Smokin’

Judicial Watch announced today that on February 11, 2015, it uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents were produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511). The documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton…

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (DC)

Her whole “3 a.m.” shtick in the 2008 campaign was that she was ready for responsibilities that Obama wasn’t prepared for, yet when a crisis finally landed in her lap here, she couldn’t move fast enough to pass the buck to some random American whose big sin was free speech that was “unhelpful” to the administration’s goals.

And she’s already the un-corronated Queen of All She surveys by the Left and Leftist Media who are on a Media Re-Make Tour right now!.

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously.

At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.

About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related: 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is.

At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack.

I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.

As I’ve also previously detailed, Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists.

An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media.

At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being. The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.” (NR)

And it’s 2015 before we got them!

What Difference does it make? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Honor of Battle

Counterterrorism analysts said Monday that the U.S. government’s global response to a threat emanating from Yemen, home to al Qaida’s most active affiliate, was at odds with how dismissive President Barack Obama was in a speech in May, when he said that “not every collection of thugs that labels themselves as al Qaida will pose a credible threat to the United States.”

That was only one of a series of public statements by Obama and his Cabinet members that played down the capabilities of al Qaida-linked groups. For at least the past two years, the administration has sought to reassure Americans that al Qaida is “on the run,” while counterterrorism experts were warning about the semiautonomous affiliates that have wreaked havoc in North Africa, Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

“The actions the administration is taking now are deeply inconsistent with the portrait of al Qaida strength the administration has been painting,” said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington research institute.

Welcome to the Big Brother News service. Do you wonder if Obama even remembers what he said in May or cares? Do you think the Ministry of Truth remembers or cares.

Doubt it.

Being deeply narcissistic means you just do what you have to, and say what you have to, for the moment to get what you want. Consistency or truth or even conviction are complete strangers to this need.

And there is no more narcissistic than Obama.

On the campaign trail last fall, Obama touted the killing of Osama bin Laden during a covert U.S. raid in 2011 as a sign that, while the U.S. would have to maintain vigilance, “the truth, though, is that al Qaida is much weaker than it was when I came into office.” In his State of the Union address last February, the president called al Qaida “a shadow of its former self” and said the threat posed by its affiliates wouldn’t require large-scale U.S. military deployment.

In July 2011, Obama’s then newly appointed defense secretary, Leon Panetta, said he was “convinced in this capacity that we’re within reach of strategically defeating al Qaida.”

“It’s called politics. They know it’s not true,” said Aaron Zelin, who researches militants for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and blogs about them at Jihadology.net. “The movement has grown over the past two years. The ideology is thriving.” (McClatchy)

The politics of narcissism. The politics of The Ministry of Truth.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.
And President Hands-Off Drone Strike strikes again in Yemen. War by Remote Control. That way no soldiers, no bad politics of soldiers. That’s the Obama Way.
So is bribing people to do what he wants (or at least make him look good). Even Terrorists!

Buried inside a lengthy unclassified report released last week by the Pentagon is a description of something called the Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program, through which the administration started to pay terrorists to walk off the battlefield.

All Taliban and al-Qaida fighters have to do is sign (a thumb print will suffice for illiterates) an “intent to reintegrate” form vowing to “cease violence (and) live within the laws of Afghanistan,” according to the report, titled “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan.”

In exchange, they’ll receive monthly payments and even get to keep their weapons if they request them for “personal protection.”

Who vouches for the sincerity of these supposedly reformed terrorists? Local tribal leaders and Islamic clerics, most of whom sympathize with the Taliban and al-Qaida. They sit on a so-called High Peace Council with area warlords, an oxymoronic situation to the hilt.

The administration boasts that “to date, 6,277 fighters have been removed peacefully from the battlefield and enrolled in the program.” But it won’t provide data on how many “reintegrees” have rejoined the jihad against U.S. troops and America. (IBD)

Most I would guess. But that’s a question no one wants the answer to.

So far, Obama’s Taliban amnesty program has cost U.S. taxpayers a whopping $72 million. Total five-year funding for the reintegration program, which includes “community recovery projects,” is $175 million.

Again, the Pentagon has provided no data on the number of enrollees who have returned to the battlefield, so we have no metric to judge the effectiveness of its jihad rehab.

The amount of money the Obama administration is paying the bad guys to stay off the battlefield in its run-up to its announced 2014 retreat is obscene.

This is how Obama plans to declare victory in Afghanistan — through bribery. (IBD)

Why not, he bribes people to vote for him. So why not bribe people to not shoot at us or cause Terror attacks. That’s bound to work just like “Vote for me, The other guys and Asshole” did.
He’s Just that good, right? 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Obama’s Secret Wars

Jumping right in, our first headline is from November of last year, from CNS News:

null

Fast forwarding to yesterday morning we find this headline from Business Insider:

null

Al Qaeda is on the run so much that they’re apparently a real threat again just from running around so much, not that the threat ever actually diminished. (Drudge)

There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone.

You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you….You don’t frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior! 🙂

Pop quiz. With whom is the U.S. presently at war?

At any other time in our nation’s history most Americans could have readily answered that question. Great Britain. Mexico. Spain. Germany. North Korea. North Vietnam. Iraq. Even college students who couldn’t name the vice president or their state’s governor would know who their non-college-material buddies were being sent overseas to kill or be killed by. These days the world is a bit more complicated.

There are the easy answers: the Taliban. Al Qaeda. Then the waters get a bit murky. One might justifiably ask if America is at war with Syria, or at least the Syrian government. Despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose meddling in the Syrian civil war, Congress recently approved arming “vetted elements” of the Syrian opposition. Which vetted elements the Obama Administration intends to arm is anybody’s guess, as is how we intend to keep those arms out of the hands of non-vetted elements.

Are we at war with Iran? A cold war, certainly. What is America’s involvement in Syria’s civil war if not John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s attempt to poke a stick in the eye of Syria’s foremost ally?

What of America’s covert wars? Most experts agree that the U.S. is involved in at least three drone wars against Islamist “elements” in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

If you ask President Obama who the U.S. is at war with he will usually say “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who are these associated forces? And just how broad is this war we are fighting?

It is not just the American people who are in the dark. Even the U.S. Congress is unsure who America is at war with, Pro Publica’s Cora Currier revealed last week. A clueless Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently asked Obama’s Defense Department to provide him with a list of those associated forces. Levin, at length, received the Authorization for Use of Military Force list, but then refused to share it with the press and the American people. Apparently who we are at war with is a state secret.

A Pentagon spokesman later said that the government didn’t want to give those associated forces credibility by naming them. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks,” a spokesman said. That assumes the Islamists who might be expected to join these “associated forces” haven’t heard of these groups either. Or did not find them credible until they made the DOD’s enemies’ list. Jack Goldsmith of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law recently wondered why the U.S. government can acknowledge some enemy groups (al Qaeda and AQAP and elements of al Shabaab) without unduly inflating them, and not others. 

IS IT POSSIBLE that the Obama Administration doesn’t even know all the groups America is at war with? Last May, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he was “not sure there is a list per se,” notes Currier, and added that it is best to leave who the associated forces are to the experts.

All this secrecy comes at a time when it has been learned — thanks to Edward Snowden — that the NSA has been secretly compiling calling records from cell phone users. The records include who called who, where they were, how long the call lasted — for millions of people, both Americans and foreigners. According to the Atlantic, “this ‘metadata’ allows the government to track the movements of everyone during that period, and [to] build a detailed picture of who talks to whom. It’s exactly the same data the Justice Department collected about AP journalists.”

Americans have accepted the obsolescence of fighting an old fashioned war on a traditional battlefield against uniformed armies. Now we are asked to go to war without even knowing who the enemy is. (Kinda like that gun-running Benghazi story– was that the Syrians or someone else?) One would think it hard to support (or object to) a war against unknown enemies. But then perhaps that is the point. “The secrecy … deflects painful scrutiny that [the Department of Defense] would rather avoid,” writes Goldsmith. Perhaps the real question we should be asking is, if Americans are not permitted to know who we are at war with, what else aren’t we allowed to know? (Spectator)

 

135346 600 Obamacare Data Hub cartoons

 

The Prism of Big Brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5dmf5xZJu0

The scale of America’s surveillance state was laid bare on Thursday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

A White House spokesman said that laws governing such orders “are something that have been in place for a number of years now” and were vital for protecting national security. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Verizon court order had been in place for seven years. “People want the homeland kept safe,” Feinstein said.

BUT Obama himself prior to  his re-coronation declared the War on Terror won.

“The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that “It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

So who’s he keeping it “safe” from then? 🙂

The White House sought to defend what it called “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats”. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Fisa orders were used to “support important and highly sensitive intelligence collection operations” on which members of Congress were fully briefed.

“The intelligence community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to a public statute with the knowledge and oversight of Congress and the intelligence community in both houses of Congress,” Earnest said.

Or are we talking about Janet Napolitano’s “domestic Terrorists”, aka The Tea Party. 🙂

History: http://governmentagainstthepeople.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/senator-barack-obama-on-illegal-domestic-surveillance/

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises …”

Barack Obama, May 23

Nice thought. But much as Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times and declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself – and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness. (Charles Krauthammer)

With Al Qaeda’s core now “on the path to defeat,” he argued, the nation must adapt.

But “adapt” to what?

Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple.

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority.

Which, of course, make all of this George Bush’s fault! He;s the one responsible for invading your every waking moment technologically! Not Big Brother Obama and his cronies! 🙂

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of PRISM.

It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.

Government officials and the document itself made clear that the NSA regarded the identities of its private partners as PRISM’s most sensitive secret, fearing that the companies would withdraw from the program if exposed. “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft; we need to make sure we don’t harm these sources,” the briefing’s author wrote in his speaker’s notes. (WP)

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

Which according to the left makes all of this spying Bush’s fault! 🙂

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.

The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. (UK Guardian)

In a statement issue late Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

But the War on Terror was won, so who are you afraid of? 🙂

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

So, a Note to the NSA computer that is reading my blog and listening to my phone: I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON IT M*F*!

Thank you.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Cover-up Zombies

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!

In an appearance on Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed several new pieces of information about the Obama administration’s controversial description of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, casting doubt that the White House mischaracterized its cause by mere accident.

“The talking points were right and then the talking points were wrong,” Issa explained in response to a question about reporting at the Weekly Standard. The CIA and Greg Hicks, who took over as Charge d’Affairs in Libya after the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, both knew immediately that it was an attack, not a protest.

Hicks, who did not appear on the show but whose reactions were featured based on transcripts of interviews with Issa’s committee, said he was stunned by what UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed on five different news shows on Sep. 16. When she appeared on Face the Nation, she followed an interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had “no doubt” it was a terror attack. Moments later, Amb. Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely.

Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. “The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he accused. Hicks added, “My jaw hit the floor as I watched this…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day.”

Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI three weeks to gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible.

According to Hicks, no one from the State Department contacted him about what Amb. Rice would be saying in advance. The next morning he called Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Affaris, and asked her why Amb. Rice had made the statements she had. Jones responded, “I don’t know.”

A report published Friday by the Weekly Standard suggests that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland took issue with the initial talking points and, with backing from the White House, removed any evidence of al Qaeda involvement and of prior attacks on western targets in the region. According to emails reviewed by the Weekly Standard, Nuland said her superiors (unnamed) were concerned about criticism from Congress. (Breitbart)

If this had been their Devil Incarnate GWB they’d be screaming for Impeachment hearing like a bunch of flesh crazed harpies.
Instead they are cover-up Zombies.
Amazing what partisan ship does to “justice” isn’t it?
But, take heart, Ambassador Stevens and 3 others are still DEAD. And the Left doesn’t care who did it because it’s not apart of their Agenda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

Can you hear the collective yawn for the Ministry of Truth?

Rules of Engagement

The Real “Buffett Rule”:

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (A)’s cash hoard hit a record as first-quarter profit jumped 51 percent on gains from equity-linked derivatives and insurance operations.

Net income climbed to $4.89 billion, or $2,977 a share, from $3.25 billion, or $1,966, a year earlier, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company said yesterday in a statement. The cash pile grew to $49.1 billion from $47 billion three months earlier, eclipsing the previous record of $47.9 billion in the second quarter of 2011.

“Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “

Except when I do it, then you’re not allowed to ask me about it because I won’t tell you.

War On Terror (IBD): Eight months after the Benghazi attack, the FBI begs for help by releasing photos of three suspects, reports surface about an al-Qaida link and the State Department’s review panel is under investigation.

Ahead of highly anticipated hearings set for Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee featuring testimony from State Department whistle-blowers — of which a clueless President Obama professes no knowledge — the FBI has released photos of three people who were at the U.S. consulate when it was attacked last Sept. 11 — pictures that were available on Day One.

But of course on Day One, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy blaming a YouTube video for the murder of her ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

So was United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice five days later on all the Sunday talk shows.

The Obama administration had no time for real suspects, especially those possibly linked to an al-Qaida organization that we were told was on the run in a war on terror that was over.

“We are seeking information about three individuals who were on the grounds of the U.S. Special Mission when it was attacked,” the FBI said in an Arabic release featuring the images.

“These individuals may be able to provide information to help in the investigation.”

Well, it’s about time, isn’t it?

Contrast this Inspector Clouseau-like plea for help in identifying suspects eight months after the Benghazi attack with the quick release of suspect photos in the Boston Marathon bombing that led to their relatively quick apprehension.

Why wasn’t this Benghazi trio immediately cast as three of America’s most wanted? Why the difference?

CNN now reports that it’s been told by a senior U.S. law enforcement official that “three or four members of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack and may have been deliberately dispatched there to help in the carefully planned and well-executed operation.

They were later traced to northern Mali, where they’re believed to have been connected with a fighting group commanded by Moktar Belmokhtar, an Algerian terrorist linked to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Belmokhtar claimed responsibility for an attack on the In Amenas gas facility in southern Algeria in January.

Fox News is also reporting that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi attack for the State Department and whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.

This ARB report, which fails to mention the video “Innocence of Muslims,” also failed to single out any individual officials for violating procedures and did not recommend any disciplinary action, despite the fact that the broad security failures resulted in the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three others.

In an interview for the Fox News program “Geraldo” taped Thursday afternoon and set to air over the weekend, Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, told host Geraldo Rivera that he was representing a career State Department officer whom the board failed to interview. DiGenova called the ARB report a “cover-up.”

DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official who represents another State Department whistle-blower in the Benghazi case, said their respective clients will testify at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

As we’ve written, Benghazi is a clear case of criminal negligence by this administration. Obama pledged to bring those responsible for the attack to justice. He lied.

So far, the only one jailed is the maker of that YouTube video. This is not an ongoing investigation. It’s an ongoing cover-up.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Obama Years

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Obama Years: For someone who goes out of his way to miniaturize the threat from terrorism, terrorism sure seems to dog this president. When will President Obama face up to this growing evil?

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Never. Not within his mindset. He would have to rebel against his Orwellian beliefs.

U.S. officials familiar with the FBI’s counterterrorism training program and its controversial public outreach program to Muslim groups said FBI policy toward Islam—that it should not be used to describe those who seek to wage jihad or holy war against the United States and others they regard as infidels—has prevented both effective counterterrorism investigations and training.

The officials said the problem is that most field agents understand the nature of the threat but have been hamstrung by policies imposed by senior FBI leaders who are acting under orders of political appointees in the Obama administration, including Islamic advisers to the White House. The policies have prevented the FBI from conducting aggressive counterterrorism investigations of Islamic radicals or those who are in the process of being radicalized.

If this is true, it is an outrage.  Political correctness shouldn’t get in the way of the #1 responsibility of the President (and the executive branch he heads): Keeping America safe. (Townhall)’

No, he has to keep THE AGENDA safe. That’s all.

During coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, CNN made a startlingly inaccurate claim about the terror tempo occurring under this administration — one that reflects the administration’s own state of denial about the rising threat.

They also went looking for someone on the right to blame, immediately.

The network’s homeland security analyst, Juliette Kayyem, asserted: “We have not had (even) a small-scale terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.”

In fact, the nation has suffered several major attacks — and most of them have taken place on Obama’s watch.

Since 2009, terrorists have shot up our military bases, assassinated our diplomats and burned our embassies. And now they’ve murdered and blown off the limbs of innocent spectators, ambushed and shot cops and completely shut down our 10th-largest city.

June 1, 2009: Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and killed one military recruiter and seriously wounded another at a Little Rock, Ark., recruiting station. Muhammad, a convert to Islam, had visited Yemen for 16 months, where he spent time in prison and became radicalized. Muhammad identified with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Nov. 5, 2009: Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major serving as a psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas. He shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — Allah is Greatest! — as he killed 13 and wounded 29 fellow soldiers. Hasan had received approval for his act from al-Qaida operative Anwar Awlaki.

Remember how the DoD refused to classify Nidal Malik Hasan’s attack as terorrism, referring to it instead as “workplace violence”? 🙂

The only “terrorists” the Left sees is The Right, namely Tea Partiers.

“The ‘tea parties’ and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, wrote in a piece titled “Rage On The Right: The Year In Hate And Extremism” from the group’s Spring 2010 edition of its Intelligence Report. (DC 2010)

The AP called Tea Partiers “insurgents” in 2010. “Insurgents” largely has been used of late in the media as a watered-down reference to terrorist.

Hmmm…

March 4, 2010: John Patrick Bedell, a Muslim convert, shot and wounded two Pentagon police officers at a security checkpoint in the Pentagon station of the Washington Metro transit system in Arlington County, Va.

Sept. 11, 2012: Al-Qaida operatives attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The heavily armed assault began during the night at a compound meant to protect the consulate building. A second assault early the next morning targeted a nearby CIA annex. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured.

April 15, 2013: In the latest act of terror on Obama’s watch, at least two Muslim jihadists set off pressure-cooker bombs loaded with shrapnel at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 183. Then, in a second wave of terror, the terrorists shot two police officers, killing one, and also injured several others with military-grade explosives. As this is being written, the terror siege hasn’t ended.

These are just the actual terror attacks. They don’t include all the major plots and near misses, such as:

September 2009: Authorities arrested Afghan native Najibullah Zazi before he could blow up the New York City subway.

September 2009: Police nabbed Jordanian national Hosam Maher Husein Smadi before he could plant a bomb in a Dallas skyscraper.

December 2009: Passengers on a flight bound for Detroit tackled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before he could detonate dangerous PETN and TATP explosives sewn into his underwear. Abdulmutallab was trained in Yemen by al-Qaida.

May 2010: A massive bomb planted by Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, fails to explode as planned in an SUV parked in Time Square. He was trained and funded by the Taliban.

October 2010: Chicago synagogues discovered explosives packed inside two printer cartridges shipped by cargo planes from al-Qaida in Yemen. Luckily, the attacks failed.

Mr. President, saying there’s no Islamic terrorism doesn’t make it go away.

And canceling the war on terror doesn’t end it. Face it, we are engaged in a long-term war. And it’s not over yet. (IBD)

But didn’t you know in Orwellian Thought that if you can’t think the thought it doesn’t exist?

And they want you to be just like them….OR ELSE! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley