Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

ISIS-fires-rockets-FlickrAmir-Farshad-Ebraham-640x480Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Nov. 30, 2015:

The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.

In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.

The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.

In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.

“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”

To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.

“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”

Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.

Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.

“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”

Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.

Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.

“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people — where we are going with this Republic of ours.”

“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”

The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.

Clinton was asked about the gun running operation when testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.

Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”

Members of the 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report included: then-House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then- Rep. Mike Rogers , Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger , then-Sen. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-Sen. Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnellSen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss .

Lopez is the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and the Canadian Meighen Institute.

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It

Clinton at cfrNational Review, by Fred Fleitz — November 30, 2015:

Has Hillary Clinton separated herself from President Obama by taking a tougher and more realistic position on the threat from ISIS? That’s what many in the news media are saying based on some of her recent foreign-policy statements, such as her remarks in a November 19 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria; an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond; and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three, and time is of the essence.

This portrayal of the ISIS threat sounds like an improvement over the awkward rhetoric used by President Obama to discuss what he insists on calling ISIL or Daesh, and his refusal to use words such as “jihad” and “jihadism.” But Hillary’s rhetorical improvements were offset by caveats indicating that she actually has not moved very far from the president and has a worldview that is just as incoherent.

For example, Clinton criticized “the obsession in some quarters [meaning Republicans] with a clash of civilizations.” Clinton also echoed Obama’s frequent claims that the United States is not at war with Islam when she said, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

Clinton’s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents — including many authorities of Islam — believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.

Clinton also apparently does not realize that the clash-of-civilizations concept is not a Republican talking point but a well-known theory developed by two giants in the history of the Middle East and political science, Drs. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead

This term, first used by Lewis in a 1990 Atlantic Monthly article and then by Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article, exactly describes sharia ideology. Believing that this ideology is a war being waged against the West by Islamic fundamentalists in retaliation for purported efforts to undermine Islam and the Muslim world through secularism and modernity, Lewis concluded that:

We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies of governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations — the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

Huntington discussed several coming clashes of civilizations in his Foreign Affairs article but highlighted a potential clash between the West and the Muslim world as the most serious. According to Huntington:

The centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent.

President Obama’s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups — including the Muslim Brotherhood — is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization.

Clinton’s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama’s erroneous view and that her reference to an “ideological movement of radical jihadism” is as meaningless as “violent extremism,” the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists.

Clinton’s statement, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists,” is similar to President Obama’s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism.

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama’s “99.9 percent” claim. Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent.

There also are disturbingly high levels of support for the global jihadist ideology among Muslims in the United States. According to a June 2015 online survey conducted by The Polling Company and sponsored by my organization, the Center for Security Policy, a majority (51 percent) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah” and nearly a quarter believe “it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” The survey also found that 25 percent agreed fully or in part that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

RELATED: Obama’s Increasingly Surreal War on ISIS

By claiming the United States is at war only with jihadists, Clinton is making the same mistake as President Obama by ignoring the sizeable number of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with them and their ideology. They are ignoring how this reality is a clash of civilizations and that the real war is an ideological one.

To win the war against the global jihad movement, the United States needs to combine military, diplomatic, and intelligence measures with aggressive efforts to challenge and discredit the jihadist ideology worldwide. This must include embracing and empowering Muslim moderates who want to reform Islam, such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sissi as well as Muslims and former Muslims who have been persecuted by jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It is outrageous that President Obama has never invited President Sissi, Dr. Jasser, or Ms. Hirsi Ali to the White House to discuss the threat from ISIS and the global jihad movement. Instead, he relies on counsel from American Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with connections to Hamas that has, according to Daniel Pipes, a “malign, terroristic quality.”

At the last Democratic presidential debate and in recent foreign-policy speeches, Clinton defended her decision not to use the term “radical Islam” because she does not want to offend Muslim societies or make it appear the United States is at war with Islam. This was the wrong answer, since defeating ISIS and the jihadist ideology requires risking offending some in the Muslim world by pressing for reform of Islam and promoting Muslim reformers.

Moreover, given that this is a problem within Islam, it’s absurd to avoid using terms that label it as such, a point Senator Marco Rubio made in this brilliant retort to Clinton:

That would be like saying we weren’t at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren’t violent themselves.

Repairing the damage done to international security and America’s global security interests by President Obama’s feckless “leading from behind” foreign policy will take a new president with leadership, vision, and an understanding of global threats. Defeating ISIS will require a new president who will acknowledge that ISIS is simply one manifestation of the larger problem we face from Islamic supremacism, a sharia-driven movement that is very much at war with Western civilization, and who will fight it on that basis.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statements about the ISIS threat fall far short of these requirements and suggest that, although Clinton wants to sound tough on how she would deal with ISIS, her approach would be just as dangerously ineffective as President Obama’s.

 — Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

Sam Sorbo: Co-Existence is Futile

coexist-640x480 (1)

Breitbart, by Sam Sorbo, Nov. 18, 2015:

The following is a monologue presented in the opening of The Sam Sorbo Show on November 16, 2015. To listen to the segment, click below.

Not 10 hours before the attacks in Paris that killed 129 people and left 352 injured, President Obama claimed he had “contained” ISIS.

Now his apologists are rushing in to defend his misinformed assertion with explanations that he was referring to ISIS’ geographical containment, that they aren’t gaining more ground in Syria. But I’m fed up with this word play. Geographically, they are bigger than ever before, having now advanced as far as FRANCE! Let me ask you this, you forked-tongued, logic-lacking sycophants. Would he repeat his  assertion – that ISIS is contained – today, after the attacks in Paris? NO!

We currently face two threats on our way of life in a country that has offered mankind the most technological advances and created the most prosperity the world has ever seen: Political correctness, or secularism, and Medieval Islamists.

Medieval Islam seeks to challenge us, violently. They don’t just disagree with self-governance and this country’s dedication to the God of Abraham and our Judeo-Christian morals. If they did, those insipid, moronic bumper stickers would be true, and we would all co-exist. For all you bozos out there driving around with those co-exist stickers, you can’t coexist with someone who wants you dead, has the capacity to ensure that, and remains convicted that you lack any rights whatsoever. You can only shoot back in self-preservation. Co-existence is not an option because the other sides reject it outright. And by the way, those victims in the theater and restaurants in France complied with the restrictive gun laws, and were unable to shoot back. Their right to co-exist was summarily terminated by those lunatic jihadis who instead chose co-non-existence.

Hillary Clinton, the leading democrat candidate for president, cannot even name the enemy, vaguely referring to “violent extremism,” and “people using their religion for purposes of power and oppression.”

This is a woman who lacks understanding, who seeks to co-exist. She insists that this isn’t “our war.” This is like the “lone wolf” argument that all things occur in vacuums and remain unrelated. Somehow, she (and many others) magically separate fundamentalist Islamist doctrine from Islam, in uneducated, petulant defiance of what the leading Islamic theologians tell us. The people who adhere to the fundamentalist doctrine of Islam are at war with us, meaning freedom and the Judeo-Christian principles on which the West was founded. France is just the most recent example of that.

Isn’t it ironic that George W. Bush put together a coalition of 48 countries to take to take the fight to Al Queda, and France wasn’t even among them? Remember, France wouldn’t let the US fly over her airspace! So… Why attack France? I’ll tell you why. The terrorists aren’t examining the non-believers’ efforts at co-existence. They are simply looking to kill Western values, and the most expedient way to do that is by killing all human beings who hold those values: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. And Freedom!

Those are the things these barbarians want to snuff out, and you’re standing in their way.

Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq, after his apology tour to the Middle East, as an appeasement move, to prove we were reasonable and non-interventionist. Remember the purple fingers in Iraq, when the people voted for their own government? Obama single-handedly destroyed their future. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He is paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

Consider how the world might be, had the US stayed the course in Iraq, had Obama negotiated the Status of Forces agreement. Did you hear Hillary blame George Bush for that at the debate? As if Obama was too inept to negotiate one himself! No. Obama wanted OUT of the Middle East, and these are the consequences.

