Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security

hillary-2016-buttonBy :

The response of Obama Inc. and its defenders to the Benghazi attack has generally been some variation of, “Who could have known?”, “We didn’t know” and “How could we have known.”

Their claim that they practiced due diligence only to fall victim to an unexpected set of events never held much water. Benghazi was a danger zone and everyone knew it. The issue wasn’t a movie trailer, but the aftermath of a botched war that left Islamist militias in control of entire cities.

Now the Congressional report on Benghazigate tears apart some of the biggest claims.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

• Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

• In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

• Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

This is, as noted, still preliminary but it finds enough deceptions to justify a more in depth investigation.

Read more at Front Page

 

Flag Draped Coffins

article-2203298-1504F4CD000005DC-986_634x406by Justin O. Smith:

While I understand the current mission of the U.S. African Command to counter, stop and destroy Islamist militants and to fight terrorism without being drawn into a major conflict, the lack of preparation and the ignored warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. facilities at Benghazi are inexcusable and indefensible; repeatedly we have heard Obama and everyone associated with his administration declare that the U.S. response to these attacks was “adequate.” But more than this, as more facts are uncovered, no doubt is left that this administration is incompetent, and it is engaged in a cover-up of mammoth proportions.

Many Democrats call any criticism concerning the events surrounding the Benghazi slaughter “GOP political pandering,” but whatever your party affiliation, it is incomprehensible and beyond incompetence that Gen. Carter Ham did not request any additional forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, despite his belief that the intelligence did not indicate an imminent attack. Ham must have been struck deaf, dumb and blind, because nothing else explains such a casual dismissal of, at the very least, ten months of communiques and memos from the Benghazi Consulate that indicated a dire and increasingly dangerous situation looming on the horizon. And on that same note, one must wonder, as heads of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), what bribe or coercion influenced retired Admiral Mike Mullen and retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering to find the Obama administration’s response to these attacks “adequate.”

I also wonder if Obama himself or Hillary Clinton have explained to the families of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty just how “adequate” the response really was? I’ll bet Tyrone Woods thought the response was “adequate” as he painted the terrorists’ mortar armed position with a laser and waited for it to be bombed by a drone or jet fighter from Aviano Airbase (Italy)… right up until he cursed Obama with his last dying gasp.

In conjunction with Glenn Dogherty’s Libyan mission to recover advanced weapons systems, such as SA-7 missiles from the hands of the Islamists, Ambassador Stevens was negotiating a weapons transfer and removal of SA-7s from the hands of Libyan extremists on the night of 9/11; FoxNews recently reported that the Libyan vessel ‘Al Entisar’ arrived in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, just 35 miles from the Syrian border, on September 6 with a cargo of RPGs, shoulder launched missiles and surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. Add to this Stevens’ meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin the night Stevens was murdered, and it is not far-fetched, rather highly likely, that the Obama administration has been running weapons through Turkey to the rebels in Syria, mostly comprised of Islamists and Al Qaeda and enemies of the U.S.

Although Clinton stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “I am determined to leave the State Dept and our country safer, stronger and more secure,” her determination on 9/11/12 was focused on joining in the spinning of the story, the obfuscation and outright lies originating with Obama. Clinton was actually notified of the attacks around 4PM and about an hour before Obama was notified by Leon Panetta. Apparently they sat on their thumbs and spun afterwards, despite Clinton’s claim that “we kept talking with everyone through the night.” But through a response garnered by Senator Lindsey Graham’s efforts in blocking Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, we know neither Clinton nor Obama attempted to contact government officials in Libya to help rescue our U.S. citizens that night, if time and logistics really were the problem; however, Obama did call Clinton at 10PM, and it was “about 10PM” when the State Dept released Clinton’s statement (FactCheck.org) entitled ‘Statement on the Attack in Benghazi’, which linked the attacks to an anti-Islamic video.

While the attacks were still ongoing, a lot of time was wasted simply doing nothing and fretting about political futures rather than saving American lives. When asked about Panetta’s and Gen. Dempsey’s Senate testimony that they weren’t in touch with the White House after their meeting ended at 5:30PM, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, “They said they hadn’t spoken with the president. The president has a National Security Advisor… He has a Deputy National Security Advisor and remember he had already spoken with… the Secretary of Defense, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” And with pin-point accuracy, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) February 7th questioning of Panetta before the Armed Services Comittee exposes Carney’s lie: “Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?” Panetta answered, “No.”

After Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc) placed Hillary Clinton on the spot regarding the fact that no protest existed prior to the attack, Clinton angrily retorted, “What difference… does it make?” The difference it makes is this, Mrs Clinton: Your outright lying and colloboration with Obama in this matter created a delay that cost Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty their lives; no good reason can be given for not having ordered an airstrike on the terrorists’ position. And for fear of forced retirement and other curious reasons, some of the upper echelon military ranks have lost their spine, as they support the Democratic Party line, Obama’s position and the delusive findings of the ARB!

As I recall Obama and Clinton meeting flag-draped coffins of four brave Americans in feigned respect, I am ashamed of a people who could reelect such a thing to the Office of the President. A president should always strive for more than “adequate,” because to be merely adequate is meeting only a bare minimum of requirements; while Jay Carney quotes page 37 of the ARB report, “the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack… was the result of exceptional… military response…,” an immense number of accomplished military minds such as Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer and Gen. William Boykin, ex-Commander of U.S. Special Forces, have refuted this analysis, which leaves dozens of unanswered questions: Why haven’t Americans heard from the surviving diplomatic security officer, who saw the attack begin and alerted the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli that they were under seige? … Why haven’t we heard the testimony of the thirty-two survivors, who Gen. C.K. Hyde confirms were evacuated to Ramstein Airbase (Germany)? … Why didn’t the Turkish Consul General warn Ambassador Stevens about the Al Qaeda checkpoints after he left at 8:35 PM Benghazi time? It doesn’t matter that protocol and standard operating procedures were followed and the response was “adequate.” What ever happened to initiative and rising above and beyond the call of duty? No doubt remains that Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty’s deaths were unnecessary, preventable and lay on Obama’s head!

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our American dead. In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage.” -literary license taken with Shakespeare’s ‘Henry the Fifth’

 

Benghazi Survivors Remain Gagged by Federal Law

benghazi6By Kerry Picket:

Many continue to ask why the media and lawmakers have not spoken to or brought forth those who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last September. The truth of the matter is the Americans who survived that attack cannot legally reveal to members of the press or most lawmakers that they were even witnesses to the attack in Benghazi.

According to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, immediately following the attack, the FBI, as part of the agency’s investigation, interviewed survivors of the Benghazi attack.

Bill Bransford, a Washington, D.C. attorney at Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. who specializes in federal employment law told Breitbart News on Tuesday, “First of all, I’m assuming that most of these people who witnessed the attack, except for the State Department folks, would be intelligence people, and they are not covered by the whistle blower protection laws.”

Bransford added, “They are covered by whatever policies their agency has. An executive order that President Obama issued in the late fall in which he ordered the intelligence community to come up with a more effective whistle blower protection system, which has not yet been developed.”

However, as federal employees, State Department personnel must sign non-disclosure agreements. Bransford stressed, “If somebody violates one of these non-disclosure agreements, the consequences could include: interfering with a criminal investigation, obstruction of justice, criminal charges for releasing classified information, and those are pretty serious.”

Serious indeed. The Obama administration’s Justice Department has prosecuted more federal employees for leaking information to the press under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other administrations combined. Bloomberg News reported last September:

“There’s a problem with prosecutions that don’t distinguish between bad people–people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money–and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions,” said Abbe Lowell, attorney for Stephen J. Kim, an intelligence analyst charged under the Act.

Lowell, the Washington defense lawyer who has counted as his clients the likes of Jack Abramoff, the former Washington lobbyist, and political figures including former presidential candidate John Edwards, said the Obama administration is using the Espionage Act “like a club” against government employees accused of leaks.

The prosecutions, which Obama and the Justice Department have defended on national security grounds, mean that government officials who speak to the media can face financial and professional ruin as they spend years fighting for their reputations, and, in some cases, their freedom.

Since Breitbart News first broke in December that the Obama administration was hiding Benghazi attack survivors, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) began demanding the FBI hand over to Congress the interviews the agency conducted with individuals who survived the deadly attack.

Read more at Breitbart

The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat

siegel

Ever wonder how people could be so duped about the true nature of Islam and the threat it poses to Western Civilization? Are you having trouble wrapping your brain around the the level of infiltration that Islamists have been able to achieve in all levels of our government and civil institutions? Well here is the answer. I encourage you to read the whole interview.

By Jamie Glazov:

FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Bill Siegel, a lawyer and business executive. He has been a producer of several documentary films and assists numerous non-profit organizations. He is the author of The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat.

Excerpt:

FP: Describe the threat we face in our Islamic enemy. And you talk about the three levels of jihad against us. What are they?

Siegel: Simply stated, our Islamic Enemy seeks the totalitarian domination of Islam throughout the world – Islamic supremacy. It seeks to have the West submit to Islam. Obviously, this does not mean that everybody becomes a Muslim. Islam, in all its varied expressions, permits dhimmis- those Christians, Jews, and some others who are permitted to remain as protected non-Muslims as long as they submit to an inferior status. What is critical is that Shariah (Islamic Law) ultimately rules the world.

Jihad, loosely, is the effort/struggle to see this vision through. The most obvious method of Jihad is through violence; it is the one most familiar to most Westerners and almost all of the Koranic references to Jihad are based in violence.  The Violent Jihad includes al-Qaeda and its offshoots as well as other groups that formed around the globe independent of al-Qaeda. It also obviously includes the violence from Islamic nations such as the Islamic Republic of Iran whose constitution specifies such vision. It also includes, however, various militant groups and training camps here in the US as well as ad hoc efforts of individuals.

Since 9/11, there have been something in excess of 15,000 Violent Jihadic attacks across the globe. However, as terrible as this is, we have a tendency in the West to think that the only dimension of threat we face comes from violence. While the Bush administration helped initiate this thinking, the Obama administration has actively abused it by limiting any discussion of the threat we face to al-Qaeda and some other terrorist groups abroad. As frightening as these groups are, we can get some ease from thinking they are a band of “extremists limited in number, weaponry, sophistication, and means. Stunningly, Hillary Clinton recently estimated that there are only about 50,000 “homicidal” violent extremists around the world who simply have been able to project power much greater than their number should allow. Here the Control Factor makes the threat appear more easily manageable.

Jihad, however, is pursued in other often even more effective ways which I have grouped into three “levels.” A second more insidious level of threat is what the Muslim Brotherhood itself called the “Civilization Jihad.” It is the effort to infiltrate all aspects of our society, peacefully according to our laws, in order to later be in position to sabotage and destroy it from the inside. The Civilization Jihadists have learned the culture and rules of the territories they seek to command and use those rules to maneuver—specifically using our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. They use “lawfare” to seek changes in our laws so as to push Shariah into our society. Your readers should read Daniel Pipes and Brooke Goldstein’s Lawfare Project material and others to fully appreciate how cancerous this activity has become. This includes intimidating in a variety of ways anyone who speaks out against them or Islam and seeking to squelch our treasured broad right to free speech so as to ultimately prevent any criticisms of Islam. Once criticism of Islam is prohibited, little can stop it from cascading throughout the culture.

The Civilization Jihad includes situating such Jihadists in critical positions in the society, in the government, in the legal system, the military, and elsewhere. It includes the control over university programs that distribute propaganda about Islam and Islamic history which then filters down throughout textbooks for even younger students. It includes control over most of the nation’s mosques and local Imams guiding the messages engaged Muslims are receiving. Most troublesome are the Muslim groups (CAIR, ISNA, MSA and others associated and/or joint venture partners with the Muslim Brotherhood) supposedly interested in “outreach” which know how to appear Westernized and interested in the goals of Western Civilization. They have fooled a large part of our authorities and media due in part to their patience and willingness to chip away, one airport prayer room, one frivolous intimidating lawsuit, one Congressman or CIA officer, one mosque, one ruling at a time.

Particularly in the US, given our deep attachment to freedom as well as cultural and psychological tendencies toward diversity, Western guilt and expectations of truthfulness, this effort is devious and difficult to uproot. The Civilization Jihadists present one face to the American public which is completely at odds with their true agenda and how they deal in private. Jamie, you and David and others such as Steve Emerson, Frank Gaffney, Andy McCarthy and others have done so much to uncover this level of Jihad that your readers should be urged to review as much of their work (including Steve’s recent excellent documentary, The Grand Deception, and Frank’s important web video course, The Muslim Brotherhood in America) as possible.

Finally, there is a third level – the International Institutional Jihad. Here the most powerful international institutions such as the UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and others seek to push into America from without those changes which are difficult to complete from within. The OIC is the largest Islamic institution in the world. It essentially controls the vote in the UN’s General Assembly and thus explains in part the absurd and abject pro-Islamic, anti-Israel thrust of that organization. This level seeks to use the power of Islamic nations to work from outside the West to force changes within the West. While there are various conflicts between many of the nations, being Islamic majority states, there is a great deal they agree upon which becomes the focus of these efforts. Just as the Obama administration is beginning to cooperate with international efforts to control gun ownership, so has Hillary Clinton’s Istanbul Process become a dangerous step in the effort to restrict speech critical of Islam by norm (or possibly even treaty) when it may not be fully executable by domestic action alone.

I should point out that Stephen Coughlin, the former Pentagon officer who has an important must-see presentation of Islamic Law, uses different names for these same three levels – Jihad, Dawa, and Ummah. Had I seen his work before I wrote my book I would have conformed to his categorizations.

We must learn how powerful language has become on all three levels. Words such as “peace,” “freedom,” ”terrorism,” and phrases such as “human rights” have different meanings for us and for our Islamic Enemy. To oversimplify, “peace” is not something for now but that which comes when all the earth is submitting to Islam. In the context of battles, “peace” is at best a temporary ceasefire. “Freedom” is best understood as having the freedom to fully submit to Islam, not to choose whatever beliefs one desires while respecting the same right in others. We’ve all seen how ”human rights” and “terror” really only apply among Muslims, not to non-Muslims. Our enemy fully understands these differences and uses them at all levels to paralyze us.

Look simply at how the phrase “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” has equalized the two parties, making it all the easier to ascribe features of one to the other and view the problem as a simple-to fix division of assets into statehoods but for personality problems among the leaders. The simple truth is that this is and has always been a one-sided Arab war against Israel as Ruth Wisse and others have described and, as Bibi Netanyahu made clear, the ONLY state truly at issue here has been the State of Israel that the Arabs have refused for over half a century. Nonetheless, the Control Factor hypnotically abuses the mind’s susceptibility to the intricacies of language.

Even the label “Peace Process” has been damaging language. While most focus upon the first word, turning this into a “process” has helped ensure that peace is never obtained. It is more appropriately called the “Extortion Process” because all that results is that violence is used over decades to extract concessions from Israel.

These three levels must be understood for their differences while united by a single goal. While these levels often operate together and assist each other, we must avoid “level confusion” which the Control Factor employs to curtail our fears. If the Obama narrative is swallowed- that the only threat is the Violent Jihad- we will miss the other contamination fomenting within our borders. We must appreciate how these levels work together and even unite with other forces such as the global Leftist movement that you, Jamie, have described so forcefully in United in Hate.

FP: You write about how we like to talk of “Good Muslims” and how we are always on the eternal search for “moderate” Muslims (Khatami, Mousavi, Abbas, etc), while we stress how the “extremists” are the real problem and how “few” they really are. All of this is connected to the Control Factor. Enlighten us.

Siegel: The Control Factor seeks to have us feel in control of the situation. The easiest way to do this is to simply minimize the number of potential enemies. We have been lectured for years about how Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the violence we see (remember that we have already improperly limited the problem to violence) is the product of a small number of “crazies” (remember Hillary Clinton’s 50,000) who have distorted Islam. I call this the “Peaceful Muslim Disclaimer” as virtually everyone in the press and government has been bullied into making some statement of the kind to silence those who will pressure them that they are “Islamophobic” and Islam is being attacked. (These are the Islam hustlers who operate on the same principles that black race hustlers so effectively used to extort concessions over the last six decades or so).

Nobody has done any real work to support this proposition, nor is it clear exactly how it would be tested. My view is that the grammar “Islam is x” is itself problematic because Islam has expressed itself throughout history in a variety of fashions. It is more useful to talk in terms of how seriously engaged with Islam, the Koran and other texts, a Muslim is. What is significant is how Muslims today are using Islam and most of those who are in power either throughout a large territory or within a small community tend toward, if not fully advocate, the very supremacist ideas that we try to tell ourselves are reserved for the few ”extremists.”  Presumably most Germans did not wish to see all Nazi atrocities carried out but in the end they fell in line because they had to. Those our politicians and press call the “extremists” are in one sense more accurately the “good” Muslims who are following their Islamic beliefs dutifully.

Read it all at Front Page

A ‘see-no-jihad’-ist at the CIA?

-1109429251By Frank Gaffney:

On her way out the door, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the unsayable.  Literally.  Until last month, when she repeatedly warned in congressional testimony concerning the Benghazi debacle that we confront a “global jihadist threat,” the Obama administration did not allow the use of the words jihad and threat in the same sentence.

How ironic that the principal architect of this “see-no-jihad” policy is John Brennan, President Obama’s current Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor and his choice to head the Central Intelligence Agency.  Setting aside the obvious questions about why Mrs. Clinton chose her swan song on Capitol Hill to state the obvious but impermissible truth, if she’s right, why on earth would the Senate want to entrust critical collection and analysis of intelligence to the very person who has epitomized and enforced a policy of willful blindness towards the central threat of our time: the supremacist Islamic ideology of shariah and the holy war, or jihad, its adherents are obliged to wage?

Read more at Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

PJTV: Afterburner: What Difference Does It Make?

Fawstin

Hillary Clinton asked “what difference does it make?” in response to questions about the murder of a US Ambassador in Benghazi. Bill Whittle lets you know what difference it makes for our country. From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State John Kerry hear what Bill Whittle thinks.

 

 

 

 

Must-See Video: Rand PAC Ad goes after administration for sending F-16′s to Egypt

imagesCAA5RW3TShoebat Foundation:

Rand Paul confronted Hillary Clinton better than any other Senator this past week. None of the others could even be seen in his rearview mirror.

Great ad / great music bed from RandPac capitalizes perfectly on Paul’s performance.

Just watch: