Who Really Created ISIS?

Guccifer's recent release of documents "gleaned" from Nancy Pelosi's PC provides us with an inside look at the inner workings of the Democratic Party.  One internal memo from Mike Ryan, policy director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) appears to answer the question:

"Who really created ISIS?"

Here's the memo dated October 2, 2014:

Obviously, the Iraq invasion took place under the watchful eye and direction of the Bush II Administration, however, a certain senator from New York who voted in favour of H.J. Res. 114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 as shown here:

In case that wasn't enough, here is part of her speech on the Senate floor from October 10, 2002:

Here's part of the transcript:

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran...

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran...

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

As late as 2004, Senator Clinton stated that she was not sorry that she voted in favour of entering Iraq.  During the 2008 election, she still would not admit that she had made a mistake but stated that if she had known what President George W. Bush would have done with the authority granted by her vote, she would not have voted the way that she did.

I'll leave it up to my readers to digest this information in light of the November election.  It is, however, interesting to see that the DCCC was willing to admit in 2014 that ISIS was a creation of U.S. foreign policy, a policy that met with Hillary Clinton's approval in 2002.  

 

The High Cost of the War on Terror - Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility

As I recently posted here, one of President Obama's unfulfilled first term campaign promises was his pledge to close the terrorist prison facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  In this posting I want to look at how much this facility costs U.S. taxpayers and how the Department of Defense would handle the detainees if Congress were to green light changes to how these prisoners are housed and how much this could save taxpayers.  This issue is covered in a Department of Defense document entitled "Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility".

Over its life, Guantanamo has held 779 prisoners in total with 708 being released or transferred along with nine deaths and one who was transferred to the United States for trial.  More than 500 prisoners were transferred by the Bush II Administration and 176 were transferred by the current administration with 15 releases in August 2016 alone, the largest release that has taken place during the Obama Administration.  Interestingly, six of these men had been approved for release by Obama's Guantanamo task force way back in 2010.  As of August 2016, there were 61 detainees still in custody at Guantanamo as shown on this listing:

The federal government/Department of Defense is currently pursing three means of ridding itself of the detainees currently remaining:

1.) identifying opportunities for transferring those detainees that have already been designated as transferable.

2.) review the security threat posed by the detainees that are not eligible for transfer and who are not facing military commission charges.

3.) continue and complete ongoing military commission prosecutions and, for those detainees who remain designated for continued law of war detention, identify disposition where possible including one or more of the following:

i.) military commission prosecution.

ii.) transfer to third countries.

iii.) foreign prosecutions.

iv.) transfer to the United States for protection and to serve sentences (Congress must lift the ban on transfers of detainees to the United States).

Countries that receive Guantanamo's detainees must assure the United States that they will take the necessary security measures to mitigate any threat from the former detainee and must assure that they will treat the former detainee humanely, an interesting requirement given the way that the United States has treated detainees using various means of both physical and psychological torture.

Who are the lucky recipients of these detainees?  Of the 147 detainees that were transferred during the Obama Administration up to February 2016, 81 went to countries in the Middle East, Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, 47 to various nations in Europa and Asia, 13 to the Americas and 6 to the South Pacific with the aim of returning the detainees to their home nation.

Let's look at the costs for operating the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.  These can be broken down into two key sections:

1.) Military Commissions (i.e. trials and pre-trials): there are currently three active cases involving seven accused (pre-trial phase) and two cases in which detainees have pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing.  Once the active cases go to trial and verdicts are reached, the Department of Defense expects that there will be a very lengthy appeals process.  Currently, the annual costs for this aspect of life at Guantanamo costs American taxpayers $91 million annually, costs that are expected to continue for several years.

2.) Operating Costs: in fiscal year 2015, the cost to operate Guantanamo Bay was approximately $445 million.  Future maintenance and  construction costs for the facility are estimated at approximately $200 million plus an additional $25 million for related furnishings.  The Department of Defense estimates that recurring annual costs at Guantanamo are between $65 million and $85 million higher than a comparable U.S.-based facility.

The Department of Defense estimates that shifting the operation from Guantanamo Bay to the United States and housing 30 to 60 detainees would lower costs between $140 million and $180 million annually as compared to fiscal 2015.  Much of the savings would result from a decrease in the number of U.S. personnel required to guard and care for a smaller detainee population as well as a reduction in travel costs and operating costs if the facility was domestically located.

Obviously, there will be one-time costs associated with moving detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.  The Administration estimates that these one-time transition costs will range from between $290 million and $475 million, however, over ten years, it is estimated that there will be net savings of at least $335 million over a decade.  If Guantanamo is closes, the Department of Defense has determined that a variety of facilities currently owned by the Department itself, the Bureau of Prisons and state prison facilities could be used to house Guantanamo detainees.  They have determined that a single facility would be preferable to splitting the detainees among several facilities.

What is quite interesting is that, in June 2016, the House took direct aim at President Obama's plan to shutter Guantanamo by approving a measure that would precent the Obama Administration from using any funds to release Guantanamo detainees to any destination, a move that effectively freezes the Guantanamo population at its current level barring any future legislative changes once January 2017 rolls around.  In November 2015, Congress also took direct aim at any plans to transfer detainees to the United States by voting to prohibit the use of funds for transfer or release of individuals held at Guantanamo to the United States in the 2016 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (aka H.R. 1735) as found in section 1031:

    

In section 1032, Congress also prohibits the Department of Defense from using funds to modify or construct any facility in the United States or its territories to house any detainees from Guantanamo.  Section 1033 prohibits the Department of Defense from using funds to transfer any of the Guantanamo detainees to Libya, Somalia, Syria or Yemen.  Section 1034 prohibits the Department of Defense from using funds to transfer any of the Guantanamo detainees to their nations of origin or any other foreign country unless the Department provides certification to Congress that addresses specific requirements.  Ironically, Section 2035 requires the Department of Defense to submit a strategy for the detention of any current and future individuals that may be held under the Authorization for Use of Military Force.  Lastly, Section 1036 prohibits the use of funds to close the Guantanamo facility, relinquish control of the facility to Cuba or modify the 1934 treaty between the United States of America and Cuba that constructively closes Guantanamo.

H.R. 1735 pretty much tied the Obama Administration's hands when it comes to their near decade-long plan to shutter the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, one of the reasons why President Obama vetoed the bill on October 22, 2015.

Let's close with a quote from the Department of Defense document "Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility":

"As the President has made clear, closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a national security imperative. Its continued operation weakens our national security by furthering the recruiting propaganda of violent extremists, hindering relations with key allies and partners, and draining Department of Defense resources." 

Until the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is closed and the remaining detainees are transferred to another facility, American taxpayers can count on spending nearly half a billion dollars annually to house a very, very small and shrinking number of alleged terrorists from around the globe.   Unfortunately, in the hands of the Democrats and Republicans, this issue has become a very expensive political football.  

The Clinton Family War Propaganda Machine

Let's go back in time and look at a speech by former President Bill Clinton on the situation in the former Yugoslavia:

Let's look at a partial transcript:

"It is clear that Serb forces are now engaged in further attacks on Kosovar Albanians. Already more than 40-thousand Serb security forces are poised in and around Kosovo with additional units on the way. These actions are in clear violation of commitments Serbia made last October when we obtained the ceasefire agreement. As part of our determined efforts to seek a peaceful solution I asked Ambassador Holbrooke to see President Milosevic and make clear the choices he faces."

"President Milosevic continues to choose aggression over peace. NATO's military plans must continue to move forward. I will be in close consultation with our NATO allies and with Congress. Over the weekend I met with my National Security team to discuss the military options. I also spoke with other NATO leaders by telephone. There is strong unity among the NATO allies. We all agree that we cannot allow President Milosevic to continue the aggression with impunity."


Here's what Bill Clinton had to say in a speech dated March 24, 1999:

"In 1989 Serbia's leader, Slobodan Milosevic, the same leader who started the wars in Bosnia and Croatia and moved against Slovenia in the last decade, stripped Kosovo of the constitutional autonomy its people enjoyed, thus denying them their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives. For years, Kosovars struggled peacefully to get their rights back. When President Milosevic sent his troops and police to crush them, the struggle grew violent."


Remember that date, March 24, 1999, it's the day that NATO started its bombing campaign against Milosevic.

In case you've forgotten the history of the 1990s, Slobodan Milosevic was the President of Serbia between 1997 and 2000 and was widely referred to as "The Butcher of the Balkans" by both politicians and the mainstream media for his supposed role in massacres that took place during the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.  He was incarcerated for five years in the United Nation's war crimes tribunals detention centre in The Hague, Netherlands while being held during his trial for genocide before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).  He died on March 11, 2006 as a result of a heart attack.  His death was of rather suspicious circumstances; firstly, he was refused medical treatment for his heart ailment shortly before his death and, secondly, Rifampacin was found in his blood stream, a drug that was not prescribed for him that could have exacerbated the risk of a heart attack.

Slobodan Milosevic was repeatedly vilified by both the press and politicians throughout NATO member nations.  He was referred to as the aforementioned "Butcher of the Balkans" and compared to Hitler by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.  It was these images that were used to justify NATO's bombing of Serbia, a move that has 

Now, let's flip forward in time to 2016.  The ICTY recently released its much ignored final judgement on the guilt of Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader.  In its massive 2590 page verdict which is practically unreadable, there is one interesting tidbit that can be found buried very deeply on page 1303 in paragraph 3460:

Let's repeat that:

"However, based on the evidence before the Chamber regarding the diverging interests that emerged between the Bosnian Serb and Serbian leaderships during the conflict and in particular, Milošević’s repeated criticism and disapproval of the policies and decisions made by the Accused (Karadzic)  and the Bosnian Serb leadership, the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milošević agreed with the common plan." (my bold)

That is, there is insufficient evidence to prove that Slobodan Milosevic was part of a joint criminal enterprise formed with Radovan Karadzic to remove Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory (i.e. ethnic cleansing and its accompanying war crimes/genocide).  The trial found that the relationship between the guilty party and Milosevic had deteriorated beginning as early as March 1992 when Milosevic openly criticized Bosnian Serb leaders of committing crimes against humidity and ethnic cleansing for their own purposes.  Remember the date that I told you to make note of; March 24, 1999.  That's seven years before NATO started its operations and President Bill Clinton made his assertions about Slobodan Milosevic.

   

So, Slobodan Milosevic spent the last five years of his life in prison, trying to defend himself from charges that, the ICTY now admits that there was not enough evidence to convict him of the very things that the world's media and the world's leadership, particularly William Clinton, found him guilty of.  And, in the end, what kind of coverage did this exoneration get in the global mainstream media that was a big part of the "pile on"?  Almost none.  Go ahead, Google "Milosevic" and "verdict" and see what you come up with.

So, when you hear this...

...from a presidential candidate, we need to think about her husband's comments on a man that he accused of being guilty of war crimes and whose "guilt" he used as an excuse to bomb a European nation into submission.

In closing, let's look at Slobodan Milosevic's defense, in his own words from May, 1999, three months after the NATO bombing campaign started:

War propaganda; it works both ways.  It is only voters who can determine who is telling the truth and who is using propaganda to vilify a perceived threat.