INCREDIBLE: Ex-CIA Agent Claims Obama Had Breitbart and Clancy Killed


Dr. Jim Garrow

Dr. Jim Garrow
 
Here’s a good Conspiracy Theory I wish some corroboration would emerge to confirm. Dr. Jim Garrow (Here’s a good bio but disquieting photo – And HERE) claims he was a covert CIA agent and has knowledge that Obama ordered the stealth assassination of Andrew Breitbart and author Tom Clancy. The Tea Party Crusaders posted a story on this accusation by Dr. Garrow on February 22, 2015 but after doing some checking I discovered the Garrow accusation has been going on since at least 2013. I found the 2013 date on a skeptical Free Republic post. If you look at some of the headline titles from the Examiner.com Dr. Garrow does have the appearance of a way-way-out-there-in-left-field kind of guy. On the other hand Dr. Garrow was the runner-up to President Barack Hussein Obama in the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Dr. Garrow’s nomination is related to his book “THE PINK PAGODA: ONE MAN’S QUEST TO END GENDERCIDE IN CHINA” (Book Review – The Canadian). In relation to that book here is a 2011 book interview:
 
 
Published by ATLAHWorldwide
Published: Dec 15, 2011
 
Hon. James David Manning, PhD interviews Dr. Jim Garrow on his new book “The Pink Pagoda.” Recorded on 13 December 2011. Go to http://atlah.org for more information.
 
At any rate Dr. Garrow is vilified by the Left and still is appreciated by Christian leaders and far as Conservatives go, I suspect the appreciation or lack thereof is related to the believability scale on Conspiracy Theory.
 
Without further ado here is the Tea Party Crusaders article doing what I do enjoy – vilifying the Liar-in-Chief.
 
JRH 2/25/15 (Hat Tip: Lilliane Parker)

Please Support NCCR

*****************************
INCREDIBLE: Ex-CIA Agent Claims Obama Had Breitbart and Clancy Killed
 
February 22nd, 2015 at 12:22 AM
 
 Dr. J. Garrow, A. Breitbart & Tom Clancy
 
He has been featured on several media outlets throughout the world. Last Sunday, as a guest of Now the End Begins internet radio program however, he dropped a bombshell on the world. Dr. Garrow claims that up to a week ago he was covert CIA. To top it off on the program, he states he knows that President Obama ordered the hits that killed Tom Clancy and Andrew Breitbart!
 
According to Garrow …
 
Andrew Breitbart died under mysterious circumstances. The autopsy said that he died with no prescription drugs in his system and only a .04 blood alcohol content not days after taping an interview with the now also deceased “alleged” gay lover of President Barack H. Obama. So why if he died of natural causes did the FBI go after his widow for potential homicide?
 
Well according to Dr. Jim Garrow, Andrew Breitbart was not dead of natural causes. According to the interview, he was killed directly by the Obama Administration. Andrew Breitbart was known for his controversy against the administration and the news media. Several people believed he was killed including some of the main founders of http://www.breitbart.com in his memory.
 
Then there was Tom Clancy. Tom Clancy died last week at the age of 66. Although they say “natural causes”, the actual list of cause of death on his autopsy, cause of death unknown.
 
Tom Clancy once said:
 
I hang my hat on getting as many things right as I can. I’ve made up stuff that’s turned out to be real — that’s the spooky part.”-Tom Clancy to the New York Times

It is no secret when he wrote The Hunt for the Red October that he was met at the door by Pentagon officials and FBI agents demanding to know where he got top-secret documents.
 
Dr. Garrow states that after the incident, the CIA “spoon fed” him classified information and scenarios to write his novels in a manner that was entertaining but contained that ever needed element of truth. Dr. Garrow says that is why he was killed because he was getting to close to a secret they don’t want the world to know. In fact Dr. Garrow attributes the statement quoted above as “a little too late”.
 
Dr. Garrow states President Obama had Tom Clancy killed as well and noted that it takes 5 days for plant toxins and most poisons to break down and leave no traces in the human body. Amazingly enough, or coincidentally, the doctors did not perform an autopsy on Tom Clancy’s body for 5 days.
 
Finally he revealed a revelation so shocking to the radio program that can be best described in their own words:
 
Lastly, he revealed that Obama’s administration was made up of Marxist Muslims who all take their orders from Senior Adviser to the President, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett.
 
Dr. Garrow said that it is well known to intelligence agencies all over the world that Obama is a foreign plant who was placed on the path to the presidency by ultra-rich Saudi nationals. This is why, Garrow said, that all of Obama’s education records have been permanently sealed.
____________________________
© 2015 Tea Party Crusaders
 

No Tears For Terrorists


Party of Deceit, Spin & Lies

 

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently produced an extremely flawed report that vilified the CIA for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) as torture. American voters must keep in mind ONLY the lame duck Dem majority placed its stamp of approval on this report. The Dems have spent the last 14 years LYING to America (Bush election 2000 – Obama years to the present in 2014). Lying is how Obama was elected in both 2008 and 2012. Obama’s deceptions he has told are scandalous and worse America’s Mainstream Media (NBC News, CBS News, NY Times, Media Matters etc.) have been perpetuating those lies (Townhall.com, WSJ, National Review, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Eagle Rising, etc.).

 

I have listening to Leftists touting this Senate Dem report on EIT as confirmation that prosecutions for crimes should occur. The thing is it’s like I’ve been telling my grandkids: “If a Democrats lips are moving, it is a lie.”

 

Justin Smith provides some facts that refute lying Democrats.

 

JRH 12/14/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

No Tears For Terrorists

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 12/13/2014 4:54 PM

 

The recently released Senate Intelligence report on the CIA detention and interrogation program, created after 9/11, is a poorly done partisan attack on the Agency, and it is marred by errors of fact and questionable motives, as Americans note that this story moved Dr. Gruber, ACA architect, and his “Americans are too stupid to understand Obamacare” remark from the front page of the New York Times to page twenty; however, since the Democrats have mischaracterized the effectiveness of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program and alleged that Islamic terrorists/”enemy combatants” captured on foreign battlefields were “tortured” through waterboarding and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), let’s put this topic to rest, as we also note that waterboarding was prohibited seven years ago.

 

Many progressive Democrats have conflated the issue by stating that Japanese soldiers were hung in 1947 for “waterboarding” U.S. soldiers, when what they actually did is more accurately described as “water-torture”, forcing water into the stomachs of prisoners, our U.S. soldiers, until osmosis ruptured their blood-cells, ending in death. This is not in any manner similar to the minor dunkings that Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists received at the hands of CIA interrogators, which merely gave the subject the illusion of drowning.

 

At the cost of $40 million, the Senate intelligence report, a 524 page declassified executive summary of the 6300 page classified report, accuses the CIA of torture, however, the CIA repeatedly consulted the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel about methods it intended to use. Legal opinions – later discredited and withdrawn due to political pressure from the Obama administration – assured the Agency that ALL of its Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) were lawful and did not constitute torture.

 

It is worth noting here that tens of thousands of U.S. Armed Forces members, Rangers, Special Forces, SEALs, Pathfinders and Recon have voluntarily subjected themselves to waterboarding in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) classes. All intelligence and military personnel exposed to a high risk of capture take SERE training.

 

Now, the very same Democrats, who once fully supported the EIT program, clearly didn’t include any information that did not fit their predetermined conclusions, and these same Democrats charged the CIA with immoral ineffectiveness, after they cherry-picked their way through six million pages of documents in the program that they in fact enabled; in their questionable endeavor, they ignored credible evidence that information gathered in this program led to Osama bin Laden.

 

In a joint response, former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes rebut the Senate Intelligence report in a December 10th Wall Street Journal editorial that states:

 

“The (EIT) program in its totality formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation. For instance, the CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.”

 

Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, and five other Republicans wrote a 100 page dissent of the report, which was written solely by Democratic committee staff members. Chambliss, in a later statement, contradicted the principal findings of the Democrats, calling them “erroneous and inflammatory.”

 

Senator Chambliss also presented 766 known cases that represented “sole sourced” intelligence extracted through EIT, which gave advanced warning of terrorist attacks on Heathrow airport and London’s Canary Wharf. Chambliss stated, “There is no telling how many lives this program saved.”

 

Jose Rodriguez Jr., a former CIA official, rejects the Senate Intelligence report’s conclusions that EITs weren’t useful in saving American lives, and he stated: “… that the interrogation program brought no intelligence is an egregious falsehood; it’s a dishonest attempt to rewrite history … I’m bemused that the Senate could devote so many resources to studying the interrogation program and yet never once speak to any of the key people involved in it, including the guy who ran it, that would be me.”

 

One report from the twelve month period in 2004 showed a 92% success rate when EITs were used at GITMO, and even the Senate Intelligence report had to admit that some intelligence was gathered from 82% of detainees subjected to EITs, while in CIA custody. The effectiveness was shown to be only 57.5% with detainees when soft-sell techniques (polygraphs) were used.

 

As a career U.S. military senior interrogator with extensive knowledge of the EITs used by the CIA interrogators on high value detainees, Jason Beale (pseudonym) anticipated the Senate Intelligence report and wrote a 39 page response stating that “under duress the unrehearsed details (of a lie) are the wild-cards that bite you in the ass … I would rather sit across from the most talented interrogator on earth doing a soft-sell than any interrogator doing a hard-sell … the only consequences to my lies come in the form of words. I could handle words. Anyone could.” [Bold Italics Blog Editor’s]

 

Since the creation of the detention and interrogation program, the CIA has reported any allegation of abuse to the Justice Dept. Twenty cases have been forwarded to Justice in all these years, with only one meriting prosecution.

 

If detainees were subjected to “rough takedowns”, stripped, bound, screamed at and slapped, as alleged in this Senate Intelligence report, and hasty decisions made in the chaotic aftermath of 9/11, those CIA agents involved should have been interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee to ascertain the reasoning and logic behind their actions. This should have been placed in proper context. [Bold text Editor’s – NO CIA agents involved in IET were interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee pertaining to this report.]

 

On December 11th, CIA Director John Brennan put this topic in its proper context as he stated:

 

“The events of 9/11 will be forever seared into the memory of Americans … those 77 minutes in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Our Nation ached … It prayed. In Our pain, We pledged to come together … We vowed, NEVER AGAIN.”

 

Americans are now being forced by this report to reflect and ask themselves, “Was America wrong to use these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?”

 

Would anyone really and truly be troubled over waterboarding an enemy combatant, a terror suspect, with the knowledge that thousands of American lives might be at stake?

 

The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Islamofascist groups that now comprise the Islamic State have routinely tortured, maimed and murdered their prisoners over the last several decades, just as America witnessed nineteen U.S. soldiers dismembered in Somalia and hung from utility poles in 1993 and, more recently, four young Christian children beheaded in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam. And during this time, they have consistently and routinely worked towards successfully striking America in the most destructive and lethal fashion; the bomb plots, the biological and chemical attack plans and their search for nuclear weapons have all increased, and all of this was in the making long before the EIT program, as illustrated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

 

Americans reflect on what has brought us to this discussion, and we remember – We remember Islamic terrorists followed the Koran’s mandate to murder non-believers, the infidels, in order to purify the world – taking the lives of 3000 innocent Americans. This is their life’s calling, and America reacted by making it our mission to capture or kill every Islamofascist meaning to bring Her harm, a mission we took seriously; if an Islamic terror suspect or known terrorist gets slapped a few times or has a little water poured over his face, I’ll not be shedding any tears.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________________

Edited By John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up


Benghazi Cover-up 2

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

 

Today I received a Breitbart News email which is really a promo from Judicial Watch.

 

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.” (From Donation Page of Judicial Watch)

 

Thus Judicial Watch is an NGO government and judiciary watchdog organization. JW managed to get a Judge to force the release of documents in which Congress originally subpoenaed but the government failed to deliver. Although Leftists are playing ostriches with their heads in the sand or are just downright deceptive are still claiming there is nothing up their sleeves and are spinning the JW smoking gun data collected.

 

I call this a promo email because the hook is to read is the offer of JW’s Benghazi Cover Up Report for free. After you click the link in the email it takes you to a page in which you provide your name, address, email and zip code followed by a link to get the report. The report is a 20 odd pages of a pdf file and you are actually sent to the link: The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent; Intro by Tom Fitton – 1/22/13; and an April 29, 2014 update pertaining to the FOIA documents the government was forced to give up by a Judge. So some of you may have read the 2013 portion of the pdf file.

 

Of course the promo part is the collecting of addresses and email undoubted for marketing and donor purposes in the future. I like JW so I don’t have a problem with that. I can always hit the delete button or file snail mail in the trash.

 

BUT you really should familiarize yourself with those report. I don’t know about you but I am getting weary of listening, reading and watching Leftists whine about two years of Congressional investigations and zero discoveries of crimes being discovered. The JW report CLEARLY demonstrates the entire Obama Administration is hell bent on covering up probable crimes by not being transparent in releasing documents and the obvious production of government officials lying to Congressional Committees. I am certain the Benghazigate revelations are a mere tip of the iceberg. Since obstruction is now being documented in Benghazi investigations you can count on the probability the other Obama labeled phony scandals have nefarious activities behind them.

 

So you can click the Judicial Watch link that is a promo to build their donor list (which is a worthy cause) or I provided the pdf link above. In the mean time I took the liberty to provide an incomplete excerpt of the pdf file of portions I find to be obscene obstructions by the Obama Administration. SO REALLY READ THE WHOLE REPORT.

 

JRH 6/25/14

Please Support NCCR

________________________________

Introduction by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

 

Judicial Watch promotes transparency, integrity and accountability in government, politics and the law. We carry out or mission through investigations, research, litigation and public education.  From time to time we produce Special Reports on important public policy matters to illuminate the operations of government in a way that informs the public and holds our trusted public servants accountable.

 

We have prepared this Special Report with the analysis, insights and expertise of Mr. Raymond Fournier, a recently retired Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent with more than thirty years of extraordinary experience managing all aspects of security, to include being a Regional Security Officer in United States Embassies in such countries as: Honduras, Sierra Leone, Belgium, and Lebanon — as well as other sensitive overseas postings to include Afghanistan and Israel. Specifically, Mr. Fournier possesses expertise in: assessing and managing risk; developing and executing security budgets and plans; organizing dignitary protection details; as well as technical, procedural security development and implementation to augment physical security.  Mr. Fournier’s assistance has been invaluable.

 

Judicial Watch has opened its own investigation of the Benghazi attack. Our staff of investigators and researchers includes former intelligence officers, analysts, military officers, attorneys, and journalists. Judicial Watch has more than ten (10) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pending with various Executive departments and agencies seeking all manner of records relating to the attack. We have filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to comply with the FOIA law and release the records we seek. In the interim, we pursue additional avenues of investigation in an effort to provide the American people with complete, accurate, factual information concerning a deadly attack costing the lives of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three additional brave Americans.

 

Thomas Fitton

President

 

Washington, DC

January 22, 2013

 

_________________

Background

 

At 9:40 p.m. on the evening of September 11, 20l2, a group of approximately l50 heavily armed Islamist militia members attacked the United States’ diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The ensuing 8-hour assault on the Special Mission Compound (SMC, and hereafter: “Compound”) and the nearby CIA annex claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.  Stevens, who had previously served as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council, was the first Ambassador killed in the line of duty since the l979 shooting of Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan.

 

In the aftermath of the attack, President Obama and senior administration officials were quick to identify Muslim outrage over an obscure Internet video mocking Mohammed as the motivation for the attack1.  In a September l2th statement about the incident, the President remarked, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”2

 

At a September l4, 20l2 event honoring the four victims, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”3

 

Those in Libya did not share this theory. During a September l5th television interview, Libyan President Mohamed al-Magarief observed that, “It’s clear from the timing on September 11th and from the detailed planning of the attacks that behind it there were experienced masterminds. It was not a spontaneous act in protest of a movie. This has been prepared for a long time on this specific day…If you take into account the weapons used, like RPGs and other heavy weapons, it proves that it was preplanned. It’s a dirty act of revenge, and it has nothing to do with religion.”4

 

Nevertheless, top administration officials continued to claim that the attack was spontaneous and the result of the video. During a September l6th television interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice infamously assessed the situation as follows:

 

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such     a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.”5

 

 

Eventually, the administration was forced to acknowledge what many observers knew from the beginning — that the attack in Benghazi was neither spontaneous nor the result of an Internet video. On September 28th, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that their revised assessment had determined it to be, “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” and that, “some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.”8

 

___________________________

ARB Report/Summary of Findings

 

As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of l986, the State Department convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB, and hereafter “Board”) to investigate the attack on October l, 20l2.9 Secretary Clinton chose former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair the board. Pickering is also a member of the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)10, a left-wing advocacy group that opposes the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran and that, in the estimation of national security expert Kenneth Timmerman, “has been lobbying Congress to win support for an agenda that mirrors the goals of the Tehran regime.”11   In 2009, former FBI counterterrorism agent Kenneth Piernick reported that the group, “may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.”12

 

In her 2009 paper Rise of the Iran Lobby, published by the Center for Security Policy, former CIA officer Clare Lopez wrote that, “Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. …

 

The other members of the Board were former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, former United Nations Undersecretary for Management Catherine Bertini, former State Department Interim Director of Overseas Building Operations Richard Shinnick, and former Deputy CIA Director Hugh Turner.  Despite State Department regulations requiring that Board members, “must possess expertise that will contribute to the work of the Board, e.g., knowledge, experience or training in areas such as foreign affairs, law, security, embassy construction, intelligence, and other areas appropriate to the Board’s work,”14 no security professionals were selected to the board convened to investigate the Benghazi attack.

 

 

Notably, the report contradicts the earlier claims by administration officials that the attacks resulted from a protest that escalated into violence. The Board, “concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

 

 

… Shortly after its release, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrel Issa told reporters that he was, “deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits important information the public has a right to know. This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem.”16

 

 

Despite the self-evident fact that the security resources dedicated to the Compound in Benghazi were insufficient, State Department officials continued to defend their staffing decisions in the aftermath of the attack.  Under questioning by Rep. Darrell Issa during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing investigating the attack, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb asserted, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11.”21   According to published reports, the Regional Security Officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, told Congressional investigators that Lamb, “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi ‘artificially low.’”22

 

_______________________________

Fallout

 

The day after the release of the Board’s report, numerous media outlets reported that four State Department officials responsible for the management and security of the Compound in Benghazi had resigned. Three were identified as Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell.23  In the weeks that followed, however, it became unclear whether the officials had really resigned or even faced any significant disciplinary measures. On December 26th, the New York Post reported that, “The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not ‘resigned’ from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.”24

 

 

________________________

Additional questions Raised

 

 

 

… It is also known that the Ambassador met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on the evening of the attack. The purpose of that meeting has not been disclosed.  In October, Fox News reported that Stevens, “was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”31

 

Some experts believe that the Ambassador’s work in Benghazi may have been related to Administration efforts to transfer arms to Syrian opposition groups. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney wrote, “One of the places in Libya most awash with weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.”32   Former CIA Officer Clare Lopez has characterized U.S. activities in Benghazi as “gun running” and reported that Administration officials were, “working with the very same al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.”33

 

Further substantiating the theory that the Obama administration was involved in arms transfers to Syrian groups is a Times of London report published on September 14, 2012, “Syrian Rebels Squabble Over Weapons as Biggest Shipload Arrives from Libya.”34 According to the report: “Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.” The connection to Benghazi was established by The Times through an examination of the ship’s port authority papers, The Times was shown the Libyan ship, The Intisaar or The Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.”

 

 

… (AFRICOM) deployed two unmanned aerial vehicles to survey the events in Benghazi — one to the Compound and the other to the airport during the evacuation of American personnel.  However, the report gives no description of the images captured by the UAVs. In addition, the involvement of AFRICOM in the response raises the important question of why lethal air support or other military assets were not deployed in response to the attack.

 

 

______________________

Conclusion

 

 

__________________

Latest Update: Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

 

APRIL 29, 2014

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

 

 

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli

 

 

The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

 

 

In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

 

 

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

 

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

 

 

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

 

 

________________________

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

_______________________

The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent

 

Judicial Watch, Inc. 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Tel: (202) 646-5172

FAX: (202) 646-5199

 

Email: info@JudicialWatch.org

www.JudicialWatch.org

Will Hamilton Berger Ever Learn? I Hope Not!


William Talman - Raymond Burr

Hamilton Burger and Perry Mason

 

I’d the chances of a good chunk of readers that remember the old Perry Mason show of the 1950s and early 60s are few. More of you may remember the Perry Mason movies of the 1980s and early 90s that ended roughly with the death of the Perry Mason star Raymond Burr. The one recurring theme of Perry Mason was that he always won the real justice for his accused client and that the Prosecutor always lost in a good way. It was good because the accused was always innocent. In the 50s and 60s that Prosecutor was Hamilton Burger played by William Talman. Burger always lost but that was the real justice. Even so after years of losing I was one that felt sorry for old Hamilton. One almost felt bad when he lost – again and again. But predictability is what made Perry Mason good – right always prevailed and real justice occurred.

 

Norma Zager uses the Perry Mason paradigm in an illustration of Leftist injustice wishing real justice would prevail.

 

JRH 6/24/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Will Hamilton Berger Ever Learn?  I Hope Not!

 

By Norma Zager

Sent: 6/23/2014 11:35 AM

 

“Animals are reliable, many full of love, true in their affections, predictable in their actions, grateful and loyal. Difficult standards for people to live up to.” Alfred A. Montapert

 

How can a society that disdains lawyers and creates lawyer jokes have been so enamored of Perry Mason?

 

Now an icon, Raymond Burr’s character was an instant legend with television watchers. Even the reruns are popular and continue today.  So what was it about Erle Stanley Gardner’s character that made loyal fans tune in week after week to see Hamilton Berger humiliated and embarrassed?

 

That’s just it. Hamilton was.

 

There is something in human nature that craves a certain amount of predictability. Even those who claim to exist in a world without conformity remain safe in the knowledge a certain degree of predictability is out there.

 

In today’s world when humankind must face yet another frightening revelation threatening our very existence, it is more important than ever to embrace a “safe place.”

 

That “place” is different for everyone. Some seek solace in sports. Others, and I know so many of these, shop until they drop in a designer-induced coma. There are cocktails, chocolates and travel to far away spots. Hobbies and books, including comics with superheroes we can depend on to beat the bad guys, that distract us from the horrible news emanating from the television and newspapers.

 

When we stop and think about all the ways we are threatened each day, and the future threats that await us as the insane and evil players of the world grow stronger and more adept as killers, we feel a bit off balance. We need to know that we are protected and out of harm’s way.

 

Americans have been quite spoiled in this regard. Two world wars were fought on distant shores. Our homeland with the exception of Pearl Harbor remained relatively untouched.

 

That all changed on 9/11 when the U.S. was attacked not simply on our own turf, but in a city that holds a special place in everyone’s heart. Broadway, Seventh Avenue, Lady Liberty, it all seemed more egregious and personal somehow. And the enemy was well aware.

 

What we didn’t know was that although Ugly Americans was a phrase with which we had become familiar over the years, we always believed we were safe being one. Safe in the knowledge, that aside from the snide comments of French waiters, we could roam the world in as peaceful a manner as a citizen of the ancient Roman Empire.

 

We never imagined our CIA, FBI and our government could let us down so completely.

 

They had done so before, but somehow we just didn’t pay enough attention. In 1963 an FBI agent had Oswald in his sights and dismissed him. Had that FBI agent been on the ball, America would be a different place today. This is only one incident of which we are actually aware.

 

Yet, no one ever talks about that failure or the part fate may have played in John Kennedy’s destiny. So one should not blame, I suppose.

 

I am not in any way dismissing the good work agencies do every day heading off our enemies. They are human and will make mistakes like 9/11, but I am however no longer able to live with a certainty of safety.

 

That no one can hurt us or that Jack Nicolson is on “that wall.”

 

Americans seem to be faced with a new lesson to learn, one that the English and Europeans have known for centuries, a tea party isn’t simply a tea party. When Lewis Carroll wrote about the Mad Hatter, perhaps he alluded to all of us. It’s a valuable lesson we have come too late, but after all we are a young country. Life must be lived every minute for war is always eminent.

 

Israel lives with the knowledge some crazy may enter a pizza restaurant and blow themselves up. Americans saw those violent pictures and we shook our heads and wondered, how do they live like that? We watch as three young Israelis are kidnapped at a bus stop on their way home for the weekend and remain missing.

 

Sadly, we as well are now living in that same pond of treachery and evil.

 

Veterans dismissed and dying to ensure profitable employee bonuses, the dog ate my homework excuses for missing emails that may indict politicians who crossed the line. Terrorists returned while an American marine sits in a Mexican jail, while they laugh at us while cashing our checks. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

 

Our borders are wide open for that one crazy to walk through undetected with the weapon we have feared most.

 

Our government chooses political correctness over the safety of our children.

 

It is so interesting to me that they our government is so worried about prisoners’ civil rights, yet they find the stomach to spy on Americans and usurp our civil rights with no problem at all.

 

In the end we must face the reality that we are now vulnerable and our government and those who are elected to protect us are not in any way up to the job. Even those who stand watch consistently have their hands tied in the name of politics.

 

We watch with no recourse, no ability to even slow the madness let alone stop it altogether. So where can we find the extra measure of predictability required to live our lives, find joy and sleep nights?

 

I am honestly not quite sure, but I know everyone must seek out his or her own way of coping with the insanity of this new world.

 

Oh yes, I am aware there is nothing new about having to coexist with evil, but somehow it just seems evil is doing much better for itself these days.

 

Well, it’s time for me to turn on Perry and watch poor Hamilton Berger lose yet another case. You’d think the man would learn, but no, he is the coyote chasing the roadrunner and expecting to catch him just once.

 

Good luck with that, Hamilton, and thank you, Perry Mason for giving me something constant and predictable on this all-too-insane and out-of-control planet.

 

Whatever you may need to ensure predictability in your life, I hope you find it soon. Cause the crazies aren’t going anywhere and the United States government has openly invited them to the tea party.  Perhaps we should elect the Mad Hatter president. At least he clearly displayed who he was in full view on his hat.

_______________________________

 

Norma Zager is an award-winning investigative journalist and author.  Her passion for Israel has driven her to dedicate the past decade writing and having a radio show about Israel.

 

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

 

© Israel Monitor, June 2014

 

First Published June 22, 2014

Contact:  bussel@me.com

Excerpts on Barbara Boxer Story Accusing GOP for Benghazi


Barbara Boxer

Okay, I know I am bit behind the curve on this one. It often takes me awhile to sift through all my G+ and Facebook notifications in a timely manner. I just read a comment made on G+ pertaining to the post “Benghazigate Matters!” I made that post on May 10 and commenter Eric Garrett posted his excerpted comment on May 11. Here we are now on May 29.

 

Eric points to a link to “Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security” which is currently dated May 16. I can’t explain the link disparity except to guess. Perhaps Eric read this link and it was updated to May 16 or G+ software messed up on dating Eric’s comment. OR I am having difficulty with the G+ comment system and the thoughts are really JR Smith’s. Whatever happened, Eric’s thoughts are quite informative.

 

JRH 5/29/14

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Excerpts on Barbara Boxer Story Accusing GOP for Benghazi

 

By Eric Garrett (or maybe JR Smith)

May 11, 2014 2:16 AM

G+

 

Erik Garrett

+JR Smith  Per the WP http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

 

[EXCERPT]: “Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years.

  
“The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.

The report added that baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but noted that Congress had been responsive in providing “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,” the report pointedly noted. “Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.”

Meanwhile, while the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attack lamented the failure of Congress to provide necessary resources — and called for “a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs” — it fixed the blame for the lack of security squarely on State Department officials.

One huge problem was that the facility was deemed temporary — as we have noted, most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State — and thus it could not be funded with standard overseas building funds. (Despite persistent news media reports, this was not a “consulate”—far from it.) After the fact, the ARB report recommended allowing for greater flexibility in use of such funds and requiring minimum security standards for such temporary facilities.

(A side note: Given that the U.S. effort in Benghazi was basically a CIA operation, State Department funding issues may be largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the classified version of the ARB report. But it is worth remembering that the CIA was responsible for security at the “annex”—where most of the Americans in Benghazi were housed.)

A key finding in the ARB report was: “Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a ‘shared responsibility’ by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.”

During hearings into the attack last fall and this month, State Department officials were specifically asked if a lack of financial resources played a role in the attack. The answer was no.”

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Exclusive: Confidential source reveals to me what really happened in Benghazi


Allen West & Benghazi heroes

 

 

I saw Allen West on Fox News this morning talking about a conversion he had with a fellow passenger on an airline flight. The topic of conversation between West and the other passenger was Benghazigate. The passenger had told West he was there on the “ground” and had information that many have guessed but have had no real smoking gun proof. It was in this interview that I learned that West was on Fox News because of a blog post he posted on May 23, 2014.

 

Since West’s post was a couple of days ago many of you may already know that this airline flight exposé has been shared with the world. I’m sure the Dem and Obama spin machine is at this moment drawing up the character assassination story against West. They may have already began and I haven’t come across the smear campaign as yet.

 

As of today, West has not revealed who that airline passenger was. Unless West wrote with a bit of disinformation himself it will not be hard for Obama investigators to discover the identity. They simply have to find the airline that Allen West using on his flight away from Detroit to any destination he was headed toward. When the flight is discovered it will be a simple matter of looking at the seating arrangements.

 

Here is Allen West’s revealing blog post.

 

JRH 5/25/14

Please Support NCCR

***********************************

Exclusive: Confidential source reveals to me what really happened in Benghazi

 

By Allen West 

May 23, 2014

Allen B. West: Steadfast and Loyal

Today as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.

 

I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the “ground truth” of what happened September 11, 2012.

 

My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the “time and spacing” and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life — but the preservation of life for others, their fellow Americans.

 

I learned about the proximity of the staging area of the attack to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaida. I came to understand why Ambassador Chris Stevens was there in the first place and that he had in fact requested better security but was denied – the question is, by whom? And I learned that the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were in charge of security and were the ones who opened the gates, then fled.

 

I learned there are those who are being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.

 

And I learned, as I presumed, that there was a covert weapons scheme going on in Libya, Benghazi. We had been supplying radical Islamists with weapons against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, effectively supplying the enemy and destabilizing that country. And it seems that there was a CIA weapons buy-back program, the aim of which was to ship the retrieved weapons out of Libya through Turkey, and to the Islamist forces in Syria.

 

Benghazi and the operations in Libya are shrouded in a fog of lies, deceit, manipulation, threats, intimidation, coercion, abandonment, and worst of all, potentially treason.

 

No, it was not about a kidnapping scheme, it was about something, as I’ve stated, that will make Iran-Contra look like Romper Room. The web of lies spun is coming apart, and all other committee hearings on this matter should be shut down.

 

The House has established a Select Committee — quite telling that the same has not been done in the Senate — and those involved, to include the President, MUST appear before Rep. Trey Gowdy.

 

And to those Democrats appointed to the committee: if you seek to obstruct the revelation of the truth, you are complicit and guilty as well.

 

Am I afraid because of what I now know? Heck no. I’m honored to have been entrusted, so I for one can be on the right side of history.

______________________________

Copyright @2014. AllenBWest.com, in association with Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved.

 

Meet Allen West

 

Allen West was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia in the same neighborhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once preached. He is the third of four generations of military servicemen in his family.

 

During his 22 year career in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel West served in several combat zones: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was a Battalion Commander in the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and later in Afghanistan. He received many honors including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals and a Valorous Unit Award. In 1993 he was named the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year.

 

After his retirement from the Army in 2004, Allen taught high school for a year before returning to Afghanistan as a civilian military adviser to the Afghan army, an assignment he finished in November 2007.

 

In November of 2010, Allen was honored to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District. As a member of the 112th Congress, he READ THE REST

Benghazigate Matters!


Benghazigate Cover-up Conspiracy

 

John R. Houk

© May 10, 2014

 

A Google+ gentleman that goes by Jim B posted a series of comments to the SlantRight 2.0 post entitled, “Judge Jeanine: IMPEACH OBAMA”. Jim’s comments basically reflect the Dem Party and Obama Administration spin machine that Benghazigate has been fully investigated with documents provided and an exoneration of any wrongdoing by any one person by the so-called Accountability Review Board (ARB) report. The dismayed Dems maintained numerous House Committees examined witnesses and persons that could be found with a subpoena coming up with zero conclusions of any wrongdoing that was not in the ARB report.

 

In the unclassified version of the ARB report only generalizations were used in pointing a finger at anyone to be held accountable. This is one reason the less gullible Conservatives tend to think there was a whitewash going on SOMEWHERE. Thanks to the lack of specifics no one really knows for sure where the origin or complicit origins of failure proceeded from. The only clarity the ARB report offers is there was an organized terrorist attack and an absence of appropriate leadership both from Embassy personnel in the primary diplomatic mission in Libya’s capital city Tripoli and from State Department personnel. There is an extreme lack of finger pointing on the U.S. military response which would indicate civilian oversight controlled the decision chain of the military. NO ONE is naming specifics in the military. SO FAR among the military the only person offering any real insight was Brigadier General Robert Lovell in public House testimony at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 1, 2014.

 

Under the heading of “Findings,” the ARB Report provides the generalization that I am not comfortable with and that the Dems feel is a done deal ergo let’s move on:

 

2. 

 

… The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his Judgments.

 

Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.

 

3. …

 

The Board found the responses by both the BML [Blog Editor: Blue Mountain Libya (security)] guards and February 17 [Blog Editor: February 17 Martyrs Brigade – subcontracted from BML & paid by U.S. Govt.] to be inadequate. The Board’s inquiry found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC, or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously.

 

 

… The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.

 

The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.

 

4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.

 

5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty. (Bold Emphasis Editors – ARB Report on Benghazi terrorist attack; State.Gov/Documents; unclassified ARB Report released 12/19/12- Fact Sheet Benghazi ARB Implementation – 1/15/14)

 

The December Benghazi ARB Report is a load of bologna. The House Oversight Committee under the Republican majority (of course the Dems disagree with the majority) issued this report on September 16, 2013. The House Oversight Committee’s interim report is 98 pages long via PDF. Just so you can get an idea of how moronic the Dem contentions that Benghazi has been solved and implying Conservatives must move on, I am cross posting the “Key Concerns,” “Unanswered Questions” and the  “Executive Summary” of the Committee’s criticism of the ARB report led by (See Also HERE) Chairman Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Vice-Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen.

 

Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Key Concerns

 

o   The structure of the ARB and culture within the State Department raised questions about the independence and integrity of the review.

 

o   The ARB blamed systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus, but downplayed the importance of decisions made at senior levels of the Department. Witnesses questioned how much these decisions influenced the weaknesses that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi.

 

o   Witnesses questioned whether the ARB went far enough in considering the challenges of expeditionary diplomacy.

 

o   The ARB’s decision to cite certain officials as accountable for what happened in Benghazi appears to have been based on factors that had little or no connection to the security posture at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya.

 

o   The haphazard decision to place the four officials cited by the ARB on paid administrative leave created the appearance that former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s decision to announce action against the individuals named in the ARB report was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a tragedy.

 

 

Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Unanswered Questions

 

o   What specific documentary evidence and witness testimony did the ARB review to reach its conclusions?

 

o   What changes are necessary to eliminate the real or perceived lack of independence in the ARB structure?

 

o   Did Secretary Clinton have views on the need to extend the Benghazi mission, both in the fall of 2011 and summer of 2012? Was she consulted on these questions and what, if any, influence did her opinion have on the Department’s decisions?

 

o   Is the State Department resistant to elevating the importance of security considerations?

 

o   Why did the State Department fail to establish an Under Secretary for Security, as recommended by an external review and approved by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, following the attacks in East Africa in 1998?

 

o   Why did the Best Practices Panel strongly recommend that the State Department establish an Under Secretary for Security? Why did the Benghazi ARB not recommend such a change?

 

o   Why did it take the State Department eight months to evaluate the performance of the four individuals placed on administrative leave? What information did Secretary Kerry and his staff review as part of that process? Who was involved in the process?

 

o   How much did the decision to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility limit the Department’s ability to provide security resources?

 

o   Who should be held accountable for deciding to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility?

 

Executive Summary

 

The September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya resulted in a tragic and unnecessary loss of American life. The attacks also raise a number of important and substantive questions about U.S. foreign policy, with which policymakers will have to grapple for some time. A key area for further discussion and analysis is the balance between the U.S. Department of State’s policy imperative of operating diplomatic outposts abroad and the security realities of doing so in dangerous and unstable environments such as Libya.

 

 Pursuant to statutory requirement under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Terrorism Act of 1986, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB) shortly after the attacks to address these questions. The five-member Board comprised distinguished public servants, including Chairman Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to six countries and the United Nations, and Vice Chairman Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

The ARB operated under significant time pressure, completing its work and issuing a final report in just over two months. The State Department widely supported the ARB’s recommendations, and sought to implement them without hesitation. For some, including the Department itself, this report represented the final word on the internal failures that contributed to the tragedy in Benghazi. For others, however, the report overvalued certain facts, overlooked others, and failed to address systemic issues that have long plagued the State Department.

 

 In order to address these concerns, the Committee held a hearing on May 8, 2013, entitled, “Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage.” Not only did the testimony of three State Department officials—Mark Thompson, Eric Nordstrom, and Gregory Hicks—provide important information to Committee Members about the fateful attacks, it raised additional questions about the attacks as well as the ARB’s work. In light of these questions, the Committee initiated a comprehensive investigation of the ARB procedures, findings, and recommendations. Understanding how the ARB reached its conclusions informs the Committee’s interest in ensuring that this process remains efficient and effective, and that U.S. diplomats are able to avoid situations that compromise their safety or their mission. This effort supplements and informs the Committee’s ongoing, independent evaluation of the facts and circumstances of what transpired before, during, and after the attacks on Benghazi.

 

Since the May 8 hearing, the Committee has taken a number of steps to advance the Benghazi investigation. During that time, the Committee has obtained testimony from more than a dozen witnesses, conducting more than 50 hours of transcribed interviews. The Committee has requested additional interviews, including of survivors of the attacks. The Department has thus far declined to make these individuals available, despite the fact that these individuals were made available to the ARB and media outlets. Committee investigators have reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents. The Department continues to identify new material responsive to numerous requests from the Committee. The Department’s failure to produce responsive materials has left the Committee with no alternative but to issue subpoenas. Overall, despite many Committee attempts at accommodation, the State Department has been exceedingly uncooperative with the Committee’s investigation of the attacks on Benghazi. Still, the Committee has been able to learn a great deal about the ARB’s work.

 

While identifying positive and productive aspects of the ARB’s review, witnesses interviewed by the Committee raised a number of significant concerns with the ARB process, findings, and recommendations. Most notably, several witnesses questioned the ARB’s findings regarding the four Department employees held “accountable” for Benghazi. In some cases the ARB appeared to hold individuals accountable for actions which had nothing to do with security in Benghazi. In other cases, the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior Department officials. Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. In particular, the ARB did not adequately address the decision by Department leadership to operate the Benghazi mission as a temporary and particularly ill-defended outpost of what it calls “expeditionary diplomacy.” Nor did the ARB hold any individuals accountable for that decision.

 

 

The State Department’s response to the ARB’s findings on accountability is equally troubling. Secretary Clinton immediately relieved the four employees identified by the ARB of their duties and subsequently placed them on administrative leave – an ambiguous status akin to bureaucratic limbo. The Department misled these employees about what administrative leave entailed, did not allow the employees to challenge this decision, and further prohibited them access to the classified ARB Report, which contained the evidence against them. Moreover, the ARB failed to question these employees on the very topics for which they were held accountable. Last month, after eight months of paid administrative leave, Secretary of State John Kerry reinstated these four employees to Department service. Therefore, one year after the Benghazi attacks, no one at the State Department has been fired for their role leading up to the Benghazi attacks. It appears increasingly likely the Department’s primary objective was to create the public appearance of accountability.

 

 

In addition, witnesses questioned whether the ARB properly addressed the challenges of increasing reliance on “expeditionary diplomacy.” Some witnesses and stakeholders suggested that the ARB’s recommendations improve on past failures but do not go far enough in striking the right balance between policy objectives and security realities. While the U.S. cannot advance its national interests from concrete bunkers and there is no such thing as 100 percent security, the highest levels of the Department must establish a clear line of responsibility for balancing foreign policy objectives with diplomatic security. One of the ARB’s recommendations was that the State Department convene an independent best practices panel, comprised of security experts. The Panel identified a number of areas for improvement that the ARB did not address.

 

 This interim report focuses exclusively on the ARB and its shortcomings. While the Committee presents current observations about the ARB gleaned through its investigation, it has also identified areas for further inquiry. Indeed, many serious questions surrounding Benghazi have gone unanswered. The Committee will continue its investigation wherever the facts lead. (Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Staff Report Prepared for Chairman Darrell Issa; House – 113th Congress; 9/16/13)

 

Jim B’s point one contention is this:

 

 

1. There was no “cover up of what happened”. It’s been fully documented what happened. 4 Americans died during a terror attack on a U.S. Consulate.

From what I have read there is NO clarity that “there was no ‘cover up of what happened’.”

 

 

Jim B’s point two contention is this:

 

2. The talking points were created by the CIA based on assessment of conditions on the ground at the time. (If you research it, the region was froth with demonstrations over that silly Youtube video. The assessment at the time was that someone used a demonstration as cover for a terror attack. That assessment was upgraded after more information was gathered. Which I believe is pretty standard and appropriate given the conditions.) All of that information was presented at all of the Issa hearings.

 

Were the White House talking points sent out by Ben Rhodes (Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting – The Patriot Post) to Susan Rice created by the CIA?

 

Jim B is blatantly incorrect. Or worse, he is following the Dem propaganda of twisting facts to fit his contention. The CIA produced a memo that said NOTHING to do with an insulting Mohammed Youtube video in its intelligence talking points pertaining to the organized Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack that killed FOUR Americans. IN FACT in House Committee questioning then CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell testified that then Ambassador (now NSA Advisor) Susan Rice told five Sunday news talk shows that an Internet video caused rioting in Benghazi which led to a spontaneous attack. Did the CIA frame some talking points? Yes. Did the CIA tell the White House a spontaneous attack of Muslim rioters attacked and killed FOUR Americans in Benghazi? NO!

 

Jim B and the Dems like to emphasize the Talking Points were based on the best assessment from the best information the White House had at the time. YOU HAVE TO SEE this contention is completely false! So why did the White House desire to spin blame on an Internet video insulting to Muslims? Ben Rhodes or someone at a higher pay grade wanted to mislead voters that President Barack Hussein Obama’s Foreign Policy decisions were working and good for America. Why? Because the national election date was a mere month and a half away from the Benghazi attacks on November 6, 2012. The assessment was only upgraded to a terrorist attack when it was obvious the Mohammed Internet video could no longer be spun as a spontaneous reason for Muslim rioters to attack the Benghazi diplomatic mission. Take note the upgrade came weeks later when the White House ALREADY KNEW the attack at Benghazi was orchestrated and organized. As to the Issa hearings bearing out the Dem contention, the hearings actually cast doubt on the integrity of the Obama Administration rather than concur with the White House, State Department and Benghazi ARB report spin. This is what you can actually tell from Issa’s Committee report partially quoted above.

 

Here is Jim B’s third contention:

 

3. That “stand down order” story has been debunked sooo many times I’m shocked that it’s still alive. There hasn’t been one Military commander that has come forward to support this claim. Once again, all of this was presented during all of those Issa hearings.

Jumping first to the last sentence, the Issa hearing DOES NOT support much of the Dem spin effort. Now let’s check out the “’stand down order’ story has been debunked sooo many times.”

 

The Issa hearings show someone is lying in the military by using the old Dem strategy of twisting facts. You can see what I mean from this March 28th (2014) article of actual Issa hearing investigations:

 

 

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last June that personnel in Tripoli were never told to “stand down” and top Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee reported in February that no such order was given.

 

 

In the meantime, Issa’s panel, along with staff from the House Armed Services Committee, continues a full-scale investigation, with additional interviews scheduled for next month. The chairman maintained last month that the question of a “stand down” order remains unresolved.

 

It first emerged last May when Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission who was in Tripoli, told the committee that four members of a special forces team in Tripoli wanted to go in a second wave to assist Americans but were told to stand down.

Fielding questions at a fundraiser in New Hampshire, Issa said: “Why there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset? I have my suspicions, which is Secretary Clinton told Leon (Panetta) to stand down, and we all heard about the stand-down order for two military personnel. That order is undeniable. They were told not to get on – get off the airplane and kind of stand by – and they’re going to characterize it wasn’t stand down. But when we’re done with Benghazi, the real question is, Was there a stand-down order to Leon Panetta or did he just not do his job? Was there a stand-down order from the president, who said he told them to use their resources and they didn’t use them? Those questions have to be answered.”

 

The February interim report from the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, including panel chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson wanted to take three special operators from Tripoli to Benghazi after the first attack. Military commanders were concerned about the safety of Americans in the capital city, fearing a wave of attacks and the possibility of hostage taking.

 

According to testimony, Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, the Africa commander, told Gibson to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there. In addition, six U.S. security personnel were already en route to Benghazi on a chartered Libyan aircraft to evacuate Americans. The plane with the evacuees on a return flight to Tripoli would have crossed paths with Gibson and three others if they had left for Benghazi.

 

In committee interviews, Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., asked Gibson whether he agreed that his team was ordered to stand down.

 

“I was not ordered to stand down,” Gibson testified. “I was ordered to remain in place. ‘Stand down’ implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli.”

 

Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Issa’s panel, said the panel understands that Gibson doesn’t perceive the order he received as fitting the military definition of a “stand down” order.

 

“But at the same time the committee does remain concerned about why the decision was made for Lt. Col. Gibson to not be allowed to go to Benghazi to assist Americans who were fighting at the time there but instead was given a different task to do in Tripoli and trying to understand fully, with all different circumstances existed at that time why the priority was for him to stay in Tripoli and not assist Americans under fire,” Hill said. (Bold Emphasis Editors – House GOP pursues Benghazi ‘stand down’ probe; By DONNA CASSATA; Associated Press – Washington Times; 3/28/14)

 

Jim B the “stand down order” rather than being debunked is thrown into the area of cover-up wording.

 

Jim B’s contention number four causes incredulity to suggest that President Bush reading of a children’s story to an Elementary School class is something similar to the suggestion President Obama was snoozing at night when FOUR Americans were being murdered by Islamic terrorists. Yes, about 3000 died in the Twin Towers, BUT that attack was a Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack. The FOUR murdered Americans was preventable if security protocol was followed and perhaps two of the four dead may have been rescued if Special Forces were allowed to be dispatched from Tripoli to Benghazi in which Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods managed to kill 60 attackers over a seven hour period.

 

4. The attack happened at night U.S. time, I would imagine the president was in bed. I’m struggling to figure out why this is even relevant. If this point is relevant then President Bush should have been investigated for sitting through the remainder of “My Pet Goat” while the twin towers were under attack. (Didn’t he care that 3,000 Americans were about to lose their lives?)

When I read Jim B’s contention-point four, the first thing that came to mind was the Hillary Clinton 2008 Presidential campaign ad:

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Ad – 3 AM White House Ringing Phone

 

Was Obama snoozing at 3 AM? Was Hillary snoozing at 3 AM? Worse! What if neither were snoozing at 3 AM and they were thinking of their political futures rather than doing whatever was possible to alleviate security mistakes?

 

5. Secretary Clinton asked Congress for more money to increase security at embassies and consulates. She was rebuffed and had to make due with the security details that were available to the state dept. To hold her accountable and hold Congress blameless for refusing her request seems like a myopic approach to an investigation.

 

 

Even the ARB report does not blame Congress for the lack of security at the Benghazi diplomatic mission. But let’s look at that tiring Dem position of blaming Republicans in the House for not providing the proper funding for security in Benghazi.

 

Does anyone think it was stupid to spend money on Benghazi security to the February 17 Martyrs Brigade which has been proven to have the same Islamic ideals as al Qaeda? I’m just saying, that is EXACTLY what the State Department did while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State! How much sense does it make to pay Islamic terrorist sympathizers for security protection of U.S. diplomats when they could have paid the salaries of Marines or whoever is typically tasked to defend U.S. Embassy personnel? If Benghazi security was cut for budget reasons, WHY in the world would the State Department not scale back Embassy funding in Western nations in which there is more dedication by the host nations’ to Embassy sovereignty and Diplomatic Immunity AND not increase funding security in less stable nations such as Libya?

 

In full disclosure Jim B was not the only Google+ commenter on Judge Jeanine Pirro implying that Obama should be impeached, but he was the detractor that offered the most specific defense for the Dem Party line that Benghazi is a phony scandal and that the GOP should just move on and quit politicizing the FOUR Benghazi murders. Every time I hear that “GOP politicizing” accusation I scoff in the extreme! It was Obama and the Dems that politicized Benghazi in the first place by successfully manipulating the 2012 national voters. Voters need to know just how nefarious the Dem leadership is in maintaining political control of America to continue the Obama Change-Transformation of Americans in a stealth Marxist manner a la F.M. Davis-Alinsky-et all.

 

So does Benghazigate matter? You are down tootin’ it matters!

 

JRH 5/10/14

Please Support NCCR