As part of the effort to silence the leaks, President Trump needs to question how personnel were hired in his Administration.

Link: Trump incensed by continued White House leaks.


Last week, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he was met with a barrage of hostility and criticism, at first from the predictable Democratic loud-mouths, and followed up by the media, which now editorializes everything.  Not surprisingly, many Republicans in Congress took their marching orders from the Democrats and the media, and joined in the criticism.  Would President Barack Obama have face this type of response?  Of course not, but the "eat your own" Republican Party, many of its members singularly focused on re-election, leave President Trump with no real political support.  Some will blame President Trump, but the problem is much more a symptom of why Trump chose to run for president in the first place.  He should be able to rely on a Republican-controlled Congress for support, and to leave the criticisms and calls for Independent Counsels to the Democrats.  But GOP Senators and Representatives have become so worried about getting re-elected, that they obsess over the vagaries of public opinion.  First and foremost, President Trump had every right to fire Comey.  The Democrats had been calling for his head ever since Hillary Clinton announced to the nation that Comey is the reason she lost the election.  Recently, many of Trump's supporters started questioning why the FBI wasn't tackling the problem of leaks more aggressively.  Since former National Director of Intelligence James Clapper and Comey had publicly stated that no evidence has yet to be discovered linking the Trump Campaign Staff to Russian efforts to impact the election, why is the FBI still knee-deep in that investigation?  Just when was Comey planning on winding things down?  It had become a serious distraction, especially when the only illegal activity that had up to now been uncovered was the politically-motivated "unmasking" of 1,934 citizens, in an investigation which had yet to find even a scrap of evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump team.

Attorney General Sessions needs to take the lead in putting a stop to the leaks.  Trump needs to explain to his staff that all phone calls to the Washington Post and the NY Times must stop, and make a point of finding the next culprit and summarily firing said person.  Frankly, President Trump needs to revisit the list of people who have become his closest advisers.  The media continues to claim that much of the leaking can be attributed to the Trump Administration's hiring of so many people who are unfamiliar with the White House and politics in DC.  The last time I took a good look, most of the mid-level staff in the White House are professional political workhorses.  What about draining the swamp?  I am truly surprised by the number of highly qualified loyal Trump supporters who applied for positions with the Transition Team, and never so much as heard a burp in reply.  I happen to be one of those individuals.  As an author with a successful career in the CIA on my resume, along with time as a Federal Agent, and a vocal supporter President Trump during the election, I am just the kind of person the Transition Team should have considered for one of those mid-level positions, which doesn't provide the opportunity to speak, but allows one to observe and listen.  I believe the majority of the leaks in this White House comes from the numerous unspoken bodies in the room, who stand in the background in case their Cabinet member boss needs something.  Once previously I wrote a blog questioning the hiring methods of the Trump Transition Team, and I received hundreds of email responses from persons in positions similar to my own.  Professionals in the Department of Justice, Department of State, and in the Department of Homeland Security, who had chosen early retirement because of their unwillingness to continue working for the Obama Administration, but had volunteered to return in support of the Trump Administration and his desire to Make America Great Again.  Why weren't we considered for any of the thousands of jobs that were supposedly being filled?  The truth is, most of those jobs were filled with former Obama officials and others who have no interest in seeing President Trump succeed.

President Trump needs to re-evaluate the team he has put in place to hire the staff which has access to the daily routine of the White House, and ask his Cabinet members to take stock as well.  Anyone with Obama on their resume should be given the boot.  In addition, Cabinet members and anyone with similar access, including the CIA and FBI Directors, need to monitor their personal staff with the goal of identifying anyone engaged in leaking.  For President Trump to be distracted in this manner is as devious as it is unfair.  Those opposed to the Trump Agenda, with the media at the front of the pack, are using this access to paint whatever picture matches their narrative, of an administration in crisis and a White House in conflict. I don't believe the Trump Administration is in crisis and I certainly don't believe the juicy tidbits about Bannon arm-wrestling Jared Kushner for the President's ear.  Anyone who has had the pleasure of ever knowing President Trump understand that he expects a lot from his team, as he tackles the real challenges of North Korea, Russia, Syria, ISIS and our broken immigration system.  Everyone in the White House who is truly loyal to this administration needs to prioritize the identification and removal of leakers, and whatever mechanism is currently in place to hire qualified persons who will support this President without reservation, needs to review the stacks of resumes they received in December and January.  We haven't gone anywhere.

A humble suggestion to the Trump Transition Team.......

I had always imagined that when a new President was elected, the staff of the previous Administration would pack up and vacate during the weeks before the inauguration.  Actually, its not that simple.  A great many former staffers do move on before the new President makes himself home in the White House, but invariably some folks are obliged to hang around, in order to ensure a smooth transition with regards to certain sensitive positions.  The goal is, with few exceptions, to eventually have an entirely new team in place within the first few months.  Managing the various government agencies is a completely separate matter.  Although the new Administration is expected to appoint its own folks to run the Central Intelligence Agency, the Justice Department (Attorney General), Homeland Security, and other vital government agencies, its assumed that most management level positions belong to career employees who have been promoted on merit.  Basically, this allows the various agencies to continue functioning as before, but with a new Director who is more in-line with the intentions of the incoming President.  In both instances, outgoing personnel have traditionally been on their best behavior with regards to supporting the new Administration, so as to keep the Executive Branch functioning without too much confusion.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has been forced to deal with illegal behavior on he part of personnel who did not move on prior to the Inauguration, and serious opposition from within the Intelligence Community and Federal Law Enforcement.  This development has no precedent, with the last such behavior in my memory being the removal of all the "W's" from the computer keyboards by Bill Clinton staffers, as a welcome to incoming President George "W" Bush.  What President Trump is facing is much more serious, and hopefully will be investigated by the FBI.

Since President Trump took office, he has been subject to one leak after another.  Confidential information that has come from within the White House has somehow found its way onto the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.  I think its safe to assume that the leaks are being generated by a few "leftovers" from the Obama Administration, unless we are expected to believe that Trump's own folks are already attempting a coup of some sort.  Any confidential information that originates in the White House is on its face classified, therefore whoever has been sharing that information with journalists has broken the law.  I wish I could say that the FBI has jumped at the opportunity to protect the incoming Administration, but I'm not really sure at present what to make of the Department of Justice.  You see, the Trump Administration is dealing with leaks coming from the Justice Department as well, not to mention the Intelligence Community. Since last November, the press has had very disturbing access to details of ongoing investigations into alleged Russian attempts to impact the 2016 campaign.  Forgive me for being "old school", but shouldn't the FBI and the Intelligence Community wait until its investigations are complete before commenting?  What is most troublesome is the politicization of the process.  Up to now, according to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered that indicates Trump personnel were aware of or involved with Russian activities regarding the 2016 campaign.  So why has the media been able to headline this "fake" story for months on end?  Because of leaks from within the investigative authorities.  All that was needed was notification from the Bureau that certain investigations were underway, and confirmation from the Intelligence Community that Russia was trying to fiddle with the campaign, to put the Trump Administration on a "media-trial" for treason within the first month following the inauguration.

The best way for the new Administration to deal with this problem is to remove any and all Obama personnel as the earliest opportunity.  Its just as important for the Administration to clean house in the various government agencies as well.  During the last eight years, a flood of honest, patriotic officers in both Federal Law Enforcement and the Intel Community chose early retirement because of dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration.  Just last year, I recall a number of reports indicating the high-rate of turnover with regards to FBI supervisory personnel.  If I'm correct, then the Trump Administration should reach out to these officers, and ask them to return.  It shouldn't be difficult to determine who in DC is willingly trying to impede the efforts of the new Administration, and if they are using their job in such a manner, then they should be removed immediately.  In eight years, President Obama and the Democrats were successful in seeding every government agency with political appointees who may not have known diddly-squat about their new jobs, but certainly understood their marching orders.  No doubt the rank-and-file of Federal Law Enforcement and the CIA continue to do yeomen's work, sacrificing and defending the nation despite all these distractions.  The problem is limited to a few individuals who feel justified in doing what they can to disrupt the efforts of the new Administration.  Trump needs to root out these folks at IRS, Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Agencies to promote personnel whose priority is to serve the American people, not obfuscate and meddle for political purposes.  Again, there are many former officers who are anxious to return, to further the goals of national security and provide the American people with fair and honest work.  I should know, I happen to be one of those officers.    

The Chelsea Manning issue needs to be kept in perspective.

Today President Obama issued a pardon to former US Army Private Bradley Manning, who identifies as a female named Chelsea and will be undergoing sexual reassignment surgery sometime in the future.  Last year Manning was convicted by a Military Tribunal of violating the Espionage Act by passing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks.  For reasons which are still a mystery to me, then-Private Manning was given access to countless Top Secret documents and US government communications while serving in Iraq in 2009/10.  Manning claims that his decision to share classified information was greatly influenced by his discovery of war crimes committed by the US military.  Manning also claims to be suffering from a gender identity disorder, which has caused long bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts.  From the beginning, the liberal and leftist elements in our society have been openly supportive of Manning.  The left strongly opposed the Iraq war, and by extension, see Manning as a hero for exposing part of the corrupt system which created false justification for going to war.  A substantial number of political groups and well-known activists opposed Manning's Court Martial and subsequent trial, and after the verdict, put pressure on the Obama Administration to issue a pardon.

Manning has been on the winning side of a number of decisions since his conviction.  Last April, the military announced that the US government would pay for Manning to undergo sexual reassignment surgery.  So what exactly has happened since Private Bradley Manning chose to commit treason in 2009?  Manning was Court-Martialed and given a 35-year sentence.  Then the military announced that Manning would be undergoing a sex change procedure, paid for by the US taxpayer.  Fast-forward a few months to January 2017, and today Manning is pardoned by President Obama.  I assume that Manning will be released almost immediately, and the offers for a book deal will start piling up.  So the lesson here is, if you are in the military and you want the government to pay for your sex-change operation, just commit treason and become a hero to the liberal media and left-wing political movement.  At the end of the day, a multi-million dollar book deal will be waiting.  I wish I had an opportunity to ask President Obama if he has spent much time thinking about the persons whose lives were ruined by Manning.  The CIA cadre of reporting contacts includes many foreign nationals who are "assets of conscience".  They decide to clandestinely provide the US government with valuable information because they believe in the American system and the freedoms we enjoy, and hope to encourage change in their own countries.  We could be referring to citizens of nations like Iran, Russia, and China, for example.  These brave people take the chance that their secret relationship with the US is not revealed to their own government.  That being said, I can't fathom the number of foreign assets who may have been exposed within the seven-hundred thousand pages of documents that Manning passed to Wikileaks.  No doubt the imtellignce community conducted numerous damage assessments, imformation which hopefully will never been known to us.  I don't need to know the names and nationalities of persons who may have paid a heavy price for Manning's actions.  I understand the environment enough to realize how much more difficult it will be for our Intelligence Officers to find willing reporters on the issues that keep Americans safe day-in and day-out.

At times I have found myself feeling very sympathetic to Chelsea Manning.  Obviously she has struggled for years trying to find a place in the world.  I cannot imagine any sane person knowingly choosing the path that Manning has followed.  At the time, I doubt that Manning comprehended the ramifications of his actions, but every adult in our society has to be held responsible for their decisions.  I would not have opposed a commuted sentence of some sort, maybe a five-year sentence, with an agreement that Manning be prohibited from writing a book or benefiting financially from his actions.  Instead, Manning has been pardoned, and is about to hit the jackpot as far as money is concerned.  Seven years after breaking the oath that he took to serve his country, seven years after committing treason and very likely putting a number of very brave people and their unknowing families in harm's way, Chelsea Manning will be a free and very rich young woman.  The revisionist media in our country are jumping through hopes to create a legacy for Barack Obama that deos not include twenty trillion in debt, race relations at their lowest since the Civil Right's era, a flag that is disrespected at home almost as much as it is by the international community, an economy that is bleeding jobs because of over-regulation, and a precedence-setting willingness to abuse Executive Action to avoid working with Congress.  Will the Manning pardon be mentioned by the press as part of Obama's legacy?  Don't hold your breath.

A unique opportunity for the Trump Transition Team.

The last eight years were a time of uncertainty and frustration for many in the intelligence community.  In the beginning, no one knew exactly what to expect from the incoming Obama Administration.  I can't say I was terribly surprised with the now famous "apology tour", because during the 2008 campaign, Obama did not disguise his contempt for previous U.S. policy in support of pro-US dictators.  Obama also spoke out regarding attempts by US intelligence agencies to clandestinely impact foreign events, including elections and revolutions.  But 2008 was a far cry from 1965, and the CIA and NSA of the twenty-first century are built to collect intelligence in two directions: in suppprt of national security, and in furtherance of current Administration policy.  The intelligence community expected the incoming Obama Administration to continue efforts to collect against terrorist targets, but to also have a list of new targets, in support of Obama's diplomatic initiatives.  Almost from the start, it was difficult to determine the direction of Obama's foreign policy, although the Obama Administration did not takes steps to diplomatically re-align US foreign policy, at least not overnight.

Although the Obama Administration on occasion allowed US Army Special Forces into battle zones in support of our allies, most foreign policy initiatives were introduced through the end of a pen.  Obama was determined to avoid utilizing US military power at every opportunity, although he did not shy away from imposing sanctions.  Over time, the Obama foreign policy became more and more difficult to define.  The imtelligence agencies started to suffer a higher rate of officer turnover than usual.  I can't say for certain that the Directorate of Operations received more resignations and early-retirements that expected because of Obama's policies, but I believe they had a definite impact.  I have yet to meet a CIA employee who is not a true patriot.  One of the main reasons people apply to join the Agency is the opportunity to support US foreign policy from the front lines.  Regardless of personal politics, many officers became frustrated by their inability to decipher our long-term foreign policy goals.  I know numerous officers from different directorates who left the Agency during the Obama Administration, and in most instances it was because of job disastisfaction.  Don't misunderstand; I didn't hear complaints about management, working conditions, benefits, or inter-office issues.  Frequently I was told that the mission had lost its clarity.  The rapid withdrawal from Iraq impacted many Agency officers personally, and later during the Obama presidency, the nuclear agreement with Iran was oppposed by many in the intel community.

Of all the judgements being passed down by Democrat politicians, social agitators, and the entertainment community, no one has yet to accuse President-Elect Trump of being shy.  His pre-inauguration commentary has included certain harsh observations regarding the intelligence community.  With the exception of the Congressional 9-11 review and the investigation into Iraq's suspected WMD program, I don't recall the CIA having to deal with so much intense public scrutiny.  My how things have changed.  Agency employees, especially officers from the Directorate of Operations, are very familiar with the terms, "discretion", "confidential", and "covert".  Now it seems the Agency is in the news everyday.  My ability to understand recent events is limited because I'm now on the outside, looking in.  Frankly, I'm still waiting for the previously promised "proof" that Russia aggressively cyber-targeted the Clinton campaign in an effort to ensure a Trump victory.  I have no doubt that the Russians hacked the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  Spies collect intelligence on targets of interest, and no one gets a day-off because a national campaign is unfolding.  I can assure you that the Russians also attempted to hack into the Trump Campaign and the RNC, and the Chinese were knocking on the door as well.  This feigned shock and indignation is all a bunch of affectation by people who should know better.  But this is the season for politicizing everything, folks.  The mainstream media wants the American people to believe that, in a determined effort to get Donald Trump elected, the Russians hacked a bunch of emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta's email account.  Next, the Russians passed the emails to Wikileaks, who released the salicious details to the public.  This was Russia's determined effrot to get get Trump elected.  Have you read the emails?  I would be embarrassed if I were the Democrats (and royally pissed-off if I were Bernie Sanders), but I can't fathom how anyone would make their decision to vote, one way or another, based on the Wikileaks emails.  Then, before anyone had an opportunity to catch their breath, came the announcement that the CIA and FBI were investigating an allegation against Donald Trump that involved a ritzy Moscow hotel room and two Russian hookers in 2015.  Wow.  Could this announcement not have waited until after the inauguration?  Not when the goal is to deligitimize the results of the 2016 election, which seems to be the goal of every mainstream-media story these days.  Be that as it may, the Agency has been the target or subject matter of the press for too long.  The professionals at the CIA are trained to work discreetly, and many times in confidential locations.  The organization can't function effectively when it is under so much scrutiny, which sadly is the result of the politicization of just about every branch of the US government by the Obama Administration.

The positive side of the coin- this environment will result in more honest, experienced, hard-working intelligence officers who may have retired early, deciding to return to the work they love.  There is a new sheriff in town, as they say, and he seems sincerely determined to support the intelligence community in ways that will allow for a return to more humint collection and less politicization.  I supported Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and I have great faith that his inauguration will herald positive change in the United States.  The intelligence community will do its part, and I expect the Trump Transition Team will recognize the opportunity that awaits with a review of resigned or retired intel officers who also strongly supported Donald Trump.  My case is a bit unique- I retired Medically Disabled, and have worked to regain my health so that I may return to work.  Like many others, I have submitted my application and resume because I want to do my duty, to be part of a rebust national security effort which President-Elect Donald Trump will inspire.  To quote President-Elect Trump, "much work needs to be done"; that work will not be accomplished by the entertainment industry multi-millionaire elite who, for some reason, believe that being a skillful actor equates to being entitled to decide the future of our nation.  Sixty-three million US citizens provided Donald Trump a clear and decisive electoral victory, which in the long-run will benefit even his greatest critiques.  Donald Trump is making America Great Again.

The effort to subvert the will of the American people continues.

This morning I had the misfortune of stumbling across an television interview with an actor named Kerry Washington.  I have no clue who Washington is, although she claims to have worked in the Obama White House.  Normally when I determine that an entertainer is lecturing on politics, I switch the station or shut off the television altogether, but in this instance, probably because of her claim to direct access to the White House, I listened in for a minute or two.  Washington regurgitated the usual crap that we get from the millionaire elite Hollywood community, including the claim that the American voter did not chose Donald Trump, and that President-Elect Trump only captured twenty-five percent of the vote.  These are just two of the bullets from a long list of talking points which is regularly disseminated amongst the Left, who have no interest whatsoever about the damage that this repudiation of our electoral system is causing.  You would think that Washington would take a few minutes away from polishing her Oscars to educate herself on the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, during which Barack Obama won less than thirty percent of eligible voters.  No doubt she considers those two election results to be legitimate and a reflection of the will of the American people.

A month or so before the November election, I stumbled across an offensive and absurd accusation leveled against then-candidate Donald Trump.  While perusing some radical left-wing, seldom-read website, I discovered a story involving Trump which was quite similar to the "Russian prostitutes" story released by Buzzfeed earlier this week.  This accusation, that Donald Trump paid two Russian prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed because the bed had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama, had been shared with numerous journalists and media organizations previous to Buzzfeed's mainstream dissemination.  Why did the mainstream media ignore the story for so long?  Because it arrived with absolutely no proof, and contained numerous outright errors and bits of incorrect information.  In short, the mainstream media determined that the piece was just another example of "Fake News", which arrived during a presidential election cycle which had become overwhelmed with unverifiable accusations against both candidates.

Roughly one week before the inauguration, the story has resurfaced, and this time around, no one seems to care about validity, source identification, or verification.  In fact, it appears that since the Trump victory, both the FBI and the CIA have provided Bona Fides to this unsubstantiated, disgusting story by treating it as some threat to national security.  Of course, if a President-Elect had actually engaged in such behavior, that individual would be a prime candidate for extortion, and the FBI and CIA would be obligated to investigate.  The problem is, everyone knows that the story is garbage.  The U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities must require the existence of some verification or validity in order to conduct full investigations and feel the need to brief President Obama and President-Elect Trump.  Now that the issue has hit the headlines and could end up causing the incoming Administration no small amount of headaches, we need to know what about this story reached the threshold that would justify this kind of attention from the FBI and the CIA?  Actually, this is second time we find ourselves in this predicament.  The Obama Administration showed no hesitation in announcing that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin in particular, ordered its clandestine cyber operatives to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election in a manner that would benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump.  I assume that both the Russians and the Chinese were busy attempting to mess around with our electoral process (its called espionage, folks), but to make this announcement weeks before the inauguration supports the false idea that Donald Trump won the election because of Russian interference.  Last week the CIA was front and center with the Russian interference accusation, and now the Agency finds itself back in the headlines, by apparently treated an obviously fake story as a legitimate threat of some sort.  Thanks, CIA and FBI- you've given this absurd, false story the validity that had been lacking.

As I sit here at my computer, safe in my Texas Hill Country home, more than a handful of CIA officers are working in denied environments, putting their lives in danger to collect the intelligence needed to win the war on terror.  When I think of the CIA, these men and women come to mind, not Russian prostitutes.  I can assure you that everyday, FBI Special Agents are out on the streets, putting their lives at risk in support of national security.  I can only imagine what the rank-and-file of these two patriotic, indispensable organizations must feel, when they realize just how politicized our government has become. 

I'm ready to serve, President-Elect Trump.

When I was obliged to medically retire from the CIA in 2010, I was convinced that eventually my health would improve to the point of allowing me to return to work.  I could not imagine permanently retiring at forty-four years of age, so I focused on obsessively following the instructions of my physicians and therapists.  The toxins which invaded my body did a number on my central nervous system, and I will never recover sensation in my legs, feet, or hands, but my mobility has improved, and I have learned to deal with the chronic pain that is a symptom of toxic neuropathy.  I can't say enough for the CIA Office of Medical Services and the Human Resources professionals who made every effort to simplify the transition to medical disability.  When I was an active member of the Case Officer cadre, I knew in the back of my mind that in the event of a catastrophic injury, the Agency would take care of me.  I will always remember with gratitude the officers who helped me through the complications that were unavoidable given the uniqueness of my case.  It was always my intention, though, to regain my health and rejoin my colleagues in the struggle against those who wish to do us harm.

I created this blog in order to introduce my memoir to the millions of persons on the internet who are interested in espionage and intelligence collection.  Once the book was published and the publicity tour was complete, I began to write less and less about my career, and more about current hot spots and the important role intelligence plays in everything from diplomacy to support for the military. When the 2016 election campaign began in earnest, I found myself commenting regularly on the candidates and foreign policy.  I had no qualms expressing my support for the Republican nominee Donald Trump, even though he was not my initial choice.  As the campaign heated up, I found myself utilizing my blog to correct the frustrating misconceptions, distractions and outright lies that littered the mainstream media reporting.  I'm proud of the record my blog represents, and I stand by my writing.

Until mid-November, I had never contemplated working in a Trump Administration.  Like many Americans, my entire focus was doing my part to ensure a Trump victory, but once the air had cleared a bit, and the media started reporting on the Trump Transition Team, it didn't take long for me to decide where to direct my efforts as I re-enter the work force.  I have confidence in my life and work experience, and the positive reputation I have earned.  I believe in President-Elect Trump and his plans for the future of our international relationships and obligations.  His cabinet choices to date only re-enforce my confidence in his ability to surround himself with the best and the brightest our nation has to offer. During the campaign, I did my best promote the Trump vision through my blog, and detail just how unavoidable successful will be once the nation has been pointed in the right direction.  I submitted an online application and my resume to the Trump Transition Team, and truly hope I am given the opportunity to join the effort to rebuild and reorient our nation, with Donald Trump at the helm.

      

The timing seems right, so let's revisit the Benghazi controversy.

A number of times within the past year, I've shared my perspective on the Benghazi controversy.  In the very beginning, I formed an opinion before the most important details regarding the event had been made public.  I was obliged to completely revisit my original beliefs and comments, which I did, using this forum.  That fact does not change the single most concise and unavoidable truth surrounding this sad occurrence.  In the United States, we have a tradition in government service that "The Buck Stops Here".  President Harry S. Truman helped establish this little cliché by placing a notice on his desk containing that simple message.  Truman was announcing loud and clear, that in his role as President of the United States, he alone was accountable for the actions of his government.  Since Truman, countless Generals, Chiefs, Secretaries, Directors and Presidents have expressed the now-famous sentiment, "I take full responsibility.......".  Following the terrible events of September 11, 2012, which included the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three additional young men, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to follow tradition and accept "full responsibility".  Since that time, Clinton and the leftist media have jumped through hoops so that she can avoid doing just that- taking responsibility.  I will not push the envelope so far as to say that Clinton is responsible for the casualties that resulted from the terrorist assault on both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the nearby CIA Annex.  But we must accept some very simple facts: the United States had an accredited U.S. Ambassador on the ground, in an environment that was, to say the least, totally unsecure and dangerous.  Communications examined from that time period make it clear that the Clinton State Department was aware of Benghazi's major security deficiencies.  Who made the decision to send Ambassador Stevens and his necessary support staff into this war zone?  More importantly, once Foggy Bottom became aware of the dangerous environment, why weren't Stevens and his staff evacuated?  At least the level of security at the Consulate and Annex could have been increased.  No matter how much the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Washington Post declare otherwise, those questions need to be answered.  I noticed that the media have once again introduced Ambassador Steven's family into the controversy.  Steven's family have publicly stated on more than one occasion that they do not hold Hillary Clinton responsible. However, the parents of the other three young men who died that night DO hold her responsible.  It is beyond offensive to me that the liberal press and media publicize the opinions of Ambassador Stevens' family, but don't mention the other three men who lost their lives.  They have families as well, even if they aren't from the beltway elite.

Regardless of the issues raised in the preceding paragraph, I would happily agree to put this subject to bed, if I could get the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton camp to address one particular detail.  Immediately following the announcement in the press that Ambassador Stevens, along with three brave young Americans, had died during a night of violence in Benghazi, the Obama Administration identified the catalyst for the violence.  According to the Administration, local Libyans were angry because of an "anti-Islamic" video that had been released in California.  In their anger, they decided to riot and storm the U.S. Consulate and Annex.  According to all reliable eyewitness accounts and follow-up intelligence, the attacks that night were carried out by Islamic Extremist groups intent on committing acts of terror against Americans.  The people who attacked the Consulate that night and later the Annex, were not thinking about some stupid videos made in California.  As I was preparing to write this article and I was googling certain events to confirm certain dates, I came across a recent MediaMatters article claiming that, still to this day, the riots on the night of September 11, 2012 were the result of anger on he part of average, law-abiding Libyans who could not help but express their anguish and pain by attacking the U.S. Consulate.  Hillary Clinton has always believed that the ends justifies the means. Heck, Media Matters is happy to peddle an outright fabrication just to deflect legitimate criticism of their candidate.  It has become obvious to me that the Democrats and the left have adopted Hillary's Modus Operandi with no hesitation. 

Alongside the usual characters, this political season has unleashed a flood of new political operatives from both major parties.  Finding an honest, decent soul amongst the bunch is the real challenge.  True, I have always voted Republican, but people would be wrong to assume that I follow the party platform, hook, line, and stinker.  If someone is curious enough to see where I stood as the primary season unfolded, all of my blog posts from that time period are available for perusal.  As for me, I'm done worrying about what happened in January, February, March and April this year.  I am voting for Donald Trump for president.  As for the rest of you, there are three candidates running from three parties, and you have until November to decide which person will be our next president.  Today's blog post marks the beginning of a series of commentaries I will write detailing Hillary Clinton's foreign policy achievements and initiatives.  Thank you to all who have commented and shared my posts.

A few "secrets" about the CIA..........

I apologize for my infrequent posts this December.  Christmas is very time consuming, not to mention I have a friend visiting from Austria for the Holidays.

During this Holiday season, I want to thank all of the U.S. government employees, both military and civil service alike, who spent Christmas away from their families so that we could safely enjoy the company of ours.  This expression of gratitude is not like the cut-and-paste "hearts and prayers" we get from Washington DC every time a national tragedy strikes.  My appreciation comes with the knowledge of how it feels to repeatedly miss birthdays, weddings, Holidays, and other special events because of a more important obligation: the security of the United States of America.  I want you to know that the men and women who sacrifice for our freedom do get lonely, and sometimes very homesick.  But in my experience, I never met someone in this position who wasn't proud to have the opportunity to make the sacrifice.  I spent my time overseas working as a civilian, and truthfully, I've lived in some awful places.  But I never let myself forget that eventually, I would always end up back home in my beloved Texas.  The locals all around me don't have that luxury to anticipate.  Which makes doing the job all the more important.  When we sacrifice to protect freedom, it works as a contagion of spirit, inspiring others to make courageous, sometimes dangerous decisions, in the pursuit of liberty.

Recently, while making up for lost time, I sat down and spent most of a weekend catching up on previous seasons of the hit show "Homeland".  I have a number of friends who really enjoy the show, so I wanted to watch a few episodes and see if it caught my interest.  Two things are certain: the show is very well-made and performed.  A great deal of effort and money is spent on special effects and production values.  The show provides tremendous excitement and suspense, and compared to what else I see as competition, "Honeland" is in a class by itself.  But in this blog I want to address some of the misconceptions that average Americans have about the CIA.  Homeland makes no effort to stay within any reasonable bounds of accuracy when it comes to the daily functions and authority of CIA officers, which is understandable.  Who wants to watch bureaucracy in action?  I recall in one episode where the main character "Carrie" was debating whether to order surveillance on someone.  The CIA has neither the manpower nor the legal authority to surveille anyone.  In another episode, senior CIA officers ordered the assassination of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (to be committed by a U.S. citizen, no less).  It made for a heckuva episode, but has no basis whatsoever in reality.  The CIA doesn't order the assassination of anyone, and as far as I know, never has.  This brings us to the real issue with these shows.  The CIA and it's officers work exclusively at the discretion of whatever administration is in the White House at that time.  The CIA is operational only so much as it takes to collect necessary intelligence as securely and with as few repercussions as possible.  All operations are weighed for a risk factor and include a number of "necessary approval" firewalls.  The direction of the Agency's intelligence collection is determined by the respective administration voted into office.  No one gets to fly around the world, popping up in various friendly and unfriendly locations, to operate on their discretion.  It sure does make for great television, though.

CIA Case Officers working overseas do not drive fancy cars and spend their time in Casinos and horse races.  The job is not nearly as sexy as Hollywood wants you to believe.  The obligation of every Case Officer is to be aware of the intelligence gaps (what information is needed) and who within contact has best access to that information.  From that point on, the CIA officer employs his training to eventually reach an agreement with said person, to allow the officer access to the confidential information.  The contacts are foreigners, and not always beautiful Russian runway models (unless you're James Bond).  The process can take as long as six months (or more), and it takes place overseas, not in the United States.  Case Officers cannot decide spontaneously to put on a Burka and fly to Iran to attend a funeral and infiltrate a terrorist cell.  The CIA is a professionally run organization, and everyone has a boss.  Each Case Officer has his or her file of contacts and cases to handle, but before operations can proceed, plans have to be passed up the chain of command for approval.  The Agency employs tremendous oversight to ensure as few mistakes as possible.  It was tedious at times, waiting for approvals, but I always understood the process.  This type of business can and has gotten people killed.  Every operation must be thoroughly scrutinized and the potential gain must be weighed against the risk.  The CIA always crosses its "t's" and dots its "i's", which is why it is the best at what it does.

I've noticed that many people believe that the CIA directs foreign policy for the United States, or at least decides what intelligence should and shouldn't be targeted.  These assertions are absolutely false.  The Central Intelligence Agency is a branch of the U.S. government, just like the Department of Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration.  The Agency collects confidential intelligence on targets that are decided upon and provided by whatever Administration is sitting in the Oval Office.  For instance, in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was president, we can assume that the CIA was trying to collect confidential intelligence about the revolutionary Iranian government and the American Embassy hostages.  Every Administration will formulate its own foreign policy, and this goes a long way to determining the direction of Agency efforts.  I can assure you that as I write these words, the CIA is working overtime to collect the intelligence necessary to disrupt the intentions of the numerous terrorist groups that presently pollute our planet.  Once that information is collected, it is shared with the Administration and whoever else has been authorized.  It is up to the Administration to decide how to appropriately craft policy to effectively respond to the information that has been collected.

What secrets did you learn today?  CIA officers do not normally career weapons, especially not stateside; CIA Case Officers do not spontaneously determine operational activity, and buy a first-class ticket to Tehran wearing a Burka.  Also, the CIA is a functioning tool of the U.S. government and is responsible to the President and the American people.  Whatever Administration sitting in the Oval Office will decide how (and if) collected intelligence is used.  If (God forbid) the world suffers another terrible terrorist attack, it is more likely that it occurred not because of a lack of intelligence, but because of how that intelligence was utilized.

The importance of protecting confidential information, even after retirement.

The need to access confidential information is not limited to persons working for intelligence agencies.  The U.S. Government employs hundreds of professionals who work in the intelligence for numerous different agencies and departments.  In order for persons to work in the intelligence field, they must pass a background investigation and a polygraph examination.  A successful completion of the investigation with result in the individual being granted a clearance.  There are many retired U.S. government employees who at one time or another had a clearance, including former officers of the Department of State, Department of Defense, Homeland Security and the FBI.  These Americans are entrusted with enough secrets to probably cripple our nation, even after they have left active service.  Although it is vital to have the latest intelligence, some secrets keep their value for a very long time.  The United States has done a tremendous job choosing intelligence officers, as very few Americans trusted with secrets have decided to betray their country.

Unfortunately, some individuals have made that terrible decision and shared classified information with uncleared persons.  In the past, a few CIA officers have traded secrets with the Russians for financial compensation, and I believe at one time a Department of Defense employee with access to classified intelligence betrayed his country at the request of a woman (who turned out to be a Soviet spy).  I don't know much about these persons who have committed the ultimate betrayal, mostly because those events occurred years before I made the choice to enter the intelligence field.  What I do remember vividly is the trial of U.S. soldier Bradley Manning, and the revelations of former NSA employee Edward Snowden.  I realize that some folks draw a distinction between these two cases, but I don't.  Both men had agreed to treat classified information in accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S. Army and the National Security Agency.  Both men showed a complete lack of integrity by breaking that vow.  I understand the sympathy for Snowden; many Americans are concerned that the U.S. Government may have exceeded its mandate with regards to intelligence collection and the American public.  I have complete confidence that the U.S. Government is not illegally collecting information on U.S. citizens, nor has it exceeded the bounds of its mission to provide security for the American people in a time of war.  If Snowden felt that his employer had overreached its marching orders, then he should have quit.  As a former NSA officer, he would have been able to write a book or speak publicly about his concerns, as long as he didn't reveal classified information.  This particular issue is so important to me because when Manning and Snowden released classified information, they very well could have put people's lives in jeopardy.  Snowden may THINK he knows what was included in the information he released, but the reality is, he probably has no clue.  But the enemy may understand the released documents in a way that escapes Snowden, because he isn't trained as an operational Case Officer, and therefore can't fully grasp what is included in the cables that he read on a daily basis.  Its very simple: if you can no longer abide by the obligations of confidentiality that have been agreed to, then you need to resign and find other work.

As stated earlier, the importance of confidentiality and protecting classified information does not end when a person retires.  The U.S. Government fully expects its retired officers who at one time or another during their careers were exposed to classified intelligence, to respect the rules and regulations of security until they die.  After medically retiring, I wrote a memoir about my career.  I followed the process put in place for retired Agency officers who write a book; I submitted by manuscript for review in its entirety, and what they Agency chose to redact, was permanently removed.  This includes photographs that were selected for inclusion in the book.  And when I speak publicly, I never exceed the bounds of what was included in my book.  I am firm believer in the rules of confidentiality; I have seen good security practice save lives, and unfortunately, I've seen bad security destroy lives.  When a Case Officer is conducting a confidential meeting with an asset overseas, his dedication to tradecraft is necessary to protect the life of his asset.  When an Officer working in the Pentagon reviews a classified document on a current operation, that Officer must show the same dedication and respect for security as the Case Officer overseas.  And there are no "do-overs".  The CIA does a tremendous job training its officers to understand and respect the procedures in-place to protect classified information; the old World War II British poster with the phrase, "Lose Lips Sinks Ships", is just as relevant today as it was then.  If you decide to embark on a career in the Intelligence Field, understand that it will more than likely be a very rewarding experience.  Also understand that all it takes is one careless mistake, one time bending the rules, for people to lose their lives.  Its a tremendous responsibility.

The CIA in 2015: balancing force protection, terrorism, and traditional intelligence collection.

Since I formally retired from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) roughly five years ago, and I was given the opportunity to come out from under cover, I have been regularly approached by young people who are interested in a career with the organization.  The fact that I published a memoir, and had the misfortune to be poisoned during my career while working operationally, has created an awkward, public persona with my name attached.  I don't mind, because I come from the mindset that only experienced officers can truly recognize the attitude and determination necessary to be a successful Case Officer.  Unfortunately, I've never been approached regarding one of the many other opportunities the Agency offers.  The CIA consists of four separate Directorates, and each one promises a career unlike any other, with tremendous opportunity to learn about the world we live in, and to be part of supporting National Security.  Any job with the Agency also provides regular opportunity for advancement in an environment of great challenges.  When I chose to write this blog post, I decided to avoid any appearance of a recruitment pitch.  No job is perfect, and the CIA exists under intense public and even international scrutiny.  I had instances of frustration, but they were almost always connected to the unfortunate bureaucracy that comes with working for Uncle Sam.  If someone is under the mistaken belief that typical government problems don't exist at the Agency, the reality is, because of the sensitive nature of the job, scrutiny is even more a part of everyday work, and officers must be vigilant to follow ALL rules, regulations, and guidelines.  That being said, let me take a little time to express to you why my career with the CIA was the pivotal, most incredible experience of my life.

As a Case Ofiicer, I was given the opportunity to complete the most intense, all-encompassing training regime that has ever existed for an Intelligence Officer.  The organization will not put officers in the field who have not demonstrated a thorough understanding and respect for security, counter-intelligence, and tradecraft.  What is tradecraft?  Simply put, tradecraft are the skills a Case Officer requires to operate successfully in an overseas environment.  Because of the current public obsession with the subject of espionage, the average American has a distorted perception of the Agency.  The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and only functions domestically in joint-arrangements with our Federal Law Enforcement partners.  Following the horrific and mind-numbing events of September 11, 2001, the Agency began an aggressive effort to share resources with Law Enforcement in support of National Security.  I have worked closely in just such an environment, and the results have been more successful than the public realizes.  Also, CIA officers, beyond the security officers the Agency hires for its facilities, DO NOT carry weapons domestically.  Outside of war zones, CIA officers aren't normally armed overseas.  And if an officer has been assigned to a war zone or dangerous environment, he or she is required to complete a thorough weapons training and familiarization course.  Having to work in a wartime environment should not come naturally to most Case Officers, but the changed circumstances of National Security have necessitated the Agency's involvement in various conflicts worldwide.  This effort is part of the mission to ensure Force Protection- the collection of vital intelligence to protect our young men and women in uniform.  I was also fortunate to work in a number of denied environments, and I can assure you that there is no more important job than defending our troops, and no greater satisfaction after the successful completion of a job-well-done.

I decided to write a memoir in order to share my experiences as a victim of intended poisoning by someone I was meeting for intelligence purposes.  Please understand, this wasn't a situation involving a foreign government, it was about someone who was mentally unstable and trying to play "spy".  When you chose a career as a Case Officer, you do not have the luxury of deciding who has access to vital information.  Eventually in their career, every Case Officer will be obliged to meet with unpleasant people.  I was young and anxious, and probably missed warning signs that a more experienced officer would have detected.  Be that as it may, I discovered the true meaning of dedication once my medical issues became a concern.  The Agency supported me in every way, providing access to the best physicians and specialists that the country had to offer.  I will always be  grateful for the support I received for my medical difficulties while still working.  The CIA Office of Medical Services is as good as it can possibly get, with brilliant on staff physicians and nurses, who travel at a moment's notice to treat unexpected illnesses.  The Agency will travel anywhere to collect the intelligence that the government needs to keep the American people safe.  Therefore, you will on occasion find officers suffering from conditions normally foreign to us.  The Office of Medical Services keeps the Agency healthy in both mind and body, because the need for intelligence never sleeps.

During my career, I discovered a support network within the Agency that went well beyond my expectations.  In one way or another, everyone working at the CIA does a job in support of life-saving intelligence.  In a nutshell, CIA Operations Officers spend time overseas, collecting confidential information that is vitally needed by our government.  The information is relayed back to the United States, where it is organized, formatted, and disseminated to the appropriate government agencies.  Its obviously much more complicated, and planning, hiring, training, and execution are all essential elements of the CIA's mission.  In order to collect the intelligence to keep America safe, the CIA must continue to attract the best and the brightest that our country has to offer.  I always tell interested persons that bringing a language skill to the table, especially Arabic, Russian or Chinese, is a good start, as is a history of some overseas living experience.  But not every Agency employee ends up, or even desires to go overseas.  For those that do, the key is being to assimilate oneself into foreign environments.  The name of the game is discretion; the art of NOT being able to draw attention to one's self.  Also, any officer serving overseas must understand the no-compromise importance of following the rules.  Espionage is not a game or a movie, and people can die if someone gets lazy.  A career with the CIA requires extreme discipline, as inevitably you will be exposed to classified information of one kind or another.  Understand before you even begin to fill out the application, that the organization can only be successful if the need for secrecy is paramount and non-negotiable.  If you have a natural habit of sharing things without thinking, then probably the CIA is not the place for you.  But if you enjoy current events and foreign affairs, if you have great discipline and want to be daily challenged, if you love Democracy and want to be a part of protecting national security, then without a doubt, give it some serious consideration.

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Investigation.

Link: Email controversy and Benghazi continue to haunt Hillary Clinton.

It is beginning to seem as if the House of Representatives Committee investigating the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were murdered will never end.  The House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi was initially proposed by then-House Majority Leader John Boehner.  The first hearing held by the committee was in September 2014, which, when I make use of my superior math skills, means we have been subsidizing this investigation for over one year.  One year doesn't seem to be that long in my mind, compared to some of the other committees we have watched evolve on Capitol Hill, but I am curious what goal this particular committee is trying to reach.  It would seem to me that we know the pertinent details regarding the events of the Benghazi terrorist attack, including what occurred in the hours beforehand.  For many months, various different and often false versions of what occurred that night in Benghazi have been disseminated by the mainstream press both in the United States and abroad.  Unfortunately, even today, most people don't know even the basic facts regarding what transpired that evening.  Here are those facts, at least the ones that I'm comfortable saying are accurate.

The 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack involved two separate locations.  The initial attack was directed at the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, and the second attack occurred at an Annex that was utilized by the CIA, who had the largest contingent of U.S. personnel in the city.  The attack began just after U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had concluded a meeting with a Turkish diplomat.  Just prior to the assault on the compound, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland noted to himself that the streets outside the Consulate seemed very quiet and empty.   Unexpectedly, the Consulate compound was quickly assaulted by armed groups, and the complete lack of a sufficient number of State Department Security personnel became obvious.  At the time of the assault, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland directed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an Information Management Specialist, to utilize the main Consulate building's "Safe Haven".  Safe Havens are areas particularly designated for shelter and safety in just such a situation.  S/A Strickland stayed with Stevens and Smith in the Safe Haven, while a few other security personnel left the main building to retrieve their M4 rifles and other equipment.  The attackers entered the main building, and after unsuccessfully attempting to break into the Safe Haven, began to pour petrol on the floor and set fires.  Strickland decided it was best to leave the building, and instructing Stevens and Smith to follow, climbed out a bathroom window.  As the smoke intensified, Strickland waited for both Stevens and Smith, neither of whom followed.  Strickland proceeded to the roof of the Consulate and attempted to radio other State Department security officers.  Later Smith's body was discovered, as he had apparently succumbed to smoke inhalation.  Stevens was discovered by friendly locals, who transported him to the hospital in the hope of saving his life.  Although the locals claim that Stevens was alive when he was discovered, the Hospital staff declared the Ambassador deceased as a result of smoke inhalation, after ninety minutes of attempted resuscitation.  As for the various rumors that persist regarding the possibility that Stevens was physically assaulted before his death, I have no comment.

The second incident occurred at an Annex roughly a mile from the Consulate compound, which was being used by the CIA.  Just after midnight, the Annex came under attack.  Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, CIA contractors hired as security personnel, were at the Annex.  They defended their position for hours from the roof, before a mortar round hit in close proximity and killed Woods.  As Doherty attempted to take cover, another round, part of the same barrage, killed Doherty instantly.  For many months I lived under the incorrect assumption that the four heroes who died in Benghazi had perished together, in the same location.  Actually, the incidents that took the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty, occurred at two separate locations and at different times.

Immediately following the tragedy, the Obama Administration was heavily criticized for blaming the attacks on a "spontaneous demonstration of anger as a result of the U.S. distribution of a film which some Muslims believe to be sacrilegious".  Allegedly, regular citizens of Benghazi, angered by the release of this film (assuming, of course, that the Muslim population of Benghazi is pious), spontaneously retrieved automatic weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers, and rushed out to attack the U.S. Consulate, and later the Consulate Annex.  The obvious question the morning after the attack, is why didn't the State Department have more security personnel in place, and second, why weren't additional military resources brought in?  The Administration, by blaming the attack on the unexpected release of this film and the "spontaneous" expression of anger on the part of Benghazi Muslims, wanted to avoid blame for not having adequate security measures in place.  In other words, "people died because this movie really pissed off the Muslims, who unexpectedly sacked the Consulate; it had nothing to do with not having a valid security plan."  Actually, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on that particular day to review plans for a new cultural center and to modernize a hospital; he was also tasked with preparing a report on security issues related to the transition of the Consulate from a temporary facility to a permanent one. 

The reason why Hillary Clinton has been her own worst enemy throughout this Benghazi crisis is her apparent inability to accept blame for anything.  It will eventually be her political undoing.  Most Americans, myself included, waited to hear the Secretary of State hold a news conference to discuss Benghazi.  The American people wanted to hear Hillary comment that a terrible tragedy had occurred which resulted in the painful loss of four American heroes.  Hillary needed to assure the American people that no stone would go unturned to locate and bring to justice the persons responsible and that a full investigation would take place to make sure this terrible event would never happen again.  She needed to say, "but regardless of the particular details, I am Secretary of State, and the responsibility for those people who lost their lives rests with me."  Instead, we got distraction, diversion, and pointed fingers.  The American people wanted to know why an American Ambassador was running around in a warzone without adequate security.  They want to know why U.S. Consulate employees (Sean Smith) were working in a hostile warzone without the necessary protection.  We've heard a few attempts at answers, and not surprisingly one of the excuses laid the blame at the feet of President George W. Bush.  As for the committee itself, there can be no doubt that the GOP is using this investigation to drill as many holes into Hillary's presidential ambitions as possible.  The real damage may not come from Benghazi, but from a tangential issue that popped up during the committee's investigation: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business, and, at times, pass confidential information.  I think we can expect to see the Benghazi investigation begin to fade, as the "emailgate" springs to life.

Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.

Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades.  We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life.  Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place.  Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001.  Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory.  When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate.  Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists.  The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.  At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia.  Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict.  So are we at peace?

The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime.  You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows.  All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art.  The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice.  Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways.  Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities.  The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence.  A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics.  The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense.  The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.

Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage?  The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying.  But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information.  The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars.  Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs.  On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop.  Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here."  Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their  dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?

Back to economic espionage.  Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors.  For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders.  The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well.  Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another.  Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters.  To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career.  Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information.  The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.

Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades.  So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered.  But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together.  The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation.  I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.

The United States has the finest Armed Forces in the world, and it has nothing to do with equipment or size.

Link: Wikipedia entry on United States Armed Forces.

I come from a military family.  My father was enlisted career U.S. Army, and his choice of occupations took him to France in 1962, where he met and married my mother.  For this reason I was raised in a bicultural household, and I am very proud of my heritage.  Almost every country on the globe has a military of some sort, although a few of the more smaller states rely on larger and more prosperous neighbors for defensive purposes.  Unless a war starts, most armies stay within their own national borders.  For example, although Mexico declared itself at war with the bad guys in World War Two, the Mexican Armed Forces haven't been outside the borders of Mexico since 1846.  Because the United States is a superpower and has been one since the advent of the 20th century, the U.S. military has found itself involved in numerous conflicts far from its own national boundaries.  Just like my father, there were many young soldiers who met local girls while overseas and fell in love.  This fact only added to the unique demographics of the United States of America.

I consider myself so fortunate to part of a military family.  When members of the U.S. Armed Forces serve overseas, their families must live in foreign countries and adjust to languages and customs that are unfamiliar.  The U.S. military community quickly turned this circumstance into an advantage.  As a child, I spoke French before I spoke English, and before entering Middle School, I had a decent
comprehension of German.  Even though we lived in our own neighborhood, we were surrounded by a larger city and had no choice but to become friends with our hosts.  The American military schools were/are exceptional, and our community was always taking field trips to castles and historic sites, the likes of which don't exist in the United States because of Uncle Sam's relative youth.  During the holidays, the military families would become one extended family, with so much generosity, compassion, and joy.  At Christmastime, all the families joined together to decorate the community.  Leagues were organized that allowed kids from the different communities to compete against each other in American football, softball, baseball and basketball.  And we never forgot that the reason we were in Europe was because my father had a responsibility as a U.S. soldier to defend Europe from communism.

Since the end of the Civil War, the United States has rarely had its territorial integrity threatened.
From my perspective, only twice has our national survival been at stake; the Second World War and September 11, 2001.  We have fought many wars because we believed that the cause was just and the sacrifice necessary.  On two occasions, Vietnam and the second Iraq War, the decision to get involved was not universally supported by the American people.  But our soldiers have been so well-trained and raised in good families, that they have always understood the absolute necessity to leave the politics back home.  On two occasions during my career in the CIA, I was able to work with the U.S. Armed Forces.  I am unable to provide details, but I will say that I was left with a tremendously positive impression.  The United States continues to produce the world's FINEST young men and women, and my blog is not a U.S. Armed Forces recruitment site.  My comment is simply the truth.  Time and time again, our military proves that courage has a permanent home in the uniform of the United States Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard.  Once I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation given by a survivor of the Bataan Death March in World War II.  He challenged everyone to buy a world map, and draw a cross in every foreign location that has become the permanent home of a U.S. soldier.  I still have my world map with all its crosses, and I still find myself making updates.  Even though I like to consider myself a bit of a history buff, I continue to learn about young American soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice in unheard of places.  I am convinced that as the ultimate melting pot of humanity, for a time we were welcoming the best, the brightest, and the bravest to our shores.  So it should be no surprise that our troops have the intellect to recognize the importance of freedom, and the courage to fight to defend it.    

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part II)

In 2009 and 2010, the future was really looking brighter for the people of Iraq.  The country now boasted of three international airports at Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, and the ex-pat community which was spread out all over the globe, began to make its way back home, with an eye to investing in the new Iraq.  Schools were overflowing and Iraq was refining oil again.  The Iraqi people, Shi'a Kurd and Sunni, celebrated the success of Iraq's international sports teams, and that all-necessary middle class began to make an appearance.  No doubt, a smoother political transition would have been welcome, but it seemed par for the course in this part of the world.  The Shi'a/Sunni political split should have been seen as a hugely negative but predictable development.  In hindsight, the CIA should have created and financially supported a political party that included both well-known and respected Shi'a and Sunni.  But no one was really complaining because Iraq was on the move in the right direction.  So what happened?  Its 2015, and the country is under siege, and the nascent economy that had begun to grow is now in tatters.  The oil refining capability of Iraq, which is its lifeline, is in shambles.  And all this happened because of our rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Is it unfair for me to lay all the blame at the feet of the Administration?  Lets take a look at the evidence:

How can I blame the Administration for ISIS, a terrorist group that originated in Syria?  Wrong -  ISIS originated in Iraq.  After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the "Great Awakening" (the Sunni movement to oppose Zarqawi and the insurgency), his organization went into hibernation. It eventually found its way into Syria, and took advantage of that conflict to rebuild and rebrand.  This was the creation of ISIS.  No doubt that there aren't many left over from the Zarqawi days, but can it be only a coincidence that the leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-BAGHDADI?  Regardless, ISIS found the perfect environment for reconstituting itself and created a new, sexier manifesto.  Since the bad guy in Syria wasn't the United States, a more flexible statement of motivation was necessary.  ISIS identified itself with an effort to unite various nations in the Levant under the flag of a Sunni extremist Caliphate (with Baghdadi as the first Caliph, I assume).  This declaration allowed ISIS to claim all sorts of enemies (the U.S., Europe, Israel, moderate Arab States, etc.), and at the same time, all sorts of support, including money and volunteers.  By the time the United States had just about completed its military departure from Iraq, ISIS was healthy and in a prime position to extend its operations outside of Syria.  Iraq, with all of its internal squabbles and still trying to train and equip a legitimate national army, was a juicy target.  And I'm sure the irony was not lost in the minds of Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, post-Bin Laden leader of Al-Qaeda.  The American people can provide Iraq with freedom at the cost of thousands of young U.S. soldiers lives, and everything can be turned to shit with one selfish, stupid, political decision.  We understand that a promise was made during the election to remove U.S. military from Iraq, but why didn't the Administration follow the recommended plan put forth by the Pentagon?  The greatest flaw of this Administration has been its determination to fill every high-level USG job with a political appointee, regardless of experience or qualification.  When you choose this course of action, then it should be no surprise that people with the wrong background are making bad military decisions.  What sense does it make to put Bill Clinton's former Chief of State and a career numbers guy, in charge of the CIA?  Wouldn't you think that the person chosen would have at least a smidgeon of experience with the intelligence community?  Not according to President Obama.  This problem, which will take years to correct, has manifested itself everywhere, especially at the State Department, where under first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry, Foggy Bottom has now become reactive to world events as opposed to proactive.  We seem to always be about five minutes behind.  It sucks when you arrive on the scene even after Portugal, for goodness sake.

My biggest concern regarding the Sunni of Iraq, is the continued presence of the Shi'a militias and their Iranian advisors.  The Sunni no longer see the U.S. military, unless they just happen to have some business at al-Asad Air Base out in the middle of nowhere, Anbar Province.  Its true that a number of U.S. non-military personnel continue to function in Iraq in support of the central government (and the U.S. government as well, of course), but to the Sunni in Anbar and Salah ad-Din Provinces, this means nothing.  Those Sunni tribal leaders who were so instrumental in 2007 and 2008, well, they are still around, and they are keeping a close eye which way the wind is blowing. Fortunately, His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Ali-al-Sistani is still alive, and seems as determined as ever to thwart any Iranian attempt to use the Iraqi Shi'a to deliver their own country into the hands of Tehran.  The Shi'a of Iraq listen to Sistani, as do the Sunni; as long as he continues to preach a moderate message of peace and unity, I believe that the Sunni will stay loyal to the government in Baghdad.  But once Sistani dies, and reactionary Shi'a cleric Muqtadah al-Sadr becomes the titular head of Iraq's Shi'a, then all bets are off.  Sadr is poised to take over after Sistani (there really is no one else), and he has been cultivating the poor, young and angry Shi'a for years.  Most importantly, Sadr is in the front AND back pocket of the Iranian Ayatollahs in Qom, and this fact is no secret.  If Sistani were to expire, we would have to seriously consider the possibility that the Sunni tribal leaders abandon the Shi'a dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad and throw in with ISIS.  For them, it may be a matter of survival.

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part I)

Link: The Sunni of Iraq - caught in the middle again.


Although plenty of Iraqi Shi'a and Kurds would disagree with me, I'm beginning to develop a real sense of sympathy for the Sunni of Iraq.  For half of century, they had one of their own running the show in Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein showed just as much disdain for his fellow Sunni as he did for the Shi'a, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Assyrians in his country.  Sadly, though, the non-Sunni Iraqis will forever associate Saddam Hussein and his rule with the Sunni community.  Its the name of the game in Mesopotamia this century.  While Europeans and Americans many times are never even aware of the particular religious affiliation of their neighbors, in this part of the world, it means everything.  Although the Sunni suffered under Saddam Hussein, it is true that a semblance of a middle class developed in Iraq.....and it was mostly Sunni.  Those who were lucky enough to belong to this small middle class had the opportunity to attend university in Baghdad, and following graduation, join the ranks of physicians, architects, engineers, teachers, and businessmen who kept the country from following any further into chaos.  It was no surprise that by the arrival of the U.S. Army in 2003, the Sunni reputation as being the educated and "established" demographic in Iraq, was well established.  It was an easy assumption to make; the Shi'a seemed to prefer living in the south, and engaging in small-scale agriculture for sustenance (with the exception of the half-million or so living in the squalid slums of Sadr City, in northeast Baghdad).  As for the Kurds, well, they preferred to keep to themselves in the north of the country.  In fact, a large percentage of northern Iraq actually functioned for some time as a separate political entity, run by and representing the Kurdish people.  With a "de-facto" capital city at Sulimaniyah, a functioning economic system and large urban centers in Erbil and Mosul, the Kurds were able to demonstrate to the world, just how ready they were an independent state.  But Turkey absolutely refused to sign-off on the idea, as they always had and probably always will.

The Sunni are spread out in Iraq, as are all the different ethnicities.  There is a substantial Sunni community in Basra in the south and in Mosul in the far north.  But the Sunnis are the dominant ethnic group in central Iraq, west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, and just north of Baghdad in Salah al-Din Province, including the cities of Samarrah and Tikrit.  With the end of the Ba'ath Party, a great deal of influence was returned to the Sunni tribal leaders and the "Shaykh" system of authority.  The United States was well aware of this development following the ouster of Saddam and the emergence of the Sunni insurgency.  The United States military and CIA (and to a lesser extent, Dept. of State) were able to co-opt the Sunni tribal leaders and bring the Sunni community onto the side of the good guys.  It took a great deal of influence and suggestion (read: money), but in the end, the Sunni rose up against Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and helped bring peace and stability to their nation.  But for a few years following the U.S. entry into Baghdad, the Sunni were connected to the violence caused by Zarqawi just because of their shared religious affiliation.  And Zarqawi played this to the hilt by sending suicide bombers into Shi'a religious gatherings, and then repeating the heinous act at the funeral for the victims.  For a time, the U.S. had to be concerned that open hostilities were going to break put between the Sunni and the Shi'a.  And all the while, the U.S. is trying to help Iraq stand back up on its feet, by rebuilding the transportation network, repairing the electrical grid, refurbishing the international airport, building schools, repairing refineries, and most important, organizing national elections.  These efforts were confounded by Zarqawi because of his daily use of suicide vehicles.  But Zarqawi went to far.  He was killing just as many Sunni as he was anyone else, and the Sunni were tired of the destabilization and the bloodshed.  This fact was a large factor in convincing the Sunni tribes to support the U.S. effort and defeat the insurgency for good.
 

  

Another "Concerned" Leftist Wants To Abolish The CIA

Link: Abolishing The CIA

Sometimes, but not often, I must truly collect myself before writing a post.  I have linked an article by a journalist (or blogger) regarding the recent torture revelations and the future of the CIA.  First and foremost, I have no qualms stating for the record that I disagree with all of what this person has to say on the subject.  Actually, THE TRUTH disagrees with some of what he had to say.  The details contained in the politically motivated release of the report have been discussed previously.  There is nothing new here, folks.  If you have three investigations looking into the same subject, don't be surprised if by the third effort, you find yourself with old news.  This article begins with a sensational claim that the CIA allowed a man to freeze to death.  I don't believe this claim.  I want to see the evidence.  More to the point, I want to see what evidence the author who repeated this despicable accusation has seen.  What was the name of the person who died?  In which "Black Location" did it occur?  Did the Agency admit to this event?  As for some of the other claims, I will not try and defend some of the unacceptable actions of a handful of obviously misplaced CIA employees.  The "anal feeding" is something completely foreign to myself and every person with whom I have discussed this event, as is the binding of the legs of someone who is injured.  I have no doubt that these repulsive and disturbing claims are true, but we are dealing with the exception as opposed to the rule.  The United States, along with our allies, have always applied enhanced techniques during interrogation.  It happened in the Revolutionary War, and it happened in WW II.  Unfortunately, war is a nasty business, and things will on occasion get out of hand.  The goal is to minimize those episodes, with the hope of eliminating them altogether.  The events of mistreatment have been blown totally out of proportion by the same, predictable bunch of lefties that will be calling for someone else's head when the next 9/11 happens because we DIDN'T have enough intelligence.  Every once in a while I will read an article written by someone who has been part of the war and understands certain dynamics which are foreign to the average American, and this someone will criticize the behavior of the CIA.  I am willing to except negative commentary from a source with those qualifications, not this guy from the link.  It takes more than a career sitting behind a desk in Chicago to make one an expert on the truth.

What would you do? . . . Without a doubt a very important question.  You are a Federal Agent, or a government interrogator, and you have solid, verified evidence that a man in your custody knows the location of a powerful bomb.  Last week this same man has admitted to bombing a market, which killed seventy-two innocent, mostly women and children.  But today he refuses to give you the location of the unexploded ordinance.  The clock is ticking . . . what do you do?  Would you threaten the man in custody, tell him you will arrest his family if he doesn't talk?  Will you lie and tell him that his silence is a death sentence?  Will you utilize the all-to familiar emotion of fear to save the lives of unsuspecting innocents?  According to this author of the link, even this type of behavior is unacceptable.  We can't even "lie" to the bad guys.  I wonder . . . if we had one of the 9/11 hijackers in custody BEFORE the event, and the writer in question was allowed to choose the method of interaction with the terrorist, what would he decide?  The author has written a wonderful book which includes a collection of all of the essays he has written during his career.  He is a beautiful writer and in most instances I agree with his perspective.  I was truly moved by the love he feels for his family and by his expression of loss.  But I can't sit back and allow someone to advocate the destruction of the most important tool our country possesses in the battle against international terrorism.  The bad guys are out there, and the laws of human nature tell us that they would arrive sooner or later. We did not create the hatred that exists in their hearts, no more than the Shia, or the Europeans did.  Al-Qaeda, and group similar to the Islamic State, exist to destroy what has been created in favor of a new matrix.  They want an empty countryside that they can populate with more bigots who are anti-Christian, anti-Shia, anti-Hindu, anti-Women, anti-Homosexual, and anti-Chicago-based journalists.  They don't pick and choose.  The only way to defeat these thugs is to understand their motivation and what will make them respond.  It may be stating the obvious, but sometimes the only thing the bully on the playground will understand is a fist.

In 2011, the CIA demonstrated its abilities by tracking down Osama Bin Laden and orchestrating his demise, God Bless the Navy Seals.  You know about this operation because the Agency was unable to keep its involvement out of the media.  Forgive the cliché, but for every operation that gets publicized, another 100 stay undisclosed.  That is the nature of the business.  This writer in Chicago has no idea how many lives the CIA has saved in the last decade alone, yet he is so excited about advocating its abolition because of retreaded 10-yr old stories, committed by a very small number of miscreants who no longer have their jobs.  I could talk about the pressure on these guys, after 9/11, and the constant drumbeat from Congress about the need for more intelligence, but I find no excuse for their behavior; just as I find absolutely no pattern to the events that are being played out in the press, for the third go-around.  The CIA is more important than ever, and to enhance its effectiveness, the powers that be need to return the organization to its roots: humint collection.  No one in this world will be safe if we don't have brave young men and women living life dangerously in foreign countries, trying to determine what the bad guys are planning to do next.  One can never know . . . the life they save my just be living in a suburb in Chicago, Illinois. 

Can't Help Myself - My Comments On This Torture Business

Link: Senator Kirk Telling It Like It Is


Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.  Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016.  I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama.  Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority.  This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation.  Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows.  If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you.  But you have to change the process (and law) first.  The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public.  I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding".  Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed.  Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place.  The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees.  I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries.  I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances.  A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation.  I know Waterboarding has saved lives.  It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use.  But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.

I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph.  JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously.  I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh.  I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others.  Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer.  Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome).  I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others.  I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis.  I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description.  But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy.  I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule.  I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction.  I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined.  As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and  thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques.  I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful.  Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target.  The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack.  I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service.  Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.

The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media.  I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back.  How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off?  Where was the CIA?  Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand?  The process has become so predictable.  The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable.  Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate.  Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered.  You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought.  But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.

I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post.  Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC.  But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential".  Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything?  They are so out of their league in this business.  And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts.  Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual.  She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings.  If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings.  Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.

Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there.  The big money is in entitlement reform.  A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform.  Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past.  All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real).  Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research.  Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending.  And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.