Counterterrorism expert and U. S. Senate candidate Andy
Martin says the latest “terror” brouhaha announced by the Obama Administration borders
on a “Wag the Dog” hoax designed to deflect attention from Obama’s abuses of
national security information. Andy says the overall terror threat is very real;
but bona fide intelligence agencies do not respond to “threats” by announcing
they have cracked their opponents’ communication codes. “This looks like
another bogus Obama grandstanding operation,” Andy says. “Obama said Al-Qaeda
was finished. Now he has created ‘divisions’ of Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda ‘core’ and
non-core. I think Americans are the victims of a colossal bipartisan
boondoggle. The enemy is out there. But not when and where Obama says he has
cracked their codes and is listening in to their plans. That’s not the way
‘intelligence’ agencies do their work. Put me down as skeptical. I can’t be
certain but I think Obama is crying ‘wolf,’ and for a very good reason. He
wants to distract the American people.”
New Hampshire Republicans
Not affil. with N. H.
Rep. State Comm.
Andy Martin, J. D.
you can call Andy:
you can email Andy:
you can write Andy at:
fax (866) 707-2639, or
o. Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Blogs/web sites (partial):
To become a regular subscriber to
our emails please send an email to AndyNewHampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
Counterterrorism expert and U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin
says Barack Obama’s “terror” warnings appear to be an exaggeration bordering on
Andy says Obama’s political operatives have
captured message control of America’s intelligence agencies
Andy says Obama’s anti-terror “alarms” go against
every rule of intelligence activity
(August 6, 2013) Counterterrorism
expert and U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin says he is very suspicious of
President Barack Obama’s latest “terror warning” to Americans that Al-Qaeda is
planning to strike in the next few days. “I think Americans have been the
victims of a bipartisan boondoggle,” Andy says. “Intelligence agencies around
the world are laughing at us.”
1. What Obama says
During the past several days Americans have been inundated with
reports of a worldwide terror threat from Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization
Barack Obama declared dead and gone last year. Now Obama is using Clintonspeak
to explain his past mistakes. Mouthpiece Jay Carney says Al-Qaeda is gone but
the “threat” from Al-Qaeda is not. Nonexistent Al-Qaeda now “exists” in two
forms, “core” Al-Qaeda and non-core Al-Qaeda. Got that?
As if on schedule, Monday August 5th Obama
“leaked” to the liberal media self-laudatory claims that Obama’s intelligence
agencies were reading Al-Qaeda’s communications and translating messages
between Al-Qaeda leaders. So when Obama leaks his own exaggerated intelligence
claims he is merely engaging in a leak; when anyone else discloses questionable
information, they are committing a crime.
According to Carney/Obama we listening in on Al-Qaeda
communications, translating their messages, and know their whereabouts (ooops, apparently
not?) and what they are planning (but not with any “specificity”). Yes, Obama
is not too “specific” about the latest threat. But the threat is “worldwide” anyway.
In response to this worldwide threat he issued a worldwide travel advisory. All
of this activity is directed at an organization that Obama says is no longer
A careful analysis of intelligence and counterintelligence
practices raises a reasonable doubt that Obama is engaging in massive
exaggeration to the point of potentially pulling a hoax on the American people.
Obama’s motive: to distract Americans from his other scandals and abuses of
national security information. Obama’s terrorist threat was announced only
hours after Russia
granted asylum to genuine “leaker” Edward Snowdon. Timing, anyone? Distraction?
2. The history of code-breaking
Reduced to its basics, Obama claims we can listen in on
Al-Qaeda communications and translate the organization’s “chatter.” Does this
make sense to anyone with an intelligence background? Of course not. If we have
actually broken Al-Qaeda’s codes, the last thing we should/would be doing is
announcing to the world that we have broken their codes.
During World War II Britain
cracked Nazi codes. But rather than create a suspicion that codes had been
broken, Prime Minister Churchill allowed Nazi air raids on British targets to
go forward so as to avoid any appearance of advance warning of the attacks.
Likewise, the United States
codes in World War II, and similarly allowed attacks to proceed to avoid tipping
off the enemy that code security had been compromised.
In other words, if you really have cracked someone’s codes,
you don’t announce that fact and you don't make a big show of drawing attention
to the code-breaking by closing embassies and issuing “alerts” on the basis
that you have “cracked the codes.”
Obama’s worldwide announcement, terror threats and general
hullabaloo appear to be a lot of Obamabaloney designed to scare the public and
deflect public attention from all of his other scandals and abuses of power. And,
no surprise, Obama’s tactic has worked. Even Republican leaders have been
bamboozled by Obama’s scare tactics.
3. President Bill Clinton’s “Wag The Dog” operations
Those who remember the Clinton Administration remember
tactics similar to Obama’s current antics. In fact, Clinton’s misuse of
military and intelligence authority came to be known as “Wag the Dog” activity
after a Hollywood movie in which a president starts a phony war, “wagging the
dog,” to deflect attention from his domestic problems (please see links # 1 and
# 2 below). Sound familiar? Obama’s tactics are almost exactly a carbon copy of
of course, denied “wagging the dog.”)
Obama has created worldwide pandemonium by closing State
Department missions and “warning” U.S.
citizens to be careful during the entire month of August. But wasn’t Al-Qaeda only
supposed to strike during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan? So why the month-long
“alert?” The bigger the better when a Clinton/Obama “Wag the Dog” operation is
4. Can Obama be trusted? NO
If recent events in 2013 have established anything, they
have confirmed that Barack Obama cannot be trusted. Obama increasingly uses
Clintonian tactics and Clintonian double-speak to conceal his true motives from
the American public. So why trust him now? The tale Obama tells, of cracking
codes and listening in, is simply too implausible in the context of a 12
year-old war against Al-Qaeda. Was there some “chatter?” Are we trying to crack
codes and listen in, and sometimes succeeding? Yes, of course. Is there a serious
terrorist threat? Absolutely, but not the one Barack Obama has ginned up over
the past few days.
Bottom line: I do not trust the man. Obama is exaggerating
the terrorist threat to satisfy his need for a distraction from his failed
5. Is the terror threat real? Absolutely
Please do not be confused by my skeptical and critical remarks.
I am not minimizing the worldwide terror threat. Although Obama has been ridiculing
the “global war against terror” for five years, and in fact declared “victory”
a few weeks ago, terrorists do not go away. We must be vigilant on every
flight, every shipment, every day, everywhere.
When a president creates terror scares, and issue warnings
that will probably not result in an attack, he creates public skepticism. The
next time Obama claims he has “intelligence” and issues warnings, people will
be more suspicious. If our intelligence agencies have actionable intelligence,
and have really cracked enemy codes, the thing to do is keep that secret and
keep listening in. Or, they should use their “actionable” intelligence to take
“action,” and not to issue “the sky is falling” warnings.
So my skepticism about Obama’s motives and methods in the
current terror scare should not be misconstrued to reflect any lack of concern
on my part for the genuine terror threat. It’s real. And, contrary to Obama’s
claims of victory, the terror threat is not going away. We have not won the
6. What would “real” Al-Qaeda do confuse the US?
If you were Al-Qaeda and knew that Obama claimed to be
listening in on leadership communications, would you just ignore that
information? Of course not. You would choose to counterattack using another
mode of response.
Ask yourself, if you were Al-Qaeda and you were engaging in
counterintelligence operations, that is spying on Americans who are spying on
Al-Qaeda, what would you do? The most obvious tactic would be to disseminate
disinformation. British, Americans, Russians and every other nation routinely
resort to disinformation. Al-Qaeda would likely say, “Why not create some bogus
communication appear to be ‘chatter’ about an imminent attack and send the free
world into chaos? How many times can they shut embassies and issue warnings
before they become a joke? Then we strike.”
My best guess is that Al-Qaeda knows we are either listening
in or trying to listen in on their communications. Using “chatter” as a basis
for publicly releasing terror alerts plays right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda and all of its terrorist followers remain in control of when and where
and how to attack. They have simply made a fool of Barack Obama by using
conventional counterintelligence tactics to bamboozle Barack Obama, who in turn
was only too willing to bamboozle the American people. Chatter, anyone?
7. Andy’s worldwide counterterror experience
[How Andy became a counterterrorism expert:
Andy has forty-eight years of experience in Asia, Southwest Asia
and the Middle East; he is regarded overseas as one of America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and
intelligence analysts. He is known as an “over-the-horizon” expert who
synthesizes conditions to prepare predictive opinions.
Andy’s experience fighting terrorism began during the Cold
War in 1965 when he became an acolyte of Professor Bernard Fall. The U. S. Government was calling the Viet Cong “terrorists” and
insurgents; use of the word “terror” had largely lapsed after World War II.
Professor Fall believed that Viet-Nam was a “revolutionary” war, a military
campaign based on political goals that more properly fit the matrix of
After Professor Fall was blown up, Andy persevered in
studying counterinsurgency (COIN) in Viet-Nam and around the world. Andy founded
the Revolutionary War Research Center and in 1974 he began to offer counterterrorism consulting
at the World Trade Center, becoming one of the nation’s first counterterror
specialists. Andy was in New
York on September 11, 2001 and rendered assistance.
Andy was in Iran
during the hostage crisis in 1979-80, and has regularly returned to Southwest
Asia since then. He lived in Iraq
in 2003. His analysis of the terrorist threat in Iran during 1979-80, and again in Iraq in 2003, were leading-edge predictions of what Americans
faced in the future. Andy has lived in or been in Israel,
Hong Kong and the United
ujntsman wasd reelected in November, 2008. A few
monrths later he resigned to serve
his president,” Barack Obama. SDo whyh was it so terrible that Palin resigned
and Hutsman served evenless of his secondterm? Can I say “double standard”
What os this show us? Whetyher thessue s
resigfnaitonsor religion,th emedia shamlessly create double standards tgo favr
theiiberal medioa pets (fulldisclosure; I am ot aliberalmedia pet).
CONTACT: Andy Martin (603) 518-7310; CELL (917) 664-9329; (603) 866-4343
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not
just the underlined portion):
Andy is a
legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author,
Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster
and media critic. Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester 100 years ago; today his home overlooks
River and he
lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He has forty-five
years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The
Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet
film "Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the
Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with
more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to:
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of
Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City
University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the
latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by
Andy Martin 2013 – All Rights Reserved
Labels: Al-Qaeda, Andy Martin, AQAP, Barack Obama, candidate, counterterrorism expert, New Hampshire, State Department, terror threat, United States Senate, Wag the Dog