Thursday, May 29, 2014

Venezuela Accuses Ousted Opposition Leader, US Ambassador of Coup Attempt

Venezuela Accuses Ousted Opposition Leader, US Ambassador of Coup Attempt

On Wednesday, the Venezuelan government unveiled widespread accusations of conspiracy to assassinate President Nicolás Maduro, which implicated a number of high-profile leaders of the opposition, including ousted legislator María Corina Machado and the United States Ambassador to Colombia Kevin Whitaker.

In an extensive press conference led by Mayor of Caracas Jorge Rodríguez, the Chavista government revealed what they called a "criminal investigation" against Machado, Whitaker, and others for "assassination" and "coup" activity. Officials showed screenshots of emails they alleged to be correspondence between Machado and Whitaker and Machado and Diego Arria. Rodríguez described the language as the language of "serial killers."
"We need to clean up this rubbish, starting at the top, taking advantage of the global climate with Ukraine and now Thailand, as soon as possible," read one email, while another demanded that Maduro be "annihilated." As The Washington Post notes, "No information was given on how the apparently private emails were obtained, and no evidence was presented on their authenticity." In another email, Machado is alleged to have written that Whitaker "reconfirms his support and indicated new steps" and that "we can count on a stronger wallet than that of the regime, to break the international security ring."
"All the emails and every one of the words are false and absolutely invented. ... I don't want anything bad to happen to him [Maduro], I just want him to resign," Machado said at a press conference following the announcement of the accusations. She also absolved Ambassador Whitaker of being involved in any coup attempt, explaining that she had met with him and with "his boss, Roberta Jacobson, just as [she] met with the chancellor of Canada." She did so because, she stated, "As deputy, it is my responsibility and my duty that the world know what is happening in Venezuela."
Machado also said in her press conference that she would file an official complaint against the Venezuelan government for identity theft and "incitation to hate." Machado, who was ousted from the legislature for appealing to the Organization of American States to intervene in the government-sponsored violence in Venezuela, has previously been attacked with tear gas while attempting to return to her office in the National Assembly.
Infobae also reported that Arria responded to the accusations via Twitter by noting that his iPhone had been stolen, and "through them they entered my email accounts and social media and fabricated messages I did not write," he said.
Meanwhile, the United States government has denied any involvement in the affair. In a statement, the State Department called the accusations "baseless and false," noting, "We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States."
On his nationwide radio show this week, Maduro promised that he would fight the United States "on every global stage," and he denounced the House of Representatives for voting in favor of targeted sanctions against Venezuela's wealthiest and most well-connected government officials. "Only colonial empires can practice extraterritorial law," he told his audience. "Any law approved by the Congress of the United States to sanction Venezuela is spurious, we do not recognize it, we reject it and we confront them on every global stage."
After significant pressure from Republican legislators like Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the House of Representatives passed sanctions this week against the Venezuelan regime, designed similar to those against Russian officials in response to the crisis in Ukraine. The bill now has to pass through the Senate, where it is currently being debated.

Nation’s elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare

Nation’s elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare

WASHINGTON — Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some of the nation’s best cancer hospitals are off-limits.
An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington state’s insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it’s in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.
Doctors and administrators say they’re concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.
In all, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP’s survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their state exchange.
Not too long ago, insurance companies would have been vying to offer access to renowned cancer centers, said Dan Mendelson, CEO of the market research firm Avalere Health. Now the focus is on costs.
“This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans,” Mendelson said.
Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.
And there’s another problem: It’s not easy for consumers shopping online in the new insurance markets to tell whether top-level institutions are included in a plan. That takes additional digging by the people applying.
“The challenges of this are going to become evident … as cancer cases start to arrive,” said Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Advocates for cancer patients are in a quandary.
Before President Barack Obama’s health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can’t turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trapdoor for cancer patients, are also banned.
“Patients may have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals in some exchange plans than others … but the rules for such plans go a long way toward remedying the most severe problems that existed for decades,” said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
The new obstacles are more subtle.
To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans.
By not including a top cancer center, an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere.
For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks.
The AP surveyed 23 institutions around the country that are part of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Two additional institutions that joined this week were not included in the survey.
Cancer network members are leading hospitals that combine the latest clinical research and knowledge with a multidisciplinary approach to patient care. They say that patients in their care have better-than-average survival rates. The unique role of cancer centers is recognized under Medicare. Several are exempt from its hospital payment system, instituted to control costs.
The AP asked the centers how many insurance companies in their state’s exchange included them as a network provider.
Of the 19 that responded, four reported access through all insurers: the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia; Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, NC; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn. One caveat: Some insurers did not include these cancer centers on certain low-cost plans.
Two centers have special circumstances. The best known is St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. Treatment there is free as long as children have a referral.
For the remaining 13, the gaps are evident.
In Buffalo, NY, Roswell Park Cancer Institute is included by five of seven insurers in its region. But statewide, the picture is much different: Roswell Park is not included by 11 of 16 insurers. Dr. Willie Underwood, associate professor of surgical oncology at the teaching hospital, says that’s a problem.
“Overall, when you look at the Affordable Care Act, it improves access to cancer care,” Underwood said. “When it comes down to the exchanges, there are some concerns that we have. That is not being critical, that is being intelligent. There are some things we should talk about … before they start becoming a problem.”
Melanie Lapidus, vice president for managed care at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, home to Siteman Cancer Center, said she doesn’t think patients realize the exchanges offer a more restrictive kind of private insurance.
Lapidus cited Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which includes Siteman in many of its plans outside the Missouri exchange, but none within the exchange.
“We have had many people say to us, ‘I picked Anthem because you guys are always in their products, and I assumed you would be in their exchange products,’” Lapidus said. “It’s still hard to tell who is in network and who is not.”
In a statement, Anthem said its network was based on research involving thousands of consumers and businesses. “What we learned was that people are willing to make trade-offs in order to have access to affordable health care,” the company said. “Our provider networks reflect this.”
Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City is included by five of six Utah insurers, but Mark Zenger, who manages the center’s negotiations with insurance companies, said he’s concerned about getting left out by Humana, a major carrier.
“We are worried about the potential to have these Humana exchange members seek treatment and have no other option,” Zenger said.
Humana spokesman Tom Noland said patients can have access to Huntsman for complex procedures, on a case-by-case basis.
Some state insurance regulators see a problem.
“I want insurers to be able to innovate and come up with new product designs,” said Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner for Washington state. “At the same time, there is a requirement for regulators like myself to be vigilant to make sure there aren’t unreasonable compromises.”
The Obama administration says it has notified insurers that their networks will get closer scrutiny for next year in the 36 states served by the federal exchange. Cancer care will be a priority, it says.

Issa Subpoena's Kerry Again -- Barring 'Executive Privilege,' State Dept. Must 'Comply'



Issa Subpoena's Kerry Again -- Barring 'Executive Privilege,' State Dept. Must 'Comply'

May 15, 2014 - 6:08 PM

Kerry
Secretary of State John Kerry. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
(CNSNews.com) – The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a new subpoena today for State Department Secretary John Kerry to testify about the release of documents on the Benghazi terrorist attack, saying that the State Department was engaging in “slippery tactics” particularly in now trying to offer “a more appropriate witness” to testify in place of Kerry.
The committee also said that barring a claim of “executive privilege,” the State Department was legally obligated to comply with the subpoena.
The Oversight Committee had already subpoenaed Kerry to testify on May 21 but agreed to reschedule after the State Department requested an alternative date to better accommodate Kerry’s official schedule.  But now the State Department apparently is non-commital on making Kerry available to testify.
“I lifted the subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify on May 21 because the State Department made reasonable arguments for an accommodation and told our Committee they were seeking a suitable alternative date for his testimony on a voluntary basis,” said Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in a statement released today.
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) (AP Photo)
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) (AP Photo)
“But soon after I lifted the subpoena, the State Department back tracked – stating publicly that we should accept ‘a more appropriate witness’ and refusing to commit to making Secretary Kerry available,” said Issa.
“With this State Department’s slippery tactics, it’s no wonder our friends in the world are losing faith in us and our adversaries doubt our credibility,” said the chairman.  “The State Department had discussed May 29 as a possible alternative date and that’s when Secretary Kerry will be obligated to appear – further accommodation will not be possible.”
“Absent an assertion of executive privilege, the State Department has a legal obligation to fully and completely comply,” said Issa.
The committee wants Kerry to testify about the State Department’s non-compliance with three subpoenas for documents related to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed.
The committee had subpoenaed some of the Benghazi correspondence back in August 2013. On Apr. 17 of this year the State Department informed the committee it was providing “an additional set of documents” subject to that 2013 subpoena.
“These previously withheld e-mails, which were apparently only turned over as the result of a judge’s ruling in a FOIA case, showed that White House official Ben Rhodes coordinated talking points for then-Ambassador Susan Rice which encouraged an emphasis that the attack was ‘rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy,’” said Chairman Issa in his statement today.
See earlier story:
Kerry Says He’ll Cooperate With Benghazi Subpoena: ‘Absolutely Nothing to Hide’

Reporters Pounce on State Dept. Spokeswoman After She Claims Obama ‘Doesn’t Give Himself Enough Credit’ on Foreign Policy

Reporters Pounce on State Dept. Spokeswoman After She Claims Obama ‘Doesn’t Give Himself Enough Credit’ on Foreign Policy

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was grilled by the press on Thursday after she claimed President Barack Obama “doesn’t give himself enough credit for what he’s done around the world.”
(YouTube)
(YouTube)
Reporters clearly found her statement questionable and followed up with several questions about the president’s foreign policy. There was even some laughter.
“Jen, you would argue the president doesn’t give himself enough credit? How much credit would you give him?” Associated Press reporter Matt Lee asked. “What, like, 200 percent credit?”
“I would give him more than he has given himself. That’s what I just said,” Psaki responded.
When another reporter asked what Obama specifically deserves credit for regarding foreign policy, Psaki cited his “engagement initiatives like Iran, what we’ve done on Ukraine, efforts to dive in and engage around the world.”
Her answer led yet another reporter to point out that “Russia has still annexed Crimea” and there has been very little success in dealing with Iran.
Watch the exchange below:

When Bushies blew a CIA cover, it was 'treason'; now, it's a mistake

When Bushies blew a CIA cover, it was 'treason'; now, it's a mistake

By |
Valerie Plame doesn't deny that blowing the cover of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan is a serious matter. It's just that, discussing the issue at a Wednesday evening forum sponsored by The Atlantic, Plame seemed to view the outing of the CIA's top spy on the front lines in the Afghan war as more of an embarrassment than an outrage.
"My understanding is … it was a military aide who compiled this list of those that were greeting the president when he came," Plame said. "Colossally stupid, but I think it was inadvertent. It was an error … really stupid. The White House apparently has said that they're going to do an investigation, and they'll find someone who's really embarrassed at the end of it."
The leak, if that's what it can be called, happened over the weekend as President Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan. In a routine email to the press, the administration included a name with the description "Chief of Station" after it -- a clear reference to the ranking CIA official in Kabul. It's hard to imagine a more sensitive assignment in a more dangerous place, and blowing the station chief's cover -- in an email to 6,000 reporters, no less -- will surely have repercussions.
The White House quickly explained that a mistake had been made, but did not offer any details. Top officials announced that White House counsel Neil Eggleston, a veteran of many Washington investigations, will "look into" the matter. "It shouldn't have happened," deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told CNN on Tuesday. "We're trying to understand why it happened. In fact, the chief of staff, Denis McDonough, asked the White House counsel to look into it, to figure out what happened and to make sure it won't happen again."
Many observers seem satisfied with the White House's explanation that the incident was just a regrettable error. And that is indeed what it appears to be. But such assessments represent a remarkable change in tone from the discussion several years ago, when the George W. Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as part of a bitter fight over the origin and direction of the Iraq war. Back then, it was quite common to hear the words "traitor" and "treason" used to describe top Bush officials involved in the controversy.
There's no doubt the Bush officials deliberately revealed Plame's CIA connection, if not her name, to the press. But the Plame leak could be characterized as inadvertent in one sense: the leakers, both in the State Department and the White House, did not know that Plame's status at the CIA was classified when they mentioned her to reporters. That is why no one was ever charged with leaking her identity; they did not knowingly and deliberately reveal classified information. So in that sense it was all a mistake. Yes, it was inadvertent, colossally stupid, an embarrassment -- but it was a mistake.
No matter. Pushed relentlessly by Democrats, the White House agreed to the appointment of a special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, which led to years of investigation -- top Bush aide Karl Rove was called before a grand jury five times -- and the conviction of former top Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby on charges of perjury.
Now that a high-profile inadvertent leak is in the news again, perhaps it would be a good thing, just for memory's sake, to go through some of the things that were said during the Plame affair.
The controversy was complicated. The short version of it is that there was a dispute over a claim by President George W. Bush in the 2003 State of the Union address to the effect that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. In the course of that controversy, it was revealed that the year before, 2002, the CIA had sent a former ambassador to Africa to investigate the matter. After the State of the Union address, former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, published an op-ed in the New York Times alleging that the Bush administration had "twisted" the intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Reaction inside the Bush White House could be summed up as: Who sent this guy to Africa? And why is he dumping on us in the pages of the New York Times?
The Bushies did a quick internal investigation and found that the CIA had sent Wilson on the recommendation of his wife, Valerie Plame, who was a CIA employee working at the agency's Virginia headquarters. A controversy erupted and reached white-hot level when the leftist journalist David Corn suggested that Plame was working under covert status, and that the Bush administration had outed an undercover agent.
The accusation that Rove, or Libby, or others in the Bush White House -- including the president himself -- were "traitors" or had committed "treason" got its start in late September 2003, when Democrats dug up an old quote from George H. W. Bush, who was not only a former president and George W. Bush's father, but a former CIA chief. In 1999, when the senior Bush attended a ceremony in which CIA headquarters was named for him, he said in his speech: "Even though I am a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traitors."
The Washington Post published the quote in a story on September 29, 2003. By that night, it was repeated on cable TV, and the accusations of treason started flying. They would continue for years.
Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, led the attack. "Scooter Libby is a traitor," Wilson said on CNN in July 2007. But others went there, too — even high-ranking government officials. For example, when the Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg appeared on the now-defunct liberal talk radio network Air America — a hotbed of traitor talk — he was asked, "Karl Rove is guilty of treason, isn't he?" Lautenberg's answer was, "Yes, I think so."
In October 2004, Terry McAuliffe, who was at the time chairman of the Democratic National Committee, demanded that Rove reveal his testimony before the grand jury so the public could learn "who in the White House committed treason by outing a CIA operative."
No one will be surprised that Rachel Maddow, now an MSNBC host but back then on Air America, took part, too. "Is Karl Rove a traitor?" Maddow was asked on MSNBC in July, 2005. "I believe it," she said.
Al Franken, now a Democratic senator from Minnesota but then also with Air America, made the treason accusation in a characteristic non-joking joking manner. "They wanted to smear the guy who came back with the report, and so they out his wife and said she sent him there," Franken explained on "Late Night With David Letterman" in October 2005. "This is essentially -- you know, George H.W. Bush, the president's father, was the head of the CIA and he has said that outing a CIA agent is treason."
"It is treason, yes," said Letterman.
"And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed," Franken said. When the crowd began to laugh, Franken added, "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty …"
Libby was convicted of perjury in 2007. The president commuted Libby's sentence but did not pardon him. Politics moved on, and memories of the Plame affair began to fade. But not all memories. In October 2010, Plame appeared with husband Joe Wilson on CNN. Anchor Wolf Blitzer asked them to react quickly to a few names. When Blitzer said "Dick Cheney," Wilson said, "Traitor." When Blitzer said "Scooter Libby," Wilson said, "Traitor." (Wilson did not pass judgment on the original leaker, the State Department's Richard Armitage, who did not 'fess up until after the controversy was over.)
Fast-forward a few years, and there has now been another leak of a CIA employee's classified status. The circumstances are entirely different from the Plame case. But they are similar in the sense that the person doing the leaking, then and now, most likely did not know that he or she was revealing classified information. Was one an act treason and the other an embarrassing mistake?
That's what Plame suggests. The new leak, she explained at The Atlantic gathering, "is not analogous, I would argue, to what happened to me because the crucial distinction being intent, right? My view of it is that there was retaliation for my husband, Joe Wilson, who was a fierce critic, I think it's fair to say, of the Iraq war, the Bush administration. It was a warning shot —versus this, which was just foolish."
There's been no reaction, at least not yet, from the now-former chief of station in Afghanistan.

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens


President Barack Obama salutes military service members while watching the inaugural parade from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
 President Barack Obama salutes military service members while watching the inaugural parade from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.


The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”


“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.
In addition to adding funds, the bill language requires the ONA to study alternative U.S. defense and deterrence strategies related to the space warfare programs of both countries.
China is developing advanced missiles capable of shooting down satellites in low and high earth orbits. It also is building lasers and electronic jammers to disrupt satellites, a key U.S. strategic military advantage. Russia is said to be working on anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons.
“The committee believes the office must remain an independent organization within the department, reporting directly to the secretary,” the report said.
Mr. Marshall, sometimes referred to as the Pentagon’s “Yoda,” after the Star Wars character, has come under fire from opponents in the administration, who say he is too independent and not aligned with the administration’s soft-line defense policies.
The ONA is known for its extensive use of contractors and lack of producing specific overall net assessments of future warfare challenges, as required by the office’s charter.
One example of the ONA’s unconventional thinking was the recent contractor report “China: The Three Warfares,” which revealed Beijing’s extensive use of political warfare against the United States, including psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare.
“‘The Three Warfares’ is a dynamic, three-dimensional, war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” the report says.
A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.
NO DENNIS RODMAN DEFENSE
Navy Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon is deploying more and higher-quality missile defenses to counter potential nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran.
“This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime,” Adm. Winnefeld said in a speech to the Atlantic Council. “The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.”
He added that missile defenses are needed “because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat.”
He was referring to the heavily tattooed and pierced former NBA star, who has traveled to North Korea as a guest of leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Rodman calls the dictator his “friend.”
“A robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack and is, in my view, our No. 1 missile defense priority,” Adm. Winnefeld said.
North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. It recently threatened to conduct a fourth nuclear test, and analysts say signs from the closed communist state suggest the North Koreans may test a missile warhead.
Contact Bill Gertz at @BillGertz.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Bill Gertz

Bill Gertz

Bill Gertz is a national security columnist for The Washington Times and senior editor at The Washington Free Beacon (www.freebeacon.com). He has been with The Times since 1985.
He is the author of six books, four of them national best-sellers. His latest book, “The Failure Factory,” on government bureaucracy and national security, was published in September 2008.
Mr. ...

Latest Stories