This is a failure of leadership that cannot be laid at anyone’s feet but the current administration’s, including the former Secretary of State — “That was a mistake, I’m sorry about that, I take responsibility…” — who is now under investigation by the FBI for putting US security at risk. Hillary presided over the “Arab Spring,” sent Ambassador Stevens into danger and then forgot him, and was downright gleeful at the horrific, brutal execution of Gaddafi. “We came; we saw; he died!

But while Radical Islam is a threat to Democracy and the American Way, it is not the greatest threat. Sen. Bernie Sanders believes that Climate change, something as yet unproven by science, is the greatest threat to this country. He’s completely wrong, but willing to sacrifice the world’s most impoverished people on the altar of Climate Change. Limiting access to cheap fossil fuels will hurt them the most. He is secularism and political correctness in a nut shell. A nut shell — get it?

Terrorists and secularists can both be likened to the communists, Nazis, and socialists who came before them, because they both choose which lives are valuable and which are expendable, or even offensive. Those poor excuses for human beings so love themselves they seek to destroy anyone who isn’t completely aligned with them, and sometimes even those who are. Make no mistake, they represent love of self over God. They choose to believe they should have power over life and death, like Mao and Pol Pot and Bin Ladin. But here in the West, for us to be against slavery and killing is to support a morality that condemns those things, and that is a morality unique to the Judeo-Christian God.

Political correctness, practiced by secularists, is our gravest potential undoing. If you cannot identify the enemy, and you may not criticize an enemy who by any account wants you dead, and you pointlessly struggle to co-exist with said enemy while they chant “Death to America,” and you argue for supplying that enemy with government subsidies and a place to live within your own borders, and with billions of dollars as in Iran; If you sacrifice yourself for your enemy because political correctness prevents you from doing otherwise for fear of reprisals from your politicians, the media, activist judges, and even the IRS, the enemy is no longer some fanatical guy with a knife or a gun. The enemy is your own inability to choose good over evil.

Political correctness has nearly completely eroded our discernment, and that is the greatest threat to America. Because, more than anything else, America is an idea, founded in the truth of Nature’s God, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all human beings are created equal, but lack equal outcomes. Political correctness is the end of that, because it insists on equal outcomes, in defiance of nature’s God. Political correctness is death to truth, defeat of America, and destruction to the western world.

Ben Carson was castigated for stating that he would not favor a Muslim to become president of the US. That is political correctness preventing us from understanding the very core of Islam, which is a political, religious and legal movement that stands in direct opposition to our Constitution. President Obama wants felons to have a better chance to obtain government jobs. That’s political correctness, surrendering our self-governance to proven criminals, in defiance of our Constitution. “Safe Spaces” and “Free Speech Zones” on College Campuses so delicate brain-washed students won’t feel insulted or threatened by ideas, or face the one thing they pretend to desire most: diversity, because they cannot tolerate diversity of thought. That’s political correctness on the level of a hallucinogenic.

Think about this: Everywhere there is Islamic rule, other religions have been virtually wiped out. Northern Africa used to be predominantly Christian. Not anymore. What’s the one thing the Muslim world cannot agree to? The existence of Israel. There is no “co-exist” in a Muslim-majority country. “Co-exist” is a fantasy of the illiterate and uninformed, and a contrivance to mislead the useful idiots of today.

Eisenhower said, “Democracy is nothing in the world but a spiritual conviction, a conviction that each of us is enormously valuable, because of a certain standing before our own God.” The Christian believes in equality and freedom because we are created in the image of God. This is why our legacy is the fight for freedom for all. Secularism believes in self above all, and supports only self-serving ends. Islam practices apartheid, slavery, and extermination against non-believers and women.

If you believe in equality and freedom, then you have inherited some of the moral capital of our great nation. A bill is coming due. I just hope we haven’t squandered too much of our inheritance on political correctness to pay it.

Hillary Clinton, Arms Dealer


The dirty deals that put illegal arms shipments into the hands of Libyan jihadists.

Frontpage, by Arnold Ahlert, Nov. 9, 2015:

In a scathing column Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano makes the convincing case that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to Libya in a direction violation of the U.N. arms embargo, and then lied about it under oath during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Oct. 22.

“To pursue her goal of a ‘democratic’ government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government,” Napolitano explains. “So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming—unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.”

Memos recovered from the incinerated compound in Benghazi give great weight to the assertion. The documents were obtained by the Washington Times and they reveal the American diplomats stationed there were keeping track of numerous potential U.S.-sanctioned weapons shipments aimed at arming our allies, “one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government,” the paper reports.

A file marked “arms deal” reveals that one of those shipments was supposed to be sent by Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, CA, one of many arms sellers that work with U.S. intelligence. The file contained an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing, and Dolarian confirmed one of the licensing requests the State Department initially approved in 2011 was an authorization to send weapons to Libya via Kuwait. The certificate was inexplicably revoked before Dolarian could ship rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition originally manufactured by former Soviet-bloc nations in Eastern Europe.

“Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya,” one of the company’s attorneys said in a statement issued to the Times. “The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter. As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, federal court documents obtained by Fox News reveal arms sales to Libyan rebels that occurred during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State were ultimately transacted. “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council,” stated career CIA officer David Manners in a sworn declaration to the District Court of Arizona on May 5, 2015.

Manners’ testimony was part of a grand jury investigation into American defense contractor Marc Turi and his company Turi Defense Group, another entity licensed by State to sell and transport weapons worldwide. The investigation was focused on both the source and user of weapons defined in court documents as “end user” or “end use”  that were entering Libya in 2011 while Qaddafi’s regime was collapsing–but before any Libyan opposition groups were formally recognized by the United States.

Turi illuminated what occurred in the midst of that chaos, including the reality that poor oversight of the operation allowed America’s enemies to obtain weapons. “When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way,”  Turi said. “The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria.”

Turi admitted to Fox he had criminal past that included stealing a computer, his roommate’s car, and writing several bad checks including one for $100,000 dollars. They verified his arrest, conviction and a stint in an Arizona jail, all of which seemingly conflict with what Fox characterizes as the “painstaking compliance” required to get the “necessary approvals set by strict US government regulations” to become a licensed arms contractor.

Turi was one cog in a rather large machine of State Department-licensed contractors awarded a record number of contract during Clinton’s tenure. “More than 86-thousand licenses with a value of $44.3 billion dollars were granted in 2011… a surge of more than $10 billion dollars from the previous year,” the news site reports.

Turi, who provided documents to Fox revealing exchanges with officials inside and outside the government, including high level members of Congress, the military, and State Department employees, explains he was part of a “zero footprint” supply chain whereby one Arab nation would supply another. “If you want to  limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,” Turi explained. “The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do.” Turi claims he never sent weapons to Qatar and that such transactions are handled by the government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs headed by Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro, who oversaw State’s export control process.

Read more

State Dept Watch Logs Show Hillary, Obama MIA During Benghazi Attack


Townhall, by Jim Hanson, Nov. 9, 2015:

Hillary Clinton failed to provide proper security to the US Consular facility in Benghazi, Libya before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 and she failed to secure any rescue operations for the four Americans who eventually died there. Recentlyreleased watch logs from the State Department operations center show she made no official inquiries from 10:30 p.m. that night through 7:15 a.m. the following morning. That is a long time to be missing when a U.S. diplomatic facility is under attack.

Why was no rescue effort mounted? That is the question that has been driving good people crazy since this happened. Every American manning a post anywhere on this entire planet has a right to believe the cavalry will ride to their rescue, or at least be launched toward them. That didn’t happen in this case and the blame lies with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama directly. The horrifying thing is official government records show no involvement from either one after an initial consultation.

Hillary had an obligation to fight for all the support she could get for her people once she heard they were under attack. The State Department watch logs should be full of notations like, “Secretary connected w/ DoD ref lack of relief forces” and “Secretary connected w/ POTUS ref Benghazi rescue” but instead there is blank space. She could not order the military to act, but she could damn sure have been lighting them up for failing to do so. That is leadership and she couldn’t even be bothered to answer that 3 a.m. call.

President Obama, however, could order the military to act and if you listen to the apologists he did so through Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The officer responsible for Libya was AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and he confirmed that Secretary Panetta gave him orders.

“The Secretary of Defense gave me clear direction at the outset, you know, to deploy forces again in anticipation that the first mission was a potential hostage rescue of the U.S. Ambassador, recovering evacuation of the wounded, and other persons from Benghazi.”

But on February 7th, 2013, when Sec. Panetta testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee he had this exchange:

“Senator Lindsey Graham: My question is, did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya, before the attack ended?

Secretary Leon Panetta: No, because the attack ended before they could get off the ground.”

This makes no sense since the attack lasted more than eight hours and the order to deploy forces was given not long after it began. Are we to believe that no US forces anywhere could have been sent toward the sound of gunfire? And it doesn’t matter if they could have gotten there in time, because no one knew how long this situation would last. The one thing you cannot recover is time, so the first thing to do is get people moving toward the fight. And yet, that is the one thing that did not happen.

Let’s try to reconcile that. There are a lot of things that have to happen for a military unit to respond to an emergency in a foreign land. The initial order from Panetta was to deploy forces in anticipation of a mission to rescue the folks in Benghazi. In his testimony Gen. Ham confirmed that Sec. Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave him operational control and authority to employ the units required. They were alerted and staged but never went wheels up en route to Libya.

We have heard there was no transport available or they weren’t ready until the battle was over, but if the closest units couldn’t launch, the next closest should have. The cavalry was called, but never sent out the gates to ride to the rescue. Why? If he really was told to do what was necessary to save our people, Gen. Ham would have had some unit from somewhere moving. So either he didn’t want to do that, or was not authorized to do more than alert and stage the units.

Does anyone really believe that President Obama would have left the decision to launch an armed attack into a foreign country to a lone General? He held six months worth of meetings before making the gutsy call to approve a raid on bin Laden.

Gen. Ham didn’t launch those units toward Libya because he needed approval from up the food chain to do so. That order never came.

It is the dog than didn’t bark. Hillary made no strident calls for someone, anyone to rescue her people and Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned. Then, while they both slept, our people in Benghazi died.

Pete Hoekstra at The Heritage Foundation discussing his new book ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya’

architects-of-disasterIPT, by Pete Hoekstra
The Heritage Foundation
November 2, 2015

In his new book, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra offers a thorough analysis of how a disastrous foreign policy led to Libya becoming a failed state on the shores of the Mediterranean.

Now serving as the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Hoekstra details how America’s tragic intervention in the North African country turned an island of relative stability into a nexus of radical Islamist terrorist training, ideology, and weapons transfers; sowed the seeds of ISIS in Syria and Iraq; and led to the humanitarian crisis in Europe.

Hoekstra reflects on the truth behind former Secretary of State Clinton’s shifting claims before the House Select Committee on Benghazi about whether a spontaneous anti-Muslim video or well-coordinated al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. facility. Drawing upon insider sources and a depth of experience, Hoekstra offers a penetrating look at how a naïve foreign policy resulted in catastrophe.

Clinton’s Infamous Legacy


“Hillary Clinton is a serial liar.” – Michael Ingmire, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith’s uncle (October 22nd 2015)

by Justin O. Smith:

The Benghazi Committee hearing on October 22, 2015 spotlighted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s continued predilection to prevaricate and obfuscate and obstruct the truth on anything, especially regarding the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi. Between Clinton’s lies and Obama’s facilitation of the cover-up and top Democrats’ willingness to place their imprimatur on gross negligence, incompetence and treason, Americans are still far away from receiving the full, unadulterated truth on this horrible and despicable episode of the Obama/Clinton Middle East Doctrine; however, from all the available evidence, Hillary Clinton is damned and unfit for any public office, much less the Office of the President.

Three years after the attacks on our U.S. Consulate and hundreds of FOIA requests later, Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has only just now (Oct 20th) received approximately 1400 pages of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ emails. These emails verify,among other things, Clinton knew for a fact and within minutes that a terror attack was unfolding, not a “spontaneous protest.” Also bearing witness against Clinton, over 600 emails from Ambassador Stevens requesting added security were ignored and supposedly never reached Clinton’s desk, according to Clinton’s own highly questionable testimony.

A good bit of acrimony arose during the hearing over the pertinence of Clinton’s email communications with Sydney Blumenthal, a long time friend, employee and paid consultant for the Clinton Foundation, to which Rep. Trey Gowdy answered: “It’s relevant because our Ambassador [Stevens] was asked to read and respond to Sydney Blumenthal’s drivel. And yet, there was not a single response to Ambassador Stevens regarding his multiple requests for added security.”

However, when Uma Abedin emailed Clinton that the Libyan people were in dire need of food, milk, gasoline and diesel fuel, Clinton answered her within four minutes.

In incredibly ill-advised fashion, Clinton followed Blumenthal’s advice on Libya, even though he knew nothing about Libya. She did so for financial gain that Blumenthal suggested would arrive, if she helped retired Lt General Grange, the Osprey Group, a CIA agent and other partners gain entry into the Libyan economy; and, she did so in order to take credit for Blumenthal’s determination that the fall of Gaddafi would serve as a model for removing Middle Eastern dictators, blind to the bulwark that these Baathist dictators, like Saadam Hussein and Bashar Assad, provided secularists, Christians and other religious minorities against the islamofascists.

Even though Blumenthal had been refused a position at the State Department by Obama’s aides, his direct line to Hillary Clinton gave him an inordinate amount of influence that circumvented proper procedures for assessing “intelligence”, and this bled into President Obama’s policy decisions. Not only did Clinton strongly recommend military action in Libya to Obama, she also promoted regime change at NATO and played a key role in holding the entire coalition of Western nations together, according to one close advisor.

Significantly, it is apparent from emails sent to Clinton and three members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on March 18, 2011 at 7:27 EST, that Saif Gaddafi, Muammar’s son, sought a face-to-face meeting or a Skype/ teleconference in order to arrive at a peaceful solution. Clinton instructed Lt. Gen. Charles Jacoby, who was directing plans for the coalition and NATO, not to take any calls from Saif; the following day U.S. airstrikes began on Libya.

On March 11, 2011, the ‘Washington Post’ ran an op-ed by Clinton’s “old friend”, retired General Wesley Clark that warned against the Libyan intervention. Four days later, the ‘Ottawa Citizen’ published the Canadian report submitted to NATO that stated Gaddafi’s removal would create a long-term civil war, but Clinton ignored all warnings.

In the days that followed, Muammar Gaddafi was killed, and rather than a new democratic Libyan state led by “moderates”, a new Islamic hell-hole emerged. AFRICOM issued 4500 pages of intelligence between January 2012 and Sept 11, 2012 that described the increase in terrorist activity. A Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012 indicated that weapons from Libya’s military stockpile – rifles, RPGs, 125mm and 155mm howitzer ammo – were moving from the port of Benghazi to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria and into the hands of Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI, the main forces behind the insurgency in Syria.

In the District Court of Arizona on May 5th 2015, experienced CIA officer David Manners offered this sworn statement: “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.”

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. illegally armed the islamofascists of Libya and Syria (Fox News), as shown in federal court documents from May 5th 2015, by awarding contracts approaching $300 million to defense contractors, like Marc Turi, in March 2011, for the purpose of arming the Libyan Transitional National Council and the Libyan rebels, who were not formally recognized at the time. This same action makes both Clinton and Pres. Obama culpable in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, since these same weapons were used by these same Libyan “rebels”/ islamofascists approximately eighteen months later: Both Clinton and Obama should be behind bars for treason.

Clinton stated this past Thursday – Oct. 22nd – that “there was no credible, actionable threat described to our compound and our diplomatic group”, which is inaccurate and simply false. On June 10th 2011, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, emailed information of a “credible threat … against the hotel that our [diplomatic] team is using.” Chris Stevens had also requested more security for this same hotel two months before the Sullivan communique.

Seven previous Congressional investigations have failed to interview a single person who was actually on the ground at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 __ no Diplomatic Security Command Center personnel and no CIA agents or paid operatives. So, America has witnessed seven incomplete investigations, hindered by the Obama administration’s slow response to FOIA requests, which Chairman Gowdy hopes to rectify and complete through an additional twenty witnesses’ testimony.

“Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty served this country with honor. It is important to learn how these four men died … We owe them and ourselves the truth about Benghazi and Libya … There is no statute of limitations on the truth.” – Rep. Trey Gowdy

Questions linger, such as, what was happening in Libya that required a diplomatic presence despite the escalating violence?

Why were our military contractors and our diplomatic team left to defend themselves for approximately nine hours, when the 173rd Airborne Infantry was in Italy, only two hours away by C-130?

Obama and Hillary Clinton created the situation that has turned Libya and Syria into mass graves, claiming four of America’s finest early on. With characters devoid of honor and integrity, these two have left America with a memory of a despicable and treacherous act of terrorism, yet to see any retribution extracted. They leave a legacy of infamy and failure in the wake of Benghazi: A day of reckoning is certainly on its way for both, and Clinton’s reckoning should include prison, not the U.S. Presidency.


Hillary’s Libya Post-War Plan Was ‘Play It by Ear,’ Gates Says

Daily Beast, by Nancy A. Youssef, Oct. 20, 2015:
She still defends the invasion as ‘smart power at its best.’ But war backers like Clinton had no plan for securing the country, says ex-Pentagon chief Bob Gates.
When Hillary Clinton appears before Congress’s special committee on Benghazi Thursday, she’ll likely be asked all the wrong questions.Clinton will be peppered with queries about why she kept a private email server, what caused the 2012 attacks on the U.S. special consulate in Benghazi, and how come U.S. forces didn’t respond more quickly to the strikes. But the really important issues—the questions longstanding followers of the U.S. and NATO intervention want answered—are: Why did Hillary Clinton push for strikes that contributed to the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? And why didn’t the Obama administration bother to plan for the all-too-predictable chaos that came next?In 2011, as the United States considered intervention, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those who pushed for intervention—without resolving just how Libya would be governed after Gaddafi, according to a senior defense official who was part of the decision-making process. Obama advisers like Samantha Power and Susan Rice also made the case alongside Clinton. They argued the U.S. had a moral obligation to save lives in Benghazi facing a threatened genocide by Libyan dictator Gaddafi. The only strategy spelled out publicly was that the Europeans’ newly formed “Libyan Transitional Council” would be at the forefront of the effort. Washington was “leading from behind,” to use a famous phrase from the era.

As then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who opposed the U.S. intervention, frustratingly explained to The Daily Beast: “We were playing it by ear.”

And the consequences of that improvisation are still being felt today. The country is an epicenter of the refugee crisis sweeping the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. Part of Libya is under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. And the Russians use the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya to justify their own military incursions in places like Syria.

But to Clinton, Libya was—and still remains—a major achievement. “We came, we saw, he died,” she crowed in October 2011. “Smart power at its best” is how Clinton described it during the most recent Democratic debate.

Clinton campaign aides note that she spent months working with the Libyan parliament to craft a successful state in both the run-up to American intervention and afterward, all while honoring a Libyan request for limited Western intervention. Above all else, the aides stress, the United States had a moral obligation to act in Libya.

“The alternative was so bleak, we simply had to take action,” one aide to the Clinton campaign told The Daily Beast.

President Obama, however, didn’t see things quite that way. He was reportedly reluctant about the operation—until Clinton, Rice, and Power swayed him, over Gates’s objections. “Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD [Department of Defense] resources to achieve what’s essentially the State Department’s objective,” Steve Clemons, then an analyst with the administration-friendly New America Foundation, told Foreign Policy at the time.

According to Gates, Obama told his advisers that he was 51/49 in favor of intervening. The ratio is telling. According to the New York Times Magazine, Obama was 55/45 about conducting the May 2011 raid that eventually killed Osama bin Laden.

And when Obama finally agreed to the operation, he stressed “Operation Odyssey Dawn” would be a limited effort to protect civilians from a possible genocide by the Libyan government. Removing Gaddafi was the last thing he wanted to do.

“If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air,” Obama said in March of 2011. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq… [R]egime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

But repetition is exactly what happened. Attacks spread from the eastern city of Benghazi, where civilians were endangered, to the Libyan capital of Tripoli, 635 miles away. No one ever explained why the change in goal or who might succeed Gaddafi afterward.

During revolutionary-era Libya, no one in the upper ranks of the U.S. government seriously considered whether the newly created Transitional National Council, a rival government in rebel-held areas like Benghazi, could govern the oil-rich state. Nor did Clinton or top leaders ask about unintended consequences of an air campaign, especially if it successfully ended Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, according to the senior defense official who was part of the conversation at the time. And as the country was falling apart, it seems no one in the higher reaches of Clinton’s department took note. If they did, they did not take action.

As secretary of state, it was Clinton’s job to ask questions about the state of Libya, both before the intervention and after. She was secretary when the intervention began—and when the U.S. presence in Benghazi ended with a deadly attack. And while she held talks in the early months after Gaddafi’s death, Libya became largely a public afterthought. In the email caches released so far from her personal account, former adviser Sidney Blumenthal repeatedly kept Libya before Clinton, sharing his views of the situation, at the time contradicting the diplomats working for Clinton. Blumenthal, a longtime adviser to both Clinton and President Clinton, was not an expert on the region.

Read more

Also see:

During the so-called Arab Spring, new governments rose to power in Libya and Egypt with support from the U.S. But, instead of a new era of democracy, the result has been a disastrous expansion of Islamic extremist terrorism. Former head of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Pete Hoekstra spoke about his new book focusing on the topic with Full Measure.

The “Stand Up” Order That Never Happened in Benghazi


Center for Security Policy, by Jim Hanson, Oct. 21, 2015:

Before Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to spout her first lie about Benghazi to the Select Committee, she is already guilty of gross dereliction of duty for two major failures: first, she failed to respond to repeated requests for security from our Ambassador in Libya and second, once an entirely predictable assault occurred, she failed to send any assistance to protect Americans in harm’s way.

Repeatedly, the media and Clinton’s cheerleaders—redundant, I know—try to pass off the former Secretary’s culpability by emphasizing that, the administration did not issue a stand down order to troops attempting to respond to the attack.

But the absence of a stand-down order shows that they’re looking at this completely backwards. In a crisis situation, like an attack on a US Consulate, the first thing you do is find all of the nearest military units and you tell them to pack and launch.

That would be a stand up order and, due to gross negligence, it was never issued for the hours-long duration of the attack.

Based on evidence revealed by investigations so far, not a single US asset was alerted or even told to prepare—let alone told to move toward the sound of gunfire. And let’s be clear, there were multiple units available that could have gotten there before the end of the fight and possibly in time to save the lives of Ambassador Stevens and the others.

There were Special Ops troops in country who were not sent. There was the 10th Special Forces Group door-kickers, a mere hours away in Croatia. In this situation, any armed US military presence would have been appropriate to send. At a bare minimum, they could have done overflights by US aircraft to give the attackers the idea they were about to get some hellfire raining down on them. But the phone never rang at any of those units.

That is a command failure that Hillary owns as the State Department’s top executive. There should have been flurries of communications going to anyone she thought could possibly assist, but there is no record of her asking anyone for any help at all for the people she put in harm’s way. If she’d done her duty, she would be showering the Benghazi Committee with copies of all these requests. But there weren’t any.

She should have been relieved for cause as soon as this was determined. But her boss, President Obama, seems to have been even more conspicuously absent. There are no records of him talking to anyone about anything, no phone calls, no messages. He deserves the same level of scrutiny but, thus far, a compliant media has allowed him to escape the consequences of his inaction.

Part of the problem may have been the nature of the actions happening in Benghazi. They were related to gathering weapons from the now defunct Qaddafi regime and shipping them off to the friendly and helpful rebels in Syria. It is one thing to divert attention from these secret (if completely misguided) types of covert operations. But that is completely different from failing to take a single step to save the US personnel you sent on that mission when the enemy is lobbing mortar rounds into their compound. That is disgraceful and unforgivable.

So she is guilty on both counts of gross dereliction of duty: one for failing to give the Ambassador the security he asked for and so obviously needed, and second for abandoning our people on the field of battle. She left them undefended and failed to call for a stand up order to rescue them. Nothing she says changes those two indisputable facts. Those alone render her absolutely unfit to serve as president, let alone as Commander in Chief of our military.

Obama’s Putin Envy–Baah Byye Hillary?

20151019_barack_obama_joe_biden_hillary_clintonFSM EXCLUSIVE by Bill Siegel, October 19, 2015:

In Steve Kroft’s recent “60 Minutes” interview, President Barack Obama commented upon presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama, feigning little concern, stated that Clinton simply made a “mistake,” has acknowledged it, and perhaps could have handled her original decision to use her own server and address better and disclose it more quickly.  When asked about Vice President Joe Biden’s possible entry into the race, Obama said he was “gonna let Joe make that decision.”

The elite media has bolstered this seemingly innocuous approach of Obama’s; he is graciously leaving the office and wants the next election to handle itself. He postures himself as one above Democrat intramural squabbles who will not pick favorites. This is fully in line with the media’s eight year collusive programming designed to insulate Obama from even minimal exposure including its stint in supporting Obama as, at worst, somewhat incompetent or naïve and unpracticed. Never can the media accept, much less acknowledge, any sinister intent on Obama’s part. Still, even this craftily hypnotic media cannot prevent sobering visions from occasionally slipping into our focus, if even for a brief moment before we realize how self-destructive Obama’s two elections have been and anxiously reach back for the media’s comforting delusions. Such is particularly the case with the “Enter Joe Biden?” drama which, perhaps, is hiding more devious maneuvering.

Obama has the election machinery and tools to best determine our next president. His ground game is in top active shape. His coterie of community organizers is well practiced in packing important localities with “extra” votes. His immigration, refugee resettlement, and prisoner release strategies, especially when coupled with government assistance programs, will help achieve an electoral, if not ballot box, bonanza.

Notably, he has withheld transferring this package of goodies to the party and specifically to its former shoe-in candidate, Clinton. It would seem likely he has dangled it in front of her while relishing her deprivation.

Enter the email scandal. Having the feel, if not the markings, of being leaked by Team Obama (including his personal “cleaner,” Valerie Jarrett), pressure is being methodically applied to Clinton in true “Three Stooges” fashion: step by step, inch by inch. She or her husband has reportedly asked that Obama “call off the dogs” but our own supreme leader sadistically bathes in the pleasure of each additional turn of the screw. He knows what she has done and holds all the cards. It’s all over but the crying.

Obama certainly wants to continue his march to fundamentally transform not just America but the world, but that nasty constitutional imposition of term limits has gotten in his way. He also needs to protect his hide with a successor who will not investigate or pursue what, if fully revealed, could be a trail of outright treason. He needs a stand-in, someone he can virtually control. Obama’s tyrannical heart, rhetorical skill and utterances aside, demands insatiable control. While the media imagines Obama focused on building a legacy for himself as peacemaker, one who took America out of war and one who helped make this Union a little more perfect, Obama’s true legacy goals lie with something much more grandiose, dark, and oppressive.

This does not take Charles Krauthammer’s psychiatric skills to diagnose. Obama’s frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin indicates what the classic Freudian manuals describe as a deep and overpowering psychological compulsion: Putin Envy.

Enter Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s placeholder; his Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev filled in for Putin when Putin elected not to fight Russia’s own presidential term limit. Yet, as inadvertently revealed in Obama’s miked up statement to Medvedev to “tell Vladimir…” Putin always held the cards and Obama was to kiss his hand. Obama watched the artistry Putin exhibited in holding onto power past his term in Russia and has craved to replicate it here at home. (Perhaps Obama’s flight from the Middle East and softness on Putin’s grab of Crimea and Ukraine is precisely what he needed “more flexibility” to help facilitate on Putin’s behalf after the 2012 election.)

Biden is the perfect Medvedev. The gaffe-prone slap-happy goofster is ill suited for the job he twice before sought and lost. He is, however, fully able to act the role. From inside, he has witnessed Obama execute power far beyond the imagination of any Democrat, including fellow megalomaniac Hillary Clinton. And while Democrats have made a caricature out of former President Richard Nixon’s wrongdoings, they amount to a hill of beans when compared to those of both Obama and Clinton. And Biden was there.

One sniffs in this election dance the simple understanding that Obama will put his full electoral heft behind Biden in exchange for both Biden’s puppetry and agreement to close down any possible exposure of Obama’s own wrongdoings. It is risky to question Obama’s abilities on this front; just consider the hint of blackmail in the behaviors of Chief Justice John Roberts, Speaker John Boehner, General David Petraeus, Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Bob Menendez and others who have dared to oppose the Godfather. Barack Soprano is good.

On the surface Obama might have considered at one point making this same deal with Clinton but the animosity between the two families appears irreversible. Clinton is no one’s patsy. Obama and Clinton, each a scorpion and poseur, likely project upon and see within the other the ruthless untrustworthiness, deceit, and appetites for overwhelming control and adulation they both embody themselves. No deal could ever be done there. Meanwhile, Obama will feign impartiality if not fatherly protection of and support for Clinton, for example, in asserting prematurely that her classified emails did not jeopardize national security – a comment the White House quickly walked back.

Instead, Obama is playing for the deal he can extract from her. Ultimately he can cut off the Justice Department’s pursuit of her in exchange for her silence. Alternatively, if Clinton fails to fold early enough, Obama can always make a last minute deal to pardon her. Given the ease with which he traded top Taliban commanders for alleged traitor, Bowe Bergdahl, and the rumors he will likely pardon original Twin Towers bombing mastermind, the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, he can certainly free Clinton. After all, she is a national treasure, at least in her own mind.

Obama and Biden have known this for quite some time. Biden was curiously brought to stand next to Obama as he announced his “historic” Iran deal in the Rose Garden. Biden had little to do with the deal, yet, being Biden, he floated in and out of the televised picture as if he was performing a “Saturday Night Live” spoof on himself.

More revealing, while Biden’s loss of his son is tragic, using the occasion for his own political propulsion makes a different but an even more tragic statement. Assuming that Beau Biden truly made a deathbed request of his father to run a la Adrian in the “Rocky” films, only the disrespectful would release the story if he were not fully prepared to run for office. Simply put, one does not let that be a matter for public reflection, utilizing the story for all of its sympathetic value, if one does not fully intend to proceed.  The proper response would have been to keep that tale, if true, private and, should he truly decide subsequently to run, utilize it upon announcement. Instead, despite its true tragedy and genuine heartbreak, the story became the media’s “Mourning Joe” show.

All of the rest, all that we witness in the slow cooking of Clinton while she maddeningly tries to retain whatever semblance of her public façade, is kabuki. Each time Clinton advances her candidacy, such as with her recent successful debate performance, Obama and crew sabotage her with leaks of the FBI closing in, more evidence of wrongdoing discovered, or Biden getting more prepared to enter the race. Obama will keep turning the screws and at some point she will cave and make her deal with the devil. Baah-Byye. Then, shame on us if we keep our heads buried under elite media babble and elect Biden (or we might say, re-elect Obama).

Enough? Too discomforting, ridiculous, conspiracy-esque?  Especially following Clinton’s Las Vegas debate performance where the “smart money” argues there no longer is room for Biden? Possibly; it is only one theory. Perhaps Obama is simply hedging his bets or looking for the Clinton investigation to finally absolve her of any wrongdoing before he gives her his full support. Perhaps Biden walks away. We will know much soon enough. Still, don’t underestimate the Putin Envy and wizardry of Obama who has behind his curtain Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If she in any way resembles her predecessor, Obama enforcer Eric Holder, we will likely see her Justice Department marshaled vigorously in Obama compliant fashion behind the conclusions and recommendations of the FBI investigation.

And now back to our regularly scheduled media programming to keep us lost in delusion.  Obama: This is the most transparent administration in history. Clinton: I am the most transparent candidate. Obama: Over time the community of nations will get rid of ISIL. Democrats:  Republicans hate women and are against immigration (not just illegal immigration). Obama: Putin is weak and shows no leadership while America is safer since I have been president. Tony Blair: ISIS is a perversion of the peaceful Islamic religion.  Obama: We will degrade and destroy ISIL. Commentators: Obama is simply being out-negotiated by Iran, his intentions are pure and good. Other commentators: there is such a thing as a “moderate opposition.” Josh Earnest: We are close to full employment levels. Obama: We will investigate the IRS, not a smidgeon of corruption there. Obama: Islam has always been part of America, America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Obama: We leave Iraq a success. Obama: The Iran deal is the best option available and guarantees Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. Sanders: The American people are sick and tired of hearing about Clinton’s emails… Commercial pause….

Bill Siegel is the author of The Control Factor- Our Struggle to See the True Threat published by Hamilton Books.

Also see:


Hillary Clinton: Post-Qaddafi Libya Is ‘Smart Power At Its Best’

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Oct/ 14, 2015:

During the course of the Democratic Party debate on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton was asked to defend her disastrous intervention in Libya. In response, Clinton hailed Libya as “smart power at its best,” capturing a delusion that appears to be very common in the current iteration of her Party: the belief that magical “coalitions” of good guys can be whistled into existence to handle foreign-policy crises.

If such a belief had any grounding in reality – and it doesn’t – Hillary Clinton has proven herself an exceptionally poor choice to be America’s Whistler-in-Chief.

Clinton’s remarks on Libya, from the Washington Post’s transcript, began as follows:

Well, let’s remember what was going on. We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, “We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi.”

Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this. We will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya. And I’ll say this for the Libyan people…

There is no shortage of murderous dictators with blood on their hands in the world. Whether Qaddafi was poised to carry out a “mass genocide” is a matter of considerable debate, not the open-and-shut case for intervention Clinton presents it as. “Killing a large number of your insurgent citizens” is not the definition of “genocide,” no matter how reprehensible it might be, or how richly an evil dictator deserves to be deposed.

The Democratic Party has been driven so utterly around the bend by its Bush-hating rhetoric, and its determination to score political points by losing the Iraq War, that it thinks the presence of American boots on the ground is the sole metric of military success. Clinton’s definition of “smart power at its best” is the United States launching a far more unilateral, unwise, and poorly-conducted war than Iraq, because Europeans pushed Clinton into it, and then Clinton badgered President Obama until he agreed.

Comparisons between Libya and Iraq are silly. Libya is much, much worse than Iraq, from inception to its current disastrous state. Unlike George Bush, President Obama did not secure congressional approval.  The Iraq intelligence on WMD may have been substantially mistaken – although, contrary to Democrat mythology, it most certainly was not entirely mistaken, as Saddam did indeed have WMD stocks – but that intelligence was sincere. Professional analysts in multiple nations believed it with a high level of confidence.

President Obama and Clinton dithered too long and missed the best moment to strike, if they were truly inclined to do so. By waiting until Qaddafi recovered from early defeats and drove his rebels back to the verge of slaughter, they weakened Libya and made it easier prey for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the other bands of savages currently fighting for turf.

They worked hard to distract the American people from seeing the grisly fruits of their labors, which is one of the reasons the consulate in Benghazi was so disgracefully unprepared for a terrorist attack on Clinton’s watch – and that, in turn, is why she lied extravagantly about the nature of that terrorist attack during the 2012 election.  Then she worked overtime concealing her dereliction of duty and thwarting congressional oversight, which is why the Benghazi investigation she keeps complaining about is still in progress.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked Clinton about those deaths in Benghazi, although he sadly missed the opportunity to challenge her to name the four dead men. Her response:

But let — I’ll get to that. But I think it’s important, since I understand Senator Webb’s very strong feelings about this, to explain where we were then and to point out that I think President Obama made the right decision at the time.

And the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed.

But unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk.

Libya’s “free election” vote for “moderates” in the blossoming of the “Arab Spring” means absolutely nothing. The country is run by warlords and terror gangs, thanks to Clinton and Obama’s blunders. The “moderate” government can’t even sit in the capital of Tripoli, because a different gang controls that city. Clinton’s rival Jim Webb touched on this point after her remarks by saying, “Try to get to the Tripoli airport today. You can’t do it.”

The Arab Spring was no flowering of democracy – it was anarchy unleashed, followed by takeovers from organized Islamist thugs like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our choice is not between getting ambassadors killed, and never sending them anyplace dangerous. Hillary Clinton oversaw the first death of an American ambassador in decades. Chris Stevens died because of her failures, not because he rolled the dice by going somewhere dangerous and came up snake eyes. He was sent into a terrorist hot zone with nonexistent protection, in stubborn defiance of several violent outbreaks in the area, with absolutely no “Plan B” to rescue him if anything went wrong. Brave men defied instructions and raced to his side, dying in battle against a terrorist enemy whose identity Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lied about copiously to conceal for as long as possible.

The media action line Wednesday morning was that Clinton “won” the debate and firmed up her position as a front-running candidate. In truth, her competitors scored some points against her on Libya, including Webb pointing out her procedural errors: “We had no treaties at risk. We had no Americans at risk. There was no threat of attack or imminent attack. There is plenty of time for a president to come to the Congress and request authority to use military force in that situation.”

And even Martin O’Malley made a solid point about how badly Clinton and Obama fumbled the pre-war intelligence: “I think there’s lessons to be learned from Benghazi. And those lessons are that we need to do a much better job as a nation of having human intelligence on the ground so that we know who the emerging next generation leaders are that are coming up to replace a dictator when his time on this planet ends.”

None of that will matter much in the Democrat primary, because O’Malley is not a plausible candidate, while Webb is a plausible candidate for the Republican Party. But sharp Republican candidates should be able to see plenty of opportunities to hit Clinton hard on Libya, working from her ridiculous responses on Tuesday night. They should also clearly see that the debate moderators will not ask those questions for them.

If Libya was “smart power at its best,” we really don’t want to see what smart power at its worst looks like.

Also see:

Illegal immigrants don’t need to vote to help Hillary win

130422_immigration_electoral_map2_2012_ap_328WND, by Leo Hohmann, Oct. 8, 2015:

Could illegal immigrants and refugees help put Hillary Clinton in the White House next year?

Yes, because the nation’s Electoral College system is tailor-made for Democrats when combined with the mass immigration policies of the last 45 years.

Unprecedented numbers of immigrants – both legal and illegal – have been pouring into the United States since the former Sen. Teddy Kennedy rewrote the nation’s immigration laws with the landmark Immigration Act of 1965. The nation’s immigrant population – legal and illegal – swelled to a record 42.4 million in July of 2013, an increase of 2.4 million since July of 2010. The 42.4 million is double the number in 1990, triple the number in 1980 and quadruple the number in 1970, according to Census data.

This unprecedented influx is having a profound effect not only on how many seats each state gets allotted in Congress but also on the election every four years of the president, according to demographers.

As most Americans are aware, the president isn’t elected by popular vote. The office goes to the candidate who wins the majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, and these “electoral” votes are not equal in every state.

This “college,” which isn’t really a college at all, consists of 538 electors divvied up according to each state’s population. The states with higher populations get more electoral votes and those with less population get fewer.

Mark Steyn, author of several books about demographic trends including “America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It” said this explains why Democrats love immigrants, both legal and illegal. Not only do they tend to become citizens and vote for Democrats, but even as non-voters they count toward a state’s population and, therefore, its number of allotted electoral votes.

“How many votes each state gets in the Electoral College includes the number of illegal immigrants in each state,” Steyn said in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. “So, for example, a state like California, if you didn’t count illegal immigrants, that state would have five fewer electoral votes. Now my entire state of New Hampshire has just four votes.”

Watch the entire interview with Mark Steyn:

Read more

Also see:

Classified emails from Clinton aides kick-started FBI probe, candidate downplays controversy


Fox News, by Catherine Herridge, August 19, 2015:

EXCLUSIVE: An email from a top Clinton adviser containing classified military intelligence information, and one from a top aide containing classified information about the Benghazi terror attack, were the documents that kick-started the FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information, Fox News has learned.

The emails, among thousands on Hillary Clinton’s personal server, were released to the Benghazi select committee in May and have been widely discussed but Fox News for the first time has identified which Clinton aides sent them and the subject matter.

The revelation came as the Democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state tried to brush aside the burgeoning scandal, joking at a campaign event when asked by Fox News whether she had wiped her private server clean, “What, with like with a cloth or something? I don’t know how it works at all.”

Clinton last week handed the FBI her private server, which she used to send, receive and store emails during her four years as secretary of state.

Fox News has identified two of the Benghazi-related emails on the server that were deemed to contain classified information at the time they were sent.

The first was forwarded by Clinton adviser Huma Abedin and contained classified material from military intelligence sources. The 2011 email forwards a warning about how then-Ambassador Chris Stevens was “considering departure from Benghazi” amid deteriorating conditions in a nearby city. The email was mistakenly released by the State Department in full, and is now considered declassified.

The second was sent by Clinton aide Jake Sullivan and contained classified information as well as sensitive law enforcement information on Benghazi. The partly redacted November 2012 email detailed how Libyan police had arrested “several people” with potential connections to the terror attack.

Abedin and Sullivan now work for the Clinton presidential campaign. A spokeswoman for the intelligence community inspector general confirmed to Fox News that the information was classified at the time it was sent.

But Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon says the information was not classified at the time the emails were sent. In maintaining this position, the campaign pointed to the fact that the State Department shared this judgment, as the Abedin email was released in full by the State Department on its FOIA website. The campaign spokesman acknowledged there is disagreement with the intelligence community inspector general.

A State Department spokesman said they shared Fallon’s stance.

The emails are now just a fraction of those under review by the intelligence community. On Tuesday, while Clinton joked about her server’s apparently missing contents, Fox News has learned the FBI is aggressively trying to recover the data.

An intelligence source familiar with the review told Fox News that FBI investigators are confident they may be able to recover some of the deleted files, a detail first reported by NBC News.

Yet at the contentious press conference on Tuesday, Clinton insisted anything she did with her email server was “legally permitted.”

In the press conference following a Las Vegas town hall meeting Tuesday, Fox News’ Ed Henry pressed the Democratic presidential candidate by pointing out that leadership is about taking responsibility.

“Look, Ed, I take responsibility,” Clinton replied. “In retrospect, this didn’t turn out to be convenient at all and I regret that this has become such a cause celebre. But that does not change the facts. The facts are stubborn — what I did was legally permitted.”

The FBI is holding Clinton’s server in protective custody after the intelligence community’s inspector general raised concerns recently that classified information had traversed the system.

Clinton told reporters she was “very comfortable that this will eventually get resolved and the American people will have plenty of time to figure it out.”

When asked whether she oversaw the process to wipe the server clean, Clinton said, “my personal emails are my personal business. Right? We went through a painstaking process and through 55,000 pages we thought could be worth relating,” she continued. “Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions.”

As she departed the room, a reporter asked whether the email scandal will ever end, Clinton turned to reporters shrugged and said, “Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys.”

Fox News’ Ed Henry and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.


Also see:

Hillary’s Dangerous Negligence over Benghazi — Again

hillary-email-threatens-benghazi-prosecution-bThe attempt to convict Khatallah for the attack that killed four Americans could falter over Clinton’s deleted e-mails.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, August 15, 2015:

Who cares if Hillary Clinton is convicted of a crime? What we ought to care about is if Ahmed Abu Khatallah is convicted of a crime.

Khatallah is the only person charged thus far in the attack on a shadowy U.S. government compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Dozens of jihadists participated in the attack, during which four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens, were slain. Yet Khatallah has been singled out for prosecution. As I’ve previously detailed (here and here), the Obama Justice Department has filed an indictment that infuses evidence with politics: Trying to prove the terrorist conspiracy that actually occurred without refuting the Obama/Clinton fiction that the attack was a spontaneous protest ignited by an anti-Muslim Internet video.

That’s why there are worse jobs to have right now than defense counsel for a murderous jihadist.

Mrs. Clinton has spent the last few weeks learning that federal court is not the mainstream media. Because of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch, she and her top aides are finally being asked tough questions about conducting government business over a private communications system — a system that Clinton designed in order to hide her communications from public inspections, congressional inquiries, and judicial proceedings. We’ve thus learned that Team Clinton may have concealed government records, stored and transmitted classified information on private e-mail systems, and erased tens of thousands of government files.

If Mrs. Clinton thinks FOIA is a headache, wait until she sees what happens when a top government official’s reckless mass deletion of e-mails takes center stage in a terrorism prosecution of intense national interest. Federal criminal court is not the nightly news. There, mass deletion of files is not gently described as “emails a government official chose not to retain”; it is described as “destruction of evidence” and “obstruction of justice.”

RELATED: Contrary to Media Spin, It’s Hillary Who’s Being Investigated, Not Her Server

In criminal cases, the government is required to disclose to the defense any information in its possession that may tend to prove the defendant not guilty of the charges. That includes information that calls into question the prosecution’s version of events, theory of guilt, and credibility.

In the indictment against Khatallah, the Justice Department alleges that nothing of consequence happened until the day of the Benghazi attack, when he is said to have complained aloud that “something” had to be done about “an American facility in Benghazi” that he believed was an illegal intelligence operation masquerading as a diplomatic post. Suddenly, at 9:45 that night, “twenty armed men,” including “close associates of Khatallah” (not identified by prosecutors), “violently breached” the facility. In the ensuing violence, the Americans were killed. Khatallah is alleged to have participated in the mayhem and to have prevented “emergency responders” from stopping it.

Of course, there is far more to the story than the Justice Department has elected to tell.

RELATED: Why Hillary’s Wiping Her E-mail Server Clean Matters More than It Might Seem

In the months preceding September 11, the “diplomatic facility” and other Western compounds in Benghazi had been targeted in terrorist bombings and threats. September 11 would be the eleventh anniversary of the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans by al-Qaeda, which had every incentive to mark that occasion with a significant attack. American forces, moreover, had recently killed Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda’s top Libyan operative; that prompted Ayman al-Zawahiri, the terror network’s leader, to call on fellow jihadists to avenge al-Libi — an incitement issued just a day before the Benghazi attack.

So al-Qaeda was very much on the offensive. Obama, however, was on the campaign trail falsely assuring Americans that the terror network had been “decimated.” Obama’s decision to back Libyan “rebels” against Moammar Qaddafi had resulted in the arming of anti-American jihadists and the teetering of Libya on the brink of collapse. Obama, however, was on the campaign trail pronouncing his Libya policy a boon for regional stability.

As Obama next called for the ouster of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and reports surfaced of covert American support for the Syrian “rebels,”arms used by jihadists in Libya were shipped to jihadists in Syria by way of Turkey. Was that why we needed a “diplomatic facility” with a CIA annex in Benghazi, which was a transit point for some of these weapons? Was that why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi meeting with Turkey’s ambassador on September 11 despite the obvious peril? The Obama administration refuses to say.

Throughout 2012, American personnel in Benghazi were under heightened terrorist threat. Despite their pleas for more protection, however, the State Department under Secretary Clinton actually reduced security.

Finally, when the September 11 siege occurred, the Obama administration knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack of the sort that any competent assessment of the red-blinking intelligence would have predicted. Obama and Hillary Clinton, however, colluded in an elaborate scheme to convince the public that the atrocity was not an al-Qaeda-connected terrorist attack but a spontaneous protest run amok, provoked by an anti-Muslim video.

EDITORIAL: As the FBI Seizes Clinton’s Server, Her E-Mail Scandal Enters a More Serious Phase 

Like all indicted defendants, Khatallah has the right to defend himself by putting the government’s story on trial. Specifically, he could contend that he is being scapegoated for an al-Qaeda plot that was longer in the making. I’d expect him to elaborate that the government singled him out — even though many others were involved — because he was a known critic of American policy who had the misfortune of being in the vicinity of the “diplomatic facility” that night. His prosecution for an allegedly spontaneous attack, he will claim, is an effort to deflect attention from the State Department’s failure to upgrade security, from Obama’s complicity in arming jihadists long before the Benghazi attack, and from the administration’s decision to downplay the role of al-Qaeda (which is not even mentioned in the indictment) while pretending the attack was caused by a video.

Mind you, a defense theory does not have to be true. The defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. To be admissible, it is enough for a defense theory simply to have the potential to cast doubt on the government’s version of events.

RELATED: State Department to Judge: Not Our Job to Search Clinton’s Server

To press such a theory, Khatallah’s lawyer can be expected to argue that the government is hiding evidence that (a) the State Department knew of the continuing al-Qaeda threat but recklessly reduced security before September 11; (b) administration policies had empowered jihadists in Benghazi, who later carried out the attack for which Khatallah is being blamed; and (c) high administration officials, including Secretary Clinton and President Obama, concocted the video story during a tight presidential-election race to divert public attention from questions about who really carried out the Benghazi attack and what was really going on at the “diplomatic facility.”

Her criminal liability is quite beside the point. This is about judgment, credibility, and character.

Laying out this scenario, you can almost hear Khatallah’s lawyer saying, “Your Honor, we believe we are entitled to communications by the secretary of state with other officials. They would demonstrate the government’s knowledge of security lapses, the rising al-Qaeda threat, the fact that the September 11 operation was a terrorist attack, and the identities of attack participants whom the government has chosen not to charge while singling out my client. They would also show the connivance of top government officials in a scheme to convince the public this was a spontaneous attack caused by the video — a scheme that made it easy to frame my client because he happened to be on the scene that night, rather than the terrorist organization that planned it long before.”

A judge gets reversed if he fails to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial — he cannot ignore defense lawyers the way the press ignores administration critics. On such a showing, then, a judge would be expected to order the prosecutors to search all of the government’s files, including communications by the State Department, and report back to the court about whether there is anything that tends to support the defense claims.

RELATED: Hillary’s E-mail Server Contained Classified Information — Hold Her Accountable

In this instance, the prosecutors would have to reply, “Your Honor, we wish we could but it seems the former secretary of state ran her own e-mail system outside government servers. It also turns out that she destroyed over 30,000 e-mails that she says were about yoga and her daughter’s wedding.”

As the judge’s head seemed to explode, the prosecutor would stammer on: “We’re afraid we can’t verify exactly how many e-mails she destroyed and exactly what they were about. You see, she hit ‘DELETE’ before reviewing them with State Department records custodians, as government guidelines require. And I know this may sound a bit, well, convenient, but it seems there are remarkably few existing e-mails that have anything to do with Benghazi. . . . And, no, we can’t explain why the secretary of state would have had more yoga e-mails than Benghazi e-mails.”

At that point, thanks to Hillary Clinton, the case of a terrorist allegedly responsible for the murder of Americans becomes a trial of whether the government is covering up embarrassing missteps, derelictions of duty, and efforts to deceive the public.

Prior to trial, judges almost never dismiss indictments based on allegations of government misconduct. Such motions are better addressed after the trial is over, when a non-speculative record of the misconduct and its effect on the truth-seeking process has been fully developed.

But there is no need to grapple with such a motion unless the defendant is first convicted. Khatallah’s trial — if the Obama administration goes through with it — will not be an easy one. Expect his lawyers to be given considerable leeway to claim egregious governmental derelictions of duty.

Good defense lawyers can go far on a little leeway. And most of them would tell you they’ve never had a windfall quite like 30,000 e-mails destroyed by the government official at the center of the case.

The Clinton camp is desperate to narrow the latest Hillary scandal to the question of whether she committed indictable classified-information offenses. Her criminal liability is quite beside the point. This is about judgment, credibility, and character.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.


Also see:

How Obama and Hillary made the Arab world safe for radical Islam

20150310_obamahillaryclinton2014Family Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, August 13, 2015:

Far from being “spontaneous” and “indigenous,” the uprisings known as the “Arab Spring” that swept North Africa and the Middle East were long planned and planned from abroad with the Muslim Brotherhood’s role hidden in plain sight.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement.  According to Lawrence Wright in his book “The Looming Tower,” its founder Hassan al-Banna “rejected the Western model of secular, democratic government, which contradicted his notion of universal Islamic rule.” The fundamental goal of the Muslim Brotherhood remains Islam’s global domination, an effort that quickly turned violent and eventually spread to over eighty other nations. For example, one Muslim Brotherhood splinter group was responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for his peace treaty with Israel and another offshoot is the terrorist organization Hamas.

Barack Obama clearly supports the Muslim Brotherhood as a so-called “moderate” alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, and a vehicle for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, as outlined in the secret 2011 directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.

In addition to a wide-spread infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton’s longest serving assistant, Huma Abedin, has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Brotherhood for decades. Her father, Zyed Abedin, served as editor of an anti-Semitic journal funded by an Islamist; her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, replaced him as editor in 1993 when he died. As editor, Saleha has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood violent jihad and the “right” of women to be repressed under sharia.

Therein rests the motivation for the policies formulated and actions taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all of which led to the growth of radical Islam in North Africa and the Middle East.

In terms of US foreign policy and national security, the role of Hillary Clinton in the Libyan fiasco was as reckless as it was cataclysmic.

Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, claiming erroneously that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the Islamist rebels held their center of power.

Even Obama bowed to her leadership on the issue, privately informing members of Congress that Libya “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter.”

Yet according to Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times:

“Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress [Dennis Kucinich] so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.”

The Pentagon liaison to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son, Seif, indicated that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”

Despite these concerns, the Obama Administration, on March 17, 2011, supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 for military intervention in Libya. On that day Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call from Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution. A day later, on March 18, 2011, Gadhafi himself called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.

In released, but redacted emails, Clinton expressed interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors, though at the time, the opposition was not formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations, which prohibited arming without following strict guidelines and oversight. In an April 8, 2011 email to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, Clinton wrote: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” attaching an intelligence report from adviser Sidney Blumenthal, her preferred source of intelligence.

It now appears probable that, in 2011, at Clinton’s urging, Obama secretly approved the arming of rebels in Libya and Syria via a third party, likely Qatar, the only Arab nation at the time that recognized the rebel government and brokered the sale of more than $100 million in crude oil from rebel-held areas.

Many of those weapons would ultimately be destined for Syria.

Through shipping records, Fox News confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, 2012, five days before the Benghazi terrorist attack. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS, all believed destined for Syrian rebel groups.

Both Obama and Clinton had a vested interest in lying about Benghazi and permanently concealing the truth; Obama to ensure his reelection prospects in 2012 and Hillary to protect hers for 2016. It is significant, however, that Clinton was the most aggressive administration official promoting the arming of the Libyan Islamists and the first to associate the video with the Benghazi attack (see timeline) as well as its most vigorous and persistent advocate.

A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report presented in August 2012 and declassified in May 2015, stated that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”

An article published a year earlier, on June 21, 2014, noted:

“The present Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq was fueled by American abdication of a foreign policy in Syria, where we sub-contracted our interests to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Instead of dealing directly with the moderate Free Syrian Army, we outsourced the funding and arming responsibilities.

They then pursued their own interests; the Saudis supporting radical Islamic Salafis, while the Turks and Qataris backed the Muslim Brotherhood, all of which was at least partially meant to counter growing Iranian influences in the region, but complicating America’s anti-terrorism efforts.”

An interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the DIA, given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as an opposition in Syria. General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis, stating: “I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”

The disintegration of Libya and the rise of ISIS can rightfully be placed at the doorsteps of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

History will prove that it was not just incompetence, but criminal negligence in the conduct of foreign policy and the safeguarding of American lives.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at

See also: