Is CIA Director John Brennan a Muslim Brother?
That may seem like an outlandish, even conspiratorial question. But consider the source: a paper authored, in part, by the former CIA Director under Clinton.
In 2010, the Center for Security Policy issued a whitepaper entitled “Sharia: The Threat to America.” It’s available for download here.
The Center for Security Policy is described on Wikipedia as:
“a Washington, D.C. think tank that focuses on national security issues. The Center was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, Jr.. The CSP advocates policies based on a philosophy of “Peace through Strength,” which “is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America’s national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability.”"
Listed among the “Associates” in the paper is R. James Woolsey, the former CIA Director under President Clinton. See page 6.
Toward the end of the paper, there is a case study on Brennan (pgs. 142-144). In part, it reads…
“In the NYU speech, Brennan also enthused about the very heart of the shariah enterprise, Saudi Arabia, where he had once served as the CIA station chief: “In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the
Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that pilgrimage.” The only way Brennan could literally have seen how the Saudis “fulfilled their duty as custodians of Mecca and Medina” and “marvel at the Hajj” is if he himself were a Muslim. That is because non-Muslims are not allowed to set foot in either place. Assuming he was speaking figuratively in this effusive way, the message of pandering – read, once again, submission – was as unmistakable to the intended audience, namely the House of Saud, as was President Obama’s notorious bow to the Saudi king.”
There’s much more, some of which is below:
“There is, arguably, no more dramatic example of a senior U.S. government official failing to perform his duty to know – and, seemingly, to fulfill his oath of office – than that of John Brennan, Homeland Security Advisor and Counter-terrorism Advisor to President Obama… That said, John Brennan has taken the “failure to know” to new extremes. Unfortunately, the full extent and implications of his doing so can only be surmised at this time, given the nature of his responsibilities, without access to highly classified information…
In a May 2010 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan exhibited his ignorance of shariah by arguing that the “violent extremists” attacking the United States are victims of “political, economic and social forces” and should not be described in “religious terms”: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”…
In a February 13, 2010 speech at NYU’s Islamic Center,427 Brennan referred to Jerusalem as “Al Quds,” an Arabic name for the city used only by Muslims that translates literally as “The Holy.” No top U.S. policymaker had ever used that term before in such a public address. For shariah-adherent Muslims, “Al Quds” is a rallying cry. In August of 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini designated the last Friday of Ramadan as Al Quds Day, during which Muslims around the world should protest Israel’s control of Jerusalem, saying in part: “I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper [Israel] and its supporters….I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels.”
Al Quds has other well-known jihadist connotations. For example, the Al-Quds Brigades (in Arabic, Saraya al-Quds) is the armed wing of the Palestinian terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The Al-Qods Force is an Iranian military organization and intelligence arm of the Islamic Revolutionary
[I]t is hard to overstate the danger associated with the President of the United States having as his top advisor in these sensitive portfolios someone so severely compromised with respect to shariah and the threat it poses.”
In effect, you have a paper published in 2010, that was reviewed (presumably) by a former CIA Director, that strongly suggested that the current CIA director may very well be a Muslim Brother. The whole report is illuminating.
Here is an article from Time that asks the question, why did Obama buck prudence and choose a White House insider to head the Agency?
“The CIA should do well by John Brennan, the President’s trusted counterterrorism adviser who’s just been tapped as director. The mere fact that the President has named him to that position sent a message to the rank and file that the CIA counts, that it deserves to be led by an Administration insider. But it may take time for the agency to realize what it’s gotten — especially in the clandestine service, which is wary of Brennan’s return.
Keep in mind that many Presidents have kept their CIA directors as far away from the Oval Office as possible. CIA failures have a way of going disastrously public, and the way the White House saw it, the less such failures were associated with the President, the better.”
This would explain the United States’, Obama’s, and the CIA’s (i.e., “American intelligence”) singular insistence on bombing the Assad regime and thereby benefiting the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rebels. With the sole exception of France, whose president Hollande is best buddies with the Emir of Qatar, America stands alone.
Remember the extramarital scandal that brought down Petraeus? What convenient timing. And now Brennan.
Remember Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings whose car blew up in June? He was investigating Brennan.
I suppose it’s too late now.