ON BENGHAZI, HILLARY CLINTON LIED AND FOUR AMERICANS DIED

hillary_testimony_shrug_APby :

The September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi mission is an indictment of Hillary Clinton’s capacity to serve as Commander in Chief.

The Senate Select Committee’s Benghazi Report (The Report) makes clear that the deaths of Amb. Christopher Stevens, State Information Officer Sean Smith, and Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods could have been prevented on the day of the attack. Above all, their deaths would not have occurred but for Obama and Clinton’s dangerous, Islamist-friendly, and unconstitutional military action against Qadhafi. Even worse, it is clear that Hillary put political “optics” above the security of American lives on the eve of a Presidential election. In that sense it’s a bigger cover-up than Watergate.

Yet former conservative and now infamous Clinton sycophant David Brock, founder of the George Soros-funded front group Media Matters, would have the public believe that Hillary’s deadly failures in Benghazi are non-existent and any criticisms of her, even taken directly out of the bi-partisan, year-long investigation Senate Report, are simply smears. Along with David Kirkpatrick’s shameful New York Times story, which was thoroughly debunked a day later by Fox News from witnesses “who were on the ground” the night of the Islamist attack, it is clear that the Clintonistas are in cahoots to protect Clinton from facing any scrutiny during her 2016 White House bid.

The Report is prima facie evidence that Hillary failed to answer the 3:00 PM call she faced on September 11, 2012 once the attack started on the Mission. Finding #1 of The Report makes clear that Clinton ignored the “ample strategic warning that [the] security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.” On September 5th, six days before the attack, AFRICOM produced a report stating, on page 11, “disarray in Libya and a likely focus by authorities on pursuit of Qadhafi loyalists is likely allowing jihadists in Libya freedom to recruit, train, and facilitate the movement of fighters and weapons. The threat to Western and U.S. interests and individuals remains high, particularly in northeast-Libya.” Benghazi is the largest city in northeast Libya.

The Report also makes clear that a top Clinton lieutenant denied Amb. Stevens’s requests for greater security at the Benghazi Mission. Finding #2 of The Report states that “(t)he State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation… including two incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6 and June 6, 2012.” [p. 12] Both of these attacks included IEDs being directed by Islamists at the Mission.

The Report explains that Amb. Stevens and other State Department officials outlined “concerns via cables to State Department headquarters about the security of the Mission compound and made several requests for additional resources.” [p. 14] Yet Clinton’s State Department was filled with “confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions on both policy and security concerns.” [p. 16] Simply stated, Clinton was too incompetent to run a proper Department whose bureaucracy could prioritize the safety of her subordinates.

Not only did Hillary’s incompetence bungle the Mission’s security, but direct evidence exists which proves that top State Department officials under Clinton denied the Mission proper safety protocols. Internal State Department memos unearthed by Fox News show that Clinton’s Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy signed off on an action memo “that green-lighted the Benghazi operation” with the caveat that the Mission be “exempted… from mandatory physical security standards” of a Consulate.

It strains credulity to believe that Hillary was not aware of the action memo, especially since Clinton misled the public on a “diplomatic victory” in Libya as early as November 2011 when she “was quick to announce that the U.S. committed $40 million to help Libya secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” This would be the same month when The Telegraph reported that the Al Qaeda flag was pictured “flying above the Benghazi courthouse building… alongside the Libyan national flag.”

Read more at Breitbart

LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy

3_3_2014_b3-lyons-libya-puzz8201_s160x149By James A. Lyons:

The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.

Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.

The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.

There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.

On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.

On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.

Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.

On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.

The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.

At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.

The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.

The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?

According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?

On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.

This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?

Read more at Washington Times

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

****************

Via Western Journalism:

Hillary Clinton Implicated In Benghazi Murders

Editor’s note: This video was inspired by the “Killary Klinton” image created by iOwnTheWorld.

The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.

This according to a scathing report entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by Special Ops OPSEC, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures.

Western Center for Journalism has analyzed this groundbreaking report and found that Hillary Rodham Clinton has indeed been implicated in murder.

Watch our exclusive video for all the details about “The Butcher of Benghazi Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Obama’s ‘Blame It on The Video’ Was a Fraud for Cairo as Well as Benghazi — More Proof

liarsNRO, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

The “blame it on the video” fraud so carefully orchestrated by the Obama administration in connection with the Benghazi massacre on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks has always rested on a premise that remains unquestioned by the mainstream media – and that is itself a fraud. To wit: the Libyan violence, in which a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were murdered, was triggered by rioting at the U.S. embassy in neighboring Egypt which was unquestionably provoked by an anti-Islamic video (an obscure trailer for the more obscure film, Innocence of Muslims).

As I’ve previously recounted, “blame it on the video” was a fraud as to Egypt as well – a calculated fraud set in motion by State Department officials in Cairo who began tweeting about their outrage over the video before the rioting started. At the time they did so, our government well knew both that there would be demonstrations at the embassy and that those demonstrations were being spearheaded by al Qaeda. In addition to the general animus against the United States that is its raison d’etre, the terror network and its Egyptian confederates were animated by their long-running campaign demanding that the U.S. release the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman, the master jihadist I prosecuted in the nineties and who Osama bin Laden later credited with issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 suicide hijackings).

There is now more evidence corroborating the fact that al Qaeda-linked jihadists, not the video, propelled the Cairo rioting — just as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists, not the video, propelled the Benghazi attack. Tom Joscelyn of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who is the nation’s best informed analyst of the global jihad and its tentacles, recently testified before the House homeland security committee (specifically, the subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence). The testimony, on the topic of al Qaeda’s expansion into Egypt, has been posted at the invaluable Long War Journal site. While it is all worth reading, Tom offers the following observations on the Cairo rioting:

In addition, a contingent of EIJ [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] leaders loyal to al Qaeda’s leader [Ayman al-Zawahiri -- the EIJ leader who merged EIJ into al Qaeda] became especially active inside Egypt after their release from prison [following the fall of Mubarak]. They were led by Mohammed al Zawahiri, the younger brother of Ayman al Zawahiri. Until he was re-arrested in 2013, Mohammed al Zawahiri used the permissive environment following the fall of Mubarak to proselytize, often under the banner of “Ansar al Sharia Egypt.” This group was established by one of his former EIJ comrades, Ahmed Ashush. In interviews, Ashush proclaimed his allegiance to al Qaeda, saying that he was “honored to be an extension of al Qaeda.” Although Mohammed al Zawahiri spent much of his trying to win new converts for al Qaeda’s ideology, he likely returned to terrorist operations and was in contact with his brother as well.

Mohammed al Zawahiri was one of the chief instigators of the September 11, 2012, protest in front of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. The protest turned into an all-out assault on the compound, with the stars and stripes being ripped down and replaced by al Qaeda’a black banner. The protest-turned-assault was a pro-al Qaeda event from the first, with protesters openly praising Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. I have identified at least three other senior al Qaeda-linked jihadists who helped spark the protest: Tawfiq Al ‘Afani, ‘Adel Shehato, and Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa. Al ‘Afani and Shehato are longtime EIJ ideologues and leaders. Shehato has since been re-arrested and charged with leading the so-called Nasr City Cell, which had multiple ties to al Qaeda.

Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa once led the IG and was a close confidante of the Blind Sheikh. He was very close to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. He even signed al Qaeda’s 1998 fatwa declaring the formation of a “World Islamic Front for Confronting the Jews and Crusaders.” [ACM: That fatwa is considered al Qaeda’s clearest declaration of war against the United States and presaged the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and the 9/11 attacks.] The CIA considered Taha Musa to be such an important terrorist that he was tracked down in Syria, where he was detained and deported to Egypt in late 2001.

President Obama’s policy of supporting Islamic supremacists throughout the Middle East led, directly and inexorably, to the empowerment of anti-American jihadists in Egypt and Libya. That is why the administration, in the run-up to what promised to be a close presidential election, worked so hard to deceive Americans into believing the story (absurd on its face) that the murderous violence was caused by a virtually unseen video. I stand by what I concluded last year in arguing that “blame it on the video” was just as fraudulent in the case of the Cairo rioting as in that of the Benghazi slaughter:

Obama’s re-election campaign was premised on the claims that he had decimated al Qaeda, that the war on terror was thus nearing an end, and that his Middle East policy of aiding Islamic supremacists in places like Egypt and Libya was stabilizing the region and fostering the birth of real democracy. The campaign could not afford powerful demonstrations that al Qaeda was anything but in its death throes; that terrorists were still targeting American facilities and killing American officials; and that, under Obama’s policies, Egypt and much of Libya were now controlled by rabidly anti-American Islamic supremacists.

The video fraud enabled the administration and Obama’s reelection campaign to stay on offense – aggressively pummeling the strawman of “Islamophobia” – rather than in the defensive crouch required to explain, or try to explain, the Obama administration’s performance in Egypt, Libya, and the broader Middle East. It worked: The Romney campaign was cowed and accountability for the Benghazi massacre would have to wait many months.

New Report Highlights Hillary Clinton’s Role in the “Preventable” Benghazi Attack That Left Four Americans Dead

20140218_Breachofduty_benghazi_hillary_large

 

 

Family Security Matters, by OPSEC TEAM:

A new OPSEC report combines for the first time in a single document the findings of multiple official investigations and media reports about Hillary Clinton’s role before, during and after the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi – an attack a bipartisan committee of U.S. senators called “preventable.”

 

According to Reuters:

The group charges Clinton with failing to ask the Pentagon and spy agencies to help U.S. personnel besieged in Benghazi and with not discussing the attack with President Barack Obama until more than six hours after it started. They also say she was not candid in her own accounts of what happened.

The report, entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” says that due to a lack of due diligence by Congress, the “full story about Hillary Clinton’s deadly failure of leadership may never be completely told.” It calls for a special congressional investigation of the affair.

View PDF – click here

 

What the News Media Missed in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Report

2053728933By Fred Fleitz:

Last month’s Senate Intelligence Committee report on the September 2012 terrorist attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi made headlines for its bipartisan conclusions that the attacks could have been prevented and for citing four al-Qaeda groups that were involved in the attacks or contributed participants.  While some of the report was debatable and watered-down, its findings are significant and further discredits the Obama Administration’s contention that the attacks were the result of demonstrations outside the consulate due to an anti-Muslim video.
Although it is an important bipartisan report on the Benghazi tragedy, reading the whole report carefully indicates much less agreement than the committee’s Democratic majority and the news media have claimed and suggests the report only got out the door after committee members agreed to discuss their substantial disagreements in an “additional views” appendix.  The report’s additional views are far more interesting than the body of the report and reflect the continuing wide partisan differences over the Benghazi tragedy and the Obama administration’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations of the attacks.
Additional views are not unusual for congressional reports and are usually part of Senate Intelligence committee reports.  The Benghazi report included additional views by the Democratic majority, by the committee’s Republican members (except for Senator Susan Collins), and a separate set of additional views by Collins.
The committee’s Democratic members submitted five pages of additional views that preview how Hillary Clinton is certain to respond to criticism about her handling of the Benghazi attacks if she runs for president: the controversy over this tragedy is political, has been generated by “misinformed speculation and accusations” and it is time to move on.
The Democratic additional views focus on the infamous talking points about the Benghazi attacks provided to the intelligence committees on September 15, 2012, claiming that they were “flawed but mostly accurate.”  This document, initially drafted by the CIA and cleared through several government agencies and senior Obama officials at the National Security Council, was used by Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows on September 16th and echoed by Obama officials for weeks.  The talking points said the consulate attacks were due to demonstrations stemming from an anti-Muslim video.
The committee’s Democratic members blamed the CIA for inaccurate information in the talking points and said the CIA – not the NSC – removed references to al-Qaeda prior to sending the document around for inter-agency clearance.  They concluded that there were no efforts by the White House or others in the Executive Branch to cover-up facts or make alterations for political purposes.
The Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats had to overlook a lot of inconvenient facts to come to such conclusions.
By contrast, in their 16-pages of additional views, six of the seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee present alternative views that are a powerful indictment of how the Obama administration mishandled the Benghazi tragedy and its efforts to cover-up the facts of the attacks before the November 2012 election.  The most important sentence of the Republican additional views is this:
“Many of us were frustrated and astounded by the great pains the Administration took after the attacks to avoid the clear linkage of what happened in Benghazi to the threat from international terrorism.”
Concerning the talking points, the six Republicans found that the administration took steps to mislead Congress and the American people about the Benghazi attacks and the threat from al-Qaeda before the 2012 election.
“Rather than provide Congress with the best intelligence and on-the-ground assessments, the Administration chose to try to frame the story in a way that minimized any connection to terrorism.  Before the Benghazi attacks—in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, the administration continued to script the narrative that al-Qaeda had been decimated and on the run.  The Benghazi terrorist attacks inconveniently, and overwhelmingly, interfered with this fictitious and false narrative.”
The additional views by the six Republicans rejected the charge that the CIA was at fault for erroneous language in the talking points, noting that emails reluctantly released to the committee clearly show the White House was asked to coordinate on the talking points from the earliest moments and had the final say in approving them.  The Republican members noted that this does not comport with what Acting CIA Director Morell told the intelligence committees in November 2012.
“. . . in spite of his [CIA Director Petraeus] own misgivings, the final content of the talking points was the ‘[National Security Staff’s] call, to be sure.’  In contrast, the Acting Director’s testimony perpetuated the myth that the White House played no part in the drafting or editing of the talking points.”
This observation by the six Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans are supported by a Feb. 4 story by Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge that Morell – who is now a member of a Washington, DC consulting firm with close ties to Hillary Clinton – may have altered the Benghazi talking points to benefit the Obama administration before the November 2012 election by removing the word “Islamic” but keeping the word “demonstration.”
The committee Democrats complained in their additional views that “controversy over the CIA talking points consumed a regrettable and disproportionate amount of time during the committee’s substantive review of the Benghazi attacks.”  Of course the Democrats said this because they were trying to paper over and shift the blame for an unprecedented and brazen scheme by the Obama Administration to manipulate the facts about the Benghazi attacks to ensure this tragedy did not prevent Mr Obama from being reelected.  The six Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans are to be given credit for not mincing their words about this abuse of the American people’s trust by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other senior Obama officials.
The six committee Republicans had several other devastating criticisms of the Obama Administration concerning the Benghazi tragedy that have received little attention by the news media.  These include:
  • 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.

OPSEC to Publish New Report on Hillary Clinton, Benghazi

Inside of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi after the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 / AP

Inside of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi after the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 / AP

BY: 
February 13, 2014 4:43 pm

OPSEC will release a new report this week that is critical of Hillary Clinton’s role in Benghazi, Reuters reports.

The OPSEC (military slang for “operational security”) report says Clinton made crucial choices during the attack on Benghazi, which enabled the attack.

“The attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, actually consisted of three distinct but interconnected phases: an unsupported diplomatic expansion into the city that enabled the attack; an uncoordinated and unresponsive reaction to the attack itself; and a concerted effort after the attack to remain unaccountable,” the report says. “Although a wide range of decisions contributed to each of these individual phases, only one person was responsible for the most critical choices during all three: Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The report also says the attack was not caused by inadequate information but by inadequate leadership.

According to Reuters:

The group charges Clinton with failing to ask the Pentagon and spy agencies to help U.S. personnel besieged in Benghazi and with not discussing the attack with President Barack Obama until more than six hours after it started. They also say she was not candid in her own accounts of what happened.

The report, entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” says that due to a lack of due diligence by Congress, the “full story about Hillary Clinton’s deadly failure of leadership may never be completely told.” It calls for a special congressional investigation of the affair.

****************

ACT! for America:

** IMPORTANT BENGHAZI UPDATE & ACTION ALERT **

TURNING UP THE HEAT:
FOUR NEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
CO-SPONSOR BENGHAZI LEGISLATION

Today, we have some very good news to report about H. Res. 36, legislation introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) which would create a special congressional committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack.

