Ralph Peters: Release of Bin Laden Docs Timed To Divert Attention From Ramadi Embarrassment

Fox News had strategic analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret) on Wednesday to discuss the release of the hundreds of documents that were found during the Osama bin Laden raid in April of 2011.

Bill Hemmer asked Peters what he thought about the docs – specifically the revelations that OBL was interested in “large scale terror operations” and his “stunned” reaction to the Arab Spring.

“First glance at this Col, what do you see?” Hemmer asked.

Peters was ready with his answer – not that it was what Hemmer had in mind: “What I see is an attempt by the administration to divert our attention from the fall of Ramadi. Do you think it’s an accident that these documents are suddenly dumped on us when the administration is horribly embarrassed by having claimed Islamic State is on the defensive? … Look at the timing.”

He added, “they’re reverting to their one foreign policy win in six-and-a-half years.” (A foreign policy win Obama had to be dragged into against his will after months of indecision and delays, I might add.)

“You know what our one success has been, Bill?” Peters continued.  “We’ve Been very successful at arming Islamic State. Because we give the weapons to the Iraqi government, they give them to their troops, and the troops run away. I mean – look at the vehicles Islamic State is driving. Look at their weapons. That’s US equipment.”

Jordan Matson, a 28 year old Iraq War vet from Wisconsin who is in Northern Syria fighting ISIS with the Kurds, concurred on Facebook:

Geez Iraqi Army.

why dont you just give us your weapons as well if your going to constantly flee and even leave your tanks for ISIS. Another reason the United States should be arming ALL the kurds directly.

Remember how the moonbat left use to “question the timing” every time the Bush administration made a move about anything? It got to be like political Tourette’s Syndrome and we on the right would laugh at the unhinged accusations because they always seemed so random and ridiculous.

The left exposes their own modus operandi by accusing the right of engaging in the type of nefarious schemes they engage in.  Like sociopaths, they’ll always accuse you of doing the very thing that they are guilty of themselves. They do this to deflect attention away from themselves.

We saw this sick projection all throughout the Bush years (but most of us didn’t recognize it as projection at the time).

Remember how they kept accusing the right of questioning their patriotism? It was not just Hillary Clinton in her famous “I’m sick and tired” tirade. Over and over different members of the left accused conservatives of questioning their patriotism for opposing the Iraq War. But as I’ve noted in the past, that simply didn’t happen. I found it very puzzling at the time.

The left was doing two things.

1. Projecting – They were letting us know what they would do if they were in the same position – because as soon as a Democrat was back in the White House, there was a conga-line of Democrats accusing their political opponents of being unpatriotic, unAmerican, and treasonous for opposing Obama. Often in the crudest manner possible. That totally DID happen – and continues to happen.

2. Distracting – Diverting attention away from the fact that their position on the Iraq war was indeed grossly cynical and political. In a word – unpatriotic.  (Robert Gates would go on write in his memoir that Hillary laughingly admitted to him that her opposition to the surge was pure politics.)

We constantly see the worst things they accused Bush of doing, being played out by their Alinsky-trained ringer in the White House.

Rumor: Obama Admin Okayed Raid on Abu Sayyaf in Syria To Take The Sting Out Of Ramadi Failure

Over the weekend, while the the Obama administration was patting itself on the back for the Delta Force raid on ISIS/Daesh Oil Financier Abu Sayyaf, ISIS was sacking Ramadi, seizing U.S. military equipment, including missile launchers and tanks – enough to  “take 3 more Mosuls and about 10 Ramadis,” according to one ISIS supporter.

Bill O’Reilly asked his guests, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret) and Col. David Hunt (Ret.) Monday night,  if they’ve heard the same rumor he’d heard that “the Obama administration knew that Ramadi was going to fall, knew it was an embarrassment, and then okayed this mission (as Col Hunt mentioned there were more than one hundred other requests that were not okayed – to take the sting out of the Ramadi situation.”

Peters said, “I’ve not heard that direct link, but I have heard the administration is doing everything it can to do damage control on the fall of Ramadi.”

