So That’s How That Happened – The Backstory To The Weirdly Awkward John Kerry / James Taylor Charlie Hebdo Thing…

dJune 20, 2015

The Last Refuge:

History needs to be corrected.  In the post Charlie Hebdo attack aftermath, every media outlet said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asked James Taylor to fly to Paris.  Actually, the opposite is true; James Taylor’s wife asked Secretary Kerry to come to Paris.  Nice to know what’s actually driving our diplomatic endeavors…. 

Buried in a recent Billboard interview we find this:

In January, after the Charlie Hebdo murders in France, you sang “You’ve Got a Friend” at a rally in Paris, which Secretary of State John Kerry attended. How did that come about?

At the time of the attacks, my wife and I were in Switzerland, taking vacation time before I went to Paris to do press for a tour of Europe. John and Teresa Kerry are, I would say, our good friends.

Kim was texting him after the attacks and said, “John, I think you need to go to Paris.” They were having a solidarity march two days after the attack. But John had to be in Peshawar, for a secret meeting.

He said, “I’ll be there as soon as I can.”

When he came to Paris, we had dinner and he said, “I’m giving a speech with the mayor tomorrow. James, will you sing ‘You’ve Got a Friend’?”

It was done at the drop of a hat. When I stood up to sing, my guitar wasn’t working. So the mayor [Anne Hidalgo] came over and held her mic in front of my guitar. (link)

More at The Last Refuge

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Watch: John Kerry’s Push For The Internet To Be Placed Under The UN Umbrella, A Push For Internet Control?

dMay 21, 2015

by Lorra B. for Silent Soldier

In South Korea on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the Internet “needs rules to be able to flourish and work properly.” He is advising it be positioned under United Nations rule.

I don’t think anyone would argue that rules are implemented in almost every aspect of our lives and that they are needed. What frightens many Americans, however, are whether or not their rights will be infringed upon due to the watchful eye of the government and/or if it is just a tactic to gain an economic slice of the Internet pie.

Explaining the applicability of international law to the Internet, Kerry goes on to say, “As I’ve mentioned, the basic rule of international; law apply in cyberspace. Acts of aggression are not permissible. And countries that are hurt by an attack have a right to respond in ways that are appropriate, proportional, and that minimize harm to innocent parties. We also support a set of additional principles that, if observed, can contribute substantially to conflict prevention and stability in time of peace. We view these as universal concepts that should be appealing to all responsible states, and they are already gaining traction.”

dKerry has a point about international cyber attacks. Take the Sony Saga, for example. Most of us may remember North Korea not being too pleased with Sony Pictures last November when they were about to release a comedy spoof about the assassination of North Korea’s leader. Not finding it one bit funny, North Korea launched a devastating cyber attack on American soil leaving a company devastated and Americans Shocked.

But, would putting the Internet under the UN umbrella do one thing to stop such attacks? Would giving government control over the internet do much to detour terrorist activities, domestic or foreign?

Let’s see what Kerry say’s about this. “First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cyber-security incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And, fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyber-attack.”

To add emphasis to his proposition he stated, “I guarantee you if those five principles were genuinely and fully adopted and implemented by countries, we would be living in a far safer and far more confident cyber-world.”

United Nations Headquarters

United Nations Headquarters

You can’t argue the logic, in a perfect world. But we do not live in a perfect world. As unpleasant as it may sound, we live in a fallen world of deceit and war… country against country, race against race, man against man.  So can placing the internet under the authority of the United Nations do more than equal Big Brother watching our every move, regulating our freedoms and taxing what is now provided free for all?

Since the Clinton administration, the internet has been open and privatized. “It proliferated globally as it migrated farther away from government control—bringing freedom and prosperity to billions…it grew from a mere 88,000 users in the late 1980’s, to more than 3 billion today,” reports The Washington Post.

By the year 2022, it is estimated that the Internet will generate over $14 trillion. To say that the Internet was the all-time single best story of success would be an understatement in my estimation. Would it be a stretch, then, to suggest that government might seek ways to gain possession of such an asset buy imposing unnecessary rules?

The movement for Net Neutrality’s main goal is FCC oversight of the Internet. In fact, The Washington Post reported in February, that the FCC classified “Internet providers as Public Utilities…The new rules will promote an Internet that’sfast, fair and open,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 15:  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler speaks during an open meeting to receive public comment on proposed open Internet notice of proposed rulemaking and spectrum auctions May 15, 2014 at the FCC headquarters in Washington, DC. The FCC has voted in favor of a proposal to reform net neutrality and could allow Internet service providers to charge for faster and higher-quality service.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 15: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler speaks during an open meeting to receive public comment on proposed open Internet notice of proposed rulemaking and spectrum auctions May 15, 2014 at the FCC headquarters in Washington, DC. The FCC has voted in favor of a proposal to reform net neutrality and could allow Internet service providers to charge for faster and higher-quality service. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The FCC’s new rules, however, can reverse years of very minimal regulations and could have, even if unintended, undesirable side affects.

There is no clear image of what justifies these new imposed regulations. “The FCC plan bars companies such as Verizon and Comcast — Internet Service Providers — from blocking any Internet connection. But there was never any support for this sort of censorship, and the agency’s press release contains no evidence that it is widespread. ‘It’s a red herring,’ says Brookings Institution economist Robert Litan.

This ‘red herring could end up costing consumers. If a company such as Netflix does not live up to their end of the bargain and pay their costs, someone surly will. “In practice, there could be massive cross-subsidization…Promoted as protecting the ‘little guy,’ net neutrality may do the opposite,” says The Washington Post.

While the government promises not to take on Utility Style pricing regulations, there is really nothing to stop them.

So, while cyber-security is a serious matter and, without question, needs serious attention, will it be done at the expense of consumers current freedoms and will it dig deeply into those same consumers purse-strings? While John Kerry would say absolutely not, that placing the Internet under the UN umbrella would only offer us more protections, there are many others who are not that confident and see this as nothing more that an attempt at eventual absolute control.

Listen to Kerry’s Speech to South Korea:

by Lorra B. for Silent Soldier

Connecting the Dots: Iran, Immigration & National Security

dApril 6, 2015

The Counter Jihad Report:

Frontpage, by Michael Cutler, April, 6, 2015:

This past week John Kerry, bargaining from a self-imposed position of weakness, continued to negotiate with Iran, the world’s most pernicious state sponsor of international terrorism even after America’s allies walked away. It might be said that Kerry agreed to take “No” for an answer.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu left no doubt about his grave concerns about the wisdom of the agreement being hammered out at the behest of the Obama administration that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and therefore poses an existential threat to Israel.

Mr. Obama has said that a deal with Iran would be “Historic.”

My concern is that Obama’s statement will be prophetic. History records as many tragedies as successes. The Hindenburg explosion was certainly historic. So was the loss of the Titanic and two of our space shuttles.

In point of fact, every major war has been historic as has been the Holocaust.

Many of the events recorded in history books were written with blood- rivers and, indeed, oceans of blood!

The news media has reported on Netanyahu’s concerns and noted how a nuclear Iran would, indeed, pose a threat to Israel’s survival. What has not been considered is that a nuclear Iran would pose no less a threat to America.

There is a saying that when confronting several adversaries in a dark alley you should not go after the smallest adversary but the largest. The reasoning is that if you beat up the smallest guy first, you will then have to fight your way up until you wind up fighting the largest adversary last. By then your strength and ability would have been largely depleted.

On the other hand, if you successfully take on the biggest adversary first, the other guys will run away and you will prevail.

Undoubtedly when Iran looks at Israel and the United States, the United States is that largest adversary.

Iran is operating in the Western Hemisphere as has been for many years. Their presence in our hemisphere and indeed our country, leaves us vulnerable to a devastating attack.

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a report entitled, “Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela.”

On February 3, 2012 ABC News which posted an article, “Exclusive: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here,” that had a clear and unambiguous title.

On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: “Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.”

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:

WASHINGTON — Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran’s secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America,” said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.

The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran’s leaders are “more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

Opening the hearing, King said, “We have a duty to prepare for the worst,” warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, “it must be presumed, are intelligence officers.”

Congressman Peter King focused primarily on the threats posed by Iranian diplomats and, indeed, these diplomats should be of great concern to us. However, these diplomats are readily identifiable. We know their identities and the fact that they are officially connected to the Iranian government. There are other Iranians who are present in the United States whose relationship with the Iranian government and its goals of destroying the United States are not so readily identifiable.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 the newspapers, “The Blaze” and “My San Antonio” reported on the arrest of Wissam Allouche by the FBI and members of the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) in San Antonio, Texas, for lying on his application for naturalization to acquire United States citizenship. The article published by “My San Antonio” was entitled: “Alleged member of Hezbollah arrested here” while the article in “The Blaze” was entitled: “Infiltration? The Alarming Details Surrounding Alleged Hezbollah Member’s Arrest in Texas.”

Here is an important excerpt from “The Blaze” article:

The federal indictment revealed Allouche had married a U.S. citizen and was going through the naturalization process when he was arrested. When asked by officials if he had ever been associated with a terrorist organization, he replied no. That apparently turned out to be a lie.

According to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, he was a militant with the Amal militia in Lebanon in the early to mid-1980s. He was reportedly captured as a Israeli prisoner of war, but was later released to become a commander of the Amal militia.

News reports at the time said Hezbollah was formed by religious members of the Amal movement.”

In addition to lying about his terror ties, Allouche is also accused of lying about his relationship with his ex-wife. He falsely claimed on his application forms in 2009 that he and his wife were married and living together for the past three years. In reality, they had no lived together since May 2007 and they filed for divorce in December of 2007.

While Allouche’s allegedly committed fraud in filing his application for naturalization, it must be noted that if the allegations are accurate, that he also gamed the the process by which he had been granted lawful immigrant status years earlier. He had a Green Card (Alien Registration Receipt Card) for at least three years before he applied for United States citizenship. The 9/11 Commission identified such fraud as being an integral part of the strategy terrorists have used to enter the United States and embed themselves.

At the time of his arrest Allouche, was applying for a security clearance in order to work for the Department of Defense and had also applied for naturalization. Allegedly he lied by claiming to have never been a member of a terrorist organization when in fact, according to the FBI, he had not just been a member of Hezbollah, but had been a commander of that terrorist organization.

On May 29, 2013 both of those newspapers published follow-up reports in conjunction with disclosures made by prosecutors during the bail hearing.

The title of the Blaze article was, “God of Death Bombshell Revelations About Alleged Hezbollah Commander Arrested In Texas.”

The article published in My San Antonio, “Accused Ex-Hezbollah Member Referred to as God”included the following excerpt:

Allouche was arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force here last week after being indicted on charges of not disclosing, during his quest to obtain his U.S. citizenship, his membership in the Amal militia and Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s.

He’s also charged with not disclosing his prior membership in those groups when he applied for a security clearance with the Defense Department as he sought a contracting job.

Before 2009, Allouche worked for L-3 Communications, which provides linguistic services for the U.S. military, and he was deployed for several months to Iraq. He has lived in the U.S. since about 2002, and once owned Windcrest Mobil, a gas station at Walzem Road and Interstate 35, his lawyer said.

In view of the charges lodged against Allouche, it would be important to know what the vetting process was that enabled him to be put in a position of trust. He was deployed with American troops in Iraq as a translator. This means that he may have assisted in the questioning and vetting of suspected terrorists and with those applying to work with our military. This raises some obvious and important questions.

What classified documents or people did he have had access to? Did he come to meet with covert officers whose identities must be preserved? Did he meet with suspected terrorists and, perhaps, have the capability to alter what the record reflects that they did or did not say? Might he have learned the identities of foreign nationals who for whatever reason decided to become cooperators? Has this endangered their lives and the operations that they were providing information for? Might he mistranslated statements made by terrorists seeking to gain entry to military bases to subsequently kill American soldiers?

The Allouche case is hardly an isolated one. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism is not just limited to Iranian citizens but may involve terrorists from other countries that are funded and otherwise supported by Iran.

Read more

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Iran deal: A treaty Or Not A Treaty, That Is The Question

dMarch 12, 2015

CNN: by, Stephen Collinson

Should Republicans have sent a letter to Iran?

Washington (CNN)If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?

According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.

That’s infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

“This is clearly a treaty,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. “They can call it a banana, but it’s a treaty.”

Kerry denounces GOP letter to Iran leaders

The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party’s newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.

It’s that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a “nonbinding agreement” rather than a “treaty,” which the Constitution requires Senate “advice and consent” on.

Can the White House avoid Congress?

The distinction — and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress — turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding plan.’ We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement,” he said at a Senate hearing.

That doesn’t sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate’s constitutional role is being bypassed.

Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration’s argument: “Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It’s a treaty and should be treated as such.”

Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?

Republicans see criticism of the administration’s maneuver as a way to gum up the works on the current deal, and to push their larger assault on the White House’s exercise of power.

At the Senate hearing Wednesday, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul explicitly tied the administration’s bid to keep the deal away from Congress to other accusations of White House overreach.

“This is an administration that seeks to legislate when that is not in their purview, whether it be immigration, whether it be health care,” he charged, noting that he had joined 46 other GOP senators in signing a letter to the Islamic Republic informing them of Congress’s role in approving binding agreements.

“I signed the letter to Iran. But you know what? The message I was sending was to you,” he told Kerry. “I signed it to an administration that doesn’t listen, to an administration that, every turn, tries to go around Congress because you think you can’t get your way.”

But legal experts say that though a court challenge along the lines of pending GOP cases on immigration and health care is possible in theory, it would be a long shot.

Legal challenges

There is no currently no suit on the issue being discussed on Capitol Hill, and it’s far from clear that Republicans would be standing on firm legal ground with such a challenge. The debate, rumbling for decades, has yet to be definitively resolved in case law.

“It is a very interesting question,” said Nicholas Burns, a former senior U.S. diplomat, arguing that it is essentially up to the administration to decide whether it is negotiating an agreement that formally binds the United States to commitments under international law; i.e., a treaty, or a less stringent arrangement.

More at CNN:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Secretary Of State, John Kerry, Seeks to Ease Iranian Nuke Talk Criticism


March 5, 2015

By Lorra B.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has been seeking to squash expectations of a significant nuclear deal with Iran by March and quiet the buzz Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made after his criticism of the Iranian nuclear talks. After three days of talks, the Iranian officials and the United States have wrapped things up, for now, while Netanyahu has pleaded that negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program be stopped.

According to Kerry, the talks will resume on March 15th and he insists that progress has been made though admits there is much left to be done.

“There are still significant gaps and important choices that need to be made,” stated Kerry to reporters. “No one has presented a more viable, lasting alternative for how you actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So folks, simply demanding that Iran capitulate is not a plan. And nor would any of our P5+1 partners support us in that position.”

On March 15th six world leaders and Iran are scheduled to meet again.

Netanyahu’s controversial speech, in part, urging US Congress to back off of negotiations with Iran seems to have landed on deaf ears. Netanyahu criticized diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement arguing that “rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, a deal would ‘all but guarantee’ that it would one day get the atomic bomb, putting Israel, the wider region and US interests at risk,” reports Aljazeera.

Netanyahu’s position on the talks may very well cause backlash on the Obama administrations attempt to sell the deal and Kerry insists that they are very aware of the potential nuclear danger.

“We continue to be focused on reaching a good deal, the right deal, that closes off any paths that Iran could have towards fissile material for a weapon and that protects the world form the enormous threat that well all know a nuclear-armed Iran would pose,” Kerry told reporters.

There are those in Congress, however, who are fearful that the United States will accept lenient terms with Iran believing that the agreement being orchestrated could be dangerous.

According to Yahoo News, “Last week, senators introduced legislation to give Congress a say over any deal, and Republicans are trying to get it passed even as the talks continue.”

The deal that is being negotiated, if successful, will “achieve the goal of proving that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain peaceful,” says Kerry. “No one has presented a more viable lasting alternative for how you actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Kerry was also quick to point out that Netanyahu offered no alternative strategy other than to walk away from the deal, an option not currently being considered by the administration.


Watch: John Kerry Today — “Against This Enemy [ISIS] We Have to KEEP OUR HEADS”…









January 23, 2015

Posted The Last Refugeby

Yes, yes he actually said that – today.

Beyond the insufferable willful blindness to avoid calling Radical Islam “violent extremism”, and against the backdrop of ISIS today holding two Japanese hostages under specific threat of beheading, our Secretary of State:

“Today we are witnessing a criminal form of anarchy, a nihilism which illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation. Against this enemy we are increasingly organizing and fighting back. But in doing so we have to also keep our heads.

‘We Have No Leadership’: Donald Trump Slams Obama for Skipping Paris Unity Rally (Video)

dJanuary 12, 2015

Lorra B.:  Not one of our leaders, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden or even Secretary of Sate John Kerry, decided to attend as over 40 other leaders from around the world descended on Paris yesterday in unified support against the brutality of Islamic extremism.

How do you explain this blatant disregard for this world-wide threat by thumbing your nose at France while other world leaders rally around them?

Disgraceful in my estimation, though I am quite sure I am not alone in this sentiment.



Fox News Insider:

More than 40 world leaders marched through Paris yesterday in unity against Islamic extremism.

President Obama, however, did not attend. Neither did Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry.

Not only that, but Attorney General Eric Holder was the only representative from the Obama administration who attended key terror talks in Paris.

Donald Trump said on “Fox and Friends” this morning that a high-level official should have been present at the anti-terror rally.

“Whether [Obama] is there or Biden is there or Kerry is there, somebody should have been there,” he said.

“These were the world leaders. These were the top people from the top countries. We were represented at a very low level.”

Steve Doocy pointed out that this administration sent three or four White House aides to Michael Brown’s funeral in Missouri.


More at Fox News Insider:


December 9, 2014


WASHINGTON:Dec.09 – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a 2 p.m. hearing on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in the United States’ war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Secretary of State John Kerry will testify.


Roll Call


U.S. Posts On Alert Over Potential Backlash From CIA Report, Lawmaker Warns Of ‘Violence’

December 8, 2014

(Fox News Screen Shot)

US posts on alert as looming CIA report spurs fears



U.S. diplomatic and military posts overseas are being put on alert over the potential backlash from a looming Senate report examining the alleged use of torture by the CIA, with one top lawmaker warning its release could cause “violence and deaths.”

A State Department and an intelligence official confirmed to Fox News early Monday that an advisory has been sent urging U.S. personnel overseas to reassess security measures.

The message directs all overseas posts, including those used by CIA personnel, to “review their security posture” for a “range of reactions that might occur.” A similar statement is being sent to military combatant commands to assess their readiness.

In Washington, tensions grew over the expected release of the report, with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., saying America’s allies are predicting “this will cause violence and deaths.” He said U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign governments have said privately that the release of the Senate intelligence panel report on CIA interrogations a decade ago will be used by extremists to incite violence that is likely to cost lives.

“I think this is a terrible idea,” Rogers said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Foreign leaders have approached the government and said, ‘You do this, this will cause violence and deaths.’ Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths.”

Rogers is regularly briefed on intelligence assessments. He questioned why the report needed to become public, given that the Justice Department investigated and filed no criminal charges.

The comments by Rogers came after Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday urged Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the senator in charge of the report on CIA interrogations, to reconsider the timing of the release. Obama administration officials said they still support making the report public.

In addition, a U.S. intelligence official, who was not authorized to be quoted discussing classified intelligence assessments, told the Associated Press that Congress had been warned “of the heightened potential that the release could stimulate a violent response.”

The 480-page report, a summary of a still-classified 6,000 page study, is expected to be made public this week. It amounts to the first public accounting of the CIA’s alleged use of torture on suspected Al Qaeda detainees held in secret facilities in Europe and Asia in the years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

CBS News reported Sunday that the report contains evidence that the CIA went beyond what was “legally allowable,” and that the agency lied to the White House, the Department of Justice and Congress about the effectiveness of the program.

The CIA told Fox News it would not comment until the report is released, but former agency officials have told Fox News that the agency’s program provided it with foundational intelligence about the Al Qaeda network after the Sept. 11 attacks. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has previously told Fox News that it is not feasible to believe that three different CIA directors and three different deputy directors of the agency conspired over a seven-year period to lie about the program’s effectiveness. Hayden and former CIA General Counsel John Rizzo also have claimed that the program provided evidence that helped direct the 2011 raid that killed Al Qaeda Usama bin Laden.

U.S. officials who have read the report say it includes disturbing new details about the CIA’s use of such techniques as sleep deprivation, confinement in small spaces, humiliation and the simulated drowning process known as waterboarding.

President Obama has previously acknowledged, “We tortured some folks.” The report also says the alleged torture failed to produce life-saving intelligence, a conclusion disputed by current and former intelligence officials, including CIA director John Brennan.

A congressional aide noted to the Associated Press that the White House has led negotiations to declassify the report since April, and that both the president and his director of national intelligence have endorsed its release.

Feinstein has not responded to reports of the Kerry call, though she told the Los Angeles Times in a story published Sunday that “We have to get this report out.”

She told the Los Angeles Times that the harsh interrogations undermined “societal and constitutional values that we are very proud of. Anybody who reads this is going to never let this happen again.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


KerryNovember 24, 2014

Desert Musings:

You have no idea how happy I am that George W. Bush won re-election in 2004. I’m probably a thousand times happier today, in November of 2014 than I was ten years ago when he actually did it. That’s because today I’ve been able to witness what a John Kerry presidency would have been like. It would have been similar to say, an Obama-lite presidency.


john-kerryI always believed that back then, but couldn’t really prove it. When John Kerry said in the debates that, “You need to elect me so I can see what needs to be done and fix it”, it was a pre-cursor of Nancy Pelosi’s 2010 “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” comment. It made no sense. And John Kerry has proven all year that he just isn’t up to the task of being Secretary of State… just like Hillary Clinton. If you can’t do a cabinet post properly, what in God’s name makes you think you can run the country?

Let’s look at Kerry’s latest escapade….the Iranian Nuclear Talks going on in Vienna. Now, the deadline is supposed to be today, but the problem is, both sides are miles apart. Iran doesn’t care one way or another what the deal says as long as sanctions against them are lifted permanently. And Kerry doesn’t care one way or another what the deal says as long as he is able to come home with a deal. That is a recipe for nuclear disaster. End result? They’ve decided to punt the football down the road to December. That way they can tell congress that they’re working on a deal so the GOP doesn’t unilaterally increase the sanctions on Iran, which would certainly sink any talks for good. The fact that the talks produced nothing in six months proves that John Kerry, like his predecessor, is a total failure when it comes to real jobs that matter.



So much so that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister is now once again considering a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There are three types of facilities in Iran that are being targeted. They’ve got a couple of research sights, including a military research facility. Then you’ve got nuclear power plants that are either being constructed or are generating energy. And you’ve got the uranium enrichment facilities, three of them to be exact, which are deep under ground to protect them from an aerial attack. But Israel’s army, and air force are some of the best trained, best equipped fighters in the world. If Netanyahu says he can destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran, I’d believe him.

In fact, I’d give Netanyahu better odds at destroying Iran’s facilities and I’d give John Kerry for getting a deal done, even with an extension into December. With Kerry, he’s under orders to get a win. That means do whatever you have to do in order to get a deal. Congress is chomping at the bit trying to impose tougher sanctions if Iran doesn’t come up with a deal. Bobo Obama wants his legacy in tact, even if that means that he has to make Iran a nuclear power. He has nothing so far on the foreign policy ledger that even comes close to a victory. Oh, he’s got that concession he negotiated with the Chinese on global warming, which proves he’s not much of a negotiator. And if Kerry comes away with anything other than an upset stomach from all the French food and wine he’s been guzzling when the meetings in Austria aren’t in session, it’ll be an absolute miracle. Of course, we’re going to have to wait until 2015 for that. Even IF Kerry is able to cobble together some semblance of a deal with Iran, it still has to pass muster in the Senate. Oh…gee…the GOP is going to control that as of January 6th! And the Senate won’t be in session when Kerry meets with the Iranians again. Better make it a GOOD deal for the US, John!

There’s one deal that the US should accept. You get rid of your enrichment facilities and your research facilities. Period. Anything less is a cave in. And the GOPs in congress need to realize that if Kerry comes back with anything short of that, they need to impose greater sanctions against Iran, not lessen those already in place! And I have a hunch the Senate will do just that!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!