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.” Well, we can tell you that your combined voices on the Benghazi issue are really heating up Capitol Hill!

More and more federal legislators understand that when you say you want a special committee convened to get to the bottom of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador – you mean business.

THANK YOU.

Over the last few days alone, FOUR Members of Congress have decided to cosponsor Rep. Wolf’s Benghazi bill, bringing the total number of cosponsors to 184. That’s over 80 percent of Republicans in the House of Representatives! Though this is wonderful progress, we must now redouble our efforts so that Speaker Boehner brings H. Res. 36 to the House floor for a vote.

In addition, former Representative Pete Hoekstra (Chair of the House Intelligence Committee) recently commented to Fox news about the ineffectiveness of having five separate congressional committees investigate Benghazi – as opposed to one, focused, committee. The article, “Rep: GOP Disunity Hurts Benghazi Investigation” is well worth a read.

The four newest cosponsors of H. Res. 36 are:

       •  Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX/12)
•  Rep. George Holding (R-NC/13)
•  Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL/1)
 Note: Replaced Rep. Jo Bonner
       •  Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA/3)

(If one of these legislators represents you, please take a moment to say “thank you!” It goes a long way.)

Does your House legislator place a Benghazi investigation at a high priority? Click HERE for a list of Members of Congress who are NOT cosponsors of H. Res. 36. If you see your legislator’s name on that list he/she needs to hear from you.

Will you help out by taking the easy and quick action noted below?

** Important Benghazi Action Item **

If your House legislator has still not cosponsored H. Res. 36, please contact him/her to ask why, and to express your support for legislation creating a special congressional committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. As always, please be respectful at all times.

(NOTE: H. Res. 36 is NOT the same as H. R. 36. Please be sure to accurately identify the legislation we are supporting, to avoid confusion.)

Click HERE for a list of House Members, by state, who still have NOT cosponsored Rep. Wolf’s bill.

Is your legislator on that list? If so, please contact him/her via phone call or e-mail and request that he/she sign on to H.Res.36 as a cosponsorLet your legislator know that this is a very important issue to you, and one that you will have in mind when you cast your vote this November.

Click HERE to obtain contact information for your House legislator.

After all this time, there is no excuse for a Member of Congress not to support a special Benghazi committee. We’ve had months and months of hearings and political theatre on this issue and the important questions remain unanswered.

Let’s keep the heat on high in the U.S. Congress when it comes to Benghazi.

******************

Sign the petition to End the Benghazigate Cover-up and appoint a select committee to investigate!

 

****************

Catherine Herridge: Was early Benghazi intelligence politicized?

Committee Majority Staff Issues Report on Lack of State Department Accountability for Benghazi Attacks

!cid_image006_jpg@01CF23FBWashington, 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.

 

 

 

Also see:

Clinton “Regrets” Benghazi

Hillary Clinton Addresses National Automobile Dealers Association Conventionby :

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

Also see:

Benghazi Bombshell: Help Denied – The Inside Job

c-110 1The 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.

C-110.

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…

c-110 2Benghazi.

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…

c-110 3AFRICOM Commander, General Carter Ham…“was not even aware there was a CIA annex in Benghazi at the time of the attacks.”

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.”

c-110 4Remember a couple of very important things here.

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.”

C-110 5AAThere 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???

c-110 6And 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.

c-110 7By 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…

Unless…

C-110 8AAASomeone DID know exactly how long al Qaeda would be on the attack.

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…

Speaks volumes.

Also see: State Department’s own guards attacked U.S. Benghazi mission by Aaron Klein at WND

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s “Islamophobia” Campaign against Freedom

Dr. Mark Durie

Dr. Mark Durie

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The “quite formidable” Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) “has really escaped the notice of a lot of foreign policy observers,” religious freedom scholar Nina Shea noted at a January 17, 2014, Hudson Institute panel.  To correct this deficiency, Shea moderated an important presentation on the OIC’s stealth jihad against freedom by her “old friend” Mark Durie, an Anglican theologian and human rights activist.

As Durie’s PowerPoint presentation available online noted, the 1969-founded OIC headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, contains 57 mostly Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”).  The second largest international organization after the United Nations (UN), the OIC is a “major global voting block” at the UN and unique in being the “only such organization devoted to advancing a religion.”  The OIC is “largely funded by Saudi Arabia,” Shea noted, having contributed $30 million to the 2008 budget, far greater than the next largest contribution of $3 million from Kuwait.

Ominously, the OIC has been “lobbying assiduously” since about 2000 against “Islamophobia,” Shea observed.  “Islamophobia” was analogous to “homophobia,” Durie’s PowerPoint elaborated, an analogy previously noted by Islamic sharia law expert Stephen Coughlin and analyzed by this author.  A “[n]arrow reading” of this “deep-seated and irrational fear about Islam or Muslims” would encompass only prejudices such as the “xenophobic aversion to Muslims” of some.

A “[b]road reading” by the OIC and others, though, condemns “all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam” as “irrational and manifestations of prejudice.”  “Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam,” the PowerPoint quoted from the OIC’s 2013 Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia.  “9/11 came as a long awaited opportunity,” the report specifies, “for the anti-Islam and anti-Muslim elements in the West to set in motion their well orchestrated plan to slander Islam and target Muslims by equating terror with Islam and Muslims.”  Such bigots were “just hanging out” and waiting for Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks, Durie mocked.

The OIC and its recently retired Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu assume that the “Islamic religion is under attack,” thereby posing an “atmosphere of threat to the world,” Durie stated.  Yet American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics in Durie’s PowerPoint belie this Islamic victimhood, with attacks upon Jews far outstripping those on Muslims in 2012 (674 to 130).  Western states in the past have also often aided their Muslim minorities and Muslim countries, such as when the British government donated land for the United Kingdom’s first mosque, London Central Mosque.

The “Islamophobia” campaign, moreover, manifests the distorted subordination of human rights to Islamic sharia law present throughout the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.  Therein rights such as free speech may not contradict the Koranic phrase “what is good” according to Islam.  Similar distorted sectarianism is evident in the juxtaposition of OIC documents on “Combating Islamophobia” internationally and OIC-supported UN resolutions such as 16/18 in the Human Rights Council advocating religious equality.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Also see: Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia (counterjihadreport.com)

46% Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016

clintonRasmussen Reports:

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.

Read more 

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:

Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia

oic conferenceHudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom:

(Very good Q&A begins at 34:00)

“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations. While the United States has formally recognized its work in the past – US ambassadors have observed its sessions and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired some of its meetings – American awareness of the organization remains scant.

In 2007, the OIC began issuing regular “observatory” reports on Islamophobia, and since 2009 has published monthly bulletins that cite primarily Western examples of Islamophobia.

Is Islamophobia a serious problem, or is the term itself an ideological cudgel designed to incite fear and criminalize dissent? Dr. Mark Durie discussed these and other basic questions related to the OIC’s efforts to ban Islamophobia. Click here for his PowerPoint.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor, theologian, author, and human rights activist. A fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, he is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at the Melbourne School of Theology, and the Director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea moderated this discussion.

For more videos of Mark Durie go here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL56A31DB2DE8D692D and http://vimeo.com/search?q=mark+durie

Progressive Ideologues Should Never Be Put In Charge Of National Security

hillary (1)

Graphic by Bosch Fawstin

Their philosophy blinds them to reality

State Department Renewed Benghazi Lease w/o Security Requirement

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…

1. Waiving the security requirement

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:

Testimony: Elements of Militia State Dept. Hired to Station Members Inside Benghazi Compound Were ‘Complicit’ in 9/11/12 Terrorist Attack

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:

Benghazi witness points finger at Clinton on lapses in consulate security

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?’

Defense Secretary: 1,600 Soldiers Died for a War Obama Didn’t Believe In

Obama+Announces+Appointments+Clinton+Gates+hekwG7Iy7GFl-450x277Front 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.

Also see:

The New York Times Destroys Obama

nytoSo 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

Related articles