Doc's Talk: Navy SEALs PAC Rips Liberal Website for 'Gutless' Comment

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Navy SEALs PAC Rips Liberal Website for 'Gutless' Comment

Longtime CIA operative Fred Rustmann tells Newsmax that the liberal writer who called Navy SEALs gutless is either “very brave” or “very stupid.”

Rustmann, a member of a new political action committee that includes former SEALs, also says the Obama administration’s intelligence leaks that led to the writer’s comment could ultimately cost the lives of intel sources.

And former SEAL Brandon Webb agrees, saying the leaking of sensitive information could kill Americans and put our national security at risk.

Rustmann’s PAC, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, posted a 22-minute video on the Internet criticizing the Obama administration’s decision to grant filmmakers access to intelligence material for their upcoming movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, by a team of Navy SEALs who attacked his compound in Pakistan, and the video asserts that the intelligence leaks could have dire national security implications.

In response, a writer for the liberal, George Soros-funded website Media Matters, Eric Boehlert, tweeted that “former Navy SEALs don’t have guts to admit they’re running a GOP, anti-Obama campaign.”

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Friday, Rustmann — who spent 24 years in the CIA — says of Boehlert: “He’s either a very brave guy or very stupid guy to call a Navy SEAL gutless. It’s beyond me.”

To serve as a SEAL or as an intelligence operative in the CIA, he adds, “you have to have some serious guts.

“This is very risky business and when people leak our sources and methods — well, there’s one fellow, a Pakistani doctor, who is now in jail for 33 years” because the Pakistanis believe he helped Americans locate bin Laden.

“Everybody from the Pakistani intelligence service through the Taliban and down to al-Qaida are looking for individuals who were in that area at the time who might have been working for the CIA and were involved in the operation to locate and kill Osama bin Laden. These people are going to die if they’re found.”

Story continues below video.

Webb, a former SEAL sniper and editor in chief of the website SOFREP (Special Operations Forces Report), also expresses outrage over Boehlert’s comment.

The SEALS in the PAC “put themselves out there front and center and that takes guts. I ask Eric Boehlert what his credentials are,” he tells Newsmax. “Has he served? Has he seen the ugliness of war and the cost on both sides? The loss of friends? I think not.

“It's safe to say that he wouldn't stand in the same room with any of these SEALs and mutter the word gutless.

“Politics aside, I'm glad this group is making an issue and educating citizens to the very serious consequences of intel leaks from Washington. The consequences of leaking sensitive information is that Americans and coalition forces die and we lose trust with foreign spies and our national security is put at risk.”

And Ryan Zinke, another former SEAL and a member of the PAC that created the video, tells Newsmax that calling a SEAL gutless “is nuts, and yet another attempt to discredit honorable service and sacrifice for our country.”

Rustmann, who worked closely with SEALs during his time with the CIA, was also asked about the comments of Bob Beckel, a liberal who works at Fox News, who said the SEALs featured in the film “Dishonorable Disclosures” should “take their benefits and go home.”

Rustmann declares: “I think he’s a jerk. That’s what I think.”

The intelligence leaks cited by the PAC’s video are said to have come from high-ranking White House staff members. Rustmann was asked if the leaks were motivated by political concerns, or resulted from the ignorance of people who did not fully understand the repercussions.

“I don’t know, but I will say this: People who have security clearances in the government and work in secure facilities in the government like the CIA, their security clearance is a part of their job. If they lose their security clearance, they lose their job. So they understand the need to keep secrets.

“A lot of security clearances, however, are given out to people by virtue of their job, from the president on down. Elected officials, staffers, what not, they have to see classified information and so they’re given clearances.
They’re not really attuned to working in that kind of an environment and they’re more likely to leak stuff because they don’t really get it.

“For a person with a security clearance like me, for example, all the things I write I have to pass through the agency for clearance, to make sure that I didn’t inadvertently disclose any classified information. This is a contract. And if you breach that contract you can be sued legally and it’s a criminal offense.

“These guys, I think, a lot of them don’t understand that. I think a lot of them probably couldn’t get a clearance to work in the CIA’s cafeteria if they applied for a job there. They just got the clearance by virtue of their appointment or their election.”

Webb shares those sentiments: “Our political election system and national security are in trouble and it got this way because of career politicians that make decisions regarding their next election cycle instead of being civic-minded.

“The only light I see at the end of the tunnel is a train coming at them and the train conductors are unhappy American patriots from all walks of life."

He did say, however, that President Obama “has been exceptional on the national security front with the exception of some damaging leaks. Bin Laden is dead, period, and that was a huge blow to the radical Islamic movement.

“The U.S. Commander of Special Operations Command, Admiral [William] McRaven, said it best when he gave full credit to the president for making the decision. I know McRaven personally and he's a man of high integrity. He wouldn't say this about the president unless it was genuine.”

Rustmann was also asked to compare the intelligence leaks criticized by the SEALs video and the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent.

“It was terrible that her name was leaked. That is against the law. That is a leak of classified information,” he tells Newsmax.

“But I thought the witch hunt that went on after the people that may have leaked this, because it was a Republican administration at the time, was much ado about nothing.

“I thought that the leak was probably inadvertent. And as it turned out, we know that Secretary [Richard] Armitage was the guy that did it and he did it inadvertently. It was not with any malice. It was not in an effort to ‘gotcha’ anybody. It was an inadvertent slip of the tongue and the reason was because Valerie was at that time working in a position that didn’t appear to be a covert position and she didn’t appear to be a covert operative.”

As for the fact that his PAC has not revealed its donors, Rustmann says: “I’m not a lawyer and I’m not involved in that part of it. I’m just an old CIA grunt who is very concerned about these leaks, that’s all.”

© 2012 Newsmax.http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rustmann-navy-seals-leaks/2012/08/17/id/448964 All rights reserved.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk