around the way to obvious connection between the Petraeus/Broadwell affair and the Benghazi massacre cover-up.

UPDATE @ 5:38 p.m. PT

:

Charles Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ – “The Sword Was Lowered on Election Day”

nicedeb at Nice Deb - 13 minutes ago

Excerpt:

While many pundits on the right have been whispering that blackmail may have been involved in the Petraeus scandal, Charles Krauthammer, Tuesday on Fox News’s Special Report didn’t mince words, saying what everyone with working brain cells is thinking: “Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe,” he said.
Transcript via Newsbusters:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?

Watch the video at Newsbusters.

While many pundits on the right have been whispering that blackmail may have been involved in the Petraeus scandal, Charles Krauthammer, Tuesday on Fox News’s Special Report didn’t mince words, saying what everyone with working brain cells is thinking: “Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election [...]

As I watched a segment on Fox News earlier today on the potential connection between these two scandals, I wished that I was a body language expert.  Gemu Green blinked profusely throughout the segment and with a straight face, out rightly claimed that there was no connection between the two scandals.  In other words...the typical liberal leftist lunatic way of saying...move on...nothing to see here folks!

Now, the scandal widens with General John Allen under investigation.

Lawmakers question why they weren't told of Petraeus probe, yet the General Allen alleged scandal came out immediately.

What is wrong with this picture?

I tried to watch another cable station while their panel discussed the Petraeus scandal last night, but I fell asleep. The portion that I did watch did not even discuss a possible connection between Benghazi and the Petraeus scandal. Why not? Answer: Because they don't care about the truth.  They want to protect BHO - no matter what.

This morning, Debbie Wasserman Schultz practically fell all over herself denying that there even COULD be any connection between the two scandals!  I'm just waiting to here a liberal left lunatic claim "It's Bush's fault!"  You know it's coming...

They won't follow the evidence to wherever it might lead - they will just talk about the Petraeus "sex" scandal. The media of mass deception runs with a sex scandal, but not the much more important Benghazi massacre cover-up? Makes us want to say  Hmmm.....

This morning, I read on WND that the video of Paula Broadwell speaking at a university (and possibly spilling some secret CIA information in the process) was removed from You Tube.  You can still view it HERE. Great article and comments there, as well.

So...what exactly in that video got the BADministration all in a tizzy?  I think this commenter has the answer:

Sod Buster                     

“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military."

C-in-C’s In Extremis Force = Commander In Chief In Extremis Force. This implies that these forces are at the beck and call of the POTUS and if they were withelf from Benghazi then it was mr. bo-jangles who ordered them to stand down.

Broadwells' loose lips are bimbo eruption of the highest magnitude because they contradict mr. bo-jangles narrative about Benghazi.

I expect Broadwell will continue to be savaged, dis-credited and destroyed in order to protect the obamateur and to serve as a message to any other folks who might be contemplating, now or in the future, challenging the veRATsity of b o.

Broadwell's comment that the annex in Libya was being used to hold prisoners must have been a CIA secret that the BADministration did not want to come out.  I think that it will get A LOT of attention during the upcoming hearings. 

It has been revealed that the Petraeus/Broadwell affair (which ended four months ago) was an "open secret," meaning that apparently, no one cared about it for quite some time.  So...why now?  And why was this information (if it was SO important) kept secret before the election, revealed to the general public two days after the election and four days before Petraeus would have appeared before Congress in the Benghazi hearings?  If this doesn't smell like a cover-up to readers, you must have your head in the sand!

Did the FBI sit on the Petraeus story to protect the president?

Answer:  OF COURSE THEY DID!  If this came out before the election (just like the Iran drone strike that was not reported before election) it may have had a negative affect upon BHO's vote count.  On the other hand...maybe not.  The fix was in with all of the voter fraud that went on.

So, what does the revelation of this sex scandal being splattered all across the media of mass deception accomplish? Now it apparently allows Petraeus and Secretary Clinton to skip the Benghazi hearing?

Here's an accurate comment about it all:

koinea 1 comment

DIVERSION FROM...BENGHAZI. The General has become the fall guy for the Government thugs playing covert action gone bad, because those in charge are pitifully inadequate!!!.
 

And another:

 joanc                     

There is something about her that bothers me.  Is it because she was setting the General up for some one or for some reason?   It has already boosted the sale of her book on Petraeus, although I don't know who would purchase it.  Not because of him, but because of the way it seemed to draw attention to their affair, as if it were done purposely.    She is no dummy, so isn't it strange that she inadvertently gave info in a speech to her former college in Denver about Benghazi and their holding of prisoners, which was denied by the CIA, but later was admitted by them to be true.  She was trained at West Point and has an impressive educational background, and should have been aware of loose lips and how they can sink a General.  She also had to be aware that the sending of threatening e-mails to Mrs Kelly, a friend of the Petraeus family would set up smoke signals, even though she tried to cover them by using dummy accounts.  A teenager would know that those accounts can be traced, so what was her true motive??  The whole thing stinks.  I feel sorry for the General, his wife and their children.  Mrs Broadwell not only hurt a good man but she betrayed her husband and her two young children.   General Petraeus made a big mistake, but we know many others in DC are guilty of that and worse.
 

Ultimately, the American people deserve to know the truth about the Benghazi massacre, cover-up and scandal!!

Hat tips to all links.

*******
UPDATE!

More on this topic:

Jihad Watch

Robert Spencer: David Petraeus and the New Style of American Politics - At PJ Media this morning I discuss the ill new wind blowing in American politics. This whole episode is reminiscent of the fate of Hitler’s Minister of War...

 

*******

 

The JAG HUNTER

OBAMA’S TREASON: US Was Holding Prisoners at Benghazi Annex - MORE

 

*******

 

Hot Air » Top Picks

ABC: Petraeus conducted investigation in Benghazi after attack - Hmmm.

 

*******

 

Frugal Café Blog Zone

BenghaziGate: Sec of State Hillary Clinton Too Busy for US House Hearing on Benghazi, Will Be in Australia with Entourage - &nbps; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is too busy to attend the House hearing next week on the Benghazi massacre that left four Americans brutally murdered...

 

*******

 

The Mad Jewess With Breaking News By Donna Spellbound

Obama Machine Using Petraeus & Mistress (Sex Scandal) To Take Eyes Off Benghazi Massacre

 

*******

 

The Radio Patriot » Just one question, Mr. Rove

Turning up the heat on Gen. Petraeus - “This is The Night of the Long Knives. The Obama Putsch regime is consolidating power and is purging the flag … Continue reading »

 

*******

 

Northeast Intelligence Network

Sex, lies and Obama Ben Ghazi - A Shakespearean tragedy Comment on this article at Canada Free Press By Douglas J. Hagmann 13 November 2012: Sex, trysts and indiscretions. Nothing mor...

 

*******

 

Riehl World View

Between 20k – 30k “potentially inappropriate” e-mails: Scandal probe ensnares Gen. John R. Allen, commander of U.S., NATO troops in Afghanistan - This thing keeps getting better and better, or worse and worse, depending upon how one looks at it. ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT — The FBI probe into...

 

*******

 

Impeach Obama Campaign

Video: Petraeus Mistress: Benghazi Cover-up About Secret CIA Prison - The alleged mistress of CIA Director David H. Petraeus threw a wrench into the Obama administration machinations with some new information about the Benghazi...

 

*******

 

 

Caroline B. Glick: A time for courage, and action

Caroline B. Glick: A time for courage, and action

Wow!!  What an article!  It is certainly depressing to realize the coming disaster of four more years of BHO.  However,  at the same time the article ends up vindicating what the TEA Party Patriots have always opposed - from day one - about BHO and what he and his Socialist/Communist/Islamo-fascist cohorts have imposed upon Americans since 2009. 

As Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney so accurately stated regarding the "Forward" campaign slogan of BHO, it was more accurate to entitle it as being "Forewarned."  Caroline B. Glick masterfully explains what Governor Romney meant by that tweaked title.  Her essay is confirmation of what Conservatives have warned about BHO and his ilk over the past four years and the sad facts of the combined danger and grief we are headed into with the terribly unfortunate re-election of BHO.

Can't say we TEA Party Patriots and Conservatives didn't warn you.

~  Christine

*******

Click on the link above to read the entire article.  But here is an excerpt:

All of this is important because for the past four years, most Republicans, and most non-leftists throughout the world had been hoping that the Obama years would be an aberration. They had hoped and trusted that he would be a one-term president. All the policies he enacted during that term, on domestic and foreign policy alike would be reversed by his Republican successor, elected by voters who understood they had been taken in by a huckster in 2008. The US economy — the anchor of US power and the engine of the international financial system — would come roaring back.

 

In international affairs, the US would reverse course. It would stop supporting the rise of its enemies from the Middle East to Asia to Latin America. It would embrace its allies. The former would be weakened. The latter would be secured and strengthened. America would be safe and defended.

  

Alas, apparently it could not be. The American spirit has been overwhelmed by the European model of social democracy at home and appeasement and treachery abroad.

 

  But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.

 

Nationalized health care will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.

 

College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods.

 

Then there are the consequences of Obama's foreign policies. The attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi exposed the failure of his strategy of appeasing jihadists and had the potential to sink his presidency by turning suburban voters against him in places like Pennsylvania. But lucky for him, the Benghazi debacle was small enough for the media to hide from the electorate.

 

Sure a US ambassador and three others were murdered. But four is not a very large number. And it was over in a day. It will be harder for Obama to contain the damage of his foreign policy when Iran gets nuclear weapons and begins molesting US shipping in the Persian Gulf as gas prices rise to $10 a gallon.

 

It will be harder for Obama to hide the effect of his foreign policy when American tourists in Egypt are massacred or held hostage and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government demands the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in exchange for intervention. 

 

It will be harder for Obama to hide the dangers of his foreign policy when the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan and Al Qaida rebuilds its training camps. It will be harder for Obama to blame his failure on hapless American filmmakers when Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is controlled by a Taliban-aligned government that seeks a nuclear war with India. It will be harder for Obama to protect America with a gutted, demoralized military, demobilized under his command. 

 

Rather than contend with these calamities, Obama and his statist, pro-Islamist supporters and advisors will blame their critics. Just as they blamed — and jailed — an American filmmaker for Ambassador Stevens' murder, so they will blame overworked doctors, struggling hospital administrators, "partisan" lawmakers and "Islamophobic, neoconservative warmongers," for the domestic decline and international mayhem Obama's policies will necessarily cause.

With the critical election lost, Republicans have a very hard and thankless task before them. They have to do the hard work of opposing his policies with dwindling resources. They have the job of energizing, inspiring and expanding a base that is demoralized. They have the job of explaining to wavering citizens why the Republican alternative puts America on the right track. 

 

Conservatives need to prepare the ground for their return to power. They need to make the arguments for ending the welfare state. They need to make the arguments for destroying the ascendant — politically savvy — forces of jihad at home and abroad. They need to argue against defense cuts even as the Obama-appointed Joint Chiefs of Staff abandon strategic reason for personal promotions.

[Our] side suffered a massive loss on Tuesday.  But as long as we keep our minds and hearts focused on the fundamental goodness and truth that guide our path, we will not be defeated. We will endure, persevere and in due course, we will be vindicated.
 

Hat Tip:

Jewish World Review

*******

In other news, please see this important article:

Western Journalism: The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned

*******

Tonight's Debate

Millions of voters will most likely watch the debate tonight.  I wonder if Obama will change his demeanor from the wimpy, lackluster, dull, un-impressive, and "would not look Governor Romney [or America!] in the eye" disastrous performance into a follow-up of Joe Biden's bully-ish, lying,  attack and blame type of debate?  He certainly can't run on his awful record!!  We soon will know what the "new strategy" will be for Obama.

I just hope that some of the issues that the media of mass deception doesn't want to cover come up so that Governor Romney can continue to inform the American people about what a DISASTER this BADministration has really been!

Topics like:

Re: Hillary Taking the Blame on Benghazi – Who Threw Who Under The Bus?

nicedeb at Nice Deb - 15 minutes ago

So Hillary Clinton finally decided to take responsibility for the lack of security that led to the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, on September 11: “I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a [...]

 

*******

 

ADMINISTRATION TURNED DOWN REQUESTS FOR MORE SECURITY IN LIBYA: Report says Obama skips 62% of his daily intel briefings

joelcrosenberg at Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog - 22 minutes ago

I have to say I am appalled by the terrorist attacks on September 11th in Benghazi, Libya, that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans. And I’m outraged that President Obama and senior administration officials continue to say they don’t really know what happened or why even though very disturbing facts are coming to light day [...]

 

*******

 

To Hell with the Law; Re-Election Is More Important

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

This upcoming "sequestration" debacle is just the latest proof that Barack Obama will happily break the law to ensure his own job security. more »

Military Families are Outing Obama

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

American military and State Department families that have lost their sons in the war against Islamic jihadis are outing President Obama for playing politics with the lives (and deaths) of their sons. more »

Obama 'Inherited' Only Obama

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

The notion that our fearless young president innocently inherited a mess of biblical proportions is just not correct. Neither is the idea that we are in a recovery that is merely too weak to justify re-election. more »

The Alienator-in-Chief

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

It can be hard to figure out the chameleon-like Obama. He talks a good game, but underneath you know he's up to something else entirely different from what he's saying, and it's not good. more »

Let's Talk About Lies

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

Romney needs to show that he hasn't lied, but that Obama has. more »

What Not to Wear: Presidential Edition

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

Why a Christian president of the United States would wear a ring inscribed with the Islamic Shahada every day for the past thirty or so years should be the fashion question of this election season. more »

The Great Loss of What It Means to Be an American

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

Our rich heritage of self-reliance and hard work are also under attack by Barack Obama. But we are far greater than how he sees us. more »

All the President's Women and Men

at American Thinker - 10 hours ago

Among the key responsibilities of a president is choosing highly capable officials to steer the nation's course wisely. President Obama has failed in this duty.

 

*******
Benghazi-Gate Lies and Cover-up

Christinewjc at Talk Wisdom - 1 day ago

Unfortunately, for America, there are people who are just unwilling to make the connections that display the hard truth regarding the ObaMARXIST BADministration's handling of Benghazi-gate. Of course, we cannot rely on the media of mass deception. Most (except for Fox News at a certain extent) continue to accept and repeat (or hide under their desks) the mantra of lies spewed out by the ObamaBorg Bots that a video that made fun of Muslims and the religion of Islam was the cause of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Stevens, two Navy Seals, and an...

*******

Forbes, CNN destroy Obama administration’s Benghazi lie

Bryan Jacoutot at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - 1 day ago

Forbes contributor, Larry Bell, released an article late last night entitled, “Pants On Fire: Obama Administration Scrambles for Cover as Benghazi Lie Explodes.” The article, drawing on reports from CNN, reveals a picture the Obama administration is desperately trying to sweep under the rug. President Obama’s foreign policy is an absolute disaster. Moreover, the things [...]

 

*******

Social Justice is a Proven Failure... and So Is Obama

at American Thinker - 1 day ago

The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of Americans generally do not remain in either the "poor" income class or the "rich." more »

Al Qaida strikes America; America denies reality

at American Thinker - 1 day ago

Our abject surrender to a medieval ideology rooted in the 7th century is not just a mistake. It is sabotage. more »

The Blame Game

at American Thinker - 1 day ago

The Obama administration keeps saying they killed Osama Bin Laden, but unfortunately, Benghazi shows that they did not kill Al Qaeda.

 

 

Hat tips to all links.

More Lies From Obama via S. Rice & Lapdog Media

As I watched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on Fox News Sunday and blatantly spewed lies in her interview with Chris Wallace, I couldn't help coming up with some choice words to describe these arrogant, consummate LIARS! It's unconscionable how easily and constantly THEY ALL LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

While attempting to protect the lousy foreign policies of the Obummer Administration, Rice was guilty of spinning like a top the TRUTH about the attacks and killings of 4 Americans at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the 11TH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11/01! Several descriptions about this this clueless leftie tool of the ObamaBorg brigade came to my mind. However, Congressman (and retired, decorated Lt. Colonel), Allen West, had some accurate adjectives to share about Rice on Judge Jeanine Pirro's show:



How unfortunate that this seemingly nice woman was probably forced to go out there and make an absolute fool of herself in order to keep criticism about Obama's failed policies from additional scrutiny!

When the Libyan leader tells Obambi that it was a planned attack, you know that the administration is totally guilty of LYING - ONCE AGAIN - TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

See: Obama administration, Libyan president clash over explanation on consulate strike.

Hat Tips to all links.

*******

P.S.  Regarding the video that made fun of Muslims.  Think about this.  How many protesters (who are all mostly very poor and don't have computer access!!) do you think even viewed that video???  In actuality, the LYING PRONOUNCEMENT by the BHO regime probably gave more publicity (and thus stirred up more violence!!) about the video than before the attack and tragically planned killings that happened in Benghazi!

AMERICA....WAKE UP!!!  THE OBAMARXIST REGIME IS LYING TO YOU!!!!

Why Is Obama Going to India? [Update]

Did some brief research into the reason why Obama and a huge entourage (with expenses estimated to cost 200 million) is traveling to India. The first link contains a blog post with opinions about it. The second link is an article I found via the first link, and I have copied it in full here.

It is ironic to note that the author of the second article (posted in its entirety below) wants to stop NATO and is apparently against the "global military structure."

Sikhnet.com: Why Obama is Probably Going to India In the First Place.

Blog From Middle East

India: U.S. Completes Global Military Structure



Stop NATO , September 12, 2010


A September 8 report by a leading Canadian newspaper cited the Indian branch of the Deloitte consulting firm estimating the world’s second most populous nation plans to spend as much as $80 billion for its defense sector in the next five years.

It quoted an Indian journalist, Rahul Bedi, a contributor to Jane’s Defence Weekly, as stating "No one else is buying like India." [1]

Earlier this year the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) disclosed that India had become the world’s second-largest importer of weapons from 2005-2009, "importing 7% of the world’s arms exports." Only China imported more weaponry, though that nation is slated to purchase less foreign arms, both aggregate and percentile, in the coming years and the largest foreign supplier of its weapons is a non-Western country, Russia.

During the five-year period mentioned above, Indian arms imports more than doubled from $1.04 billion in 2005 to $2.2 billion in 2009. Over the past 20 years Russia has been far and away the main provider of arms to India, as the Soviet Union had been in previous decades, though "The United States, currently India’s sixth-biggest arms supplier, seems likely to leapfrog to second position once New Delhi starts paying for a series of recent and ongoing acquisitions." [2]

Those contracts include $1.1 billion for C-130J Super Hercules transport planes, $2.4 billion for Globemaster airlifters and $2 billion for P-8I long-range maritime patrol aircraft. (A version of Boeing’s Poseidon reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare Multimission Maritime Aircraft modified for Indian use.)

Reports in both the Russian and Chinese press speculate that when U.S. President Barack Obama visits India in November he "may secure $5 billion worth of arms sales," a deal that "would make the US replace Russia as India’s biggest arms supplier" and "help India curb China’s rise." [3]

The unprecedented weapons transactions could include "Patriot air defence batteries and Boeing mid-air refueling tankers.

"Observers point out that the role of India’s biggest arms supplier is shifting from Russia to the United States." [4]

A Chinese news source added that Washington will also supply New Delhi with howitzers and that "the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion…."

The Economic Times of India disclosed in July that "talks are underway between Indian and US officials over a deal to sell 10 Boeing C-17 [Globemaster III] military transport aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF)."

Wang Mingzhi, a military strategist at the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Command College, warned "once India gets the C-17 transport aircraft, the mobility of its forces stationed along the border with China will be improved." [5]

The C-17 carries a payload of 164,900 pounds for 2,400 miles and 100,300 pounds for 4,000 miles without refueling.

In late August the U.S. signed a $170 million deal to supply India with 24 Harpoon Block II advanced air-to-surface anti-ship missiles.

This February the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Obama administration, with a renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific region, intends to massively increase arms sales to both India and its nuclear rival Pakistan. U.S. military sales to Pakistan have risen to $3 billion a year and are expected to nearly double in 2011.

As for its neighbor, "India is one of the largest buyers of foreign-made munitions, with a long shopping list which includes warships, fighter jets, tanks and other weapons. Its defense budget is $30 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, a 70% increase from five years ago." [6]

In January U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited India and later in the month Washington secured a deal to sell India 145 U.S. howitzers for $647 million.

"The Obama administration is trying to persuade New Delhi to buy American jet fighters instead [of Russian ones], a shift White House officials say would lead to closer military and political relations between India and the U.S. It would also be a bonanza for U.S. defense contractors, and [the White House] has dispatched senior officials such as Mr. Gates to New Delhi to deliver the message that Washington hopes India will choose American defense firms for major purchases in the years ahead."

The Wall Street Journal quoted Tom Captain, vice chairman and Global and U.S. Aerospace & Defense director at Deloitte headquarters in New York, as claiming "For 2010 and 2011, India could well be the most important market in the world for defense contractors looking to make foreign military sales," where Russian equipment accounts for about 70 percent of that currently in use.

Referring to India’s plans to spend $10 billion for 126 multirole combat aircraft, Captain added: "That’s the biggest deal in the world right now. If it goes to an American firm, that would be the final nail in the coffin in terms of India shifting its allegiance from Russia to the U.S." [7]

Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen was in the Indian capital on July 22-23 and met with Defence Minister AK Antony, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik and other military leaders. As a local news agency divulged, "Mullen’s visit comes at a time when both sides are looking at expanding defence cooperation across a swathe of areas.

"The visit also coincides with intensified lobbying for the $10 billion contract for 126 fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF)." [8]

The White House is negotiating new export control agreements with India to assist American arms firms to sell more high-technology weapons to the Asian nation.

At the top of the list of U.S. objectives in expanding military ties with India are replacing Russia as the country’s main arms supplier and the concomitant supplanting of Russian political influence, further tightening an Asian NATO around China [9] and weakening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [10], all to ensure unimpeded American presence and domination in Eurasia.

After the end of the Cold War and the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon was given free rein to operate worldwide, including in parts of the planet hitherto inaccessible to U.S. troops and bases.

U.S. European Command, through the expansion of NATO membership and graduated partnership programs, has secured the Defense Department a prevalent role in almost all of Europe and the South Caucasus.

Central Command has extended its role from the Middle East to Central Asia and further into South Asia and the Indian Ocean.

On October 1, 2002 U.S. Northern Command was established to oversee North America from Mexico’s southern border to the Arctic Ocean. Six years later U.S. Africa Command was launched to subordinate 53 nations on and off the coasts of the continent to American military and geopolitical strategy.

In the past decade the Pentagon has deployed troops, military equipment and ordnance – in some instances missiles – to new locations in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region, the Middle East including the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, Central and South Asia, Northeast Africa and South America.

The final frontier is Asia from China to Iran, with those parts of it not covered by Central Command assigned to U.S. Pacific Command, the largest overseas military structure in the world. Its area of responsibility takes in India, China and 60 percent of the population of the Earth.

In the 1990s so-called neoconservatives and realists alike from Paul Wolfowitz to Zbigniew Brzezinski triumphed in the emergence of the U.S. as the first, uncontested and only international superpower – what its current head of state Barack Obama called the world’s sole military superpower in Oslo last December – and crafted plans to continue that unparalleled role into the indefinite future. What they agreed on was the need to guarantee that no other nation or group of nations rose to challenge American global supremacy, either on an international or a regional basis.

By regional was understood any part of the world. The most likely rivals would arise in Eurasia, the American geopoliticians warned. The ultimate nightmare for the imperial strategists was some version of what former Russian prime and foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov promoted as a strategic triangle of Russia, China and India.

An Indian commentary of approximately ten years ago described the U.S. counter-strategy as a policy of cultivating closer state-to-state relations with every nation in the world than any of those countries have with any other state, even their neighbors.

Thus the U.S. is arming India and Pakistan, regional military rivals possessing nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, as it is deepening defense ties with other nations on both sides of local conflicts and disputes: Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, Greece and Turkey over Cyprus and the skies over the Aegean Sea, Croatia and Slovenia over the Adriatic coast, Serbia and Kosovo over the latter, recognized by almost two-thirds of United Nation member states as a province of the former, and so on.

As the American corporate consultant quoted earlier pointed out, the best way of transforming the foreign policy orientation of other countries and subordinating them to Washington’s global political agenda is by penetrating and gaining control over their armed forces.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Africa Command alone have provided the Pentagon mechanisms for initiating and consolidating bilateral military ties with over 100 of the world’s 192 nations (in the UN). NATO and AFRICOM have given the Pentagon a continent apiece. That is in addition to other, frequently older, military client states in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.

By supplying arms to those nations and eliminating traditional rivals for that role, Washington is laying the groundwork for integrating most every country in the world into its military network. Weapons sales are followed by instruction, maintenance, upgrade and field training agreements, with U.S. military personnel assigned to the purchasing nations.

Regional and other multinational air, naval, interceptor missile, armored and ground combat exercises and war games are held to test weapons in live-fire and other maneuvers and to provide the U.S. opportunities for simulated warfare against potential rivals’ equipment, tactics and warfighting doctrine.

Pilots, soldiers, marines and sailors, including special forces, from military client nations are provided training in their own countries, in the U.S. and in third countries to ensure weapons, deployment, command, communication and combat interoperability with the Pentagon for global missions.

This July the Reuters news agency reported that U.S. arms sales abroad could surge from $37.8 billion to $50 billion next year, an increase of almost one-third.

Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency – in charge of international financial and technical assistance, training and services and other military-to-military contacts – estimated a year ago "that weapons sales could reach a record $50 billion this year." [11]

He added that U.S. arms sales have expanded from $8 billion ten years ago to $37.8 for the fiscal year ending this September 30 "and they are likely to continue growing in coming years…."

"Among the biggest potential arms deals on the table now are huge fighter jet competitions in India and Brazil, various modernization programs for Saudi Arabia, and continuing support for arms sales to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon."

Wieringa was also cited applauding "a drive by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other departments to reform cumbersome U.S. export laws," thus opening the floodgates for U.S. weapons sales throughout the world. [12]

Four years ago the New York Times documented that "A total of $21 billion in arms sales agreements were signed from September 2005 to September 2006, compared with $10.6 billion in the previous year," according to Pentagon data. [13]

Nations that had never purchased American weaponry before and that only had negligible armed forces now offer lucrative prospects for American arms manufacturers. India is preeminent in the first category.

The weapons manufacturers’ wares are produced for – deadly – use and not for simple display, deterrence and (dubious) prestige.

Weapons sales are promoted through international arms shows and exhibitions, but more so through actual demonstrations. War games suit that purpose, but war itself does it to a greater degree.

The U.S. offered the world large-scale military hardware expositions in the three wars it launched in less than four years: Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

The recent announcement that the U.S. will supply Saudi Arabia with a staggering $80 billion worth of arms in the next few years is paralleled by its plans to become India’s main arms provider.

Weapons transactions are inextricably connected with overall military integration, and since 2002 – immediately following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the Pentagon and its NATO allies moving into new military bases in that country, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – Washington began regular (annual) air, sea and land maneuvers with India of ever-increasing scope and intensity.

Last October 12-29 the U.S. Army participated in the latest and largest of Yudh Abhyas ("training for war") war games held since 2004 with its Indian counterpart. Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 featured 1,000 troops, the U.S.’s Javelin anti-tank missile system and the first deployment of American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war. The Strykers were tested against Indian T-90 tanks, "currently the most modern tank[s] in service with the Russian Ground Forces and Naval Infantry." [14]

The U.S. ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, said of the military maneuvers: "The broadened and unprecedented scope of Yudh Abhyas stands as a testament to the growing people-to-people and military-to-military ties of the United States and India, one of the key pillars of the expanded U.S.-India strategic partnership." [15]

The Pentagon showcased both the Strykers and the Javelin third generation anti-tank guided missiles during the biggest-ever joint U.S.-Indian ground combat exercises and not without the desired effect.

An American press agency disclosed on September 3 that "Russia has traditionally been India’s largest arms supplier but following evidence of the capabilities of U.S. military equipment during joint exercises with the Indian army, navy and air force, the Indian army decided to purchase several hundred Javelin anti-tank guided missiles, demonstrated during the war games….The Javelins were deployed for Indian forces for the first time in the Yudh Abhyas 09 joint military exercise in Babina, the largest war game that the two armies have had." [16]

Last month the Times of India reported that "India will order a 'large’ number of the quite-expensive Javelin ATGM systems from the US.

"The deal for the man-portable, fire-and-forget Javelin ATGM systems will once again be a direct government-to-government one under the American foreign military sales (FMS) programme, without any global multi-vendor competition.

"While the exact number of Javelin systems India will induct is yet to be
decided, it could well run into thousands. The Army, after all, has a shortfall of around 44,000 ATGMs of different types…." [17]

In July the Raytheon Company announced that India is evaluating the Patriot ground-based anti-ballistic missile system for purchase and deployment and that the U.S. had provided New Delhi with "classified" material on it recently. Sales of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missiles to India are reported to be on Barack Obama’s agenda during his November visit.

By acquiring them, India would join fellow Asia-Pacific nations Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as NATO members Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Greece and U.S. Middle East military clients Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Joseph Garrett, Raytheon vice president and deputy for Patriot programs, disclosed that "A number of exchanges have taken place between the government of India and the US and information has been given to India at the classified level."

Patriots were "successfully used during both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot’s manufacturer Raytheon has said." [18]

Seven consecutive years of Yudh Abhyas war games aren’t the only joint U.S.-Indian military exercises held each year of late. In fact they are full spectrum in their range.

Starting shortly after the end of the Cold War, Washington initiated joint Malabar naval exercises with India. Suspended after the latter’s nuclear tests in 1998, they resumed in 2002 and have grown in scale over the years.

Malabar 2002 included standard maritime maneuvers but also anti-submarine warfare exercises. The 2003 drills featured an American guided missile destroyer, a guided missile cruiser and a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine and two Indian guided missile frigates, a submarine and several aircraft which concentrated on anti-submarine warfare tactics.

2004 saw a continuation of anti-submarine drills and included a U.S. nuclear-powered fast attack submarine and anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft. The next year’s war games featured a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft supercarrier for the first time and included a 24-hour simulated "war at sea" with the two nations’ navies engaging in mock combat.

In 2006 an American expeditionary strike group (the USS Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group) consisting of over 6,500 U.S. Navy personnel, amphibious ships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines participated in the exercise for the first time. Also, with the inclusion of the Canadian navy the 2006 Malabar exercises expanded for the first time beyond the bilateral format of the preceding two years.

The next year was a watershed one in many respects. Malabar 2007 included 25 warships from five nations: In addition to the U.S. and India, participating countries were Australia, Japan and Singapore, at the time leading to suspicions of American plans to forge an Asian NATO.

The drills were held for the first time in the Bay of Bengal off India’s eastern coast, which further raised Chinese concerns, and extended into the Andaman Sea near the strategic Strait of Malacca.

The U.S. supplied 13 warships including the USS Nimitz nuclear supercarrier, the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, the USS Chicago nuclear submarine, two guided missile cruisers and six guided missile destroyers. Japan provided two destroyers, Singapore a frigate and Australia a frigate and a tanker.

Malabar 2008 returned to a bilateral context with the involvement of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine and a P-3 Orion anti-submarine plane.

4,000 personnel from three nations – the U.S., India and Japan – participated in last year’s exercise which included anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, air defense and live-fire gunnery training drills.

Malabar 2010 was conducted in April with ships, submarines, aircraft and personnel from the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet, among which were a nuclear fast attack submarine, two guided missile destroyers, a guided missile cruiser, a guided missile frigate, Sea Hawk helicopters, anti-submarine aircraft and Navy SEALS.

The Pentagon hasn’t been content to exercise its troops and weapons on India’s soil and off its coasts. Starting in 2004 the U.S. has also led annual air combat maneuvers called Cope India.

The first series of bilateral aerial warfare exercises tested U.S. state-of-the-art F-15 Eagle fighters against Russian-made MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-30 opposite numbers along with French-made Mirage 200 fighters. The U.S. warplanes were consistently bested by their MiG-21 and Su-30 rivals.

The Cope India maneuvers, like comparable ones in Romania and elsewhere in Eastern Europe and the Red Flag air combat exercises in the U.S., provide the Pentagon an opportunity to engage and compete against advanced Russian military aircraft for use in real war scenarios in the future.

Cope India 2005 pitted American F-16 Fighting Falcons against India’s most advanced, largely Russian-produced, fighters in – for the first time in joint U.S.-Indian air exercises – a combat environment controlled by airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft.

The next year over 250 U.S. airmen stationed throughout the Pacific region accompanied F-16 Fighting Falcons to India for Cope India 2006. The F-16s were deployed against the most advanced fighter in the Indian Air Force’s arsenal, the Su-30 MKI (adapted from the Russian Su-30) as well as MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 fighters.

In 2008 an Indian Air Force contingent of eight Su-30 MKI fighters, two Russian-made in-flight refuellers, a Russian heavy lift transport aircraft and almost 250 airmen "winged their way halfway across the globe to the deserts of Nevada," to participate in an Exercise Red Flag, held three or four times a year in Nevada and Alaska and "acknowledged to be the most advanced and professionally challenging fighter exercise conducted anywhere in the world." [19]

The exercise marked several precedents: It included the largest single deployment of the Indian Air Force outside India. It was the first time that the air forces of nations not in NATO or those of major non-NATO allies – India and South Korea – participated in Red Flag air combat maneuvers. "It was also the first time that the SU30 MKI, a frontline combat aircraft of Russian design, made its appearance in the American skies and that too in a multi-national congregation." [20]

India was elevated to the status of an American strategic military ally, on the level of a NATO partner, on June 28, 2005 when U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed the New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship, in effect a ten-year defense pact.

India has become the convergence point for the U.S.-led NATO bloc moving from the west into Central and South Asia and the expansion of an Asia-Pacific NATO growing from its Japan-Australia-South Korea-Taiwan nucleus to absorb the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Mongolia, New Zealand and the five former Soviet Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – are to varying degrees being integrated into the structure as well.

India is also intended as a central locus for the U.S. global interceptor missile grid based on land and sea and in the air and space, linking deployments in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, the South Caucasus and the Middle East to those in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Alaska, including the latter’s Aleutian Islands.

Moving the Asian giant into the Pentagon’s column will not only affect the balance of forces in Asia but throughout the world.

1) Toronto Star, September 8, 2010
2) Business Standard, March 18, 2010
3) Global Times, July 13, 2010
http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2010-07/550830.html
4) Voice of Russia, July 11, 2010
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/07/11/12033554.html
5) Global Times, July 13, 2010
6) Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2010
7) Ibid
8) Indo-Asian News Service, July 20, 2010
9) U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China
Stop NATO, August 7, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/u-s-expands-asian
-nato-to-contain-and-confront-china
U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China, Russia
Stop NATO, October 16, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/u-s-expands-asian
-nato-against-china-russia
Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO
Stop NATO, May 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/australian-milita
ry-buildup-and-the-rise-of-asian-nato
10) The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Prospects For A Multipolar World
Stop NATO, May 21, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/150
11) Reuters, July 19, 2010
12) Ibid
13) New York Times, November 11, 2006
14) Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
15) Embassy of the United States, New Delhi, India, October 19, 2009
16) United Press International, September 3, 2010
17) Times of India, August 17, 2010
18) Raytheon Company
Asia Pulse Data Source
July 23, 2010
19) Indian Defence Review, Vol 25.3 July-September 10 2008
20) Ibid










Author : Rick Rozoff

Article : 69699 sent on 13-sep-2010 14:55 ECT


Url : www.blogfrommiddleeast.com?new=69699

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

Readers: Any thoughts or comments about this?

*******

Also see this question and answer post:

Center for Strategic and International Studies: President Obama’s Trip to India

*******
Update:

Listen to Michael Savage's radio show segment about why Obama is going to India:

Michael Savage: Why Is Obama Going to India?

Americans Deeply Worried About Iran Getting Bomb

Even though I attached the first part of this new post at the tail end of my previous essay, I have decided to give it additional attention due to the new information that has been shared over at Joel Rosenberg's blog! It fits right in with what I had previously mentioned regarding the fear that the majority of Americans have about Iran developing and using nuclear weapons of mass destruction!

Christine

*******

Of course, I do not agree with everything in the following video, I present it here for people to go over to YouTube and view - even if you just view the first six minutes or so which is where I make my point, anyway. It has been viewed over 7,525,349 times!!!

In all honesty, it is difficult for me to get past the first few minutes when the narrator makes false accusations against President Bush.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version [Note: The video is 1:53:40 long!]

What is truth and what are lies within this video? Well, I can share one lie. It is the opinion of the narrator and creator of the film that President Bush lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [Add-on: And the liberal left lunatics at MSNBC are STILL spouting such lies about Bush!!]

From "The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West," by Grant R. Jeffrey -

What Happened to Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?

VX nerve gas, a WMD, is a binary gas that can be prepared only with complex chemical warfare technology, equipment, and experienced scientists. It is known from Iraqi admissions and the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors that Iraq possessed more than five hundred tons of the precursor chemicals required to produce VX-nerve gas weapons. Iraq claimed to have destroyed these materials but never provided proof.

Israeli intelligence analysts and key players in the U.S. intelligence community, including retired U.S. Air Force Gen. James Clapper, declared that huge amounts of Iraqi WMD were transferred to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told Congress in testimony in 2003 that U.S. satellite surveillance revealed substantial vehicular traffic in convoys from Iraq to Syria in February and March 2003. Clapper said that the intelligence community determined the convoys contained missiles and WMD components that were banned by the U.N. Security Council.5

The former deputy undersecretary of defense, John A. Shaw, revealed what actually happened to Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction. "The short answer to the question of where the WMDs Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon... They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence." 6

During the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, Russia repeatedly used this type of "emergency exit" planned removal of WMD and other sophisticated military equipment from former Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe, as well as from former Soviet republics such as the Ukraine and Kazakstan. A variety of respected sources, including Shaw and Saddam Hussein's former top general, Georges Sada, have confirmed that Russian Spetsnaz troops coordinated the removal of Iraq's WMD to Syria by large truck convoys and aircraft in the period just before the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. 7

The question that will occur to most readers is why the Bush Administration endured countless attacks on the credibility of its prewar claims about Iraq's WMD and never publicly revealed the significant evidence that points to the removal of these weapons to Syria. According to both Shaw and Sada, the Bush administration's desire to protect Russia from international embarrassment motivated it to suppress this intelligence in the hope that Russia would assist America in limiting Iran's and North Korea's plans to achieve a nuclear warhead.

We now know how badly THAT hope didn't pan out! Russia is actively helping Iran (admittedly, I don't know about them helping North Korea) and with the Obama admin., through it's extremely weak foreign policy, is not actively doing anything to halt Iran from getting nuclear weapons! It appears that Israel will, once again, need to come to the rescue of the world and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The question is when...

Footnotes:

5 "U.S. Intelligence Consensus: Iraqi WMD Shipped to Syria," World Tribune, October 30, 2003, www.worldtribune.com/wholdtribune/WTARC/2003/ss_syrua_19_29.html/. Also posted at www.ualm.org.au/Syria_Files.asp?display=content&id=61.

6 Kenneth Timmerman, "Ex-Pentagon Official Says Russia Moved Saddam's WMDS," Newsmax, February 19, 2006, www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/ex-Pentagon.htm.

7 For more on this, see Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2006).

*******

Glenn Beck is right about the need to "question with boldness" and about "doing your own research." The over 7 million viewers of "The Obama Deception" have been fed some propaganda about President Bush and the WMDs that were in Iraq, after all!

Now, I'm not claiming that there isn't any true information in that Infowars video, but I am pointing out that sometimes, a person's ideology can blind them to the truth in some situations and cases.

This is why I like to study the Bible and prophecy. I know that I can count on the TRUTH contained within its pages!

Update!

NEW POLL FINDS NEARLY EIGHT-IN-TEN AMERICANS DON’T BELIEVE OBAMA POLICIES WILL STOP IRAN FROM GETTING NUKES: Poll provides fascinating insight into voters’ views on Israel and epicenter issues

posted by joelcrosenberg at Joel Rosenberg's Weblog - 45 minutes ago
Members of the U.S. House and Senate who over the past two years have followed President Obama’s lead on major economic policy issues like raising taxes, spending and the national debt already know they are facing the wrath of angry voters on Election Day this November. But according to an intriguing new poll released Monday, candidates who have supported President Obama’s antagonistic policies towards Israel and appeasing policies towards Iran in the past several years will find still further opposition at the ballot box.

The survey of 1,000 American voters, conducted by the respected national polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates, shows that a majority of Americans who are likely to turn out to the polls this November are pro-Israel. They are deeply worried about the ayatollahs in Iran getting the Bomb. They don’t believe President Obama knows how to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They believe the President is being unfair and unfriendly towards Israel. They believe he is biased in favor of the Palestinians. What’s more, a majority of voters say they are more likely to support a candidate who is clearly identified as pro-Israel than one who is not.

Hat Tip and continue reading the specific answers of the poll at Joel Rosenberg's Blog

How sad it is to note that former President Bush's efforts and desire to halt Iran from getting nuclear weapons is currently slipping away under the poor and very weak foreign policy of the Obama administration! What is intriguing to realize about this scary scenario is the fact that according to the survey, the majority of American voters know it!!!

God help us...