First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance. I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests. The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence. To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty. But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.
As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe. See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.
National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens. That's it. Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First." A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens.
Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"
That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem. Are trade terriffs on imports good? How about a lax or strict immigration policy? What about (any given) war? Not always easy.
Sometimes, however, it is easy. Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad? Bad. There's not even a question here. Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad? Bad. Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared. Ergo: bad.
Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms. I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy. What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)? How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)? How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?
And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump. Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things. He understands them in his bones. Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." That says it all in four words. America was great "before." What is "before?" Well, that's up to the individual. But it's not great now. So let's make it great again.
Let's put Americans first. Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else. Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one? Everyone starts "unskilled"). Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists. Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves. If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.
And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed. By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce. The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here. The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."
Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.
Will Donald Trump win in November? I don't know. People are saying he has no chance.
* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting. Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2016
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
SCOAMT^2
Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor. I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.
Well, now I have more evidence. Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal. Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration). Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.
So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away. Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship. Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war. It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.
But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior. When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban. This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason. Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. That crime for which there is exactly one punishment. Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.
So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release. Absolutely. Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists. This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.” Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter? Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”
Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too. Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs. That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW. So it’s a POW-swap. Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.
Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief. He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off. As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal. So it makes some sense.
What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this. What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up? The President of the United States just arguably committed treason. He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency. If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?
It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT. They must start stone-walling him at every turn. No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT. No more pushes for Amnesty. No more “my friends across the aisle.” Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama. And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.
Which is it?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Benghazi Files: The "Talking Points" Were Never The Issue
So, showing their usual complete absence of feck, Senate Republicans seem to have missed the point of the Benghazi scandal. That, or they've actively decided to assist Barack Obama in covering up his treasonous behavior.
Because of the Senate investigation, all of the news around the Benghazi attack has been over the talking points. Even I fell for it to some extent yesterday. "Who changed the talking points?" "Who is responsible for the talking points?" "Why was Rice sent in front of cameras?" People keep asking these questions, and the real question has gotten lost.
Here are the important questions: What did Barack Obama know about the substandard security for the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it? What did Barack Obama know about the terrorist attack against the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it? What did Barack Obama know about the orders not to send support during the attack, when did he know it, and why didn't he countermand them?
The talking points are tangential. The talking points are about the lies after the fact. Even investigating the "talking points" makes it seem like the problem was the lie, not the fact that 4 Americans were left to die.
Now, you know, and I know, and everyone paying any attention at all knows that the responsibility for all of this lies with Barack Obama. Anyone with any moral character whatsoever knows that Barack Obama should resign in disgrace or be impeached for the Benghazi attack. But I want it official. I want Congressional Republicans to get it on the record that Barack Obama holds ultimate responsibility. Then I want him impeached by the House.
Yes, I know that Democrats, who control the Senate, won't vote to impeach him. But I want that on record, too. I want them to go on record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to approve substandard security for a mission in an area where terrorist organizations were known to be. I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense not to have insured that the security at said mission was increased on the anniversary of 9/11 when Al Qaida and Al Qaida linked groups were known to a) want to attack us and b) be operating in the area. I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to have authorized, whether at the time or through prior orders, two stand-down orders to the CIA on the scene, and to have prohibited help from Signolla Air Base.
I want that on the record. And I want Conservative Media to scream about it so much that the Mainstream Media has no choice but to cover it.
Because of the Senate investigation, all of the news around the Benghazi attack has been over the talking points. Even I fell for it to some extent yesterday. "Who changed the talking points?" "Who is responsible for the talking points?" "Why was Rice sent in front of cameras?" People keep asking these questions, and the real question has gotten lost.
Here are the important questions: What did Barack Obama know about the substandard security for the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it? What did Barack Obama know about the terrorist attack against the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it? What did Barack Obama know about the orders not to send support during the attack, when did he know it, and why didn't he countermand them?
The talking points are tangential. The talking points are about the lies after the fact. Even investigating the "talking points" makes it seem like the problem was the lie, not the fact that 4 Americans were left to die.
Now, you know, and I know, and everyone paying any attention at all knows that the responsibility for all of this lies with Barack Obama. Anyone with any moral character whatsoever knows that Barack Obama should resign in disgrace or be impeached for the Benghazi attack. But I want it official. I want Congressional Republicans to get it on the record that Barack Obama holds ultimate responsibility. Then I want him impeached by the House.
Yes, I know that Democrats, who control the Senate, won't vote to impeach him. But I want that on record, too. I want them to go on record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to approve substandard security for a mission in an area where terrorist organizations were known to be. I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense not to have insured that the security at said mission was increased on the anniversary of 9/11 when Al Qaida and Al Qaida linked groups were known to a) want to attack us and b) be operating in the area. I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to have authorized, whether at the time or through prior orders, two stand-down orders to the CIA on the scene, and to have prohibited help from Signolla Air Base.
I want that on the record. And I want Conservative Media to scream about it so much that the Mainstream Media has no choice but to cover it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Treason: Rice Admits White House Lied About Benghazi Attack
Via Ace
Here was Ms. Rice's Statement after speaking to a Senate Panel about Benghazi, and her roll in lying to the American People (Emphasis mine):
Get that, "neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead." But we already know the facts are that terrorist action, and not some YouTube Video, was already known to be the cause of the Benghazi attack. We know that the CIA submitted talking points that addressed the terrorist attack. So if they never "intended to mislead," did they instead believe that the CIA was lying to them?
No. They didn't believe that, but they're hoping you'll believe that they believe that.
So, to be clear one more time:
The Secretary of State had to sign off on leaving the Benghazi compound under-defended. Since Obama was routinely pointing to Libya as a foreign policy success, it is unreasonable to believe that he was unaware of that decision, and could have over-ruled his Secretary of State.
When the attack occurred, the White House had immediate visual intelligence via drone and the compound's own security cameras. They knew the nature of the attack. Nevertheless, someone made the decision not to send help. Remember, that was an active order: "stand down." Barack Obama could have over-ridden that order. He was either not available (and therefore derelict in his duty as President and Commander in Chief) or actively chose not to override that order, thus sentencing our people to death.
After the attack occurred, the White House approved a set of talking points to be delivered by Ambassador Susan Rice which explicitly excluded any reference to a terror attack, and instead referenced a "spontaneous demonstration" which they already knew had never existed.
Barack Obama consigned those men to death, and then lied to the American People about it.
He must be immediately impeached.
Update: Commenter 'Jane D'oh' at the AoSHQ points out that Susan Rice is also partially responsible for Bill Clinton's decision not to take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter.
Here was Ms. Rice's Statement after speaking to a Senate Panel about Benghazi, and her roll in lying to the American People (Emphasis mine):
In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi. While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. We stressed that neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the Administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved.
Get that, "neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead." But we already know the facts are that terrorist action, and not some YouTube Video, was already known to be the cause of the Benghazi attack. We know that the CIA submitted talking points that addressed the terrorist attack. So if they never "intended to mislead," did they instead believe that the CIA was lying to them?
No. They didn't believe that, but they're hoping you'll believe that they believe that.
So, to be clear one more time:
The Secretary of State had to sign off on leaving the Benghazi compound under-defended. Since Obama was routinely pointing to Libya as a foreign policy success, it is unreasonable to believe that he was unaware of that decision, and could have over-ruled his Secretary of State.
When the attack occurred, the White House had immediate visual intelligence via drone and the compound's own security cameras. They knew the nature of the attack. Nevertheless, someone made the decision not to send help. Remember, that was an active order: "stand down." Barack Obama could have over-ridden that order. He was either not available (and therefore derelict in his duty as President and Commander in Chief) or actively chose not to override that order, thus sentencing our people to death.
After the attack occurred, the White House approved a set of talking points to be delivered by Ambassador Susan Rice which explicitly excluded any reference to a terror attack, and instead referenced a "spontaneous demonstration" which they already knew had never existed.
Barack Obama consigned those men to death, and then lied to the American People about it.
He must be immediately impeached.
Update: Commenter 'Jane D'oh' at the AoSHQ points out that Susan Rice is also partially responsible for Bill Clinton's decision not to take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Peace from the tip of a Sword
It has been said that there is a certain kind of peace that only comes out the other side of a war. George W. Bush famously stated that "peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice." When the European Powers of the 1930s would make moves of appeasement toward Hitler's Germany, they would secure peace for a year or two, or sometimes just months. It was not until Germany was opposed and defeated that the threat of Nazi Germany was completely removed.
Over the last six decades, Israel has spent much of its time defending itself from Islamic threats. The so-called "Palestinians" have demanded more and more land, with the express purpose of removing the State of Israel. They now own the Gaza strip, in another failed land-for-peace deal. Yet every year more and more rockets of greater efficacy pour into Israel in a rain of indiscriminate death. Then, when Israel feels it is being forced to respond, they are somehow made to be the bad guys.
The most recent example of this, of course, was Operation Pillar of Defence (in Hebrew, I'm informed this is a reference to the Pillar of Fire/Smoke that God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt). So the United States and Egypt stepped in to "negotiate a peace" which was really just Israel agreeing not to demolish Hamas, and Hamas admitting they were completely outclassed, and wanted to rest up before starting another attack.
Until this is allowed to sort itself out through the use of applied violence, there will always be this tension and terror in Israel. Remember that there is no reason for a "separate Palestinian" state. It is not illegal to practice Islam in Israel. I'm not even certain Muslims are barred from serving on the Knesset. Muslims have no additional burdens on themselves when they live in Israel. What Muslims hate about Israel isn't that they "kicked out the inhabitants" (they didn't), or that they're "oppressing" Muslims (they aren't), it's the existence of a Jewish State at all that they hate, and they will not stop until it is destroyed, or it has proven that they cannot destroy it.
If we really want peace in the Middle East, we must stop being a weight on the sword-arm of Israel. We must allow them to complete the mission and force the Palestinians into capitulation. Only when that occurs will Israel be able to negotiate from a position of strength. And since Israel is the party there that is not fully invested in the destruction of their opponent, they are the ones we should want negotiating from strength.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his State Department, with the help of the now Islamic Tyrannical State of Egypt, imposed a peace which will only result in more war, more destruction, and more death.
Over the last six decades, Israel has spent much of its time defending itself from Islamic threats. The so-called "Palestinians" have demanded more and more land, with the express purpose of removing the State of Israel. They now own the Gaza strip, in another failed land-for-peace deal. Yet every year more and more rockets of greater efficacy pour into Israel in a rain of indiscriminate death. Then, when Israel feels it is being forced to respond, they are somehow made to be the bad guys.
The most recent example of this, of course, was Operation Pillar of Defence (in Hebrew, I'm informed this is a reference to the Pillar of Fire/Smoke that God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt). So the United States and Egypt stepped in to "negotiate a peace" which was really just Israel agreeing not to demolish Hamas, and Hamas admitting they were completely outclassed, and wanted to rest up before starting another attack.
Until this is allowed to sort itself out through the use of applied violence, there will always be this tension and terror in Israel. Remember that there is no reason for a "separate Palestinian" state. It is not illegal to practice Islam in Israel. I'm not even certain Muslims are barred from serving on the Knesset. Muslims have no additional burdens on themselves when they live in Israel. What Muslims hate about Israel isn't that they "kicked out the inhabitants" (they didn't), or that they're "oppressing" Muslims (they aren't), it's the existence of a Jewish State at all that they hate, and they will not stop until it is destroyed, or it has proven that they cannot destroy it.
If we really want peace in the Middle East, we must stop being a weight on the sword-arm of Israel. We must allow them to complete the mission and force the Palestinians into capitulation. Only when that occurs will Israel be able to negotiate from a position of strength. And since Israel is the party there that is not fully invested in the destruction of their opponent, they are the ones we should want negotiating from strength.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his State Department, with the help of the now Islamic Tyrannical State of Egypt, imposed a peace which will only result in more war, more destruction, and more death.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
President Obama: I Instructed Ambassador Rice To Lie About Benghazi
Shorter Obama: Impeach me, please.
So President Obama had a press conference today. As Ace explains it- he gave no real answers, but he did have time for "a smoghasbord of evasions and feigned outrage."
Here's the pull quote:
Now, Ace highlights a couple of things: that if President Obama is going to say "come after me, bro" then Senators McCain and Graham ought to say "Okay, we'll subpoena you for Friday." He also points out the President's typically passive language.
I want to highlight something else: Look at that formulation again. Susan Rice "made an appearance at the request of the White House." That would be President Obama, unless the physical White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC suddenly started talking. "...She gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her." In other words, despite the fact that we have documented that the White House knew before the terror attack was over that it was an Al Qaida linked terror attack, Ambassador Rice was given "intelligence" which indicated a YouTube video was to blame.
Now, I'm guessing that Susan Rice is not stupid. I'm guessing she, like everyone else with a frontal lobe thought, "Seriously, that's the official line?" And she did it anyway. She lied- it doesn't matter whether or not she knew what the truth was, she certainly knew it wasn't the line she'd been fed. She lied at the Presidents specific direction.
Then, the fact that other Administration officials supported this story- again, despite the fact we know know what the truth was, and knew even then what the truth wasn't- means that "the White House" (read: President Barack Hussein Obama) had given them that story and told them to repeat it. Not only did they repeat it, they repeated it under oath.
So add that to the list.
Barack Obama knew that the mission in Benghazi was woefully under-protected, and he did nothing.
Ambassador Chris Steven begged for more security, and Obama did nothing.
When the attack occurred, local support was ordered -twice- to "stand down."
When the attack occurred, a military response was never mounted, despite the fact that fighter planes could have arrived in an hour or less, and commandos in 3 hours or less.
When the attack occurred, Barack Obama WENT TO BED.
When questions started being asked, Barack Obama suborned perjury.
Okay, Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, and McCain. You heard the man, go after him. When can we expect the articles of impeachment?
So President Obama had a press conference today. As Ace explains it- he gave no real answers, but he did have time for "a smoghasbord of evasions and feigned outrage."
Here's the pull quote:
"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous," President Obama said at a press conference on Wednesday.
Now, Ace highlights a couple of things: that if President Obama is going to say "come after me, bro" then Senators McCain and Graham ought to say "Okay, we'll subpoena you for Friday." He also points out the President's typically passive language.
I want to highlight something else: Look at that formulation again. Susan Rice "made an appearance at the request of the White House." That would be President Obama, unless the physical White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC suddenly started talking. "...She gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her." In other words, despite the fact that we have documented that the White House knew before the terror attack was over that it was an Al Qaida linked terror attack, Ambassador Rice was given "intelligence" which indicated a YouTube video was to blame.
Now, I'm guessing that Susan Rice is not stupid. I'm guessing she, like everyone else with a frontal lobe thought, "Seriously, that's the official line?" And she did it anyway. She lied- it doesn't matter whether or not she knew what the truth was, she certainly knew it wasn't the line she'd been fed. She lied at the Presidents specific direction.
Then, the fact that other Administration officials supported this story- again, despite the fact we know know what the truth was, and knew even then what the truth wasn't- means that "the White House" (read: President Barack Hussein Obama) had given them that story and told them to repeat it. Not only did they repeat it, they repeated it under oath.
So add that to the list.
Barack Obama knew that the mission in Benghazi was woefully under-protected, and he did nothing.
Ambassador Chris Steven begged for more security, and Obama did nothing.
When the attack occurred, local support was ordered -twice- to "stand down."
When the attack occurred, a military response was never mounted, despite the fact that fighter planes could have arrived in an hour or less, and commandos in 3 hours or less.
When the attack occurred, Barack Obama WENT TO BED.
When questions started being asked, Barack Obama suborned perjury.
Okay, Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, and McCain. You heard the man, go after him. When can we expect the articles of impeachment?
Monday, November 5, 2012
Benghazi Files: A Deadly Delay
You've probably seen the newly released CBS video from 9/12 in which Barack Obama is directly questioned about his unwillingness to call the Benghazi Attack an act of terror. Many are criticizing CBS for not releasing the clip earlier- a clear attempt to cover up for the President. This criticism it right and proper, but I want to focus on something mentioned in this corresponding FoxNews report.
So a whopping 4 officer team of "reinforcements" arrive in Benghazi at 1:15 AM. They are then delayed for over 3 hours while Libyan and American officials dither and bicker about "permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and... a clear mission plan." Fox focuses on the fact that they already knew the culprits were Ansar al-Shariah, an Al Qaida linked terror group. Based on the information chronicled on this blog, I'm much more furious about a three hour delay.
By that time, Ambassador Stevens was almost certainly already dead. Certainly he was believed to be dead. That three hour delay allowed Ansar al-Shariah to mount an attack on the CIA compound where former SEALs Woods and Doherty were eventually also killed. Now, recall, fighters from Signolla Air Base in Sicily could have arrived within one hour. Commandos could have been on the ground in three hours. That means, had the Administration not made the active choice not to respond militarily to an assault on our Ambassador, that while the Administration and Libyan officials were dickering about the fate of the CIA team at the Benghazi airport, US Military resources could have already dealt with the problem.
All of this because Barack Obama believed that treating this action as the terrorist attack it was would have been a political liability for him.
1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.
So a whopping 4 officer team of "reinforcements" arrive in Benghazi at 1:15 AM. They are then delayed for over 3 hours while Libyan and American officials dither and bicker about "permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and... a clear mission plan." Fox focuses on the fact that they already knew the culprits were Ansar al-Shariah, an Al Qaida linked terror group. Based on the information chronicled on this blog, I'm much more furious about a three hour delay.
By that time, Ambassador Stevens was almost certainly already dead. Certainly he was believed to be dead. That three hour delay allowed Ansar al-Shariah to mount an attack on the CIA compound where former SEALs Woods and Doherty were eventually also killed. Now, recall, fighters from Signolla Air Base in Sicily could have arrived within one hour. Commandos could have been on the ground in three hours. That means, had the Administration not made the active choice not to respond militarily to an assault on our Ambassador, that while the Administration and Libyan officials were dickering about the fate of the CIA team at the Benghazi airport, US Military resources could have already dealt with the problem.
All of this because Barack Obama believed that treating this action as the terrorist attack it was would have been a political liability for him.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Benghazi Files: State Department Never Requested DoD Support
This actually came out yesterday from the Daily Beast. This is just a short post, because it links back to one yesterday, wherein it was revealed that the Embassy in Tripoli did attempt to notify Washington, DC immediately, but were unable to raise help.
The Military is saying the reason they didn't go in was that they were never requested to go in. Typically, it is the duty of the Ambassador to request assistance. In this case, he could not. So it then fell to the deputy chief of mission- who did make the request. However, that request has to go through State Department channels. Considering we know that the Administration was monitoring the whole situation, that means (once again) that President Obama knew of the decision not to forward the request to DoD, and chose not to over-ride it. As the article points out:
One problem with that idea, though. We know that, during the second (actually a continuation of the first) fire-fight at the CIA compound, repeated requests for support were made. So the military saying they weren't asked to support the actual Mission compound is technically correct, but if they are suggesting they never went to Benghazi because they never received any request, they're lying.
And notice the obfuscation: "the State Department never requested." Not, the State Department never did, but the CIA contractors did. And it was actively denied them three separate times.
I simply do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. Barack Obama issued active orders which condemned four Americans to death.
The Military is saying the reason they didn't go in was that they were never requested to go in. Typically, it is the duty of the Ambassador to request assistance. In this case, he could not. So it then fell to the deputy chief of mission- who did make the request. However, that request has to go through State Department channels. Considering we know that the Administration was monitoring the whole situation, that means (once again) that President Obama knew of the decision not to forward the request to DoD, and chose not to over-ride it. As the article points out:
The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.
One problem with that idea, though. We know that, during the second (actually a continuation of the first) fire-fight at the CIA compound, repeated requests for support were made. So the military saying they weren't asked to support the actual Mission compound is technically correct, but if they are suggesting they never went to Benghazi because they never received any request, they're lying.
And notice the obfuscation: "the State Department never requested." Not, the State Department never did, but the CIA contractors did. And it was actively denied them three separate times.
I simply do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. Barack Obama issued active orders which condemned four Americans to death.
Treason: Active Choices, Not Mere Negligence
On September 11, 2012, Islamic Terrorists from a group affiliated with Al Qaida attacked the US Mission in Benghazi, Libya. They attacked using automatic rifles (including AK-47s), bombs, and mortars.
Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi instead of Tripoli to meet with leaders from other nations, including a Turkish General. We do not know the purpose of those meetings. We do know that when shots were first fired, Ambassador Stevens called the Tripoli Embassy, who then attempted to call Washington, DC, but could not get through for some time.
Once Washington finally did pick up the phone, a host of things should have happened that didn't. Among those was the convening of the Counterterrorism Security Group, an interagency coordination and control group with knowledge of what assets would be available to assist any given area during a terrorist attack.
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
According to CBS, the CSG was not convened because more senior officials, with less direct knowledge, attempted to direct the response.
As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
Without that group, the response faltered early, and only got worse as the night continued.
"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."
This yet further paints a picture of active choices which were made to circumvent the normal military response of "leave no man behind." It just makes sense that you would rely on experts on terrorist attacks for coordination of the immediate response. Even if it didn't "just make sense," it also happens to be a Presidential Directive.
The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism.
If it was a Presidential Directive, then the only person who could override it is the President. Only the President could have chosen to reject the very possibility ("event of a possible terrorist attack") of a terror attack and refuse to convene the CSG. Only the President could have made the order that the Senior Administration officials, and not the CSG, would attempt to coordinate the response.
This was not mere Negligence. This was a series of active choices made by the President and his team, sentencing four brave Americans to their needless and vain deaths.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Treason: Embassy Tripoli Called for help During DC Working Hours
H/T: PJ Tatler
Representative Jason Chaffetz was on with Greta van Susteren last night talking about Benghazi. Now, both Greta and Rep. Chaffetz are much more restrained than I tend to be, but, once again, we have people who "Know About This Stuff" who are saying the same things I've been saying. They stop short of "treason," because they think it's disrespectful or over-the-top or some such. But they make same case.
Specifically, Rep. Chaffetz relayed this anecdote, heretofore unknown:
Let's break that down. Rep Chaffetz was on a fact finding mission to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens. There, he spoke with Gregory Hicks from the Tripoli Embassy. Mr. Hicks says that he started calling Washington, DC "shortly after 9 PM" (Note: I believe this is a transcription error, and that the actual time was shortly after 9:40 PM). Now, that was either 9:40 Washington, DC time, or 9:40 Libya time- but which is it?
It seem more logical that it would be Libya time for three reasons. First, Mr. Hicks would have been talking about local time. When he looked at his phone (and probably clock, given the lateness of the hour), he would have been thinking in local time. He would almost certainly have relayed the story the same way. Second, it is unlikely that Rep. Chaffetz would convert the times on-air. Among other things, it would require that he have two times in his head at the same time, which could lead to confusion. For another, he was relating the story, not giving an "official" report. So local time seems more reasonable that way. Finally, the time difference between Tripoli and Washington, DC is pretty close to 6 hours. We know the attack occurred on the evening of September 11, not the morning of September 12. Six hours after 9 PM would be 3 AM, on 9/12.
So, Libya local time seems most likely. But that means that the Libyan mission started calling for help no later than 4 PM, Washington, DC time. People would still have been at work. You wouldn't even be interrupting dinner. There is absolutely no reason that he shouldn't have been able to contact those "mechanisms."
That alone, would just prove the Criminal Negligence, that I first believed. That, alone, should be an impeachable offense for the President. But then we look further in the interview:
Now, this seems to be saying, "Oh, the President didn't give an order." I expect this is Rep. Chaffetz hedging. Here's why: we know from multiple other sources that the first reaction of the Military would be to move in. We know that the White House was monitoring the attack in the Situation Room. We know that a "stand-down" order was given, not once, but twice. We know that assistance was requested and denied three times.
Those all required specific orders. The default military position would be to rescue our personnel. Other sources say that the military has plans, and practices drills, for exactly the kind of situation that occurred in Benghazi. So in the absence of orders, a rescue mission would have been mounted. It was only under specific orders that our military would not have done so. And the ultimate authority and responsibility for those orders rests with the President. The President who was monitoring in the Situation room. The President who went to bed with the status of our Ambassador still unknown. The President who then jetted out to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. The President who then lied for more than a week to claim that the attack was a "spontaneous event" caused by a YouTube video.
That's not Criminal Negligence, that's Murder. That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Representative Jason Chaffetz was on with Greta van Susteren last night talking about Benghazi. Now, both Greta and Rep. Chaffetz are much more restrained than I tend to be, but, once again, we have people who "Know About This Stuff" who are saying the same things I've been saying. They stop short of "treason," because they think it's disrespectful or over-the-top or some such. But they make same case.
Specifically, Rep. Chaffetz relayed this anecdote, heretofore unknown:
CHAFFETZ: You know, he related this story which I haven't shared before. He's a good man. His name's Gregory Hicks. And I -- I think he's trying to do the right thing.
He said that shortly after 9: 0 PM, what happened is his phone rang. And he didn't recognize the number, so he didn't answer it. Then it rang again. Again, he didn't answer it because he didn't recognize the number.
But then, given the persistence, he did answer it. It was Ambassador Stevens. And Ambassador Stevens was saying, We're under attack. We're under attack.
Now, I can't say that he told me specifically that he was asking for help, but that's kind of what I -- I read into it. He hung up the phone. He immediately called in to Washington, D.C., to trigger all the mechanisms that needed to be put on, and then he wasn't able to contact them. And there were hours and hours where we didn't know where our ambassador was.
But the trauma, the -- the real-life trauma that he went through -- I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was -- it was hard to listen to. He's -- he's gone through a lot, but he did a great job.
Let's break that down. Rep Chaffetz was on a fact finding mission to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens. There, he spoke with Gregory Hicks from the Tripoli Embassy. Mr. Hicks says that he started calling Washington, DC "shortly after 9 PM" (Note: I believe this is a transcription error, and that the actual time was shortly after 9:40 PM). Now, that was either 9:40 Washington, DC time, or 9:40 Libya time- but which is it?
It seem more logical that it would be Libya time for three reasons. First, Mr. Hicks would have been talking about local time. When he looked at his phone (and probably clock, given the lateness of the hour), he would have been thinking in local time. He would almost certainly have relayed the story the same way. Second, it is unlikely that Rep. Chaffetz would convert the times on-air. Among other things, it would require that he have two times in his head at the same time, which could lead to confusion. For another, he was relating the story, not giving an "official" report. So local time seems more reasonable that way. Finally, the time difference between Tripoli and Washington, DC is pretty close to 6 hours. We know the attack occurred on the evening of September 11, not the morning of September 12. Six hours after 9 PM would be 3 AM, on 9/12.
So, Libya local time seems most likely. But that means that the Libyan mission started calling for help no later than 4 PM, Washington, DC time. People would still have been at work. You wouldn't even be interrupting dinner. There is absolutely no reason that he shouldn't have been able to contact those "mechanisms."
That alone, would just prove the Criminal Negligence, that I first believed. That, alone, should be an impeachable offense for the President. But then we look further in the interview:
CHAFFETZ: Yes, Buck McKeon, in fact, I chatted with him this morning. He's chairman of Armed Services, doing a great job. And his letter, in essence, says, Mr. President, you said you gave a direct order to protect all of those people and make sure that we secure those people in Benghazi, but the military does -- you know, needs an order from you.
I talked specifically to General Ham. He's a four-star general. He told me personally he did not get a directive from the White House from the president of the United States to engage in the firefight to help protect those people.
Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're doing everything you can to protect the people in Benghazi, when we're under attack, a firefight that starts at 9:40 at night, goes until the wee hours of the morning, and say you did everything when the military did not engage.
Now, this seems to be saying, "Oh, the President didn't give an order." I expect this is Rep. Chaffetz hedging. Here's why: we know from multiple other sources that the first reaction of the Military would be to move in. We know that the White House was monitoring the attack in the Situation Room. We know that a "stand-down" order was given, not once, but twice. We know that assistance was requested and denied three times.
Those all required specific orders. The default military position would be to rescue our personnel. Other sources say that the military has plans, and practices drills, for exactly the kind of situation that occurred in Benghazi. So in the absence of orders, a rescue mission would have been mounted. It was only under specific orders that our military would not have done so. And the ultimate authority and responsibility for those orders rests with the President. The President who was monitoring in the Situation room. The President who went to bed with the status of our Ambassador still unknown. The President who then jetted out to Las Vegas for a fund raiser. The President who then lied for more than a week to claim that the attack was a "spontaneous event" caused by a YouTube video.
That's not Criminal Negligence, that's Murder. That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Benghazi Files: The Evidence Mounts
Fox News is doing incredible work investigating the events leading up to, and on the night of, September 11 in Benghazi. This piece by Catherine Herridge is no exception.
Honestly, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but at some point there has to be a critical mass of evidence that pushes this onto national headlines. So far, the only national paper I know of that has covered Benghazi at all is the Washington Post, but even that coverage has problems.
That said, I think this is important to note. It is important for two reasons- one, because it provides concrete proof that the State Department (and therefore Hillary Clinton) knew about the security threats to the Benghazi mission, and knew that it was woefully under-defended. The second reason is that it proves what I said in my analysis of the already released Benghazi documents: however clinical and calm the words in official reports were, the Benghazi mission was doing the bureaucratic equivalent of getting on their desks and screaming to get more security.
I could say more, but the report sums it up quite well with this quote:
Honestly, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but at some point there has to be a critical mass of evidence that pushes this onto national headlines. So far, the only national paper I know of that has covered Benghazi at all is the Washington Post, but even that coverage has problems.
That said, I think this is important to note. It is important for two reasons- one, because it provides concrete proof that the State Department (and therefore Hillary Clinton) knew about the security threats to the Benghazi mission, and knew that it was woefully under-defended. The second reason is that it proves what I said in my analysis of the already released Benghazi documents: however clinical and calm the words in official reports were, the Benghazi mission was doing the bureaucratic equivalent of getting on their desks and screaming to get more security.
I could say more, but the report sums it up quite well with this quote:
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Benghazi Files: Welcome to the party, WaPo.
Remember the beginning of Die Hard when Bruce Willis's character is trying to get help from the police, but they don't believe him? Eventually they send one patrol car over, the cop gets out, asks if there's a problem- is told "no" by the bad guys, and starts to leave?
Then Bruce Willis shoots the patrol car with a sub-machine gun, causing said cop to realize there really is a problem?
This article from David Ignatius in the Washington Post is a cross between that cop and the clueless FBI agents who show up later.
David, this information has been around for weeks. Some of it for just under one week, some for more than that, but please actually do some fact checking before you try to stick up for the Administration while appearing to praise Fox News.
Let's break this down.
Mr. Ignatius starts with the first line of defense that everyone used when questions first started being posed about what happened that 9/11, and what lead up to it. It is, apparently, "a political football." No, Mr. Ignatius, it's thoughtful questions raising serious doubts about the abilities of our current Commander-in-Chief to fulfill that role. Insofar as it is a "political football," it is such because you, and those like you, refuse to actually act as journalists regarding the matter.
He then tries to say that Fox's "Stand Down" story was inaccurate, because the CIA said the order didn't come from them. Here's his full quote:
The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
One little problem with that, we know that the Stand Down order came. The only thing the CIA says is that they didn't order it. Mr. Ignatius never gets around to asking, "Well, if the stand down order didn't come from CIA, who had authority to give it?"
Instead, he tries to write his own timeline. Problem- we already know the timeline. Bret Baier did an excellent job of assembling one.
He claims the delay in the local CIA response was due to trying to contact the February 17 Brigade the local militia which was "in charge" of security in that part of Benghazi. He then inserts the non sequiter "The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere..."
No, Mr. Ignatius, we don't. We rely on local military forces to protect the exterior of our diplomatic compounds. And Ambassador Stevens had made quite clear that he did not believe any security force native to Libya could provide adequate security. Why weren't there Marines inside the compound? And, even if you were correct, sir, why would we wait to get permission from a local militia to save our own personnel? Are you really that credulous, or do you just want us to be?
Then, to cover himself, he says this:
Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn't up to the job? Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?
Mr.
He then says this:
Second, why didn’t the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer. The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound. One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.
What more could have been done? A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily, for quick deployment to Benghazi or any of the other U.S. facilities in danger that night across North Africa. Armed drones could also have been sent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta summarized last Thursday the administration’s decision to opt for caution: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”
Here, he accepts two known lies as truth.
First: "why didn't the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately." Mr. Ignatius, perhaps you should actually have done some research. If you had, you might have found that Mr. Woods was killed when the mortar he'd been illuminating with a laser guidance system finally managed to hit his position with ordinance.
Now, maybe you don't realize this, because you're an oik, but those who stop to think about it realize that a former SEAL and current CIA contractor would not be pointing what amounts to a glorified laser pointer at a mortar for several minutes if he did not believe that support was mere minutes away.
You might also have found out that the President, and others from his administration watched the whole event (we'll come back to this later, too) unfold live on a... drone. Was that drone armed? Maybe not, but we don't know, because you and your friends in the media have been helping the White House cover this up from the moment it happened.
Before we get to the next lie he accepts, I need to address a piece of misdirection he inserts himself. "A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily..." Note "moved that night" which would imply it wasn't there on time. Problem- it wasn't "moved that night." It had been there for at least a little while. Fighter support could have arrived at Benghazi in just about an hour, with ground support only a couple of hours behind.
Now, the second lie he accepts at face value was Leon Panetta's laughable statement "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
Excuse me. So now we don't send our forces out on patrols? Isn't that the very definition of sending them "into harm's way without knowing what's going on?" We'll never mount a rescue mission without having 100% reliable knowledge of every single fact on the ground? Of course not. That's stupid. It deserves mocking, not credulous acceptance.
Further, we did know what was going on. The White House was monitoring by drone video feed. They were receiving frantic phone-calls for help. Former SEAL Woods was in contact with his superiors telling them what was happening. You don't get better in-situ intelligence than that. The line is a bald-faced lie, and everyone knows it.
Then Mr. Ignatius gets to this stupid statement: "Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night. Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire." Hmm... "uproar?" Over what, Mr. Ignatius? We wouldn't be falling back on the discredited "video" story-line are we? That would simply be pathetic.
Of course, that would be in keeping with the whole piece, so maybe you are.
Then there's the little problem where no one was talking about bombing anyone. The fighter support doesn't have to use bombs or missiles, they still have machine guns. Strafing runs work. Then there's the AC-130U which could have been deployed. I don't think they even have bombs. But they can rain hot lead on a relatively small area like almost no other war machine in anyone's inventory. Or the special forces commandos who could have been sent? Does Mr. Ignatius believe they'd all be Rambo, shooting indiscriminately at everything that moves?
In his final paragraph, Mr. Ignatius doubles-down on the stupid "we needed better intelligence." Better intelligence, Mr. Ignatius? We had prior warning that an attack was possible, even probable. For nearly a year Ambassador Stevens had been begging for more security for both Tripoli and Benghazi. There was no reason this attack should have taken us by surprise at all. Once the attack began, we had a drone in the air watching it unfold. We had resources involved in the action calling in with reports and pleas for help. You can't ask for more intelligence than that.
All-in-all, it's nice that the media is finally being forced to cover the Benghazi story. Unfortunately, they're more than a day late, and way more than a dollar short when it comes to their coverage. There was a time when journalists were skeptical of anything the Government said, and sought concrete proof. And Watergate didn't even have a body count.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Treason: Expert Testimony
I've written here why I believe that Barack Obama is a traitor to the United States. I've almost certainly made some people uncomfortable by saying it so bluntly, but I believe it's necessary to call a spade a spade, and not just a "manual digging tool."
With more evidence, though, and from a much more credible source than me, is an article in the Washington Times. Its author is Admiral James A. Lyons (Ret), the former commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations. It's safe to say he knows of what he speaks.
And what does he speak?
What I've already said here numerous times: They knew. They watched. They didn't send help.
But that's not enough for treason. That could simply be gutlessness, or "vapor lock" preventing a good order. No, we need something active- some active decision to prevent help to make it up to treason (emphasis mine).
With all due respect to the Admiral, we don't need to know who made that decision. We don't need to know who made the decision, because we do know the White House was monitoring the situation. That means that, whoever made the call, Barack Obama agreed with it. Barack Obama agreed with the active order not to provide support to our own personnel under attack.
His last paragraph begins this way (again, emphasis mine):
Indeed he's right. Someone high up in the administration did make that decision. But the person who ultimately made the decision- the one setting the rules such that anyone would even think for a moment of forbidding assistance- is the President. Moreover, even if someone else made that decision "on their own," the President was there an knew about that order. Had it been one with which he disagreed, he could have countermanded it. He did not.
Barack Obama made the conscious choice to prevent an operation which would have saved at least two lives, and possibly 4 that night. Barack Obama made the conscious decision to favor terrorists attacking our Benghazi mission over the lives of our own personnel.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
With more evidence, though, and from a much more credible source than me, is an article in the Washington Times. Its author is Admiral James A. Lyons (Ret), the former commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations. It's safe to say he knows of what he speaks.
And what does he speak?
Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.
What I've already said here numerous times: They knew. They watched. They didn't send help.
But that's not enough for treason. That could simply be gutlessness, or "vapor lock" preventing a good order. No, we need something active- some active decision to prevent help to make it up to treason (emphasis mine).
I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.
With all due respect to the Admiral, we don't need to know who made that decision. We don't need to know who made the decision, because we do know the White House was monitoring the situation. That means that, whoever made the call, Barack Obama agreed with it. Barack Obama agreed with the active order not to provide support to our own personnel under attack.
His last paragraph begins this way (again, emphasis mine):
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.
Indeed he's right. Someone high up in the administration did make that decision. But the person who ultimately made the decision- the one setting the rules such that anyone would even think for a moment of forbidding assistance- is the President. Moreover, even if someone else made that decision "on their own," the President was there an knew about that order. Had it been one with which he disagreed, he could have countermanded it. He did not.
Barack Obama made the conscious choice to prevent an operation which would have saved at least two lives, and possibly 4 that night. Barack Obama made the conscious decision to favor terrorists attacking our Benghazi mission over the lives of our own personnel.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
Benghazi Files: Special Report with Bret Baier
I'm not going to link the separate parts, instead I'll just send you to the Ace of Spades HQ.
I can't even really discuss this right now, my blood pressure is so high. Barack Obama didn't just abandon those men to their deaths, he bears direct responsibility for the order which prevented their rescue.
By his authority, 4 good men are dead. By his authority, the monsters responsible were not stopped and killed in the act. By his authority, they were able to avoid blame and scrutiny for 14 days while a YouTube video was blamed, and its maker thrown in jail.
By providing this aid and comfort to our enemy, Barack Obama has made himself a Traitor to the United States of America.
I can't even really discuss this right now, my blood pressure is so high. Barack Obama didn't just abandon those men to their deaths, he bears direct responsibility for the order which prevented their rescue.
By his authority, 4 good men are dead. By his authority, the monsters responsible were not stopped and killed in the act. By his authority, they were able to avoid blame and scrutiny for 14 days while a YouTube video was blamed, and its maker thrown in jail.
By providing this aid and comfort to our enemy, Barack Obama has made himself a Traitor to the United States of America.
Foreign Policy President: Iran Threatening Israel
Okay, I can already hear you asking, "So what's new?" Well, honestly, not a whole lot. In this particular case, Iran is claiming that the drone it created and gave to Hezbollah transmitted, real time, images of Israeli military installations back to Iran. Now, if true, that's a very bad thing. It would mean, among other things, that they had been able to adapt some of the technology from the drone the CIA lost over Iran. If true.
Here's the thing: it's a bad thing even if it isn't true. Belligerence toward Israel from Iran is nothing new. What is new is the brazen manner in which they're rattling their sabers now. When George W. Bush was president, Iran would make dark, menacing noises about how it would "retaliate" if Israel did anything, but everything was very vague "don't test us," kind of language. Now that Barack Obama is president Iran is much less circumspect.
Now, I don't really think Iran is quite stupid enough, yet, to launch an attack on Israel. On the other hand, I do know that Barack Obama won't do a thing to stop them from getting to that point. In many ways, Iran is like the bar room bully who is psyching himself up to a fight. America, traditionally, has taken the role of very visible, very intimidating bouncer who comes along every now and again to remind them to be polite. That stopped about 4 years ago. Now Iran seems to need another one of those reminders, but Barack Obama's foreign policy seems to be "oh, it'll be fine."
A fight between Iran and Israel would be bad on many, many levels. Not just because our treaty obligations, which may well be contradictory in such a conflict, based on how other powers in the region line up. There are also economic realities. A Middle East at war is bad for everyone, including us. A middle east at nuclear war is even worse, and Iran has made it quite clear that it will continue to pursue nuclear weapons no matter what anyone says.
This is just one more piece of evidence that Barack Obama's Middle East policy, indeed his entire foreign policy, given Russia's involvement in the area, is a shambles. This situation is a direct result of the pathetically weak foreign policy. Four more years of this President may well see a new war in the Middle East, a war with disastrous consequences for everyone.
Here's the thing: it's a bad thing even if it isn't true. Belligerence toward Israel from Iran is nothing new. What is new is the brazen manner in which they're rattling their sabers now. When George W. Bush was president, Iran would make dark, menacing noises about how it would "retaliate" if Israel did anything, but everything was very vague "don't test us," kind of language. Now that Barack Obama is president Iran is much less circumspect.
Now, I don't really think Iran is quite stupid enough, yet, to launch an attack on Israel. On the other hand, I do know that Barack Obama won't do a thing to stop them from getting to that point. In many ways, Iran is like the bar room bully who is psyching himself up to a fight. America, traditionally, has taken the role of very visible, very intimidating bouncer who comes along every now and again to remind them to be polite. That stopped about 4 years ago. Now Iran seems to need another one of those reminders, but Barack Obama's foreign policy seems to be "oh, it'll be fine."
A fight between Iran and Israel would be bad on many, many levels. Not just because our treaty obligations, which may well be contradictory in such a conflict, based on how other powers in the region line up. There are also economic realities. A Middle East at war is bad for everyone, including us. A middle east at nuclear war is even worse, and Iran has made it quite clear that it will continue to pursue nuclear weapons no matter what anyone says.
This is just one more piece of evidence that Barack Obama's Middle East policy, indeed his entire foreign policy, given Russia's involvement in the area, is a shambles. This situation is a direct result of the pathetically weak foreign policy. Four more years of this President may well see a new war in the Middle East, a war with disastrous consequences for everyone.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Treason: Weasel Words from Obama
Let's get it out there at the beginning. I believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at least, are guilty of Treason against the United States of America. By not providing additional security to the Libyan diplomatic delegation, especially the Benghazi office, they paved the way for the September 11th murder of 4 Americans, including our Ambassador. By pushing the narrative that a YouTube video was to blame, including having the maker of the movie arrested during a midnight raid, they provided crucial cover for more than a week for the terrorists who killed our personnel. And, as of Friday, we know that someone in the administration gave the "Stand Down" order to prevent a rescue operation from attempting to save the Ambassador and other staff. Given that Mr. Obama was in the Situation Room with a live feed of the events, even if he is not the one who gave the order to stand down, that order was issued on his authority; had he disagreed with the order, he was in the position to over ride the order and authorize the rescue attempt. He chose not to do so.
Can there be any greater "aid and comfort" than not sending our forces to kill the enemy while they are engaged in an attack on our personnel, and THEN attempting to shift blame from the monsters responsible to a video?
And now the spin and weasel words begin. Actually, they began on Friday. In an interview with a Denver TV Station, Barack Obama was asked directly if he denied requests for assistance during the 7 hour attack. Here's the exchange:
No direct answer. And why didn't he answer directly? Because he couldn't. If the answer is yes, that the requests were denied, the uproar would be heard for an immediate impeachment. Failure to answer that call would doom Democrats for years to come. If the answer was "no," then the follow-ups would have started. "Then who did deny the request?" "If the requests weren't denied, why didn't help arrive?" And so forth.
The truth is that Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, as well as head of the diplomatic corps. That means the buck stops with him. He either ordered the stand down, or accepted it. Now, will anyone else- anyone in the National Media, perhaps, ask these same questions?
Can there be any greater "aid and comfort" than not sending our forces to kill the enemy while they are engaged in an attack on our personnel, and THEN attempting to shift blame from the monsters responsible to a video?
And now the spin and weasel words begin. Actually, they began on Friday. In an interview with a Denver TV Station, Barack Obama was asked directly if he denied requests for assistance during the 7 hour attack. Here's the exchange:
No direct answer. And why didn't he answer directly? Because he couldn't. If the answer is yes, that the requests were denied, the uproar would be heard for an immediate impeachment. Failure to answer that call would doom Democrats for years to come. If the answer was "no," then the follow-ups would have started. "Then who did deny the request?" "If the requests weren't denied, why didn't help arrive?" And so forth.
The truth is that Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, as well as head of the diplomatic corps. That means the buck stops with him. He either ordered the stand down, or accepted it. Now, will anyone else- anyone in the National Media, perhaps, ask these same questions?
Friday, October 26, 2012
Treason: Obama Ordered Ambassador Stevens's Death
Many have said, including me, that Barack Obama "let Ambassador Stevens die." That, based on currently available information, is not true. Based on what we now know, Barack Obama ordered his death. Ambassador Stevens was not murdered, he was summarily executed.
This sounds over the top. As I type it, I cannot believe that I am seriously saying that a sitting US President used terrorists to execute an Ambassador. But he did, and I am.
To prove that I'm not just crazy, though, I'll let you follow this a little more slowly.
First we have the information that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security for Benghazi. I documented that here myself.
Next, only Hillary Clinton or the President could have waived denied that extra security and waived the basic security requirements. Given that Mr. Obama wanted us to believe that Libya was a foreign policy success for him, we have ample reason to believe that he either ordered the waiver, or was at least informed of it and gave it his okay.
Further, we now know that the CIA was ordered to "Stand Down" and not assist when the temporary compound was under attack. Two former SEALs disobeyed those orders, saved many lives, and lost their own. During that time, they painted the very mortar which killed them with a targeting laser and requested air support which was also denied. Update: That air support was ALREADY IN THE AIR and flying overhead. An AC-130 gunship was in the air and denied permission to fire.
Something to note here. Our servicemen don't target paint something when a strike will take hours. When something is that far away, the missiles are launched first, and then the Soldiers, Marines, or SEALs use the laser in the last minutes. So the SEALs had to believe that support was minutes, not hours, away.
Finally, there are reports that Barack Obama has (or at least had) a standing order for our forces not to engage, and that only he could override that order. If that's true it is especially damning, but it is not necessary for my logic. I don't need that, because I know that Mr. Obama knew about the attack. I know that it was being shown, live, in the Situation Room in the White House. If a request for support had come in, and someone else had denied it, Mr. Obama was right there to override that denial. By not doing so, he was approving the decision not to save our personnel.
"Let them die" is passive. It would mean he hadn't made a choice. For Barack Obama to have "let" Ambassador Stevens die, there would have had to have been no decisions made, and the problem would then be mere incompetence. That is not the case here. Direct orders were given for the CIA to "stand down" and then requested air support was specifically denied. Those are active choices.
By making the active choice to deny support to the Benghazi compound, Barack Obama all but directly ordered the execution of Ambassador Stevens.
Barack Obama is a traitor. He should be immediately impeached, then tried on charges of treason.
This sounds over the top. As I type it, I cannot believe that I am seriously saying that a sitting US President used terrorists to execute an Ambassador. But he did, and I am.
To prove that I'm not just crazy, though, I'll let you follow this a little more slowly.
First we have the information that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security for Benghazi. I documented that here myself.
Next, only Hillary Clinton or the President could have waived denied that extra security and waived the basic security requirements. Given that Mr. Obama wanted us to believe that Libya was a foreign policy success for him, we have ample reason to believe that he either ordered the waiver, or was at least informed of it and gave it his okay.
Further, we now know that the CIA was ordered to "Stand Down" and not assist when the temporary compound was under attack. Two former SEALs disobeyed those orders, saved many lives, and lost their own. During that time, they painted the very mortar which killed them with a targeting laser and requested air support which was also denied. Update: That air support was ALREADY IN THE AIR and flying overhead. An AC-130 gunship was in the air and denied permission to fire.
Something to note here. Our servicemen don't target paint something when a strike will take hours. When something is that far away, the missiles are launched first, and then the Soldiers, Marines, or SEALs use the laser in the last minutes. So the SEALs had to believe that support was minutes, not hours, away.
Finally, there are reports that Barack Obama has (or at least had) a standing order for our forces not to engage, and that only he could override that order. If that's true it is especially damning, but it is not necessary for my logic. I don't need that, because I know that Mr. Obama knew about the attack. I know that it was being shown, live, in the Situation Room in the White House. If a request for support had come in, and someone else had denied it, Mr. Obama was right there to override that denial. By not doing so, he was approving the decision not to save our personnel.
"Let them die" is passive. It would mean he hadn't made a choice. For Barack Obama to have "let" Ambassador Stevens die, there would have had to have been no decisions made, and the problem would then be mere incompetence. That is not the case here. Direct orders were given for the CIA to "stand down" and then requested air support was specifically denied. Those are active choices.
By making the active choice to deny support to the Benghazi compound, Barack Obama all but directly ordered the execution of Ambassador Stevens.
Barack Obama is a traitor. He should be immediately impeached, then tried on charges of treason.
TREASON
I know I said I wasn't going to post until Monday, but I can't not. This is too important.
We all know that there was no reason for Ambassador Chris Stevens to be so poorly defended in Benghazi. Now we have some more information to add to that. First is this, via the Washington Post, that we had a Predator Drone over Benghazi while the attack was occurring.
Take that in for a moment. Between that and the emails released by Fox, we know that the White House knew about the attack as it was taking place. They knew it was a coordinated terror attack, not "mob" because of a video. They watched it happen in real-time. And then Barack Obama went to bed.
Next is this piece, reported by Bloomberg. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claims that "a lack of intelligence" prevented the Administration from ordering military support that night. Consider that. They'd been forewarned of the attack. Based on the emails they'd received that night, they knew terrorists claimed responsibility. They had a predator drone in the area, with a live feed of what was happening. But this skidmark of a SECDEF wants you to believe we didn't have enough intelligence to act to save our own people.
And now there's a report, from Fox News, that two former SEALS with the CIA detachment, acting against orders, went to assist. There, they had a laser on the very mortar which killed them, and were denied support three times.
Barack Obama and his Administration chose to let US Diplomatic personnel and armed services personnel die, rather than send in support. The reasons they gave for that do not make any sense.
They are traitors to the United States. They placed our enemies' well-being, and their political desires above the lives of our men on the ground. There can be no clearer "aid to the enemy" than choosing not to send soldiers and allowing your own people to die.
Barack Obama is a Traitor, as are Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta. At least.
They shouldn't just be voted out of office. Once President Romney takes office, they should be arrested, tried for treason, and executed.
Update: Corrected the identification of the servicemen- they were CIA, not Marines.
We all know that there was no reason for Ambassador Chris Stevens to be so poorly defended in Benghazi. Now we have some more information to add to that. First is this, via the Washington Post, that we had a Predator Drone over Benghazi while the attack was occurring.
Take that in for a moment. Between that and the emails released by Fox, we know that the White House knew about the attack as it was taking place. They knew it was a coordinated terror attack, not "mob" because of a video. They watched it happen in real-time. And then Barack Obama went to bed.
Next is this piece, reported by Bloomberg. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claims that "a lack of intelligence" prevented the Administration from ordering military support that night. Consider that. They'd been forewarned of the attack. Based on the emails they'd received that night, they knew terrorists claimed responsibility. They had a predator drone in the area, with a live feed of what was happening. But this skidmark of a SECDEF wants you to believe we didn't have enough intelligence to act to save our own people.
And now there's a report, from Fox News, that two former SEALS with the CIA detachment, acting against orders, went to assist. There, they had a laser on the very mortar which killed them, and were denied support three times.
Barack Obama and his Administration chose to let US Diplomatic personnel and armed services personnel die, rather than send in support. The reasons they gave for that do not make any sense.
They are traitors to the United States. They placed our enemies' well-being, and their political desires above the lives of our men on the ground. There can be no clearer "aid to the enemy" than choosing not to send soldiers and allowing your own people to die.
Barack Obama is a Traitor, as are Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta. At least.
They shouldn't just be voted out of office. Once President Romney takes office, they should be arrested, tried for treason, and executed.
Update: Corrected the identification of the servicemen- they were CIA, not Marines.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Criminal Negligence: Benghazi Files Part 10
So we've come to the end of the documents provided by Republicans on Friday, October 19.
Over and over I've made this point, because I want to drive it home: There was no way local security forces could actually secure the Benghazi compound. No matter how well meaning they were, they were simply unable to do so.
When we send an Ambassador to a country, we expect that country to provide some basic security on the exterior, but Marines to secure the compound itself. We do this in England, France, or Germany. How much more so should it have been done in the war-ravaged terrorist haven of Libya?
Some might view that list of security incidents in Part 9, and think I'm being unreasonable. We knew Libya was fragile, after all, how could I expect the same security as in France or England or Germany? The answer is: I don't. But that same understanding that the host nation will be less secure would lead me to want a stronger than normal security presence in the compound itself.
For nearly a year the Embassy staff, which means Ambassador Stevens, asked for more security. On the day he was murdered, the Ambassador himself, once again, requested additional security. None was forthcoming. That something bad would happen should hardly have been unforeseen.
What, then, is Barack Obama's excuse? Well, it largely seems to be "SQUIRREL!" In the Foreign Policy debate he avoided the subject as much as possible. When the attack originally occurred, he blamed a YouTube video for the attack, and Mitt Romney for the fact he even had to address it. In the weeks since, he has finally been forced to admit it was a failure on the part of his administration, but even in "taking responsibility" he has attempted to avoid responsibility.
Unless, God help us, Mr. Obama is re-elected, it is too late to impeach him for this. But make no mistake, I believe this is a lapse worthy of that avenue. But on November 6, if not before, you have the opportunity to fire Mr. Obama; to hold him truly responsible for the decisions he and his Administration made which lead to the murders of 4 Americans.
(Back to Part 1)
Criminal Negligence: Benghazi Files Part 9
The ninth, and penultimate, entry in the Benghazi Files- the documents dropped on Friday, October 19th.
By rights, the next document I should review is U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 - Diplomatic Security. I am not for a couple of reasons. First- it bores me. If it bores me, it would probably put many, if not most, of my readers to sleep. Second, I don't know enough about the contents to digest them. I'll leave my "review" of that document to this, then: It starts on page 59 and continues through page 66. The most important thing it says is that any of the requirements contained therein must be waived by the Secretary of State. Since we can be fairly certain that some of those standards were not met, we must assume, then, that Hilary Clinton directly signed off on those choices. It is unbelievable that the disposition of the delegation to a country Barack Obama had been hailing as a foreign policy success would not have been discussed with him. In short: he and Hillary both knew the precise dangers to the Libyan detachment, both in Tripoli and Benghazi.
The next document I will review is perhaps the most depressing. It is a litany of the "Security Incidents Since June 2011." It begins on page 67 of the documents and continues through 117. Obviously, just reviewing this document could be the subject of several posts. I'll just take some highlights. These will focus on events in Benghazi, or US Embassy staff directly.
June 1, 2011 - Car bomb in Benghazi. Blamed on "former regime officials."
Sept 23, 2011 - Pipe bomb thrown at NTC forces "approximate 500 meters west of the temporary U.S. Embassy residential buildings."
Sept 27, 2011 - Protests in downtown Benghazi over holdovers from old regime. (I note this only because it is not called a "peaceful protest" and others in the document are. Which, if consistency is assumed, means this one was not. -DT)
Oct. 8, 2011 - Celebratory Gunfire Hits U.S. Mission Mission compound; USG Vehicle damaged.
Oct. 12, 2011 - Celebratory Gunfire Hits Mission Compound. "...at approximately 2200 local time, heavy celebratory gunfire, including some heavy weapons fire and substantial amounts of tracer fire, erupted throughout Tripoli, Libya to include from properties and personnel adjacent to the Embassy Residential Compound."
Oct. 14, 2011 - Armed Robbery of ORE Staff:
"...a member of the Mission's local official residences (ROE) staff, a citizen of Pakistan, was robbed by three males at knife point of his cellular telephone and approximately 200 LYD while walking to a taxi stand. The incident occurred in daylight hours in the Burg al Fateh area of Tripoli. The victim went immediately to a nearby police station to report the incident and was told by the police that they could do nothing since Libya was 'without a government or laws'."Oct. 14, 2011 - Qadhafi Spokesperson Dr. Moussa Ibrahim reportedly calls for supporters to rise up and attack the US, French, and Italian Embassies in Tripoli.
Oct. 26, 2011 - Hand grenade recovered from Mission property lawn - Disarmed and Disposed without injury.
Oct. 28, 2011 - Diplomatic Vehicle Stolen.
Nov. 3, 2011 - Attempted Car-jacking of LES
Nov. 3, 2011 - hand grenade recovered from Mission property - Disarmed and Disposed without injury.
Nov. 24 - 27, 2011 - Student Protests hinder resumption of classes at the Benghazi University
Nov. 27, 2011 - Vandalism of Vehicle at US Embassy
Nov. 28, 2011 - Vandalism of Vehicle at US Embassy
Nov. 29, 2011 - Raid of farm house; Recover of 180 Assault Rifles near Mission compound
Dec. 1, 2011 - (Benghazi) Four injured in Tebu-Arab clashes in Kufra
Dec. 1, 2011 - Detention of U.S. Citizen NGO Representative
Dec. 12, 2011 - (Benghazi) Protests and Counter-Protests in the East
Dec. 16 - 17, 2011- youth Protests Continue
Dec. 18, 2011 - Break-In and Theft form LES vehicle at US Embassy "This is the third incident since 11/27 involving vandalism and/or theft of a Mission employee's vehicle at the interim Embassy compound.
Dec. 20, 2011 - (Benghazi & Tripoli) Protective Security Forces foil an attempt dubbed (Papa Noel) or Santa Claus targeting Embassies and Oil Fields in Libya during Christmas and New Year Eve holidays.
Jan. 10, 2012 - Embassy LES Vehicle Break-In; Theft
Jan. 12, 2012 - Female Political Activist beaten in Benghazi.
Jan. 19, 2012 - (Benghazi) Protesters rough up NTC Vice President
Jan. 20, 2012 - (Tripoli & Benghazi) Mutli City Protests
Jan. 21, 2012 - Protests Storm TNC HQ in Benghazi
Feb. 10, 2012 - Alleged Terror Cell Arrested in Airport Area (Not directly involving US Embassy in Tripoli, or Benghazi area, the fact it was specifically a terror cell makes it germane -DT).
Feb. 14, 2012 - Embassy Security Team member grazed by celebratory small arms fire.
Feb. 19, 2012 - US Mission Personnel Detained "U.S. Mission personnel ere detained by militia personnel after they drove through a previously unknown and hastily created checkpoint in Benghazi"
Mar. 3, 2012 - Local driver threatens Embassy security officers after vehicles scrape in traffic.
Mar. 6, 2012 - (Tripoli & Benghazi) Semi-Autonomy Demonstrations
Mar. 8, 2012 - (Benghazi) Explosions near US Mission Compound
Mar. 16, 2012 - (Benghazi) Pro-Autonomy Demonstrators clash
Mar. 18, 2012 - (Benghazi) Armed robbery of British school personnel
Mar. 22, 2012 - (Benghazi) Militia Members searching for a suspect fire weapons near and attempt to enter U.S. Mission compound. "The local guard on duty fled the gate area when the individuals began firing their weapons in the air."
Mar. 23, 2012 - (Benghazi) Protests by policemen and soldiers
Mar. 23, 2012 - (Benghazi) Armed militia blocks coastal road in Benghazi demanding pay
Apr. 2, 2012 - (Benghazi) UK Diplomatic Armored Vehicle attacked by protesters
Apr. 6, 2012 - (Benghazi) Crude IED thrown over wall of US mission; 2 contract guards arrested as suspects.
Apr. 10, 2012 - Demonstrators storm PM office; Embassy employees evacuated from site.
Apr. 10, 2012 - (Benghazi) Crude IED thrown at UN convoy and Supreme Security Council building
Apr. 11 - 12, 2012 - (Benghazi) MoI Facility attacked by unknown gunmen
Apr. 12, 2012 - (Benghazi) Inter-Militia Clashes
Apr. 23 - May 9, 2012 - (Benghazi) Protests at oil company
Apr. 25, 2012 - US Embassy Local Security Office detained; radio seized
Apr. 26. 2012 - (Benghazi) Fight at International Medical University; US Diplomat evacuated from site
Apr. 27, 2012 - (Benghazi) Failed prison break
Apr. 27, 2012 - (Benghazi) Courthouse bombed
Apr. 27, 2012 - (Benghazi) Expatriot demining/weapons abatement staff detained, question, and released
Apr. 28, 2012 - (Benghazi) Airport closed due to protests.
May 1, 2012 - Deputy LGF Commander detained, assaulted, and US Embassy LGF vehicle stolen by armed individuals at an impromptu check-point near Post's GSO Warehouse
May 2 - 10, 2012 - (Benghazi) Workers strike at Libyan cement company
May 6, 2012 - Three killed and two injured in an armed robbery of bank vehicle; 2 million LYD taken; thieves part of brigade hired to protect Libyan Central Bank in Benghazi.
(Sick of it yet? This isn't even half the incidents reported -DT)
May 15, 2012 - Military Police Headquarters in Benghazi target of grenade attack
May 15, 2012 - Director of Benghazi's medical center injured in shooting
May 16, 2012 - (Nationwide) Bank employees staged demonstrations following murder of colleagues in armed robbery
May 17, 2012 - TNC Members attacked at Benghazi Airport
May 18, 2012 - (Benghazi) Peaceful demonstration at UNHCR
May 22, 2012 - (Benghazi) ICRC Building and Bank struck by RPGs
June 6, 2012 - (Benghazi) US Mission Target of IED
June 11, 2012 - (Benghazi) RPG Attack on UK Ambassador's convoy; 2 security officers injured
June 13, 2012 - (Benghazi) Individual killed in car bomb assassination
June 21, 2012 - Benghazi Judge linked to Younis's death assassinated
June 23, 2012 - (Benghazi) Armed Robery of UK citizen by local taxi driver
July 1, 2012 - (Benghazi) HNEC Offices stormed; election materials and ballots burned
July 4, 2012 - Border security officer assassinated in Benghazi.
July 6, 2012 - Libyan Airforce helicopter struck by gunfire; one HNEC employee killed
July 7, 2012 - (Benghazi) Armed individuals storm three polling stations
July 19, 2012 - Benghazi Planning Office closed by protesters over salary dispute
As can be seen just from this small selection, the Libyan government couldn't even pay it's security and other personnel. It couldn't even protect itself or its own citizens. No matter how well meaning the Libyan government was, they could not provide security for our staff, and local citizens were often worse, not better. There was absolutely no excuse to have the Benghazi office so lightly defended.
The report ends with a "General Assessment on the Security Environment." What it says has been discussed in previous posts; I won't rehash all of it here. However, there is one paragraph (recall, this is from the end of July, still plenty of time to have obtained more security) that I believe needs publication (Emphasis in original):
The risk of U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens, and business persons encountering an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is HIGH. The Government of Libya does not yet have the ability to effectively respond to and manage the rising criminal and militia related violence, which could result in an isolating event.
I'll summarize my thoughts in the final post of this series.
To Finish in Part 10
| Part 1 | Part 5 | |
| Part 2 | Part 6 | |
| Part 3 | Part 7 | |
| Part 4 | Part 8 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)