US kills 150 jihadis in one strike. Also, happy graduation!!

March 7, 2016

x

With the news from our own election so… depressing, I am not ashamed to admit that this news gives me great joy:

The United States carried out an air strike in Somalia over the weekend that killed approximately 150 militants belonging to the terror group al Shabaab, the Pentagon said Monday.

The air strike was carried out Saturday at the al Qaeda-linked terror group’s “Raso” training facility, which is located about 120 miles north of the Somali capital Mogadishu, Reuters reported. U.S. officials said that the fighters were training for a large-scale attack against American Special Operations forces and their allies in the region.

“We know they were going to be departing the camp and that they posed an imminent threat to U.S. and to Amisom, African Union mission in Somalia forces, that are in Somalia,” Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said.

The best part, though? It was graduation day:

It is believed that the al Shabaab operatives were struck during a graduation ceremony, the New York Times reported. One official said that the fighters were “standing outdoors in formation.”

Very helpful of them, and I hope it was during the valedictorian’s speech.


Most Transparent Administration Ever: No, you can’t see Obama’s emails to Hillary at her private address he didn’t know about

November 2, 2015

satire transparency

And no way was he looking at the address when he entered it or sent it, so he didn’t know, okay? Racist!

From Doug Powers writing at Michelle Malkin’s blog:

President Obama said previously he was unaware at the time Hillary Clinton was secretary of state that she used only a private email address. Now the White House is refusing to release emails between Obama and Hillary… the ones he sent to the email address he was unaware she used. It’s the kind of honesty and historic transparency we’ve come to expect.

Here’s one good, likely reason Obama doesn’t want those emails to come into the public eye:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

We know Obama and Clinton talked by phone that night at around 10 PM, at about the same time she issued her infamous “It was that darned video’s fault!” statement, and 45 minutes before she told her daughter it was an Al Qaeda attack. Election Day was just a couple of months away, and Obama had staked a large portion of his claim to reelection on the assertion that “Al Qaeda was on the run.” In fact, for two full weeks after the night of the attack, he kept claiming falsely that the video was to blame — even in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

Now, do you think it possible any emails in that time period dealt with the events of that night and what public spin they should give? Coordinating stories, perhaps? Guess we’ll never know, since Hillary probably deleted them and Obama won’t give them up, and will likely delete them when he leaves office. (1)

Got to love that commitment to transparency.

Footnote:
(1) Oh, come on. We’re talking about a leftist who learned his political trade in Chicago! Of course he’ll delete them.


Benghazi: Proof of what we knew, that @HillaryClinton is a lying suckweasel

October 23, 2015
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Those of us who’ve followed the story of the attack by al Qaeda affiliates on our post in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador, have known all along that Hillary Clinton was lying about what she did and knew that night, and in her public statements afterwards. Whether about the causes of the attack, or her concern for security in Benghazi, or about what she did that night, Hillary Clinton has stonewalled Congress and dissembled –lied– to the American people, all to protect, first, Barack Obama’s reelection and then her own chances at the presidency.

One of the big questions concerns her efforts from the night of the attack, itself, and for another 10-11 days to blame the catastrophe on an obscure YouTube video made by an Islam-hating Coptic Egyptian and minor crook living in the US. The man was rousted by Orange County, CA, Sheriff’s Department on a ticky-tack parole violation and he spent about a year in jail, in fear of his life from Muslim retaliation, his First Amendment rights curb-stomped by this administration, including Hillary Clinton.

Even more appalling, just a few days after the attack and when the bodies were being returned to the US, Clinton stood before the families of the dead and promised the US would “get” the guy who made that video. She said this to their faces, in personal conversation.

Few paying attention gave the video explanation any credence, but, we now know, thanks to her appearance before the Benghazi committee yesterday, that she knew that night that it was a terrorist attack, yet she chose to lie:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.

The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.

She could tell her daughter the truth, but not the American people, not even the parents of the dead. She not only withheld the truth, she absolutely lied to them.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, nor is it a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or progressive “talking point.” This isn’t a case where reasonable people can disagree over policy and call it a draw.

No, this is an issue of character. Of personality. Of ethics and morals. Of not just one person’s qualifications to hold public office, but their fundamental worthiness to do so.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has shown she has no sense of duty or honor, nor even any personal decency. Nothing beyond the raw need to protect herself and her dream. It is as plain as the noses on all our faces that she would act the same way, should she become president. She would be Dick Nixon in a pants suit, but without the competence. No one, but no one who cares about the United States and, indeed, the world, should ever vote to put this loathsome creature in the Oval Office.

