Admin

On This Day 1940, Churchill Offers ‘Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat”

One of Winston Churchill’s most iconic speeches took place on this day in 1940. Europe was embroiled in the beginnings of World War II, which Britain, France, and Belgium were ill-prepared for and were about to be swept from the mainland under the onslaught of the German blitzkrieg.

Churchill addressed Parliament in the House of Commons on Monday, May 13, after the King of England had offered the commission as the Prime Minister to him on Friday, May 10. Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as the PM after his policies of appeasement towards Hitler and the Nazis failed.

On the same day, as Britons were well aware, the Germans attacked France, Belgium, and the Netherlands and they would sweep across France in just six weeks. Britain would stand alone. The Germans hadn’t yet attacked Russia and the United States was still clinging hopelessly to their neutrality.

Excerpts from his speech:

We are in the preliminary stage of one of the greatest battles in history… That we are in action at many points—in Norway and in Holland—, that we have to be prepared in the Mediterranean. That the air battle is continuous, and that many preparations have to be made here at home.
I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.
You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Churchill asked for the Parliament to declare confidence in his new government and at the end of this speech it was granted unanimously. This was a big change in Parliament for Mr. Churchill. He was a fairly unpopular member for much of the 1930s due to his criticism or Chamberlain and had even been heckled many times.

But the effects of Churchill’s speech was considered “electrifying” on the House of Commons by some and muted by others, his enemies who were hoping that he’d fail. This was the first of many morale building speeches Churchill made in the early dark days of World War II including his RAF “their finest hour” speech and the “we will fight them on the beaches” speech after Dunkirk.

Interestingly enough, Churchill, an astute studier of history, probably took those words this speech is known for from two earlier speeches from people he studied closely.

On 2 July 1849 Giuseppe Garibaldi when rallying his forces in Rome uttered: “I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battle, and death.” Churchill considered writing a biography about Garibaldi when he was a young man.

Garibaldi’s situation was similar to that of Churchill’s in early 1940. His revolutionary troops were facing a desperate situation after the tides of war had turned against him and he was forced to retreat thru the Apennine Mountains.

Later around the turn of the century, Teddy Roosevelt, addressed the Naval War College in June 1897, after his was appointed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy:

“Every man among us is more fit to meet the duties and responsibilities of citizenship because of the perils over which, in the past, the nation has triumphed; because of the blood and sweat and tears, the labor and the anguish, through which, in the days that have gone, our forefathers moved on to triumph.”

Churchill’s words were often cited as a direct quote from Roosevelt and he (Churchill) held a similar post as the First Lord of the Admiralty. And there is no doubt that he would have read the speech by Roosevelt. So there is probably some truth that his words were influenced by reading two of his predecessors.

But it in no way should lessen the effect of his words that day. England was in dire straits in May/June of 1940. They needed a wartime leader, the country and the government could rally around, be the face of a nation standing alone and pull together the ultimate victory. Churchill was that leader.

An MP3 recording of Churchill’s speech can be heard here:

Photograph: Wikipedia

Two Marines May Have Been Present at the Murder of Green Beret in Mali

The murder investigation of Green Beret SSG Logan Melgar has taken another twist. Military investigators are now stating that two Marine Raiders from the Special Operations Command may have been present. Two Navy SEALs are already under investigation for the strangling death of Melgar last June.

Melgar died from asphyxiation after the SEALs claimed that they engaged in “horseplay” at 4 a.m. that the apartment that the men shared in Bamako while assigned to the embassy in Mali.

The military is investigating whether two special forces Marines played a role in the choking death of a Green Beret in Mali last year and the possible cover-up of how it occurred, according to five U.S. defense officials.
September 2017 Army Criminal Investigative Division report about the incident quotes Navy SEAL Tony DeDolph saying he and Army Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar were wrestling at 4 a.m. when a fellow SEAL Adamcranston Matthew came in and joined in the horseplay. According to the SEALS, the men fell down together and when they stood up Melgar wasn’t breathing.
The SEALs say they attempted CPR and tried to open an airway, but Melgar died of asphyxiation.
The same report, however, says a witness told investigators that DeDolph and Matthews were among a group of people angry at Melgar, and had made comments about getting back at him.
According to that witness, “DeDolph admitted … that he ‘choked [Melgar] out.’ ” and had used duct tape on him.
Now forensic evidence uncovered during a Navy investigation indicates two Marines may have been present at some point during the night, say five U.S. defense officials.

While military investigators refuse to comment on an ongoing investigation, the more information that is learned about this incident, the more it is clear that there was no horseplay involved. The military is dragging its feet on this, it has been nearly a year since Melgar’s death and questions are now growing about how this happened and why there is no moving forward with it.

To read the entire article from NBC News, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Gina Haspel Should be the Next Director of the CIA

The hearings that are on-going on Capitol Hill are being far more contentious than they should have ever been for President Trump’s nominee to become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Gina Haspel has been a dedicated public servant and has had a long distinguished career in the Agency working her way up the ladder to the Deputy Director position, she now holds and is currently the Acting Director since Mike Pompeo became the Secretary of State. Haspel is a perfect choice to lead the Agency into the next several years.

If she is confirmed, and it isn’t a very sure thing she will be, she’ll be the first woman director for the agency in their 70 plus year history. She is already the first woman to hold the Deputy Director’s position. And that is long overdue. But being a qualified woman is just a small part of the reason she should be confirmed. As a career intelligence professional, she’s the most qualified person period.

She began her agency career in 1985 in Africa and worked her way up thru the ranks and has been a Station Chief in four different postings. She was also named by Director John Brennan as the acting Director of the National Clandestine Service, which carries out covert operations around the world.

Many women have been in the Clandestine Service since OSS operatives in World War II including Julia Child and the famous “Limping Lady” Virginia Hall, the only civilian to be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross as a Jedburgh in occupied France. Although women have and continue to serve in sensitive positions in the agency, none have risen as far as Haspel.

What is holding Haspel back is her assignment as the Black Ops chief at a base in Thailand where al Qaeda terrorists were sent for “enhanced interrogation” which included waterboarding and sleep deprivation. Many critics of the program called it torture. Whatever it was, at the time it was legal.

America wasn’t worried about the rights of terrorists after 9/11 and the Bush administration cleared it thru the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) which operated far above Haspel’s pay grade at the time. Haspel herself told the Senate that she doesn’t support and will not condone the use of torture under her watch.

As former CIA operative Jack Devine wrote in an opinion piece on NBC News, he considers Haspel as the best person for the job despite the “torture” issue.

“When evaluating Haspel’s record on this issue, as Congress surely will do during its confirmation hearings, we must keep in mind both the national mindset at that time the torture occurred and the reality of Haspel’s role in it. This is not to minimize the program, but rather to contextualize it.”
“In the aftermath of 9/11, the American people were looking for a forceful and robust response against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts. There were very few voices of restraint, including in most senior leadership positions across President George W. Bush’s administration.”

In the days after 9/11 no one in America was worried about the rights of terrorists, just to stop the next attacks.

“Three former CIA directors — George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden — have all insisted that torture did indeed save American lives, led to the capture and demise of the Al Qaeda organization and disrupted terrorist plots. They also insist that Bush approved the program, his attorney general deemed it legal and the Congressional leadership did not raise objections.”

Under the Obama administration, they laid that torture business to rest. An investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the agency employees and decided that no further action was called for. They then spelled out in no uncertain terms that that kind of operation would not be used again.

And yet now, they (Congress) are trying to derail Haspel from attaining a rank she is eminently qualified to hold. They should listen to the intelligence professionals from both the left and the right who support her nomination. Those include former Obama CIA director Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the National Security Agency under George W. Bush, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence in the Obama administration. Haspel has the backing of John Brennan, CIA director under Obama. Brennan it should be noted is a vocal critic of President Trump.

Jeremy Bash, who was the CIA’s Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration called Haspel the “nominee that both parties should love.”

He wrote that “Quite simply, she is among the most qualified people ever nominated to lead the CIA.”
“Democrats and progressive organizations should be encouraged that a nonpartisan, professional woman has been nominated to be CIA director,” he wrote. “Democratic and Republican Senators should welcome Haspel’s clear-eyed approach to Russia, her expertise in counterterrorism, her record of nonpolitical service and the fact that she is no crony of the president or anyone at the White House.”

This stonewalling by the Democrats is nothing more than a way to trump Trump. They are smarting over the Iran nuclear deal and the President’s acerbic ways, especially on social media. The president gets a lot of criticism for his supposed poor treatment of women and minorities and when he nominates a superbly qualified non-partisan woman to take the job, the same progressives that decry Trump then bend over backward to derail the nominee.

