Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Plausible?

CHILLING: Man Who Attended Okla. Beheading Suspect’s Mosque Reveals Radical Teachings

AS SEEN ON THE KELLY FILE 
A man who says he went to the same mosque as the Oklahoma beheading suspect revealed shocking new information tonight on “The Kelly File.”
The former mosque member, identified only as “Noor,” discussed his experience at Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, which beheading suspect Alton Nolen attended.
“I observed the teachings of Islam […] to the public, the mosque will not promote terrorism or any kind of radical acts, but when they’re among friends and congregants only, they will promote the true teachings of Islam, which include the offer to non-Muslims – the choice rather that you must convert, live under Islamic rule or be fought against,” he said.


Megyn Kelly asked: Did the mosque talk about speaking differently in front of the media?
“Absolutely,” he said. “When they cannot do jihad physically, they attempt to do jihad by means of stealth, by endearing themselves to the media, endearing themselves to government, endearing themselves to the American people to slowly work their way in.”
Noor said that he was told to support Hamas suicide bombings against Israel. He also said that his two friends at the mosque told him that if Osama bin Laden were to come to their doors, they would let him in and protect him.


Noor left the Oklahoma City mosque because he said it was too radical. He said he last attended the mosque at 2011 at the request of law enforcement, but could not comment further on the matter.
The mosque has publicly denounced Nolen’s actions, but has also refused to speak to “The Kelly File.”
Watch the chilling interview above.

3264 days without a major hurricane...The chart at the end might lead you to believe in global calming

3,264 Days Without a Major Hurricane Strike

October 1st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
no-hurricanes
Who would have predicted it? As of today (October 1) it’s been nearly 9 years since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) has struck the U.S., the last being Wilma in October, 2005.
Remember the 2005 hurricane season? Landfalling hurricanes right and left. Katrina! This was going to be the new normal in a Global Warming world.
Then the bottom dropped out of tropical activity.
As the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season slowly winds down, here the latest tropical outlook from the National Hurricane Center:
two_atl_2d0
Pretty dead. The number of named storms as of today continues below normal:
named-storms-climatology
One might explain the current drought in tropical systems on El Nino, except even that has mostly fizzled compared to early predictions.
While a few “experts” claim to “see the fingerprint” of human caused climate change in the latest severe weather events (which, paradoxically, haven’t increased), it’s good to take a step back and point out that the Emperor’s Tarot card readers have no clothes. 

Obama is a naif and a fantast. Worse still he supports the Muslim Brotherhood

Netanyahu Sees Arab Alliance Aiding Mideast Peace

Steve Wynn on Obama

On the other hand, Wynn continues to disparage the White House: "I am stunned at the immaturity of this administration. ... We elected a man as president who had no experience at anything."

Our borders are secure everyone is screened...how many times can they get away with the same lie?

WH: 'Screening Procedures In Place At Our Border'




Dissecting the Democrat hate machine

None Can Call It Treason

By LAWRENCE KUDLOWSpecial to the Sun | October 1, 2014
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/none-can-call-it-treason/88859/
Several hundred people went to their feet to applaud a speech delivered by David H. Koch. The occasion was the opening several weeks ago of the Metropolitan Museum’s new façade on Fifth Avenue. It runs four city blocks, and is complete with new fountains, paving, lighting, landscaping, and seating areas for visitors. Mr. Koch contributed the entire $65 million cost of the project, which took years to complete.
The people kept applauding. For several minutes. They wouldn’t stop in their gratitude for Mr. Koch’s generosity toward New York and one of the world’s great museums.
The Left demonizes David Koch and his brother Charles for their free-market views, their political donations, and the fact that they run a substantial energy company. Harry Reid has made a new career of it, calling them “un-American.” But on the platform that morning were liberal Democrats Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Ms. Maloney was particularly gracious when she said, “There is hope for the world when Koch and I can agree on something. On this we agree 100 percent.”
Now, contrast that with the arrogant, intolerant, petulant, radical-left environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Last week, at the People’s Climate March in New York, he accused the Kochs of polluting our atmosphere. He said, “Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous? Yes, I do.” He added, “I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”
Treason?

From Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders wanted to prevent abuses of the concept of treason exactly like that committed by Kennedy. (Hat tip Seth Lipsky, founder of the New York Sun.)
Treason? Or perhaps if you disagree with the self-centered narcissist Robert Kennedy, you are treasonous?
Koch Industries employs roughly 60,000 people in the U.S. and 100,000 worldwide. Koch operations generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of Koch’s U.S.-based workers are unionized. And Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for excellence since 2009, many of them from the EPA. That is not treason.
None of that stops Mr. Kennedy. He targets anyone in the fossil-fuel business, including members of the clean fracking revolution. Mr. Kennedy and his allies have effectively stopped Governor Andrew Cuomo from approving fracking in New York State, despite numerous studies proving it can be done in an environmentally sound manner.
No matter that right across the street, on the southwest New York border, Pennsylvania is enjoying unrivaled prosperity from the clean fracking operations okayed years ago. It’s like contrasting the success of West Berlin with the grim austerity of East Berlin back in the Cold War.
Mr. Kennedy might also not notice that the “settled science” rug is being pulled right out from under him — and by no less than a former Team Obama member.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Steven Koonin, undersecretary for science at the Energy Department during Obama’s first term, said, yes, the climate is changing. And yes, humans are impacting the climate system, though between only 1% and 2% of it.
Mr. Koonin stated that most climate-change models not only missed the temperature flattening of the past 16 years, they do not capture a huge factor, like oceans, or water vapor, cloud formation, and rainfall.
Mr. Koonin asked, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” He admitted: Unsettled science. We just don’t know.
Neither does Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Let’s turn back to David Koch. His extraordinary philanthropy illustrates how America’s free-enterprise system creates massive wealth, which is then channeled to the public good by civic-minded people who have their hearts in the right place.
Mr. Koch has contributed roughly $1.3 billion to charity for medical research, education, culture, the arts, and policy studies. It’s an incredible story. Besides the Met museum, he just announced a $100 million donation to New York Presbyterian Hospital. He’s given $185 million to MIT, and another $100 million to Lincoln Center. The list goes on and on.
At the end of that speech at the Met, David Koch said he hoped his legacy would be that he “did his very best to make the world a better place.” That legacy is firmly in place.
Robert Kennedy Jr. should be ashamed of himself. Blissfully unaware of the scientific facts and existing solely in his self-centered world, he insults one of America’s great benefactors and stains the greatness of his uncle, John F. Kennedy, and his father, Robert F. Kennedy.
Jack and Bobby would have embraced the remarkable work of David H. Koch.

Pentagon Official: The President Is Lying To America — About Us, And About ISIS

Posted By Joseph Miller On 10:28 PM 09/30/2014 
Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.
President Barack Obama has taken a lot of flak since his Sunday night “60 Minutes” interview, in which he blamed the intelligence community for his failure to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. And that is right and proper. Because not only was his excuse of blaming us a lie, but when questioned on his lie, White House press secretary Josh Earnest doubled down with a whole new lie — both of which are easily, publicly proven false.
On Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community had underestimated the rise of ISIS, saying in an interview with CBS, “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”
But we know that isn’t true, as nearly a dozen administration officials have testified to the threat posed by ISIS publicly over the last year.
The fact that the president chose to use the word “they” instead of “we” immediately drew condemnation from friend and foe alike, who saw it as the president’s attempt to pass the buck. (RELATED: Obama Has Spent More Time Playing Golf Than In Intel Briefings)
To mitigate the fallout, Earnest’s office issued a statement stating that, “…A lot of that [decision-making] was predicated on the will of the Iraqi security forces to fight for their country.”
But this was also not true.
In 2010, General Lloyd Austin, then-commander of United State Forces in Iraq, directly informed the president that over 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to maintain the gains made by U.S. forces against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and to mentor the fledgling Iraqi security forces– because he knew they were not ready to go out on their own. (MILLER: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States)
But in order for Austin’s plan to work, the United States would have to negotiate and sign a security agreement with the government of Iraq to give the U.S. legal authority to keep U.S. military forces in that country beyond December 2010. The White House claims they were forced to withdraw because then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to grant U.S. force serving in Iraq post 2010 immunity from Iraqi prosecution– a prerequisite for the presence of U.S. forces anywhere else in the world. But the administration made no attempt to seriously negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis, and cited our withdrawal from Iraq as a major achievement during the 2012 elections, giving the American intelligence community the distinct feeling that the move was politically motivated. (MILLER: Obama’s Current StrategyIs Doomed To Fail)
Instead of investing any time in negotiating the agreement, the Obama administration used the Maliki regimes refusal to grant immunity as a political out for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2010. That saw the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and the end of Operation New Dawn, the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom. It also saw the rise of ISIS, and brings us to where we are today. (MILLER: What It Will Take To Win The War Against The Islamic State)
Today, Gen. Lloyd Austin is in command of U.S. Central Command– the U.S. combatant command in charge of fighting all wars in the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of North and East Africa. From that post, he once again recommended to the president that ground forces would be required in order to achieve the White House’s goals, this time against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. (MILLER: Iraq A Symptom Of Larger Obama Failure — Syria)
Once again, the president overruled his commanding general and has chosen to use air strikes alone to “destroy” a terrorist army of 30,000.
The president clearly does not think the mission is worth the cost necessary to complete it; but by pursuing his ends without authorizing the necessary means, he is dooming that mission to failure. (MILLER: Special Forces, Not #Hashtags, Mr. President)
The United States military and intelligence community have learned a lot over the past decade of conflict. Our commander in chief, unfortunately, has not. Since the start of his administration, President Barack Obama has ignored his generals and the intelligence community. Over the past few weeks, he has half-heartedly pursued a strategy that destines us to fail in our mission, and over the past three days, he and his White House have lied to prove otherwise. To those who wear our nation’s uniform, or serve in her intelligence community, that’s insult — and injury.

Democrat culture of corruption and entitlement

Assemblyman William Scarborough arrested


Queens Assemblyman William Scarborough was hit Wednesday morning with a 23-count indictment charging him with using campaign funds for personal expenses, authorities said.
Scarborough, a Democrat first elected in 1994 to represent the 29th Assembly District in southeast Queens, was arrested following a joint probe by the offices of state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli.
He pleaded not guilty Wednesday morning to charges of grand larceny and filing false campaign documents in Albany Supreme Court.
In March, FBI agents raided the offices and home of Scarborough, 64, as part of an investigation he blamed on a Post report about his potential abuse of the state travel voucher system.
Scarborough is accused of taking $38,000 from the campaign account since 2007 in cash, transfers and deposits into his personal bank account and failing to report it to the Board of Elections, according to the indictment.
His lawyer E. Stewart Jones denied those charges, saying Scarborough paid more of his own money into his campaign expenses than he was reimbursed. The campaign finance system is a “gray area,” Jones said.
“There was no crime committed here,” the lawyer said.
Scarborough faces additional federal charges in Albany later Wednesday.
“I’m still in kind of a state of shock,” he said seven months ago, after federal agents carted off boxes of documents, calendars, his smartphone and “just about everything.”
He proclaimed himself “totally innocent.”
The Post had reported that Sca​​rborough collected expenses for being in Albany on a Sunday in 2011 when, in fact, he was in his Queens district that day.
At the time, legislators were entitled to $165 per diem ​for meals and lodging every day they were in the capital. The sum was raised to $172 in October 2013.
In an October 2012 article, The Post said Scarborough submitted vouchers claiming $825 in reimbursements for spending five nights in a row in Albany, from March 13 through March 17, 2011.
But news accounts at the time said he was in Jamaica, Queens, from 6 to 9 p.m. on March 17, 2011 — a Sunday — for a town hall meeting.
Records compiled by the state comptroller’s office show Scarborough racked up some of the largest per diems in town, pulling in $30,006 in 2011, $25,038 in 2012 and $18,522 in 2013.
Scarborough is just the latest Queens pol to be hit with corruption charges.
Queens Sen. Malcolm Smith, defeated in last month’s Democratic primary, faces a trial in January for trying to bribe his way onto the Republican ballot for mayor last year.
Disgraced ex-Queens Sen. Shirley Huntley was convicted of looting $87,000 from an educational nonprofit she had founded by going on shopping sprees, among other things.

In praise of Benjamin Netanyahu

In Praise of Benjamin Netanyahu

In case you non-Jews haven’t noticed, we Jews bicker a lot.  Some of us even have bad things to say about Albert Einstein.  A fair number of us have bad things to say about Karl Marx.  Or about Milton Friedman — to go the other way. (Yes, I think Friedman was a lot smarter than Marx.)

So it should be no surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu is only intermittently popular in his home country.  At the height of the recent Gaza war, he was a hero on the level of King Solomon, but then, after things quieted down with a relatively indeterminate conclusion, he was, well,  just another pol.
But he’s not.
This man, whatever his failings, is better able to articulate the global situation than any political leader currently in a position of power in any country by yards.  In fact, virtually no one else is even attempting to do it. (Tony Blair did for a while before he turned, but he’s not in Bibi’s league.) Netanyahu may not be Churchill when it comes to courage, but he is Churchill, or close, when it comes to a precise mastery of the English language, ironic since he is the prime minister of a Hebrew-speaking nation.  He is able to tell the truth about the important issues, when all others, including, notably, our president and secretary of State, are prevaricating or spinning, trying desperately not to offend the reprehensible, and he did it again the other day at the United Nations. (Full text here.)  He told the truth about radical Islam to a half-empty house whose Moslem delegates had left and whose remaining attendees sat there terrified of agreeing publicly with the Israeli prime minister lest some imam or dopey liberal NGO accuse of them of Islamophobia.  He made that speech at an institution that has institutionalized anti-Semitism, not world peace or even basic common sense, as its modus operandi,  as its very raison d’être.
What would the UN do if it were unable to bash Israel?  How would it spend its time?  Over half the initiatives proposed by its ludicrous Orwellian arm  known as the UN Human Rights Council are in opposition to the behavior or existence of the Jewish state. Forget Boko Haram, ISIS or the Iranian government assassinating dissidents on a regular basis. Forget that not a single country in the UNHRC has made a contribution  to humanity in years even vaguely equal to what appears daily on Israel21C. No, it’s the Jews who are the problem.
So Netanyahu had the temerity to state the obvious about the UNHRC, calling it a “terrorist rights council.”
Not surprisingly, our “progressive” State Department demurred:
“We would not agree with that,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, told reporters Monday when asked about what Netanyahu said in his address that day to the U.N. General Assembly.
“We have obviously voiced concerns when we have them about actions that are taken,” she said, referring to the council, “but no, we would certainly not agree with that characterization.”
Oh, really?  Then what is it?  Here’s what Netanyahu said in context:  “By granting international legitimacy to the use of human shields, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council has thus become a terrorist rights council, and it will have repercussions.”
Of course, that’s true and Psaki knows it.  She doesn’t have the courage to be honest or her handlers won’t let her be. She and her cohort Marie Harf have become the mealy-mouthed faces of a prevaricating State Department.  They are paid to lie.  Since Benghazi, who can take them seriously?  When Psaki speaks nonsense like that, I am reminded of Joseph Welch’s famous line “Have you no shame?” Of course, Welch was talking to McCarthy.  These people are worse.  At least McCarthy was a militant, perhaps excessive (although recent history seems to exonerate him) anti-communist.  Our State Department stands for nothing, except perhaps bureaucratic self-preservation.  They would do well to learn from Netanyahu.  At least he seems to be able to talk the talk for freedom and democracy.  They seem to have given it up.

(Hat tip: PJ Media)

How many newsroom staff are really required when all they do is regurgitate Democrat/White House press releases?

New York Times Plans Cutbacks in Newsroom Staff

The UN refugee business and US complicity



Why State Dept. Defends UNRWA's Artificial "Refugee" Designations



The U.S. State Department has chosen to act as UNRWA's patron and the protector of its mission, perpetuating and expanding the refugee issue as a source of conflict against Israel.
Apparently more Israeli houses hurt peace, but multiplying the number of refugees is fine.
Here is a paradox: UNRWA, the United Nations agency that manages the Palestinian refugee issue, follows rules that contradict United States law and policy, and its practices result in perpetuating and multiplying the refugee problem rather than resolving it. Yet the U.S. Department of State gives unquestioning support to UNRWA's refugee designation rules[1], even on occasion defending them in detail. How can this be?
For example, almost two million Palestinians who have long been settled in Jordan and have for decades enjoyed Jordanian citizenship[2], are routinely counted as "refugees" by UNRWA, and the State Department supports it. This, in spite of the fact that, under U.S. law, a person who has citizenship in the country where he resides, and enjoys the protection of that state, cannot lawfully be eligible for refugee status.[3] How can State justify this contradiction?
Here is a second example: Another two million Palestinians already settled in the West Bank and Gaza, and who, by their own account, lived in the declared Palestinian state as its citizens under a Palestinian government, are registered as "refugees" by UNRWA.[4] By American legal standards, these Palestinians are "firmly settled" and therefore ineligible for "refugee" status[5]. Further, according to American policy reaffirmed by three Presidents, these Palestinians already reside in their own future state, the place where Palestinian refugees are meant to be settled.[6] Yet the State Department supports UNRWA's decision to count two million Palestinians well established in the West Bank and Gaza as "refugees," too.
Here is a third example: Under U.S. laws and regulations, only an individual who was personally displaced, or is a spouse or an underage dependent of such an individual, can be eligible for refugee status or derivative refugee status.[7]
Grandchildren and great-grandchildren are specifically not entitled to inherit refugee status merely because their ancestor was a refugee.[8] But under UNRWA practices, any descendant of a male refugee, no matter how many generations and decades have passed, is automatically entitled to be counted as a "refugee."[9] More than 95% of today's UNRWA "refugees," in fact, were not even alive when Israel was born in 1948; were never personally displaced by Israel's creation, and are listed by UNRWA as "refugees" only because of this peculiar practice of inheriting refugee status as a birthright .
Amazingly, the State Department defends all this, sometimes with great specificity. In response to critics of the descendancy principle, for example, the State Department recently reported, with approval, that UNRWA is not the only UN agency following this inheritance rule; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) occasionally does, as well.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told Foreign Policy magazine on May 25, 2012, "For purposes of their operations, the U.S. government supports this guiding principle."[10] (State ignores that UNHCR grants inherited refugee status only occasionally and as a special exception, while UNRWA treats it as the normal practice, justifying 95% of its "refugee" designations.)
The State Department is also inconsistent. If UNHCR were its standard, State would reject UNRWA's practice of counting Jordanian citizens as refugees. In not a single case does UNHCR count a person with citizenship as a refugee, while 40% of UNRWA's registrants are citizens of Jordan. In fact, UNHCR's authorizing statute, and the Refugee Convention that undergirds the agency, both explicitly forbid continuing "refugee" status when a person attains citizenship.[11] UNRWA's authorizing document does not.
State is sanguine even about the fact that these UNRWA practices steadily inflate the number of alleged Palestinian refugees year after year, from 750,000 in 1950 to more than 5 million today, a sevenfold increase. "In protracted refugee situations, refugee groups experience natural population growth over time," State cheerfully affirmed in 2013.[12]
The State Department has shown that it will resist any change in its policy toward the UNRWA practices that exacerbate and perpetuate the refugee problem. When Senator Mark Kirk introduced an amendment to the 2013 State Department Appropriations bill to force the Department to change, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides fiercely objected:[13] "Legislation which would force the United States to make a public judgment on the number and status of Palestinian refugees would be viewed... as the United States acting to prejudge a final status issue and determine the outcome."
This is the same State Department that, on more than 20 occasions during the Obama years, has ferociously and publicly castigated the government of Israel for constructing homes in disputed areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank, also a final status issue to be resolved between the parties. Apparently more Israeli homes hurt peace, but multiplying the number of refugees is fine.
Nides said that any divergence from UNRWA's rules would "hurt our efforts to promote Middle East peace, ....undercut our ability to act as a mediator and peace facilitator, ... damage confidence between the parties, [and]...hurt our efforts to prevent the Palestinians from...pursuit of statehood via the United Nations." He continued that it would also "generate very strong negative reaction" because this is "one of the most sensitive final status issues" that "strikes a deep, emotional, chord," especially at this "particularly fragile...[and] sensitive time." It would, he claimed, "be seen as a diminution of support for the Palestinian people" and "put at risk the humanitarian needs of this large, poor, and vulnerable refugee group." And, he added, it would "risk a very negative and potentially destabilizing impact on key allies, particularly Jordan."
This frightening Parade of Horribles was assembled by the State Department bureaus to scare away a compromise amendment that would leave UNRWA intact as a social service delivery agency, remove not one person from its beneficiary rolls, and cut not a dime from its budget. All the amendment had said, in effect, was that the UNRWA beneficiaries may be needy people deserving of assistance, but they are not "refugees." Yet those are the words State cannot bear to be uttered.
The government of Israel would agree with Nides' that "UNRWA serves as an important counterweight to extremist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah" and that "any void left by UNRWA would be likely be filled by terrorist elements." But supporting UNRWA's schools and hospitals, and its stabilizing role, does not require that the United States government continue to call UNRWA beneficiaries "refugees" when they are not. UNRWA's own Consolidated Eligibility & Registration Instructions do not require UNRWA beneficiaries to be classified as "refugees"-- its Section III.A.2 and Section III.B create classes of UNRWA beneficiaries not registered as "refugees" but who are nonetheless eligible for UNRWA services.[14]
The sad reality is that the United States' Department of State does not want such simple reforms. The U.S. State Department has, instead, chosen instead to act as UNRWA's patron and the protector of its mission, perpetuating and expanding the refugee issue as a source of conflict against Israel.

Hypocrites with a straight face: White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths.

White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply



The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq. 
A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.
The village has been described by Syrian rebel commanders as a reported stronghold of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front where U.S officials believed members of the so-called Khorasan group were plotting attacks against international aircraft.
But at a briefing for members and staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last week, Syrian rebel commanders described women and children being hauled from the rubble after an errant cruise missile destroyed a home for displaced civilians. Images of badly injured children also appeared on YouTube, helping to fuel anti-U.S. protests in a number of Syrian villages last week.
“They were carrying bodies out of the rubble. … I saw seven or eight ambulances coming out of there,” said Abu Abdo Salabman, a political member of one of the Free Syria Army factions, who attended the briefing for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff. “We believe this was a big mistake.”
Asked about the strike at Kafr Daryan, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said Tuesday that U.S. military “did target a Khorasan group compound near this location. However, we have seen no evidence at this time to corroborate claims of civilian casualties.” But Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told Yahoo News that Pentagon officials “take all credible allegations seriously and will investigate” the reports.  
At the same time, however, Hayden said that a much-publicized White House policy that President Obama announced last year barring U.S. drone strikes unless there is a “near certainty” there will be no civilian casualties — "the highest standard we can meet," he said at the time — does not cover the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.
The “near certainty” standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action ‘outside areas of active hostilities,’ as we noted at the time,” Hayden said in an email. “That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now.” 
Hayden added that U.S. military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Syria, "like all U.S. military operations, are being conducted consistently with the laws of armed conflict, proportionality and distinction."
The laws of armed conflict prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilian areas and require armed forces to take precautions to prevent inadvertent civilian deaths as much as possible.
But one former Obama administration official said the new White House statement raises questions about how the U.S. intends to proceed in the conflict in Syria and Iraq, and under what legal authorities.
View gallery
.
A man inspects a damaged site in what activists say was a U.S. strike in Kafr Daryan, in Syria's Idlib Province, on Sept. 23, 2014. (REUTERS/Abdalghne Karoof)
A man inspects a damaged site in what activists say was a U.S. strike in Kafr Daryan, in Syria's Idlib Province, …
“They seem to be creating this grey zone” for the conflict, said Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s top lawyer during President Obama’s first term. “If we’re not applying the strict rules [to prevent civilian casualties] to Syria and Iraq, then they are of relatively limited value."
Questions about civilian deaths from U.S. counterterrorism operations have confronted the Obama administration from the outset, after the president sharply ramped up drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, resulting in sometimes heated internal policy debates.  
Addressing the subject last year in a speech at the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged for the first time that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, adding: “For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live.”
Sources familiar with the new “near certainty” standard Obama announced at the time said that, as a practical matter, it meant that every drone strike had to be signed off on by the White House — first by Lisa Monaco, Obama’s chief homeland security adviser, and ultimately by the president himself. The policy, one source said, caused some Pentagon officials to chafe at the new restrictions — and led to a noticeable reduction in such strikes by the military and the CIA.
While the White House has said little about the standards it is using for strikes in Syria and Iraq, one former official who has been briefed on the matter said the looser policy gives more discretion to theater commanders at the U.S. Central Command to select targets without the same level of White House oversight.
The issue arose during last week’s briefing for two House Foreign Affairs Committee members and two staffers when rebel leaders associated with factions of the Free Syria Army, including Abu Abdo Salabman, complained about the civilian deaths — and the fact that the targets were in territory controlled by the Nusra Front, a sometimes ally of the U.S.-backed rebels in its war with the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.
But at least one of the House members present, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who supports stronger U.S. action in Syria, said he was not overly concerned. “I did hear them say there were civilian casualties, but I didn’t get details,” Kinzinger said in an interview with Yahoo News. “But nothing is perfect,” and whatever civilian deaths resulted from the U.S. strikes are “much less than the brutality of the Assad regime.”