(Yes, sadly, we have our own Baghdad Bobs now assigned to “damage control.”)

“Bill, the State Department has finally said that the fall of Ramadi was a set-back. It’s not a set-back. It’s a catastrophe! Ramadi is 75 miles from Baghdad! That’s Trenton to downtown Manhattan. It’s the capital of Anbar province – the key Sunni Arab province – it’s important because so many bled – died! – to take Ramadi!”

He continued to say that it was also a huge symbolic win for the Islamic State, and that “there are even some reports they got some of our M-1 tanks we gave the Iraqis.”

“Iraqi Special Forces, their elite operations – ran away, Peters added.”

Col. Hunt blasted the administration for its ineffective 9 month air campaign, “which was never going to work anyway” because the lack of troops on the ground coordinating with pilots.

Via PJ Media:

A coalition spokesman said Monday afternoon that the U.S.-led coalition  ”has conducted 19 air strikes in the vicinity of the Iraqi city of Ramadi over the past 72 hours.”

The strikes targeted Islamic State fighting positions, armoured and technical vehicles, and buildings they control.

Obama allegedly has a coalition of 60 nations fighting ISIS with us and they only managed 19 airstrikes in a three-day period.

During the Gulf War’s “Shock and Awe” campaign, the U.S. rained down 300 to 400 cruise missiles a day on Iraq for two consecutive days. At the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. unleashed 800 cruise missiles in two days.

Meanwhile, a massive convoy of ISIS fighters was able to parade out in the open desert in Western Anbar on Monday, completely unmolested.

The Regime says a “sandstorm” prevented them from acting, but pictures and video show an area completely clear of sand storms.

According to the ISIS Study Group,  “the public thinks Ramadi fell just the other day, but in all honesty IS had been in control of the city for the last six months.”

All this did was make it “official.” We’re aware of 50 ISF personnel who are currently trapped in the city with no way out – meaning they don’t have long on this Earth. The Obama administration may be downplaying the significance of this blow, but this is the biggest IA defeat since the fall of Mosul.

We’ve been warning about IS’ tightening chokehold on the province and how al-Asad Airbase is in danger of being overrun. As of this writing, the base is surrounded and isolated from any ground reinforcements with the Iraqi Army (IA) base in Taqaddum also vulnerable to a complex attack. A smaller IA presence at Camp Warar has been completely cut off and already experiencing probing attacks with the IS OP-tempo increasing in Fallujah and Karmah – which have forced some of the Shia proxy Popular Mobilization Committee (PMC) personnel to withdraw. After purging Ramadi of the remaining ISF presence, IS held a massive parade with a large concentration of fighters, armored vehicles and other confiscated equipment involved in the festivities as a show of force and to taunt the US government for being so weak. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration failed to capitalize on the large concentration of fighters in the area by not launching airstrikes on their positions. They claim a “sandstorm” prevented the US Air Force from launching airstrikes, which is interesting since the area seems pretty clear of sandstorms in the video footage that’s circulating the net.

Howie Kurtz: Stephanopoulos Blunder “Severe”, “Unthinkable” (Video)

Megyn Kelly led off her show Thursday night with the George Stephanopoulos bombshell that the Washington Free Beacon (not Politico) broke.

As you surely know by now, Steppie neglected to disclose his Clinton Foundation donations even as he reported on the Clintons and their foundation/slushfund – a particularly egregious oversight –  considering  a hard-hitting interview he had with Peter Schweizer, who he aggressively grilled over “Clinton Cash” – the book Schweizer wrote about the Clinton Foundation.

Kelly and Marc Thiessen remarked upon the irony of Stephanopoulos (a Clinton insider who worked in the Clinton White House) questioning the partisan motivations of  former Bush speechwriter Peter Schweizer.

“George Stephanopoulos actually questioned whether Peter Schweixer had a partisan interest in his book because he had worked for four months in the Bush administration — when he was the communications director for the Clinton White House and the Communications Director for the 1992 Clinton Campaign, and is it fair to say maybe he has a partisan interest in defending Hillary Clinton?” Thiessen said.

