Tag Archives: Libya

Obama playbook – when in doubt say it is all phony scandals

As the old saying goes, “the truth will out,” and in the case of the multiple scandals that have been dogging the Obama Administration practically from the beginning, it appears those sage words are starting to blow up in the talking heads’ faces. Those voices include individuals in the media that have chosen to be little more than Obama’s private collection of sycophants, and of course, the members of the administration that have been tap-dancing furiously around the facts in front of Congress and the public. The latest issue has been the outrageous claim by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, that all the current “problems,” particularly Benghazi, are “phony scandals.” Of course that was met with severe push-back by conservative politicians and media, expressing severe disapproval of even the concept of relegating the deaths of four American embassy personnel to the realm of “phony” anything.

It is coming up on 11 months since the attack in Libya, and the hearings are still being convened to get to the bottom of the issue. There is still one survivor of the attack in the hospital, recovering from his injuries. The rumors about the administration forcing survivors in general to remain silent about what they witnessed that night have been running around the Hill and the nation for weeks. Because the truth has been denied, the inevitable result is that the truth is sneaking its way out. As for the Obama Administration, it can’t be pleasing to them that it has come from none other than CNN – which Fox News had no problem pointing out. As for the ones that remain loyal to the president, and keep pushing his propaganda? Well, look no further than Variety to see the fate for that tactic – even the experts in the entertainment industry are admitting that being the mouthpiece for the administration isn’t a good formula for a news station that would like to have even just decent ratings.

So, all this means is that it makes sense to keep pushing for the truth. If you’re looking for a quick way to point out to the masses that the scandals really aren’t phony – and at least enumerate them quickly with pretty pictures for those that are a bit dense – there’s a short video for that:

White House states that suspending aid to Egypt ‘not in best interests’

Moravsky Vrabec (CC)

Moravsky Vrabec (CC)

The White House stated today that aid to Egypt will continue, and that suspending it at this point is not in the best interests of the U.S. This comes as some pressure had been building over the legality of continued financial support of the embattled nation. Those that were opposed to continued support were arguing that monies had been authorized to support a democratically elected government, not a military regime that had removed elected officials.

Fox News reports:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, saying repeatedly that the situation is “complex,” made clear that the administration plans to slow-walk any final decision on U.S. aid. The underlying issue is whether the U.S. government considers the toppling of Morsi to be a military coup — under U.S. law, the government is required to suspend aid in the event of such an overthrow.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reiterated his belief on Monday that the overthrow was clearly a coup, and the consequences under U.S. law are unavoidable.

“I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time,” McCain said.

Carney, though, would not describe the ouster as a coup. He said the administration would “take the time necessary” to evaluate that question — but in the near-term, cutting off aid would not behoove the United States.

“I think it would not be in the best interest of the United States to immediately change our assistance programs,” Carney said.

The Obama Administration has been under fire for its handling of foreign policy with Egypt, Libya, and Syria, primarily over inaction, and this is yet another situation where it is choosing not to act. The continued support in Egypt should raise questions in the coming days and weeks, not the least of which being who is actually in charge in that nation, how the aid is being used, and whether or not military resources supplied by the U.S. are being used against civilians on the ground.

The timing of this statement is not reassuring, since it comes in the wake of a military action in Egypt that resulted in the deaths of at least 51 persons. The attack was in retaliation for the death of a member of the military, presumably killed by a protester involved with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Truth Behind Pan Am 103 May Be Revealed After 25 Years

Yesterday was the 24th anniversary of the bombing of Pan Am 103. The truth behind that attack remains in shadow, but there may be light at the end of that tunnel.

dctim1 (CC)

dctim1 (CC)

The new Libyan government in Tripoli stated that they intend to open their files on the tragedy, and hand them over to Scottish authorities eventually. Libya’s ambassador to the UK, Mahmud Nacua, stated that his new government intends to give information on the bombing that killed 270 in 1988 as soon as the Libyan government is more settled and stable.

Nacua suggested that may happen in a year’s time, so it is possible that on the 25th anniversary of the attack, the families of the victims may finally have the answers they have been asking for from the beginning. While Scottish authorities are hopeful that they may be able to bring charges against additional Libyans in this, the fact remains that time is not on their side. The only one charged thus far, bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, died earlier this year of cancer. It’s not unreasonable to think that many, if not all, of his co-conspirators have died in the intervening years – either from illness, or from violence. However, there is the possibility of getting some closure from at least finally knowing the names.

Flashback: Do You Remember Those Racist Condi Rice Cartoons?

As liberals continue to counter the criticism directed towards Ambassador Susan Rice with the race card, Eliana Johnson at National Review aptly noted how similar criticism was lobbied at Condoleezza Rice when she was nominated for Secretary of State.

In my previous post, “Deciphering Susan Rice without Being Racist” – Katrina Vanden Heuvel was exposed as using the terms “incompetent” and “liar” to describe Rice —  Condoleezza Rice. Vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the far left magazine The Nation. Eliana Johnson detailed on November 21 how left-wing media outlets and members of Congress were hurling similar accusations of incompetence and politicking at Condoleezza Rice that are we seeing ahead of Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State.

Johnson wrote that:

[Condoleezza] Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”  

Hey, that’s racist.  But so is this cartoon by Ted Rall, who has the then-Secretary of State saying she was Bush’s ‘house nigga.”

 

Jeff Danziger, whose cartoons are syndicated in The New York Times, had a caricature of “a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Johnson is dead on in her assessment that there’s a difference when someone calls you a “house nigga,” and when someone calls you incompetent.  One is blatantly racist, while the other is isn’t.  It’s not that hard to comprehend.  Ambassador Rice misled the American people  – and we deserve answers.

Incredible Incompetence

As the typical media outlets focus on the sex scandal surrounding former CIA Director David Petraeus and the shirtless emails from an FBI agent, the real tragedy of Benghazi goes unnoticed and the president’s woeful incompetence has yet to be challenged. There are a magnitude of questions still unanswered about the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the deaths of 3 other Americans when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by a coordinated group of terrorists.

Were the president, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, CIA Director and Director of National Intelligence aware of multiple requests for additional security in the weeks leading up to the attack?
If so, who denied the requests and why?
If not, why not?
Why did Stevens meet with a Turkish diplomat an hour before the attack?
Was President Obama in the Situation Room during the attack?
If so, who gave the stand down, not once, but three times?
If so, why did the president, his campaign staff and UN Ambassador Rice lie about the attack being a mob protest gone wrong for 2 weeks?
If the president was not in the Situation Room, why not?

Congressional hearings scheduled for later this week will be “closed” and without media inclusion. Both Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has hired a high-powered legal team, are no longer scheduled to testify at the hearings, which could have offered insight as to the multiple requests for additional security and other details about the US operation in Libya. Petraeus is out due to his resignation, Clinton cites a schedule conflict, though both could be subpoenaed.

The timing and circumstances of Petraeus’ resignation begs the question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” considering the Obama administration’s history of failed vetting and lack of control of military commanders.

General Stanley McChrystal was fired in 2010 after he made statements in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine that the administration claimed were disrespectful. Administration officials said the interview was not the principle reason for McChrystal’s firing. McChrystal replaced General David McKiernan just a year earlier as the commander for Afghanistan because then Defense Secretary Robert Gates “lacked confidence” in McKiernan.

General Carter Ham was the commander of US operations in Africa until just after the September 11th terrorist attack in Libya. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-R) said publicly that Ham told him that no request for military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi was made to Ham. Though speculation has circulated the news wires, there has not been a definitive statement as to why Ham decided to leave his post just 1 year before his scheduled retirement.

Former General David Petraeus would most certainly have been vetted by administration officials before taking his post as Director of the CIA. Who vetted him for that position? Being that the alleged affair with his autobiographer Paula Brodwell is reported to have occurred while Petraeus was still a general, why did the information on the affair not come out during the vetting process?

Either the president and his chosen administration knew these things and ignored them, has no control over their own personal appointments at the very highest levels of the military, or the vetting process is completely inept. When will the media begin asking questions that provide the answers?

Congress Has To Buck DC Culture And Investigate Benghazi

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.

Hurricane Sandy: Obama’s Social–Worker–in–Chief Moment

Obama urging the National Weather Service to find more bad weather before the election.

Hurricane Sandy — much like Barack Obama — turned out to be an over–hyped phenomenon that failed to deliver. Our portion of the storm in Northern Virginia was so weak the Multicultural Commissars didn’t even bother to give it a Hispanic name, like last summer’s “derecho” (formerly known as “severe thunderstorm”).

I tried to lend a hand and come up with a culturally–sensitive name, but Spanish for “Sandy” is still “Sandy,” making it tough to appear cutting edge during a TV broadcast.

“Hurricane” translates as “huracán” and the resulting “Huracán Sandy” fails to advance the cause of linguistic arrogance. It doesn’t compare with changing the perfectly good name of “Bombay” to “Mumbai.” All that did was confuse millions of Americans looking for a particular large city in India. (The Indians already knew where it was.)

Besides, where does one draw the line? Does the “pecan sandie” cookie become the “sandie pacana?”

There were houses smashed by downed trees in my neighborhood — certainly a disaster for the affected homeowners — but nothing to compare with the “derecho.”

Even during the height of the hype, my household preparations were limited to bracing for a potential power outage. Since our family has never associated bowel movements with natural disasters, we even missed the ‘Assault on Food Lion.’ Because we don’t feel compelled to buy a pallet–load of toilet paper anytime it’s overcast for three consecutive days.

The local paper wrote of a Dominion Power repairman that just missed being drowned by rising floodwaters. But who noticed the unsung American Disposal Services crews braving wind and rain to pick up household trash during the beginning of the blow? While government employees, enjoying the shutdown, watched from their front window.

Naturally Obama’s media amen chorus and the administration itself, are doing their best to politicize the storm. There was extensive damage in New Jersey and New York. So the WaPost proclaims, “Storm provides Obama with a commander–in–chief moment.” Which only goes to show the mainstream media (MSM) thinks we’ll believe anything.

The attack on the consulate in Libya provided Obama with a genuine “commander–in–chief” moment where he could have affected events on the ground, which is something “commanders” do. But Obama failed miserably.

Hurricane Sandy provides him with a Social–Worker–in–Chief moment, a situation with which community organizers are much more comfortable. Obama took a helicopter tour while the wind was still blowing. Yet FBI investigators had to wait weeks before they could visit the ruined consulate in Libya, only to discover the scene hopelessly compromised by hundreds of journalists and sightseers who didn’t wait for administration approval.

And to show benighted conservatives how fortunate we are to have Obama in the White House, the WaPost adds: “Rarely, if ever, has a president had to deal with such a major disaster so close to Election Day…”

What’s “rare” — in fact unprecedented — is the MSM allowing an administration to take a bye on a disaster like Libya so close to an election. Governors in New York and New Jersey call Obama for help and he’s Johnny–on–the–spot. SEALs in Libya call for backup during an attack that kills four Americans, including the ambassador, and get an administration brush off.

If only Libya had a few more votes in the Electoral College.

The story also includes a breathless blow–by–blow of his day.  During a videoconference Obama uses the MSNBC slogan as he orders the bureaucracy to “lean forward on this.”

Then he holds a conference call with utility executives and “underscore(s) the urgency of restoring electricity,” as if the people at PEPCO were unaware their customers depend on electric power.

This is busy work in a pathetic effort to look engaged and presidential. It compares unfavorably with Obama’s trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser the evening we learned of Ambassador Stevens’ death.

The New York Times editorial page weighed in with, “A Big Storm Requires Big Government,” possibly indicating the NYT believes severe weather to be a recent invention.

Maybe they have a point. How could we do without FEMA officials “embedded in states’ emergency operations centers” getting the latest from local police, local fire and local officials. Then trying to decide how to give tax dollars taken from the states, back to the states after Uncle Sam has taken his cut for overhead, motivational speakers and government employee awards.

How did we survive disasters before Jimmy Carter’s FEMA got involved?

When I think of the abandoned buildings, the decaying harbor and the rusting trolley cars — all this could have been prevented if only Washington had helped after the San Francisco earthquake.

To say nothing of the vast desert, formerly known as Chicago, after the fire of 1871…

THREE Denials for Help in Benghazi

Fox News has obtained information that confirms CIA operatives requested military backup 3 times during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

According to Fox News Special Reporter Jennifer Griffin:

“They knew that the consulate was under fire and that the ambassador needed help. They were told to stand down twice.”

She explains that the small group of CIA operatives at the annex a few blocks south of the consulate then disregarded orders and made their way from the CIA annex to the consulate building. After searching unsuccessfully for the ambassador and making some “heroic efforts to rescue those who had survived,” they made their way back to the annex.

“At that point, another request for help, for military help, some sort of air cover, was made from the CIA annex but no help was sent.”

Shortly thereafter, another CIA team flew in from the capital city of Tripoli but were denied at the airport. According to Griffin’s report, there was “infighting” among Libyan officials on the ground about whether or not the team would be granted an escort to the compound.

Griffin continues, “According to sources on the ground during the Benghazi attack, they did have laser pointers on the mortar fire team, and that if Special Operations specter gun ships had been sent in, and some were on standby… that they could have prevented those mortars that struck the compound.”

Meanwhile back in D.C., a meeting was held at the Oval Office whose attendees included the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense. That meeting was held at 5:00pm on the day of the attack, one hour AFTER the initial fire began.

There were 2 surveillance drones present during the 7 hour battle that could have been accessed by a number of US agencies.

MORE ON BENGHAZI:
Watch the Jennifer Griffin report
Hilary Clinton Assembles Legal Team
White House Knew
Bill tells Hillary to Resign

Government Can Lie; But We Can Vote

Former judge, Andrew Napolitano, was a guest on FNC Studio B with Shepard Smith today discussing the newly obtained emails that show the timeline and terrorist links to the attack at Benghazi.

Earlier in the day White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the emails, including the claim that an Al Qaeda group was responsible for the attack just hours after it happened. His response was that the email information should not be taken as fact.

ABC News: Carney today told reporters that there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. “There was a variety of information coming in,” Carney said. “The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible.”

Judge Napolitano stated, “We now know that the president could not have been truthful when he told Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on Comedy Central [that] as soon as we get this information we’re going to release it to the American people.”

 

Email from Benghazi Offices can be viewed here.

Cables sent from the Consulate office can be downloaded here.

The deaths of these Americans is a tragedy compounded by the false statements made by this administration.

As the judge said, “It is not against the law for the government to lie to the people; but the remedy is a political one, and the people once lied to may take that remedy and vote out of office a government that they believe has lied to them.”

The cover-up of this catastrophe should be reason enough to vote for change on November 6.

 

 

UPDATE: Clinton assembles legal defense team

ABC News reports on 9/20/12 that Clinton was unaware of al Qaeda link to attack
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hillary-clinton-info-amb-chris-stevens-al-qaeda/story?id=17282653#.UIgHn46xpVg

After weeks of administration officials blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, new documents obtained by multiple news outlets now prove beyond doubt that Secretary Hillary Clinton was aware of the situation within 2 short hours of the onset of weapons fire on the consulate.

Shortly after 4:00PM on September 11, 2012, emails from the consulate detailing the extreme nature of the attack were sent to some 200+ intelligence, State Department and White House officials, including the Situation Room. By 6:07PM, the email communications clearly indicated that Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Email addresses indicate that without doubt that @state.gov (State Department) and @nss.EOP.gov (Executive Office of the President) received the communications. Also included in the “send to” line are the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence and a person at the Defense Department.

New reports out this morning show that Secretary of State Clinton assembled a legal team to be prepared for any fallout with the Obama administration that would attempt to place blame on the Secretary.

In the weeks following the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration pushed the narrative that a YouTube video prompted riots that got out of control for the cause of the attack. Clinton and President Obama stood side by side when addressing the nation condemning the video and blaming an American citizen for the deaths of the ambassador, 2 US marines and another American. The president spoke to the UN, appeared on The View and David Letterman shows and gave campaign speeches that continued to push that narrative for weeks after the attack. On September 28, 2012, Press Secretary Jay Carney finally told media that there was “no doubt that [the attack] was an act of terror.”

To read more about the latest Benghazi bombshell click here.

SHOCK REPORT: White House Knew 2 Hours After Attack

In a shocking revelation, Reuters is reporting tonight that both White House and State Department officials were told that the attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans was a coordinated act of terror by the group called Ansar al-Sharia.

According to Reuters, this alarming new information was obtained from emails provided by an anonymous government source.

“The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.”

For a thorough timeline of the events of September 11, 2012, see Boston.com.

This breaking news is significant because President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice initially claimed the attacks were the result of protests due to a YouTube film. These newly discovered emails confirm that these three individuals were lying to the American people, the media and the United Nations in the days following the Benghazi attack.

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton Has Legal Team Assembled

Why Talking About Libya Matters

The latest Obama Administration talking point is attempting to make the September 11th attacks in Libya a campaign issue. Both Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod claim Mitt Romney’s camp is trying to “exploit” the tragedy by mentioning it on the campaign trail.

This obfuscates the problem. It’s not a campaign issue, but a policy issue. It’s still not known why there wasn’t enough protection at the compound, who denied requests for additional security and what intelligence agencies did or didn’t know at the time.

It also doesn’t answer why both the administration and the State Department decided to blame a non-existent “movie” on the attacks, when they apparently treated it like a terror attack from “Day One.” Despite the best efforts of the Administration and their surrogates, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in various speeches and media appearances on the matter.

The biggest issue is how the original conflict came to be. According to “The Washington Post,” the Arab League and Libyan rebels requested U.S. involvement in March 2011 but the White House was divided. It was Clinton who convinced Obama to launch the airstrikes after several meetings in Europe.

Where was Congress in all this? Nowhere. The administration did the Libyan action without congressional approval. The President did inform Congress of what was going on, but there was no vote on the matter. The only congressional action was the Senate approving the non-binding resolution about a “No Fly Zone.” Outside of that, Congress wasn’t involved.

According to the U.S. Constitution in Article One, Section Eight, only Congress can declare war. The president doesn’t have the power to unilaterally make military decisions.

This is why Libya is an issue because it violated the Constitution.

Situations like this have gotten the U.S. in trouble before. The Korean War wasn’t approved by Congress and neither was the Vietnam War, despite the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Both conflicts ended badly for the U.S. with little or no gain. It’s possible the administration believed Libya was similar to the 1999 action in Yugoslavia but that obviously wasn’t the case. The September 11th attacks proved it.

A truly unconstitutional war has been compounded by a completely avoidable death. Saying it’s being exploited for political means only forwards the belief the administration is hiding something. Axelrod may be being a loyal soldier, but he’s showing the Obama Administration is behaving like poltroons for not tackling what happened in Libya head on.

It’s why Romney and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson can talk about the attacks without it being exploited.

Granholm shamelessly pivots away from American dead in Libya, says Romney Campaign lacks information

On the October 14 broadcast of Meet the Press, Jennifer Granholm, former Governor of Michigan and host of Current’s The War Room, stated that the Romney campaign is somehow not qualified to comment on the Libyan terrorist attack because they don’t know the difference between a compound and an embassy.  It’s indicative of “a lack of information.”  Oh, and they’re exploiting it for political gain.

MR. GOV. GRANHOLM:  Let’s be clear.  First, on the attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others, the president has launched an investigation to get to the bottom of it and no one is more concerned about tracking down those killers to the end of the earth than the president is.  The investigation and the knowledge of what’s happening is an evolving process.  You don’t know everything on day one what you eventually find out.  That’s why you launch an investigation.  But what was said at the debate is not inaccurate.  There was testimony in Congress asking for more security, but that security that was requested was for Tripoli, which is the embassy, not for Benghazi, which is 400 miles away.  The fact that the Romney team doesn’t distinguish between an embassy and a compound, I think, is indicative of perhaps their lack of information.

DAVID GREGORY:  Governor…

FMR. GOV. GRANHOLM:  But let me just say, they have– the Romney team is politicizing this.  They are politicizing this issue for their benefit and they are– they’ve got a lot of nerve when the Republicans in Congress actually were the ones to cut three hundred million dollars from the administration’s request for security for embassy protection.

First of all, the vote to cut the funding never “came into fruition.”  Second, the three hundred million dollars talking point is rendered moot by the fact that the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for embassy security.  The problem is they won’t spend it.  As Katie Pavlich at Townhall posted yesterday:

 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

”The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said. “That is not how you do security.”

As Leah reported over the weekend, while Benghazi lacked security despite pleads from officials on the ground for more, money was spent so officials at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna could receive Chevy Volts.

This is the second international incident where the Obama administration’s negligence has led to the deaths of American citizens.  Moreover, it’s the second time the administration tried to cover it up.  The pervasive mangling of the facts about the attack from blaming it on a video, to saying it was the consequence of a protest, and finally saying there was no protest. But a deliberate terrorist attack is egregious in the extreme.

Granholm has trivialized the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others because it looks bad for the Obama administration.  It’s a perversion of the truth – and completely extraneous to the discussion at hand.  Perhaps, the consulate (or compound) could have been adequately protected if U.S. Marines weren’t so busy defending American interests in the hostile island nation of Barbados.

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!

On 9/11/12, U.S. Marines Were Protecting a U.S. Embassy – in Barbados

This hasn’t been a good week for the Obama administration, specifically the State Department, where Hillary Clinton is being thrown under the bus. Although, Allahpunditposted four reasons on why he’s skeptical of this maneuver.  We had the hearings  on the terrorist attack last week where Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs tasked with protecting American diplomats abroad, had trouble labeling the Libyan terrorists who carried out the attack as “terrorists.” Furthermore, she had the temerity to say that adequate security was allocated to the consulate on the day of the attack.  Does anyone else consider having 5 DS agents on a protective detail in a hot zone as unacceptable?

Concerning the repeated requests and rejections to beef up security around the consulate, it appears there could have been some redeployments of U.S. Marines to Benghazi.  My good friend Patrick Burke at CNS News posted a story last Friday detailing that on the day of the attack – U.S. Marines were deployed to the ‘very hostile nation’ of Barbados.  This was confirmed by the State Department.

‘U.S. Marine Security Guards serve at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, and at other diplomatic missions around the world, to protect and safeguard American diplomacy,’ Rebecca Ross, the U.S. Embassy to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Counselor for Public Affairs, said in a statement to CNSNews.com.

‘On September 11, 2012, our U.S. Marine Security Detachment carried out its regular duties which include providing internal security, preventing the compromise of classified information and equipment, and providing protection for U.S. citizens and property located within official U.S. facilities,’ Ross said.

On August 16, less than a month before the terrorists struck the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the U.S. Marine Security Guard Force in Barbados led a physical fitness test for young athletes.

The need to provide “internal security, preventing the compromise of classified information and equipment, and provide protection for U.S. citizens and property” in Barbados appears to be unnecessary since the nation’s Ministry of Tourism has noted a sharp increase of visitors due to the “natural friendliness and warmth” of the Barbadian people.

Yet, there wasn’t time to issue orders of redeployment of even think about such a matter.  As Leah Barkoukis at Townhall posted yesterday, the Obama administration seemed too busy fighting global warming.  She cited Investors.com, which reported that:

Four days after the use of an ancient DC-3, along with other security requests, was being denied, on May 7, 2012, the State Department authorized the U.S. Embassy in Vienna to purchase a$108,000 electric-vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts.

As Rep. Mike Kelly points out in a Washington Times op-ed, the purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollarson green program expenditures at various U.S. embassies.

At a May 10 gala held at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

Wow.

Originally posted on Hot Air.

« Older Entries