We’re entering a period of intense challenges in the intelligence field. The tensions with Russia are the worst since the Cold War. China has modernized and expanded its military influence across the globe and they too are becoming more and more belligerent towards the United States. Iran is trying to increase their influence throughout the Middle East thru their proxies and increasingly so in Latin America. We have long wars that show no sign of ending in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria is powder keg with factions from all sides in close proximity to each other.

The Director of Central Intelligence needs to be a season professional, not just another political appointee. If confirmed she’ll not only be the first woman as head of Central Intelligence but the first Director since Richard Helms in 1966 to be a career employee who rose up through the ranks to take charge. It is long overdue.

Photo: Wikipedia of Central Intelligence Director nominee Gina Haspel at the swearing-in ceremony of Mike Pompeo as the next Secretary of State.

As Expected, President Trump Withdraws From Iran Deal: Analysis

The message resonating from Washington on President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms deal should surprise no one. Since before the 2016 election Trump has been a critic of the deal and following a shakeup of his own administration, he has replaced many of the players with members who are, like him much more hawkish in terms of backing out of the deal.

“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” President Trump said. “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”

This does however drive a wedge between the United States and many of its allies, who tried to get Washington to stay the course. But in the end, much to no one’s surprise the President opted out.

“It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement,” Trump said. “The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing we know exactly what will happen.”

In opting out, the President stated the sanctions that were lifted on Iran, are back on and any country doing business with the Iranian government will also be sanctioned. Trump pointed to the Iranians using the money released by the Obama administration in the 2015 deal as the lynchpin for the Iranians, thru their proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas for spreading terror and uncertainty throughout the Middle East.

“At the point when the US had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actually cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen,” Trump said.

This will make no one happy among the United States’ allies with the exception of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu and possibly Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu has been a vocal critic of the deal from its inception. He knows all too well, a nuclear armed Iran would be a dangerous proposition for the Israelis and the lack of Iran’s missile program in the deal is already keenly felt there.

Netanyahu made a television presentation on the Iran nuclear program last week, with the message that “Iran Lied” and then doubled down on that approach this week adding that, “Nations that were unprepared to take timely action against murderous aggression paid much heavier prices afterward,” Netanyahu said.

Trump cited four major points during the speech on Tuesday afternoon that required the deal be scrapped. They included:

The expiration dates on the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity, which would allow Iran to resume large-scale processing of nuclear fuel starting in 2025

• The limiting of Iran’s ballistic missile program

• The inspections of Iran’s military bases which the Tehran regime doesn’t allow

• The use of the new funds for Iran’s support for terrorist groups across the Middle East.

President Trump has met with Europe’s leaders or spoken with them on the phone, including France’s President Macron, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. They urged the U.S. to stick with the deal for now and they’d work with the president to iron out the troublesome spots of the agreement, that they themselves agree with Trump on.

Johnson spoke to the media this week and made his case there. “Iran has a tendency to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles. We’ve got to stop that. We’ve got to push back on what Iran is doing in the region. We’ve got to be tougher on Iran. We have to fix the flaws in the deal.” Johnson said.

“We need to find a way of fixing that, but you’ve got to do that without just throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” he added.

In the end, while EU companies will try to salvage what they can, they will no doubt begin cutting their ties to the corrupt and crumbling Iranian economy for fear of being cut out of the US-led financial markets. European companies have been wary of doing business with Tehran from the start and this move by President Trump will have long-lasting effects on the Iranian economy. The modest gains they’ve enjoyed after the Obama/Kerry deal will soon dry up.

What is the end game for the Iran deal? Trump is at heart a self-described deal maker. His favorite deal is the next one. And that is what he’ll want to do, negotiate a new one that puts Iran firmly on notice. With the hawkish Bolton and Pompeo in his ear, the mullahs in Iran will rattle their saber and threaten but in the end, they can’t continue with their spending for much longer without crippling their economy.

The Trump administration believes this and he put the same thing out, and extended a withered but small olive branch.

“Iran’s leaders will probably say they refuse to negotiate a new deal,” he said. “That’s fine I probably would say the same thing if I were in their position. The fact is they will want to negotiate a new deal.”

“When that happens I am willing and able,” Trump said. “Great things can happen for Iran.”

Photo: Wikipedia

On This Date in 1954, The French Surrender at Dien Bien Phu

The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was the culminating piece of the guerrilla war fought between the French and the Viet Minh from 1949 until the garrison was overrun and the French withdrew from the country.

After fighting a losing guerrilla war, the French dropped paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires into Dien Bien Phu, a small mountain outpost on the border with Laos. The base was ringed by mountains with the base occupying lower ground, which would prove to be decisive.

The siege began in late November 1953 and by March the Viet Minh with massive Red Chinese support were ready to attack and they kept the pressure upon the French, slowly sinking the perimeter of the base and closing the airfield until they capitulated on May 7, 1954, nine years to the day that the Germans surrendered in World War II in Europe.

When it was over, the French were out of Vietnam and the Geneva Accords temporarily would split the country at the 17th parallel between North and South Vietnam and the United States would get dragged into the fray.

Background: As World War II was winding down, Ho Chi Minh tried to establish a free Vietnam, free from French colonial rule once the Japanese were ousted from South East Asia. Just hours after the Japanese surrender, Ho proclaimed the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

In 1946, Ho accepted a French proposal to allow Vietnam to function as an autonomous state within the French union. But the French soon reneged on that and tried to reassert colonial rule. That began an increasingly costly and bloody guerrilla war.

By 1953, the French had grown weary of the guerrilla war and had gone thru a series of commanders. In May of 1953 French Premier René Mayer appointed Henri Navarre as the commander of the French Union forces in Indochina. In a book by historian LTG Phillip Davidson, Navarre’s first impressions were not favorable.

On arrival, Navarre was shocked by what he found. There had been no long-range plan since de Lattre’s departure. Everything was conducted on a day-to-day, reactive basis. Combat operations were undertaken only in response to enemy moves or threats. There was no comprehensive plan to develop the organization and build up the equipment of the Expeditionary force.
Finally, Navarre, the intellectual, the cold and professional soldier, was shocked by the “school’s out” attitude of Salan and his senior commanders and staff officers. They were going home, not as victors or heroes, but then, not as clear losers either. To them the important thing was that they were getting out of Indochina with their reputations frayed, but intact. They gave little thought to, or concern for, the problems of their successors.

The French were hoping to repeat a victory at Nà Sản, where they established an air/land base in the Viet Minh’s rear area to deny him unfettered access to equipment, supplies, and reinforcements and cut off their attempts to take Laos.

But Navarre’s staff planners made several critical blunders that would lead to disaster. First, at Nà Sản, the French controlled the high ground and had a massive superiority in artillery. At Dien Bien Phu the base was surrounded by high peaks that the Viet Minh would ring with artillery. And the French troops would be outnumbered 4-1.

Opening Moves: The French began dropping paratroopers into Dien Bien Phu on the 20th of November 1953. Utilizing three different drop zones, the French had landed six battalions of airborne troops and a bulldozer to complete the airstrip by the end of November.

The French commander, Colonel Christian de Castries was a poor choice to direct the defenses. He was a cavalryman by his training and unsuited for a set-piece battle. He set up seven outposts each code-named with names starting with the first seven letters of the alphabet.

Christian de Castries, French Commander at Dien Bien Phu.

The French force totaled about 16,000 troops and included airborne troops, Foreign Legionnaires as well as Moroccan mercenaries and local troops. They also had ten light M-24 Chaffee tanks and aircraft. The French failed to secure the high ground surrounding the valley which was a tactical blunder and the Viet Minh quickly filled the gaps around the high ground where they massed their artillery. The Viet Minh commanded by Võ Nguyên Giáp had much more artillery than the French envisioned there and had more than five divisions with 50,000 men.

By the end of January, the Viet Minh began sporadic shelling of the base and the French patrols were finding contact in every direction. Dien Bien Phu was surrounded.

The Outposts Fall One by One: The Viet Minh were ready by March 13, 1954, and opened fire with extremely well-aimed artillery fire on Outpost Beatrice. One artillery round took out the entire French command group. By 1800, a massive infantry assault hit the French lines and by midnight they had overrun the base. Over 500 Legionnaires were killed. In the morning, a French counterattack was stopped cold by massed artillery fires.

The Viet Minh artillery had been skillfully dug into the sides of the mountains. French counter-battery fire was completely ineffective. By the second day, the French artillery commander, Colonel Charles Piroth, so distraught over his inability to fire on the enemy committed suicide by using a hand grenade in his bunker.

On the morning of March 14, the Viet Minh next turned their attention to Outpost Gabrielle. Following a massive bombardment, the French airstrip was now permanently put out of commission. All supplies would now have to be delivered via air drops. The tough Algerian troops holding Gabrielle were hit with a coordinated attack at 1700 hrs and were then reinforced by elements of the 5th Vietnamese Parachute Battalion early the next morning.

The counterattack failed and the Algerians abandoned Gabrielle to the Viet Minh. The die was already cast. The French could not hold Dien Bien Phu and now their enemy could rain down direct artillery fire right into their positions.

The Outpost Anne Marie was manned by troops of the Tai minority in Vietnam, but loyal to the French. For weeks, Giap had rained down leaflets telling the Tai, that this wasn’t their fight. During the night of 17 March under heavy fog, the Tai abandoned their posts and Anne Marie was lost.

The French in Hanoi realized too late the blunder of putting de Castries in command, but with no airstrip functioning, they were powerless to change. To the chagrin of his paratrooper officers, de Castries remained in his bunker and virtually had no feel whatsoever of the battle all around him.

Mass Assaults on Dominique and Eliane: On March 30, the Viet Minh attacked the Outposts Dominique and Eliane where some of the most brutal fighting took place.

After taking half of Eliane, the French unleashed a powerful counterattack that took it back. But the next day, the Viet Minh rushed in more reinforcements and took it back again. Just as it seemed the French would lose their grip on the outposts, the M-24 light tanks entered the battle and were instrumental in forcing the Viet Minh back.

The fighting took on a World War I feel to it with both sides taking part in trench warfare. The Viet Minh massed their troops for another assault and were hit hard by French aircraft providing close air support.

Morale of the Viet Minh units which had taken a lot of casualties plummeted. Giap was forced to bring in fresh troops from Laos. The fighting went back and forth like this for several weeks.

The Viet Minh Final Attacks Overrun the French: By the first of May, the French defenses were wearing down under the sheer weight of the attacking forces. Isolated outposts inside Eliane, Dominique and Huguette were overrun. The situation was becoming desperate for the French defenders. By May 7, Giap had 25,000 troops surrounding just 3,000 defenders. Giap ordered a full frontal assault.

The French radio operator inside the command bunker radioed French headquarters that the enemy troops were directly outside the headquarters bunker and that all the positions had been overrun. His last words stated: “The enemy has overrun us. We are blowing up everything. Vive la France!”

The remaining troops tried to breakout but none made it out of the valley. On one outpost, Isabelle, about 70 of the 1700 troops made it to Laos and safety.

French prisoners march to prisoner of war camps. Less than half would survive the 500 mile-forced march.

Death March: The Viet Minh captured 8000 French soldiers of which nearly half were wounded. They then marched them 500 miles on foot to their prisoner of war camp. Less than half of them survived the march. Of the nearly 11,000 total prisoners (French and Vietnamese) the Viet Minh captured, only 3290 were repatriated four months later.

The disastrous outcome for the French would set the stage for the United States to become involved in the war between North and South Vietnam.

Photos: Wikipedia

Russian Hackers Disguised as ISIS, Threaten US Military Spouses

In a brazen false-flag operation, a number of Russian hackers, the same ones who supposedly tried to influence the U.S. presidential election, posed as Islamic State terrorists and threatened the lives of U.S. military spouses.

Army wife Angela Ricketts was soaking in a bubble bath in her Colorado home, leafing through a memoir, when a message appeared on her iPhone from hackers threatening to slaughter her family.
“Dear Angela!” the Facebook message read. “Bloody Valentine’s Day!”
“We know everything about you, your husband and your children,” the message continued, claiming that the hackers operating under the flag of Islamic State militants had penetrated her computer and her phone. “We’re much closer than you can even imagine.”
Ricketts was one of five military wives who received death threats from the self-styled CyberCaliphate on the morning of February 10, 2015. The warnings led to days of anguished media coverage of Islamic State militants’ online reach.
Except it wasn’t IS.
The Associated Press has found evidence that the women were targeted not by jihadists but by the same Russian hacking group that intervened in the American election and exposed the emails of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta.
But that consensus never filtered through to the women involved, many of whom were convinced they had been targeted by Islamic State sympathizers right up until the AP contacted them.
“Never in a million years did I think that it was the Russians,” said Ricketts, an author and advocate for veterans and military families. She called the revelation “mind blowing.”
“It feels so hilarious and insidious at the same time.”

The resultant play on the media by Ricketts, who is very vocal and visible on social media gave the hackers exactly what they were looking for.

To read the entire article from Times of Israel, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Military Supply Contracts Are Rife With Corruption/Law Breaking

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has to make some very tough decisions soon on a billion-dollar military service contract that provides food and equipment to our troops in the Middle East.

This decision regarding the behemoth Kuwait and Gulf Link Transport or KGL is just the latest in over a decade of allegations such as sanctions busting, corruption, and fraud that have followed the company.

The latest controversy involves a contract from January of this year, when the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency awarded $1.38 billion for food supplies to a subsidiary of KGL, long a logistics linchpin for American forces in the region. Yet the award came just weeks after a top KGL lawyer acknowledged to a U.S. court that the firm had years earlier set up a “ghost structure,” i.e., a company that existed in name only, as a go-between for a joint venture it had with a U.S.-sanctioned Iranian partner.
The award was also announced as two of the company’s recently resigned top executives sat in a Kuwaiti jail. On Sunday, those two executives, Saed Dashti and Marsha Lazareva, were sentenced in a Kuwaiti court to 15 and 10 years in prison, respectively.
The allegations revolve around KGL’s relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, known as IRISL, and affiliates, such as Valfajr, which were hit with U.S. sanctions in September 2008 for aiding Tehran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.
In 2011, the Manhattan district attorney indicted a key IRISL executive, Mohammad Moghaddami Fard, for money laundering, records falsification, and other crimes, though he never stood trial. That same year, leaked emails revealed links between Fard and senior KGL executives demonstrating that he had helped run KGL’s joint ventures.
But KGL has continued to face questions, as in May 2016, when Fuad Dashti — a significant KGL shareholder and brother of its chairman — was arrested at San Francisco International Airport and charged with trying to transfer airplane parts to Iran. When he was brought to Washington for FBI interrogation, the U.S. government quietly allowed him to slip out of the country in the waning days of the Obama administration.
The Justice Department never publicly commented on the case, and a KGL lawyer said at the time that Dashti’s alleged conduct was unrelated to company business.
Even as legal challenges to KGL multiplied, however, the company continued to score lucrative deals. The Pentagon awarded KGL its $1.38 billion food contract in mid-January. The day of the award, KGL’s recently departed chairman and the other executive charged with felonies were still in a Kuwaiti jail awaiting trial. Both insisted upon their innocence.

To be deemed worthy of becoming a contractor with the United States government, the company must be considered “responsible” which means they must have integrity, business ethics and meet other criteria according to the government. This doesn’t sound like anyone at KGL.

To read the entire article from Foreign Policy, click here:

Photo Instagram of Saed Dashti and Marsha Lazareva KGL executives sentenced to jail in Kuwait

Don’t Expect Anything to Come From Kerry’s Disdain for the Logan Act

The news this week has shown that since the pressure is being ramped up to repeal the Iran nuclear deal that John Kerry has been openly working behind the scenes, contrary to what the administration is saying and trying to save the Iran nuclear deal that he helped push thru with the Obama administration.

The Boston Globe published a piece that had Kerry engaging in shadow diplomacy behind the scenes meeting twice with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif trying to find ways to keep their deal in place. He’s also been in contact with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who not so coincidentally is Germany’s most strident anti-Trump voice. During the 2016 elections, Steinmeier, who was a big supporter of Barrack Obama called Trump a “hate preacher.”

Kerry met with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini who was part of the Iran deal on the European side. Mogherini has been criticized as someone who is far too soft on Iran and gave a speech stating that “Islam belongs in Europe politics.”

Kerry has also met with French President Macron twice, in NY and Paris to discuss sanctions and the regional nuclear question.

His actions have widely called for him to be charged under the Logan Act. He’s had 40+ years of violating it, as he’s constantly been at odds with it. Even Alan Dershowitz has said that if the Logan Act were to be enforced, Kerry should be charged.

But first what is the Logan Act and why was it put on the books.

The Logan Act was written in 1798 while President John Adams was in a period of increased tensions with France. After several envoys from Adams’ Federalist Party made no headway with the French, Dr. George Logan, a state legislator, and pacifist met with several French leaders. It was a big scandal of the day because Logan’s meetings deliberately undermined the policies of the current administration.

The law passed in 1799 by a 58-36 vote in the House and 18-2 in the Senate states:

953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The writers of the act left the language somewhat vague as to allow the government certain flexibility in using or possibly abusing it. However, only twice since 1799 has anyone ever been charged under the Logan Act. Once in 1802 and another in 1852 and neither one resulted in a conviction.

Kerry has a very long history of siding with the people who are not our friends or allies and several of these may be violations of the Logan Act. They include but are not limited to:

During the Vietnam War, Kerry likened Ho Chi Minh to George Washington and falsely claimed that U.S. troops were widely committing war crimes.
Joined Cuba and the Soviet Union in denouncing the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983
Called President Reagan a warmonger for wanting to beef up U.S. missiles in Europe.
Denounced U.S. aid for the Contras in Nicaragua and openly solicited talks with Daniel Ortega
Called the bombing of Libya and Gaddafi “unjustified”
Sided with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and was against Israel putting up a border fence for security
Kerry argued that Iran needs nuclear power and while they continue to try to build nuclear weapons which will be used against allies in the Middle East, continues to push the agenda.
Kerry’s organization, called Diplomacy Works, consisting of many of his staff from Washington is making dozens of phone calls, writing newspaper pieces, producing television snippets, all in an effort to undermine the current administration and its policies.

So while several conservative media outlets are calling for Kerry to be charged under the Logan Act, if you think it is going to happen, don’t hold your breath. First of all, finding a prosecutor who wants to go down that slippery slope will be extremely hard if not impossible to find. No one wants to touch this political hot potato. Why?

Despite several Republicans calling out Kerry for undermining the Trump administration, they don’t want to see Kerry charged because they don’t want the same law being used against them. And rest assured, many Republicans are just as cavalier with the act as are the Democrats and in this case Kerry.

Democrats were quick to point the finger at Mike Flynn with his meetings with Russia after the election. But the difference, at least there was that Flynn was representing the administration that was getting set to take over, not one who had been out of office for more than a year.

John Kerry is the former secretary of state and former senator holds no governmental office. He is not authorized to speak on behalf of the United States. And there can’t be any question now that he is actively trying to undermine current American foreign policy by trying to salvage the nuclear deal with Iran that he in part negotiated.

Will the current Secretary of State and former head of the Central Intelligence Agency Mike Pompeo order him to stand down and to stop negotiating on behalf of the United States? That is possible but if done so, will probably be done quietly and with little fanfare. Of course, if ordered to do so, there is also little doubt that the President’s own phone will be relaying the details thru Twitter.

But will Kerry face the music in court for violating the Logan Act? Those odds would be astronomical. He’s skated by for more than 40 years now, why would anything change?

Photo: Wikipedia

Waterloo, NY is Home to the Nation’s Memorial Day

The nation will celebrate its annual Memorial Day later this month, which begins the unofficial start of summer in the United States. And of course, here we know and understand the true meaning of the day and not that it just another holiday, for hot dogs, hamburgers, cookouts and family gatherings.

While preparing for our local Memorial Day celebrations where members of our local Veterans Council, VFW, and American Legion visit the town schools for the preparation of programs and then organize our annual parade, I knew the basic story of Memorial Day but decided to delve a bit deeper on how it got started.
Several towns and cities claim that they are the true birthplace of Memorial Day. However, did you know that on March 7, 1966, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller proclaimed the Seneca County village of Waterloo as the “birthplace of Memorial Day.”

Rockefeller said that Waterloo was the place for the “first, formal, complete, well-planned, village-wide observance of a day entirely dedicated to honoring the war dead.” He added, “The people of Waterloo are justly proud of this outstanding event in the history of their community.”

The first Memorial Day was celebrated in Waterloo was on May 5, 1866, although the plans for it started in the summer of 1865, right after the end of the end of the Civil War. Like many great ideas, it began with a simple thought.

Henry C. Welles, a local druggist, mentioned at a social function, that the people should honor the dead of the Civil War by decorating the graves of the soldiers that fell in battle to keep our nation whole. Welles’ brainchild died on the vine during the summer of 1865 but in the next spring, Welles again broached the subject with General John B. Murray.

Not much about Welles other than his idea about Memorial Day is known. He was born in Glastonbury, CT on May 13, 1821. He moved to Waterloo when he was just four years old He became a druggist, married and was a prominent member of the tiny village. His greatest achievement may have been his idea about Memorial Day which became known as Murray’s brainchild.

Murray was the Seneca County Clerk, a Civil War hero who left in 1862 as a Captain in the 148th New York Volunteers and returned after the war a Brigadier General. He loved Welles’ idea for the celebration. The two me quickly developed a plan and developed a committee to plan an event. In the town of Waterloo, all businesses were closed on May 5, 1866, and instead, the townspeople would devote the day to honoring the dead.
Waterloo was decorated with flags at half mast, draped with mourning black. Veterans, residents, and civilian societies all marched in a parade proudly, led by General Murray, as bands played the popular military music of the era.

Three impressive ceremonies were held at each of Waterloo’s cemeteries and each soldier’s grave was decorated. The town repeated the ceremonies the next year on May 5, 1867. In 1868, Waterloo joined with other communities in holding their observance on May 30th, in accordance with General Order No. 11 from General John Logan, of the Grand Army of the Republic.

It has been stated that the formal, dignified manner in how Waterloo observed the day set the bar for future Memorial Day observances across the country.

Many cities have laid claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day, Cities in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, even southern states as Alabama and Georgia claim to be the first where they decorated the graves of dead Confederate soldiers. But Congress put all of that to rest.

After Governor Rockefeller’s proclamation, Waterloo was recognized by the Congress of the United States when the House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously passed House Concurrent Resolution 587 on May 17th and May 19th, 1966 respectively. “Resolved that the Congress of the United States, in recognition of the patriotic tradition set in motion one hundred years ago in the Village of Waterloo, NY, does hereby officially recognize Waterloo, New York as the birthplace of Memorial Day…”

In the end, it really doesn’t matter which town did it first or who claims what in regards to where the birthplace of the day resides. What IS important and most of all is why we celebrate it. Today it is no longer just about our Civil War dead.

We honor our fallen heroes from every conflict from the Revolutionary War thru the still ongoing Global War on Terror. Freedom comes at a very steep cost, as Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is just one generation from extinction…”

The rows and rows of crosses and headstones stand in mute testament of the awful cost of protecting our freedoms. And we honor them and how it all began with the wonderful idea of Henry Welles and the tiny village of Waterloo.

Photos: Wikipedia

Germany Planned to Stockpile Vast Cold War Chemical Munitions

The West German military during the Cold War planned to stockpile vast amounts of chemical weapons to stave off a Soviet Union invasion into the west. They also planned on using them, despite long-time denials by the government.

War, Auschwitz, chemical weapons: never again. This was what the newly formed Federal Republic of Germany swore after the horrors of two World Wars. The German Empire had, after all, been responsible for the first ever use of poison gas during World War I, and the majority of chemical weapons were developed by German chemists — including Zyklon B, which the Nazi regime used until 1945 to commit mass murder during the Holocaust.
Yet less than 20 years later, the West German government planned to break this taboo. In 1961, West Germany initiated a debate in top-secret meetings with NATO. It called for the United States not to be the only country with the deterrent and retaliatory capability of chemical agents.
“We cannot do without such a means,” Friedrich Foertsch, the inspector general of Germany’s military, the Bundeswehr, said at the time. In the event of a Soviet attack, NATO anticipated a swift chemical weapons strike via the Warsaw Pact countries.
The documents that have now been disclosed and made available to a team of journalists from German regional public broadcasters NDR and WDR, and daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, attest that in 1963 West Germany Defense Minister Kai-Uwe von Hasse secretly asked the US to supply his government with chemical weapons.
The US Department of State, however, expressed serious reservations. “That was very serious business. The political problem would be immense,” remembers Matthew Meselson, a chemical weapons expert who was an adviser to the US government at the time.
“This was a really hot potato, and only the president could decide that.”
Washington considered the proposal in detail but in 1966 ultimately decided against a transfer. The US did, however, leave open the possibility of making chemical weapons available to its allies in the event of a war.
Concurrently, from 1962 until at least 1968, a small group of high-ranking Bundeswehr officers were making detailed plans for a possible chemical weapons attack — on the instructions of the inspector general, and in consultation with defense ministers and deputy ministers. The documents show the military suggested procuring 14,000 tons of chemical weapons for the Bundeswehr from the US and, if war broke out, using artillery and the air force to deploy them against Warsaw Pact troops.

West Germany was forbidden to possess chemical weapons at the time and the recent document that has brought into the light the desire to not only possess but use these highlights the fears of a Soviet invasion back then.

Officially the German government owns no chemical weapons.

To read the entire article from Deutsche Welles, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia