Tag Archives: Obama Administration

The Washington Post’s Pinnochios on Terror Training

Posted on by
Reply

washpost-fact_check2 A letter to the Editor of the Washington Post, By Frank Gaffney:

Glenn Kessler recently awarded Rep. Louis Gohmert “four Pinnochios,” asserting that that Texas Republican legislator had “invent[ed] his own facts” about the Obama administration’s ties to Islamists.  Actually, Mr. Gohmert is on solid ground with his warnings about Muslim Brotherhood influence operations inside the U.S. government that have contributed to the dumbing-down of the FBI’s and other agencies’ understanding of the threat thus posed.  Such penetration has indeed contributed, among other things, to the purging of official training materials the Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists find “offensive.”

Mr. Kessler wrote that, “We are open to altering this ruling if more evidence is provided” in support of Rep. Gohmert’s allegations.  Happily, such evidence is readily available in a free, 10-part, online video-based course posted last year by the Center for Security Policy at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com.  This course offers six examples of individuals with documented ties to the Brotherhood who have served as officials of the Obama administration or as key advisers concerning “Muslim-outreach.”

For instance, the course chronicles the role one such individual, Mohamed Elibiary, appears to have played in the elimination of training materials used by the FBI that connected the proverbial dots between the Islamic supremacist doctrine of shariah, jihad and terrorism.  It also describes the role of Mr. Elibiary and others with Islamist associations in the adoption by the administration of guidelines that effectively require future training materials and trainers in “countering violent extremism” to be vetted by “community partners.” The latter seem to be drawn exclusively from Brotherhood front groups or their surrogates, which can only make matters worse.

Finally, Mr. Kessler faults Rep. Gohmert for pointing to the Obama administration’s elimination of words like jihad, shariah and Islam from key documents.  While President Bush began this practice, it has been enshrined in the Obama presidency to the point where, for example, the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy and even the 2010 after-action report on the jihadist attack at Fort Hood make no mention of such terms.  Rep. Gohmert is right to worry that such willful blindness can only interfere with our government’s understanding of the dangers we face and its ability to protect us against them.

I hope that, on the basis of such additional evidence, Mr. Kessler will, indeed, “alter this ruling” and the serious disservice it does to one of the most knowledgeable and truthful Members of Congress, Louie Gohmert.
Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy

More Evidence of America’s Wrongheaded Approach to Jihad

Posted on by
Reply

US Consulate in Benghazi attacked by terrorists in 2012Center For Security Policy, By Christopher Holton:

It has been over 9 months since Jihadist terrorists attacked a US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya and killed 4 Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Make no mistake, an attack on a diplomatic facility is an act of war. And Christopher Stevens was the first US ambassador killed in the line of duty in over 30 years.

Despite this, America finds itself mired in a scandal surrounding this incident and the Obama administration’s shameful handling of it. Meanwhile, there has been no response from America to this act of war. That transmits profound weakness to the world, more importantly to the Middle East and, most vitally, to our Jihadist enemies.

This week, as if to add insult to injury, we have learned that US FBI officials have identified five suspects in the attack.

This report is troubling because it further demonstrates that the US is firmly back into a “September 10th” posture of dealing with Jihadist terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not warfare. This is plainly seen in this statement from BreitBart.com on the issue:

U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists _ but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

So the officials say the men remain at large while the FBI gathers more evidence. The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House’s aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and toward trying them as criminals in a civilian justice system.

Every American should be outraged by this. The Jihadists are at war with us. Mere membership in a Jihadist terrorist organization, such as the Ansar al-Shariah reported to be involved in the Benghazi attack, should be enough to justify covert or overt US force. Because the Obama administration does not see it that way, there are members of Jihadist terrorist organizations who have been identified but are roaming free, possibly–even probably–planning more attacks on US targets, with little fear of retaliation.

When the US does not retaliate for attacks on our diplomatic facilities in which US citizens are killed, we  are viewed as weak, especially in the Middle East. Evidentiary standards for use in a US court are not appropriate for warfare. Targeting individual members is the wrong strategy for dealing with Jihadist terrorist organizations. The Obama-Holder-Clinton-Kerry cabal has made a train wreck out of US counterterrorism efforts and the Jihadists have metastasized on their watch as a result.