I’ve often referred to Hillary as “Lady Macbeth” in the past for her obvious, ruthless lust for power. Somewhere in the afterlife, Shakespeare smiles grimly: he knew her type all too well.

RELATED: The Benghazi committee bombshell.

UPDATE: Michael Haz on Twitter asks an excellent question I wish the committee had asked:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


African deserts getting greener: climate alarmists, Gaea cultists hardest hit

September 15, 2015
"Dear, let's talk about global warm... urk!"

“Dear, let’s talk about global warm… urk!”

Well, how do you like that? Put more CO2 (aka “plant food”) into the atmosphere, combine that with the end of a drought and some human ingenuity, and suddenly another prediction by the global warming prophets of doom goes poof:

Climate change has saved hundreds of thousands of Africans from extreme poverty, starvation and premature death, a study from Arizona State University has confirmed.

The study shows that the West African Sahel – part of the semiarid strip just south of the Sahara desert, which spans the African continent from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea – has been steadily “regreening” since the severe droughts of the 1970s and 1980s which killed more than 100,000 people.

Among the reasons for the “regreening” are increased rainfall, the beneficial effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant growth and the ingenuity of farmers (“community-led conservation efforts) in this harsh, marginal region.

Skeptics have long been aware of these beneficial side effects of “global warming” – see, for example, this report from 2011 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation called The Sahel Is Greening.

I swear these people make it too easy: they issue scaremongering warnings of doom-Doom-DOOM!!, and all we have to do is wait for the Earth (not their goddess, Gaea) to stick a grapefruit in their face. Atmospheric hot spot? Nope. Disappearance of snow? Nope. Continued, unstoppable, catastrophic warming all due to Mankind’s folly? Er… um… Well?

Good thing they have their faith to keep them strong in these trying times:

Question not. The science is settled. Amen.

Question not. The science is settled. Amen.


Nigerian Human Rights Activist Blasts Obama; Says Bush Did More For Africa

August 4, 2015

Well, here’s a poke in the eye for our self-described “fourth greatest president.” But, it’s true, Mr. Bush did do a tremendous amount of good in Africa. Obama… no so much.

Nice Deb

bush-dancing-africa-2008

During an event Tuesday at the Washington-based Family Research Council, a Nigerian civil rights activist and attorney said that George W. Bush – not Barack Obama – will be remembered for his legacy of helping the African people.

“President Bush will really be remembered as the president who had the most impact on Africa of the last three presidents,” said Emmanuel Obege. “I think they’re no doubt about it.”

Via CNS News:

Obege was responding to a question by CNSNews.com at an event at the Washington-based Family Research Council, focused on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and in Africa.

CNSNews.com had asked him to expand on his remarks about Bush having helped Africans by establishing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), while Obama has promoted homosexual rights, including same-sex marriage, on his African visits.

Obege said Bush’s visits to Africa made a difference to countless people…

View original post 258 more words


Two reasons Hillary Clinton will not be president

March 1, 2015

800px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop

Well, three if you count her overall incompetence for any office higher than “Bill’s wife,” or four if one recalls that she is a terrible retail politician. Five, even, given that no one really likes her. Six —count’em, six!!— if Bill rode anything more than Jeffrey Epstein‘s plane.

But let’s just stick with two concrete reasons.

Qualifications

Influence

First, how do you think it looks that, while she was Secretary of State, her family foundation took money from foreign governments?

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

Nice. They were only giving “at the same levels” at which they gave before she was Secretary of State, so, really, it’s no biggie.

If, oh, I don’t know, the government of Freedonia was giving a million a year before and a million a year after, I’d call that pretty significant, regardless. Something along the lines of “We could really use help with this border dispute and, oh, did you know we just our sentcheck to the Clinton foundation? Just FYI, of course.” Algeria donated a half-million while it was trying to influence State’s position on Algeria’s (rotten) record on human rights.

Think about it: the Secretary of State is the nation’s top diplomat, executing the president’s foreign policy in pursuit of the nation’s interests. (1) It is at a minimum a clear and huge conflict of interest for her to be overseeing our relations with states that have also been slipping checks to her family foundation.

If it were anyone else, the MSM would be screaming “bribery.”

The Post article is a good one, well worth your time. They’re to be commended for running it, and it should be disqualifying on its own, but you can bet this is only the tip of the iceberg where the Clintons and money are concerned.

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

But that’s not even the biggest iceberg heading for the S.S. Hillary the Inevitable. The footsteps of accountability for the Benghazi massacre are drawing ever closer:

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility.

(…)

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

(…)

At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack:

Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”

Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

While this information was recovered in a document trove obtained by Judicial Watch via FOIA lawsuit, it isn’t the first time we’ve heard that Clinton’s upper echelon of aides knew what was really happening that night. In particular, Cheryl Mills is a very useful minion. She and Clinton are very close, and it is inconceivable that Hillary, her boss, never knew.

And yet from that very night, Hillary insisted that an obscure anti-Islam video was to blame, including lying to the victim’s families to their faces at the ceremony for the return of their remains.

Forget theories about arms shipments to Syrian rebels and whatnot. Clinton as Secretary of State was directly responsible for the creation of the facility in Benghazi and the security of US personnel in Libya. The Libya war was her baby. The assessment of the situation in Libya used to justify intervention was hers. Everything, from the war to the ignored warnings regarding the threat in Benghazi to the final attack that lead to the deaths of four Americans and the wounding of many others. All of this bears on her judgement and competence for high office.

But the question of what she knew and when she knew it and what she did after she knew it is crucial to the question of her integrity, honor, and honesty. (2)

Can you see why Lady Macbeth would want us to ask “What difference does it make?”

Neither of these scandals is going away anytime soon. Benghazi has hung around like an unwelcome guest at her coronation party, occasionally coughing to let everyone know it’s still there. The donor scandal is only just beginning. Her presidential aspirations might survive one, but not both. One of these will derail her campaign, perhaps sooner than we think.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, some word association on Hillary, donations, and Benghazi. Jonah Goldberg wants to know how it is that Judicial Watch can get these documents, but Congress can’t. At Power Line, John Hinderaker wonders if the Clintons’ greed will be their undoing. I’d say “yes.”

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, I know. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton protecting US interests. Bear with me.
(2) I know, I know. A Clinton. That should answer the question right there.


Is the White House press office hiding Obama’s #Benghazi photos, @PressSec?

December 24, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

That’s the accusation made by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

“If you know how the White House works, a photographer is omnipresent,” Attkisson said. “He would have been there taking photographs in the Situation Room. He would have been taking photographs of the president that night. So we asked for the photos, which in my view, are public information. They are paid for with tax dollars, and they release them when they want them released and they are positive . The photo office indicated initially, this was probably in October or November 2012, that we could have the photos at the end of the day and that never materialized. They suddenly started referring us a White House deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, who is now press secretary. And they said Josh would have to approve it, and he would never return a call or e-mail. We would try to maintain communication with him or try to make communication with him over a long period of time, and he wouldn’t even answer. We would go to the press, photographer’s office and say you have given us an impossible task, you have told us to talk to someone who will not talk to us. You need to give us another route to follow to try and get these photos, and they would say no, you have to talk to Josh Earnest. So that just went down a dead-end road…”

Attkisson’s right, this is public property and should be subject to Freedom of Information Act rules. And it’s not as if the White House has ever been shy about releasing photos of Obama in other situations. Quite the opposite. There are, for example, well-known photos of Obama observing the mission to assassinate Osama bin Laden. And, if you think back there were plenty of photos of President Bush and the White House staff dealing with the crisis of the 9-11 attacks.

So why none of President Obama on what was arguably one of the most dramatic nights of his administration, when Americans in the nation’s service were fighting for their lives?

It’s just a guess, but I suspect the reason is that their revelation would seriously embarrass Obama, who (again, guessing) left it to Panetta and JCS Chairman General Dempsey to handle things while he “arranged things” with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in order to preserve their deal. Or maybe he just didn’t think it was important and just went to bed, which in its own way would be equally embarrassing. So, just as the LA Times sits on the Rashid Khalidi tape, the White House press office has deep-sixed those photos (1) to spare Obama public disgrace.

Someday they’ll come out. Just not while Obama is in office and Josh Earnest is his press secretary.

via Max Abrahms

Footnote:
(1) If they exist. Admitting they don’t would be just as bad for Obama, since it would also be an admission that he wasn’t doing anything worth recording that night.


Ebola: What is so hard about a travel ban?

October 16, 2014
Ebola virus

Ebola virus

Honestly, it seems like the most commonsense move in the world: If Ebola is rampant in West Africa, you bar incoming flights and passengers from that region until the disease is brought under control. After all, the disease was introduced into Houston Dallas by a man flying from West Africa. If he hadn’t been allowed in, there would be no people sick with Ebola in Houston Dallas, now.

But, that’s not how this White House operates. At a White House briefing yesterday after the President (finally) held a meeting on Ebola, press secretary the latest Mouth of Sauron, Josh Earnest, was asked about the possibility of imposing a travel ban. Here’s his response:

At today’s briefing, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked why it was still OK to allow flights from the three West African countries that comprise Ebola ground zero — Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone — if it was risky for [nurse Amber] Vinson to hop on a commercial flight from Ohio.

“There’s a multilayered screening protocol that’s in place to ensure that individuals that may have symptoms consistent with Ebola are not even able to board planes in West Africa,” Earnest said.

A travel ban “is not on the table at this point.”

“Shutting down travel to that area of the world would prevent the expeditious flow of personnel and equipment into the region, and the only way for us to stop this outbreak and to eliminate any risk from Ebola to the American public is to stop this outbreak at the source,” Earnest said.

“So we are mobilizing significant resources to make sure that supplies and personnel can get to the affected region and start meeting the needs of the affected region so that we can stop the outbreak there. And that’s why, right now, the travel ban is not on the table.”

There’s a word to describe Earnest’s response that begins with “bull,” but this is a family show. First, the guy from Liberia carrying the disease showed no symptoms until after arriving in Dallas Houston, thus the “multi-layered” screening process Earnest mentions probably would not have caught him. Second nurse Vinson, who had been treating the infected Liberian, had a mild fever and was allowed to fly anyway, even after reporting herself to CDC. Who’s to say similar mistakes wouldn’t be made by far less sophisticated personnel in Dakar or Monrovia?

As for interfering with needed personnel and equipment reaching the affected countries, that is utter nonsense. Any necessary planes can be given the needed clearances easily, and procedures can be put in place for quarantining crew and disinfecting equipment. What a ban would stop is a casual traveler bringing the virus back with him — just as has already happened!

This is malfeasance in office that goes beyond incompetence and verges, in my non-legal opinion, on criminal negligence. And if Chief Executive Obama won’t take the necessary executive action , then Congress should haul its collective butt back to Washington and pass legislation that does impose a ban.

Really, this shouldn’t be hard.

PS: Be sure to read the whole article. Obama’s “statement” is a marvel of bureaucratic blather, verbal “jazz hands” meant to hide the fact that he has, again, done nothing about a potential crisis.

UPDATE: Edited because I placed “patient zero” in Houston instead of Dallas. Not sure which city would be more offended.


#Benghazi: Did Hillary Clinton staffers have a shredding party?

September 15, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Oh, man. If this is trueif!— the potential damage to Hillary’s presidential campaign coronation could be immense, if not fatal:

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.

At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says, in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.

The “two high-ranking officials,” per Maxwell, were Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, and Cheryl Mills, her Chief of Staff. The latter is very significant, as Mills is known for being a hard core Hillary loyalist and her “fixer.” (For more on Cheryl Mills, see here and here.) And here we now have the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs asserting that he stumbled into scrubbing party meant to protect Hillary.

These documents had been demanded by the Accountability Review Board looking into the Benghazi massacre. One wonders, now, if they did see everything, or did they receive a carefully scrubbed “Reader’s Digest” version.

It should be noted that Mr. Maxwell was one of those held accountable by the ARB for Benghazi and was on administrative leave for a year with pay before retiring. Though later cleared and never punished by State, his name was traduced in the press at the time, so a revenge motive has to be kept in mind.

But, that does not make what he claims untrue. Nor does it make it true, but it does most certainly make it something Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee will want to dig into deeply. As Brut Hume put it:

Oh, yeah.

via Twitchy


#Benghazi: security contractors claim CIA delayed aid

September 5, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Help delayed is help denied

Here we go again.

One of the enduring questions from the 9/11/12 massacre at the US consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent attack on a CIA annex there has been “Where was the cavalry?”, when we had forces available in the area that might have saved the ambassador and three others who died.

An investigation by the Republican-lead House Armed Services Committee determined that American forces in nearby countries could not have responded in time, though they blamed the White House for not being prepared. (As do I.) They also concluded that there was no stand-down order for the quick reaction force in Tripoli and that it could not have arrived in time to save lives.

Fair enough. But what about the CIA team in the “annex?” There had been earlier reports that a rescue force was delayed for roughly half-an-hour, before deciding to go on their own volition. Now, in an interview to air on Bret Baier’s “Special Report” tonight at 7 PST, three of the contractors at the annex who survived the battle have accused their boss of holding them back:

The security contractors — Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto, Mark (“Oz”) Geist, and John (“Tig”) Tiegen — spoke exclusively, and at length, to Fox News about what they saw and did that night. Baier, Fox News’ Chief Political Anchor, asked them about one of the most controversial questions arising from the events in Benghazi: Was help delayed?

Word of the attack on the diplomatic compound reached the CIA annex just after 9:30 p.m. Within five minutes, the security team at the annex was geared up for battle, and ready to move to the compound, a mile away.

“Five minutes, we’re ready,” said Paronto, a former Army Ranger. “It was thumbs up, thumbs up, we’re ready to go.”

But the team was held back. According to the security operators, they were delayed from responding to the attack by the top CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to only as “Bob.”

“It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta– we need to get over there, we’re losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”

“We’re starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we’re taking fire, we need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.

After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.

Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.

“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said. Tiegen concurred.

“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he added.

An unidentified “intelligence official” denied there was a stand down order, but these three swear those exact words were used to them: “stand down.” The question, if this account is true, is did “Bob” act on his own, or did he have instructions from above?

This is a question that needs answers.  We already have a special select committee investigating Benghazi, and the Chairman has said these new allegations will be part of that investigation.

The victims and their families deserve no less than the truth.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Missing Libyan jets: don’t panic

September 4, 2014
Pentagon, 9/11/2001

Pentagon, 9/11/2001

You’ll recall those missing 11 Libyan airliners I wrote about the other day; a post in The Aviationist, quoting an executive familiar with airline operations**, agrees it’s something to be concerned about, but we shouldn’t underestimate the difficulty of launching another 9/11-style attack:

“I agree the risks [of a missing plane] are there but I would be cautious in several regards: aircraft condition, availability of actual pilots and airfield conditions, etc,” says Tom Meyer, who’s worked for over a decade in all areas of the airline’s operations with Top US Air Carrier.

In fact, the missing airliner must be hidden somewhere (an kept away from the indiscreet eyes of satellites and U.S. drones snooping on terrorist bases in the desert) but a difficult-to-find airport is quite unlikely an airport capable to serve an airliner.

“Airline Ground Operations will need to include: Ground Power or APU [Auxiliary Power Unit) Availability, Fueling, Weight & Balance, FOD Free Ramp, Clear Taxiways and Runways…If any of the items is missing or done incorrectly, the whole scenario unravels. Sorry, Airline operations are complex,” Meyer explains.

It should be kept in mind that the 9-11 hijackers were exactly that: terrorists who seized control of the planes after they were already in the air. They just needed enough training to be able to pilot them to their targets. As Meyer mentions, the logistical needs of maintaining the planes and the facilities they need to take off are not inconsiderable, nor easily concealed.

There’s more, including mention of the difficulty of getting past air defenses, at least in Europe, in post-9/11 age.

Still, no one imagined guys armed with box cutters could carry out the biggest terrorist attack in history, either. Panic may not be warranted, but prudent concern and a strong effort to find those planes is.

**(He’s credited as working with “Top US Air Carrier.” I wonder if that’s a placeholder that got left behind.)

via Blogs of War


Oh, yay! Eleven Libyan airliners are missing!

September 3, 2014
"x11?"

“Times 11?”

Obama’s Libya war — it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Or maybe it’s Pandora’s box:

Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.

Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.

“There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing,” said one official. “We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”

The author, Bill Gertz, cites experts who describe a range of frightening possibilities, from these jet liners being used themselves as guided missiles, as they were on 9/11/01, to being disguised as normal civilian flights, but carrying armed assault teams of terrorists who could then wreak mayhem. That these aren’t likely to be used against the US homeland is hardly any comfort: much of North Africa, the Middle East, and Mediterranean Europe would be in range. Imagine a multi-target strike a la September 11th (the anniversary of which is fast approaching!) that simultaneously aims at a giant Saudi oil refinery, a soccer stadium in Marseilles, and The Vatican.

And, thanks to a miserably conceived, off-the-cuff war launched by Barack Obama that served no US interest whatsoever, but did manage to overthrow a dictator whom we had tamed and who was keeping his country quiet, we may well have helped armed a future Mohammad Atta.

I’m sure our allies in the region are ever-so-grateful.

UPDATE: Snopes gives this a “probably false” rating, but Gertz is a pretty solid national-security reporter, so I’m not ready to write off his work on the say-so of a fact check site, even one with the pedigree of Snopes. Still I’m including it here for completeness’ sake. (h/t MissFuzzball)


#Benghazi: retired Lt. General to head Select Committee legal team

August 20, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Interesting:

Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, 55, attended West Point and received his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1986, according to public reports. He also holds a Master of Science degree in Strategic Studies. He will serve as Chief Counsel of the Select Committee.

Chipman retired from the military last year after 33 years of service. His retirement ceremony was hosted by Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, whose actions have come under scrutiny as part of the Congressional investigation into the limited military response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks on Sept. 22, 2012.

General Chipman had most recently served as the Army’s Judge Advocate General, the head of its legal system. Given Congressman Gowdy’s tenacity in pursuing the truth of what happened before, during, and after the Benghazi massacre, I think the appointment shows Chairman Gowdy’s determination to tolerate no stonewalling. I seriously doubt a retired three-star JAG will allow himself to be buffaloed by even Hillary Clinton.

The hearings should start rolling after Congress returns from its break. Be sure to stock up on popcorn in the meantime. smiley popcorn


Okay, which one of you guys bombed Libya?

August 19, 2014

map libya

And how come I wasn’t invited?

Reports The New York Times:

Unidentified warplanes on Monday bombed a small arms depot and other locations in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, that are controlled by Islamist-aligned militias, suggesting that a foreign state had intervened in the escalating battle for control of the city.

At least six people were killed, The Associated Press reported. The origin of the planes remained a mystery.

The airstrikes were beyond the capacity of the limited Libyan Air Force, and Libyan authorities said the planes had come from a foreign state. The United States, France, Italy and Egypt all denied responsibility.

“The United States was not involved whatsoever in these events,” said Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman.

But the targets indicated the intent of the strikes. Although the month-old conflict in Tripoli is largely a contest for power between rival coalitions of cities and tribes, one side is considered to be allied with the forces of political Islam, while the other portrays itself as fighting an Islamist takeover. The strikes on Monday all hit the Islamist side.

Frankly, it could have been anyone, because almost everyone has reason to drop ordnance on these refugees from a medieval lunatic asylum: the US might be trying to support its clients in the rump Libyan government; the Europeans might have gotten word about a planned terrorist strike in their countries; the Egyptians  might have learned that high-ranking members of the Muslim Brotherhood were hiding in the area. There are any number of possible reasons, and every single one of the actors named would of course deny doing it.

But I’m really curious to know who did. And why.

via Legal Insurrection


#Benghazi massacre an Iranian operation?

June 23, 2014
Qassem Suleymani

Qassem Suleymani

That’s the assertion of journalist Kenneth Timmerman in a forthcoming book, “Dark Forces.” In a summary article in the New York Post, Timmerman discusses Qassem Suleymani, the head of Quds Force, Iran’s external special operations forces that have conducted operations against us in Iraq and Afghanistan, helped establish Hizbullah, and carried out terrorist strikes around the world. He then talks about Iran’s concern over our presence in Benghazi, where we were monitoring jihadist groups (and, according to rumor, shipping guns to the Syrian rebels, who were fighting Iran’s client, President Assad), groups that Iran, per Timmerman’s sources, had a hand in creating and supporting. The Iranians were so concerned, in fact, that Suleymani set up an operation in which a Quds Force hit team, disguised as Red Crescent workers, were to kidnap Ambassador Stevens and destroy the CIA annex in Benghazi. The idea was to hit us hard to prove to Washington that there was no safe place for American personnel in the Middle East.

Trouble was, from the Iranian point of view, we were intercepting their communications, knew when the hit team arrived, and had them followed by Libyan militia members in our pay. That’s when things got weird:

Then at 1 in the morning, it happened.

All of a sudden, the deputy chief jumped up from where he had been dozing off. His guys were going nuts.

The ruckus got the chief’s attention. “What’s going on? What are they saying?” he asked.

The deputy translated the excited shrieks from the trackers. It seemed the Red Crescent team had been headed back to the Tibesti Hotel when they were ambushed by a half dozen Toyota pickups with .50-caliber machine guns mounted on the beds.

The militia guys forced the Iranians to get out, cuffed them, then bundled them into a pair of Jeep Cherokees and sped off.

Our guys decided it was more prudent not to follow them, he said.

So they’re gone, the chief said. That’s it. Kidnapped.

Based on information that came in later, the station chief and his deputy assumed the Iranians had been kidnapped in some Sunni-Shia dispute and were being held until they could be shipped back to Tehran.

But, what they didn’t know, per Timmerman’s sources, is that the Iranians were intercepting the CIA annex’s communications and knew we were on to them, so they staged the kidnapping of their team as a bluff, to make us think their operation was thwarted by sectarian rivalries. And it worked; the CIA station chief and his deputy bought it. In other words, we knew what the Iranians were up to, they knew we knew, but we didn’t know that they knew we knew. And that allowed them to play us for suckers, get us off our guard, and for their proxies in Ansar al Sharia (again, per Timmerman) to carry out the attacks on September, 2012. Which, by the way, the Iranians had changed to a straight “kill the ambassador” operation, since we had blown the cover of their original kidnapping squad.

Is it true? The trouble with Timmerman’s account is that it relies on anonymous sources. That’s not surprising in intelligence work, but it makes it impossible for the average person to verify.

On the other hand, I do find it at least plausible. The Iranians have considered themselves at war with us since 1979, a war we’ve only fitfully recognized. They were responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and there’s widespread opinion that they were somehow involved in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 (1). Iran has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, via the IEDs they supplied their proxies in both places. That a commander as daring and dedicated to his cause as Qassem Suleymani appears to be might order a hit on his enemy’s embassy is not outside the bounds of reason, however.

I suppose, until and if the Iranian government falls and their records become available, this will remain one of the mysteries of the shadow war between the US and Iran.

Footnote:
(1) This was later also attributed to al Qaeda, but there’s nothing that says Iran and bin Laden couldn’t have been working together.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) #Benghazi — why it matters

June 19, 2014

Aside from owing a true accounting to the memories of the dead lost there and their survivors, the truth about the Benghazi massacre matters because of two words: “competence” and “character.”  Bill Whittle explains:

Remember, one of the two top American officials mentioned in the video plainly desires to be President of the United States. Ignore the faux-outrage of her supporters; questions about Hillary Clinton’s conduct, competence, and character before, during, and after the attack are absolutely appropriate.

And the answers should disqualify her from office.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Benghazi attackers used State Dept. phones the night of the attack

June 12, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

And we overheard them doing it. If anyone still believes Hillary’s story about blaming a YouTube video based on the best information they had at the time, that person is either dumber than a rock, or hoping for a job in a possible Hillary administration.

Via Bret Baier and James Rosen:

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.

Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

Funny, but the Accountability Review Board Secretary Clinton set up after the Benghazi massacre never interviewed Mr Stahl, nor, as far as I know, anyone else who might have knowledge of this. Odd oversight for them to make, isn’t it?

Remember, late on the night of the attack, right after a phone call with the president, Clinton released a statement blaming a video for the attack. She then swore before the caskets of the honored dead returning from Benghazi –and to the faces of their family members– that she would see that video maker brought to justice. She and her boss, the President of the United States, later still made a commercial for Pakistani TV denouncing the video. To this day, in her recently release memoirs, Hillary Clinton defends that claim as being based on the best intelligence we had available at the time.

And yet, if this story is true, we now know we had overheard the enemy calling their leaders and reporting a successful operation. Not a demonstration that got out of control, but an attack.

And, again, they knew that night.

This isn’t the first time we’ve had evidence that State and the White House knew that evening what was really happening, but this is explosive and, if it holds up, should destroy any remnant of Lady MacBeth’s credibility.

As I’ve said before, the only intended target for this deception could have been us. Not the enemy. In addition to getting the truth for its own sake, we the voters need to ask ourselves a question: Do we really want as president someone who not only and so casually lies to us, but to bereaved families?

I can’t wait for these hearings to get started.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Democrats’ rationale for boycotting the #Benghazi committee just died

May 13, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Oh, they might still try it, though I think they’d be dumb to do so (1), especially when Obama’s former Secretary of Defense and Deputy Director of the CIA say they welcome it:

But Panetta and Morell, noting the attack has been subject to many investigations already, said they welcome the latest one in the House.

“If you look at the polling numbers a not insignificant percentage of the American people still have questions,” Morell said.

Morell, who said he already has testified four times about Benghazi, said he is 100 percent confident the upcoming investigation will show that allegations “the intelligence community politicized its analysis” are false.

Panetta, a former Central Coast congressman and Democratic Party stalwart, said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. “The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out” that raise more questions, he said.

“Obviously there is a concern whether it’s going to be a political effort to target an issue for a campaign,” Panetta said. “I hope Democrats participate, and it really is a legitimate effort.”

Spoken like two men who have nothing to hide, or at least think they can come through the hearings relatively unscathed. It also makes it very difficult for the White House and State to continue to denounce the committee as a farce or a political stunt (2) when two key former officials say “fine by me.” Given the questions about Obama and Clinton’s actions (or non-actions) with regard to Benghazi, continued resistance may well convince more and more people that there really is something to hide.

One other thing to bear in mind: there’s been friction between the White House (and to a lesser extent State) and the intelligence and military communities for years. One has to wonder if the latter aren’t relishing the opportunity for a little payback.

via Power Line

Footnote:
(1) Come on, if you were Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice or Tommy “Dude” Vietor, among others, would you want to go before this committee with no allies there to at least try to cover for you? And, if you’re the Democrats, do you really want to leave the field to the Republicans, who smell blood?
(2) Of course it’s political — this is what Opposition parties do. But the key is that it is not solely political, and there are indeed very serious questions to answer.

PS: It would help if I put the update on the right post. smiley headbang wall

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) #Benghazi Rep. Gowdy asks some darned fine questions

May 8, 2014

 

"Star rising?"

“Star rising?”

It was recently announced that Congressman Trey Gowdy (R -SC), a former state and federal prosecutor, would  be heading up the forthcoming House Select Committee on the Benghazi massacre. Quite a few of us have been cheering his selection, because, since the massacre, he has shown himself to be a master of the issues at stake and a dogged questioner, unlike most of the so-called press.

And speaking of the press, and courtesy of my blog-buddy ST and Kat McKinley, here’s video of Rep. Gowdy posing some questions to the press. Consider this an appetizer for the main course to come:

Let’s hope, for the sake of an honest media, that at least some in the audience were red-faced at receiving this needed lesson.

Bring on the hearings. smiley popcorn


#Benghazi: State Dept. knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack

May 5, 2014
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

And not a demonstration. I don’t know how I missed this over the weekend (1), but the administration’s favorite investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, posted this little bombshell to her site back on the 1st (via Hot Air):

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday.

“If the video was a cause, why did Beth Jones of the State Department tell the Libyan Ambassador that Ansar Al Sharia was responsible for the attack?” said Chaffetz.

Gosh, that’s a darned good question Rep. Chaffetz asks. Do you think the forthcoming House special investigative committee on the Benghazi massacre might want to ask that of Ms. Jones, too?

There’s much more in the article about the origin of the controversial “talking points” and the subsequent effort to push the false narrative about a video being the goad for the attack, but I want to draw your attention to the routing of Jones’ email. These are the people copied in:

Among those copied on the emails: Deputy Secretary William Burns; Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff (now promoted to national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden); Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; Cheryl Mills, then-Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff (now on the board of directors of the global investment firm BlackRock); and Victoria Nuland, then-State Dept. spokesperson (now promoted to Asst. Secretary of State). 

Note particularly the name of Cheryl Mills. We’ve met her before, a couple of times. A longtime Clintonista, she has the reputation of being “Hillary’s fixer.” She was also, as Attkisson reminds us, the Secretary’s chief of staff. If Mills had this information, not to mention the other bigwigs on that list, then it is inconceivable that Hillary herself did not know that it was her department’s firm opinion that the attack was caused by Ansar al Sharia. Add this to the fact that she spoke with the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya that night  and then think about her promising the bereaved relatives of the victims, just a few days later and as their bodies were being delivered home, that the US would get the video maker. (2)

This wasn’t a case of honestly believing something that turned out to be false. Hillary Clinton was lying to heartbroken people and knew she was lying.

I can’t wait for these hearings to get started. Hillary is going to find out that, at this point, the truth still makes a difference.

RELATED: More Attkisson – Did Tommy “Dude” Vietor contradict the sworn testimony of White House officials? Must-read: Andy McCarthy on the AWOL President. More McCarthy: “Why I should not be the select committee’s special counsel.” Jonah Goldberg: “Benghazi made simple.”

UPDATE: Changed the headline to be a bit more accurate.

Footnote:
(1) Sharyl really needs to get an RSS feed going for her site.
(2) In fact, the very evening of the attack, she put out a press release blaming the video, after she had talked with President Obama, a conversation the contents of which we still do not know.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)