Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Remember – This is what Benghazi is about

The media is having fits over the Benghazi hearings. Either they will bring everything to light, or they are just so much nonsense about nothing. Either the administration engaged in a cover-up, or there’s nothing odd going on at all. Either Hillary Clinton severely screwed up, or she didn’t. Either the calls for assistance were willfully ignored, or they weren’t. None of that has anything to do with what Benghazi is really about.

Even those two minutes of film that have become an icon, showing Christopher Stevens in the hands of the Libyans after he was attacked aren’t clear cut. Are they rejoicing because they found his dead body, or are they rejoicing because someone saw a sign of life in him? We probably will never know the truth. The best we can hope for is some degree of closure, and get as close to the truth as we possibly can.

Defense Issues Weekly

Russia builds up, US cuts unilaterally

The Obama administration is preparing to announce a new round of deep, unilateral  cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal, writes Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.
United_States_Department_of_Defense_Seal.svg (1)
Writing in his weekly Inside the Ring column, Gertz states it will happen “soon” and that a Pentagon “review”, written precisely to “justify” these new, deep, unilateral cuts, will be used for that purpose. The cuts, as many outlets have already announced, may bring the arsenal to as few as 1,000 (or fewer) warheads. Gertz states this “review” was completed, and the decision to cut was made, months ago, but have been withheld from the public so far to prevent Obama from losing the 2012 presidential election.

Obama, having been reelected by the American electorate in 2012, will not to have to face voters ever again.

The result will be not just a deep, unilateral cut in America’s nuclear deterrent, but also a possible cancellation of warhead modernization programs, a replacement for the B-52’s aging cruise missiles (the B-52 has such a huge radar signature it cannot safely enter enemy airspace itself), the new “boomer” (ballistic missile submarine) class, and a plutonium pit producing facility in New Mexico, all of which were promised by Obama in 2010 during the New START ratification debate and in the New START ratification resolution. Construction of the said facility is also mandated by the FY2013 NDAA.

(NOTE: In 2010, this writer warned not to believe or accept President Obama’s modernization promises on the grounds that his word cut not be trusted under any circumstances; however, this writer’s warnings were roundly ignored and 13 Republicans foolishly voted for the treaty. Some of these Republicans are now the same individuals complaining about Obama’s failure to fulfill his promises, even though Obama never intended to keep those promises.)

Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defense has announced it will continue growing its nuclear arsenal and modernizing it substantially, including the development of a new road-mobile ICBM (the Yars-M, tested successfully last year) and a rail-based ICBM (thus further adding to Russia’s arsenal of ICBMs). It also plans to develop a heavy ICBM (the “Son of Satan”) and an ICBM called the “Avangard”, as well as a “pseudo-ICBM” with a range of 6,000 kms, to counter China’s large nuclear arsenal of 3,000 warheads.

The US, on the other hand, does not have any road- or rail-mobile ICBMs and has no plans to develop any, although the USAF is studying such options.

Rail-mobile ICBMs were prohibited by the first and second START treaty, but are not forbidden by the one-sided New START treaty negotiated by the Obama State Department and signed by Obama in April 2010. Russia is now taking advantage of this huge loophole, as well as of the loophole (also found in previous START treaties) that does not count its 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers as such under these treaties. It’s also taking advantage of New START’s extremely weak verification regime, which gives it ample opportunity for cheating.

Concurrently, Russia is modernizing the other legs of its nuclear triad: its next generation bomber is scheduled to enter service in 2020 (as are the forementioned ICBMs), and the first of its new class of ballistic missile submarines, the Yuri Dolgoruki of the Borei class, joined the Russian Navy’s fleet last year.

Historically, Russia, and before it, the Soviet Union, has never complied with any arms control treaty it has signed.

Critics have charged that by cutting the US nuclear arsenal deeply and unilaterally below New START levels, Obama is inviting Russian nuclear blackmail of the US and dramatically undermining US national security, while needlessly dismantling the only weapon type that has never failed for its entire 67-year-long existence.

 Dempsey appeases China

During his visit to China last week, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, an Obama appointee, asked China for help in combating cyber attacks.

Despite the well-documented fact that many, if not most cyberattacks on the US originate from China and have been perpetrated by the PLA and other Chinese government entities, Dempsey put his faith in China’s benevolence, asking its leaders for help and proposing Sino-American “cooperation” on the matter.

Such “cooperation” would mean that Chinese government and military personnel would gain intimate access to US computer networks and thus be able to find out how to navigate – or disable – them and how to steal more information from the US government.

Yet, Gen. Dempsey called a Sino-American “working group” recently established “to combat cyber attacks” “both timely and appropriate”, and claimed that cyber attacks do as much damage to the Chinese as to the US economy.

Similarly, last year, Hillary Clinton claimed that both the US and China have been “victims of cyber attacks”, suggesting moral equivalence moral equivalence between the two countries.

Heritage Foundation analyst David Inserra commented recently:

“By turning a blind eye to China’s obvious bad cyber behavior, Dempsey and others are encouraging China to keep hacking, since there will obviously be no consequences from Washington. Even worse, by recommending more cooperation with China on this issue, the Obama Administration is actually rewarding the Chinese for their hacking by allowing them to become more familiar with our cyber systems and cybersecurity responses—and thus better prepared to spy on or disrupt them.(…)

The U.S. should change its approach to China on cybersecurity. China is not a victim on this issue; it is the perpetrator, and the U.S. should take actions that make its hacking more costly and painful—for instance, by calling out Beijing for its bad actions and ceasing to cooperate. The U.S. should also pursue legal and economic actions against Chinese companies that trade in stolen U.S. intellectual property. On top of that, the U.S. should break down Chinese censorship of the Internet and support the free flow of information within China.

Failing to change the U.S. policy toward China’s cyber crimes will only encourage more crime and attacks. It’s time to stand up to China and defend American interests.”

Ray Mabus: cutting warships, playing with boats

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus still insists on decommissioning 7 of the Navy’s newest cruisers while building 55 littoral combat ships that lack appropriate combat power, survivability, and are very vulnerable to cyber attacks.

The Navy’s released FY2014 budget proposal still insists on decommissioning the cruisers .

At the same time, Mabus insists on continuing the Littoral Combat Ship program of building 55 poorly-armed, easy-to-sink boats armed with nothing more than a gun and a few short-range missiles and costing $440 mn each, without counting the cost of their combat modules.

Mabus has hailed the LCS program as “one of our very best shipbuilding programs”, even though it is grossly overbudget and behind schedule and produces poorly-armed boats that cannot defend themselves. Think-tanks such as the CNAS and the Heritage Foundation have called for truncating LCS production.

The Navy’s own shipbuilding plans and girues also show that the service will not reach even its meagre goal – set last December – of reaching 306 ships, let alone the 313 ships the Navy said it needed as recently as December 2011. Indeed, the service’s plans show its ship fleet – especially the fleets of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines – shrinking deeply during the next 2 decades. During and after that period, the Navy’s total ship number will be significantly inflated by LCSes.

Critics, such as House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA-04), have charged that the Navy is woefully underinvesting in its ship fleet and leaving it too small for the missions of today, let alone those of the future. They claim that, as the US “pivots” to the Western Pacific and continues to attempt to deter Iran in the Gulf, a large ship fleet is needed to keep the peace in both theaters, which are predominantly maritime.

Currently, the Navy is able to meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their requests for submarines.

theconsequencesofdefensecuts

Partial remedies have been suggested by think tanks such as the CNAS and Brookings. The former proposes establishing “red teams” to evaluate what it calls the “unconstrained” requirements of COCOMs, while Brookings proposes to station more warships abroad to make more available where they’re needed. It points out that one warship forward-deployed abroad (e.g. in Japan) is worth 4 warships based in the US.

Congressman Forbes proposes to increase the annual shipbuilding budget from $15 bn to $23 bn per year. That budget has been stagnant at $15 bn per year for several years.

Hillary and Obama’s 60 Minute Commandment: Cover Thy Negligent Ass

 Obama-Hillary one

 

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, Hillary Clinton and President Obama morphed into one another while covering each other’s negligent asses.

The one-time presidential opponents, who tore each other to shreds during the 2008 presidential run, are now in a race to hide their September 11th disgrace and save themselves.

When caught in a lie, lie. And behave like two star-crossed lovers.

 

hillary obama umbrella kiss

 

Four years-ago these two progressive cutthroats went for the jugular, hurling  racial accusations and insults that make military combat look like a well-mannered “Downton Abbey” dinner.

Who really believed either one of these snake oiled, back-stabbing progressives during that farce of an interview? Both have thrown their own families under the biggest bus to save their own careers.

The entire 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft was a sham.

 

60 min

 

Kroft posed gentle questions, never bothering to put either cold and calculating bureaucrat on the spot for the obvious disdain and indifference  that caused the September 11th massacre of four Americans by Islamic militants.

Kroft’s interview enabled Obama and Hillary and helped them cover for each other.

The interview was nothing more than a left-wing love-fest by two people who obviously found the best plastic surgeon available and had their lips surgically attached to each other’s rear-ends.

Concerning Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of the State, Obama said:

Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she’s played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally have been because of her hard work.

 

Take it easy a bit! Hillary avoided the press for months. The only time she spoke about Benghazi was to blame an innocent filmmaker for the slaughter. Because of Hillary and Obama, that innocent filmmaker was thrown in prison–where he remains–for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Not until last week’s Senate and Congressional Hearings, where Hillary was given a verbal concussion by Republican Senators Rand Paul, John McCain and Ron Johnson, did she finally open her mouth. And then Hillary let the world know it doesn’t make a difference to her that four men are dead.

It obviously doesn’t make a difference to 60 Minutes either, because Steve Kroft went easier on Obama and Hillary than a blue dress on Bill Clinton.

Kroft had one hour to grill the two and failed as miserably with this interview as Obama and Hillary did with Benghazi.

The adulation fawn-fest set the stage for both to cover each other’s behinds and dodge Kroft’s easy questions about Qaddafi, Syria, Arab Spring, while turning Libya into an accident.

Worse, Kroft facilitated both frauds by making the majority of the interview about the phony working friendship and a Hillary-health-issue. After all, what difference does it make that four Americans were massacred in Benghazi, we need to know if Obama loves Hillary and if Hillary’s brain is doing well? And its imperative we know why Hillary’s wearing those bizarre Bette Davis horror movie magnifier glasses: “I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot.”

Just listening to this rubbish gave me a concussion.

Obama swooned:

I was a big admirer of Hillary’s before our primary battles and the general election. You know, her discipline, her stamina, her thoughtfulness, her ability to project, I think, and make clear issues that are important to the American people, I thought made her an extraordinary talent. She also was already a world figure…Hillary’s been one of the most important advisors that I’ve had on a whole range of issues.

 

Hillary adoringly said she and Obama are “very warm, close.”

You weren’t “warm” or “close” during the 2008 South Carolina Primary Debate.

Hillary in 2008:

You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

 

Obama slapped back at Hillary:

I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes, Senator Clinton and President Clinton.

 

Hillary shouted:

I’m here, not my husband!

 

And who can forget Bill Clinton’s remarks to Charlie Rose about Obama’s lack of experience:

I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.

 

Measure those comments to Hillary’s 60 Minutes kiss-up to the man who stole her chances at being president.

Hillary:

[W]hen I got to Chicago and he [Obama] asked me if I would consider being his secretary of state, I immediately said, ‘Oh, Mr. President, there’s so many other people. Let me give you some other names.’ Because it just took me by surprise…And he kept saying, ‘Well, I want you to think about it again…’ I’ll tell you what I finally thought. I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I’m saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.

 

We can heave a sigh of relief! Had Hillary won the 2008 presidency, events in Washington and Benghazi would still be the same.

And we can relax knowing Hillary and Obama have some emotions concerning the four massacred men.

Hillary told Kroft she “deeply regrets what happened to those men,” whom she and Obama ignored. Benghazi has made Obama “realize what makes a team succeed and fail.”

I feel much better now. Benghazi is explained and finally solved!

America, we need not ask further questions about why four men were left begging for help while being slaughtered. We don’t need answers telling us why those men never received aid or answers to their pleading calls to the president and State Department.

Just knowing Hillary feels “regret” in her lingering blood clotted mind, and Obama understands “failure and success,” should tell Americans: Stop worrying about security and military might. Just move on and get over Benghazi. Our backs are covered by “thoughtful” and “warm” people who have enough “stamina” to fail us successfully.

Sen. Paul to Hillary: I’d Fire You

After numerous health delays Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Predictably Derand paulmocrats offered praise and sympathy to the Secretary. Republicans asked more pointed questions. Senators from both parties took the opportunity to share the concerns of their electorate.

Senator Rand Paul, reflecting the thoughts of many Americans, told Secretary Clinton that while he was glad to hear Clinton take responsibility, had he been president he would have fired her for failure of leadership.

In the clip below you can watch the exchange. Hillary Clinton tells Paul she was responsible but then states the responsibility for errors fell to her assistants.

What Really Happened to Hillary?

No, it’s not a slow news day. Critical talks continue as key members of Congress work to stave off the country’s fall over the fiscal cliff.  The market watches in breathless anticipation. The IRS waits to tell employers what tax rates they’ll need to use next week. Even Joe Biden has been called in to pinch hit for the stalling Harry Reid.

And yet…

According to my Twitter feed, the real question this weekend was, “What really happened to Hillary?”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gallup’s 2012 Most Admired Woman, has not been seen in public for more than three weeks. Just in time to cancel her already rescheduled meeting on Capitol Hill, where she was to testify and help Senators finally learn the truth about the tragedy at Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton developed a stomach flu. Which then caused her dehydrated body to faint resulting in a concussion and a further delay to speak. Now, after another week of illness Hillary is reported to have a blood clot and is now hospitalized.

As a result of the ever evolving story, even the venerable Charles Krauthammer pressing for information on Benghazi said, “We haven’t heard anything. We know as much about her concussion as we know about (Venezuelan president) Hugo Chavez. This is an open society, she is the Secretary of State, she has disappeared.”

So. What has happened to Hillary? Could these things, as reported, be true? Sure. There is plenty of plausibility. But do you believe in coincidences? Yeah, me neither.

The theory espoused by many conservatives this weekend is that all Clinton’s illnesses are faked. That she’s not really sick but that she is hiding out until the new Secretary of State is approved so that she will not be compelled to testify.

Could this be real? Yes. Of course, the whole hospitalization line does give more credibility.

Still, it’s not a very romantic theory.  Here’s one that carries much more intrigue and all the makings of a dramatic spy novel. The following is a condensed version from the EU Times: A US Military airplane, of which Hillary Clinton was a passenger, flew into Bahrain. There they picked up a number of Navy SEALs, who were based in Afghanistan and whose function often is to safeguard US diplomats in combat zones. One of the SEALs was Commander Job Price. The flight was en route to Bagdad when they ‘deviated’ and headed towards an Iranian airbase. Coincidentally, Iranian President Ahmadinejad was also at that airport. Something happened during the landing causing the plane to crash land. Commander Price was killed and the Secretary was severely injured. After receiving emergency aid from the Iranians, another US military plane was dispatched and the survivors flown out.

Too much to believe? The EU Times provides links to Russian intelligence reports as well as a Reuters story which mentions the damaged plan in Iran. Additionally, published reports in the US did relate the new world orderNavy SEAL died mysteriously in a non-combat incident. Some will argue that the EU Times has a biased agenda. Of course, many will argue that the main stream media also promote their personal agenda.

Personally, I hope Hillary recovers quickly and finally testifies as to the State Department’s role in Benghazi. The families of those killed deserve the truth. Like you I don’t wish Mrs. Clinton ill health.

In the end, is this just fodder for late night talk radio?

Or is it more? Calling all conspiracy theorists…

3:00 pm Update: To add to the questions, Fox News is now reporting on the American plane in Iran incident.

Did Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up

Will Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up Congressional committee testimony

 

Typically, when most liberal political kingmakers pontificate about the next Clinton to grasp the presidential mantle, it is done with an air of obvious entitlement.  Hillary Clinton has positioned herself for this office ever since her days as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Watergate.

It was in the congressional backrooms that Hillary, began a pattern of alleged deceitful behavior that would serve her through many a state and federal prosecutorial investigation.  These investigations followed her and her husband, Bill Clinton from Arkansas to the White House, and now beyond.

Yet, the most onerous of Hillary claims has been linked to a web of mangled White House storylines concerning Benghazi Consulate security, attack, murders and what the president knew and when did he know it.

Fabrication of events is not new for Hillary Clinton, and according to her former boss Jerry Zeifman, who was “counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,”  Hillary Clinton was fired from her position on the committee as a staff attorney for lying.

The mainstream media kept this embarrassing side note out of the public eye when her husband, Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 and in her own run for the U.S. seat from New York in 2000.

Yet, Jerry Zeifman, seemed compelled to alert the nation about Hillary Clinton, who in 2006 was making coordinated moves to run for President in 2008.  In his book, “Hillary Pursuit of Power,” he stressed, while working on the Judiciary Committee, Clinton, … engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Therefore it should be of surprise to no one that she was caught up in purported lies while First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the United States.  These scandals included in Whitewater illegal activities, the Travelgate cover up and her conveniently manufactured lie about coming under attack while visiting Bosnia.

Even though scandal and cover-ups seem to follow her like a bad penny, it is the string of Watergate style congressional performances which may actually be informative as well as the undoing of her presidential aspirations.

Fast forward to September 12th when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in the White House Rose Garden with President Barack Obama to spin yet another web of tangled storylines.  This time, Hillary Clinton was joining another president who was involved in denying the truth about the murders of Americans in Benghazi, and not just a break in or a presidential fling.

This time, Hillary Clinton was not manufacturing lies against President Nixon’s ability to obtain legal counsel.  Nor was she trying to think up strategic avenues for covering up her sexual predator husband’s dalliances.  Americans died!  This time, it is congress that is in the driver’s seat, not the mainstream media or liberal pundits trying to cover up the truth.

In December Hillary Clinton will go before congressional committees to investigate what the president knew, when did he know it and what did he do about it.  This third time, it may very well be not only Hillary’s presidential aspirations on the line. Perhaps after nearly forty years since the Watergate hearings, she will learn to tell the truth and say, “No, Mr. President, I will not continue to promote a false narrative, because it is illegal and it is wrong to lie to the American people.”

( Click to let me know what you think )

Ambassador Rice Defends White House Watergate Style Lies on Benghazi Cover Up

How could Ambassador Rice explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?
Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has resurfaced after she told America that the attacks and subsequent murders of four American at the U.S. Benghazi Consulate was due to a spontaneous attack because of a You Tube video on five Sunday network news shows.  The nation now knows, and the White House knew then that the story Ambassador Rice spun for America was totally fabricated by the White House.  White House intelligence officials knew the truth within 24 hours.

Could her reemergence into the public eye be due in part to the increasing opposition in congress to her possible nomination by Obama for the soon to be vacated Secretary of State position?  With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, early attempt to fall on the sword for the president, Rice’s loyalty may yet be her own undoing.

Secretary Clinton had pushed the You Tube narrative and it fell flat after Matthew Olsen, President’s own Director of National Counterterrorism admitted that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were terrorist and possibly related to Al Qaeda activities. Most importantly, as it turns out, those White House officials as well as State Department and others were quite possibly watching the terrorist attack live via an overhead unmanned drone.

In December, Secretary Clinton will be appearing before congressional intelligence committees to explain her role as well as her and other State Department or White House Benghazi inconsistencies.

Then there are the president’ comments last week when he admitted in a White House press conference that Ambassador Rice was selected because she knew absolutely nothing about the chain of events.  Why would the president of the United States send someone who he admitted, knew absolutely nothing about the security, the attack, the pleas for help and the murders?  How could she explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?  Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

This play has been seen before by Americans who endured Watergate and the “long national nightmare which ensued. The nation saw how an administration could hide the truth, deny the act, and then cover up the illegal actions by stonewalling.   Yet in all of the intrigue, congressional investigations and articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon, not one single American citizen lost his life!

So Ambassador Rice, you may feel that mainstream media networks will continue to provide ground cover for your “yes sir, anything sir,” attitude that is totally incredulous, but Americans want accountability.  Obama jetted away for a campaign fundraiser to Las Vegas the very next day, while the families of four Americans were being lied to by the White House.  The president left his credibility in the wind.

So, now Ambassador Rice surfaces in what seems to be an attempt to regurgitate the exact same inconsistencies and cover up narrative as if, telling a lie often enough will suddenly become the truth.  Not this time Ms. Rice.  Not good enough!.  Your oath of office should have more value than protecting a cover story.  Just ask the White House officials who went to jail because they lied to congress about their own culpability in the Watergate cover up.

Again, what was she thinking?

Did Susan Rice truly believe that after the Presidential election, America, the news networks and the congress would go on as business as usual?  Well, Ambassador Rice, America’s business is to find out what the truth really is and why the administration would allow a series of lies to fester in a climate of White House CYA political theatrics.

Four Americans, who had families and had loved ones, only, asked that their Commander in Chief would act like one and defend their lives. The administration reneged on its solemn duty.  The families that saw their loved ones return in coffins deserve more, far, far more than a circle of lies.

Maybe Ms Rice you need to be reminded that these were real people with real families. Their names were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. 

These were brave men and not the consequence of “bumps in the road” as President Obama alluded to when discussing the attacks in Benghazi and emerging governments in Arab Spring countries during a Sixty Minutes on September 23rd.  This is not only tragic, it is pitiful.  The families are left this holiday season with more questions, and even more lies about how their decent and honorable family members tragically died.

The truth of Watergate did eventually emerge, a tireless Washington Post and two reporters, relentlessly pursued the truth, when other news organizations did not see a story.  Fox News is that current news organization that is tirelessly pursuing the truth about the White House Benghazi inconsistencies. They are matching up the administration’s changing timelines about what happened, when it happened and why no help arrived on the 11th anniversary of the worse terrorist attack in American history.

History has a way of repeating itself.  Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was reelected president of the United States.  Congress then went to work. Articles of Impeachment were voted on, and well, you know the rest of the story.

Fast forward to 2012, where Obama is doing victory laps and Ambassador Rice is apparently aiming for the Secretary of State seat now being kept warm by Hillary Clinton.  Well if conventional wisdom serves, perhaps, Ambassador Rice should be setting her sights more toward a congressional investigation witness seat.

Congress, the ball is in your court.  Call Ambassador Rice to testify in open hearings to tell the American people what she knew about the talking points, and who gave them to her and what the president knew.

Then after the dust and the lies have settled, The House of Representatives must do its solemn duty and call the president of the United States to testify to congress to tell the truth or face open charges of Impeachment.  

After all, it was Obama who threw down the gauntlet at his November 14th White House press conference and defiantly said, for those, “who has been critical of Rice’s comments, should “go after me.”  Well, Speaker John Boehner, there’s your cue!   America and the families are waiting Speaker John Boehner for the truth!

(  Click – Let me know what you think )

Obama Effort to strip constitutional gun rights may start American Civil War

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ efforts for seceding from the Union.

Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.

Where does that leave Americans?

The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”

The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.

When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!

The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of  Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.

Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.

This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”

Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.

Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?

( click to let me know what you think )

UPDATE! Benghazi CIA Operators Told To Stand Down; Fallen Navy Seal Dad “The President & Hillary Did Not Tell Me The Truth”

CIA Operators, Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, heard the cries from the CIA safe house nearby.  All accounts have these men fighting until their deaths.  But what we know now is that not only did they send 3 separate requests for help, they were told to “Stand Down”.  Fox News reports that

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

They ignored those orders.  They went to the rescue of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans on scene.  They took fire, rescued as many as they could, but could not find Ambassador Stevens, so they returned to the CIA “annex” located a few miles away.  At that point they started to receive mortar fire, and they called again for help.  And that request was denied, too. They were denied a total of 3 times.

 FOX  is the only Main Steam Media reporting on Benghazi, you can find the whole report here.  This part of this story is still breaking, we will continue to update as needed. Update below.

There are some stories that hit a chord, when you sit down to write, there is a fear you won’t convey the proper words, sometimes there are no words.  Being that the Main Stream Media is ignoring “all things Benghazi” its up to us, regular Americans, to do “their” job and spread the truth.  To spread the truth so these heroes will not have died in vain.  With that said, this  story will enrage you, and it should.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy Seal who answered the call from the Benghazi “CIA Safe House” which was attacked on September 11th, 2012.  Tyrone didn’t make it out alive, but not before he fought valiantly for  several hours, taking out dozens of terrorists.  When Tyrone’s body was brought back via Andrew’s Air Force base, his father Charles was on hand to receive his slain son’s flag draped coffin.  After Obama and Hillary spoke, Charles was greeted separately by Obama and Hillary.  As Obama greeted Charles, Charles stated:

“…his face was pointed toward me, but he could not look me in the eye, he looked somewhere over my shoulder, and his handshake was like a dead fish.  I am a retired Judge, and it was my job to know when someone is telling the truth, his voice was not forceful–not like ‘I am really sorry about this Mr. Woods’, no he was not sorry or remorseful.  I could tell he wasn’t being truthful.  I didn’t speak out before, but after I learned they knew, I want to know who it was that gave the order to not protect…to not send in troops? ” (emphasis mine)

Mr. Woods goes on to relate his encounter then with Hillary Clinton.  Hillary, gave him a “hug”, and he thanked her for taking the time to come and speak with him.  Mr. Woods goes on to state:

“…..first off she said she was “sorry”, her countenance was not good, she then tells me ‘we will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted’ and I could tell, she was not telling me the truth, I mean she is smarter than me, I’m sure, and she knew she was not telling me the truth…”

Charles Woods also was incensed by VP Joe Biden.  Blundering Joe is one thing, but what he said to Mr. Woods is so crass  and in this case, so offensive:

….then Joe Biden in a real ‘boisterous” voice says ‘yea, I’ve gotten a call like that in the middle of the night, hey let me ask you something, did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’

Yea, Joe, I’m sure watching that live feed, watching men who go in and take fire, realizing at some point they were it, no back-up would be coming, God forgive you, Obama and Hillary.  God help us.  Obama, you- Joe and Panetta were meeting at 5pm during this attack, and CIA sources report it would be the POTUS who would have to say “stand down”.  And all you have to offer this slain hero’s Dad has to do with the anatomy of his private parts?

Let me say why this story is so very important right now.  Charles Woods says he is a man of faith, and that one thing he knows for sure—is that his son did not die in vain.  As it stands, this story—Tyrone Woods’ story and all 4 dead Americans, their deaths may well be swept under the rug by the Main Stream Media, the Benghazi cover-up forgotten in a few weeks.  So, for these Americans deaths to be not in vain, we must make this the turning point—it would be the turning point in this Election if it had the same press as a Cindy Sheehan.

This Country may well perish for lack of knowledge–information.  I know one thing, most Americans are good honorable people.  Many are just not “plugged in” to these events, and they then have no idea that we have a President who lies, who dishonors, who is so arrogant, who is condescending.   He thinks he can “lecture” and use “mock anger” as he did in that second debate over Benghazi.   I don’t think I will ever forget his superb acting when he reeled around at Romney saying “I take it as an offense for anyone to suggest that I don’t take this seriously, it is I who has to stand over those graves, meet those families, and to suggest I or anyone in my Administration would politicize such a thing…well is despicable”.

No, they Obama, Biden, and Hillary just stood over those coffins and lied, and they felt no remorse.  These people do not  represent me,  they do not represent who America is—this really has nothing whatsoever to do with Politics.  This has to do with honor, and decency, who who we are as Americans.  I know many of you wanted to believe that Obama was going to be the next Abe Lincoln, a man who would bring us all together.  You wanted to believe he would be fair, that he was for the poor, he was for the disenfranchised. I am sorry, I wanted that too—but its time to face the truth.  He is none of those things.

Are we so numb to Charles Wood’s pain?   We can’t bring his son back, a son who died for our Freedom.  But we can honor him, by promising to do what we can, to restore America’s honor.  And that has to start with the defeat of Obama and his regime.

Hear Charles Woods interview on FOX here.

Look to the lady who could lead

Monica Morill and former Prime Minister Thatcher

Hillary is facing a Monica moment. With the unveiling of the Benghazi catastrophe, ‘disgraceful, embarrassing and deadly’ is the obvious description used to portray current U.S. foreign policy. This is a narrative that could have been avoided, if the people responsible listened to the warning signs, we know this. But even after September 11, numerous opportunities have been squandered to share the truth about the Benghazi attack and the death of four Americans. What disappoints millions of voting Americans is the haze of information surrounding the attacks, the lack of clarity regarding who is in charge, and the pitiful, flawed leadership.

The implications are stunning. Joe Biden’s comment: “We did not know that they [Ambassador Stevens and Americans] wanted more security there” in Libya, parallels Bill Clinton’s, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…Monica Lewinsky,” statement. The additional excuses surrounding the Benghazi attacks, now publicly questioned, are deplorable and unconvincing. However, let’s not look to Joe Biden who has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy consistently for 30 years, let’s not look to the overall wobbly nature of leaders in the Obama Administration thanks to Valerie Jarrett and Obama himself.

It’s time now that we reflect on the true leadership of a woman who had clear, decisive, and powerful leadership. She was a lady among the firsts, not the first Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, nor the First Lady Hillary Clinton (who claims many firsts), but the first lady Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher.

The precision of Thatcher’s decision-making was exceptional. She stood by her open choices, nothing was hidden, she followed through with principled conviction when many around her surrendered to political convenience, and once her assessment was made rarely did Thatcher ever back down. True she had one of the blessed political unions of the century with Ronald Reagan, and their combined strength was in foreign policy. The most striking example between Thatcher and Reagan was their response to Cold War strategies, which strengthened and compounded one another. They stood firm in the face of the Soviet deployment of cruise and nuclear missiles. Thatcher was an ironclad lady, yet softened by the Hollywood personality and tough spirit of a gentleman. The political cooperation between the U.S. and UK amidst criticisms of higher military spending was challenging, but the collective leadership by Thatcher and Reagan was crucial to ending the Cold War.

Why is this reflection so important now? At the center of the Benghazi questioning, Americans are witnessing the opposite of the Thatcher legacy; the Obama Administration is desperately vacillating. The choices that have been and continue to be made do not produce answers, the wavering choices the Obama Administration makes simply produces more questions.

Political pundits are recalling Hillary’s trend of standing by her man. Hillary’s decision to repair her marriage with Bill after his numerous and very public extra-marital affairs is her personal choice and her blessing to forgive. Likewise, Hillary decided to suspend her 2008 Presidential Campaign and support Obama, a massive decision she needed to weigh carefully. But when Hillary chose to end her opposition to Barack Obama she was also choosing to enter a new relationship with him, and more importantly a subsequent political marriage or union with the American people as Secretary of State, for better or worse. Hillary now faces a very similar defining moment with Barack Obama as she did with Bill, with the exception of one key distinction. Will Hillary stand among the betrayers or among the betrayed? She has clear and distinct choices here. Hillary can remain in the Obama Administration and face the political consequences of her decision, or Hillary can abandon the Obama Administration and come clean about what really happened. Hillary’s decision needs to be crystal clear, as significant as an earnest utterance from the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Hillary faced a personal dilemma when she had to decide whether to remain married to Bill, when it came to marital infidelity. But the decision she faces between now and November 6 is far more serious, it is a question of national political infidelity, her commitment to U.S. national security. Hillary knows Obama has been unfaithful to this country, a majority of the public are now aware of Obama’s infidelity to his Presidential Oath. Hillary is at a crossroads. Will she overlook the political betrayal going on in Obama’s Administration or will she sever the political union with Obama? The world is watching very closely. Hillary’s decision to be with Bill is a very personal one and something that should be left up respectfully between them both. But Hillary’s decision to remain with Obama is a very public decision and could undeniably affect her relationship with Americans forever.

When Obama, Biden and Hillary cannot do their jobs without blaming someone else, when they are unable to work together coherently and successfully on foreign policy, this is a telltale sign of confusion, desperation, and incompetence. This is the opposite of Thatcher and Reagan’s relationship and Thatcher’s tactful leadership.

Let’s look at what has been: the details of failures that have occurred over the past few months by the Commander in Chief, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State. But let’s also look at what could be when we view the history of dedicated leadership particularly when it comes to women like Margaret Thatcher effectively guiding her country in difficult times, making the tough choices to be honest, adhering to principled conviction, and never cowering to lies and deception.

Originally posted at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

Bill Clinton told Hillary To Resign, US Arming ‘Syrian Rebels’ With Ties To Al Queda

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks  at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife  to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre.  Today we learn from sources  that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack.  Why?  Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and  why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel?  Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle?  I’d say YES.  Could this be a criminal act, negligence,  dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder?  I’d  say YES.  And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”.   Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?

To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back.  Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that  location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel.  Why?  Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”.  We can speculate what the Turkish General Counsel talked with Ambassador Stevens about that  night—but what is clear is that the Al Queda backed forces were on scene whilst the two men dined.

The ‘Libyan forces’ called the Feb. 17th Brigade, were the extra security which manned that CIA safe house.  On the night of the attack, Sean Smith, sent this message via a gaming app

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

What is interesting to note here, is the quotations around the word police.  Here, he is referring to the Feb. 17th Brigade, and what it tells me is he is questioning just who these ‘police’ are with, why  are they casing the safe house taking pictures?  We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of  Al Queda.  Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:

The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

Let’s cut to the chase.  Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US.  The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”.  They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks.  We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress.  Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?

And with that info, Obama strolled out to the Rose Garden, and alluded to this “video”.  In later appearances Obama does talk about the “vile” video, slamming Romney for calling it a “terrorist” attack.  The DOJ indicts and arrests a man, albeit with a shady past—but does his family deserve having a price on their head—do they deserve to never return to their home, due to danger?  Does he deserve to be in protective custody due to death threats from Muslim extremists?  Do the 4 dead Americans, and their families, deserve any of what has gone on?

America stands at the crossroads in history.  The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details.  They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.

Obama, Benghazi, and the Blame Game

Scandals bring out the worst in politicians, and politicians engage in scandalous behavior on a regular basis. Of course the people only end up hearing about the latter when said politicians get caught. Normally, this would happen as the result of members of the traditional media uncovering their dastardly deeds, but the age of investigative journalism in the mainstream media is drawing to a close. Now, it is in the hands of new media, and sometimes, other politicians.

Voice of America (CC)

In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.

Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.

Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.

And none of this could possibly be connected to the general state of denial within this administration when it comes to terrorism. We are no longer at war with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is dead. That fixed everything. There couldn’t be an increased threat from al Qaeda. The message is clear – the State Department is right to avoid calling those that attacked the Benghazi Consulate terrorists. And there wasn’t any real danger in Libya, so it was right to scale back security there. Stephanie Cutter is right – it is all Mitt Romney’s fault, and he’s politicizing the situation. Don’t believe her? Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Move along folks, nothing to see here!

Obama and Benghazi-Gate

It’s been 17 days since the attack on the Consulate at Benghazi, and Obama still hasn’t said publicly that it was a terrorist attack. He’s left that to his surrogates, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The bizarre situation that we’re left with is a dead-asleep press that is largely ignoring the entire situation, with few exceptions. While CNN has managed to get far more information on the ground in Libya than even our FBI has (since they have yet to make it to the scene, as of reports on the evening of September 27th), they are not really saying much of anything beyond the canned responses that have apparently been approved by the administration. And when CNN was reporting slightly on the contents of a journal owned by Ambassador Chris Stevens, the response from the administration was that it should have been given to the family without any reports on its contents hitting the airwaves. Everyone in the U.S. should have seen enough crime dramas over the years to know that is an extremely bizarre statement, presuming that the government ever had any intention of investigating the attack in the first place. Any normal person would think that knowing what Stevens was writing in the days before the attack might be relevant to the investigation, right?

Secretary of Defense (CC)

And now we’re down to trying to figure out who knew what, and when. For now, it’s become clear that the administration knew from day one that this was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video that slandered Islam. In the coming months, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that none of the attacks on Western embassies in the Middle East and North Africa had anything to do with that film. But, beyond all of that, the fact that the administration has admitted fairly quickly that they knew from the beginning the true nature of the attack in Benghazi is unsettling. It was not a situation where the press was exerting any great pressure on them about the situation – they were taking the story they were being spoon fed with the noted exceptions of FoxNews, and a few foreign press agencies. While I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, this definitely causes me to think there’s something more to this whole story.

While the administration has been very quick to point out what a great man Ambassador Stevens was – that’s to be expected – the fact that he was assigned to Libya is a little puzzling. It’s become clear over the past couple weeks that Libya was far less stable than the administration was leading people to believe – and they knew it. Stevens specialized in the Middle East and North Africa, and admittedly, there were other far more stable outposts in the region where he could have been assigned. I suggest this right now because of one glaring fact – Stevens was openly gay. Given the level of hatred and intolerance seen exerted against gays in Islamist nations, the last place any responsible member of the administration should want to place an openly gay diplomat is one where there is even a hint of radical Islamic activity. Either the administration is entirely incompetent, or someone really didn’t care about the safety of Stevens at all when choosing his assignment. Of course, these are issues that may or may not have been addressed in that journal the administration didn’t want CNN reporting about – and apparently didn’t want to read themselves.

There is no proof apparent of what I’ve suggested above. It is merely an observation, based on the few facts available right now – call it an exercise in basic logic. And perhaps it is a suggestion to the few people out there that are really interested in finding out the truth about this attack. Beyond searching for information on the radicals in Libya, another priority should be investigating what was really going on in the administration before the attack. Did Stevens have any enemies in the administration? Were there any under-the-table deals going on between the administration and Islamist organizations on the ground in Libya? Is there really a credible connection to al-Qaeda, or is it merely a matter of a single man with previous associations with that organization having a hand in the planning? And, like any other questionable situation in the Federal Government, how high does it really go? That last one is very important, primarily because Obama detractors have a horrible habit of giving him far too much credit when it comes to just about everything. Bluntly, he’s too much of an amateur in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to personally manage being puppetmaster on something like this. The Islam apologist policies he follows are really his undoing in the region – radical Muslims respect him less than the right-wing in the U.S. does because of it. The bottom line is that we are nowhere near the end of this one, if there is even one person determined to stay the course, and figure out exactly what happened. And it will be interesting to see what the truth really is.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »