Friday, December 21, 2012

Obama Finds His Benghazi Fall Guys



After an independent report found that mistakes were made in the Obama Administration’s handling of the Benghazi jihad massacre, Barack Obama immediately took action against those who apparently made them: Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; and Raymond Maxwell, the deputy assistant secretary of state whose purview included Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, all resigned under pressure.

The report says that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus” led to a security arrangement “that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

Are we really to believe that it was Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Raymond Maxwell who were really responsible for the refusal of repeated requests from the Benghazi consulate for more security personnel, and the complete disregarding of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens that al-Qaeda was operating in the area? There are numerous indications that all this came from higher up.

After all, the Obama Administration’s entire Middle East policy has since January 2011 been predicated on the unquestioned dogma that the “Arab Spring” uprisings were a glorious outpouring of democracy and pluralism. Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March 2011, Obama warmly praised the dawning in Libya of “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny.” Thus after providing military aid to the anti-Gaddafi rebels despite evidence of their al-Qaeda links, the administration – whether the call really came from the White House or the State Department or both – had every reason to ignore the request from Benghazi for more security, and to pretend that the whole thing was just a spontaneous uprising over a video about Muhammad, not the carefully planned September 11 jihad attack that it proved to be.

Speaking about Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the New York Times said that “the report affirmed there were no protests of an anti-Islamic video before the attack, contrary to what Ms. Rice had said on several Sunday talk shows days after the attack.”

But Susan Rice was in an extremely difficult position. To have acknowledged what was really happening in Benghazi would have been to admit that the Allahu-akbaring mob besieging the consulate was nothing remotely close to a responsible citizenry enjoying their rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and self-determination. And that would have given the lie to Obama’s description of the uprising against Gaddafi.

It would have been to admit that the jihad against the United States would not be turned away from its goal by hearts-and-minds gestures, even if those gestures included the removal of a brutal dictator. The people of Benghazi were no more inclined to welcome the Americans as liberators – and Ambassador Stevens had attempted to play exactly that role, sneaking into Libya during the most difficult days of the uprising and doing everything he could to aid the rebels – than were the people of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was toppled.

The reason in both cases was the same: the rebels against both Saddam and Gaddafi were largely Islamic supremacists who wanted a Sharia state, disdained democracy, and considered the United States to be their enemy not primarily because of various aspects of its foreign policy, but because it is the world’s foremost infidel polity, against whom the mujahedin believe they have a sacred duty to wage war. The Qur’an and Islamic law direct Muslims to wage war against and subjugate the “People of the Book” (cf. Qur’an 9:29) – that is, primarily Jews and Christians – not if they behave badly by supporting Israel or Middle Eastern dictators, but simply because they are not Muslims.

But the White House and State Department not only do not acknowledge this fact – they have done all they can to deny and obfuscate it. The one cardinal proposition that accepted analysts must repeat is that the present conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims have absolutely nothing to do with Islam; indeed, Obama Administration officials are expressly forbidden to link Islam with terrorism, as if Islamic terrorists weren’t busy linking the two on a daily basis. The errors of analysis and wrong decisions that cost lives all follow from this initial false premise.

That false premise is reminiscent of what is said about State during the Iranian Revolution: that while the Ayatollah Khomeini was bringing about the toppling of the shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, only one of his books could be found anywhere in the State Department, and no one had read it. No one thought the rantings of an obscure fanatic who for years had been exiled to far-off France were important.

This was the willful blindness that killed Chris Stevens, and is the real scandal of Benghazi. The politically correct fantasies that characterize the Washington establishment’s views on Islam and jihad not only make for bad policy; they also kill. Clearly what happened in Benghazi was part of a coordinated, carefully planned series of jihad attacks.

From the beginning of the “Arab Spring,”  I said repeatedly that it was not a democracy movement as the Western press and the White House were claiming, but an Islamic supremacist takeover that would result in the creation of Sharia states far more hostile to the U.S. and Israel than the Arab nationalist regimes they were supplanting. This assessment was greeted with the usual scorn, but Benghazi shows who was right and who was wrong and how desperately the foreign policy establishment in Washington needs a very thorough housecleaning. The firing of Boswell, Lamb, and Maxwell are not that housecleaning; they are just fall guys.

The only person responsible for the Benghazi massacre is sitting in the Oval Office.

And this is the man Obama picked as our next Secretary of State

John Kerry Slandered an American Hero

By: Humberto Fontova / Townhall Daily
John Kerry Slandered an American Hero
During solemn hearings on the floor of the U.S. Senate investigating drugs and terrorism a swarthy Hispanic who landed on U.S. shores with the clothes on his back and was graciously put on the path to U.S. citizenship repeatedly insulted a U.S. Senator who was also a highly decorated war veteran, an Ivy League graduate and a scion of a wealthy and politically-connected American family. The smartmouthed Latino was accused of drug-running and money-laundering to finance terrorists. He was testifying under oath –sneeringly and with a heavy Spanish accent-- upon a subpoena by lawmakers of the nation that had shown him unlimited generosity.

Mere minutes into the confrontation the swarthy Latino’s arrogance, testy rebuttals and steely stare had reduced the lanky New England millionaire-aristocrat to nervous stuttering between shifty glances.

Just the thing to get those Teabillies and Red-State yahoos to briefly drop their guns and Bibles grab their tar, feathers, torches, pitchforks and rope, right? Then bawl for the uppity Latino’s head! Right?

Just the thing to warm the hearts of America’s “party of diversity,” right? Just the thing to delight those enemies of the “one-percenter” and “champion of Hispanics” right?

Here was “Yes we can!” (Si se Puede!) with bells on! Right?

HAH! Think again. The accused “Latino”, you see, was Cuban-American freedom-fighter, Che Guevara captor (and Republican) Felix Rodriguez. The accuser was Senator John Kerry. The setting was the 1987 "Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations," shortly known as “The Kerry Committee” which became the opening act for what shortly came to be known as the “Iran-Contra Hearings.”

So the reactions were exactly reversed. The liberal lynch–mob (Democrats/Media) hailed the New England (inherited) millionaire and bawled for the uppity “Latino“ refugee to be (figuratively) strung up-- and burned afterwards for good measure. Only the liberals’ torches and pitchforks were missing. Some background:

On the day he gained his U.S. citizenship in 1969 Felix Rodriguez celebrated the honor by volunteering for armed action in Viet-Nam. He flew over 300 helicopter combat missions in Viet-Nam, and was shot down five times. He won the coveted Intelligence Star for Valor from the CIA and nine Crosses for Gallantry from the Republic of South Vietnam. Later he battled Communists in El Salvador using a helicopter "mobile strike unit" scheme he developed in Viet-Nam. He flew over 100 combat missions in Central America, captured the FMLF's top commander and helped crush those Communist- terrorists decisively. All this was volunteer work. Earlier as a CIA operative, Rodriguez played a key role in tracking down and capturing Che Guevara in Bolivia.

Rodriguez was flying combat missions in El Salvador the summer of 1987 when his wife called to say his name was splashed all over the Miami Herald as a cocaine smuggler for the Nicaraguan Contras-- and one who reports to Vice President Bush!

"Forget it," he laughed. "Who's gonna believe such garbage?" But as always with Liberal slanders, they have a life of their own. The smear spread through the Beltway media like wildfire.

A subpoena from the Kerry Committee shortly hit the Rodriguez’ Miami doorstep. "Great!" whooped Felix while flying back from the Central American war. "I'll be happy to tell a Congressional Committee everything--but I insist on open hearings.”

The slanders then taking Rodriguez away from the field against Communists to attempt to clear his name and honor originated at the Kerry Committee's last "closed" hearing. Here a convicted drug smuggler sentenced to 46 years in Federal prison (and who later flunked several polygraph tests) made the outrageous charges against Rodriguez and Vice President Bush. Next day they were all over the Beltway media. Rodriguez noticed that the Miami Herald mentioned, "unnamed congressional sources," for its slanders. Kerry Committee leaks anyone?

Also note the date, summer of 1987. Shortly George Bush would wage an electoral campaign against Kerry's friend and political ally, Michael Dukakis (Kerry had served as Lieutenant Governor for this famous tank commander.)

Miami area lawyers, knowing Rodriguez' honorable reputation, tripped over themselves clamoring to represent him pro-bono during the Kerry Committee hearings. "I don't want any lawyers!" Felix responded. "If I need a lawyer to help me explain why I've been defending this country for the past 27 years--then I'm in the wrong country! I want my testimony in front of the American people!"

More alarmingly (to Democrats) Rodriguez refused what weasel types call "immunity."

You can imagine Kerry's forehead furrowing and a few nervous coughs behind the hand at the news. Nothing so unnerves a big-haired, blow-dried Congressional Committee like spunk, courage, honesty, straight talk.

So naturally Kerry denied Rodriguez' request for an open hearing. If Rodriguez cleared his name, if he shot down his Committee's cockamamie accusations--by God, Kerry certainly didn't want it getting any circulation! The Kerry Committee--and The Kerry Committee alone-- using leaks to their press cronies, would decide exactly what got in the newspapers and evening news.

"Senator, my name was leaked by your Committee as being involved with drug smuggling," Rodriguez started his testimony. "I take that very seriously. It affects my family and my reputation."

Kerry furrowed his (now) famous forehead and affected a stern look "You're making serious accusations here...."

"Senator this slander was in every g*dd*mmed newspaper after your committee's last closed hearing." Rodriguez shot back, "saying I solicited drug money for the Contras. That, Senator Kerry, is a d*amned lie!"

Kerry's forehead furrowed further. He stuttered. He started rambling well off the subject, asking Rodriguez about Che Guevara’s capture and why he hadn't fought harder to save his life, etc. (what this had to do with the hearings has never been explained.)

"SENATOR!" an exasperated Rodriguez finally shot back. "It's difficult for me to answer questions from a man I DO NOT RESPECT!"

Kerry gaped. A northeastern liberal Democrat he'd always been a media darling, soft-soaped and soft- balled by the media. Now some Cuban refugee had him seriously rattled. But Rodriguez didn't miss a beat --naming dates and witnesses, citing documents--he proceeded to demolish every accusation against him.

"I have nothing to hide," Rodriguez said repeatedly. "I'm not ashamed of anything I've done. I've battled communism since I was 17. I help the Contras, the Salvadoran government. I do so as a volunteer, legally and openly. And if you're sincere, senator," he finished up. "You'll put out a statement to the press about what I said here today. I insist that the American people know about my testimony!"

No such statement ever issued from Kerry's Committee. So two months later Rodriguez called a press conference in Miami to tell his side.

A full year after leaking the slanders against Rodriguez and after the treacherous, lying swine who made them failed three polygraph tests, The Kerry Committee finally saw fit to allow Rodriguez' year-long request for an open hearing. They scheduled him as the fifth witness at 5 in the afternoon when the Senate chamber was devoid of reporters and TV cameras. In the near-empty room, Kerry finally mumbled a half-hearted apology.

But as Rodriguez writes "whether by design or coincidence, allegations about me and drug smuggling and Vice President Bush kept popping up in the press right up until election day 1988." And the Miami Herald kept mentioning those "unnamed Congressional sources."
By: Jonah Goldberg / Townhall Columnist
When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?

I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.

It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.

Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."

These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.

Just this week, in an essay for the New York Times, Adolph Reed attacked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- the first female Indian American governor in America -- for appointing Rep. Tim Scott to retiring Sen. Jim DeMint's seat. Scott is a black man and a conservative Tea Party favorite.

So obviously, this is a very clever ploy to restore Jim Crow.

"Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests -- to get around the 15th Amendment," Reed writes, "so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests."

That's it exactly. Indeed, that's what the Tea Party was always about: undermining black interests.

When Herman Cain -- another inconveniently black man -- was the overwhelming preference among Tea Party activists for the Republican presidential nomination, a historian writing in The New York Times suggested that Cain could be seen as proof the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan lives on.

You know you've been pounding a square peg into a round hole for too long when you find yourself insinuating that a black man from Georgia represents the KKK tradition in contemporary politics.

More recently, liberal writers apparently convinced themselves that Republican opposition to Susan Rice becoming the next secretary of state was payback for the Emancipation or something.

"Angry over the reelection of the nation's first black president," vented a writer for The American Prospect, "a handful of old white senators -- one of whom hails from the cradle of the Confederacy -- launch hysterical and dishonest attacks on ... a well-qualified African American woman."

The Washington Post editorial board connected the dots, too, finding it important to note that of the Republican legislators expressing their reservations about Rice, "nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."

Of course, the same racist representatives of Dixie also thought it fine to confirm Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice for the same job.

It's like a metastasizing cancer of delusion. Jim Sleeper, a lecturer at Yale and once a relatively sober-minded liberal writer, insists that opposition to gun control has something to do with the segregationist mind-set. Or something.

To watch MSNBC is to think the hosts see themselves as the official newsletter of the Underground Railroad.

Sure, there are racists in the Republican Party. (There are some in the Democratic Party, too.) And if you define racism as disagreeing with the Congressional Black Caucus or Barack Obama, the GOP is racist to the bone.

But the inconvenient truth is that conservatives are not only not racist, they aren't a fraction as obsessed with race as liberals are.

Of course, that lack of obsession is no doubt itself proof of conservative racism. And why shouldn't it be? Everything else is.
SHE GAVE UP HER LIFE FOR HER SCHOOL CHILDREN...
Obama gets 'Time' Person of the Year...
 There is something so horribly wrong here...


Op-ed:
And the Benghazi circus continues
By: Diane Sori

 
On the advise of committee chairman,   Senator 'Swiftboat' John Kerry (and most likely future Secretary of State),  Hillary sits home with a 'con'cussion as her designated mouthpieces are bloviating rehearsed lies and cover-up statements at the Benghazi hearings. 

And while the independent Accountability Review Board report, released this past Tuesday, blamed "systemic failures, and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" plus "grossly inadequate security," along with a "breakdown in communication between Libya and Washington" as some of the causes leading up to the deaths of the four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, we now have seen a report that is very damning and damaging to both Obama and Hillary...and rightly so.

At yesterday's hearings, via her mouthpieces Deputies Secretary of State William Burns and Thomas Nides, Hillary has promised that she will put in place 29 recommendations made by the special review board, including improving intelligence gathering in known high-threat (terrorist) areas, and will also be creating a new position to focus specifically on diplomatic security in those areas.

Guess what...too little, too late, and anyway 'We the People' don't what to know what Hillary or the State Department will do in the future...we want to know what they're covering up now. 

Saying what she called a “systematic failure” of security, and that she had no “confidence in the State Department’s assessment of what went wrong and what actions are needed to prevent a repeat,” Chairwoman Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) continued pressing mouthpiece Burns as to “why did it take the intelligence community some days to determine what was inaccurate." 

"I’m sure our colleagues in the intelligence community wish they could have cleared up those inaccuracies sooner,” said Ros-Lehtinen as to why both Hillary and Obama sent Susan Rice on the Sunday news/talk show circuit with false information about a YouTube video causing the attack.

And how did Burns reply...he used the usual Obama tactic of blame everybody but the actual people involved, saying the talking points used by Rice were approved by the CIA.  But he LIES, especially in light of the fact that all reports clearly showed that Obama and Hillary knew within 24 hours that this was a calculated terror attack by islamic jihadists.  Yet, the Obama administration, Hillary included, continued to lie to the American people and to the families of the victims for weeks, choosing instead to blame the deadly attack on a 'spontaneous protest' caused by a ridiculous anti-muslim video. 
 
But even with what little he did say regarding the administration's claimed cause of the attack, Burns did NOT address the more important issue as to why were the warning signs of a deteriorating security situation ignored, and why didn't the State Department ask Congress for money to boost security at the mission in Benghazi, especially in light of the fact that Libya itself was basically a free for all since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

And now after the fact, the State Department is asking that $1.4 billion be placed in next year's budget for increased security.*  What I want to know is why they didn't ask for it before...like when Ambassador Stevens sent communique after communique begging for help and was told the situation didn't warrant it, and even if it did there was NO money for additional security.  Oh but there was...there was lots of money from the funds that hadn't been spent in Iraq that could have been used.

Gee, now I wonder where that money went and to who it went to...did Obama funnel it to the Muslim Brotherhood perhaps...I think I know the answer to that one.

But the bottom line remains as it has been since day one...Hillary knew about terrorist threats in Libya yet her office did NOTHING to protect the U.S. missions in Benghazi.  And while the report tried to shift some of the blame onto the middle-management levels (which is BS because all levels answer to Hillary), it in NO way answered the critical questions regarding the early intelligence findings and the morphing of lies told by the Obama administration as to their explanation for the consulate attack.  Also, the report did not address the continuing cover-up nor did it bring closure to the families of the four MURDERED Americans.

And Hillary's mouthpieces did none of that either with their trumped up testimony.

As Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says, "She (Hillary) is ultimately responsible for the department and U.S. posts around the world. Her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is indispensable to any effort to address this failure and put in place a process to ensure this never happens again."

And so it remains that Hillary must make herself available for direct and detailed questioning as soon as she 'recovers' from her 'con'cussion because no one is buying the subterfuge told by her deputies at yesterday's hearings.  Is Hillary trying to run down the clock until she's NO longer Secretary of State...possibly...but she will eventually be forced to testify for if she thinks Benghazi will fade away she is very wrong.  And while we all know that some things in DC are always swept under the rug, for the families of the four MURDERED Americans that’s not possible and 'We the People' will NOT let Obama, his suck-up media, or the gutless wonders in Congress do so.


* Funding breakdown: $553 million for 35 additional Marine Security Guard detachments, $130 million for 155 diplomatic security personnel, and $376 million for security upgrades and construction at new embassy compounds