Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda 'brother' put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and 'brother'. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):

Translated, the document reads:

National Transitional Council - Libya

8/30/11

Code: YGM-270-2011

Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj

Greetings,

We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.

Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil

President, National Transitional Council - Libya

Official Seal of National Transitional Council

Copy for file.

As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:

“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.

In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:

“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”

Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the the BBC article as…

“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.”

Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.

Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:

This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.

The nexus between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood comes into clearer focus when one looks at the Libyan Ambassador to the United States. His name is Ali Sulaiman Aujali. He had the following to say about Belhaj according to an ABC News report:

“(Belhaj) should be accept(ed) for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis… people evolve and change.”

Really? How many times do westerners have to fall for this line before they trip over it?

In fact, about one month prior to Aujali’s vouching for Belhaj, he appeared at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention. ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front group in America.

Aujali represents one individual who is willing to bridge the gap between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, fast forward to 9/13/12, two days after the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated the Muslim Eid holiday in the Ben Franklin room in Washington, D.C. and shared a podium with none other than Ali Sulaiman Aujali and a woman named Farah Pandith, who is a prominent name inside the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Another interesting alliance revealed itself in various cities across America in the days after the death of Ambassador Stevens. In at least both Los Angeles, CA and Columbus, OH the Libyan American Association aligned with CAIR to hold a vigil for Ambassador Stevens.

In 2009, Pandith was sworn in as a U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities by Hillary Clinton. Pandith followed the path of the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress and was sworn in on the Qur’an.

While in Jamaica in June of 2011, Hillary Clinton rhetorically asked:

...whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people…

At that very moment - and in light of the release of this secret document - the appropriate question would have been:

...whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of Al-Qaeda...

When put that way, Hillary's position isn't nearly as unassailable.

Second of three Oversight Committee reports on Fast and Furious released

The first of three reports released by the House Oversight Committee back on July 31st, honed in on ATF culpability with regard to operation Fast and Furious. The second report, released on October 29th, exposes the degree to which senior Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership not only looked the other way but had a hand in implementation.

The report begins with a prologue consisting of some intimate detail surrounding the ultimate decision of then Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson to testify in front of Oversight Committee staffers. It does serve to garner at least a modicum of empathy for Melson while more outrage at the actions of senior DOJ leadership, about whom Melson asserted was "running the show".

Check out the opening stanza from the Executive Summary:

Operation Fast and Furious was not a strictly local operation conceived by a rogue ATF office in Phoenix, but rather the product of a deliberate strategy created at the highest levels of the Justice Department aimed at identifying the leaders of a major gun trafficking ring. This strategy, along with institutional inertia, led to the genesis, implementation, and year-long duration of Fast and Furious.

Like mad scientists concocting a toxic brew, a new strategy - that came down from on high at DOJ - to stop prosecuting straw purchasers and focus on cartels, coupled with the resurrection of the failed Operation Wide Receiver, gave birth to Fast and Furious in Phoenix.

Check out page 27 for another interesting distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. It's revealed that in 2009, DOJ's Criminal Division assigned a prosecutor to review Wide Receiver (Laura Gwinn). In an email to that prosecutor by James Trusty (DOJ Main and liaison with prosecutors in Arizona), it was relayed that the Criminal Division's Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer was "VERY interested in the Arizona gun trafficking case..." This was Wide Receiver and the report notes that no evidence was produced which showed Breuer's predecessor had ever been exposed to that operation; it appeared to have been shut down before that reality ever manifested itself.

This would mean that even with the gift of hindsight about how failed Wide Receiver had been and why it was shut down, Breuer was interested in playing with fire.

In a September 22, 2009 email that appears on page 29 of the report, Trusty tells Gwinn that "we're in good shape" if gun-walking is the only concern.

On page 39, the report has the following to say about how wiretap applications were able to get approved at the Criminal Division level of DOJ and, in so doing, makes it quite clear why Attorney General Eric Holder should be held accountable:

Put bluntly, the Department of Justice rubber stamped the most important documents in Fast and Furious. These applications authorized federal agents to continue using the very reckless tactics that Attorney General Holder and many others have condemned in recent months. Rubber stamping these applications allowed the Department plausible deniability about the evidence of gunwalking tactics contained in the applications. The senior Department officials legally obligated to sign the applications did not actually read the documents they were signing. 

Congress demanded heightened scrutiny of these applications by senior officials because they are such an invasive law enforcement technique. Congress vested the power to authorize such applications in the Attorney General or certain of his subordinates, and not in a lower level Justice Department employee. To “authorize” in any meaningful sense must include a review of the document being authorized. By failing to properly read or review these applications before authorizing them, senior Department officials are undermining the law.

Holder's defense in countless appearance before various Senate and House committees was that because so much crosses his desk, he couldn't possibly have been able to read them all. This defense is torpedoed in the above paragraphs. Holder knew or should have known. As such, he has no business being the Attorney General.

Another bombshell is dropped on page 49 as it is revealed that in March of 2010, the Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, who was the position's placeholder between David Ogden and James Cole - who assumed office two weeks after Brian Terry's murder - was briefed on the details of Fast and Furious. This would mean that detailed information about Fast and Furious was known by Eric Holder's immediate subordinate approximately nine months before the death of Brian Terry.

According to the report, the multiple red flags that would have been raised in any detailed briefing about Fast and Furious, at minimum, were not seen by Grindler.

On page 61, email correspondence between Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein and Lanny Breuer clearly demonstrated that both men knew that guns were walking but were more concerned about how such a reality would play in the media than with the bloody consequences that should have been of an even greater concern.

This paragraph on page 73 says quite a bit:

Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler took a management approach of delegating tasks and responsibilities to his subordinates and then remaining uninvolved until problems were brought to his attention. This management style insulated him from problems occurring beneath him. Instead of accepting responsibility for his leadership shortcomings, Grindler instead passed the buck to his underlings.

Considering that Grindler held the number two position at DOJ - right below Holder - at the time, he is precariously close to being the highest ranking DOJ official with direct culpability in Fast and Furious, if one is inclined to believe Holder's testimony. The decision not to manage subordinates is a decision to allow their activities to continue. The subsequent interview transcript excerpts involving testimony from Grindler is mind-numbing. His professed ignorance on multiple fronts is simply not the least bit plausible.

This particular sentence from the report says quite a bit:

Senior Justice Department officials were not eager to find out what was going on at ATF during Fast and Furious. After its failure, they were even less inclined to do so.

Investigators concluded that the approach of Holder's Deputy Chief of Staff, Monty Wilkinson, was similar to that of Grindler. When it came to Fast and Furious, they were quite hands-off.

After including relevant testimony from Grindler, Wilkinson and Ed Siskel (Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time) the following conclusion appears on page 82 of the report:

The Office of the Attorney General thought that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General exercised supervision over ATF. The Deputy Attorney General thought his staff, Ed Siskel in particular, exercised supervision over ATF. Ed Siskel did not see it as his responsibility to supervise ATF—even though ATF believed that it needed to report to Ed Siskel. In other words, the management structure at Department headquarters allowed for zero oversight of ATF, with no single person believing it was their responsibility to supervise the agency.

The report then focuses on Attorney General Eric Holder, who stated in an October, 2011 letter that he doesn't read all of the memos and weekly reports, that he relies on...

"Attorneys in my office and in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review these weekly reports..."

This poses an obvious problem because the people Holder said would bring any issues to his attention operated under similar guidelines; they would only pay attention if something was brought to their attention.

How about plans for Eric Holder to participate in a press conference touting the success of the Operation Fast and Furious investigation? On page 16 of the report, it's revealed that Holder's Deputy Chief of Staff was making attempts to get his boss to appear at a press conference to speak about Fast and Furious but that the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry led to Dennis Burke, U.S. Attorney for Arizona, recommending against it.

Then, on page 91 of the report, we get specifics:

On December 14, 2010, before Brian Terry was killed, Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff Monty Wilkinson e-mailed Dennis Burke. The subject of the e-mail was “You available for a call today?”

At 12:28pm that day, Burke sent an email saying that Holder was interested in attending the press conference about Fast and Furious. Obviously, shortly after the midnight, hours later, Brian Terry was murdered and guns from Fast and Furious were recovered at the scene.

Emails show that it was known by late in the day on December 15th about the Fast and Furious connection to Terry's murder.

On page 100 of the report is a screen shot of an email from Burke to Wilkinson dated December 21st, 2010 - five days after Terry's death - advising that Holder not attend the Fast and Furious press conference.

A striking fact in all of this is that Wilkinson testified that he didn't remember much about the communications via email with Burke in the hours and days surrounding Terry's death, which is difficult to believe after such a tragedy being tied back to an ATF operation. Terry's murder should have been a "do you remember where you were when" moments.

The investigators seemed to reach that conclusion as well, on page 102:

Although both Wilkinson and Burke testified they had no memory of phone calls or communications about Fast and Furious and Agent Terry’s death, documents suggest that there was an immediate and obvious instinct to protect the Attorney General from being associated with an obviously controversial operation.

Essentially, the "collective memory loss" on the part of Holder's immediate subordinate is not the least bit believable.

The report's conclusion on page 104 is a must-read. Here is a link to the accompanying exhibits.

Scarborough syndrome's grip on S.E. Cupp seems to be tightening

After the Republican National convention, S.E. Cupp, who is billed as the lone conservative among three liberals on the MSNBC show The Cycle, expressed outrage over Clint Eastwood's bit with an empty chair starring as Barack Obama. Now, when the subject of a Barack Obama campaign ad that features Lena Dunham blatantly comparing sex with voting for Obama, Cupp is fine with it.

As I wrote at the time, Cupp seems to be coming down with Scarborough syndrome (named after Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough), which can be defined as follows (yes, it's satire):

A condition in which conservatives who are surrounded by liberals every day, find their views increasingly malleable as they incrementally cede what they believe to be minor points in the hopes of gaining acceptance and / or avoiding conflict. This often results in a slow transformation toward the adoption of a new ideology. An interesting dynamic that can help expedite this process occurs when conservatives attempt to challenge the subject on his / her new views. The subject can feel as if he / she is being attacked instead of warned. This, coupled with the subject being defended by his / her newfound liberal friends, facilitates that transformation. Thinking that the conservatives are the ones who changed, the subject identifies even more closely with his / her liberal friends.

In the case of Cupp, all one has to do is look at her reactions in these two instances. She was offended by Clint Eastwood's attempt to use humor at Obama's expense but she's not offended at the Obama campaign's attempt to compare voting for the first time to losing one's virginity in the name of humor.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer says Obama watched Benghazi attack from situation room

This is EXTREMELY significant. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer - perhaps best known for his work on Able Danger and his subsequent battle with the Defense Intelligence Agency - told Fox News that his sources told him Barack Obama was in the situation room and watched the events in Benghazi unfold in real time.

Pay close attention beginning at the 1:00 mark. Shaffer underscores an important point, saying that not only did the incoming video from Benghazi capture everyone's attention but that it was taking place at the height of the work day in Washington (between 4-5pm) when a lot of people would have been around.

Also, take note that both Shaffer and the other guest (Col. David Hunt) say that the decision to act would have come (or not) from the President and through the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta). If Shaffer is right, Obama is quite culpable.

This is big, folks. The herd of possible culprits is thinning and Barack Obama appears to be front and center.

Via Breitbart:



Incidentally, Shaffer's personal story is amazing as well. While serving in Afghanistan, he too did more than was required and put himself in harm's way when he didn't have to. It was this trait that largely contributed to his being awarded the Bronze Star.

When he came forward about his work on Able Danger, a program he and his teammates say identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta one year before the attacks, he was railroaded by his own government. He fought to the end but ended up sacrificing his military career by doing so.

Shaffer's story is the subject of an entire chapter of Unsung Davids.

Audio: Today's Show Podcast

On today's program...

• NBC Reporter in Denver makes Brian Williams look like a sycophantic key grip
• Tyrone Woods - True American Hero and Warrior
• Chris Matthews increasingly unhinged over and fixated by race
• John McCain asked about his defense of Huma Abedin

Video: Liberal says Republicans appealing to the Archie Bunker crowd

This is great. Joy Reid appeared on Hardball with the now certifiable Chris Matthews and said that Republicans like Sarah Palin and John Sununu are appealing to 'Archie Bunker crowd'.

Via Right Newz:



I wonder if Joy Reid knows that Archie Bunker was a character created by the extremely liberal Norman Lear. So if she has a problem with the furthering of racism, perhaps she should pick up the phone and talk to the guy who invented Archie.

Second, if you want to talk about characters from All in the Family that shouldn't be emulated, Ms. Reid should start with Meathead, Archie's son-in-law. Archie didn't like her daughter's husband but allowed the freeloader to live with him because of his daughter.

Besides, Archie had some extremely good moments:



Here's another instance in which Archie was right and Meathead should have been kicked out:

Tyrone Woods took the righteous path that so few ever take

It has been learned that Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods actually disobeyed orders to stand down in Benghazi. At great risk to his personal safety as well as to his career, he went into harm's way to rescue his fellow Americans. In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tyrone's father Charles talked about his son's decision to ignore an immoral order - if not an illegal one. He then stated that those responsible for not acting are cowards who are guilty of murder.

Via GWP:



At a different point in that interview, Charles Woods said the following:

“I Do Not Appreciate Cowardice, And I Do Not Appreciate Lies.”

It would appear that we have a teachable moment for some of the military's top brass. As the weight of selfless nature with which Tyrone acted really began to take hold, it became blatantly obvious that there are instances - albeit rare - when honor demands not following orders. The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent Nuremberg Defense provide the most extreme and obvious example.

What Tyrone Woods did in Benghazi is unabashedly antithetical to the Nuremberg Defense. Though the order to stand down may not have been illegal, it was at a minimum, quite immoral. Woods understood that and everyone with a sense of right and wrong knows that he exhibited the highest possible level of honor while disobeying an order. He deserves every Military honor that can be bestowed upon him for his bravery. His legacy will endure.

Contrast the actions of Tyrone Woods with those of then Secretary of the Army, General George Casey on November 8, 2009, three days after the Jihad attack on Fort Hood. During an appearance on ABC This Week, Casey said the following about the motivation for the attack:

"I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society and that gives us all strength so again, we need to be very careful with that."

Here is the full interview (relevant portion at the 4:50 mark):



Since then, those words have aged like a very bad wine. They were wrong then and that reality is even more blatantly obvious now. The attack on Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan was an act of jihad and it was an act of war. To this day, the survivors of the attack are under great duress not just because of what they went through but because of what their government refuses to acknowledge. Every soldier killed or wounded that day should be the recipient of a Purple Heart as well as any benefits that come with being killed or wounded in combat. Instead, because Hasan's actions have been identified as 'workplace violence', none are eligible.

With his words on 11/08/09, Gen. Casey helped to contribute to that reality today. Here is a video released earlier this month that features the Fort Hood massacre's survivors:



The question that came to mind as Casey uttered such shameful words was:

Did he believe what he was saying or was he saying what his superior (Barack Obama?) told him to say?

If it was the latter, he was following a directive that ordered him not to be honest with the American people. That is immoral and Casey should have resigned before speaking those words.

One of the questions that needs to be asked about Benghazi is:

Who told U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney to lie to the American people when they pointed to a video as the cause of the attack?

Their doing so would constitute following an order. Following an order to lie is an immoral act. Like Casey, both Rice and Carney should have resigned instead of committing it. Yet, career preservation (or an ideological agenda) was more important.

People like Tyrone Woods don't just subjugate their careers to do what's right; they subjugate their very existence to it. Consequently, their legacies are far more lasting. In this regard, the contrast between him and individuals like Casey, Rice, and Carney could not be more stark.

This video clip illustrates perfectly why so many people don't do the right thing:



Now we're learning that a spokesman for the CIA (David Petraeus) has issued the following statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

One has difficulty believing that this statement is consistent with Obama's wishes, which would mean Petraeus could be ignoring an unlawful / immoral order to either say nothing or accept responsibility for something his agency didn't do so that the president can be protected.

If so, Petraeus is taking the right path.

Time will tell.

Note: If Petraeus has just removed the CIA from the mix of culpability when it comes to orders to stand down, that leaves Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.

Hillary Clinton, Videos, and Political Prisoners

When the father of Tyrone Woods (Charles Woods) called in to the Lars Larson show on October 23rd, what he told the host indicates that Hillary Clinton is willing to incarcerate people for political reasons. In the case Woods was referring to, he said Hillary pledged to prosecute the man behind the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims. Such a reality would indicate a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to jail people as political prisoners in America.

This is no small matter... and it's also not unprecedented for Hillary Clinton.

In the year 2000, a Hollywood mogul named Peter Paul put on a star-studded gala for both Bill and Hillary; it consisted of Hollywood's A-list at the time. Whoopi Goldberg, Sugar Ray, Paul Anka, Cher, Toni Braxton, and others took the stage. Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, and other celebrities were in attendance; it went off without a hitch in a very short period of time (six weeks) and cost Paul over $1.2 Million. It was meant to be a farewell to Bill and a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.

What was Paul expecting in return? Well, in 1998, he formed a company with Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) called Stan Lee Media (SLM), Inc. Paul wanted Bill to work to work for SLM as a rainmaker after leaving office.

Though Paul upheld his end of the deal, the Clintons never did. Shortly after the Gala, Clinton machine apparatchiks went to work. Paul was smeared and his largest investor was wooed away from him by a man named Jim Levin, who had served as an intermediary between the president and Paul in the run-up to the gala. Soon thereafter, SLM went bankrupt and the Clintons could say they didn't renege because there was no longer a Stan Lee Media to work for.

In a last ditch effort to save the company, Paul did manipulate the stock price in hopes of preventing the destruction of his company. It didn't work and he was charged with a Securities and Exchange Commission violation - which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison - and arrested while in Brazil, tending to one of his other companies in 2001.

Before being detained, Paul gave an explosive interview to ABC's Brian Ross that was incredibly damaging to the Clintons, though some of the more explosive claims were edited out at the last minute. He named both Bill and Hillary in a lawsuit and would cause them fits for years. Paul had videos, documents, witnesses, letters from both Bill and Hillary, and a mountain of other evidence that was incredibly damaging to the president and first lady. In fact, David Rosen - Hillary's campaign finance director - was indicted, in large part because of Paul's evidence and subsequent public pressure. Though Rosen was ultimately acquitted, the extent to which powerful people had to go in order to get that acquittal stunk of corruption and cover-up.

Paul was actually jailed for two years in Brazil, spent more time in a Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, and then four years under house arrest. Paul claims that in 2009, he accepted a plea deal that would include those four years counting as time served. When he surrendered in November of 2009, Paul was informed that the deal reached between himself and the U.S. Attorney was essentially withdrawn and his credit for time served under house arrest was not awarded.

This reality falls in the lap of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In essence, Peter Paul has become a political prisoner; the U.S. Government has reneged on a plea deal; and Paul is serving more than the maximum sentence for his crime.

Holder and the Clintons have a long history together as well (think Marc Rich pardon, the release of Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, and the freeing of FALN terrorists).

There are two separate dynamics when it comes to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Mark Basseley Yousef), the man behind the anti-Muhammad video. First, by all accounts, he has an extremely checkered history and real questions about his relationship with a man named Eiad Salameh still need to be answered, as do questions about his real motivations behind producing the film. Americans deserve to know the truth about those motivations as well as his associations.

The second dynamic is Hillary's alleged willingness to jail someone for political reasons. If she told Charles Woods what he alleges she told him, it means that she is willing to imprison someone for doing something that is not against the law.

In Unsung Davids, the very first chapter is about Peter Paul's battle with Hillary Clinton. After reading about how much damage he did to the Clintons, to include a documentary that went viral in late 2007 - when Hillary was beginning her long campaign fight with Barack Obama - it should become clear why Paul is a political prisoner in America.

UNSUNG DAVIDS: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory

Here is the video that did legitimate damage to Hillary Clinton in 2007 and likely contributed to Peter Paul becoming a political prisoner. Paul is not scheduled for release until 2014, four years after the maximum sentence for the crime he was charged with.

Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather

Smoking RPG: Emails fire hole in Obama administration's Benghazi story

Three separate emails sent from someone at the State Department to multiple recipients at State, Department of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been released by CBS' Sharyl Attkisson and others. What these e-mails unequivocally show is that very  specific details of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were known in real time.

The attack began at approximately 3:40pm EST / 9:40pm EET (Libya Time). The first of the three emails that were released is time stamped 4:05pm EST, which was during the actual attack.

Here is what the first email said:

(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound save haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The Operations Center will provide updates as available.

The second email, at 4:54pm EST / 10:54pm EET reads:

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

The third email blows a hole through the Obama administration narrative that it pushed for at least two weeks after the attack. That narrative was that an anti-Muhammad video - Innocence of Muslims - was responsible. This email, sent slightly more than two hours after the first one above (6:07pm EST / 12:07am EET), contains a smoking RPG in the subject line:

Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)

The body of the email contains one sentence, which reads:

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

Yet, despite these real time emails, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were featured in a PSA intended for air in Pakistan that was based on the lie that the video was the cause of the attack. That PSA was produced one week after the attack at the expense of $70,000. If we want to talk about disgusting, reprehensible, and despicable videos, perhaps we should start with this one:



During an interview with Sarah Palin on 10/23, as news of these emails was breaking, Greta continued to come back to one question:

Why was the Obama administration so intent on blaming the video?

Pay attention to what Greta says, beginning at the 5:40 mark (via Sarahnet):



It's not only long past time to find out why the administration blamed the video. It's also long past time to find out who / what was really behind its production.

Where is Eiad?

Third Debate: Mitt didn't take the Gloves off

Both sides are claiming victory in the third presidential debate. Unlike debate number one, no one will concede defeat. In debate number two, Obama's media hacks called the debate for their guy but that narrative was belied by Romney's surge in the polls afterward. The common thread that ran through both debates was that Romney was aggressive and showed the conservative base that he could fight.

That is also a trait that is contagious and even won over some independents.

The stars seemed to align for a Romney three-peat. The final showdown was on foreign policy as the Obama administration was on the ropes over its handling of Benghazi-gate.

Those expecting Romney to go for the knockout would be quite disappointed. The aggressive Mitt didn't show up. After the opening question, which was about Benghazi, the subject never really came up. At that, Romney's response to that initial question was quite vanilla. Some might argue that the opportunity never presented itself; that doesn't wash. Candidates are given quite a bit of latitude when it comes to answering questions how they see fit.

Just three days before the debate, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa sent a damning letter to Obama that singled out the National Security Council as the likely source of a policy of "normalization" in Libya over security. The evidence is mounting that a political decision to portray Libya as secure trumped the decision to protect our diplomats. Romney could have asked Obama about this but he didn't.

He took a pass.

As we approach the third anniversary of the Fort Hood Jihadist attack that killed 14 people, survivors have made it quite clear - in a video - that they are outraged that what Nidal Malik Hasan did on November 5, 2009 continues to be identified as workplace violence instead of what it was. As a consequence, those survivors are not eligible for purple hearts and are being told to accept a lie about the motives of a murderer they will never forget.

Asking Obama why Hasan's attack hasn't been identified as an act of war that involved correspondence between the shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, instead of workplace violence, would have been quite appropriate in a foreign policy debate.

It never came up.

Operation Fast and Furious is a foreign policy matter as well. A U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans have lost their lives because someone thought it was a good idea to put assault weapons into the hands of drug cartels there. Obama injected himself into the scandal when he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent congressionally subpoenaed documents from being produced. He did so on the day his Attorney General would be found in both criminal and civil contempt for not producing those documents.

Romney avoided that subject as well.

It's clear that Mitt Romney made a strategic decision to look presidential instead of looking to win. Did he win over some independents? Perhaps. Did he disappoint those in the conservative base who had finally started to warm up to him.

Absolutely.

When your opponent is on the ropes, it's never a good strategy to stop swinging.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm not a politician.

Obama administration lies about Benghazi documents released by Issa

On October 19th, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa publicly released 166 pages of documents, 45 photos, and the 10-page letter he had sent to Barack Obama. The letter included ten questions Issa wanted the president to answer. It also implicated Obama as being personally responsible in his role as chairman of the National Security Council, which Issa identified specifically as the entity that likely made the decisions that put Americans in danger.

The Obama administration quickly attempted to say that by releasing this information, Issa has put a human rights activist in danger. In a press release, Issa's team debunks this feeble attempt by the administration to shift the focus of the debate by using a female activist as a political prop (which is apparently supposed to feed the 'war on women' narrative).

Here is a portion of Issa's statement:

“The Libyan rights activist who was highlighted by the Obama administration in news accounts as having not been, ‘publicly associated with the U.S.’ until the Oversight Committee released documents had actually been brought to the U.S. in December 2011 by the State Department and her trip is highlighted on the Internet. President Obama should be ashamed of yet another example where his administration has been caught trying to mislead the American people about what happened in Libya.”

“Obama Administration officials and their surrogates are clearly reeling from revelations about how the situation in Benghazi was mishandled and are falsely politicizing the issue in a last ditch effort to save President Obama’s reelection effort.  To see such prominent officials as Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Carl Levin, Rahm Emanuel, and Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod paraded out over to weekend to make false charges about the Oversight Committee putting Libyans in danger only shows their desperation to hide the truth. As the Committee had previously indicated, the State Department has had these documents for two weeks but never contacted the committee about making specific redactions. The Libyans noted in these documents worked in positions where their interactions with westerners would not be surprising.”

The Obama administration attempted to portray this woman as someone who isn't associated with the U.S. except for the cable that mentions her, which it says puts her in danger. Issa's staff is pointing to a video that features this activist as well as a public State Department event in late 2011 for the International Visitor Program of the World Affairs Council, at which she was hosted.

Here is the video of her on the internet, speaking out against the Libyan transitional government and she is wearing a badge that clearly says, "United States Department of State".

Audio: Today's Show Podcast

On today's show...

Binder-gate vs. Benghazi-gate.
What do Joe Biden's gaffes sound like when played backwards?
Darrell Issa's strong letter to Barack Obama.

Is John McCain throwing stones from a glass house when he criticizes Obama over Benghazi comments?

One of the loudest voices in Congress to go after Barack Obama for saying, "if four Americans get killed, it's not optimal" has been Senator John McCain. While McCain is right in this instance, his positions up to this point leave him very little high ground from which to speak.

Via POLITICO:

“Even from someone like the president, who has never known what these kinds of tragedies are about and the service and sacrifice that people make, it’s still just — I can’t even get angry,” Sen. John McCain, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Thursday night on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

“It’s just so inappropriate,” McCain continued. “And I’m sure that the families of those brave Americans are not amused.”

A problem for McCain is that he supported Obama's policy in Libya, the same policy that has allowed al-Qaeda to flourish in places like Benghazi.

Remember when McCain referred to the Libyan rebels as "my heroes" during his visit to Benghazi in April of 2011, when many of us knew better then (pay attention at the 1:05 mark)?



Also during that visit, McCain walked right by a Benghazi courthouse that only weeks earlier had been the site of a black man being beheaded by rebels. Here is video of McCain walking past the scene of that atrocity. None other than Christopher Stevens can be seen walking behind him.



Here is a photo of McCain with Stevens taken during their walk past the Benghazi courthouse, captured in the video above:

Here is a photo of McCain with Stevens in Tripoli:

McCain is taking the right position when it comes to arguing that the Benghazi consulate should have been more secure. Unfortunately, the position he took in 2011 was absolutely the wrong position. As bad as Gadhafi was, al-Qaeda was kept at bay and if he had remained in power, it's a safe bet that Stevens would still be alive. McCain advocated for the rebels and took a position then that put Americans in greater danger.

The Senator from Arizona also sits on some powerful Senate Committees. He is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and serves on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. McCain was wrong about Libya then and he's wrong about Syria now; he continues to be among the loudest voices in support of rebels there as well.

It's important to note as well, that McCain has been one of Huma Abedin's most powerful and vocal supporters. Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton (someone else who has tough questions to answer over the Benghazi attack), has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which overtly supported the Libyan rebels.

McCain is on the wrong side of practically every debate over the Middle East and although he's right about calling Obama out on the lack of security in Libya, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to backing policies that got us here.

Until McCain has a mea culpa about his position on Libya in 2011, the Arab Spring generally, and individuals like Huma Abedin in particular, he'll be throwing stones from a glass house.

Issa points finger directly at Obama in letter over Benghazi-gate

There was quite an interesting mass e-mail waiting for me this morning from Darrell Issa's press secretary. In a letter sent to Barack Obama by Oversight Committee chairman Issa and Committee member, Jason Chaffetz, the two Republicans are asking some very hard questions and demanding answers about Benghazi-gate. The implied charge is made fairly early on in the letter that the poor security which existed in Libya was the result of a policy of "normalization" in that country. If true, that would make the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three other Americans, the likely result of political decisions.

From the very first paragraph of the letter, via Oversight:

Information supplied to the committee by senior officials demonstrates that not only did the administration repeatedly reject requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels. We have been told repeatedly that the administration did this to effectuate a policy of "normalization" in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war. These actions not only resulted in extreme vulnerability, but also undermined Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission.

Issa also called Obama on the fact that several members of his administration - to include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House press secretary Jay Carney - repeatedly blamed the attack on Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muhammad video. After factoring in the matter of the video, one can easily connect the dots of plausibility:

...if administration officials indeed reviewed security reports on a daily basis, they would have seen the overwhelming evidence prior to the 9/11 attack that terrorists were actively targeting westerners in Benghazi.

This introduces three variables into the investigation.

1. Normalization: The administration wanted to 'normalize' Libya after Gadhafi was overthrown, a noble goal to be sure but not one that should be wished into existence for political reasons, especially if an opposite reality is the one that exists. 'Normalization' may just be the key to unlocking much of what happened.
2. Implausible Deniability: Between the number of catalogued security incidents and the repeated requests for beefed up security, there were far too many red flags for decision-makers in the administration to be able to claim plausible deniability if something happened. Something did happen; four Americans were murdered (not reading reports and memos was an excuse given by Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious investigation).
3. The Video: If normalization was the goal and denial of security was the means, we're talking major scandal in the wake of four dead Americans. It would point to a political agenda trumping human life (Fast and Furious was about furthering the gun control agenda by putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels that resulted in ending many human lives). That's before we get to any sort of cover-up. A consequence (unintended or otherwise) of blaming the video, was that Obama administration actually aligned itself with the Islamists, who pointed to the video as a reason to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. In blaming the video, the Obama administration was facilitating attacks on the first amendment.

Back to the letter...

According to Assistant Regional Security Officer David Oliveira - who was stationed in Benghazi from June 2, 2012, to July 5, 2012 - "they (local guard force) felt that the U.S. was a target and they felt that they didn't want to work overnight... A Facebook posting also called for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and provided details of his jogging route in Tripoli along with his picture.

Issa points to an unfathomable event in Benghazi that was met with an unfathomable non-response from Washington, smack dab in the middle of that June 2 - July 5 window:

...al Qaeda organized a rally in Benghazi. On or about June 10, 2012, fighters from Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Mali paraded through the streets with weapons and black flags... These events were the subject of an early July country team meeting where Ambassador Stevens and others expressed their concerns about these develeopments and the need for increased security. According to one participant, this "fell like a dead fish on the table" because everyone, including Ambassador Stevens, knew that the Embassy lacked support from Washington, D.C., and could do little about it.

Also within that time frame - on June 6th, in the middle of the night - a white truck approached the compound, an Islamist got out of the truck, and placed a bomb along the consulate's perimeter wall. Check out the first 17 of these 45 photos provided by sent as attachments to the letter. The first three show the white truck approaching the front gate. Photos 4-17 show the hole that was blown through the perimeter wall.

With that as a backdrop, check out this excerpt from Issa's October 19th letter (page 6):

In August 2012, Ambassador Stevens continued to warn Main State of a "security vacuum" being exploited by independent actors. He further noted that "Islamist extremists are active." His warnings culminated with two cables in September 2012 in which he notified the State Department that Benghazi had entered a state of "maximum alert" and that Islamist influence was expanding in Derna. His last notification came on September 11, 2012, the day he was assassinated.

Ranking member of the Oversight Committee, while accusing Issa of playing election year politics with the Benghazi attack, apparently decided to engage in some politicizing of his own. Before I get into the "normalization" aspect of Issa's letter, take a look at what Cummings said at the October 10th hearing. Also take note of the, 'never let a crisis go to waste' dynamic at work here. Cummings alleges that Republicans in the House cut funding for security. Cummings likely saw a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity.

By pointing to Republicans, he attempted to shift blame for Stevens' murder away from the administration and toward Issa's Party. He was also shamelessly attempting to lay the ground work for increased funding as a direct result of this attack.



There are a few problems for Cummings at this point. First, according to Issa's letter (page 8), the cost of the Security Support Team (SST) in question was absorbed by the Defense Department, not the State Department. Second, the State Department actually increased "danger pay" for its employees in Libya while removing security. Third, Charlene Lamb, the woman who withheld security from Benghazi, testified at the October 10th hearing that lack of funding had nothing to do with the withdrawal of security:



Also on page 8 of Issa's letter, he writes the following:

According to witnesses and documents received by the Committee, the administration made a policy decision to place Libya into a "normalized" country status as quickly as possible. The normalization process... appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse.

Before concluding the letter, Issa points a finger directly at the White House National Security Council (NSC), which is chaired by the President of the United States. In essence, Issa is pointing the finger of culpability directly at Obama himself:

These critical foreign policy decisions are not made by low or mid-level career officials - they are typically made through a structured and well-reasoned process that includes the National Security Council at the White House. The ultimate responsibility rests with you as the President of the United States.

To underscore this point, check out this excerpt from Whitehouse.gov about who makes up the NSC and who attends the meetings:

The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

I've posted this exchange between Lamb and Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) from the October 10th hearing before but it's provides a look into how the Oversight Committee might best proceed in the context of determining the level of culpability the NSC might have had in the deaths. The relevant portion comes in the first minute. Note how Adams asks Lamb if the latter had sole discretion to deny security to the consulate. After being told "no", Lamb is asked to provide names of those who did. She coughs up two names at the 1:00 mark.



If the NSC is responsible, those two men didn't have sole discretion either. Both should be placed under oath and be made to tell the committee if they acted on their own or were instructed to refuse security requests.

Elijah Cummings, member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus (code for Communists) will not be happy:

Cummings: Running interference for Obama is tough business

Are Fort Hood survivors 'Swiftboating' Obama?

The survivors of Nidal Malik Hasan's jihadist attack are fed up, as they should be. They're tired of watching their country's leaders tell the world that Hasan's rampage was 'workplace violence'. In essence, a blatantly false motive has been attributed to someone who murdered people who were serving their country. The same dynamic has been at work over the Benghazi attack. As the Obama administration continues to waffle on who / what was behind the attack, it tried to blame a video for motivating those who murdered people who were serving their country.

In 2004, veterans who served with John Kerry called his service and his purple hearts into question. In 2012, the victims of an act of war still don't have purple hearts because Hasan hasn't been identified for what he is - a domestic enemy who infiltrated the U.S. Army.

Via the Washington Times:

Benghazi isn't the first time the Obama administration has struggled with whether to call an attack on a U.S. post a terrorist attack. Nearly three years after the fact, the Defense Department still calls the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, an act of workplace violence, despite the suspect's ties to al Qaeda.

A coalition of 160 victims and family members of the deadly rampage at Fort Hood in 2009 sees similarities in the Obama administration's reluctance to label the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as a terrorist act and wants government officials to belatedly deem the assault in Texas as terrorism as they now have done with Benghazi.

"To have it not be called terrorism is a slap in the face," said Shawn Manning, who was facing his third deployment the day authorities say Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan shot him six times.

The assault on the army post in Killeen, Texas, was the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, leaving 13 dead, more than 30 wounded by gunshots and dozens more injured. Survivors, many who suffered from multiple bullet wounds, have spent the past three years trying to rehabilitate their bodies and rebuild their lives. Maj. Hasan, 42, is awaiting trial and faces the death penalty if convicted. 

For the service members who died and those who were wounded, the terrorism distinction would mean that the military considered that their injuries took place in a combat zone, making them eligible for Purple Heart medals and access to medical care and benefits similar to what soldiers wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan receive.

Civilian victims, such as Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer employed by the Army who shot Maj. Hasan four times and is credited with bringing him down and helping prevent a bigger massacre, aren't eligible for Purple Hearts. But Mrs. Munley said the designation would recognize the severity of the attack and provide her and others with much-needed closure. 

"To be honest with you, it would just help everyone, including me, start to be able to have closure and start to heal," she said. "To this day, mentally and emotionally, I don't think any of us have started to heal."

The Times report above refers to "13 dead". Perhaps as a consequence of the culture we have allowed to exist for far too long in this country, the number of dead is rarely reported accurately. Francheska Velez was one of those murdered... and she was pregnant. The correct number is 14.

In this incredibly well-done video, the survivors of the attack speak out against those who refuse to identify Hasan for what he is and his act as what it was - an act of war.

At one point in this video, though Velez's name is not mentioned, one of the survivors describes finding her laying on the floor, crying 'my baby, my baby'.

Video Flashback: Rep. Eric Cantor asked about Obama being 'Domestic Enemy'

May 3, 2010:

A concerned American at the Heritage Foundation a little more than one year after Obama was inaugurated, asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) - then Minority Whip - what more Obama would have to do in order to garner 'domestic enemy' status. Take note of the audience's reaction to both the man's question as well as to Cantor's response (they supported the questioner).

Video: Fort Hood shooting victims speak out

Must-see video. Survivors of Jihad at Fort Hood speak out against attempt to label it 'workplace violence'.

Courtesy of Fort Hood Heroes:



h/t Jawa

Video: Spring Break president

Devastatingly accurate:



h/t Fox Nation

Video: American Crossroads nails Obama administration over Benghazi

One of the unintended consequences of CNN moderator Candy Crowley running interference for Barack Obama at the second debate is that because her bias was on full display, the issue over which that bias revealed itself - Benghazi - is becoming a central point of focus. In attempting to diminish the scandal, Crowley appears to have called more attention to it.

Check out this latest ad from American Crossroads:



h/t GWP

Does Obama have an anti-Osama film problem?

In the days after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration pointed to the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims as the cause. They also repeated another mantra, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with the making of the video (a puzzling assertion).

The administration is still waffling on whether or not the anti-Muhammad film had a hand in the attack on the Benghazi consulate. They're already on record as having referred to the video as 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible', regardless of whether they settle on the video's ability to incite riots and murderous attacks. Therefore, regardless of whether Barack, Hillary, et. al. finally and conclusively decide that the attack was planned and coordinated, they still must believe that a movie could theoretically cause such an attack. Here we are more than a month later and they're still not sure.

Enter National Geographic, which is apparently being inundated with threats because of a film being distributed by major Obama supporter Harvey Weinstein, that is set to air on that channel two days before the election.

Via New York Post:

The National Geographic Channel has beefed up security at its Washington headquarters after being “bombarded” by threats over its upcoming film, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden,” a source said yesterday.

The movie has prompted enough threats from what one source called “Muslim extremist groups” that the network felt it had to take the action.

“They have been bombarded with phone calls and blog posts, saying that anyone airing a film like this is asking for trouble,” the source added.

“Enough threats have come in that the network is on higher security alert. They have a huge public building, with a museum and 1,600 people working.”

The network was already receiving sharp criticism for its decision to debut the feature-length TV movie Nov. 4, two days before the presidential election. Critics charged the timing was calculated to boost President Obama’s campaign.

This is quite the conundrum for the administration. If violence follows the airing of the Osama movie, will said movie also be 'reprehensible' and 'disgusting'? Will the onus then be placed squarely on the rioters? If yes, then such an onus should be placed squarely on the attackers in Benghazi and the administration should stop waffling.

The Daily Mail adds this:

A spokesperson for National Geographic told the Post that the channel will air the film 'no matter what,' adding, 'we are big believers in the First Amendment.'

The movie will be available on Netflix streaming 24 hours after its TV premiere.

So, the cable channel that is airing the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film two days before the election, which is being distributed a huge Obama donor, is citing its first amendment right to air the movie, regardless of whom it offends. Presumably, so is Weinstein. In this case, threats are preceding the airing of the movie. If we are to believe the Obama administration when it comes to Benghazi, either it didn't know about any such threats to attack over Innocence of Muslims or it ignored them.

Nat Geo CEO David Lyle insists that the timing of the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film has nothing to do with politics, despite Weinstein's status as a huge Obama donor.

Yeah, right.

Concerns on the right are not about whether Weinstein or Nat Geo has the first amendment right to distribute / air the film. They do. The concerns are about politicizing an event that could have national security implications. SEAL Team Six prefers needs to operate under the radar for a reason.

Responsibility for any riots or violence that takes place will fall solely on the perpetrators but for the Obama administration to be consistent, it will have to waffle on such a conclusion.

That said, any attempt by the administration to assert that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with this film will be a much tougher sell given the content, the timing, and relationship of the distributor to the President.

How much does the Republican establishment hate Todd Akin?

The three most prominent faces of resistance to Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate race with Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are Karl Rove, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We already know that Rove's feelings of disgust for Akin reach the level of joking about the congressman's murder to a bunch of wealthy donors. Since Priebus and Cornyn appear to be following Rove's lead when it comes to withholding financial support for Akin, is it worth asking how much influence the former Bush senior adviser has over them?

When Akin made a bizarre comment during an interview in August about 'legitimate rape', the establishment suddenly had an excuse to withdraw its support while also calling for Akin to step down.

Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid produced a source who charged that one of the reasons Rove so detests Akin is that the latter simply would not vote the establishment line during the Bush administration, to include "No Child left Behind". Which is the bigger mistake, Akin's comment this past August or that woeful piece of legislation? Akin's comment or Rove's joke about murdering him for staying in the race despite pressure to drop out?

Rove, et. al. also had a plausible excuse for denying financial support because Akin fell so far back in the polls, it would have been money wasted.

There's a problem. Akin has been scratching back into the race and still is getting no support from the establishment.

Now, the Akin campaign is outright claiming that Rove, et. al. would rather have McCaskill win than see Todd Akin take her seat.

Via Daily Caller:

Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s campaign is accusing influential GOP-affiliated organizations that refuse to spend money to help the Republican senate candidate of genuinely wanting Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to win the hotly contested senate contest in Missouri.

Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin, told The Daily Caller this week that Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s National Republican Senatorial Committee are trying to undermine Akin.

“I believed at one time they did want Akin to win, even though they didn’t want to admit it,” Tyler told TheDC. “I’m convinced now they don’t want Akin to win.”

In August, Akin told a news station that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” if a “legitimate rape” occurs, prompting outrage and condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.

The race might even determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year. But both Crossroads GPS and the NRSC, which are spending millions to help Republican Senate candidates across the country, vowed not to support Akin in any way after they determined his rape comment threatened to hurt other Republican candidates across the country, according to Tyler.

“It is incomprehensible to me how Rove and Crossroads GPS and the NRSC could possibly stay out of this race” unless they want Akin to lose in November, Tyler told TheDC in a phone interview.

The establishment is choosing to put itself into a box here. If Akin wins, the fire within the conservative wing of the Republican party will be given a huge dose of oxygen because a conservative candidate will have triumphed over prominent liberal incumbent without the help of the establishment. If Akin loses, especially if by a narrow margin, it will have meant establishment pride triumphed over conservatism at best, and that extreme liberals are preferred over conservative Republicans at worst.

Another dynamic is at work here is the establishment's double standard. Mitt Romney was their guy; he won. Conservative voters were not happy with the selection. The establishment asked conservative voters to get behind their guy whether they liked him or not. Conservative voters did just that. In fact, in the wake of Romney's first two debate performances, conservative support for him has reached an energized high.

The natural inverse would be that if a conservative candidate is going against a liberal incumbent, the establishment should do the same.

In the case of Rove, Priebus, and Cornyn, hypocrisy appears to be on full display.

St. Louis Fox Television affiliate KTVI has a news report on tonight's debate between Akin and McCaskill:



Read entire DC piece.

CNN's Crowley comes to Obama's rescue on Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate

There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.

First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.

Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.

h/t Midnight Rider:



The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.

The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.

Here is the exchange (h/t GWP):



In reality, this is what Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.

For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this:

Hillary: takes 'responsibility' but doesn't resign (Eric Holder redux)

Four Americans - including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya - are dead. They are dead because of bad policies and bad decisions at the State Department. In the days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate, the Obama administration - to include U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and Obama himself - pointed to a video as being the cause. That was proven to be false.

Cover-ups, lies, and dead Americans. Vice President Joe Biden blamed intelligence for any claims made that an anti-Muhammad video was responsible and said the administration didn't know that additional security was asked for.

The truth is that high-ranking officials at the State Department did know additional security was requested. That fact was learned at last week's House Oversight committee hearing.

Suddenly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now taking responsibility for what happened.

Via CNN:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

"I take responsibility," Clinton said during a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

Notice how after claiming to "take responsibility," Clinton refers to the number of employees at the State Department in the same breath, as if to imply that she couldn't possibly be personally responsible for that many people.

While that's true, it's not the point. The point is that the head of the State Department is solely responsible for the culture and policy. The policy that was in place at State led to State Department officials denying security assets to people who were in desperate need of them.

This is called taking responsibility without accountability.