Also see: Officials say more evidence being gathered as Benghazi suspects remain under surveillance (foxnews.com)

Benghazi Suspects ID’d, But Administration Won’t Nab Them Because It Doesn’t Want to Send Them to Gitmo

Posted on by
1

aaadrones1PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson:

Despite the fact that the Obama administration regularly strike at terrorists with lethal drone hits in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the White House is reportedly not rounding up five suspects identified in the Benghazi attack because of a lack of evidence to try them in civilian court.

The Associated Press cites officials who said there is enough evidence to seize the men as enemy combatants and send them to Guantanamo Bay.

But apparently the Obama administration wants civilian trials for anyone involved in the Benghazi attack and has sent the FBI back to collect more evidence, which could be challenging in a more tumultuous Libya today.

From the AP:

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country’s cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region.

A senior administration official said the FBI has identified a number of individuals that it believes have information or may have been involved, and is considering options to bring those responsible to justice. But taking action in remote eastern Libya would be difficult. America’s relationship with Libya would be weighed as part of those options, the official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the effort publicly.

…The FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies identified the men through contacts in Libya and by monitoring their communications. They are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the U.S. diplomatic facility prior to the violence.

In March, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated that drone strikes have killed about 4,700, including some senior members of al-Qaeda.

 

Obamastan

Posted on by
Reply

obamastanBy Melanie Phillips:

Fort Hood, Benghazi, the Boston bombings, Iran/Syria, Israel. The pattern is unmistakeable; the danger to America is exponentially increasing; the scandal is deepening into something nearer to a national crisis.

The Obama administration is playing down the Islamist threat to the US and the free world, empowering Islamists at home and abroad, endangering America and betraying its allies — and covering up its egregious failure to protect the homeland as a result of all the above, while instead blaming America for its own victimisation.

What is coming out in the Benghazi hearings would be jaw-dropping if it had not been apparent from the get-go that the administration failed to protect its own people in the beseiged American mission where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff were murdered in 2012, then lied about the fact that this was an Islamist attack, and then covered up both its failure and its lie. (Apparent, that is, to some — but not to the American media, most of which gave the Obama administration a free pass on the scandal in order to ensure the smooth re-election of The One).

But the administration has form on this — serious, continuing form. After the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, in which an Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas shouting ‘Allahu akhbar’, not only was it revealed that his radicalisation and extremist links had been ignored but the Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies classified the shootings merely as an act of ‘workplace violence’.

Read more at Melanie’s Blog

US smuggling weapons to Syrian rebels: The real Benghazi story

Posted on by
Reply

By Daya Gamage:

Washington, D.C. 16 May (Asiantribune.com):

There is a ‘side story’ going on in the American media – both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American ‘post’ in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election.

US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens killed in attack on 11 September 2012

With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good.

When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American ‘post’ in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack.

These days the highlights and debate is about why the ‘talking points’ were changed twelve times to give that different picture.

As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a ‘side show.’

The ‘real show’ is in fact buried. And the ‘real show’ is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad’s regime.

It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. ‘post’ in Benghazi.

Why do we use the term ‘post’ in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from ‘American Consulate’ to ‘American Post’. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation.

Through shipping records, Fox News has 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, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the ‘posts’ front gate one hour before the assault began.

Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a ‘Consulate’ but as a ‘Post’.

The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this ‘arms deal’ which he connects to Ambassador Steven’s brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists.

In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility that last year’s attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event — including unfounded admissions from America’s United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack — could actually be a cover-up, the senator said.

The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi.

“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said.

Read more

Related articles

What the Obama Scandals Reveal About Progressive Ideology

Posted on by
4

gty_barack_obama_irs_mad_speech_thg_130515_wblogBy Bruce Thornton:

The three scandals dominating the news this week all reveal the moral and intellectual corruption at the heart of progressive ideology. Whether are not these revelations gain enough traction to halt the country’s downward spiral is the more important question.

Benghazi

The moment it came into office the Obama administration bought into the delusional narrative that Islamic jihadist terror is a response to Western historical crimes against Muslims, rather than an expression of Islamic theology. The Israeli “occupation” of Palestine, the depredations of colonialism and imperialism, the resulting dysfunctional economies and oppressive governments in Muslim countries, the arrogant xenophobia and intolerance of American culture, the invasions of Muslim countries after 9/11––all were identified as the “root causes” of terrorism.

Obama’s foreign policy, based on the assumptions of American guilt and the malign consequences of George Bush’s arrogant, unilateralist foreign policy, thus was an attempt to correct the bad policies and behaviors that instigated terror. Thus Obama apologized in his Cairo speech, eagerly extended a diplomatic “hand” to the genocidal mullahs in Iraq, rushed for the exits in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the dubious “Arab Spring” uprisings and their Islamist prime movers like the Muslim Brothers, and distanced America from Israel.

The intervention in Libya seemed to be an easy way to validate these beliefs, at the same time avoiding the charge of retreat and withdrawal from America’s global responsibilities to advance human rights and protect the victims of tyranny. The overthrow of Gaddafi was sanctioned by the U.N. and engineered by NATO, thus confirming the progressive belief that unilaterally pursuing national interests was, like nationalism itself, immoral, and that only transnational collective action sanctioned by international institutions was legitimate.

For a while the optics were good. A creepy psychopath was eliminated, no casualties were suffered, and a seemingly secular democracy was aborning. The idealism of democracy promotion, one bungled by the unilateral, trigger-happy George Bush, was indulged at little political cost, while the “legitimate” war, against al Qaeda, was being pursued just as cheaply with out-of-sight, out-of-mind drone killings, proving that Obama was no crypto-pacifist squish. Hence the foreign policy narrative peddled during the presidential campaign that al Qaeda was on the ropes and democracy was on the march.

The attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, eight weeks before the election, exploded that narrative. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were not on the ropes, but were growing and expanding, and could swiftly organize the sack of an embassy office and the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, humiliating the infidel superpower. Libya was not a democracy-in-the-making, but a Darwinian tribal and sectarian jungle dominated by jihadists armed with the weapons we put in their hands when we destroyed the Gaddafi regime. The refusal to beef up security in Benghazi, which would have been an admission that things weren’t so rosy in the fledgling democracy, now looked like a political calculation that cost American lives. Worse yet, once more the idea that terrorism is a response to our bad behavior was exploded, as many of those Libyans we had liberated turned against us, just as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have.

So of course the attack had to be spun into something closer to Obama’s foreign policy narrative: the attack was caused by a “spontaneous” protest against an Internet video insulting Mohammed. The administration knew this was a lie the day of the attack, but could not admit this repudiation of Obama’s foreign policy claims so close to the election, and so kept repeating the lie for two weeks, trusting the media spaniels to spin the attack and collude in the still on-going cover-up.

IRS Political Harassment

The IRS’s targeting of groups associated with conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status is a predictable consequence of the progressive narrative that conservatism is a form of neurosis, the lashing out of ignorant, violent “bitter clingers” against a changing world that challenges their racial privilege, economic power, and religious superstitions. The fondness of groups like the Tea Party for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution reflects this psychopathology, the desire to “turn back the clock” and restore their once exalted social and political position. As such, they are dangerous––and armed to boot––and so require monitoring by all right-thinking people who are progressing towards the utopia of “social justice.”

So it’s no surprise that IRS functionaries would create investigative rubrics like “Tea Party” or “patriot” that reflect these assumptions in order to guide them in their scrutiny of groups seeking tax-exempt status. These bureaucrats have absorbed the narrative from the mainstream media and popular culture, both of which are steeped in the two-bit pop psychologizing that passes for wisdom among those who fancy themselves the enlightened “anointed,” as Thomas Sowell calls them. Nor are they troubled at using the coercive power of the state to pursue these political agendas, for one of the most important progressive principles is that righteous ends can justify a whole range of brutal means.

Whether or not someone in the Obama administration directly ordered the IRS to pursue this partisan harassment is irrelevant. Like the Corleone family, the administration has a lot of “buffers.” No one had to be told, just as the progressives don’t have to tell anyone in Hollywood to make yet another movie or television show denigrating and demonizing corporations, conservatives, Christians, or the CIA. That is what’s so insidious about this ideology: it has permeated the minds of people to the point that unsavory actions advancing the cause are never questioned or doubted. In the progressive mind, dogma rules, not principle. Hence the righteous act to advance ideologically sanctioned political ends without bothering about coherent or consistent principle.

Read more at Front Page

Related articles

 

Homeland Security guidelines advise deference to pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists

Posted on by
7

images (41)

By Charles C. Johnson:

The Department of Homeland Security, which under Secretary Janet Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free speech rights of pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists.

In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts” the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.

This policy stands in stark contrast to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis’ 2009 memo “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [pdf], which warned of the dangers posed by pro-life advocates, critics of same-sex marriage and groups concerned with abiding by the U.S. Constitution, among others.

The advice of the Dos and Don’ts list is far more conciliatory. “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent,” the manual’s authors write in a section on training being “sensitive to constitutional values.”

The manual, which was produced by an inter-agency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, advises, “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

The checklist also advised against using moderate Muslim “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’” because they “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”

The manual advises trainees not to assume Muslim Americans are “using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.”

Read more at Daily Caller

 

 

Obama: No Shame, No Honor

Posted on by
3

Dereliction-of-Duty-Fiveby Justin O Smith:

The statements coming out of the Congressional Oversight Committee’s investigation into the events surrounding the attacks on the consulate and the CIA Annex at Benghazi on 9/11/2012 paint a picture of the Obama administration, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and the “Yes men” of the Accountability Review Board, that illustrates they are more concerned with advancing the agenda of the Progressive Democratic Party than protecting American citizens. Their own words have shown them unwilling to take responsibility for their own failures regarding their duties in each of their respective positions, as they are also exposed as self-serving liars, incompetents and cowards!

On May 12, 2012, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) told David Gregory on Meet the Press that she “saw no malevolence” in the actions of the Obama administration during or after Benghazi. It certainly wasn’t good will that had Obama go to bed without a care in the world and get up the next morning, as if nothing had happened, and go campaign in Nevada. It wasn’t good will that kept Obama, Clinton and Panetta from immediately sending a Special Forces or Quick Response team to rescue survivors, and it wasn’t good will that created twelve different revisions of the CIA’s original Intelligence Report that left no doubt the attack on Benghazi was a terror attack and had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video or a spontaneous protest!

Whose brainchild was the cover story of the anti-Islamic video? Who gave the order for the Special Forces team in Tripoli to stand down? We do need the answers to these questions and more, but in the end, all culpability and responsibilty for the lies and the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty rests squarely with Obama and Clinton, along with Panetta and General David Patraeus who toed the line and joined the lie.

Obama and Clinton knew almost immediately that the U.S. “diplomatic facility” (whatever the administration is calling it today) was under a terrorist attack, because Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Missions and assistant to Ambassador Stevens spoke with Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State and his boss, at 2:00am the night of the attack, and he briefed her on the events on the ground. Clinton and Obama have been lying through their teeth the entire time, which explains the reason they have persistently stone-walled the Oversight Committee and obstructed the investigation into Benghazi.

Most Americans knew right away something was wrong with the Obama administration’s account of the attack on Benghazi. Many of us heard foreign news services such as ‘The Independent’ from the U.K. detailing the attack as a terrorist attack; and, one would have thought that the account given by the Libyan President, which clearly stated Ansar al-Sharia was the perpetrator, would have precluded UN Ambassador Susan Rice from advancing Obama’s and Clinton’s lie.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” stated Greg Hicks, when asked about his reaction to Susan Rice’s explanation for the Benghazi attacks.

The State Department and spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, in particular, pushed for the removal of all references in the CIA Intelligence Report to Al Qaeda, previous warnings about potential terrorist attacks and Ansar al-Sharia. After meeting with the White House and intelligence agencies, they were worried that the information could be “abused” by members of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings”… which was the truth…, as Nuland elaborated, “so why would we want to feed that either?”

Nuland just described the inception of a conspiracy, and one in which then CIA Director David Patraeus enjoined by saying what the administration wanted to hear, and Ambassador Pickering enjoined with a substandard ARB Report that was sorely lacking; Greg Hicks was not allowed to review classified ARB documents, and several individuals with first hand knowledge of the Benghazi attack were never questioned by the ARB, although they were pressing to give their accounts and testimony.

On May 8, 2012, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked,  “Isn’t it true that just hours after the attack, the Libyan President called it a terrorist attack?” Hicks replied, “Yes.” Then Gowdy focused on Ambassador Stevens’ last words to Hicks…”we’re under attack!” Gowdy asked, “If a protest was ongoing during some part of the day, wouldn’t a professional career diplomat mention it?” Hicks answered, “Yes.” Gowdy: “Did Ambassador Stevens mention such a protest?” Hicks: “No.”

Between January and April 2013, some of the typical responses from the Obama administration have ranged from press secretary Jay Carney’s “Benghazi was a long time ago” to John Kerry’s (new Sec of State) “We have more importan things to get on to” and Clinton’s “What difference does it make.” All of these statements show just what little regard they have for the sacrifice made by those four Americans and their deaths in general.

Elija Cummings (D-MD), in condescending fashion, relegated the deaths in Benghazi to insignificance by stating, “death is a part of life.” This is a gross insult. However much death is a part of life, we do not require such an explanation, nor does it mean that we want to rush to greet Death or to be refused help to escape Death, especially when the help we ask for is standing nearby… willing and able!

The officals at Benghazi and Tripoli were desperate for a rescue mission, but as Lt Colonel Gibson’s Special Forces team prepared to answer the call, they were told to “stand down.” And during this same time frame, Gregory Hicks was having an intense conversation with a furious Mark Thompson, as Thompson and his four man Foreign Emergency Support team were being blocked from responding by their so-called “superiors”!… It’s also unfathomable that a fighter jet could not be scrambled “in less than 22 hours”, as the administration alleges!

Secretary of Defense Panetta essentially said, “There’s bullets flying around over there. I’m not going to put my guys in there.” Why do we even have a military or a Special Forces then, if not to walk in harm’s way when American’s come under attack and an imminent threat of death? Panetta, Clinton and Obama took the coward’s way out. “A brave man dies but once…a coward dies a thousand deaths,” except when a man such as Obama is full of hubris and has no sense of shame or honor.

The party agenda is the most important item for today’s Progressive Democrats, even more than America’s national security or American lives, and this is, in large part, the reason that Obama and Hillary Clinton fabricated the anti-Islamic video story, as part of a cover up and a conspiracy to hide the fact that the attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi was in fact a terror attack initiated by Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. Only days before the Benghazi attacks, Obama had stated that Al Qaeda was on the run and decimated and “Osama’s dead”, so he made a conscious decision to present this lie about an anti-Islamic video; he delivered the lie convincingly and with emotion any actor would envy, as a ploy to prevent any new wrinkles from undermining his presidential campaign and to avoid acknowledging that Islam and the world-wide Muslim community hated his administration, just as much as they had hated President Bush’s administration. But when Obama and Clinton had clear signs and career professionals saying that they needed more security, and Obama and Clinton ignored them out of a misplaced need to make Libya appear to be “normalized”, that in and of itself is criminal when it results in the deaths of four fine Americans… cut down in their prime!

Related articles

Center Urges Select Committee to Make Real Progress on Benghazigate Scandal

Posted on by
Reply

-120030598

Center For Security Policy:

Republican leaders of five House committees with national security jurisdictions have issued today a “progress report” (PDF) on the fruits of their respective efforts to investigate the murderous jihadist attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  The most important take-away is that, more than seven months after that outrage, these committees still do not know precisely what happened.

More to the point, the report indicates that the five committees intend to continue their investigations.  It seems predictable that months spent on more of the same, business-as-usual inquiries will produce more of the same stonewalling by the executive branch, a host of still-unanswered questions and a continuing lack of accountability for the policies that got us into this fiasco in Libya, for the conduct during the attack and for the cover-up that was perpetrated at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, responded to the issuing of this report by renewing the Center’s call for the establishment, instead, of a select committee to get to the bottom of the Benghazigate scandal.

The American people are entitled to know the truth about what happened before, during and following the attack last year in Benghazi on 9/11.  While the existing, standing committees have shed some light on pieces of this sordid affair, it is now evident that that truth simply is unlikely to be forthcoming in the absence of an aggressive investigative effort with real teeth.

We believe this progress report reinforces the request recently made by 700-plus Special Forces veterans urging Congress to establish a select committee pursuant to House Resolution 36, sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf and a majority of the House Republican caucus.  It is time for real progress and a select committee evidently is necessary to get it.

Concerned citizens can help get this select committee established by urging their representatives to endorse H.Res.36 by going to www.EndtheCoverup.com.

 

 

WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL JIHAD

Posted on by
Reply

rescuers_blood_APby FRANK GAFFNEY:

Authorities in Massachusetts have identified suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday as Dzhokhar and (the now-deceased) Tamerlan Tsarnaev, two brothers of Chechen descent originally from Kyrgyzstan. Many Americans haven’t heard of the place; most couldn’t find it on a map. Nearly all would be unable to say why people from there would want to kill people from here.

Welcome to the phenomenon of global jihad. It is time to dispense with the illusion that we are safe from foreign threats because we have put, as President Obama repeatedly insisted during the last campaign, “al Qaeda on the path to defeat,” thanks to the death of Osama bin Laden and the drone-delivered thinning of the ranks of his lieutenants.

The Chechen jihadists in Boston may or may not have been associated with, or even inspired by, bin Laden’s terror network. But in the days and weeks to come we are likely to discover that they identify with its goals: 1) imposing the supremacist Islamic doctrine ofshariah – a totalitarian, brutally repressive and anti-Constitutional ideology – on the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And 2) recreating a caliphate (or a similar theo-political entity) to rule according to that doctrine.

The same is true of other violent jihadists of the Sunni and Shia stripes, including, respectively, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the regime in Iran. Ditto the so-called non-violent Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, that organization – which is the mother-ship for virtually all modern Sunni jihadists – favors an approach better described as pre-violent: The Brotherhood is perfectly prepared to use violence when it will be effective. Until then, they will adopt other measures (which they call “civilization jihad”) to create conditions that would be conducive to the realization of the goals they share with all other Islamists.

My preliminary read on the Brothers Tsarnaev is that they, too, were committed to the triumph of shariah. And whether they were associated with one or the other of these groups, factions, or sects, or if they were self-taught and operating alone, it seems likely that they embraced that doctrine’s requirement to wage jihad against infidels – something they evidently did with pressure-cooker improvised explosive devices near the Finish Line on Monday.

Literally by the minute, we are learning more about their backgrounds and behavior. With luck, we will also know shortly whether they were aided by accomplices or organizational infrastructure that may still pose a threat.

What we know already, however, is that there are perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of others like them around the world. Folks who believe that their god commands them to engage personally in holy war against the infidels and non-shariah-adherent Muslims (whom they call apostates).

What is particularly worrying is that this is not a new revelation. We have been on notice of this fact since well before 9/11. And yet we have at times ignored it – or, in some cases, denied it assiduously. And that is not simply true of average Americans. It has been the widespread practice within administrations of both parties, beginning in earnest under George W. Bush and metastasizing greatly in the Obama presidency. (For a detailed treatment of how this has happened and why, see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.comand The Muslim Brother in the Obama Administration www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org.)

We have thus systematically violated one of the cardinal principles of warfare dating back at least to the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tsu, who warned that you cannot defeat an enemy you do not know. Worse, we have allowed an enemy we could and should have known long ago to dictate to us what we are allowed to understand, think, and do about them.

For example, the Obama administration has purged the files and training materials of federal law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security, and defense agencies of information that might “offend” Islamists. That would include knowing such truths as that it is the orthodoxy of Islam (although a practice not embraced by all Muslims) to engage in jihad to advance the supremacy of shariah.

Even more alarming, the U.S. government now operates under guidelines for training in “countering violent extremism” (the euphemism it adopted in lieu of the Bush administration’s preferred euphemism for jihad, “terrorism”) that make matters infinitely more dangerous: those using federal funds for such training must now first consult with “community partners” about the trainers and their materials. Those partners appear to beMuslim Brotherhood operatives and front groups.

Read more at Breitbart

Related articles