Kelly cited Eric Wemple of the Washington Post media blog, who said; “A donation from Stephanopoulos to the Clinton Foundation in any amount constitutes a scandal and an immediate crisis for ABC News.”

Howard Kurtz remarked, “This blunder by Stephanopoulos is so severe that it really threatens to undo what he’s accomplished in his 18 years at ABC News.”

He added that for Steppie to given this money to the Clinton Foundation and not disclose the donations to his bosses or viewers is “unthinkable.”

Kelly asked why Stephanopoulos would be considered too partisan to moderate a debate, but not the entire 2016 campaign. ot so much conflict that he isn’t stepping out of 2016 coverage entirely.

Kurtz said he should have found “any other charity on earth to give it”

SEE ALSO:

WFB: ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos Donated $50,000 to Clinton Foundation

PJ Tatler: ABC News Should Be Ashamed
The underhanded way ABC rolled out a controversial news story about one of its anchors today is disgraceful.

While the contributions were publicly available information, the host had not disclosed the conflict of interest to ABC viewers – until he was caught by Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon.

Stiles asked ABC for a comment, and while they were waiting for a reply, ABC leaked the story to Dylan Byers of Politico, who titled his story “George Stephanopoulos discloses $50,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation” (as if the idea to disclose was all Stephanopoulos’s).

A half an hour after Politico’s story ran, ABC News sent a statement  to the Washington Free Beacon.

PJ Tatler: Republicans Revolt Over Stephanopoulos’s Conflict of Interest at ABC (Video)
Ed Driscoll: More Stephanopoulos Conflicts of Interest Emerge

Fox News Personalities Lash Back At Obama After His Creepy Anti- Fox Comments

So the country’s first Alinsky-trained, anti-First Amendment president decided to take some pot-shots at Fox News, Tuesday during a forum at George Washington University.

As I noted at PJ Media, Obama felt safe allowing his mask to slip in a college setting where hating Fox News is de rigueur. No one felt “triggered” by the president of the United States (*arguably the most powerful man in the world) singling out a major media outlet for special scorn – because apparently on college campuses, this sort of hateful derision is allowed.

“There’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been who are you mad at if you’re struggling, if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead,” the president said.. “And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to make be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, or don’t want to work, are lazy, you know, or undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu. They will find, like folks who make me mad, and I don’t know where they find them, right? They’re all like, like I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama phone or whatever. And that becomes an entire narrative, right, that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical who’s raising a couple of kids, and is doing everything right, but still can’t pay the bills. And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, (!) we’re going to have to change how our body politick thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, (!!) and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process, because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have.”

What th – – Is he going to sic the FCC on just Fox now? A year ago, you may remember – the FCC was working on a pilot program in which it would have sent researchers into American newsrooms to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decided on which stories to run. That scheme was shelved after two weeks of very negative media attention thanks to a Republican Chairman on FCC who wrote an oped at the WSJ about it.

Now the president’s making noises about “changing the way the news is reported?” Particularly Fox News?

Fox’s Megyn Kelly and James Rosen discussed Obama’s disturbing fixation with Fox News on The Kelly File, last night.

Via Mediaite:

 Rosen recalled an Obama White House “war on Fox News” years ago, and showed a montage of all the times the president has taken shots at the cable network (spoiler alert: it’s happened quite a bit).

Rosen figured that either the audience knows what Obama knows and “prefers to get its news from such a source,” or the White House believes the Fox audience isn’t “sophisticated enough to see what they see… effectively insulting the intelligence of the American people.”

Kelly pointed out that George W. Bush never complained about MSNBC because it would have been “beneath the dignity of the office.”

On the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Wednesday Dr. Charles Krauthammer analysis  found Obama a little wanting in the sanity department.

Look, this is sort of a pathological Obama where you know, he picks up these memes. He doesn’t know a damn thing about what’s on Fox. The idea that Fox is constantly showing, you know, sponges and leeches, and never shows the waitress trying to make it, it’s just sort of the mythological world that he lives in. Or he may be cynical. I mean, he may know it’s all nonsense. I mean, I can’t tell. I mean, after all, you probably need a psychiatrist to figure that out. But it’s either cynical or just hopelessly deluded on this. I would prefer to think he’s cynical, because I’d like somebody in the White House who’s not delusional. And this is the usual Obama cynicism. It’s the media, it’s the press, they’re underreporting liberal successes. I mean, look, the fact is a war on poverty, the billions poured into helping the poor, which in my 20s I rather supported until in my 30s, the empirical social science evidence began to come out that not only was money poured down the drain, but it was undermining the traditional structures of even the poorest neighborhoods and leading to real terrible pathologies, including helping to accelerate the breakdown of the family. So these are, there’s just the empirical social science refuting the liberal nostrums about how to help the poor. But he never engages in an argument. It’s all ad hominin.”

During the Special Report round table, Tuesday evening, Krauthammer zinged Obama for his colossal arrogance.

“He’s letting us know that his arrogance knows no limits,” Krauthammer said. “Of course he wants a change in coverage, particularly the coverage of himself.”

“After all, he was considered a Greek god in 2008. And right now, people are actually judging him on [his] merits. He doesn’t like that.”

Krauthammer said that Obama has the arrogance to say – in one day – that not only does the media have to change, but John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Elizabeth Warren also have to change.

“There’s only one person on the firmament who doesn’t have to change and that’s Barack Obama,” Krauthammer stated.

“He seems impervious to empirical evidence. The same view he had of himself upon attaining the presidency, he has today.”

Greg Gutfeld shared his own unique take on The Five, Wednesday.  He started out by sarcastically pointing out that Obama went after Fox News instead of, say, ISIS.

Via Mediaite:

He dismissed Obama’s “absurd” criticism and argued Fox focusing on how Obama’s policies affect poverty is “scary to progressives like Obama who fear that their ideology will be exposed as the culprit behind so much present misery.”

The president’s belief, Gutfeld said, is “agree with me and we’ll be fine.” Kimberly Guilfoyle agreed that Obama’s just sore Fox highlights the truth, and it’s both “demeaning” and beneath the dignity of the office for the president to say such things.

*Arguably the most powerful man on the earth. That used to be empirical. Now it’s “arguable.” If that.

Judge Jeanine Pirro: Free Speech Is Non-Negotiable – Period

Kudos to Fox’s Judge Jeanine Pirro, who in her opening statement, Saturday night, was unconditional in her support for free speech in the face of Islamic supremacy.

“You know, free speech in America is non-negotiable no matter what the perceived consequences, no matter the worry about retribution from Islamic extremists – PERIOD – end of the story,” Pirro declared.

She went on to offer a “primer” to explain the reasoning behind her position, covering ground that has been well trod, this week.

She predicted renewed efforts by the Obama administration to limit the First Amendment to comply with blasphemy laws.

“For the first time I’m worried about whether or not the present so-called ‘politically correct’ climate will restrict our free speech in line with shariah requirements,” Pirro said.

She had a spirited discussion with Pamela Geller about the past week and the issue of free speech vs. shariah.

Pirro also had on the fiery Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) to discuss the latest terrorist threats on the home front.

Pamela Geller: I’m Never Going To Give Up (Video)

Eric Bolling, filling in for Hannity, made note of new revelations that the FBI had information about the impending attack hours before it happened, and asked if the agency had warned Geller about it.

“No, they did not tell us that, Geller replied, “and I believe that the FBI has been disarmed in the information battle-space because Islamic-supremacist groups like CAIR have demanded and gotten experts in Jihadist doctrine…”

“You think the influence of CAIR is influencing what the FBI does, ” Bolling interjected.

“Unquestionably,” Geller replied. She argued that great Islamic scholars who used to advise on the Islamic threat have been shut down.

“If you don’t know who the enemy is – how can you find them?” Geller asked.

She said the American people “have to put their own safety in their own hands.”

She continued, “the reason I did this cartoon and art exhibit – it was an art exhibit, too by the way – nobody talks about that. Why is that important? Because for 1,400 years, Mohammed was depicted and they weren’t killing anybody. Why are they killing everybody, now? Because they’re imposing the sharia. This is the question America faces. Will we submit to the sharia or will we stand for our basic principles?”

Bolling asked if in the wake of the attack and threats on her life, she will “lay low” or do another cartoon contest.

If I lay low, I’ve given up. It’s like the (Charlie) Hebdo cartoonist who said he won’t draw another Mohammed cartoon. I’m never going to give up. I’m never going to give up my freedom, I’m never going to give up the fight.

She added, “for everything people are saying in the media, I’m getting tens of thousands of emails of support…There’s a dichotomy between what the media is saying and what the American people are feeling.”

Bolling also had on NRO columnist, David French to discuss his excellent column, “I’m more hateful than Pamela Geller.”

“It is astonishing to me that we’re having thousands and thousands of words commentary after a woman is nearly killed with all of her friends and supporters and that commentary is focusing on whether she talks about these genocidal jihadists with enough nuance. It makes no sense what-so-ever,” French said.

SEE ALSO:

David French, NRO: Pamela Geller’s Critics Are Proving Her Point:

Geller’s critics should spare us all the high-minded rhetoric about tolerance and liberty and “democratic values.” In a continent-sized nation of more than 300 million souls, “offensive” speech is always happening. Geller’s speech is different not because it’s uniquely insensitive or even uniquely “hateful.” Her speech is different because it makes people afraid.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418058/pamela-gellers-critics-are-proving-her-point-david-french

Megyn Kelly: As America Caves on Free Speech… “the Jihadis are Officially Winning” (Video)

Megyn Kelly once again used her perch on Fox News, Wednesday night, to hammer the left (and some on the right) for their craven and cowardly stance on the terrorist attack that happened earlier this week in Garland Texas.

She opened her show by denouncing the “rush to condemn the event organizers” with “nary a mention of the radical Islamists who sought to murder them over a cartoon.”

Free speech is protected, Megyn said, “no matter how abhorrent.” She went on to point out that you don’t have to endorse it to defend it.

Kelly lamented the amount of focus there has been on scolding Pamela Geller’s group rather than the actual terrorists. “If this is where American sentiment stands on this, then the jihadis are officially winning,” she declared.

Kelly had Washington Post legal blogger, Eugene Volokh on to discuss the issue and got a few digs in on  CNN doofus Chris Cuomo, who made an ass of himself on Twitter, Wednesday.

No one in television media has been as solid as Megyn Kelly on the issue of free speech – with the possible exception of Sean Hannity.

Sean had Pamela Geller on with the infamous Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary to discuss whether Geller should be put to death for organizing a cartoon contest.

Yes, you read that correctly.

ISIS has of course, vowed to slaughter Geller and “everyone who houses her events,” and “gives her a platform to spill her filth.”
The New York Daily News reported Wednesday night that ISIS said in a posting on a message board that it was sending “all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

“Our aim was the khanzeer (swine) Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her,” it said.

Interestingly, Geller told Hannity, the FBI and Homeland Security have not been in touch with her in the wake of these threats.

Choudary, who has been on Hannity’s show many times before, was asked point-blank, “Do you support this death threat against Pam Geller because she ran a free speech contest?”

Via Mediaite:

Choudary argued there’s a difference between cartoons of Mickey Mouse and cartoons of Muhammad, and said Geller went in “knowing full well” many Muslims consider blasphemy an issue worthy of the death penalty. Hannity went off and shouted, “You want her to de!”

Choudary said Geller should be put before a court and tried, and she would end up punished. Geller shot back, “To blame me and say that my cartoons are controversial… murdering cartoonists is controversial.”

Not surprisingly, they ended up getting in a huge shouting match:

(Geller told him to stop interrupting and at one point said “I know you’re used to stepping over women”), and Choudary told her she “knew the consequences.”

Pamela was having none of it – in fact, if looks could kill, Britain would have been one less Islamist asshole, Wednesday night.