Oh Lord, deliver us! Here we go again:

The Washington Times reported CIA Director Leon Panetta had argued behind the scenes- insisting that the administration not REOPEN cases of suspected torture by CIA officers. But Mr. Panetta lost out to Attorney General Eric (the Quiet Man) Holder.

Evidently, the two had battled it out with flyswatters in the Dept of Justice basement; but 'peacemaker' Obama intervened, giving Holder the green light to "re-visit" with CIA agents about past actions. 

Such drivel. Why didn't control-freak Obama call off Holder in the first place?

Obama now chooses - under the guise of Holder's contrived outrage- to drive another liberal stake into the heart of our fabled spy agency, who has been indispensible to our nation's security ever since the end of World War II.

In 1953, the CIA played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh--the pro-Soviet leader who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, and decided the West would no longer influence the price of Iranian oil.  

In  "Operation Ajax," the CIA argued (correctly) that Mossadegh was soft on Communism, and that the Tudeh (the pro-Soviet Communist party) might soon control Iran.

In a CIA-executed coup, Mossadegh was ousted; and the Shah - Mohammed Reza Pahlavi -assumed power, who then kicked out the Tudeh Party once and for all - thanks to our CIA.

In retrospect, it was a turning point in modern Iranian history: It consolidated the power of the Shah, who ruled Iran for 26 more years; all under the watchful eye of the CIA. 

But in 1953, what if a liberal had been president...say Adlai Stevenson (instead of Dwight Eisenhower)?

Stevenson would've told the CIA ..."Now boys... no rough-stuff in Iran. We have plenty of our own oil; it's their country; we have to respect their human rights; Mr. Mossadegh is their duly-elected leader; and if the Communists take over, its none of our business. They're a sovereign country"...etcetera - ad nauseum. 

Sound familiar? That's they way ALL liberal presidents see the CIA; not as an intelligence agency, but as agents who violate the "human rights" of others - who just happen to be our sworn enemies!

Indeed, it's these chickenhawk liberals ( Holder, Obama, Biden, etc.) who need to be put on trial. After all, who's a bigger threat to U.S. security? Them.. or the CIA?

But why get all worked up? That's what these naive, treasonous liberal presidents have been doing to our country for the last 30 years; and with all these idio-moronic voters who now go to the polls, you can expect it to go on for probably at least another generation - or even longer.

But a hundred years may go by before another fool president could do the damage of someone like Jimmy Carter, who in the first month of office, made his "10-trillion dollar" appointment to the directorship of the CIA.

Carter (like all liberals) was obsessed with being "fair". So what did Carter see as the first place to single out for reforming? Of course-- it was those nasty, dastardly, secret-service  brigands at the CIA.

In January 1977, Carter made one of the most ill-conceived presidential appointments of all time: For CIA director he chose Stansfield Turner, Carter's college roommate at the Naval Academy-- who had no agency or intelligence experience of any kind. 

After eight months of Congressional hearings (concerning CIA "domestic spying") Turner (with Carter's blessing) circulated a photocopied memo, informing 800 astonished CIA staffers of their dismissal. Most of these were highly-seasoned agents, who spoke Arabic, Farsi, and were fluent in many other languages.

To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to only "non-human means" - satellite observations and listening posts.

The damage to the United States became apparent almost immediately. In 1978, the CIA had no idea that the pro-American Shah of Iran was beginning to lose all his support to the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and was toppled by militants in 1979.

Using Iranian petro-dollars, Khomeini immediately got his revenge- the funding of terrorist attacks against all American interests - largely because of the "downfall" of the CIA. Overnight, America had been blinded to everything going on in the Middle East - thanks to peanut farmer Carter, and his "ten trillion dollar man"...Stansfield Turner.

Our next intelligence fiasco quickly flared up in winter of 1980, with the surprise Soviet invasion of Afghanistan . Leonid Brezhnev had sensed that Carter was naive. And with the start of the Russo-Afghan conflict, herein lies the actual origin of Al-Qaida.

Young Wahabi Muslims fighters were sent from Saudi Arabia against the Soviets. One of these was Osama Bin Laden. Hence, Al Qaida was born in the hiding places of the Mujahideen caves of  Afghanistan, where Bin Laden hides out to this very day.

After running out the Soviets from Afghanistan , the Afghan Mujahideen (freedom fighters) eventually became the Taliban. Bin Laden - a Mujahideen war hero - returned to Saudi Arabia, to later found Al-Qaida. 

Today, we have NO agents inside any of these radical Islamic dictatorships. There are a paltry number of Americans (for intelligence service) who can speak Farsi, Arabic, or any other of the Middle Eastern dialects.

This is why we blundered into Bush's second war in Iraq: if we had even a reasonable modicum of intelligence on the ground, we would have KNOWN for sure if Saddam Hussein had nukes, or was just huffing and puffing.

And this is also why we remain thoroughly confused about the Taliban in Afghanistan:

Of what strength are the enemy? Is the Taliban working with Bin Ladin, or are they just another 7th century Muslim cult, going around chopping off digits and heads - enforcing their medieval Islamic sharia laws?

Who knows? Certainly not the CIA, whom we continue to demoralize at our own foolish peril. 

Hence, we are as blind today as we were back in the late 70's, as to what our enemies in the Middle East may be planning next. The CIA will probably never recover from Carter's profoundly idiotic blunder.

These self-inflicted wounds also contributed to serious U.S. reverses in Angola, and Ethiopia. But to this day, the surviving members of the Carter White House stubbornly refuse to take the blame for these disastrous setbacks, and the astounding dollar cost to the U.S. economy when taken as a whole:

1979--the pro-USA Shah of Iran is deposed- The price of oil doubles- costing the US economy approximately 1 trillion dollars from 1979 to 1982, when oil prices reverse.

1979-The hostage crisis- the origin of the radical Islam/worldwide Muslim terrorist movement. Price to the U.S. economy? Unknown.

1982- The Marine barracks at Lebanon is destroyed by a truck bomb. Price to the U.S. economy? Unknown.

1991-Saddam invades Kuwait- a total surprise to America. Price to the U.S. economy for Desert Storm: Approximately 50 billion dollars.

1993- the World Trade Center bombing. Price to the U.S. economy: Approximately 1 billion dollars.

2000- the destroyer Cole is attacked & nearly sunk; Price to the U.S. economy; less than 50 million dollars

2001- September 11; Price to the U.S. economy (including real estate; stock market declines, and economic downturn): 8 trillion dollars.

2003- faulty intelligence leads to Iraq invasion- Cost of the second Iraqi war to the U.S. economy: approx. 1 trillion dollars.

Total cost of all U.S. intelligence failures since 1978: Approx. TEN trillion dollars!

Would any of these have happened if Carter had not dismantled the CIA?

And finally, add in the cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, plus building and maintaining Gitmo, etc., and we now have reached a grand total of 11 trillion dollars- exactly EQUAL to our national debt- plus the unsustainable amount of interest we pay on it every year.

So it looks like our "evil" CIA may have turned out to be the biggest bargain ever before 1978.

 www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Let's all discuss that forbidden, oft-censored topic of "race." Be seated everyone.

After opening his mouth FAR too wide supporting the odious Henry Gates, Barack Obama has given tacit warning to ALL white police officers across America..."You shall now treat minority suspects with kid gloves- if confronted, turn the other cheek."

Basically, in a perverse, "Miranda-style" message, Obama warned the police: "You have the obligation to "remain silent," should a minority suspect revile you for being a cop. You'll now be rewarded with invectives, because of your evil proclivity of "racial profiling."

Despite the racial resentment Mr. Obama "unintentionally" created, one thing forgotten - how it will silently reverberate across every inner city neighborhood in America.

Obama has made it "official": if any minority should defy a police officer - the Obama administration will come charging to their defense.

This was first done "unofficially" when Obama ordered Eric Holder absolve the Black Panther Party, having blocked whites from voting in Philadelphia. While no one was looking, the door to civil disobedience had opened by a crack.

Now, by branding police as "stupid" for properly answering a B&E radio call, Obama has swung the door WIDE open to unpunished civil disobedience:

Yes Mr. Obama- let's all unite together and hate every cop for their brutal oppression of  poor hapless minorities, who comprise 13% of the population, but are perpetrators of over 90% of America's violent crimes. But sh-h-h-h... it's only because they're poor. Surely, if whites were just as poor, would they not be just as bad? Sure. 

Imagine yourself a cop now - patrolling the peaceful inner city - and you spot an obviously suspicious person, loitering on a corner; what NOW runs through your mind?

"What if I question this guy and he calls me a racist? Will I end up being sued by Eric Holder? Will I lose my job? Will this guy perhaps attack me? And if I defend myself with my firearm, will witnesses then lie in court about what happened?"

What everyone fails to realize - the renewed danger we ALL face:

Obama's 4 foolish words..."the police acted stupidly," gives the green light to all minority criminals; their chances of being arrested and punished have now decreased exponentially, putting EVERYONE -not just those in inner cities - at greatly increased risk.

Great job Mr. Obama - who, besides contempt for our military, despises law officers as well. But not to worry; rumor has it Mr. Obama doesn't hold anything against white firemen - yet.

Basically, Obama has made race a priority over citizen safety; something he has tried to do before as a state senator in Illinois, often revealing his tolerance for criminals, ESPECIALLY if they were minorities:

POINT: Obama fought a bill in the Illinois senate that would send youth, who commit a second violent felony, to adult prison. He fought to keep even the most violent juvenile offenders out of adult jails.

POINT: As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to WEAKEN penalties on gangbangers dealing drugs in schools.

POINT: Obama favored drug rehabilitation over incarceration for even a second-time offender, according to a 2007 interview he gave to the "Michigan Chronicle" - Detroit’s second-largest African-American newspaper.

POINT: Obama supported rehabbing inmates through prison-to-work programs. He has worked to restore voting rights for felons, saying...“those who serve their sentences should be re-enfranchised.”

POINT: Obama unsuccessfully sponsored a measure to expunge minority criminal records. He contends they are used as a “stigma” against blacks.

POINT: Obama worked to outlaw police use of "racial descriptions" as a means to capture suspects, including Middle-Eastern terrorists.

POINT: As a U.S. senator, he co-sponsored federal legislation to ban “racial profiling.”

Mr. Obama isn’t a big fan of our laws in general, at least not as currently written. He thinks they are racist, along with the courts.

Obama decidedly favors judges with the “empathy" to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American. He plans on packing the Dept. of Justice’s Civil Rights Division with African-American prosecutors - making “hate crimes" a priority.

So is it any wonder gun sales in the United States have hit historic levels?

In effect, Obama is trying to emasculate our police forces- branding them as unhooded modern versions of the Klan- who prowl inner cities, shaking down "prisitinely innocent" minorities- just because of skin color.

But think about it...why would cops supposedly act like the Klan? What is there to gain by so-called "racial profiling"? 

After all, if they are not out stopping and questioning suspicious people about their whereabouts, then what are police supposed to be doing ? Distributing fruit baskets?

Yet those same liberals, who decry racial profiling, lampoon our police forces for the high black-on-black crime rates - condemning them for "slow response."

But no matter WHERE you look, there are NO statistics available anywhere about the high numbers of police officers shot every year by minority suspects; this so-called "racially charged" topic has been tightly-censored by the liberal media.

But even before Obama's "racial gaffe," there has been much previous discussion about "racial profiling" by law enforcement.

In Boston's inner city neighborhoods, suspicious whites are ALWAYS stopped by cops, to find out what they're "up to" (buying drugs). 

In Cleveland - connected by "the Shoreway", a heavily traveled east-west freeway - should whites get off at any "inner city" exits, they are trailed by unmarked police cars, and racially-profiled as likely drug customers.

CONCLUSION: there is very little minority racial profiling; but there are plenty of law enforcement people seeking those most LIKELY to commit a crime.

Assuming most violent crime takes place in "poor" neighborhoods, does it not stand to reason cops would look for perpetrators in those (duh) same neighborhoods? But to Obama & company this is "racial profiling!"

Blacks are in prison at the rate of 4,777 per 100,000.

Hispanics are in prison at the rate of 1,760 per 100,000; while whites are at 727 per 100,000.

Now, given the above, if you were a cop on patrol - especially in a poor neighborhood - or even a predominately white neighborhood, who would you most likely think is a suspect?

BOTTOM LINE: Police work has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with statistics and the law of averages.

If (and when) minorities quit committing crimes at a much higher rate than whites, the cops will stop "profiling".