http://www.infowars.com/is-obamas-cybersecurity-executive-order-imminent/

Is Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order Imminent?

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
November 11, 2012

Flush with electoral capital, President Barack Obama is spending it like mad in pursuit of his radical power consolidating agenda. Over the past few days we have chronicled the fast-tracking of a UN gun control treaty, the prosecution of another alleged espionage case, another deadly drone attack, approval of a planned UN invasion of Mali, etc.

The latest stop of the Barack Obama Worldwide Tour of Tyranny may be the issuing of a long-awaited and regularly leaked executive order exerting control over the Internet in the name of cybersecurity.

Of course, there remains the chance that Congress will pass some version of a cybersecurity bill before the president can issue his edict. Congress will be back in town on November 13 and Republican leaders have already telegraphed their intent to “reach across the aisle” and accede to the president’s mandate, including the touting of ObamaCare as “the law of the land.”

Then again, the president famously declared that “we can’t wait” for Congress to act, and given the fact that there are a few other pretty weighty items on the legislative schedule, a cybersecurity executive order isn’t out of the question. The decree would take that topic off Congress’s plate and allow the president greater control over the scope and severity of the regulations governing the “protection” of the nation’s cyberspace infrastructure.

Promises of the White House’s imminent issuing of the edict have been coming for months. The Associated Press (AP) obtained a leaked draft version of the order, but indicated that the source of the document didn’t disclose when the president would sign the order.

Greater evidence of the imminent issuing of the order came on September 19, when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the executive order granting the president sweeping power over the Internet is “close to completion.”

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Napolitano said that the order is still “being drafted” and vetted by various high-level bureaucrats. But she also indicated that it would be issued as soon as a “few issues” were resolved. Assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility, Napolitano added.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems,” she informed senators.

Napolitano’s report on the role of DHS squares with the information revealed in the seven-page version of the order the AP has read. According to the report of their findings:

The draft order would put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of organizing an information-sharing network that rapidly distributes sanitized summaries of top-secret intelligence reports about known cyberthreats that identify a specific target. With these warnings, known as tear lines, the owners and operators of essential U.S. businesses would be better able to block potential attackers from gaining access to their computer systems.

The new draft, which is not dated, retains a section that requires Homeland Security to identify the vital systems that, if hit by cyberattack, could “reasonably result in a debilitating impact” on national and economic security. Other sections establish a program to encourage companies to adopt voluntary security standards and direct federal agencies to determine whether existing cyber security regulations are adequate.

The president’s de facto re-routing of all Internet traffic through federal intelligence officers deputizes more than just DHS as cybertraffic cops. The AP reports that “the Pentagon, the National Security Agency (NSA), the director of national intelligence, and the Justice Department” will all cooperate in the surveillance — in the name of national security, of course.

Corporate employees will be authorized to snoop, as well. Per the AP’s reading of the draft executive order, “selected employees at critical infrastructure companies would receive security clearances allowing them to receive the information.”

As for those companies considered less critical to our national cybersecurity, “the government would ask businesses to tell the government about cyberthreats or cyberattacks. There would be no requirement to do so.”

Given the history of the federal government’s penchant for vague language, however, it is likely that despite the denial of compulsory cooperation with the government, there will be a loophole just large enough to mandate private cooperation with the federal government.

Although the president and officials in his administration portray the attack as imminent, Congress isn’t persuaded, and on several occasions lawmakers have rejected measures calling for greater government control over the Internet and the communications infrastructure.

As mentioned above, however, that legislative lassitude may be a thing of the past in light of recent electoral events. Perhaps GOP congressional leadership might see “protecting our nation’s cybersecurity” as a politically safe expression of bipartisanship.

Regardless of any renewed spirit of cooperation, President Obama is unlikely to set his watch by Congress’s timetable. The president, in fact, has been anxious to seize control of the Internet since his inauguration in 2009. As The New American reportedthat year:

The president pointed out that shortly after taking office he directed the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council to thoroughly review the federal government’s efforts “to defend our information and communications infrastructure” and to recommend improvements. He mentioned that National Security Council Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace Melissa Hathaway led the review team, and that the 60-day review included input from industry, academia, civil liberty and privacy advocates, every level and branch of government, Congress, and other advisers — even input from “international partners.”

To that end, the White House proposed legislation in 2011 and has ordered one after the other administration official to testify at no fewer than 17 congressional hearings on the subject.

In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece penned by the president, he did his best to instill in the American people fear of the consequences we would suffer should someone launch a successful cyberattack on the critical infrastructure networks of our nation.

National Security Council spokesman Caitlin Hayden was quoted parroting the president’s party line on the urgent need for action, however: “Given the gravity of the threats we face in cyberspace, we want to get this right in addition to getting it done swiftly,” Hayden told the AP.

The same sense of urgency is being stirred up in other places around D.C. As described in an article published by FCW:

Combined with the increasing public awareness of the cyber threat — and subsequent pressure on lawmakers to take action — the end of election season sets the stage for action on cybersecurity, according to a panel of insiders speaking Nov. 7 at the Symantec Government Symposium in Washington.

“There’s the trifecta of knowing who controls the Senate, knowing who the President is and the fact that there’s not an election. That, combined with the executive order looming, has to change the calculation of the people, organizations and stakeholders that sought to and did obstruct legislation,” said Clete Johnson, professional staff and counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

And:

“I think it’s difficult to put where on the scale [of legislative priorities] cybersecurity will be. I think both [Speaker of the House John Boehner] and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] have the realization of how important this issue is, and certainly the White House does too,” said Michael Seeds, legislative director for Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). Still, “anything with the word ‘regulation’ tied to it is going to be difficult to get through the House. I’m not sure how much of that has changed since the election or under the threat of the executive order. I do think a lot of the work we’ve done over the past year is laying the groundwork for continuing the conversation into the next Congress.

That pace probably isn’t fast enough for a president with a full tank of gas and a lead foot. The announcement of a cybersecurity executive order with all the necessary protections for safety and the requisite disregard for constitutional separation of powers is probably more imminent than we think.

Despite the uncertainty of the timetable, what is certain is that once President Obama signs his name to that edict and assuming compliance with its mandates changes from voluntary to involuntary, he will possess powers only dreamed about by the most ambitious dictators of history.

and....

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/10/pentagon-releases-benghazi-timeline-took-19-hours-to-respond/

Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline: took 19 hours to respond

POSTED AT 8:31 AM ON NOVEMBER 10, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

Ah, the Friday night news dump, a tradition that transcends party in Washington DC. Is there nothing it can’t underplay? Yesterday, more than two months after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead and the American response a confused mess, the Pentagon finally got around to releasing its version of the timeline of military response to the crisis to the Associated Press — when most newspapers and broadcast networks had closed up shop for the day. Small wonder, too, because the timeline showed that it took 19 hours for military assistance to arrive (via Twitchy):

New Pentagon details show that the first U.S. military unit arrived in Libya more than 15 hours after the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was over, and four Americans, including the ambassador, were dead.

A Defense Department timeline obtained by The Associated Press underscores how far the military response lagged behind the Sept. 11 attack, due largely to the long distances the commando teams had to travel to get to Libya.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top military adviser were notified of the attack about 50 minutes after it began and were about to head into a previously scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama. The meeting quickly turned into a discussion of potential responses to the unfolding situation in Benghazi, where militants had surrounded the consulate and set it on fire. The first wave of the attack at the consulate lasted less than two hours. …

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why so long? The Pentagon claims that the situation was “murky,” that they didn’t understand whether a hostage situation might develop, and also claimed not to have been aware of any specific threats. That would be news to anyone following the Benghazi story in some depth. Ambassador Chris Stevens warned repeatedly of threats to the Benghazi mission for months, requesting more security. On the day of the attack, three hours before it began and roughly five hours before Stevens was killed, the Benghazi consulate alerted State that radical Islamist terrorists had begun “gathering weapons and gathering steam,” plus a note that their security team of Libyan militia had taken pictures inside the compound for no apparent reason earlier that day.

Put this in the context of the date and place. The attack took place on the anniversary of 9/11, when we expect terrorist activity to take place in celebration of their biggest victory over the US. It took place in Benghazi, where the US government and everyone else knew these terrorist groups acted openly, having been freed from the oppression of the Qaddafi regime by Barack Obama and NATO a year earlier. The Benghazi mission was in the middle of a city that had no effective government control. And the reason that the Pentagon couldn’t anticipate the attack on Benghazi and have its assets positioned for immediate response, with all of the above intel, would be … ?

Panetta said that based on a continuous evaluation of threats, military forces were spread around Europe and the Middle East to deal with a variety of missions. In the months before the attack, he noted, “several hundred reports were received indicating possible threats to U.S. facilities around the world” and noted that there was no advance notice of imminent threats to U.S. personnel or facilities in Benghazi.

If that’s true, then what did the State Department and Hillary Clinton do with all of those warnings from Stevens about Benghazi, including the one from earlier that day? Did Clinton and State never bother to inform Panetta? That seems to be what the Pentagon timeline and the AP’s reporting suggests — that the first time that Panetta thought there was a credible threat against the Benghazi consulate was in the meeting with Obama 50 minutes after the attack started.

John McCain, for one, isn’t buying that explanation:

His explanation, however, did not satisfy McCain. In a statement Friday, McCain said Panetta’s letter, “only confirms what we already knew – that there were no forces at a sufficient alert posture in Europe, Africa or the Middle East to provide timely assistance to our fellow citizens in need in Libya. The letter fails to address the most important question – why not?”

Why not, indeed? Why did the US get caught with its pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 in what had widely been known as Terrorist Central, a situation directly caused by American and NATO intervention in Libya 17 months earlier? State is pointing fingers at the CIA and Pentagon, intel is pointing theirs back to State, and now so is the Pentagon. But this all begins at the White House and an apparent lack of curiosity about the wide-open environment provided to terrorist groups by our decapitation of the Qaddafi regime and the security consequences for American interests.

All of the Friday night document dumps in the world won’t cover for that. And I can’t help but wonder who’s sex scandal will distract from the next Friday night document dump when it occurs.

and....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-10/foodstamps-surge-most-one-year-new-all-time-record-delayed-release

Foodstamps Surge By Most In One Year To New All Time Record, In Delayed Release

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/10/2012 10:46 -0500

BLS

Bureau of Labor Statistics

While there had been speculation that the BLS may delay the release of its October nonfarm payroll number until after the election, it turned out there was no reason to worry. Perhaps this is because the number, while at stall speed, was not quite as horrible as some had expected (even if the change in average hourly earnings did tumble to new all time lows) and so boosted Obama's reelection chances. There was, however, another closely tracked number which perhaps is far more indicative of the economic "growth" in the past 4 years, which certainly had a delayed release. The number of course is that showing how many Americans are on foodstamps, and usually is released at the end of the month, or the first day or two of the next month. This time the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing.

Foodstamps at the household level also rose to a record 22.685 million:

Finally, going back to the start of the official start of the depression in December 2007. In the 57 months from then until August 2012, there have been 4.6 million jobs lost even as Americans on foodstamps and disability have risen by 21.2 million.

And the same shown on a monthly basis:

Delay explained.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/sign-petition-opposing-co-chairman-of-the-catfood-commission-erskine-bowles-as-treasury-secretary.html

The word is that Erskine Bowles, who most recently headed the so-called “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” which might more accurately be called the “National Commission to Increase Unemployment and Make Old People Die Faster” is the top pick on the short list of candidates for the next Treasury Secretary.
This is a very bad idea. While Geithner never stood up to the banks because he was a protege of Robert Rubin, and therefore had been schooled that bankers really deserved to be Masters of the Universe, and if they made a few mistakes here and there that led global economy to teeter on the edge of destruction, that was no reason not to restore them to their power positions, even if it took a few trillion dollars of overt and covert handouts. But on top of that, he knew too little tradecraft to stand up to them even if he had wanted to. I’ve had a number of bankers who’ve met with Geithner describe him with contempt, despite the great impression he makes on journalists. He may give great policy talk, but his grasp of markets is apparently thin, even though he oversaw a decent sized trading operation at the New York Fed.
Bowles, despite being an investment banker, is certain to have little to no understanding of trading businesses. He was at Morgan Stanley in investment banking for what looks like all of three years in the late 1960s, when Morgan was a pure investment bank, as in it had no trading (it was a lead underwriter and syndicator + merger specialist). Bowles then built up a boutique firm in his home state. He may be a perfectly good dealmaker, but that does not even get you within hailing distance of the guts of modern finance, which is the OTC markets (yes, he is now on the board of Morgan Stanley, but trust me, board members don’t get enough into the weeds for him to be anything more than buzzword compatible).
So the short version of why not Bowles is:
1. He is one of the primary architects and boosters of the disaster about to be visited on the middle class, which Bill Black has correctly called the Great Betrayal
2. He is a Wall Street crony who if he were (miraculously) to have a “Nixon goes to China” impulse in a next crisis, lacks the right sort of expertise and acumen to stare down Wall Street CEOs
Yes, I know there are other bad dudes on Obama’s short list, so you might argue that pushing back against Bowles is merely going to get us another turkey. The reasons for petitioning are:

1. This is a low effort way to signal discontent with the Great Betrayal (and let Team Obama know the public is clued in; it is hardly normal for a Treasury Secretary candidate to attract grass roots opposition).

2. The other turkeys are arguably less terrible. For instance, even though contender Larry Fink of Blackrock might be seen as functionally indistinguishable, he was not involved personally in the Great Betrayal planning (hence he lacks personal ego investment in getting it done and could be more flexible in the face of opposition) and has much more stature on Wall Street and hence could push back against a Jamie Dimon in a crisis. Mind you, I would not hold out high odds of that, but the probability with Bowles is zero, so it’s still better on a relative basis.

Please sign the petition at Change.Org and tell your friends to join (hat tip Dean Baker)

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-09/obama-wants-drive-over-cliff

( Recall the Fiscal Cliff was the agreed resolution - by both parties... )

Obama wants to drive over the cliff.

Courtesy of Dr. Paul Price of Beating Buffett

America is awash with hope that our newly re-crowned King will come towards the center and avoid the dreaded ‘Sequestration.’

That term is spoken of as if it is toxic. People seem to forget that it was deemed the solution to the debt ceiling negotiations during the summer of 2011. Those opposing its imposition now are the same ones who passed it in the first place.

clip image002 Obama wants to drive over the cliff

But I digress. Here is why our leader has no desire to settle this affair before it gets put into effect.

It will impose tax hikes on everyone who pays federal income taxes (not just the 2%)
It will cut entitlements without his having to support the actions
It will reduce defense spending without him ‘looking soft’ as Commander-in-Chief
It will end the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ automatically
It will probably slow economic growth (GDP)

Why would our President want these things to take place?

He would get the extra tax revenues to use without being blamed
He could not be held accountable for breaking his ubiquitous pledge to never raise taxes on the bottom 98%
He would not be the one cutting entitlements, it would be ‘out of his hands’
He prefers to cut defense spending rather than social programs
He can later ‘give back’ tax cuts to the Middle Class
- He can then call them the ‘Obama Tax Cuts’
- He can blame those damn ‘Obstructionist Republicans’ for the next recession
For B-Rock the Sequestration is a ‘Dream Act’ to accomplish many of his goals and dreams without any accountability. Every negative can be blamed on the Republicans even as he allows his stated preferences to be overridden by the forced actions imposed on him.

We haven’t seen political agility this devious since Bill Clinton asked everyone what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

and....

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/cia_director_david_petraeus_quits_JXe5FayUNE7fWDyHLfdgJJ
( Another major bit of news buried by the White House before the Election.... )

By CARL CAMPANILE
Last Updated: 6:13 PM, November 9, 2012
Posted: 3:16 PM, November 9, 2012

David Petraeus with Paula Broadwell

CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus — one of America’s most revered military leaders -- announced his resignation yesterday as chief spy, citing an extramarital affair, reportedly with his biographer.

The bombshell stunned the political, military and intelligence establishments.

A report by the website Slate.com identified Paula Broadwell, a co-author of a fawning biography, “All In: The Education of General David Petreaeus.”

CIA director and retired general David Petraeus has resigned over an extramarital affair.

The retired four-star general was a leading commander in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars following 9/11. He was credited with the counteroffensive “surge” strategy that tamed the Iraq insurgency.

Known as a straight-shooter, he was highly regarded on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans touted him as a potential presidential candidate while President Obama made him part of his cabinet.

But the decorated general’s career ends in a scandal.

Broadwell was embedded with Petraeus in Afghanistan, and two would go on five-mile jogs together, according to report.

“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in a letter.

“Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”

As head of the CIA, philandering is considered a breach of security and a counterintelligence threat — and potential grounds for court martial. The affair potentially exposed Petraeus and the US government to blackmail by a foreign government or enemy.

The timing of the resignation raised eyebrows because Petraeus was expected to testify at a congressional hearing about the terrorist attack at the US consultate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. He will no longer do so.

Paula Broadwell

Petraeus’ wife, Holly, also works in the Obama administration at the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as an advocate of military veterans with financial issues.

Without referring to the scandal, Obama issued a statement praising Petraeus for his “extraordinary service” to America and for making the nation “safer and stronger.’

“By any measure, he was one of the outstanding general officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challengers, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end.”

“By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.”

“Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Petraeus stood in “the ranks of American’s greatest military heroes.”

“His inspirational leadership and his genius were directly responsible — after years of failure — for the success of the surge in Iraq,” McCain said. “We are immensely grateful for General Petraeus’s decades of work on behalf of our nation, our military and our security.”

and the fur is flying already.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-s-sudden-resignation_662200.html

Lawmakers considered calling for his resignation in late October.

5:40 PM, NOV 9, 2012 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

A few thoughts on the resignation of David Petraeus as CIA director: Few American leaders had a stronger reputation for integrity and honor, so the reason he cited for his departure – an extramarital affair – comes as a shock to the nation and to those who know him best.

Petraeus will go down in American history as one of its greatest generals. He turned around an increasingly disastrous situation in Iraq, despite tremendous criticism from war skeptics here at home. The work that he did there no doubt saved American and Iraqi lives and provided the Obama administration an opportunity to leave Iraq a reasonably stable country.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency cannot carry on a secret affair and continue to hold that position. Friends and associates of Petraeus are telling reporters to take the stated reason for his resignation at “face value,” citing his reputation for integrity. And there’s little question that Petraeus, through a long and storied career in service to the country, has earned the benefit of the doubt. But it’s also true that the timing of his departure will inevitably raise questions.

Congressional Republicans were furious with Petraeus for what they described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD as “misleading” testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of “talking points” the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October.

Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-obama-delayed-petraeus-resignation-until-after-election-2012-11

Conservative News Site Alleges That Obama Delayed Petraeus Resignation Until After Election

Henry Blodget | 33 minutes ago | 1 |

General David Petraeus was the director of the CIA.

In case you thought there was a chance that the startling resignation of General David Petraeus might not "go political," it already has.

Citing an FBI source, conservative site Newsmax is reporting that the Obama administration delayed the resignation of General Petraeus until after the election to avoid embarrassment.

FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals...

[T]he FBI, Justice Department, and the White House held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election... FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

This report is directly refuted by Jake Tapper of ABC, who reports that the White House was informed of the FBI investigation and affair on Wednesday this week, and President Obama learned about it on Thursday (yesterday).

and the shocking details.....

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573

Kessler: FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation

Friday, 09 Nov 2012 04:43 PM

By Ronald Kessler

More . . .

A A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

0
inShare

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.

In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details. However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment.

FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.

The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election.

In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate.

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Michael Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.

and..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-08/first-ohio-next-moon

First Ohio; Next 'The Moon'?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/08/2012 20:45 -0500

Barack Obama

Mars

Obama Administration

Ohio

President Obama

While markets are digesting the probabilities of a dramatic rise in taxes and cut in spending as we approach the fiscal cliff, it appears that behind-the-scenes there has been a secret plan that we can only imagine is designed to rocket-boost us over the cliff - new manned missions to the moon. AsSpace.com reports, NASA is serious about sending astronauts back to the moon's neighborhood and will likely unveil its ambitious plans soon now that President Barack Obama has been re-elected, experts say. They go on to comment that "The space agency has apparently been thinking about setting up a manned outpost beyond the moon's far side, both to establish a human presence in deep space and to build momentum toward a planned visit to an asteroid in 2025. The new plans have probably already been cleared with the Obama Administration but have been kept under wraps in case Republican candidate Mitt Romney won Tuesday night's (Nov. 6) presidential election." While the claims are that this will not increase the budget, we suspect out-of-this-world manned outposts cost a little more than the $17.7bn budgeted for NASA in 2013... someone is clearly eating space-cakes. Ironic really given our earlier post...

Via Space.com,

NASA is serious about sending astronauts back to the moon's neighborhood and will likely unveil its ambitious plans soon now that President Barack Obama has been re-elected, experts say.

The space agency has apparently been thinking about setting up a manned outpost beyond the moon's far side, both to establish a human presence in deep space and to build momentum toward a planned visit to an asteroid in 2025.

The new plans have probablyalready been cleared with the Obama Administration but have been kept under wraps in case Republican candidate Mitt Romney won Tuesday night's (Nov. 6) presidential election, said space policy expert John Logsdon, a professor emeritus at George Washington University.

"NASA has been evolving its thinking, and its latest charts have inserted a new element of cislunar/lunar gateway/Earth-moon L2 sort of stuff into the plan," Logsdon told SPACE.com. (The Earth-moon L2 is a so-called libration point where the two bodies' gravitational pulls roughly balance out, allowing spacecraft to essentially park there.)

"They've been holding off announcing that until after the election," Logsdon added, noting that Romney had pledged to reassess and possibly revise NASA's missions and direction.

A new vision of human space exploration

In 2010, President Obama directed NASA to work toward sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, then on to the vicinity of Mars by the mid-2030s. To reach such deep-space destinations, the agency is developing a huge rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS) and a crew capsule named Orion.

But astronauts likely won't head straight to a space rock when SLS and Orion are ready to fly together in 2021. In the last year, word has begun leaking out that NASA wants to explore Earth-moon L2, a point in space that lies beyond the moon's far side, as a precursor.

Rumors currently point toward parking a spacecraft at the Earth-moon L2 gateway, so NASA (and perhaps international partners) can learn more about supporting humans in deep space. Astronauts stationed there could also aid in lunar exploration — by teleoperating rovers on the moon's surface, for example.

NASA officials think they can pull off such manned missions without busting their budget, which stands at $17.7 billion in the proposed 2013 federal budget.

"They're not talking about plans that imply significant budget increases," Logsdon said. "It gives a more focused use for SLS and Orion before an asteroid mission."

Moon missions coming soon?

Exploration of Earth-moon L2 could get started as early as 2021 with the first manned flight of SLS and Orion, which NASA calls Exploration Mission 2. (Exploration Mission 1 is the initial, unmanned test launch of SLS, slated for late 2017.)

"I'm not privy to the specifics of this, but one could conceive of the second SLS mission being the start of activity in cislunar space, rather than just being a lunar orbit mission," Logsdon said.

We may know soon enough. NASA higher-ups have dropped hints recently that a big announcement may indeed be in the offing before too much longer.

"We just recently delivered a comprehensive report to Congress outlining our destinations which makes clear that SLS will go way beyond low-Earth orbit to explore the expansive space around the Earth-moon system, near-Earth asteroids, the moon, and ultimately, Mars," NASA deputy chief Lori Garver said at a conference in September.

"Let me say that again: We're going back to the moon, attempting a first-ever mission to send humans to an asteroid and actively developing a plan to take Americans to Mars," Garver added.

So those direct talks between US and Iran may be going forward - guess that was that why the iranian drone attack kept hush hush .......

http://www.debka.com/article/22505/Obama-aims-to-start-nuclear-talks-with-Iran-next-month

Obama aims to start nuclear talks with Iran next month

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 8, 2012, 11:10 AM (GMT+02:00)

Tags: Barack Obama Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Iran nuclear negotiations

They agree on direct talks - but not the date

After winning a second White House term, US President Barack Obama aims to start direct, fast-track nuclear talks with Tehran as soon as December, even before his January swearing-in, on the assumption that Iran’s window of opportunity is very narrow – just three months,DEBKAfile’s Washington sources disclose. White House go-betweens with the office of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warn that Iran’s campaign for the June 14 presidential election gets going in March. After than, it is estimated in Washington, that Khamenei, whose ill health keeps his working-day short, will be fully absorbed in a struggle to purge Iran’s political hierarchy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his clique.
But Tehran would prefer nuclear diplomacy to be delayed for eight months until after that election. “We waited for the US election campaign to be over, so why shouldn’t the Americans wait for ours?” a senior Iranian official asked rhetorically.
For now, the supreme leader is looking for a suitable candidate for the presidency. This time, the supreme leader is not expected to make the mistake of choosing a charismatic, ambitious and competent figure like Ahmadinejad, but rather one who is satisfied with acting as a representative titular figure and play second fiddle to Khamenei whose bureau will administer the executive branch of government.
The supreme leader is believed in Washington to be weighing another alternative: having parliament abolish the post of president and transferring its powers to the new post of prime minister, who would be chosen from among the 290 Majlis lawmakers.
Speaker Ali Larijani and his brother, head of the judiciary Sadeq Larijani, have in the past year performed the spadework of sidelining Ahmadinejad’s parliamentary faction.
Ali Larijani himself is a front-runner for the job of Revolutionary Iran’s first prime minister.
The view in Washington today is that if nuclear talks do start in December and roll on into March, Khamenei will be compelled to cut the process short to escape potential accusations led by Ahmadinejad that he is handing to America concessions excessive enough to stall Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
The supreme leader can’t afford to have the Iran’s military establishment, the Revolutionary Guards and the street turn against him on this issue.

But in the last few days, Tehran appears to have taken a large step back from direct negotiations with Washington in principle. Just hours after Obama’s election victory was announced on Nov. 7, the official Iranian news agency quoted Sadeq Larijani as condemning US sanctions as “crimes against the Iranian people.” He said relations with America “cannot be possible overnight” and the US president should not expect rapid new negotiations with Tehran. “Americans should not think they can hold our nation to ransom by coming to the negotiating table,” was the Iranian judiciary head’s parting shot for Obama.

The gap between Washington and Tehran is as wide as ever: Obama wants the talks to last no more than three months and end in an agreed settlement of the nuclear dispute, whereas the ayatollah prefers a low-key process to be dragged out past the eight month-month period while also gaining more time for Iran’s nuclear program to race forward.
This tactic would additionally help Tehran erase yet another Israeli red line, the one set by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his UN September speech when he said that the spring or early summer of 2013 would be the critical date for Israel to act.

and funny how this just came out today - classified one week , nightly news the next week........

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/first-on-cnn-iranian-jets-fire-on-u-s-drone/?hpt=hp_t3

FIRST ON CNN: Iranian jets fire on U.S. drone

By Barbara Starr

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf on November 1, the Pentagon disclosed on Thursday.

The incident, reported first by CNN, raised fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.

The drone was on routine maritime surveillance in international airspace east of Kuwait, 16 miles off the coast of Iran, U.S. officials said. The Predator was not hit.

Also: U.S. adds to Iran sanctions

"Our aircraft was never in Iranian airspace. It was always flying in international air space. The recognized limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast and we never entered the 12 nautical mile limit," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in responding to questions from reporters after CNN reported the incident.

Little said the United States believed this was the first time an unmanned aircraft was shot at by the Iranians in international waters over the Gulf. In December of 2011, a U.S. surveillance drone crashed in eastern Iran. Iranians claimed to have shot it down, and created a toy model of the drone to celebrate its capture.

Little stopped short of calling the incident an act of war although the Pentagon was concerned.

Also: Obama faces world of challenges in second terms

Two U.S. officials explained the jets were part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps force, which has been more confrontational than regular Iranian military forces.

At least two bursts of gunfire came from the Su-25s' cannons. The drone started to move away but the Iranian aircraft chased it, doing aerial loops around it before breaking away and returning to Iran.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident before the presidential election, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN on Thursday. They declined to be identified because of sensitive intelligence matters surrounding the matter.

The drone's still and video cameras captured the incident showing two Su-25s approaching the Predator and firing onboard guns.

The Iranian pilots continued to fire shots that went beneath the Predator but were never successful in hitting it, according to the officials.

U.S. military intelligence analysts are still not sure if the Iranian pilots simply were unable to hit the drone due to lack of combat skill, or whether they deliberately were missing and had no intention of bringing it down.

But as one of the officials said, "it doesn't matter, they fired on us."

Little said the United States has to assume Iran was trying to bring down the Predator.

The United States protested the incident but had not heard back from Iran.

Iran has, at other times, been confrontational in the region. In January, the U.S. military and coast guard had close encounters with Iranian Navy vesselswhich approached at high speeds and exhibited provocative behavior.

Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States, declined to say whether his country knew about the incident before Pentagon officials

and send the bill for WARN costs and legal expenses to Chicago or the White House .......

Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

The company [BA 70.98

0.87 (+1.24%)

] told employees about the changes on Wednesday, in a memo obtained by Reuters and confirmed by Boeing.

Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest supplier, said the changes were the latest step in an affordability drive that has already reduced the company's costs by $2.2 billion since 2010, according to the memo.

The measures come as U.S. weapons makers are under pressure to cut costs and preserve profit margins amid dwindling defense spending in the U.S.

In a message to employees, Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said the company aimed to cut costs by an additional $1.6 billion from 2013 through 2015.

"We are raising the bar higher because our market challenges and opportunities require it, and our customers' needs demand it," Muilenburg said.

Globalists Pull Out All Stops to Grab Guns After Obama Victory

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 8, 2012

Prior to the election, Infowars.com warned that Obama, his Democrat allies and the internationalist gun-grabbers would move their agenda to disarm America forward if Obama was reappointed on November 6.

Andy Warhol.

“Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community,” the Second Amendment Foundationreported on Wednesday.

“U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies,” the New York Times reported the same day.

157 governments at the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament in New York on Wednesday voted to disarm citizens. The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote where it is expected to pass.

“MPs and PGA [globalist Parliamentarians for Global Action] legislators all around the world, as well as many of the colleagues with whom we work, are deeply committed to making the ATT [Arms Trade Treaty] a meaningful reality in the near future,” PGA president and New Zealand Member of ParliamentRoss Robertson said.

“We want a strong ATT and we want it soon. We will move heaven and earth to see that, once it is in place, it is signed, ratified and implemented in all our countries as soon as possible,” he added.

A gun buy boom followed the election as millions of Americans went out and stocked up on firearms and ammo, fearing the inevitable.

“People are definitely scared of a president who has voted when he was a senator against guns,” Anthony Bouchard, director of the Wyoming Gun Owners Association in Cheyenne told the Wyoming Star Tribune. “[If Obama gets re-elected] he’s in a lame-duck session and he can do the things he wants to do. That’s what we’re afraid of.”

Obama’s record as an aggressive gun-grabber is clear and during his second term he will have little to fear from defenders of the Second Amendment.

“Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars,” writes Larry Bell for Forbes. “That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.”

and the War on Drugs........

CIA Allegedly Using Drug Money to Overthrow Ecuador President Rafael Correa

Matías Rojas
Infowars.com
November 8, 2012

Ecaudorian President Rafael Correa, source Wikimedia commons

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is using drug money to fund Rafael Correa’s opposition in the coming 2013 Ecuadorian elections, intelligence sources have revealed to Chilean independent media. The accusations do not stand alone. In October, former UK diplomat Craig Murray said that the CIA had tripled its budget to destabilize the government of Ecuador.

The allegations were made public by President Rafael Correa on November 3rd on national television, just days after his official visit to Chile to meet with President Sebastian Piñera.

For translation, click on the CC (captions) widget, choose Spanish, then select Translate and English (or preferred language).

Correa reaffirmed information that appeared in an article written by Chilean independent media outlet Panoramas News, revealing that the CIA and DEA stations in Chile were running a narcotics trafficking network through that country with the full knowledge of Chilean authorities and police.

One of the sources quoted by Chilean media, a former police officer in the Policia de Investigaciones (PDI) by the name of Fernando Ulloa, said that 300 kilograms of cocaine were entering Chile monthly under the escort of members of his own institution, the Carabineros, and the Chilean Army. In May 2011, Fernando Ulloa met with then Chilean Minister of Interior Rodrigo Hinzpeter in La Moneda to inform him about the drug network. After more than one year, the Piñera’s government had done nothing to investigate the case.

The scandal resurfaced again after 10 Chilean cops were detained with links to a minor drug smuggling ring, not connected to the one Ulloa was exposing. Although Chilean television was more open to talk about police corruption, Ulloa was only interviewed by two TV networks, where he accused Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter of covering up the larger narcotics ring he was investigating before being kicked out of his job as PDI inspector.

The links to US intelligence emerged after an anonymous source from the Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia (ANI) told Panoramas News that the smuggling of 300 kilos of cocaine was in fact a highly sensitive CIA/DEA operation that would help to raise money to topple the government of Ecuador. The operation is similar to the one carried out by the Agency in Central America during the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980’s, the source said.

The director of Panoramas News, journalist Patricio Mery Bell, was planning to hand over the information to Rafael Correa while the Ecuadorian President was visiting Chile, but he was strangely accused of beating a woman after she stole his cell-phone. The cell-phone memory contained a video testimony of Mery’s intelligence source, destined to be passed to Correa, but it ended up in the hands of the police after the mysterious incident.

Once he was in Ecuador, President Rafael Correa connected the dots and decided to go public with the information. He quoted Murray’s early warnings about the CIA’s intent to “fund, bribe or blackmail media and officials”, originally written in the former diplomat’s own blog, adding that the Agency was dealing drugs just as Oliver North had done during the Contra support effort.

In an interview with NTN24, journalist Patricio Mery added more details to the case, relating the cover-up of the CIA drug dealing operation to the deaths of two different people in the last seven years: former soldier Fabian Vega, who was found hung in the northern city of Calama in 2005, and young citizen Nestor Madariaga Juantok, found death with two bullets in the port of Valparaiso in 2006. Both were ruled as suicides.

For translation, click on the CC (captions) widget, choose Spanish, then select Translate and English (or preferred language).

Mery also gave the name of the alleged CIA liaison with the Chilean Navy, former captain Jesus Saez Luna, who is now being held in a penitentiary after he mysteriously escaped from Navy custody. Saez Luna was described in his arrest as the biggest drug dealer of the coastal city of Viña del Mar, with networks in Santiago de Chile and the Bio-Bio southern region of the country. Known as “El Marino”, the former captain utilized “military intelligence” tactics to avoid detection by police, according to the Chilean newspaper La Segunda.

The case is being depicted as “Chile-Contras”, in reference to the history of CIA narcotics trafficking in Nicaragua. This is just another example of how drug money is used to fund covert operations, such as the ones we have seen in Syria, with whole guerrilla armies and opposition forces being financed to overthrow countries that aren’t part of the Anglo-American establishment and don’t bow to American corporate interests.

and a closer look at the fiscal cliff..... h/t Ed Steer's Gold & Silver Daily Report ......

http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/edition/china-overtake-india-overall-gold-demand-gfms

* * *

The third graph is from Vancouver, Washington reader Duane Zelinka. It's a graph from anAP story posted in the 'Critical Reads' section below...but in case you pass on the story, I want to make sure you at least skim the graph...and it needs no further embellishment on my part.

Ron Paul: We're Broke and Already Over the Fiscal Cliff

This 6:32 minute video interview was posted over at Bloombergyesterday...and the brain dead Betty Liu is way over her head here. Ron Paul is, as usual, right on the money. I thank Federico Schiavio for providing our first story of the day...and the link is here.

Budget Disarray: U.S. Set to Restage Greek Tragedy

The US has more in common with heavily indebted southern European countries than it might like to admit. And if the country doesn't reach agreement on deficit reduction measures soon, the similarities could become impossible to ignore. The fiscal cliff looms in the near future, and its not just the US that is under threat.
With the elections behind them, Americans are now facing a different, much more real horror scenario: In just a few weeks time, thousands of children could be denied vaccinations, federally funded school programs could screech to a halt, adults may be forced to forego HIV tests and subsidized housing vouchers would dry up. Even the work of air-traffic controllers, the FBI, border officials and the military could be drastically curtailed.
That and more is looming just over the horizon according to the White House if the country is allowed to plunge off the "fiscal cliff" at the beginning of next year. Coined by Federal Reserve head Ben Bernanke, it refers to the vast array of cuts and tax increases which will automatically go into effect if Republicans and Democrats can't agree on measures to slash the US budget deficit.
This article was posted on the German website spiegel.de yesterday...and I thank Donald Sinclair for sending it along. It's definitely worth reading...and the link is here.

Catharsis Ours

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Now that the Election is over , we start to learn plans for the Second Term and news kept under wraps.....