In probably the most egregious act of the Obama Administration and as far as we can tell, the most perfidious, it secretly agreed to provide Russia with classified information regarding Great Britain’s nuclear capabilities – against that nation’s will and demand. The reason for this unmitigated treachery was to persuade Russia to sign the START Treaty which is so one sided in favor of that country to begin with.
Not only did Putin et. al. crush the abjectly incompetent, naïve and traitorous Obama with this abomination of an agreement, but he also obtained the additional benefit of procuring priceless information about its other enemy’s nuclear weapons.
The START Treaty negates our marked nuclear advantages over Russia – offensively and defensively – and places all Americans as well as citizens in numerous countries around the world in much greater danger. All for a signed piece of paper which, unbelievably, they can still invalidate under certain circumstances.
As for selling out our closest ally, Great Britain, this is a most despicable, inexcusable and treacherous act that is light years worse than any of the other abhorrent acts Obama that has committed against them. Obama has made it a habit to sabotage, undermine and derogate our long time allies – like Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Australia, etc. while coddling up to and appeasing our mortal enemies who are further emboldened by his interminable weakness, incompetence and naivety.
Obama must pay and pay big time for such treason!
Obama's actions warrant impeachment and this MUST be pursued.
Obama is dangerous and must be removed from office ASAP or our and the world’s future is bleak.
He is facilitating conditions for a nuclear Apocalypse.
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain Photo: Tam MacDonald
Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope Feb 4, 2011
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.
Print This Post
The city of Berkeley, California once again doesn’t disappoint - that is, if you are a radical, anti-American, illegal alien, terrorist, or foreign spy, etc. It continues to stay true to its outrageous America hating political views and legislation. The most recent example of this is their quite public position on the soldier who admitted and is now accused of providing much of the information that is now being released by WickiLeaks.
They feel that he is a hero who should be released from jail and honored for his contributions.
We suspect that Castro, Hugo Chavez and Putin also harbor similar sentiments.
Berkeley is not alone as a city in the state of California in its vocal distaste for the military or the government in general. Many other areas, particularly San Francisco, have expressed similar antipathy for America.
Why not return the favor to California in general and these areas in specific. Once the Republicans control the House, they can “just say no” when it comes to awarding these areas government contracts or even bailing out the state itself which is on the precipice of insolvency.
It is a lesson that Berkeley and California needs to learn.
Alleged leaker Bradley Manning: hero to Berkeley?
Carolyn Jones December 8, 2010
An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.
The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who's suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.
Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.
"If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal," said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. "I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers."
The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps "unwanted intruders" in Berkeley in 2008.
The council's ensuing approval - and reversal - ignited some of the city's most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.
This time, however, the commission's vote was not unanimous. The resolution passed on a 7-3 vote, and it's likely to be just as contentious when it meets the City Council.
Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three "no" votes.
"We're just sitting here in Berkeley - we don't know that Afghani informants aren't being murdered because of these leaks," she said. "Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I'm sorry, we really do have enemies, and it's not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are."
WikiLeaks is a website that has published thousands of classified documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Manning allegedly provided WikiLeaks with secret data, including the 2007 "collateral murder" video of the Baghdad helicopter attack.
Berkeley's proposed resolution thanks Manning "for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world."
Army officials had no comment on Berkeley's resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal.
Manning might be a hero, but Berkeley should back off until the issues are sorted through on a national level, said peace and justice commissioner Jane Litman, who abstained from the Manning vote.
"I don't think we should call him a hero for something he hasn't even said he's done," she said. "Manning and the Obama administration both need to clarify their positions on this before we can take a stand."
Print This Post
“It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them.”
Indeed both are giant problems and will have long term deleterious consequences. Unfortunately, Obama’s ineptitude, lack of leadership, arrogance, ideological perversions and intellectual challenges have created a dangerous situation for America and engendered international recriminations with these document leaks that were totally avoidable if he had any shred of competence.
Obama MUST be removed from office ASAP. The danger that he represents is incalculable.
WikiLeaks cables: Barack Obama is a bigger danger
WikiLeaks harms the US. But the president's refusal to acknowledge the threats we face is a bigger danger
John Bolton December 5, 2010
WikiLeaks has yet again flooded the internet with thousands of classified American documents, this time state department cables. More troubling than WikiLeaks' latest revelation of US secrets, however, is the Obama administration's weak, wrong-headed and erratic response. Unfortunately, the administration has acted consistently with its demonstrated unwillingness to assert and defend US interests across a wide range of threats, such as Iran and North Korea, which, ironically, the leaked cables amply document.
On 29 November, secretary of state Hillary Clinton lamented that this third document dump was "not just an attack on United States foreign policy and interests, [but] an attack on the international community". By contrast, on 1 December, the presidential press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was "not scared of one guy with one keyboard and a laptop". Hours later, a Pentagon spokesman disdained the notion that the military should have prevented the WikiLeaks release: "The determination of those who are charged with such things, the decision was made not to proceed with any sort of aggressive action of that sort in this case."
Clinton is demonstrably incorrect in being preoccupied with defending the "international community", whatever that is. Her inability to understand WikiLeaks' obsession with causing harm to the US is a major reason why the Obama administration has done little or nothing in response – except talk, its usual foreign-policy default position.
At least Clinton saw it as an attack on someone. The White House/defence department view was that the leaks were no big deal. Obama's ideological predecessors welcomed publication of the Pentagon Papers, and suspected subsequent presidencies of nefarious clandestine dealings internationally, capped by Bush administration "intelligence cherry-picking" on Iraq. The prior WikiLeaks releases were largely military information, which made the Pentagon's earlier rhetoric more high-pitched, but the outcome for all three was the same: no response. What does it matter if half a million classified US documents become instantly unclassified and downloadable by friend and foe alike?
This sustained, collective inaction exemplifies the Obama administration's all-too-common attitude towards threats to America's international interests. The president, unlike the long line of his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, simply does not put national security at the centre of his political priorities. Thus, Europeans who welcomed Obama to the Oval Office should reflect on his Warren Harding-like interest in foreign policy. Europeans who believe they will never again face real security threats to their comfortable lifestyle should realise that if by chance one occurs during this administration, the president will be otherwise occupied. He will be continuing his efforts to restructure the US economy, and does not wish to be distracted by foreign affairs.
The more appropriate response is to prosecute everyone associated with these leaks to the fullest extent of US law, which the justice department at least appears to be considering. Next, we must stop oscillating between excessive stove-piping of information, as before 9/11, and excessive access, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks. There is no one final answer, but the balance must be under constant analysis. Finally, the Pentagon's cyber-warriors need target practice in this new form of combat, and they could long ago have practised by obliterating WikiLeaks' electrons. Had we acted after the first release in July, there might not have been subsequent leaks, and lives and critical interests would have been protected.
But that was not to be under Obama. His secretary of state does not comprehend that America is the subject of the attack, his department of defence is not interested in defending us, and the president himself seems utterly indifferent to the whole affair.
All of this underscores the real problem. It is not WikiLeaks that ultimately imperils our national security, but the failing Obama administration, which ignores the nature and extent of threats we face, and which is too often unwilling to act to thwart them. While our economic difficulties have dominated the national debate for two years, national security will inevitably again come to the fore, as Americans see the full extent of the devastation left by Obama's policies. That shift cannot come too soon.
Print This Post