BLEEDING IN BENGHAZI

Ambasssador Chris Stevens

I find this Benghazi tragedy outrageous! It looks like a complete breakdown on many levels, and I’m wondering how long will it take to exact an accurate explanation and assign some blame? When will this president take responsibility & stand accountable?

When Wall Sreet melted down, causing our economy to sputter and die, I waited to hear who was responsible? What particular bank, industry or government program was the primary culprit behind the debacle?

Nothing.

 Weeks went by, then months and years, and we’re still debating - what happened? No one stepped forward to admit to error/stupidity, no government officials did mea culpas for under-estimating impacts or for creating foolish programs that generated unaccountable boondoggles; no banking officials/executives were held to answer for the missing trillions, or their role in the debacle.

All delightfully vague, with no accountability. Nobody lost their job, got demoted or took a paycut. No criminal prosecutions/indictments. Just a bunch of hooey, a passel of pin-striped suits whistling slyly as they carted away our money. Government types up to their necks, like Frank, Dodd et al? They slunk off with their reputations and pensions intact. No blame there, just business as usual.

This episode did to the safety of money/investment what 9/11/01 did to homeland security, domestic tranquility and military capability: destroyed it. Because no one was held accountable!

Recall, we had severe, tragic breakdowns in our systems of home- land security and airport/airplane security. Also the communications interface between civilian controllers > military response.

All failed miserably.

The spin?

Let’s get past this, move on, make sure it never happens again. Let’s come together, mend our wounds, rebuild and look to the future. Oh yes, and focus on why this happened. Let’s work on fixing the problems/misunderstandings that precipitated this horrible event. It’s now eleven years later, and see what’s happened!

In recent memory, these two man-made events did more damage, took more lives and generated more cost than anything short of a full-fledged war. They did lasting, permanent harm to our country and we vowed it would never happen again. Well, we’ve just been smacked pretty good with a new 9/11, and they killed more of our people! What the hell?

This president boasts how he got bin Laden, that al-qaeda and the Taliban are done. They’re not a threat anymore, except they/their brethren just killed our ambassador and three other Americans. It’s been 30yrs since we’ve had anything like this. Now, this kinder, gentler president allows havoc to rain down.

What do we do? Nothing!

 Here we go again, standing around with fingers up, looking for someone to blame. Is the press demanding answers? Is the media enraged? Has congress moved to create a special bipartisan committee to investigate and demand answers?

Meanwhile, in this vacuum of interest and absence of action, the president sends UN Ambassador Rice on talk shows to spout unsupported nonsense about mobs and videos, he has Press Secretary
Carney spin lies nonstop, and allows Secretary(s) Clinton and Pin-etta to remain virtually silent. Aside from a quick briefing in the Rose Garden, which was proved unreliable/fallacious in following days, he says more on The View then he does to the nation!

I guess in his mind this tragedy didn’t warrant full attention and exigency, a priority above all others. No, it was simply another day at the office, a momentary problem that went with the territory, to be explained in a non-hostile venue of minimal intimidation. He actually said, on another show of similar import and pseudo-credibility, the Benghazi incident and resulting American casual- ties was not optimal. You’re correct, Mr. President, not optimal. Perhaps a better choice of non-telepromptered words might be, intolerable! Unacceptable!! But all we get is more rhetoric and campaign mode. No crisis here, just a little nuisance in that pesky Libya place, interrupting our political grandiloquence.

Let’s say it plain. Hillary Clinton is incompetent, in over her head and should be fired. It’s unbelievable she hasn’t submitted her resignation. There should be a complete top-down shake-up at State, ferreting out those responsible for this tragedy. If it traces back to the White House, and a smarmy reluctance to admit there even is a terrorist threat (i.e. workplace violence at Fort Hood?) the American people better wake up and realize there’s a dangerous ideologue running things, someone with his own agenda, taking his own counsel, seeking to fulfill his own fantasies. Our military and intelligence communities must speak out! Career diplomats/professionals in world affairs must sound an alarm!

This mode of behavior holding no one accountable when tragedy strikes is outrageous! Hold this course, it will strike again & again. We’re better than this. We must not become the world’s biggest idiot! When will we realize how media is aiding/abetting this process, as are academia and the entertainment industry? Our republican-style democracy is in the throes of a life-death struggle and the left is winning out!

Time to stand up to this nonsense. Time to reinstate professionalism vocationalism and honor. Time to hold people accountable with appropriate result.

Time to clean house!

Al Shane

al@bmgmtassoc.com

Obama Lies - Americans Die - The smoking gun of the Benghazi cover-up

On June 11, the British ambassador’s motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone and the British Benghazi post was closed.

At the same time, the Red Cross, after a second attack, shut down and fled the city.

“When that occurred,” says Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the military security team in Tripoli, “we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove.”

On Aug. 15, at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, an emergency meeting was convened to discuss the 10 Islamist militias and their training camps in the area, among them al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia.

On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”

The cable was sent to Hillary Clinton — and signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens.

On Sept. 11, Ambassador Stevens died in a coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound by elements of Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida.

Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the “smoking gun.”

Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”

While House spokesman Jay Carney said Biden’s “we” applied only to Biden, Obama and the White House. As the National Security Council is part of the White House, Carney was saying the NSC was in the dark over the Aug. 16 cable that had warned about the exact attack that occurred.

What else have we lately learned?

The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.

Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.

From an Oct. 26 report by Jennifer Griffin, also of Fox News, we now know there were two drones over Benghazi the night of Sept. 11 capable of sending pictures to U.S. commanders within reach of Benghazi, and to the CIA, Pentagon and White House.

We also know that ex-SEAL Ty Woods, in the CIA safe house a mile away, was denied permission to go to the rescue of the compound, and that he disobeyed orders, went and brought back the body of diplomat Sean Smith.

After the attack on the compound, the battle shifted to the safe house — for four more hours. Another ex-SEAL, Glen Doherty, made it to Benghazi from Tripoli. Seven hours after the initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Smith, Doherty and Woods were still returning fire, when, having been abandoned on the orders of someone higher up, they were killed by a direct mortar hit.

Due to stonewalling and the complicity of the Big Media in ignoring or downplaying the Benghazi story during the last weeks of the campaign, the Obamaites may get past the post on Nov. 6 without being called to account.

But the truth is coming out, and an accounting is coming. For the character, competence and credibility of Obama’s entire national security team have been called into question.

Hillary Clinton said she takes full responsibility for any security failure by her department at the Benghazi compound. But what does that mean? Did she see the Aug. 16 secret cable sent to her by Stevens describing his perilous situation? Was she oblivious to the battle in her department over security in Benghazi?

This failure that occurred in her shop and on her watch, that Stevens warned about in his Aug. 16 cable, resulted in his death and the most successful terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.

Why has Hillary not explained her inaction — or stepped down?

The CIA has issued a terse statement saying it gave no order to anyone not to try to rescue the ambassador or not to move forces to aid Doherty and Woods, who died because no help came.

Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to “stand down”?

The president says he is keeping Americans informed as we learn the truth. But is that still credible?

When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time, that camera-carrying drones were over the city that night, that a seven-hour battle was fought, that desperate cries for help were being turned down.

The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president?

Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/02/buchanan-the-smoking-gun-of-the-benghazi-cover-up/

For Israel, a Second Term From Hell

Within days, Hurricane Sandy and all its devastation will be featured less prominently on front page headlines, to be replaced by a rapid countdown to next week’s Presidential election.

There is no consensus over who is slated to win. Even reliable polls are largely out of sync with each other. Unexpected events and the three debates have never failed to bring continued new elements to the table.

For the President, the hurricane was a political blessing, as Americans tend to unite around their sitting leaders during times of crisis. More importantly, the graphic imagery of wholesale devastation has forced the emerging and ever evolving debacle, over the Administration’s handling of the September 11th terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, from national focus.

For many around the world, there has been continued concern over President Obama’s attitude towards Israel, which at times has been overtly hostile. Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit described it thusly in an interview on Israeli TV last year; “The rage that Barack Obama expresses towards Binyamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel is a raging fury.”

I have no doubt that Shavit is right when he says that “If Barack Obama is elected…There will immediately be a very strong attack and Israel will find itself in a very sharp crisis. Because right now…Obama is…like a lion in a cage.”

To estimate the steps that Obama might take towards Israel, with his last election behind him, his intent must be judged based on his past actions and sentiments expressed. The President has been clear about his opinion on a number of matters relating to Israel, and his current muted stance on the eve of Election Day, surely has no post-election staying power.

1.Obama believes that Israel is engaged in an illegal occupation, and that building anywhere beyond the 1948 armistice line is against international law.

2.He believes that the claims of Palestinian Arabs against Israel are generally legitimate.

3.He believes that the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state is necessary and important.

4.He believes that the term pro-Israel can be applied in a prescriptive fashion. What Israelis think is in their interests is not necessarily pro-Israel.

5.Obama believes that the pro-Israel community can be bought off by sending financial aid to Israel.

6.Obama believes in the power of public opinion and words, “daylight,” to steer public sentiment in favor of his policies.

When it comes to unrestricted sitting duck policy, these ideals can find damaging manifestation in a number of areas. For example, in a second term, Obama is likely to further the cause of Israel’s delegitimizers like none other before him, by aggressively and publically slamming any and all construction outside of pre-1967 Israel. It is unlikely that he would condemn anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations and I believe that he will not veto Palestinian Arab attempts at the UN towards a unilateral declaration of statehood.

On the whole, since 1974, once coming to the understanding that Israel could not easily be vanquished militarily; the Jewish state’s enemies have waged a war of accusation, seeking to isolate and diplomatically weaken the country to the extent that it is forced to significantly compromise its security.

A second Obama term would go a long way in furthering that agenda.

But in truth, the extent to which the sitting US President can impact affairs on the ground in Israel will be seen on January 22nd, when Israelis go to the polls. Israelis view the state of the US-Israel relationship as vitally important, and typically Prime Ministers who are viewed as having jeopardized that relationship have difficulty staying in power.

If President Obama is re-elected, and Israeli voters veer leftward, Zionism will fall into regression.

If however, the new Lieberman-Netanyahu coalition marks significant gains, and especially if winning a Knesset majority, the country will enter a troublesome adolescent stage in its relationship with the US. Perhaps Israel the adult will emerge and embark on an independent new path.

If Mitt Romney wins, and Israel’s left is voted into power, we will see a repeat of the Olmert-Bush years, where Israel makes grand offers and gestures to the PA, only to face rebuff after rebuff.

If a sweep of Israel’s nationalist parties follows a Romney victory, the tide of Israel deligitimization will be stunted, and Israeli leaders will focus on building long terms security solutions for their citizens.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/01/for-israel-a-second-term-from-hell/