Tag Archives: Libya

Has The Government Lost Its Mind?

Posted on by

Last week CNS News reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a draft resolution that would lift a 30-year-ban on Libyan nationals coming to the United States to work or train in “aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields.”

The article reports:

In a statement on his congressional website, Rep. Chaffetz said that the draft final regulation could take effect without prior notice and comment. The congressmen say the prohibition was put in place in the 1980s after the wave of terrorist incidents involving Libyans.

“The administration justifies lifting this ban by claiming that the United States’ relationship with Libya has been ‘normalized,’” the statement said.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Reuters reports today:

Heavy fighting between militias using rifles, grenades and anti-aircraft weapons erupted in several parts of Tripoli on Tuesday in the worst violence in the Libyan capital for weeks.

…OPEC producer Libya faces chaos and anarchy as the government struggles to rein in militias, gangs and Islamist radicals in a country awash with arms two years after the ouster of former leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Several security officials declined to comment when contacted by Reuters on the latest incdient.

Officials are often reluctant to discuss militias which call the shots in the streets. Many technically work for the police or other other regular forces but in practice report to their commanders.

Fighting between militias is often about personal arguments, control of local areas, stolen cars or smuggled goods such as drugs or alcohol banned in Libya.

I don’t have a problem with taking in refugees from a war-torn country. I do have a problem with allowing people from a country with known terrorist ties to work or train in “aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields.” The draft memo by the DHS is simply not sensible. I don’t understand how America’s relationship with a terrorist country can ever be ‘normalized.’

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Questions Than Answers

Posted on by

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line yesterday that asks a very interesting question about the Benghazi attack.

The article at Power Line links back to a Jake Tapper CNN article referenced on this site on August 2. The article confirmed a rumor that many CIA operatives were on the ground at Benghazi during the attack on September 11, 2012, and that those operatives were being muzzled by the government. The obvious question being asked is, “What is being covered up?”

The cover-up began instantly when a video with very few YouTube hits was blamed for the attack on Benghazi. Why was it instantly necessary to provide a cover story for this attack? Was this political–if it was terrorism, it might impact the election–or was this about something entirely different?

The article at Power Line points out some basic facts:

So, what do we make of all of this? Tapper’s reporting points toward the conclusion that the longstanding rumor to the effect that the terrorist attack occurred during a top-secret arms transfer mission is true. But how much does that really explain? It seems unlikely that the CIA mission prompted the attack: we now know that the Syrian rebels consist in substantial part of al Qaeda elements, and if arms were sent from Libya to Syria, al Qaeda probably wound up with some of them. So why would al Qaeda want to interrupt the CIA mission via an attack on the American compound in Benghazi?

…So I find it hard to understand how the current revelations fit with what we already know–or think we know–about Benghazi, or why the administration and the CIA are now so intent on covering up whatever the Agency was up to at the famous “annex.” My sense is that the current reporting leaves us a long way from understanding what really happened on September 11, 2012.

It will be interesting to see if we actually have the truth about Benghazi before President Obama is finished his second term.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Incredible Coincidence Or Government Thuggery?

Posted on by

The Benghazi attack is still surrounded by more questions than answers. Yesterday CNN posted an exclusive story about a number of CIA agents who were on the ground in the outpost at Benghazi during the attack. Since the attack, many of these agents have been recovering from the wounds, but all of the agents have remained out of sight. Why?

The article reports:

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”

Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

“Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that,” said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

“If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it’s called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they’re looking for something, or they’re on a fishing expedition. But it’s absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly,” said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

If the CIA has been all that open with Congress, why are agents being kept from the press and subjected to lie detector tests much more frequently than usual?

With this is mind, let’s take a look at the timeline regarding the resignation of General David Petraeus as the head of the CIA. Regardless of his affair, General Petraeus is known for being an honest man who loves his country and believes in America. There are a lot of stories about when General Petraeus began his affair with Paula Broadwell. The timeline on this is important–was the affair going on in early September 2011, when General Petraeus took over as the head of the CIA? If it was, how did the people who screened him for the job miss it? If the affair began later, was the Obama Administration aware of it? Why does this matter? The attack in Benghazi took place on September 11, 2012. General Petraeus resigned on November 9, 2012. The cover-up of Benghazi began immediately–keep in mind the only person in jail for the Benghazi attack is the filmmaker who made a film no one saw and had nothing to do with the attack. Is it possible that General Petraeus was told to go along with the cover-up or have his affair revealed?

Regardless of the scenario anyone chooses, it is obvious that there has been a cover-up of what happened in Benghazi. The thing to keep in mind is that cover-up, deny, and delay are all standard tactics of the Obama Administration. There are two main theories I have heard on what was going on in Benghazi — number one that it was a gun running operation supplying arms to the Syrian rebels, and number two that the attack was supposed to be a peaceful kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens so that he could later be swapped for the Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik), currently serving a life sentence at Butner Federal Medical Center in North Carolina.

Neither scenario would be popular with the American public, but I suspect the spin artists in the media could dress up either one to make it work. With the recent reporting on Benghazi by CNN, it may actually be possible that Americans will eventually know the full story of what happened at Benghazi on September 11 of last year.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Didn’t They Just Send Him A Fed-Ex Package?

Posted on by

Fed-Ex seems to have the ability to deliver a package to anyone anywhere in the world. They are a whiz at locating people. The FBI should have contacted them to arrange an interview with one of the suspects in the Benghazi attack.

Mediaite reported yesterday that CNN had interviewed Ahmed Abdu Khattala.

The article states:

Khattala told Damon that no one from either the Libyan or American governments has contacted him asking for his take on the events of that deadly night in 2012. “Even the investigative team did not try to contact me,” he said of the FBI team that traveled to Libya in the wake of the attack.

Damon said that Khattala told her that he would be happy to speak with American investigators about what happened on the night of the Benghazi attack. She stressed, however, that he would not voluntarily submit to interrogation.

CNN posted an article today about their success in locating a possible suspect in the Benghazi attack. The article states:

Eight GOP lawmakers are asking that incoming FBI Director James Comey brief Congress within 30 days about the investigation. They say the administration’s inquiry into the September 11, 2011, attacks in Libya has been “simply unacceptable,” according to a draft letter obtained by CNN.

“One of the pertinent questions today is why we have not captured or killed the terrorist who committed these attacks?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told reporters. “News out today that CNN was able to go in and talk to one of the suspected terrorists, how come the military hasn’t been able to get after them and capture or kill the people? How come the FBI isn’t doing this and yet CNN is?”

It is really pathetic that CNN spends two hours interviewing someone who may be connected with the attack on Benghazi and the FBI doesn’t seem to be interested in talking to the person.

It has been almost a year since the attack on Benghazi. Congress is right to demand more information from the FBI regarding the investigation. Hopefully, someone at the FBI will provide that information. Unfortunately the Obama Administration has not been kind to whistleblowers when they reveal things that are unfavorable to the administration, so it is a safe bet that we will not find the people responsible for the attack on Benghazi until we have a totally different administration in Washington.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Searching For The Truth

Posted on by

Yesterday CNS News posted a story questioning the accuracy of some of the Congressional testimony regarding the attack at Benghazi.
The article reports:

An attorney whose firm represents two Benghazi whistleblowers said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lied to the Senate when he said there was never a “stand down” order during the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012.

This contradicts the testimony of Gregory Hicks, former number two State Department diplomat in Libya. According to the article:

Hicks told Congress that after the first attack, a security team left Tripoli for Benghazi with two military personnel and that four members of a special forces team in Tripoli wanted to go in a second wave but were told to stand down.

I have previously reported on this aspect of the story (rightwinggranny.com). Despite the fact that the attack was more than nine months ago, these questions about what happened that night remain unanswered. I believe that all Americans are entitled to answers–especially the family members of those who lost their lives their night.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are The Benghazi Hearings Earthshaking?

Posted on by

Tomorrow the hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will begin at 11:30 am. The witnesses will be:

Mr. Mark Thompson
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism
Mr. Gregory Hicks
Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya
US Department of State
Mr. Eric Nordstrom
Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya
US Department of State

In true Washington form, a lot of the expected testimony has already been leaked out (can’t anyone in that city keep a secret?).

There is a lot of damaging information that has already come out, but most of it was not new to people who were willing to look past the mainstream media. The significant part of what is happening now is that much of the media that blindly supports President Obama has begun to cover the story. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS has been covering the story from the beginning and posted a story at CBS News yesterday which claimed that Special Forces were barred from going to help when Benghazi was attacked. The article includes excerpts from Gregory Hicks’ interview with congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee in April. Please follow the link above to read the interview.

Benghazi was mishandled from the start. That area of Libya has a history of radical Islamist terrorists and the annex at Benghazi should have either been guarded like Fort Knox or shut down. Decreasing security before the September 11 attacks was foolish and dangerous. The goal of the Obama Administration may have been to give the perception that the war on terror ended with the killing of Osama Bin Ladan, but they were very foolish to let their guard down in Libya. Had the Special Forces been allowed to go into Benghazi, we might have saved Ambassador Stevens, but the ensuing news reports would have been a nightmare for the Obama Presidential Campaign. That fact may have been a major part of their calculations in how they responded to the incident, altering the talking points, and lying about the some of the details. .

So what happens next? I don’t know. I don’t want to see President Obama destroyed by this. He is guilty of lying, incompetence, and a bunch of other things, but impeachment would be a serious mistake on the part of the Republicans. Even if it were deserved, it would never pass the Senate, and even if it did pass it would give America Joe Biden as President. Either way, there is no happy outcome. The good that could come out of this is that Congress will continue to hold the President’s feet to the fire when he is lying and will begin to limit some of his more unconstitutional actions. It would also be nice to see the American press begin to cover this President objectively, but I really don’t believe in unicorns.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Does Not Look Good

Posted on by

CNS News reported today that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Libya in 2011, the Department of Defense pre-positioned ‘assets’ off the coast of Libya in order to ensure her safety.

The article reports:

The fact that the assets were pre-positioned for Clinton’s visit was included in the annual report of the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS).

CNSNews.com asked the Pentagon if it would specify which military assets had been prepositioned off Libya at the time Clinton’s visit. The inquiry was forwarded to U.S. Africa Command, but a spokesman for that command declined to add any details to what had been stated in BDS report.

“One of the most complex security challenges presented to the Secretary’s [Diplomatic Security] Detail was her equally historic and ground-breaking trip to Libya in October [2011], after the fall of the Qaddafi regime,” said the BDS annual report.

So we are left with a variety of questions. Was our intelligence so far off that we had concluded that Benghazi was safe when we decreased the security provided there? Does America routinely abandon its diplomats in unstable areas without adequate protection while going out of its way to protect their superiors? What did the State Department think had changed in the time Secretary Clinton visited Libya and the time Benghazi was attacked.

Just a note. As hearings convene next week on Benghazi, remember one thing–the person who produced the video that was NOT responsible for the attack in Benghazi is still in jail. How is that possible?

Please follow the link above to read the entire story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alarming Stories The Press Seems To Have Ignored

Posted on by

The Accuracy in Media website posted a very disturbing article yesterday. It’s a rather long article consisting of stories of small businesses and private citizens who have been harassed by the federal government in the past few years.

The article expresses concern for the militarization of police forces and the seeming lack of regard for Constitutional rights of American citizens. The stories show a pattern of excessive force and SWAT- style tactics when a simple visit from a local police officer would have resolved a problem.

The article concludes:

The increased militarization of police forces and the associated use of SWAT teams for routine law enforcement are a dangerous trend. Given Obama’s seeming willingness to abuse the power of his office on so many fronts, it is reasonable to expect more, not less, of the kind of abusive police overreach described in this report, while police forces and capabilities will continue to grow.

Obama’s obvious hostility to gun owners is fueling legitimate fears of gun confiscation, furthering an atmosphere of mutual distrust and paranoia between police and civilians. This raises the specter of armed confrontations should there be attempts to confiscate firearms. As one law enforcement official said at a recent gun hearing, “Good people are going to die trying to take these guns and good people are going to die trying to keep them.”

Ironically, despite its professed commitment to stopping “gun violence,” the Obama Administration authorized gun-running to Mexican drug cartels and Jihadists in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. Some hearings and investigations have been held into these schemes but there has been little accountability for this “gun violence.”

If the disregard for the rights of American citizens is a pattern, it needs to be stopped quickly. A free country cannot survive four more years of total disregard for the rights of its citizens. At the very least, the press needs to be reporting the stories in this article and holding the officials responsible for the abuses or power responsible.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Testimony On Benghazi Only Gets Worse

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the testimony of Army Gen. Martin Dempsey during the Congressional hearings Thursday.

The testimony from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was telling:

“The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This was followed by the testimony of General Dempsey:

“Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

McCain interrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

“I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

Any American who is paying attention and has common sense knows that September 11 has become an important day for terrorists who want to attack America. It is also logical that terrorists would attack a ‘soft’ target–one that was not heavily defended. It is also obvious to Americans paying attention that the situation in Libya has not been stable since the revolution there. So the logical thing to do would have been to increase the security at Benghazi at least on a temporary basis. Instead, the brilliant minds at the State Department decreased security (Washington Times October 2012) in the weeks before September 11.

Four Americans died because the people in charge were not paying attention. It is extremely unfortunate that many of the same people were still in charge after the attack.Enhanced by Zemanta

In The Middle East Which Country Allows Arabs The Most Civil Rights ?

Posted on by

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about the annual report from Freedom House, an organization that annually reports on freedom around the world. The recently released report explains how the results were obtained, discusses trends and provides current rankings for all countries around the world.

Freedom House reports:

Key global findings:

The number of electoral democracies stood at 117, the same as for 2011. Two countries, Georgia and Libya, achieved electoral democracy status, while two were dropped from the category, Mali and the Maldives.

Four countries moved from Partly Free to Free: Lesotho, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Tonga. Three countries rose from Not Free to Partly Free: Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, and Libya. Mali fell two tiers, from Free to Not Free, and Guinea-Bissau dropped from Partly Free to Not Free.

Some notable trends highlighted in the report include increased Muslim-on-Muslim violence, which reaching horrifying levels in Pakistan and remained a serious problem in Iraq and elsewhere; a serious decline in civil liberties in Turkey; and among the Persian Gulf states, a steady and disturbing decline in democratic institutions and an increase in repressive policies.

Worst of the Worst: Of the 47 countries designated as Not Free, nine have been given the survey’s lowest possible rating of 7 for both political rights and civil liberties: Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Two territories, Tibet and Western Sahara, were also ranked among the worst of the worst.

An additional 5 countries and 1 territory received scores that were slightly above those of the worst-ranked countries, with ratings of 6,7 or 7,6 for political rights and civil liberties: Belarus, Chad, China, Cuba, Laos, and South Ossetia.

Let’s look at this summary for a minute. Many leaders in America claim that Sharia Law is compatible with American democracy. Saudi Arabia operates under Sharia Law–please note that they are listed as one of the worst or the worst. Note also that many of the countries listed in that category have Muslim governments.

The article at Power Line notes:

…The report notes some positive trends in the Middle East, yet Israel remains the region’s sole country ranked Free in Freedom House’s evaluation.

Today Israelis go to the polls to elect their government. Israel’s Arab citizens will vote and Arabs will be elected to Israel’s Knesset. Given the neighborhood, not to mention other factors, it’s a remarkable story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Consequences Of ‘Leading From Behind’

Posted on by

The U. K Telegraph reported yesterday that most of the weapons used by al Qaeda-linked militants to storm a gas facility in southeastern Algeria came from Libya, The weapons and yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as “chocolate chip” camouflage worn by the terrorists were also used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi.

We may have deposed some tyrants in the Middle East in the Arab Spring, but it seems that in the process we have provided weapons to Al Qaeda and created unrest in the entire area. Unfortunately, the leaders who replaced the dictators that were toppled are no more democratic than their predecessors.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Timeline That Tells It All

Posted on by

Doug Ross at Director Blue has posted a timeline of the events in Benghazi. It shows the events both in Washington time and Benghazi time. It is posted below. To see a more easily read image, please follow the link above.

It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media bothers to cover this after the election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Strong Words From Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, Former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations

Posted on by

On Sunday, the Washington Times posted an article by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, about the September 11 attack in Benghazi.

The Admiral did not mince words, and as a retired military man, he had a better understanding of how the military chain of command works than most of us have.

The article reports:

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety.  According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

What in the world are we doing? Didn’t we learn our lesson when we created the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

The Admiral concludes:

Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.

I suspect that the truth of this event will come out after the election. It should come out before. The events of September 11 reflect very badly on the people in the Obama Administration who were making decisions that night–whoever they were. They need to be held accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Just Isn’t Getting Any Clearer

Posted on by

Yesterday the Weekly Standard reported:

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

OK. Who did tell the military special forces not to help those under attack in Benghazi? And why? It seems to me that at least the first question should have been answered by now.There are phone records and email records that should paint a fairly clear picture of who said what.

I heard a theory today that totally unnerved me. The New York Times reported recently that the Obama Administration was selling weapons to the rebels in Syria, despite the fact that these rebels have close connections to Al Qaeda. It also should be noted that Libya has supplied a major portion of the Al Qaeda soldiers we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the Ambassador (who was a good man who had a heart for the Arab people) was about to blow the whistle on our gun running activities in the Middle East? Would that have been a reason not to send help? As I said, that is just someone’s theory, but can someone come up with a better explanation as to why help never came?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About Concerning Benghazi

Posted on by

Yesterday Bing West posted an interesting article at National Review. The title of the article is “First, Aid the Living.” The article points out that President Obama’s national security team was listening to the phone calls from the Americans under attack and watching real-time video from a drone circling overhead. Why didn’t they send help?

The article reports:

Our diplomats fought for seven hours without any aid from outside the country. Four Americans died while the Obama national-security team and our military passively watched and listened. The administration is being criticized for ignoring security needs before the attack and for falsely attributing the assault to a mob. But the most severe failure has gone unnoticed: namely, a failure to aid the living.

By 4:30 p.m. Washington time, the main consulate building was on fire and Ambassador Stevens was missing. In response, the embassy in Tripoli launched an aircraft carrying 22 men. Benghazi was 400 miles away.

It seems to me that the responsibility for sending (or not sending) aid rests with the Commander-in-Chief, the President.

The article further reports:

It is bewildering that no U.S. aircraft ever came to the aid of the defenders. If even one F18 had been on station, it would have detected the location of hostiles firing at night and deterred and attacked the mortar sites. For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve.

Secretary of State Clinton has said the responsibility was hers. But there has been no assertion that the State Department overruled the Pentagon out of concern about the sovereignty of Libyan air space. Instead, it appears passive groupthink prevailed, with the assumption being that a spontaneous mob would quickly run out of steam.

Remember the 3 am phone call that was talked about during the last Presidential campaign? Unfortunately four people are dead because this administration didn’t think the call was important.

Exactly What Is The Role Of A Moderator?

Posted on by

This story is based on two sources–a Mediaite article posted last night and a Breitbart.com article posted this morning.

Mediaite reports some comments made by Candy Crowley this morning:

“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

Where were the corrections to the many falsehoods Obama told–domestic energy production, job creation, the budget deficit, etc.?

Breitbart reports:

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

The article at Breitbart cites a number of incidents where Ms. Crowley did not act as a moderator, but took sides. It is unfortunate that the sponsors of the debates cannot find moderators who do not favor one candidate. I think of all the debates, Jim Lehrer has done the best job of all–he let the candidates state their cases without interference.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Aspect Of Last Night’s Debate

Posted on by

Commentary Magazine posted a story today about the comments on Libya in last night’s debate between President Obama and Governor Romney.

The article quotes the President’s response to the Governor’s comments on Libya:

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.

The article at Commentary Magazine reminds us that the Obama Administration spent two weeks promoting the lie that the attack was the result of a video when they knew that was not the case.

The article reminds us:

We have yet to discover exactly what President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice knew about Libya and when they knew it as well as why the consulate’s requests for security were denied and who made that decision. The president was asked a direct question about that at Hofstra and chose not to answer it.

The article concludes:

Having staked so much on the “bin Laden is dead” theme, the administration dragged its feet when it came to telling the truth about Islamist terrorism in Libya. They repeatedly claimed that the ambassador died as the result of film criticism run amuck. While they claim this was the result of faulty intelligence, there’s no mystery about why they embraced this false narrative so enthusiastically. Talking about an offensive anti-Muslim video (albeit one that virtually no one has actually seen) allowed the president’s foreign policy team to avoid saying the words “terror” and “al-Qaeda.” Instead, they talked about a movie for which they endlessly apologized. The president’s faux outrage notwithstanding, if that isn’t playing politics with security issues and misleading the American public, I don’t know what is.

One of the things that troubles me about the President’s overall conduct after the murder of our Ambassador in Benghazi was the speed at which he continued his campaign for a second term. I think it was rather calloused of him to jet off to Las Vegas before the dust had cleared on the attack of the Embassy. That was not politicizing the event–that was ignoring it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Appearance vs Security

Posted on by

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com posted an article today about some of the recent comments made about the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

The article explains:

Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for consulate security, but won’t spend it.

From a common sense perspective, this makes no sense, but the rationale is explained later in the article:

Issa (Rep. Darrell Issa , Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) 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.”

Four people are dead because the Obama Administration valued appearances more than they valued security.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What The State Department Actually Said

Posted on by

This is the link to the State Department Background Briefing on Libya dated October 9. It is on the website of the State Department.

Here are a few excerpts:

The compound is roughly 300 yards long – that’s three football fields long – and a hundred yards wide. We need that much room to provide the best possible setback against car bombs. Over the next few months, physical security at the compound is strengthened. The outer wall is upgraded, its height is increased to nine feet.It is topped by three feet of barbed wire and concertina wire all around the huge property. External lighting is increased. Jersey barriers, which are big concrete blocks, are installed outside and inside the gate. Steel drop bars are added at the gates to control vehicle access and to provide some anti-ram protection. The buildings on the compound itself were strengthened.

The compound has four buildings on it, and you guys are going to have to get used to this, because I refer them to – as Building C, Building B, Tactical Operations Center, and a barracks. So Building C is a building that is essentially a large residence. It has numerous bedrooms and it is – it has a safe haven installed in it, and I’ll talk more about that in a minute. Building C ultimately is the building that the Ambassador was in, so keep that in your heads.

Building B is another residence on the compound. It has bedrooms and it has a cantina. That’s where the folks dine. The Tactical Operations Center, which is just across the way from Building B, has offices and a bedroom. That’s where the security officers had their main setup, that’s where the security cameras are, a lot of the phones – it’s basically their operations center. So I’ll call it the TOC from now on.

And then there was a barracks. The barracks is a small house by the front gate, the main gate of the compound. In that barracks is a Libyan security force which I’ll describe in a minute. Security on the compound consists of five Diplomatic Security special agents and four members of the Libyan Government security force, which I will henceforth call the 17th February Brigade. It is a militia, a friendly militia, which has basically been deputized by the Libyan Government to serve as our security, our host government security. In addition to all those, there is an additional security force at another U.S. compound two kilometers away. It serves as a rapid reaction force, a quick reaction security team – a quick reaction security team, okay?

…Okay. The Ambassador has arrived in Benghazi on the 10th of September. He does meetings both on the compound and off the compound on that day, spends the night. The next day is 9/11. He has all his – because it is 9/11, out of prudence, he has all his meetings on the compound. He receives a succession of visitors during the day.

About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at – when the meeting is over, at 8:30 – he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C – when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They’re out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.

After he sees the Turkish diplomat off, the Ambassador returns to Building C, where the information management officer – his name is Sean Smith, and who is one of the victims – the information management officer – I’ll just call him Sean from now on, on this call – and four other – four Diplomatic Security agents are all at Building C. One Diplomatic Security agent is in the TOC, the Tactical Operations Center. All of these agents have their side arms.

A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the TOC. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building.

…OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. We’re ready for the next question, please.

OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Toby Zakaria with Reuters. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Do you know what the threat level for Benghazi was the day before the attack? And also, did anyone suggest to the Ambassador that it might not be prudent to go to Benghazi on 9/11?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Taking your questions in reverse order, ambassadors travel, ambassadors must travel, ambassadors must get out and meet with a variety of individuals, especially in countries that have multiple centers of energy or power. That’s just – it just must happen.

But secondly, as Official Number One said earlier, the Ambassador did events in the city on the 10th. He had plans to do events in the city later in the week. But on the 11th, he remained in the compound.

As in terms of the – of any kind of security threat, the – both ODNI spokesman and the DNI have been correctly quoted as saying that there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from the line of David Lerman with Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Did the Ambassador – before the attack, did the Ambassador request that security be increased in Benghazi? And if so, did anything ever come of it?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The – when the Ambassador traveled to Benghazi, he traveled with two additional security agents over and above the complement of three who were assigned to post. So there were five agents with him there rather than the two who are normally assigned there – the three who are normally assigned. So they were up two.

Please follow the link above to the State Department website to read the entire briefing, which discusses the safe house and a lot of other actual details of the attack.Enhanced by Zemanta

Mistaken Priorities

Posted on by

Investors.com posted an article on Friday about some of the money spent on American Embassies overseas.

The lead paragraph of the article points out:

While our consulate in Benghazi was guarded by unarmed Libyan contractors making $4 an hour, our embassy in Vienna received an expensive charging station for its new electric cars to help fight climate change.

The article also states that there were 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of those incidents took place in Benghazi. Was anyone paying attention?

The article states:

In a May 3, 2012, email on which Ambassador Stevens was copied, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. Embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC-3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

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.

The article concludes:

Instead of an “Energy Efficiency Sweep Of Europe,” money should have been provided for a terrorist sweep of the Middle East that included protection for our diplomats in places like Benghazi. The $535 million wasted by Obama-Biden on Solyndra would have helped.

It seems that someone’s priorities were misplaced.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Major Problem With The Obama Administration’s Story About Benghazi

Posted on by

Today Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted his take on last night’s Vice-Presidential debate. The article focuses on Vice-President Biden’s comments about the attack on the American Embassy at Benghazi. The Vice-President stated that neither he nor President Obama were aware that the Embassy at Benghazi had requested more security.

The article reports:

Vice President Joseph Biden speaks only for himself and President Barack Obama, and neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a top White House official told The Cable.

Biden has come under fire for saying at Thursday night’s debate, “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

The Cable asked Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department, which acknowledged receiving multiple requests for more Libya security in the months before the attacks. Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time.

I find that more disturbing than the possibility that he was lying. Isn’t it the job of the President to know that an American Embassy has requested more security? Was the President aware of the numerous attacks on the Embassy since June? The attack on the Embassy at Benghazi is a major blunder in President Obama’s foreign policy. It speaks of gross incompetence.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Questions About Libya Continue

Posted on by

This is a video of a CBS interview of one of the security people withdrawn from Libya in August:

The interview was posted at Hot Air yesterday. It is becoming obvious that the State Department cut security at the embassy at a time when it was needed.

The article at Hot Air reports:

One State Department source tells CBS News the security teams weren’t “pulled,” that their mission was simply over.

State Department officials have told CBS News that Wood was not part of the security assessment in Benghazi and that his assignment to Tripoli means he was unfamiliar with the local situation in the smaller port city in the country’s east.

Wood, however, says some of the members of his own team and additional personnel from the State Department’s elite security detail – the two teams which left Libya in August – would have traveled to Benghazi with Ambassador Stevens had they still been in the country. He did not say how many additional security agents might have been deployed for the Ambassador’s trip to the city, which is at least 400 miles east of Tripoli, but he tells Attkisson that he’s wondered if it might have made a difference on the night of the attack.

This really looks as if the State Department had no idea of what was going on in Libya.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Disturbing

Posted on by

There are three major stories on the Internet today dealing with the attack on the American embassy in Libya and the death of American Ambassador Chris Stevens. The stories are at the Washington Examiner,  Breitbart.com, and The Daily Beast.

The Washington Examiner reports:

“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The committee noted 13 “security threats” in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

Breitbart lists the attacks prior to September 11:

  • April 6, 2012 – An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.
  • April 11, 2012 – A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.
  • April 25, 2012 – A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.
  • April 26, 2012 – A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.
  • April 27, 2012 – Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.
  • May 1, 2012 – Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.
  • May 22, 2012 – RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.
  • June 2012 – A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.
  • June 6, 2012 – An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.
  • June 10, 2012 – RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi. No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.
  • Late June, 2012 – Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.
  • August 6, 2012 – Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.
  • Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 – Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are “warned by their family members to quit their jobs” because of rumors of a “impending attack.”

The Daily Beast reports:

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.

“This was not a safe country on its way to a normalized situation. It was a very volatile situation,” Chaffetz told The Daily Beast.

The House Oversight Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Oct. 10 on the threats leading up to the attack.

Someone made some serious mistakes here in evaluating the risk to our Ambassador and other embassy employees. It seems as if common sense would have either increased the security at the embassy or at least temporarily removed the embassy from Libya.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things That Make You Wonder

Posted on by

The Daily Beast is reporting today that American intelligence services were aware within 24 hours that the attacks on the American Embassy in Benghazi were the work of al Qaeda.

The article reports:

Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

We are at war, and I understand the need for secrecy, but what reason would the current administration have to lie to the American people about this attack?

The article reports:

The question of what the White House knew, and when they knew it, will be of keen interest to members of Congress in the election year. Last Thursday, the Obama administration formally briefed House and Senate members on the attack. Those briefings however failed to satisfy many members, particularly Republicans. “That is the most useless, worthless briefing I have attended in a long time,” Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying. “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address.”

After a while, you begin to wonder how much of what the Obama Administration is telling America is actually true.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta