Your Source for Leaks Around the World!

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Irony? President Obama actually said “Bigger nations can’t bully the small” in his State of the Union speech last night

In Archive, News, USA on January 23, 2015 at 5:29 AM

tl:dr; During his State of Union address, US President Barack Obama said that anti-Russian sanctions isolated Russia and had an impact on the decline of its economy. Then the POTUS Barry actually said…”Bigger nations can’t bully the small.” Unbelievable, but true.

sotu-2

During his State of the Union speech last night, POTUS Obama said lots of dumb stuff…sorry, POTUS Obama read lots of dumb stuff off a prepared script…OK that’s more accurate.

Anyway, the classic line of the speech had to be when Obama (describing Russia’s never ending invasions of the peace loving, nazi Ukrainians) actually said…

“Bigger nations can’t bully the small”

Open palm to face.

deja_q_hd_046_resized_6484

Does America actually believe the teleprompter leader of the “banker free world”, when he spats out such ridiculous nonsense?

This is like Charles Manson saying in front of the whole world that people can’t go on drug induced killing sprees.

Russia Insider reports…

Barack Obama likes to say silly things about Russia. You could call it his hobby. Not long ago he decreed that Russia doesn’t make a single thing, and that there is currently a mass exodus from Russia, Moses-in-Egypt’s-land-style. He even dropped a worn-out BS bomb about Russians keeling over at alarming rates.

Then, slightly less long ago, the Nobel Peace Prize-bedazzled president proclaimed that the United States, in contrast to Russia, “upholds core international principles…You don’t invade other countries.” They don’t give Peace Prizes to just anybody!

Now—not actually “now,” but rather last evening—Obama has unveiled the latest purple prose from his Evil Russia repertoire, presented during the annual State of the Union:

“We are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small — by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.”

“Bigger nations can’t bully the small”? This is coming from a gentleman who destroyed Libya, extended the occupation of Afghanistan indefinitely, and is currently drone-bombing half a dozen other small, defenseless nations.

“Opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies”: This is fancy Harvard Law School talk for “supporting a violent, illegal coup that overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Ukraine, then blaming Russia for all the world’s problems while moaning about how the Russian army is at the ‘doorstep of NATO,’ a military alliance which happens to have forts directly on Russia’s borders.” Can we move on? Yes we can! Take the wheel, Barry:

“Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.”

That’s how America leads — not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.

References:

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/21/2600

Who Is More Exceptional: The United States or Russia?

In Archive, News, NWO, Russia, USA on June 12, 2014 at 4:41 AM

by William Blum   |  June 9, 2014

President Barack Obama greets cadets after delivering a speech on Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in West Point, N.Y., Dec. 1, 2009. More recently, he spoke at the commencement ceremony on May 28, 2014. (Pete Souza/White House)

I was going to write a commentary about President Obama’s speech to the graduating class at the US Military Academy (West Point) on May 28. When he speaks to a military audience the president is usually at his most nationalistic, jingoist, militaristic, and American-exceptionalist – wall-to-wall platitudes. But this talk was simply too nationalistic, jingoist, militaristic, and American-exceptionalist. (“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”) To go through it line by line in order to make my usual wise-ass remarks, would have been just too painful. However, if you’re in a masochistic mood and wish to read his speech, it can be found here.

Instead I offer you part of a commentary from Mr. Jan Oberg, Danish director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden:

What is in conspiracy lacking in the President’s West Point speech?

  1. Any reasonably accurate appraisal of the world and the role of other nations.
  2. A sense of humility and respect for allies and other countries in this world.
  3. Every element of a grand strategy for America for its foreign and security policy and some kind of vision of what a better world would look like. This speech with all its tired, self-aggrandizing rhetoric is a thin cover-up for the fact that there is no such vision or overall strategy.
  4. Some little hint of reforms of existing institutions or new thinking about globalization and global democratic decision-making.
  5. Ideas and initiatives – stretched-out hands – to help the world move towards conflict-resolution in crisis areas such as Ukraine, Syria, Libya, China-Japan and Iran. Not a trace of creativity.

Ironically, on May 30 the Wall Street Journal published a long essay by Leon Aron, a Russia scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The essay took Russian president Vladimir Putin to task for claiming that Russia is exceptional. The piece was headed:

“Why Putin Says Russia Is Exceptional”

“Such claims have often heralded aggression abroad and harsh crackdowns at home.”

It states: “To Mr. Putin, in short, Russia was exceptional because it was emphatically not like the modern West – or not, in any event, like his caricature of a corrupt, morally benighted Europe and U.S. This was a bad omen, presaging the foreign policy gambits against Ukraine that now have the whole world guessing about Mr. Putin’s intentions.”

So the Wall Street Journal has no difficulty in ascertaining that a particular world leader sees his country as “exceptional”. And that such a perception can lead that leader or his country to engage in aggression abroad and crackdowns at home. The particular world leader so harshly judged in this manner by the Wall Street Journal is named Vladimir Putin, not Barack Obama. There’s a word for this kind of analysis – It’s called hypocrisy.

“Hypocrisy is anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised.” – Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, (1828-1910) Russian writer

Is hypocrisy a moral failing or a failing of the intellect?

The New Cold War is getting to look more and more like the old one, wherein neither side allows the other to get away with any propaganda point. Just compare any American television network to the Russian station broadcast in the United States – RT (formerly Russia Today). The contrast in coverage of the same news events is remarkable, and the stations attack and make fun of each other by name.

Another, even more important, feature to note is that in Cold War I the United States usually had to consider what the Soviet reaction would be to a planned American intervention in the Third World. This often served as a brake to one extent or another on Washington’s imperial adventures. Thus it was that only weeks after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the United States bombed and invaded Panama, inflicting thousands of casualties and widespread destruction, for the flimsiest – bordering on the non-existent – of reasons.  The hostile Russian reaction to Washington’s clear involvement in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in February of this year, followed by Washington’s significant irritation and defensiveness toward the Russian reaction, indicates that this Cold War brake may have a chance of returning. And for this we should be grateful.

After the “communist threat” had disappeared and the foreign policy of the United States continued absolutely unchanged, it meant that the Cold War revisionists had been vindicated – the conflict had not been about containing an evil called “communism”; it had been about American expansion, imperialism, and capitalism. If the collapse of the Soviet Union did not result in any reduction in the American military budget, but rather was followed by large increases, it meant that the Cold War – from Washington’s perspective – had not been motivated by a fear of the Russians, but purely by ideology.

Bradley Manning pleads guilty to 10 out of 22 charges against him

In Bradley Manning, Manning, News on February 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM

02/28/2013

Bradley Manning, the US Army intelligence officer accused of passing sensitive military documents to whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, is expected to tell a courtroom Thursday morning why he assisted in the leak.

Private First Class Bradley Manning, 25, is scheduled to make a statement on Thursday – his second since being arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of giving Julian Assange’s website hundreds of thousands of US State Department diplomatic cables and a trove of other documents.

Manning is slated to go before a military court-martial this June, and faces life imprisonment if convicted of aiding the enemy, the most serious of the charges against him. On Thursday, however, the Kansas-born soldier is expected to plead guilty on lesser charges in hopes of a more lenient sentence; in doing so, he may speak about his motivation for leaking the files.

“Manning is expected to publicly explain his reasons for releasing classified information through WikiLeaks,” confirmed the Bradley Manning Support Network, a collective of advocates who have been assisting with the soldier’s legal fees. Earlier, during this week’s pre-trial hearing, those in the Ft. Meade, Maryland, courtroom were told that Manning hoped releasing intelligence to WikiLeaks would “spark a domestic debate on the role of our military and foreign policy in general.” Last year, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange credited the materials attributed to Manning with helping end the US war in Iraq.

“If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and invaluable to all of us,” Assange said during a December address penned from London’s Ecuadorian Embassy. “It was WikiLeaks’ revelations — not the actions of President Obama — that forced the US administration out of the Iraq War… By exposing the killing of Iraqi children, WikiLeaks directly motivated the Iraqi government to strip the US military of legal immunity, which in turn forced the US withdrawal.”

mnng33

Among the materials attributed to Manning are Pentagon logs referred to today as the ‘Iraq and Afghan War Diaries,’ as well as video published by WikiLeaks under the title ‘Collateral Murder.’ With that release, WikiLeaks showed US soldiers onboard an Apache helicopter opening fire on Iraqi civilians, including a Reuters photographer.

“This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time, removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare,” Manning allegedly said about the footage.

According to the soldier’s support network, “Manning’s testimony this Thursday will speak to larger issues affecting his case as a whole, and expands upon a plea proffering responsibility for releasing information with noble motive, while contesting the most serious charges.”

“The plea gives Bradley an opportunity to take responsibility for releasing some documents to WikiLeaks while opposing the way that the government has charged him,” explained the network’s editor Nathan Fuller. Before the plea is formally entered, though, Manning will have a colloquy, or a private counsel with the presiding judge. “The colloquy gives him a chance to explain some of his reasoning at greater length,” Fuller said.

Blogger Kevin Gosztola believes the trial may go no further than that, though. On Wednesday, Gosztola wrote after sitting in on the day’s hearing that Thursday’s colloquy could end with Col. Denise Lind, the military judge overseeing the trial, censoring part of Pfc. Manning’s prepared statement. According to Gosztola, the US government might not want Manning’s plea enter entered in full because reading the statement “could be admitting to uncharged misconduct that could be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing.”

Lind “explained she did not want Manning to read a ‘sworn written statement,” Gosztola said. Instead, he says Lind would prefer for Manning to only answer questions on the stand. “He can try to read it, but I am going to stop him” if the contents are not relevant to being guilty of committing the lesser offenses of entered in the plea, she said.

“He understands his statement and he understands the elements he needs to plead guilty,” Manning’s attorney David Coombs told the judge.

Manning has been detained for over 1,000 days without a formal military trial, and will see the start of his fourth year behind bars this May. The only other time he has spoken publically on the stand was in December 2012, when he testified about the conditions he endured while detained at a military brig in Northern Virginia.

Lind agreed to take 122 days off any eventual sentence for Manning due to the poor treatment. Earlier this week, she dismissed an attempt by the defense to have all charges against Manning dropped over an alleged violation of the ‘speedy trial’ statute.

manning

Via RT

Sequester May Slow Pentagon Response to WikiLeaks

In News on February 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Howard Stern and Jesse Ventura discuss politics, WikiLeaks, Monsanto and other interesting topics.

02/27/2013

The across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration that are expected to take effect on March 1 could impede the government’s ability to respond to WikiLeaks and to rectify the flaws in information security that it exposed, a Pentagon official told Congress recently.

Zachary J. Lemnios, the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, was asked by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to describe the “most significant” impacts on cybersecurity that could follow from the anticipated cuts to the Pentagon’s budget.

Mr. Lemnios replied that “cuts under sequestration could hurt efforts to fight cyber threats, including […] improving the security of our classified Federal networks and addressing WikiLeaks.”

The sequester could also interfere with the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative that began under President Bush, he said, and could hold up plans to “initiat[e] continuous monitoring of unclassified networks at all Federal agencies.”

Mr. Lemnios’ response to Sen. Portman’s question for the record (which had not specifically mentioned WikiLeaks) followed a March 2012 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Emerging Threats and Capabilities that was published in December 2012 (at page 42).

Generally speaking, computer security within the military is a daunting problem, Mr. Lemnios told the Committee, particularly since “The Department operates over 15,000 networks and 7 million computing devices across hundreds of installations in dozens of countries around the globe.”

The challenge of cybersecurity cannot be fully described in public, said Dr. Kaigham J. Gabriel of DARPA. “The complete picture requires a discussion at the special access level.” But he told the Committee last year that several basic points can be openly acknowledged:

“Attackers can penetrate our networks: In just 3 days and at a cost of only $18,000, the Host-Based Security System” — the Pentagon’s baseline computer security system — “was penetrated.”

“User authentication is a weak link: 53,000 passwords were provided to teams at Defcon; within 48 hours, 38,000 were cracked.”

“The Defense supply chain is at risk: More than two-thirds of electronics in U.S. advanced fighter aircraft are fabricated in off-shore foundries.”

“Physical systems are at risk: A smartphone hundreds of miles away took control of a car’s drive system through an exploit in a wireless interface.”

“The United States continues to spend on cybersecurity with limited increase in security: The Federal Government expended billions of dollars in 2010, but the number of malicious cyber intrusions has increased.”

Though it was presumably not intentional, the WikiLeaks project galvanized government information security programs and accelerated efforts to devise “insider threat” detection mechanisms, along with intensified surveillance of classified and unclassified government computer networks.

“New classes of anomaly detection methods have been developed and are based on aggregating events across time and multiple sources to identify network and host-based behavior that might be malicious,” James S. Peery of Sandia National Laboratories told the Senate Armed Services Committee at last year’s hearing. “These approaches and behavioral-based methods have been successful in finding previously undiscovered malware.”

“One drawback of this technology, though, is that it has a very high false positive rate,” he said.

One Response to “Sequester May Slow Pentagon Response to WikiLeaks”

Anonymous Says:

The Pentagon’s cybersecurity issue is not about money, and how to develop the technology to prevent these attacks. It’s much deeper. Hackers, I think, have a certain tendency to question authority and that tendency doesn’t fit well in a military environment. That means that the human talent needed to tackle the cybersecurity issues won’t even work for the Pentagon and its cybersecurity divisions.

Also, there is this huge link between the Defense Department’s black eavesdropping initiatives and a vision of a different Internet, that is somewhat less open and less anonymous, and certainly less subversive. That, I think, makes the hackers side with the Average Joe on his desktop (the hacker was just an Average Joe, too) instead of with the huge Big Brother being built in the basement of the NSA that seeks to control everything that goes through the Internet. It’s a lost cause for the Pentagon.

wiki

Via SecrecyNews

America must not “dictate” to world, new defense chief says

In News on February 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Hagel speaks to service members and civilian employees on his first day in his new post at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia

02/27/2013

Decorated Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel was sworn in as U.S. defense secretary on Wednesday after a bruising Senate confirmation battle, and promised to renew old U.S. alliances and forge new ones without attempting to “dictate” to the world.

Addressing Pentagon employees shortly after a small, closed-door swearing-in ceremony, Hagel spoke optimistically, if vaguely, about global challenges ahead and the importance of American leadership abroad.

“We can’t dictate to the world. But we must engage the world. We must lead with our allies,” Hagel said in what appeared to be unscripted remarks.

“No nation, as great as America is, can do any of this alone.”

He also plainly acknowledged the prospect of looming automatic budget cuts, known as the sequester, saying flatly: “That’s a reality. We need to figure this out. You are doing that.”

“We need to deal with this reality,” he added, as hopes dim in Washington that Congress might act in time to forestall $46 billion in Pentagon cuts, due to kick in on March 1.

Hagel, a former two-term Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska, broke from his party during the administration of George W. Bush to become a fierce critic of the Iraq war.

Many Republicans opposed to Hagel’s nomination scorned him over Iraq and raised questions about whether he was sufficiently supportive of Israel, tough enough on Iran or truly committed to maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent.

The 58-41 Senate vote to confirm him late on Tuesday was the closest vote ever to approve a defense secretary, with only four Republicans supporting him.

AMERICA MUST USE POWER “WISELY”

Hagel did not acknowledge any Republican criticisms or reveal any personal concerns about working with Congress during his remarks on Wednesday. But he did articulate his views about the need for caution when America flexes its muscle abroad.

“We have great power and how we apply our power is particularly important,” Hagel said.

“That engagement in the world should be done wisely. And the resources that we employ on behalf of our country and our allies should always be applied wisely.”

Hagel’s views of war and the limits of American military power were shaped in part by his experiences in Vietnam, where he fought as an infantryman alongside his brother and was awarded two Purple Hearts, the medal given to troops wounded in battle.

Hagel still carries the shrapnel from one of his injuries and he is the first Vietnam veteran to lead the Pentagon.

Introducing Hagel in the Pentagon auditorium, an Army infantryman with two tours in Afghanistan said Hagel “knows the very real cost of war” and was guided by principals to use force only when necessary.

Among his first tasks, Hagel will start weighing in on crucial decisions about the Afghan war, notably the size and scope of the American force that President Barack Obama will leave behind in the country once NATO declares its combat mission over at the end of 2014.

Leaving fewer troops than U.S. commanders recommend could create tension with the military, and become a lightening-rod issue with Republicans.

Hagel’s predecessor, former defense secretary Leon Panetta, discussed with NATO allies in Brussels last week keeping a NATO force of between 8,000 and 12,000 troops. A senior NATO official said last month that the United States expects other NATO allies to contribute between a third and half the number of troops Washington provides.

Via Reuters

%d bloggers like this: