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 National Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2016
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The Funny Thing Is...
...that Donald Trump was right.
If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.” The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.
Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough. Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others). Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.
Yes, Trump is circus clown. Yes, he’s a carnival barker. In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many. However, he’s not actually stupid. So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.
continue...
If you’ve been living under a rock, you might not have heard about Donald Trump's “racist” (more on that in a moment) comment saying we should stop allowing Mohammedans into America “until our Representatives figure out what’s going on.” The reaction was predictable, and pathetic.
Most Republicans couldn’t distance themselves fast enough. Democrats pointed with glee at the “racist” comments and said it “disqualified” Trump from being President (this from the party of the KKK, the Black Panther party, and the Westboro Baptist Church, among others). Everyone reacted as if there was nothing of substance said.
Yes, Trump is circus clown. Yes, he’s a carnival barker. In many ways that’s what makes him so appealing to many. However, he’s not actually stupid. So let’s take a serious look at the facts behind the carnival barking.
continue...
Friday, March 8, 2013
On Assassinating US Citizens
Rand Paul's filibuster has everyone talking about domestic drone strikes. This is a good thing, because domestic drone strikes would be A Very Bad Thing. On the other hand, there are a fair number of conservatives who assert that Rand is wrong that the US Government should not be able to specifically target any US Citizen on US Soil. They claim that if someone has "taken up arms against the US" they do not deserve Constitutional protections.
This is a highly dangerous position. I'll even go further. The US does not have the right to assassinate anyone on US soil- citizen or otherwise. Let's break it down a little bit.
This is a highly dangerous position. I'll even go further. The US does not have the right to assassinate anyone on US soil- citizen or otherwise. Let's break it down a little bit.
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Treason: DNI Clapper Goes Under the Bus
The Media continues to focus on "Who edited the talking points" instead of "Who ordered the stand-down" regarding the 9/11 Benghazi attack by Al Qaida, or Al Qaida linked terrorists. Readers of this blog already know that the answer comes back to Barack Obama anyway, but let's play along.
According to CBS News, the talking points that Susan Rice received (talking points that blamed a YouTube video no one had heard of and fewer had seen) were edited by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and approved by the CIA and FBI.
Now, what you're supposed to believe from this is that DNI James Clapper got the original talking points from the CIA that included language about the Al Qaida link, then that he changed that language. You're also supposed to believe the following:
* Barack Obama never saw the original talking points.
* DNI Clapper never ran the updated talking points by the President for his approval.
* That the link to Al Qaida was too weak to for DNI Clapper to approve it, but the link to the YouTube video was somehow iron-clad.
These are all rediculuous on the face of them. Worse than that, they're insulting. Barack Obama knew what the CIA said. He then knew what the DNI wanted to say- indeed, he probably instructed him to find some scape goat other than terrorism. DNI Clapper then framed a man for exercising his first amendment rights, and Barack Obama approved that change.
Barack Obama is supporting terror and terrorists over the First Amendment Rights of legal US Residents.
He must be impeached.
H/T Ace of Spades (permalinked in sidebar)
According to CBS News, the talking points that Susan Rice received (talking points that blamed a YouTube video no one had heard of and fewer had seen) were edited by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and approved by the CIA and FBI.
Now, what you're supposed to believe from this is that DNI James Clapper got the original talking points from the CIA that included language about the Al Qaida link, then that he changed that language. You're also supposed to believe the following:
* Barack Obama never saw the original talking points.
* DNI Clapper never ran the updated talking points by the President for his approval.
* That the link to Al Qaida was too weak to for DNI Clapper to approve it, but the link to the YouTube video was somehow iron-clad.
These are all rediculuous on the face of them. Worse than that, they're insulting. Barack Obama knew what the CIA said. He then knew what the DNI wanted to say- indeed, he probably instructed him to find some scape goat other than terrorism. DNI Clapper then framed a man for exercising his first amendment rights, and Barack Obama approved that change.
Barack Obama is supporting terror and terrorists over the First Amendment Rights of legal US Residents.
He must be impeached.
H/T Ace of Spades (permalinked in sidebar)
Monday, November 19, 2012
Treason: Benghazi "Video" Talking Points came from White House
This is hardly news, but how many times does it have to be confirmed before Congress does something about it? As the attack on the Benghazi compound was happening, the US Government already knew that Al Qaida, or and Al Qaida linked group, was behind the attack. This information was communicated to the White House. When Barack Obama chose to send US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice out to say "be calm, all is well," the talking points had been scrubbed of any reference to terrorism.
Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration." Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying. Barack Obama made that decision. Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida. Why he did this I can only speculate. Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.
Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.
Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field. This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area. Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours. Then let's say he chose not to send help. Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached).
But let's go further. When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight. He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks. Now he's lied to his superiors.
At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.
Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration." Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying. Barack Obama made that decision. Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida. Why he did this I can only speculate. Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.
Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.
Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field. This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area. Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours. Then let's say he chose not to send help. Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached).
But let's go further. When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight. He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks. Now he's lied to his superiors.
At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.
Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.
Barack Obama is a traitor.
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?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Real Victims of the Petraeus Scandal
When the news of General Petraeus's resignation suddenly broke last week, and with the resulting Springerian Nightmare (I just made that up), I think the country is starting to lose sight of something important.
The "real" victims of General Petraeus are 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and their families.
Because of the scandal, General Petraeus's testimony before Congress has been postponed- possibly indefinitely. Because of his infidelity, and the fact it was known for months prior, his judgement is in question and he was compromised from a security standpoint. This means that key questions may never be answered. It means that blame might be successfully shifted from President Obama (where, as chronicled here, it rightly belongs) to General Petraeus and the CIA (where it does not).
Because of the scandal, we may never know why the CIA operatives in Benghazi were given a stand down order. Was it because the CIA was operating a secret prison in Benghazi? I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense. Was it simply for political cover? We now may never know.
Another real victim of General Petraeus? Holly Petraeus, his wife. I have seen some of the most vile comments about her, both from liberal and conservative sources, and they are undeserved. There is no reason to speculate on "why" General Petraeus would violate his wedding vows and have an extended extramarital affair. "Why" does not matter. To lay any blame at the feet of Holly Petraeus is the worst form of blame-shifting (all the blame lays with Gen. Petraeus and his mistress) and misogyny.
The "real" victims of General Petraeus are 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and their families.
Because of the scandal, General Petraeus's testimony before Congress has been postponed- possibly indefinitely. Because of his infidelity, and the fact it was known for months prior, his judgement is in question and he was compromised from a security standpoint. This means that key questions may never be answered. It means that blame might be successfully shifted from President Obama (where, as chronicled here, it rightly belongs) to General Petraeus and the CIA (where it does not).
Because of the scandal, we may never know why the CIA operatives in Benghazi were given a stand down order. Was it because the CIA was operating a secret prison in Benghazi? I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense. Was it simply for political cover? We now may never know.
Another real victim of General Petraeus? Holly Petraeus, his wife. I have seen some of the most vile comments about her, both from liberal and conservative sources, and they are undeserved. There is no reason to speculate on "why" General Petraeus would violate his wedding vows and have an extended extramarital affair. "Why" does not matter. To lay any blame at the feet of Holly Petraeus is the worst form of blame-shifting (all the blame lays with Gen. Petraeus and his mistress) and misogyny.
Jerry Springer Goes to the Pentagon
Imagine you turn on the TV and you see the following. Two kind of skeevy looking elderly dudes, and their wives and mistresses. One the mistress of one outed the relationship between the other skeevy dude and his mistress. While someone was digging into that, they discovered the affair between skeevy dude number 2 and his mistress. Oh, and mistress number two has a crazy (as in: denied custody of her children by a judge because she was so crazy) twin sister.
Would you expect to see this on:
A) The Evening News
B) The Jerry Springer Show
If you answered "B" you would be wrong. This almost exactly what happened in the case of General Petraeus and General Allen. Except that instead of ruining a couple of lives and making them laughing stocks, a la Jerry Springer, this affair compromised National Security and (quite likely) cost thousands of good men and women their lives.
Now, a lot of pixels are being used, and ink being spilled, over this whole sordid affair. Most of it seems to be centering on whose "fault" it is. I have not seen very much spent at all on what effect this has had, and will have on the Intelligence and Military communities.
Perhaps most superficially, there is the PR nightmare. Both of these men were highly decorated, highly respected Generals. General Petraeus had been in President Obama's Cabinet since the beginning of his Administration, first over the Pentagon and then swapping with Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Prior to that, he'd been the author of the COIN "Surge" strategy which largely completed our mission in Iraq. General Allen was the head commander of our forces in Afghanistan, and was being considered for promotion. That these men are now embroiled in, as Gabe from Ace of Spades puts it, "a love Pentagon," makes this a terrible blow to the trust Americans place in military leadership.
More importantly, what practical effects did this have on Intelligence and Military operations? What things were missed because these men were getting some strange on the side? How many lives were lost because Gens. Petraeus and Allen were not paying attention to their duties? What cost was there to National Security? After all, a powerful man in an affair is a compromised man.
I think these things need investigation. And only one man can get to the bottom of it. Only one man in America has shown the ability to sort through this kind of back-and-forth recriminations.
Jerry. Springer.
Would you expect to see this on:
A) The Evening News
B) The Jerry Springer Show
If you answered "B" you would be wrong. This almost exactly what happened in the case of General Petraeus and General Allen. Except that instead of ruining a couple of lives and making them laughing stocks, a la Jerry Springer, this affair compromised National Security and (quite likely) cost thousands of good men and women their lives.
Now, a lot of pixels are being used, and ink being spilled, over this whole sordid affair. Most of it seems to be centering on whose "fault" it is. I have not seen very much spent at all on what effect this has had, and will have on the Intelligence and Military communities.
Perhaps most superficially, there is the PR nightmare. Both of these men were highly decorated, highly respected Generals. General Petraeus had been in President Obama's Cabinet since the beginning of his Administration, first over the Pentagon and then swapping with Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Prior to that, he'd been the author of the COIN "Surge" strategy which largely completed our mission in Iraq. General Allen was the head commander of our forces in Afghanistan, and was being considered for promotion. That these men are now embroiled in, as Gabe from Ace of Spades puts it, "a love Pentagon," makes this a terrible blow to the trust Americans place in military leadership.
More importantly, what practical effects did this have on Intelligence and Military operations? What things were missed because these men were getting some strange on the side? How many lives were lost because Gens. Petraeus and Allen were not paying attention to their duties? What cost was there to National Security? After all, a powerful man in an affair is a compromised man.
I think these things need investigation. And only one man can get to the bottom of it. Only one man in America has shown the ability to sort through this kind of back-and-forth recriminations.
Jerry. Springer.
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
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
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)