Tag Archives: Benghazi consulate attack

The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash

God Bless America Eagle

I have heard testimony, all that I can stand to listen to anyway, on the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012 Hillary Clintonand find it more and more disgusting as each day of “testimony” comes and goes.  No one on these “investigative panels” really wants the citizens to know what happened or why it happened.  If they did they wouldn’t be asking Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest of the regime “explainers” being “called before Congress”.

I did a search of the Benghazi attack and the first eleven entries I found involved Panetta and what he had to say about the situation.  Now, I realize I am not a lofty Senator or Congressman but I would do things a bit differently.  Clinton and Panetta would be the last ones I would call to testify.   My “panel of experts” wouldLeon Panetta entail a totally different group of people.  The two brave Navy Seals who died trying to help can’t talk so I would do the next best thing.  The first people I would call to testify would be those who were dismissed from their posts for refusing to “stand down” during the attack.

I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3).  Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a Rear Adm. Charles Gaouetterescue mission to Benghazi.  According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea.  The usual action is to replace them when they return to port.   Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by  “a video offensive to Islam”.   I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.

The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent.  General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador StevensGen. Carter Ham and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack.   After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.

The song and dance we get from the regime is that there wasn’t time and that we didn’t have enough information to put armed forces into the situation.  While I am certainly not as expert as Clinton and Panetta I do have a Age 20 7th SFG-2bit of knowledge about these kinds of situations.  I was a member of the U S Army Special Forces from 1968 to 1971 so I do have the background to know how these kinds of problems are resolved.  The two commanders replaced were doing what any decent commander would do, send help if possible.

The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous.  There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed.  The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help.  One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound.  I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available.

I served long before laser designators were available but I know a little something about protective air strikes.  Calling in air strikes in my day was a bit more precarious.  The forward air controller, flying a propeller airplane, would come in low and slow (at low altitude and minimum speed) to find us.  We would pop a smoke grenade to show him our position.  He would then direct the “fast movers”, the jet strike aircraft, where to “lay their eggs”.  The FAC would give our position and an attack azimuth parallel to our position, the safest for the ground troops, for him to make his bomb or gun run.

I can’t imagine popping a smoke grenade without any assets on station.  We would never do that and neither would Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.  These men were too highly trained to throw their lives away without anyGlen_Doherty_Tyrone_Woods_5 hope of air assets being available.  For Panetta and Clinton to sit there and spout the excuses they spout is inexcusable, and in my mind, criminal actions.

The next people I would call in to testify would be those stationed at the embassy in Benghazi at the time of the attack.  It is reported that thirty-two people were at the embassy when the attack took place.  Where are they and why haven’t they been called to testify before Congress?  I contend, and it is my firm belief, that neither political party wants to find the real answers to the questions that need answering.  If the truth is known not only would Obama and his henchmen be found to be negligent but the chances are real high that members of Congress would also be found negligent.  How many, and who, in Congress knew about the weapons being supplied to the Al Qaeda led “protestors”?  The story being bandied about is that Ambassador Stevens was there trying to find sophisticated weapons, such as shoulder fired missiles, that had been given to the opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.

I doubt We the People will ever know the truth about Benghazi or the actions that led to the massacre that occurred there. Politicians are more interested in taking guns away from law abiding citizens in America than they are in finding out why four American citizens were slaughtered in Benghazi.  I actually believe they know what happened and why, and therefore find it very easy to cover their butts and careers by whitewashing this as they do all other criminal actions of government.

The corruption in our federal government is so ingrained and so massive that if We the People were to ever find the truth it would lead to an uprising that would topple the tyrants running our nation.  The dog and pony shows go on and nothing ever gets resolved.  Just as in the Fast & Furious “investigation” no answers are ever given.  The story eventually dies out and goes quietly into the night, never to be resolved, and those responsible for murders of countless innocents sliver back under their rocks without ever having to answer for their crimes.  Congress can put Roger Clemmons in prison for lying about using performance enhancing drugs in sports but can’t find out anything about crimes committed by other politicians.  Ain’t politics wonderful????

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 8, 2013

Because I’m Hillary Clinton! That’s Why it Doesn’t Make A Difference!

Hilary-Benghazitestimony_zpsb036f29c

 

 

A very agitated Secretary of the State Hillary Clinton testified before the House and Senate on her involvement in the Benghazi massacre. Clinton demonstrated that no one, no matter their status in Washington, has the right to question her abilities or her authority.

Secretary Clinton was kool and gracious, she even displayed her infamous cackle whenever leaders fawned over her “service to this country.” Clinton was all smiles when politely asked questions elevating her to complete innocence in the violent murders of American men in Benghazi. But when Ron Johnson, who had plainly had enough with months of unanswered questions as to why American men placed in harm’s way were left to die when Hillary had resources in place to save them, demanded Clinton answer why she didn’t make one, single phone call to evacuees on the ground, Clinton flew into a rage:

The fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

 

pict32

 

What difference does it make? Are you kidding Hillary Clinton?

It makes all the difference Madame Secretary! You, Obama, and the entire administration, had every resource available to rescue those men and you did not.

This Madame Clinton would have made a difference: The United States has two AC-130U fire-support aircraft systems that use television and infrared sensors, as well as synthetic aperture strike radars able to see through everything from night darkness, clouds, and smoke. Not to mention there were reports that a security officer had “his laser targeted on firing mortars.” This officer requested back-up support from the Specter Gunship, used by Special Operations to provide support to SO Teams under fire.

According to Fox News:

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support. According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

That Secretary Clinton makes all the difference!

It makes all the difference, because Britain’s embassy was attacked in April and June of 2012 and Prime Minister Cameron pulled his military and ambassadors out of Libya to save them from further attacks. That made all the difference in saving British lives.

Furthermore, it makes all the difference, because someone in your department, or the administration, told CIA operators to “stand down” twice. You did not help Ambassador Stevens’ team when they said shots were fired at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

It makes all the difference, because American men fought a bloody seven hour firefight while begging for help. And you Hillary, and the administration, are said to have watched the fighting, as well as the massacre, in real time, and it’s reported that you ignored it all.

It further makes all the difference, because drones were hovering over the Embassy during the attack:

[T]wo military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals—which Clinton denied ever seeing— back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

 

That Madame Clinton could have made all the difference in saving those men’s lives.

When asked why she was not “the person to appear on the Sunday shows immediately following the attack,” Secretary Clinton made all the difference concerning her obligations to America with this response:

I have to confess, here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I’d prefer to do on Sunday mornings. And, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. It just isn’t something that I normally jump to do. And I did feel strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage, that I had to respond to, and that that should be my priority.

 

That answer makes one hell of a difference:  Clinton’s actions speak louder than her screaming words.

You see Madame Clinton, priorities make all the difference in foreign policy. Priorities determine whether or not men and women sent into anti-American enemy controlled countries will live or die. But I guess that doesn’t make a difference any longer now that you are leaving office, does it Madame Clinton.

 

Thanksgiving Colorblind Civil Rights Gift – No Black Winners or White Losers

Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC) – attacks House Republicans as being racist for Susan Rice criticisms

Thanksgiving 2012 finds a nation that has changed dramatically since the end of the U.S. Civil War in 1865. Yet there are still those who want to continue fighting this war as if nothing has ever changed. There still remains an ongoing attempt to select racial winners and losers when a person’s conduct, professional or otherwise comes into question. The latest example has been U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s ineptness in presenting the White House cover up account of the U.S. Benghazi Consulate American murders.

Last week several U.S. senators, who happen to be white, questioned her statements to five Sunday network news shows, as being false, misleading and indefensible, they were attacked by the president first. Obama said they were picking on her, and implied that the poor defenseless black woman needed a male hero to defend her.

Then there was the Congressional Black Caucus chorus on Friday, November 16th, calling the U.S. senator’s criticism racist. Come on now. Look in the American mirror. This is an America that is way past defining itself as racial sub-cultures or ethnic sub-sets. Does one really believe that there is a need to have a Black Congressional Caucus cry out racism now?

Even Congresswoman Eleanor Norton Holmes, former chair of the Equal Opportunity Commission called the “racist charges” had no foundation when she appeared on Fox News, Monday, November 19th!

On Tuesday, Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat, attacked nearly 100 Republican congressmen who sent a letter to President Obama, opposing a possible nomination of Susan Rice for Secretary of State. The congressmen cited her recent apparent incompetent behavior as the reason for their opposition. Congressman Clyburn to the rescue! He called the congressmen’s comments racist. There Clyburn goes again.

The need to define oneself as sub-cultures or subsets of America, in a 21st century America is indeed offensive to a one nation under God of 2012. The victims and the victimizers of the past are now buried in the past. If there was ever a need for something to be thankful for is that outdated stereotypes like racial caucuses, ethnic identifiers are assimilating into the one American melting pot.

Well, there is still Clyburn, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the diminishing exceptions who are the race-based clingers. They cling to racial solutions for colorblind problems. They embrace easy simplistic gotcha assertions, like “that’s racist!” or “They hate blacks” or they keep blacks down!”

This behavior must be called out for what it truly is. This is race bating and hate mongering. Blacks and liberals engage in this practice to make political and racial hay. They use racial division as a pay day card for their elections, non-profit race bating organizations and television network talk shows. But America is tired and America must move on.

America must grow up and Americans of all colors must accept that bad attitudes, incompetent behavior, or irresponsible conduct should not be defended because of race!

So, enough is enough of this school yard nonsense. The shadow of a racist past in America is not the nation of 2012.

This nation does not need an affirmative action answer for every real or imagined problem or issue that besets American minorities. America has to realize that if there is a civil rights issue that confronts a person who feel wronged or rights have been abridged, then repair it with the same laws that any person who has his or her rights abridged.

This is not a nation that should continue to have two sets of laws and two sets of results. The law of the land should not be used to pick winners and losers as if it were some type of carnival game, where the deck is stacked.

What will it take for black officials or black people in general to understand that the America of the turn of the 20th century is not the America of today? If a black official screws up, maybe it’s because he or she is just a bona fide screw up.

America, both white and black is also tired of being tired. America is tired of having its citizens being discounted, diminished, and dismissed because of the sins of the father being placed on the backs of the sons and daughters if they are white.

Blacks, who are working hard to achieve and to find a place of respect and dignity, are also tired of being saddled with the “affirmative action” label when it was their determination and initiative which made them successful.

So the stereotypic labels have to end and with it the notion that there must be two sets of rules, two sets of applications and two sets of results that must continue into the 21st century.

Beginning now, not tomorrow or 2013, but now, America must build toward a colorblind civil rights, called American justice which is equal for all. When this happens it will be an American justice system united to produce color blind results with no black winners and no white losers.

That is a Thanksgiving holiday gift that all Americans can celebrate!

_____

( Click to let me know what you think )

Congress Has To Buck DC Culture And Investigate Benghazi

benghazi victims

For whatever reason, Washington DC has a bizarre culture of failing to get the entire story out. There’s a belief in popular culture that the federal government attempts to conceal as much of the truth as possible and only puts out what the public wants to hear.

This needs to be avoided with Benghazi. The whole truth has to come out. There is too much conflicting information. The Pentagon appears to be blaming the State Department. The State Department blames the CIA and the White House. The CIA appears to blame the Defense Department, the White House and State Department. The White House has been noticeably silent. A special investigation team needs to look into which information is true and which isn’t.

Capitol Hill doesn’t always appear interested in doing this. It seems more interested in keeping the status quo and avoiding accountability as much as possible.

This probably started with the Warren Commission looking into the assassination of President Kennedy, but the best example is the Watergate investigation. That was shut down after President Ford pardoned President Nixon to get the case over with as quickly as possible. Ford was hoping to keep Nixon’s name from being dragged any further through the mud. It may have been noble reasoning, but was ultimately irresponsible.

It also set a dangerous precedent the presidency has been willing to go along with time and time again. In the Iran Contra scandal, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger before he could go up to trial. In the end, only Oliver North and John Poindexter were tried and convicted. Both convictions were thrown out on appeal and independent counsel Lawrence Walsh declined to continue the investigation.

During the Whitewater scandal, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were able to avoid charges. President Clinton was later impeached for lying under oath, but that related to the Monica Lewinsky affair. A part of the failure of the Whitewater investigation could be because ex-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Webster Hubbell and Susan McDougal refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton later pardoned McDougal. Another part is the decision by the Clintons to fight the Whitewater investigation tooth and nail, instead of cooperating with it. Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, admitted he was pressured to come up with a deal with President Clinton so he wouldn’t be indicted further.

These examples make it seem like there’s no accountability in the White House. Instead, it shows presidents are willing to use their political positions to either protect themselves, their friends or their previous bosses from accepting responsibility.

Congress is no better.

During the investigation into Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, Congress criticized the Justice Department for their “aggressive raid” on Jefferson’s office. Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner wanted to hold hearings on whether the FBI had trampled on the Constitution for their actions. Jefferson was later convicted of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

After Peter Schweizer’s fantastic 2011 book on insider trading in Washington DC called “Throw Them All Out,” Congress was criticized for not passing strong enough insider trading prevention laws. Schweizer himself criticized the SEC for not indicting any members of Congress during the hearing on the law. Congresswoman Maxine Waters was able to avoid ethics charges for helping OneUnited Bank get money from TARP. These are examples of members of Congress deciding not to police themselves and hold each other to the highest standard possible.

These types of situations do nothing to end the notion that Washington politicians are more interested in protecting their own, instead of working for the people who elected them.

The good news is there are people in Congress who want the truth to get out. California Congressman Darrell Issa, South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul have all been at the forefront of the Benghazi situation demanding answers. This is a good thing. Their calls for an investigation even have House Speaker John Boehner demanding answers. There need to be more people like Issa, Gowdy, Chaffetz and Paul willing to do this.

Congress has to investigate the situation involving Benghazi, regardless of who wins the presidency. Ignoring it would deny the truth not only to the families of the four killed but also the American people, who have been lied to.

Is Sarah Palin’s “Shuck and Jive” Obama Comment Racist

Liberals have double standard with “Shuck and Jive” phrase used by Sarah Palin for President Obama

This week former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin penned an article on Facebook with the title “Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies,” This has set off a firestorm of criticism throughout the liberal punditry world.  MNBC’s Chris Matthews has railed against Palin, calling her comments of having “a particular ethnic connection” and that she aimed “to throw it at the president as an ethnic shot is pretty blatant.”

Palin’s use of a phrase which has a clear connection to negative stereotypical behavior that was used against black people is not open to debate.  The context in which it was used demonstrates more of unfamiliarity with history than it seems to have with racist intent.  There is a serious question that is still left on the table unanswered.   Should Chris Matthews and other liberals who are quite familiar with its historical intent, context as well as usage, receive a free pass when they have used the phrase on several occasions without similar howls of protest.

What about President Obama’s own White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who used the phrase last year in September 2011?  In talking to the press corps at the beginning of a White House briefing, he stated, “Sorry. I’m going to shuck and jive! Time to shuck and jive.”  So America gets it, only certain people can say it. Where was the liberal rap on the knuckles for insulting black people or his boss?

In fact, Chris Matthews the self appointed defender of the liberal faith used the phrase in 2010 when fellow MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow was discussing her ratings driven trip to Afghanistan.  Matthews reportedly asked Maddow, “What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?”

Did Matthews become suddenly affected with “Obamnesia,” the known malady which infects liberals’ with sudden outbursts of hypocrisy and a temporary loss of liberal fictional talking points?  Matthews clearly had a strong case of this.  Yet, where was the outcry from the defenders of the liberal faith?  Was Matthews hoping that Maddow would discuss how she found proud black soldiers risking their lives, engaging in being foot shuffling’ Negros?

What about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who while New York Attorney General, in 2008 targeted democrat presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama for his all too frequent side stepping of the facts?  Out of frustration, Cuomo blasted Obama in a radio interview by stating, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference!

Where were the liberal siren and alarm bells in 2008?  Where was Chris Matthew’s denunciation or even Rev. Jesse Jackson, or the other liberal pundits?  Meanwhile, some of the liberal cleanup crew likened Cuomo’s comments to a boxer who was “bobbing and weaving” around the facts.  So was it racist or was it inarticulate?

The plain truth of the matter is that the phrase is a phrase that has no place in American discussion. Yet it should serve as a reminder that beneath the comments of a Governor Cuomo or a Sarah Palin when referring to the ever evasive bobbing and weaving conduct of a presidential candidate Obama or a President Obama, his lies have consequences. His lies have purposely covered up true facts about the murders of 4 innocent Americans in Benghazi.

America and the world should not only be angry, but it should be outraged that the liberal media journalists and self appointed pundit fact checkers did not do their job in 2008.  They should have dug deeper into the content of what New York Attorney General Cuomo was referring to about Obama’s well honed evasive nature to dodge facts about his racist minister, his birth records, his college application, college records and even his true record of accomplishment in Chicago.

The true bottom line in this made up racial campaign issue, is that America may have actually voted for a Manchurian-style socialist candidate, who charmed the mainstream liberal press into white guilt. So one has to still ask the question, was it racist that Sarah Palin used the phrase “Shuck and Jive”, when angered that a president mangles the truth, and subverts the legacy of four proud Americans who died in Benghazi?

The truth is that this phrase did not kill Americans. 

The truth is that a president black or white who covers up the truth about what he knew, when he knew it and what his administration did not do to prevent is more important than an archaic phrase.

The true racism is how an American mainstream media can keep giving a president of the United States an affirmative action-type break and pretend Americans in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado or anyone else cannot tell the truth about his lies.

The real racism is that the media protected this man of color, because they did not do their job to seek the truth when it was more convenient to believe Obama’s fiction.  Four Americans were murdered and on November 6th President Obama must answer for it.

Let me know what you think ( Click )