- A complete absence of accountability. The body of the report says nothing about holding White House, State Department, and Pentagon officials accountable for the Benghazi tragedy and devotes only one page to the failure to bring the attackers to justice. The additional views by the six committee Republicans are sharply critical of the Obama Administration over these failures and notes that “the final responsibility for security at diplomatic compounds rests with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Not only have key officials not been held accountable, the Republicans said “a strong case can be made that State engaged in retaliation against witnesses who were willing to speak with Congress” and that witnesses such as Charlene Lamb [Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs] who were shielded from or avoided committee requests for interviews were returned to duty. An excellent majority staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued on Feb. 7 “Benghazi: Where is the Accountability?” makes these same points in greater depth.
- Unknowns remain due to the Obama Administration’s obstructionism. The additional views by the six Republicans detail how White House and State Department officials appeared to do everything possible to block the committee’s investigation. This included blocking access to witnesses and documents, abusing executive privilege, and playing games with committee jurisdiction rules. The committee Republicans noted how for seven months the Obama administration refused to provide the full paper trail for the talking points and instead provided a “re-creation” of the drafts to which it only gave the committee limited, “read only” access. Because of this obstructionism, the six committee Republicans said important issues still need to be addressed to assess why Americans died in Benghazi and why no one has been held accountable. The Republicans believe this needs to be investigated by “a committee that can and will use subpoena authority to obtain information from an uncooperative State Department.” In my opinion, a House special committee to do this is long overdue. Speaker Boehner should approve one immediately.
- The State Department’s absurd attempt to shift blame to the CIA for security shortfalls in Benghazi. According to the six Republicans, the State Department objected to language in a draft of the committee report concerning security at the Benghazi consulate by claiming that since the same number of people died at the CIA Annex, the CIA should be held equally responsible for its lack of security at the Annex. The Republican additional views found this argument to be absurd, noting that “there is a tremendous difference between a fortified facility [the CIA Annex] that suffers a fatal blow from a mortar attack and a porous compound that yields to a basic ground assault.” The six Republicans noted that the two men killed at the CIA Annex (Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty) were killed on the roof after being attacked by mortars and that there likely would have been more American casualties if it were not for the successful rescue efforts by the CIA Annex personnel.
Washington, D.C. – Today, the House Foreign Affairs Committee majority staff issued a report detailing the lack of accountability within the State Department following the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks at the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. The report, entitled, “Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability,” follows the majority investigative staff’s extensive 16-month oversight, during which staff examined the State Department’s conduct before, during, and after the terrorist attacks.
The report is available HERE.
The report contains the following key findings:
- Before September 11, 2012, U.S. intelligence agencies provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya, including al-Qaeda’s expanding operations and the mounting risk to U.S. personnel and facilities.
- These threats were well-understood by even the most senior officials in Washington; then-Secretary Clinton “was certainly aware” of this reporting, as well as the fact that extremists claiming to be affiliated with al-Qaeda were active in the area.
- Despite this increasingly dangerous environment, State Department officials in Washington denied requests for additional security from Department personnel on the ground in Libya, and insisted on an aggressive timeline for drawing down support. By contrast, the CIA increased security at its facilities in Benghazi.
- The Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened in response to the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam recommended that the Secretary of State “take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad.”
- The ARB convened by Secretary Clinton after the Benghazi attack was seriously deficient in several respects, most notably in its failure to review or comment on the actions of the Department’s most senior officials, including Secretary Clinton herself.
- Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have failed to hold anyone accountable for the flawed decisions about security in Benghazi. Instead, the four employees cited by the ARB were temporarily suspended with pay and ultimately reassigned to new positions within the Department. Two of these officials subsequently retired voluntarily, and not as the result of disciplinary action.
- The “talking points” controversy further revealed a Department leadership more interested in its reputation than establishing the facts and accountability.
- Tellingly, during the entirety of Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department went for a historically long period without a permanent Inspector General, a position central to ensuring a culture of accountability within the Department.
- State Department personnel serve the nation with distinction, operating in the most dangerous areas of the world. Their security cannot be guaranteed, nor do they expect it to be guaranteed. What they do expect and deserve is a Department in which everyone is held accountable for his or her performance.
- While the Committee will continue to press for accountability, it is incumbent upon President Obama and Secretary Kerry to recognize the failures of senior officials and hold them accountable. Otherwise, another Benghazi scenario, in which U.S. personnel are left vulnerable by irresponsible decision making in Washington, is inevitable.
The report comes two days after the House Republican Leadership published a new website, GOP.gov/Benghazi, devoted to the Benghazi investigations.
- ‘White Out’ on Benghazi: State Dept. Issues Report (counterjihadreport.com)
Obama’s Benghazi Investigator: An Iran Sympathizer (counterjihadreport.com)
- Another Piece of the Benghazi Puzzle (lopez.pundicity.com)
- Did Turkey Play a Role in Benghazi Attack? (lopez.pundicity.com)
Benghazi: The Set-Up and the Cover-Up (counterjihadreport.com)
- Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up (lopez.pundicity.com)
BENGHAZI—WAS THIS A UNITED STATES GUNRUNNING OPERATION TO AL QAIDA JIHADIS? (counterjihadreport.com)
by Arnold Ahlert:
At a keynote appearance before the National Automobile Dealers Association on Monday, Hillary Clinton began laying the groundwork for how she will respond to the Benghazi scandal during her likely 2016 presidential run. “My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi,” she answered in response to a question asking her to identify “do-overs” during her stint as Secretary of State. She then proceeded to double down. “I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information,” she contended. “And you make them to, as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.”
One is left to wonder what “imperfect information” Clinton was vaguely referring to in her response. The alleged “imperfect information” that led Clinton and company to lie for weeks about the nature of the attack? The “fog of war,” as Clinton previously described it? Of course, “imperfect information” had nothing to do with the Obama administration’s deceitful portrayal of the terrorist attack to the public. Declassified documents made public two weeks ago reveal that AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee that he learned about the “terrorist attack” on the consulate compound only 15 minutes after it commenced. ”My first call was to [Joint Chiefs of Staff General chairman] General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham testified on June 26, 2013. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary [of Defense] Panetta.” Ham further testified that Dempsey and Panetta “had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.”
The meeting to which Ham referred was a pre-scheduled session with President Obama at 5 p.m. EST. A Defense Department timeline reveals that this meeting occurred one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began. The meeting lasted half an hour. That means that Obama knew it was a terrorist attack on September 11, 2012, before the battle that lasted approximately eight hours was less than two hours old.
According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Obama phoned Clinton at 10 p.m. that same night, more than six hours after that attack began, but more than an hour before Navy SEALS Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were killed. “Like every president before him, he has a national security adviser and deputy national security adviser,” Carney told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. Feb. 19, 2013. “He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the Secretary of State at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”
Carney’s statement contradicts a letter released to Congress by the White House five days earlier. It claimed Obama made no phone calls at all the night of the attack. Carney was forced to “amend” the record because Clinton had testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a month earlier that she learned of the attack on Benghazi at 4 p.m. In the ensuing hours, Clinton testified, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” One of those conversations was with the president. “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective,” she revealed.
Thus, unless one is willing to believe that no one, including Obama, told Clinton it was a terrorist attack, the words “imperfect information” are nothing more than an attempt to again revive the “fog of war” canard that the former Secretary of State relied on to initially explain away the administration’s false account of the attack and changing story.
As for “unforeseen consequences” and “unpredictable twists,” a scathing report released Jan. 15 by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the attack in Benghazi was preventable. Clinton’s State Department was singled out for its failure to bolster security in response to an increasing threat level. The report states that the intelligence community “produced hundreds of analytic reports” in the months preceding the attack that “militias and terrorists … had the capability and intent to strike U.S. and Western facilities and personnel in Libya.” There were “at least 20 security incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility,” including one in which an “IED exploded near the main gate of the Mission facility in Benghazi, creating a 9×12 hole in the exterior wall.” Responsibility for this attack was claimed by followers of the “Blind Sheikh,” united under the banner of the “Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman Brigade.”
Read more at Front Page
- Hillary Clinton Blames “Imperfect Information” for Lack of Security in Benghazi Greenfield, “An American diplomatic facility without proper security being attacked on September 11 in Libya is the least unforeseen event in all of human history.”
The National Patriot, By Craig Andresen:
When it comes to Benghazi…The more dots we are given to connect, the sharper the treasonous picture becomes and now, thanks to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, we have even MORE dots on the page.
Imagine, if you will, having command of C-110 transferred, in the middle of an attack, to someone who doesn’t even know there is a second complex, full of Americans, in the attack zone.
You don’t have to imagine it.
It is a point of fact.
Let’s back up a bit and define a few very important details.
What in the hell is C-110???
C-110 is a 40 man, Special Ops unit specifically trained for rapid response when Americans find themselves in harm’s way in foreign countries.
It is also known as, EUCOM CIF.
C-110 was under the control of our military’s European Command.
WAS…Being the key word.
The attack, NOT in QUESTION but, IN FACT was…
At some point, AFTER the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had begun and, well before it ended some 8 hours later at the CIA annex in Benghazi…
Command OF C-110 was TRANSFERRED from European Command TO…General Carter Ham at AFRICOM or…United States African Command.
And here’s the kicker…
We now know, from page 77 of the 85 page Senate Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Report that…
That is correct. You read that right.
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AL QAEDA, TERRORIST ATTACKS, THAT TOOK THE LIVES OF AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS, SEAN SMITH, GLEN DOHERTY AND TYRONE WOODS AND, LEFT MANY MORE AMERICANS WOUNDED…COMMAND OF THE SPECIAL FORCES UNIT SPECIFICALLY TRAINED TO RESCUE AMERICANS UNDER ATTACK…C-110…WAS…TRANSFERRED…TO A GENERAL WHO HAD NEVER BEEN TOLD OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CIA ANNEX!!!
It gets even stranger.
Normally, C-110 is stationed in Germany but, on September 11th, 2012, on 6 hour’s notice, they had been sent to a training exercise in Croatia.
Croatia is only 925 miles from Benghazi and, despite General DEMPSEY’S claims that it would have taken more than 6 hours to fly C-110 from Croatia to Benghazi, the FACT is that a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER could have made that trip in under 3 HOURS and, according to General Ham…C-110 had “all their aircraft with them.”
So…WHY in THE HELL was C-110 NOT sent to Benghazi???
According to Dempsey…“They were told to begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base,” IN GERMANY!!!
What if you were to ask General Carter Ham?
Well…Ham HAD been notified of the attack on the Consulate and, according to Ham “only was that there was some kind of attack.”
That initial attack, on the Consulate, lasted a couple of hours BUT, we also know from the Senate Intel Committee Report that, Obama and his administration knew…KNEW…in the first minutes OF that initial attack that…IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK AND AL QAEDA WAS INVOLVED!!!
There is absolutely no evidence that such information was shared with General Ham.
Also…Keep in mind that…AFTER the INITIAL ATTACK on the CONSULATE…There was a pause of a few hours before the SECOND attack on the CIA ANNEX…
A CIA ANNEX THAT GENERAL CARTER HAM HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHATSOEVER, began!!!
According to Ham, regarding being notified that the attack on the Consulate was over and, that Stevens and Smith were unaccounted for: “In my mind at that point, we were no longer in a response to an attack. We were in a recovery.”
There are those who have questioned General Ham’s decision making regarding the night of the attacks but, when one realizes that HE had NO knowledge of the CIA annex AND that HE wasn’t receiving the necessary intel to MAKE a more well informed decision, coupled with the fact that C-110 had been ordered to make preparations to RETURN to GERMANY rather than to prepare for a mission in Benghazi…
Clearly, the fault does NOT reside with General Carter Ham…A point also made in the Senate report:
“We are puzzled as to how the military leadership expected to effectively respond and rescue Americans in the event of an emergency when it did not even know of the existence of one of the U.S. facilities.”
What we KNOW leads to questions that require answers.
Since Obama and Dempsey KNEW, within the first minutes of the attack, that it was al Qaeda terrorists…WHY did they NOT order C-110, which Dempsey well knew could be on site in less than 3 hours, to GO TO BENGHAZI???
Obama clearly knew of the CIA annex…Hillary clearly knew of it also as those in that annex were working in tandem with those in the Diplomatic Consulate so…Why on earth was the existence of the CIA annex intentionally kept from the General who was…AFTER THE ATTACKS BEGAN…suddenly placed in command of the very Special Ops team TRAINED for such a mission?
WHO issued the change in command of C-110…From European Command to AFRICOM…IN THE MIDDLE OF A DAMN ATTACK AND…WHY???
And further more…When the initial attack had ended…Tyrone Woods had evacuated all the Americans he could find at the Consulate TO the CIA annex where he was joined by Glen Doherty and THEY were in direct contact with Gregory Hicks at the Embassy in Tripoli where, according to Hicks:
“At about 10:45 or 11 we confer, and I asked the defense attache who had been talking about AFRICOM and with the joint staff, ‘Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?’ And he answered that, the nearest help was in Aviano, the nearest – where there were fighter planes. He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get onsite, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and we went on with our work.”
You got that???
The DEFENSE ATTACHE…WHO WAS TALKING TO AFRICOM AND…THE JOINT CHIEFS…WAS DELIBERATELY FED FALSE INFORMATION!!!
THAT ATTACHE WAS TOLD, BY THE JOINT CHIEFS…THAT THE NEAREST ASSISTANCE WAS AT AVIANO, ITALY…NOT IN CROATIA!!!!
A further point of clarification is needed here.
By military protocol, such an order to General Ham could only have been made by, potentially, 3 people…Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey…Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta or…The president.
We know from their testimony that both Dempsey and Panetta were in the white house situation room DURING THE ATTACKS and, for the first 20 minutes or so, before he disappeared…SO WAS OBAMA!!!
And, remember…While under attack…Tyrone Woods was in communication with Gregory Hicks who was getting HIS information from a DEFENSE ATTACHE who was…TALKING TO THE JOINT CHIEFS!!!
Now…Remember this as well…NOBODY knew how LONG the attack was going to continue…IT COULD HAVE GONE ON ALL NIGHT AND INTO THE NEXT DAY for all anyone knew…
With al Qaeda on the rise in Benghazi…after the attempt on the life of the British Ambassador and 2 attacks against the Red Cross…After 2 previous attacks on our Consulate in Benghazi…After more than a DOZEN requests from our security personnel and Ambassador Stevens himself for ADDED security were denied…After OUR security personnel were DRAWN DOWN and the February 17th Militia…an affiliate OF al Qaeda also known as Libya’s Ansar al Sharia were HIRED by Hillary’s State Department for “security” in Benghazi…
And considering the transfer of C-110 command DURING the attack…the fact that the new commander OF C-110 was NEVER made aware of the existence of the CIA annex and the fact that C-110 had, after the attack began…BEEN ORDERED BACK TO GERMANY while the JOINT CHIEFS were giving FALSE INTEL TO THOSE UNDER ATTACK IN BENGHAZI…
Is it possible that this was all a part of the plan orchestrated by Obama and Hillary???
By connecting the dots are we getting a clearer picture of an INSIDE JOB???
Let’s put it this way…
The FACT that any and all obstacles to a successful attack by al Qaeda against our Consulate and Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi had been removed and, the FACT that al Qaeda WAS keenly aware of the existence of the CIA annex in Benghazi while the General to whom command of the very Special Forces unit, C-110, trained for just such a mission, was NEVER INFORMED of it…
Also see: State Department’s own guards attacked U.S. Benghazi mission by Aaron Klein at WND
Most voters now believe the Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 died in terrorist attacks, and a growing number think Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations are likely to suffer because of the Benghazi affair.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That’s up from 43% in late October. Just four percent (4%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact, compared to 41% three months ago. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A recent New York Times investigation claims that the Obama administration was correct when it first said the Benghazi killings were prompted by an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube, but a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released last week says the murders were the result of planned terrorist attacks.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters believe the Americans in Benghazi were killed in planned terrorist attacks. Only 13% think they were killed in a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video. One-in-three voters (34%) are undecided.
Just 28% now rate the administration’s explanation of the events surrounding the murder of the ambassador and the others as good or excellent. That’s down nine points from a high of 37% in October. Forty-five percent (45%) give the administration poor marks for the Benghazi matter, the highest level of dissatisfaction to date.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) think it is at least somewhat important to find out exactly what happened in the events surrounding the murder of the four Americans in Libya, with 47% who say it is Very Important. Nineteen percent (19%) view getting to the bottom of the Benghazi incident as unimportant, but that includes just four percent (4%) who say it’s Not At All Important. This is in line with attitudes since last April.
Also see: Hillary Clinton is ‘struggling to finish her memoir’ about her time at the State Department (dailymail.co.uk)
Benghazi: Judge Jeanine Pirro Utterly Destroys Hillary Clinton:
How Benghazi attack could have been prevented:
Their philosophy blinds them to reality
by Daniel Greenfield:
Not that security was a problem in a city run by Islamic militias where the British and even fellow Muslim diplomats had come under attack. And then the State Department chose to renew a lease while…
2. Stopped properly paying the Islamic militia that was supposed to provide security
3. Did not deploy a meaningful security presence on the ground
… but it wouldn’t have been a problem if not for that “offensive” YouTube video.
Sharyl Attkisson (CBS)
The State Department renewed the lease for the U.S. compound in Benghazi two months before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks without requiring the facility to meet normal security standards.
The survivor, a State Department diplomatic security agent whose name isn’t being disclosed, spoke behind closed doors in late November to Senators Graham, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J. The previously-undisclosed existence of the year-long lease calls into question the State Department’s designation of the compound as “temporary” and therefore exempt from normal security requirements.
The lease renewal came shortly after a June 2012 assault in which an improvised explosive device blew a giant hole in the exterior wall of the facility. Graham also says he learned that in addition to other denied requests, the State Department’s Regional Security Officer for Libya asked for stronger security for the compound in August 2012 but it was denied.
Four Americans including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered in the terrorist attacks.
But what difference does it make anyway?
Delusional progressive ideologues should never be in charge of national security. It was Hillary Clinton’s self serving policy of normalizing relations with the new Libyan government (and her covert al-Qaeda affiliated allies) that caused her willful blindness to the realities of the security threats on the ground.
Remember the Nordstrom testimony on why the jihadist February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired for security:
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R.-Texas), who asked Hicks about the militia’s complicity in the attacks, also asked Eric Nordstrom, who had been the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO) at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli until July 26 of last year, whether the department was aware that the militia had any ties to Islamic extremists.
“Absolutely,” said Nordstrom. “Yeah, we had that discussion on a number of occasions, the last of which was when there was a Facebook posting of a threat that named Ambassador Stevens and Senator McCain, who was coming out for the elections that was in the July time frame. I had met with some of my agents and then also with some Annex personnel. We discussed that.”
Farenthold expressed his incredulity that the State Department would hire militia of this nature to provide security.
“I’m stunned that the State Department was relying on a militia with extremist ties to protect American diplomats,” said Farenthold. “That doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?”
“You mean like in Afghanistan where Afghanis that are working with our military that are embedded and turn on them and shoot them?” asked Nordstrom rhetorically. “Or Yemen, where our embassy was attacked in 2008 by attackers wearing police uniforms? Or in Saudi Arabia, in Jedda, we had an attack in 2004? The Saudi National Guard that was protecting our facility reportedly ran from the scene, and then it took 90 minutes before we could get help.”
Nordstrom added that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade “was the unit that the Libyan government had initially designated for VIP protection” for Americans and that it would be “very difficult to extract ourselves from that.”
And remember the Hicks testimony:
The star witness in the Benghazi investigation said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally ordered Ambassador Chris Stevens to set up a permanent post in the restive city and should have known about deteriorating security.
The revelations from the second-ranking U.S. diplomat in Libya at the time come as the audit that cleared the former secretary of State of any wrongdoing has come under fire for not interviewing Clinton or her top lieutenants.
Republicans say they’ll press the audit’s co-chairman for answers after the House Oversight panel subpoenaed retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering to appear for a transcribed deposition on Thursday. Pickering co-authored an Accountability Review Board (ARB) report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.
“There’s no answers we’ve gotten [from the ARB] about the role of senior officials [regarding security in Benghazi],” a Republican staffer told The Hill. “What controversies were brought to their attention?”
Gregory Hicks, who briefly took over as head of mission when Stevens and three other Americans were killed, testified on May 8 that Clinton personally ordered the ambassador to turn Benghazi into a full consular post, and that she planned to announce the upgrade during a visit in December.
Hicks’s attorney has been drawing attention to that section of his testimony, which was overshadowed by revelations that no one at the U.S. embassy in Libya believed the terrorist attack was preceded by a peaceful protest, and that the Pentagon told a special operations team to stand down.
“According to Stevens, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” Hicks testified.
“Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.”
He said Pickering appeared “surprised.”
“I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” Hicks testified.
“Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways … to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the seventh floor [the secretary of State’s office] know about this?’
Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:
One of those blunt assessments from Gates’ memoir. Others include Gates witnessing Hillary and Obama admit that they opposed the Iraq Surge for political reasons.
He recounts a conversation between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama concerning the Bush administration’s 2007 attempt to change the tempo of the Iraq war through a surge of U.S. troops.
“Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary,” Mr. Gates writes. “…The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
Obama did a rather cynical dance on the Iraq surge. And it’s rather predictable that he would concede it only “vaguely”. Honesty from O is always vague.
Even more predictably, Biden is a buffoon.
As for Mr. Biden, Mr. Gates said he bristled at the vice president’s attempts to give him orders, reminding him that he wasn’t in the “chain of command.”
He said Mr. Biden was suspicious of military leadership. “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of the past four decades,” Mr. Gates writes.
The White House leadership is despised for its political manipulations.
He added: “The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me.”
And despite campaigning on an Afghan surge, Obama never believed in it.
In what appears to be one of Mr. Gates most pointed critiques of Mr. Obama, he describes a White House meeting in March 2011 where Mr. Obama expressed doubts about Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man he had chosen to lead the war effort, as well as Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
“As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” Mr. Gates writes. “For him, it’s all about getting out.”
That’s over 1,600 soldiers dead for a political war that Obama never believed in.
So pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats, the Times published a report that showed that Obama’s laser like focus on the Zawahiri-controlled faction of al Qaida has endangered the US.
By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups — even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.
Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.
By Caroline Glick:
The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.
Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper even realizes what it has done.
Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000 word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.
Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counter-terror strategy and US Middle East policy.
Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).
Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.
The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al Qaida “core al Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al Qaida, or any other group, that does not have courtroom certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.
These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama’s allegiance to Turkey’s Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian opposition.
They are the basis for the administration’s kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.
Obama’s insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So too, the US’s current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration’s conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.
From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was comprised of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al Qaida recruitment.
Obama and his advisors dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al Qaida, they claimed was not involved in the anti-Qaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists were fighting Qaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.
In other words, the two core foundations of Obama’s understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.
With Kirkpatrick’s report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.
Read more at Front Page
- The New York Times Comes to Hillary Clinton’s Defense on Benghazi (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)
When the press is a poodle (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)
TIMMERMAN: Journalistic malpractice over Benghazi (washingtontimes.com)
BY STEPHEN F. HAYES:
“I will say, you know, the question has always been who, exactly, the attackers were, what their motivations were and how they—the attack evolved,” Psaki said. “We’ve always said that there were extremists that we felt were involved. There’s an ongoing criminal investigation, as you are very familiar with, that you just referred to, so I’d refer other questions to them.”
In a follow-up, Psaki was asked: “When you call them ‘extremists,’ will you not say ‘al Qaeda’ from that podium?”
She would not. “It’s an ongoing FBI investigation,” she said.
The reticence is odd. Reporting by The Weekly Standard, as well as by Lara Logan of 60 Minutes and Fox News’s Catherine Herridge, has uncovered multiple al Qaeda ties. The chief Benghazi suspects include men who not only have been involved with al Qaeda for years but also have direct ties to al Qaeda’s founding leaders: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. According to U.S. officials familiar with the investigation, they include an Egyptian who was trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s, served as a terrorist commander under Zawahiri in the 1990s, and was in direct contact with Zawahiri in the months leading up to the Benghazi attack. Another is a Libyan who served as one of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards and is suspected of delivering materials taken from the Benghazi compound after the attack to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan. Still another is a former Guantánamo detainee who worked for bin Laden as a driver during the 1990s, and whose alias was found on the laptop of one of the 9/11 conspirators. In addition, intelligence officials tell The Weekly Standard that a trusted al Qaeda courier was involved in the attacks.
Read more at Weekly Standard
A senior Muslim Brotherhood operative recently arrested in Egypt worked for years at the William J. Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has also received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a foundation that is an Iranian regime front.
The current Egyptian government, which was put in power after the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, has launched a sweeping crackdown on the Brotherhood and calls it a terrorist organization. One of the senior officials arrested is Gehad (Jihad) el-Haddad.
From 2007 to 2012, el-Haddad was the Egyptian director for the Clinton Foundation. El-Haddad’s father is Essam el-Haddad, a member of the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.
While he worked for the Clintons, El-Haddad began working in May 2011 as a senior adviser for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party. Apparently, the Clinton Foundation had no problem with his side-work and continued to employ him.
After he left the Clinton Foundation, el-Haddad became a senior adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood directly and became a member of the Steering Committee for the Brotherhood’s Renaissance Program, a plan to institute Sharia law in Egypt. He then became a spokesperson and media strategist for Mohammed Morsi’s successful presidential campaign.
To put it simply, the Clinton Foundation’s former Egyptian official is a big shot in the Muslim Brotherhood. And only one month after he departed the Foundation, Morsi spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative.
It’s reasonable to speculate that the idea for that came from el-Haddad, but there’s another Brotherhood-linked individual that works at the Foundation: Huma Abedin.
Read more at The Clarion Project
- Muslim Brotherhood Official, Former Clinton Foundation Employee Arrested (counterjihadreport.com)
- The Clintons Employ Muslim Brotherhood Officials? You Can’t Be Serious … (counterjihadreport.com)
- Muslim Brotherhood Official, Who Also Worked at the Clinton Foundation, Arrested in Egypt (pjmedia.com)
- The Clinton Foundation’s man in Cairo was also the Muslim Brotherhood’s (powerlineblog.com)
That’s the conclusion of Ambassador Richard S. Williamson writing about Benghazi.
“Thirty years ago, I assumed post as chief of mission in my first ambassadorship. One thing I learned from the able foreign service officers with whom I served was that if there was a legitimate security issue, all I needed to do was send a cable to the State Department’s undersecretary for management and the problem would be addressed promptly, professionally, and effectively. We now know that did not happen in Benghazi. America’s full arsenal of security assets was not deployed to protect Ambassador Stevens. Why not? How has the culture changed where legitimate security requests from a U.S. ambassador go unheeded by the State Department?” Williamson asks.
That’s one of the important questions to ask about Hillary’s time there. Under her watch, US diplomatic facilities were helpless as they came under siege and major abuses were covered up.
The State Department was run like Hillary’s campaign, instead of a professional organization dedicated to achieving serious national goals.
I’ve served four secretaries of State in a variety of positions in the State Department and in various ambassadorships. I’ve seen how the building works. Benghazi was not just a mid-level bureaucratic failure. It was a failure of leadership. The secretary of State sets the tone and the bureaucracy responds. If the secretary makes a priority of keeping American diplomats safe and secure, then the bureaucracy responds by doing the same. I know and have worked with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy; he is an able man. But I also know that if the secretary of State had made security for our diplomats a priority, more would have been done.
And that’s the bottom line. The buck stops with the leadership. Leaders set goals and priorities. Their people carry them out. Hillary’s goals and priorities did not involve keeping diplomats safe. Whatever those goals really were, they treated people on the ground as disposable.
From the moment the Obama administration brought up the video, it was self-evidently a MacGuffin. The ugly video had been out on the Internet for months. Why had this little-seen and little-noted video launched spontaneous demonstrations around and attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts throughout the Middle East? Oh yes, it was September 11th! Now, what exactly is the significance of September 11th? And is it remotely credible that spontaneous demonstrators bring along missile launchers? As Albert Camus once wrote, we should set “ideological reflexes aside for a moment and just think.”
Why were the president and his political operatives so anxious to divert the attention of the media and the American people? Just think. It was the final phase of a hard-fought election campaign and these events pulled back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, revealing that a pillar of the president’s reelection campaign was smoke and mirrors.
GM was alive and government subsidized, but in Syria, so was Al Qaeda.
The president and his campaign were desperate to keep a lid on Benghazi because it fundamentally challenged their narrative. It simply could not withstand close scrutiny. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. And the facts were that Islamic extremists willing to engage in terrorism were on the march across North Africa. Benghazi was but one of the developments that revealed this fact for anyone willing to look. The president’s statements about Benghazi during the foreign policy debate revealed a lawyerly slipperiness and a contortionist’s ability to bend the truth to his immediate political advantage.
There is a significant difference of opinion on how to best prosecute the war on terror. There are good people of experience and sound judgment on both sides of this debate, and it is a debate that must be joined. But it was not a debate the Obama campaign wanted to have during the 2012 presidential campaign. By all indications, it is not a debate the Obama administration ever wants to have.
No it doesn’t. Obama has reverted to Clinton era terror policies while burying the rise of Al Qaeda beneath the occasional drone strike and Bin Laden’s corpse.
Read more at Front Page
Mark Durie explains the Progressive world view of “Universalism” and “Relativism” and way it shapes the Obama administration’s policy regarding Islam. The cognitive dissonance created by this world view and the coping mechanisms employed to maintain it are explored. This is how we have ended up with an insane foreign policy that not only tolerates but values the Islamic culture over our own. This is how we end up with rules of engagement in Afghanistan that value the lives of our enemy over our own soldiers. This is how we end up with a foreign policy that has aligned us with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.This is how we end up with a dead Ambassador in Benghazi. And this is why the Obama administration thinks it’s a good thing to help usher in the rise of the modern Islamic Caliphate.
Wilders in Australia and the “Islamic Problem” – Part II, by Mark Durie, May 29, 2013
This is the second in a four part series of posts written in response to Geert Wilders’ visit to Australia in early 2013.
In a previous post I contrasted Geert Wilders’ view that ‘Islam is the problem’ with the claims of many Muslims who preach with equal conviction that ‘Islam is the solution’, and examined evidence of the negative characteristics associated with belief in Islam, including disadvantaged human development outcomes.
These days many leaders in the West find it convenient to sweep the ‘problem’ of Islam under the carpet. Long gone are the days of Theodore Roosevelt, Wilders’ hero, who declared in Fear God and take your own part that values such as freedom and equality only existed in Europe because it had the military capacity to ‘beat back the Moslem invader’.
However, given the negative outcomes associated with Islam, one of which is Geert Wilders’ need for constant armed guards (some others were enumerated in the previous post), the question whether Islam is the problem or the solution is not something to be just swept under the carpet.
In the fourth and final post of this series we will consider Wilders’ policies for managing ‘the problem’. The third post, the next after this, will review an on-going dispute between critics of Islam as to whether there can be a moderate, tolerable form of Islam. On one side stand those, like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer, who consider Islam to be essentially irredeemable. On the other side stand those, like Daniel Pipes and Barry Rubin, who argue that there are different Islams and the ‘solution’ to radical Islam is moderate Islam.
Of course there are many opinions about Islam. In this, the second post in this series, we consider two widely-held secular – and positive – perspectives on Islam which have been influential in shaping the response of secular-minded westerners to Islam. These are universalism and relativism.
Relativism holds that no one religion is true, but as different as they are, all religions are equally valid in their own way, and the differences deserve respect.
Universalism — in the sense used here — holds that the core of religions consists of a set of positive ethical values shared by all people and all faiths.
For many western secular people, universalism and relativism are so deeply embedded in their world view that they have no choice but to process Islam through the grid of these belief systems. This means they pre-judge Islam by limiting their understanding only to what their frame permits them to see. What they observe is not Islam as it really is, but as it appears through the window frame of their own beliefs. They see Islam as their world view tells them it must be.
Clinton’s answer to the evils of extremists — defined as those who believe in religious truth — is respect. If we extend respect to the beliefs of others, treating them as worthy and valid and allowing their beliefs and practices breathing space, she believes these others are more likely to act moderately, and not adopt extremist positions:
“I think the more respect there is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. If they feel suppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair that they turn to violence. They become extremists.”
For Clinton extremism is a vicious circle. The extremist A disrespects the beliefs of B, with the result that B feels such ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ that they become extremists in their turn, disrespecting the beliefs of others. This vicious circle can be broken and turned into a virtuous circle if A chooses to respect B’s beliefs. This respect will help B feel good about themselves, with the result that they become happy and self-confident, renounce extremist ways, and extend respect to others in their turn.
One problem with Clinton’s approach is that it is underpinned by a naive view of human nature. Some oppressive religious ideologies command respect, but are allergic to reciprocating it. If you offer one hand to a hungry lion, there is no guarantee he won’t like the taste of it and devour your other hand as well.
A deeper issue is that ideas do matter. Truth is not only the prerogative of science. Good ideas deserve vigorous support, including theological ideas. Conversely, bad ideas equally deserve to be rejected and refuted. False ideas should be opposed. Some religious beliefs do not deserve respect and it is reasonable to judge some religious beliefs to be true or false. For example, it is not ‘extremism’ to reject or even condemn the religious belief that Usama Bin Ladin is in paradise enjoying his virgins. It is not ‘extremism’ to be certain that the Koran is not the word of God.
The unspoken thesis woven throughout Clinton’s whole message is that the content of Islamic belief is not the problem. For Clinton, ‘tolerance’ means respecting the beliefs of others as valid, including and especially Islam. Renouncing belief in any ultimate truth, while embracing respect for all ‘legitimate religious differences’ is to her the real solution to the problem of religious freedom, and the yardstick of valid religious belief and practice.
Clinton embodies her own recipe for coexistence. She manifests respect for Islam by not criticizing it, apparently in the hope that this will move persecuting Islamic governments towards a less ‘extreme’ — i.e. more relativistic — position like her own.
Clinton’s remedy for religious intolerance is also official US policy. The Obama administration chooses to respect, tolerate and protect Islam as an official tactic to encourage Muslims to be more tolerant and less ‘extreme’.
The risk of this strategy is that it can minimize instances of Islamic persecution and conceal its causes. This all too easily ends up becoming collusion. For example, one of the most disappointing features of Clinton’s 2012 religious freedom speech was that the US Government’s 2011 Religious Freedom Report failed to identify Egypt and Pakistan as a ‘countries of particular concern’ for religious freedom, despite all the evidence. The most plausible explanation is that the Obama Administration did not want to ‘humiliate’ their Islamist allies – inciting them to ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ – so it downplayed their prevailing patterns of religious persecution deeply rooted in Islamic dogma.
President Obama also looks at the world through universalist eyes. This was reflected in his 2009 Cairo speech in which he stated that Islam’s values are American values:
“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
Universalism comes under pressure from the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that people of sincere faith actually promote and live out vastly diverse values, many of which certainly would not agree with Fraser’s personal conception of universal ‘human values’. One true believer divests themselves of all their possessions to devote their life to helping the poor. Another flies a plane into a skyscraper to kill thousands. Both believers are equally sincere. They differ, not in the intensity of their beliefs, but in what their beliefs consist of. It is their contrasting, not held-in-common values which cause them to act in completely opposite ways.
(The phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ was coined in 1957 by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter in When Prophecy Fails, a study of a UFO cult’s coping mechanisms when an expected apocalypse failed to eventuate.)
Managing Cognitive Dissonance: Coping Strategies
There is a cost in retaining a belief which cannot be easily reconciled with reality. The relativist and the universalist need to deploy a range of coping strategies to help them hang on to their failing world views.
One strategy is to avoid being confronted with information which could make the feelings of dissonance worse. One does not expect Malcolm Fraser spends much time browing the hadiths of Muhammad.
Another coping strategy is to demonize a bearer of bad news. Thus it can be reassuring and self-comforting for Geert Wilders to be vilified as ‘extreme right wing’. The passion of the accusation is a reflection of the depth of the anxiety standing behind it.
Another strategy is to shift blame. I have many times given addresses on the Koranic motivation for violence, after which someone in the audience has stood up and asked “What about the crusades: Christians have been violent too!” So true, but this is quite irrelevant to the challenge of understanding and engaging with Islam’s doctrines. This deflection has a purely emotional function, as it serves to reduce cognitive dissonance: by diverting attention away from stress-inducing information about Islam, it helps relieve a person of the responsibility to make a moral judgement about Islam which has challenging and perhaps frightening implications.
Sometimes blame-shifting means searching around for a surrogate cause. This was the coping mechanism played out after the Fort Hood Massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, acting in accordance with jihad principles he had so clearly expounded in a medical seminar attacked and killed 13 fellow soldiers. After the event, President Obama pleaded with Americans not to ‘jump to conclusions’ saying, “we cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing.” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas opined ‘he’s probably just a nut case.’
Sometimes blame shifting can involve constructing elaborate alternative narratives. An example is the claim that the Palestinian conflict is the underlying cause of global jihad terrorism. Hence Malcolm Fraser’s claim that the West’s support for Israel perpetuates a breeding ground for terrorism:
“… the West’s one-sided policies relating to Israel and Palestine … is an abscess which breeds terrorists and will do so until there is a viable two-state solution.
This view can be understood as an elaborate coping mechanism for managing the cognitive dissonance caused by the problem of Islamic violence, a phenomenon which however predates the formation of the modern state of Israel by 1400 years.
President Bush’s public statement after the 9/11 atrocity that “Islam is Peace” (implying that the attackers were not genuine Muslims and were not motivated by Islam) is another example.
Suppression of cognitive dissonance is not merely an individual experience. It can be an epidemic, a mass psychosis, as coping mechanisms are replicated across newspapers, board rooms, government policies, talkback radio shows, family gathering and internet forums. For example, the rising hatred being directed against Israel across Europe is a societal response to manage the cognitive dissonance — and fear — caused by the rise of supremacist Islam.
When the Obama administration banned the use of the expressions ‘jihad’ and ‘Islamic extremism’ in discussions of terrorist threats by its security officials, this was an institutional form of deligitimizing and veiling the well-attested religious motivations of terrorists. This illustrates how a cognitive coping mechanism can be played out at the highest levels of government, even through deliberate policy decisions, and filter down to change the thought patterns of society.
When newspapers and police forces repeatedly suppress Islamic motivations of crimes (see here and here) — whether in Egypt or in the West – this is a manifestation of a coping mechanism which has become a cultural trait.
Denial can be comforting. It spares one the trauma and hard work of engaging with realities which do not fit with cherished and deeply held personal beliefs, and few things are more personal than one’s beliefs about religion. But will it deliver peace and harmony?
The problem is that the relativist and universalist belief systems are not reasonable. They are not credible. Not being truth-based, and relying on prejudice, they demand intense, constant and costly management of cognitive dissonance. Truth is the first casualty of these coping strategies, which result in bad policy, and poor strategies which only serve to empower and cover for enemies of freedom and truth.
Shameful, painful examples abound. Consider Major Nidal Hassan, the jihadi-for-a-day, who continues to draw an army salary while the Pentagon persists in mis-classifying his killing spree, performed while shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar’, as ‘workplace violence’. One consequence is that his wounded victims have not been granted benefits normally available to those injured in combat, such as Purple Heart retirement and preferential medical support.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience in Brussels in 2009, “Never waste a good crisis.”
In the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attacks, Clinton inexplicably removed defense personnel and denied Ambassador Christopher Steven’s repeated requests for security.
Six hours into the Benghazi attack, President Obama called Hillary, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted on Feb. 20, 2012 to CNSNews.com.
At some point, an unidentified person in authority gave a stand-down order that no help would be sent to Ambassador Stevens.
Why did Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama act in the way they did?
Was it ineptness, or something else? If the latter, can a motive be established?
A possible motive could be the Istanbul Process.
In 2012, Hillary Clinton co-chaired a meeting with 57 Muslim countries in Istanbul, Turkey.
The closed-door meeting was for the purpose of devising a process to implement U.N. Resolution 16/18, which would prohibit speech insulting Islam.
Championed by the Obama administration, Resolution 16/18 claims to seek a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression by “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”
Forbes’ Abigail R. Esman wrote on Dec. 30, 2011:
Proposed … in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. constitutional guarantees of free speech.
The resolution, though, is disingenuous in that it is the initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of Muslim countries that do not allow equal freedom of speech or religion to non-Muslims living within their borders.
The resolution limits free speech viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves “defamation of religion” — specifically, speech which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence,” with Islam itself being the religion most known for allowing itself to be incited to “violence.”
This resolution will limit the free speech of non-Muslims, which is the Sharia law restriction placed on conquered peoples, called “dhimmi.” Resolution 16/18, for those who dare admit it, would effectively establish global Sharia law.
In fact, in the OIC countries, the very act of proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God or that Israel is the Jewish homeland would be enough to incite violence.
At the close of the Istanbul meeting in 2012, Secretary Clinton called for “formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred.” OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commended the Obama administration. “I particularly appreciate the kind personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the U.S. towards the consensual adoption of the resolution,” he said.
Are there places in the world where these types of laws have already been implemented, and by what process?
In 2005, there were Muslim riots in Europe after a Dutch cartoon was published. The European Union quickly mandated religious-hate-speech codes which prohibit insulting Islam.
Riots, and the process of inciting them, has been a political tactic dating as far back as Rome’s Mark Anthony; or the French Revolution’s Robespierre; or Chicago Labor’s 1886 Haymarket Riot; or Bill Ayers’ Chicago Days of Rage.
Stalin said: “Crisis alone permitted the authorities to demand and obtain total submission and all necessary sacrifices from its citizens.”
Someone who codified this process was Saul Alinsky.
In 1969, Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight — An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”
President Obama taught Alinsky’s tactics while a Chicago community organizer.
What did Saul Alinsky write in Rules for Radicals?
“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.”
“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”
“The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community.”
“Fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”
“He must search out controversy and issues rather than avoid them … for unless there is controversy the people are not concerned enough to act.”
In other words, Alinsky’s tactics are designed to incite people.
Could those tactics have been applied to implement the Istanbul Process?
In the vein of “Fast and Furious,” if there could, just by chance, be a spontaneous riot incited that could be blamed on someone insulting Islam, then there would be the justification for a hurried rush for Americans to give up their free speech rights.
Read more at Daily Caller
The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.
By Mark Steyn:
Shortly before last November’s election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire John Sununu. Making chit-chat while the camera crew were setting up, Governor Sununu said to me that in his view Benghazi mattered because it was “a question of character.” That’s correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.
That’s why career diplomat Gregory Hicks’s testimony was so damning — not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office” — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.
Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m.call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.
Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn’t read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic — seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia’s somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on September 12 it’s still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America’s head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, “Leave a message after the tone and I’ll get back to you before the end of the week.” Just to underline the difference here: Libya’s head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.
What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a small team in Tripoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied authority to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There weren’t many of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they were special forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooftop waiting for back-up from a government that had switched the answering machine on and gone to Vegas.
Read more at National Review