Video: Most intellectually vacant Congressman wants Constitutional Amendment to control Freedom of Speech

In 2010, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed a concern that if the island of Guam became overly populated that it might 'capsize' and 'tip over'. In 2012, he's now on record as making the charge that the private sector is taking over the government and that the private sector is "privatizing every aspect of our lives, as we know it."

Johnson's solution? A constitutional amendment that puts controls on the First amendment.

Note, too, how Johnson bemoans the racial division that exists in this country four years after Barack Obama was elected (such irony is apparently lost on people who think islands float).

Whack. Freakin'. Job.

Via MRC:



Remember this? Imagine that in Johnson's world, expressing fear that an island might capsize would be protected speech while expressing other positions would be subjected to restrictions. If ANY speech did meet the test of being right for suppression, it would be this absurdity enunciated by Johnson. Luckily, we'd like him to keep talking.



Question for Mr. Johnson: If the people on Guam have less freedom of speech rights, does that increase or decrease the chances of that island tipping over?

Fiscal Cliff: Time for John 'Renee' Boehner to walk away

As the fiscal cliff looms, talk of Republicans caving to Democrats is in abundance. It's not a question of whether they will cave but how much they will cave. Two days after the election, I wrote about holding Boehner's feet to the fire when he began talking of compromise. Since then, I've been coming to the conclusion that giving Obama everything he wants may be better in the long run than any concessions that may be negotiated. Obama doesn't want to own this economy because he knows it's doomed to fail. He wants to blame Republicans for it. Obama wants some form of compromise because it will give him something to pin on Republicans when this economy hits rock bottom.

Compromise with the Democrats will only benefit one side - the Democrats. When the stimulus package didn't work, liberals like Paul Krugman actually said the reason was that $800 Billion wasn't enough. Obama's budgets are voted down in the Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0 for one reason. He doesn't want to get everything he wants because he knows it will fail and he will have no one but himself to blame (that's why he voted 'present' for so long). He wants to be perceived as bi-partisan, someone who is willing to compromise with Republicans. When the same failures happen, the fault can then lie with what the Republicans demanded and Obama's fingerprints are off the destruction.

If there's one thing we know about liberals it's that in their minds, they're never responsible for anything bad. The way they perpetuate that perception is by blaming Republicans. They were blaming George W. Bush for the economy right up until Obama's reelection.

Before getting to Rush Limbaugh, I'd like to take a moment and throw this song out to John "Renee" Boehner.

Now, onto Limbaugh, who is 100% right here. The premise that says Obama doesn't want economic collapse because he doesn't want to destroy his legacy is a false one. The reason it's accepted is because the alternative is just too difficult for people to come to grips with. If you start with another premise, one that says a successful legacy in Obama's mind is one that includes the collapse of the United States on his watch, the fundamental transformation of this country, his actions make much more sense. He is a student of the Cloward-Piven strategy and he's executing that strategy perfectly. In essence, overwhelm the system with entitlements that the government will eventually not be able to pay and the economy collapses. It doesn't matter what Republicans get out of the fiscal cliff deal, when the Cloward-Piven strategy succeeds, Republicans will be blamed - and the same people who voted for Obama will believe it.

Liberalism always fails, which is why liberals always need scapegoats. Republicans have always been there for that. It's time for a new strategy and Limbaugh, as usual, perfectly enunciates it. Republicans should walk away from negotiations and give Obama whatever he claims he wants. When it fails - and it will - there will be an unmasked Obama for all to see and he will have no Republicans to blame. Only when this happens, will Americans - in much greater numbers - be able to see how destructive the president's ideas are.

Rush is advocating some tough, tough medicine here but let's face it. When Obama was re-elected, seeing him for what he truly is became the only viable option. He knows how to grant some concessions and then beat his opponents over the head with those concessions when he fails. Ironically, the line in the sand at this point is drawn with the intent of letting Obama cross it. We're headed for dark days and giving Obama what he wants is the only sensible way to go at this point because liberal lunacy will finally be left twisting in the wind and the thick-headed whack jobs who think it works will have no one to blame but themselves. At that point, there could be an awakening.

It's become our only hope for change.

Via the Right Scoop:



To Limbaugh's point about what Obama wants his legacy to be and what the latter would view as a successful one, let us not forget that if America survives Obama, he will have the worst legacy of any president in U.S. history. If, however, Obama destroys America, it will have been through fundamentally transforming it, which is exactly what he told us he would do.



Here's Krugman in 2011, saying that the $800 Billion stimulus package didn't work because it wasn't enough (the pointy-eared genius says so beginning at the 1:30 mark):

New York Times interview with Innocence of Muslims filmmaker raises question about YouTube channel

There was an interesting tidbit found toward the end of a 6-page article written by Serge Kovaleski and Brooks Barnes of the New York Times - in which the two reporters revealed the contents of their interview with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the Innocence of Muslims video. Until now, it was only assumed that the Sam Bacile YouTube channel belonged to the filmmaker.

According to Kovaleski and Barnes, the person responsible for creating and maintaining the YouTube account is Nakoula's twenty one year-old son, Abanob Nakoula:

On July 2, the trailer was posted on YouTube by someone using the name Sam Bacile. Mr. Nakoula’s son said he was the one who did it.

“My dad is not tech-savvy at all, and does not know how to work social media,” Abanob Nakoula said. “So he asked me to take the initiative to spread the word, and I did my best.”

He explained that using the name Sam Bacile, he created a Facebook account before production started and then the YouTube account.

Now that we know who is responsible for the YouTube account, how about some questions about content?

This screenshot was captured on October 5, 2012 (converted from tiff to jpeg on November 28th). At the time, it was the only video found under the channel's "Likes" tab. The video consists of an interview between a woman from the U.K. who had converted to Islam and an Arabic-speaking man. The woman is effusive in her praise of Islam. The video has since disappeared from the Sam Bacile YouTube account:

Here is a screenshot of the YouTube page today. Note, there are no more "Likes" on the page (the video is no longer posted):

This is the video once liked by who is now believed to be Abanob, based on what can logically be deduced from the New York Times piece:

The question it'd be nice to know the answer to is:

Why would someone so anti-Islam "like" a very pro-Islam video?

A logical follow-up question would be:

What made Abanob "un-Like" the video?

Questions about this YouTube account have been raised before.

Video: Morning Joe panel laughs over joke about Lindsey Graham being homosexual

A little over two years ago, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) made news at a Tea Party when he demanded that Senator Lindsey Graham 'come out of the log cabin closet', a not-so-subtle charge that the senior Senator from South Carolina is a homosexual. Feeding that rumor has likely been Graham's status as an older, unmarried man.

Enter the Morning Joe crew. This morning, during their 6am airing of the show, guest John Heilemann referred to the 'three amigos' (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte) as being made up of two women, an obvious jab at Graham over the rumors.

Consider...

1. MSNBC is a known ventriloquist dummy for the White House; that is much more well known than what Graham's sexual preference is.
2. Indications are that the three Senators were expected to play nice in their meeting with Susan Rice less than twenty-four hours before Heilemann's comment. It didn't. In fact, Graham said he's more troubled now than he was before the meeting.
3. Whether the rumors about Graham are true or not, the White House could conceivably benefit from someone like Heilemann joking about it. If there's truth to the rumor, the joke could be seen as a shot across the bow. If there's no truth to it, people are talking about it anyway (instead of Rice's credibility).

On the other hand, the 8am re-airing of the program edited this part out.

h/t WZ

Video: Republican Senators not happy after meeting with Susan Rice

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is definitely on the rise. As the junior senator from New Hampshire (elected in 2010), she's wading in the deeper waters quite early in her tenure. When it comes to attempts to get answers about Benghazi, she's been out in front and has teamed up with two senior senators (McCain and Graham) who are constantly fighting the moderate label but who are right to demand answers on the Benghazi attack.

In any event, there was a meeting between U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the three aforementioned senators. Many believed it was going to be smooth-over session but all three senators said afterward that they're more disappointed after the meeting with Rice than they were before the meeting.

Again, the issue is that Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th and blamed the attack on our Benghazi consulate that killed four Americans five days earlier, on a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. That charge has proven to be demonstrably false and it's obvious Rice either knew it was false or should have known it was false at the time.

Here is video of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte answering reporters' questions after they had met with Rice.

Via MediaIte:

Does Jeb Bush CAIR too much to be President?

With all of this talk about Jeb Bush running for president in 2016, his record of appeasement when it comes to Islamists in his state when he was Governor of Florida warrants closer inspection. That Presidential election year will mark the tenth anniversary of the forced resignation of O'Neal Dozier, a conservative Pastor whom Bush had put on the Judicial Nominating Committee in 2001.

In 2006, Dozier was fighting the construction of a mosque in the same neighborhood where his church stood. During a radio interview on the Steve Kane show, he made comments that were critical of Islam. Word got back to Bush, whose office then demanded Dozier's resignation. The larger issue not addressed by the Florida Governor was the validity of Dozier's concerns relative to who was behind construction of the mosque.

The following is an excerpt from Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Dozier's battle with the Republican Party in general and Jeb Bush in particular:

The reason for Dozier's appearance on the (radio) show was to talk about the attempts of the Islamic Center of South Florida (ICOSF) to build a mosque near his church. As recently as 2009, ICOSF was listed as being owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was identified in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document as being a member group... NAIT, along with the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history.

There was no investigation against NAIT. As Governor, Jeb Bush had the authority to recommend one. Instead, Dozier was forced to resign and the red flags raised by the mosque at the root of his concerns were ignored. Bush's action against Dozier, coupled with his inaction against groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in America put him on the very wrong side of a very real struggle in the United States.

Just one year prior to Dozier being forced to resign, Bush was invited to CAIR's annual banquet in Orlando, at which attendees were to be encouraged to contribute to the creation of a CAIR office in Orlando. Though Bush didn't attend, his office sent a letter to CAIR, which he signed, that said in part:

"It is a great pleasure to extend greetings and best wishes to all attending the Florida Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) annual banquet... I commend your contributions to the protection of civil rights and freedom of religion... Once again, congratulations on your accomplishments and my warmest greetings and best wishes on your continuing success."

CAIR has had great success since receipt of that letter and much of that success has come as a direct result of people like Jeb Bush pandering to them.

Dozier's battle against a mosque in 2006 foreshadowed a similar battle over the Ground Zero mosque in New York City in 2010. The resulting backlash further validated Dozier's concerns and should give people pause when considering Jeb Bush's future as a presidential nominee.

The case of Mohamed ElBaradei and be careful what you wish for

As the 'Arab Spring' was dawning in Egypt in early 2011, perhaps one of the most prominent and loudest voices that demanded the ouster of Hosni Mubarak was former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. Here is an excerpt of an interview he gave a short time before Mubarak stepped down.

Via Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Shouldn't you be headed down to Tahrir Square to try to use your authority to calm people down there?

ElBaradei: I was there once, and things broke out in turmoil. I need to watch out for my own safety. There are people who think they'd be doing the regime a favor by killing me. The longer things continue on this way with Mubarak, the clearer it becomes that the country is imploding both politically and economically. Mubarak must go; not at some point, but now. I believe the Americans are also getting very impatient.

SPIEGEL: You've given Mubarak an ultimatum. It expired on Friday, which the demonstrators dubbed the "day of departure" ...

ElBaradei: ... and I will say it again: He must go away quickly. I'm sure that some Arab country will take him in. I've heard from Bahrain. If he still has one spark of patriotism, this is his last chance.

As Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mursi doubles down on dictatorship at breakneck speed, ElBaradei's perception of the implosion of Egypt in early 2011 is nothing compared to what he's seeing now. As for his comment to Der Spiegel that the "Americans are also getting very impatient," his recent comments indicate that he would like to see that impatience continue but, to this point, the White House has been virtually silent over Mursi's most recent power grab.

Via Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller:

Morsi decreed Nov. 22 that his pronouncements and edicts were beyond the reach of judicial review. The announcement was met by resistance from the nation’s top judges, who said they would fight Morsi’s unusual self-elevation to near-dictator status.

“I am waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the U.S., by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity,” declared Mohamed ElBaradei, who is one of Egypt’s more visible non-Islamist politicians.

This was a very foreseeable problem. Those of us who saw the 'Arab Spring' for what it was had far better vision than the likes of ElBaradei, who is becoming like another in a long line of Arab secularists who never seem to learn that when it comes down to them vs. the Islamists, the Islamists always seem to win.

As for that American (Obama administration) impatience now compared to then, Munroe seemed to sum that up quite succinctly:

There has been no White House response to ElBaradei’s Nov. 24 comments.

To be fair to ElBaradei, he's not the only secularist who was wrong. Just look at practically every Democratic politician in the U.S., a handful of Republicans, and the mainstream media.

It isn't rocket science but liberal secularists still never get it.

For a Genius, Condoleezza Rice not making much sense

She served for four years as George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, another four as his Secretary of State; she had been Provost at Stanford, and is an extremely accomplished pianist. By all accounts, Condoleezza Rice is widely accepted as a genius.

So why on earth is she advocating for what would inevitably lead to Muslim Brotherhood control of Syria? After reading her recent op-ed in the Washington Post, there really is no gray area about where she stands, though as a seasoned diplomat, she does her level best to massage her message. Her position is that Assad must fall and Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Iranian control.

Via WaPo:

The fragile state structure of the Middle East has been held together for decades by monarchs and dictators. But as the desire for freedom has spread from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus, authoritarians have lost their grip. The danger now is that the artificial states could fly apart.

What Rice avoids saying is breathtaking. Whatever desire there is for freedom in the Middle East is being snuffed out by new, religious tyrants who are filling the vacuum left by those "monarchs" and "dictators". Simply put, in every country where the 'Arab Spring' has been successful at removing dictators, things have gotten much worse. Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood leader is consolidating power and that country is increasingly on the brink of civil war; Libya may have elected a secular government but make no mistake; al-Qaeda is calling the shots. Yemen, Tunisia, et. al. are all seeing similar outcomes.

Therefore, why would Rice think Syria would be any different?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very next paragraph:

In Iraq, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the United States hoped that a fledging multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy could do what authoritarians could not: give all of these groups a stake in a common future. To an extent it has, with elections repeatedly producing inclusive governments. But the institutions are young and fragile, and they are groaning under the weight of the region’s broader sectarian explosion. The conflict in Syria is pushing Iraq and others to the breaking point. At the same time, U.S. disengagement has tempted Iraqi politicians to move toward sectarian allies for survival. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki cannot count on the Americans, he will take no risks with Tehran.

Note how Rice comes precariously close to admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake but qualifies it by implying that more time is needed. The notion that the Syrian conflict is pushing Iraq to the "breaking point" is a bit of an exercise in denial. Make no mistake; Iran has all but annexed Iraq and for Rice to assert anything to the contrary presupposes that the Bush strategy still has a chance. It was doomed to failure when the foundation for the new Iraqi constitution was Sharia law; it was a soft surrender.

As Rice points out, Iraq is 65% Shiite; so is al-Maliki Shiite. Counting on Americans would have involved a Constitution that did not have Sharia law. Assuming that al-Maliki was ever interested in true freedom in Iraq, such interest was snuffed out at that point because it meant the Americans could not be counted on.

Rice runs into another problem. Note I did say she only came "precariously close" to admitting failure. Opining that the United States should not support the ouster of Assad would be an admission of failure in Iraq and inconsistent with the broader strategy of her boss, because it would mean that the perceived liberation of people who are ruled by a dictator can lead to greater enslavement, which it has in Iraq, Gaza, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, et. al. Rice almost has to support Assad's overthrow at this point. Advocating the opposite would torpedo the Bush doctrine of democratization in the Middle East.

Comparing Iran to Karl Marx seems to be an attempt - in part - to liken the former to the United States' cold war nemesis. Take note of her reference to a "theocratic flag" and where it flies:

Today’s Karl Marx is Iran. It envisions the spread of its influence among Shiites, uniting them under the theocratic flag of Tehran — destroying the integrity of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. Iran uses terrorist groups, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in southern Iraq to do its bidding. Syria is the linchpin, the bridge into the Arab Middle East. Tehran no longer hides the fact that its security forces are working in Syria to prop up Assad. In this context, Tehran’s sprint toward a nuclear weapon is a problem not just for Israel but the region as a whole.

Few would argue that there are easy answers in the Middle East but Rice seems to be falling into the same trap that so many westerners do. While being rightfully concerned about Iran, there is this inexplicable underestimation of Turkey, which continues to be wrongly viewed as an ally of the West. In reality, Turkey has been making more gains than Iran, in many ways. With every Muslim Brotherhood victory, Turkey is secretly emboldened and its lustful eye for a reestablished Ottoman empire waters a little more with increased anticipatory desire.

While Rice rightfully bemoans the Shia's "theocratic flag of Tehran", she ignores the "theocratic flag" that is being planted all over the Middle East as Turkey quietly sees those flags as representing a resurrected empire in the near future.

Rice continues...

In recent days, France, Britain and Turkey have stepped into the diplomatic vacuum to recognize a newly formed opposition that is broadly representative of all Syrians. The United States should follow their lead and then vet and arm the unified group with defensive weapons on the condition that it pursues an inclusive post-Assad framework. The United States and its allies should also consider establishing a no-fly zone to protect the innocent. America’s weight and influence are needed. Leaving this to regional powers, whose interests are not identical to ours, will only exacerbate the deepening sectarianism.

Certainly there are risks. After more than a year of brutal conflict, the most extreme elements of the opposition — including al-Qaeda — have been empowered. Civil wars tend to strengthen the worst forces. The overthrow of Assad could indeed bring these dangerous groups to power.

But the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk. Iran will win, our allies will lose, and for decades the region’s misery and violence will make today’s chaos look tame.

It is simply breathtaking to consider that someone of Rice's intellect does not understand the Islamist nature and goals of Turkey's leadership. She then talks about aligning with them and arming the Syrian rebels but under the condition that there is a post-Assad framework and that the rebels who are armed can be trusted (because that's worked out so well to this point).

Then, she demonstrates an unbelievable amount of naiveté relative to history, both old and recent, when she says that the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk than the Muslim Brotherhood groups ultimately taking control of Syria. If she was truly interested in preserving the "state system", Assad is the better option.

Does she not know that it is Turkey which desires the dissolution of every nation that has fallen to the Brotherhood?  That would also include Syria if Assad falls.

Rice's former boss - George W. Bush - communicated a similar embrace of the 'Arab Spring' in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last May.

For Rice or Bush to admit the truth would require them to admit failure, which they're obviously not willing to do.

Unfortunately, not doing so smacks of both pride an foolishness.

Time to revisit Hillary Clinton's September 13th speech?

While the talking points recited by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th continues to be a point of interest, confusion, and conflicting accounts, looking at the words uttered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton three days earlier might shed some light on how those talking points got altered. The conflicting stories between former CIA Director David Petraeus and DNI Director James Clapper seem to fall within that 9/13 - 9/16 window.

Again, let's look at the November 20th report from CBS, which reported that the entity responsible for taking the reference to al-Qaeda out of the talking points was the Department of National Intelligence (DNI):

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

According to that report, Clapper's office made the changes between September 13th and when they were given to Rice on September 14th. As an aside, on November 15th, CBS reported that Rice was given the talking points on September 15th, not the 14th.

After Petraeus gave closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence committee on November 16th, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told reporters that Petraeus said he didn't know who altered the talking points and that the former CIA Director testified that he knew the attack was an act of terror all along. One day prior to Petraeus' November 16th testimony, his immediate boss (Clapper) gave testimony that would ultimately be completely contradicted, which caused even more problems for both Petraeus and Clapper.

Via Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

Fox News was told by one source that Clapper, in a classified session on Thursday, was “unequivocal, and without hesitation insisted the changes were made outside the Intelligence community. He didn’t know who but was emphatic he would find out."

A day later, former CIA Director David Petraeus also stated changes were made after his agency drafted the talking points, adding no one imagined how changing the language would end up being such a big deal.

But late Monday night, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said in a series of briefings for reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes to the talking points, which were finalized on Sept. 15 – four days after the attack and one day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial appearance on five Sunday talk shows, when she described the attack as spontaneous violence that grew out of protests of an anti-Islam film.

Uh, but Petraeus said on November 16th that he didn't know who altered the talking points. If that's true, Clapper's office has got to be lying now. Either Clapper's November 15th testimony jibes with Petraeus' November 16th testimony or Petraeus' November 16th testimony doesn't jibe with what Clapper's office is saying now. If we're to believe Clapper's spokesman's November 19th comments, Petraeus may have committed perjury at a time when he should have come clean.

Now, let's go back to September 13th. This is the date given by CBS in a report published one day after Clapper's spokesman said his boss' office is where the talking points were altered. This means that Clapper's office was altering the talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton was giving this speech.

Relevant portions transcribed below video.



At the :37 mark:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation and as you know, we are home to people of ALL religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims and we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose; to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

Then, at the 3:09 mark, after ripping the video, Hillary seems to imply it was responsible for violence:

It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful, to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people.

At the 3:42 mark, Hillary seems to be laying the groundwork for the talking points that Susan Rice issued on 9/16. Remember, CBS reported that Clapper's office was compiling the final talking points at approximately the same time that Hillary was giving this speech. After what she said up to this point, it is easy to see how she is making the implication that the video is responsible for the Benghazi attack:

Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now I would note that in today's world with today's technologies that is impossible but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our constitution and our law and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Of course, keep in mind that Charles Woods, the father of one of the four murdered Americans, told Lars Larson that Hillary told him on 9/14 (one day after the aforementioned speech and on the same day that Rice was given her talking points), that the anti-Muhammad video's filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

It's also important to remember that shortly after Petraeus' testimony on November 16th, Rep. King told reporters the following about how the final talking points emerged. According to Petraeus, through King:

it went through a long process involving many agencies, to include the Department of Justice, to include the State Department.

In conclusion, if both the November 20th CBS report and King's claim that the State Department was involved in altering the talking points that were given to Susan Rice on 9/14, it means that the State Department was likely altering those talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton gave a speech which unequivocally laid the foundation for talking points which ultimately said the video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.

I refer you to Rule #8 from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The events were the attack and the video. Blaming the video instead of al-Qaeda would serve two purposes. One, it would protect the administration's narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run. Two, it would chill freedom of speech and first amendment rights through tacit intimidation that said, if you criticize Islam, there could be consequences.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are very learned students of Saul Alinsky.

Conflicting CBS Reports on when Susan Rice received talking points

Perhaps it's time for CBS to reconcile some inconsistencies in its reporting about when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice received her talking points on the Benghazi attack. Given that Rice's appearances on five talk shows on 9/16 have become a focal point, it might be more than just a little warranted here.

First, let's go back to a November 15th CBS report. In particular, take note of the very first paragraph, which says:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

 Here is the screenshot:

Now, how about the most recent CBS report, published on November 20th? It claims that Rice received her talking points on September 14th:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

This may seem like a matter of splitting hairs but given the sensitive nature of the timeline between 9/11 and 9/16, it's a bit relevant to find out exactly when Ms. Rice received those talking points, is it not? After all, two significant things happened on September 14th. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pointed to the now infamous anti-Muhammad video in the daily press briefing that kicked off before Noon and Hillary Clinton was at Andrews Air Force Base as the four murdered Americans arrived. While there, Hillary talked about the video being responsible.

We now know that was demonstrably false and that Hillary gave that false information at quite an unseemly time and place. According to Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL and CIA who was among the four who were murdered, Clinton told him that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

So, CBS, when exactly did Susan Rice receive her talking points?

Date and time please.

James Clapper in 2011: Muslim Brotherhood 'secular'; James Clapper in 2012: al-Qaeda not responsible for Benghazi

As the matter of who changed Susan Rice's talking points continues to be a bone of contention for those demanding the truth about what happened in Benghazi, the White House has apparently decided to throw Republicans a bone fragment. The person they're now saying is responsible for taking out any reference to al-Qaeda in Rice's talking points is Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, while also saying that it wasn't him specifically.

Uh, yeah, I know.

As for the reason why references to al-Qaeda were removed...

Via CBS:

...an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

Does this not beg a very simple question? If references to al-Qaeda were too "tenuous" and the source did not have enough credibility to warrant running with that assessment, what genius was trusted when the narrative came out that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible? It would appear then that the source that wasn't trusted but should have been, now has more credibility and that the source that was trusted and shouldn't have been is... who?

Back to the CBS report:

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

Since the truth is so evasive because those responsible for releasing it don't seem interested in doing so, let's go with the aforementioned narrative. The extramarital affair of former CIA Director David Petraeus notwithstanding, the CIA appears to be the only entity that assessed the attack correctly by pointing to al-Qaeda. Yet, the head of the CIA is the only guy who lost his job?! This would seem to point to the possibility of the administration holding the affair over Petraeus' head until after the election.

There are some interesting questions raised in the next two paragraphs from the CBS report:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Brennan says her source wouldn't confirm who in the agency suggested the final edits which were signed off on by all intelligence agencies.

First, as I mentioned in an update to this post, in a previous CBS report, dated November 15th, it was claimed that Susan Rice received her talking points on September 15th but as you can see above, the most recent CBS report says she received them on September 14th.

Second, note the last sentence in the excerpt above about "all intelligence agencies" ultimately signing off on the final edits. That would include Petraeus, right? Now, what sort of thing might motivate him to "sign off" on the talking points that excluded al-Qaeda?

Administration knowledge of an extramarital affair perhaps?

As for Clapper, he has a history of denial when it comes to identifying America's enemies. When one couples his involvement in the extraction of the words "al-Qaeda" from Rice's talking points with his claim in 2011 that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular", we have a bit of a trend with this guy.

Trumping accountability for Lying - the Race and Gender cards

An unbelievably ridiculous narrative is being pushed that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being targeted by old white guys because she is black and female. Forget the fact that she gave the American people false information five times on September 16th. That's not relevant. The Morning Joe panel is the latest place where you can find this egregious argument.

Via NewsBusters:



At the November 14th press conference, Barack Obama reacted strongly to a question about Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain going after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her demonstrably false talking points on five September 16th talk shows. In response, Barack Obama urged the Senators to go after him instead of Rice while saying she had nothing to do with Benghazi (the logical follow-up question to that wasn't asked) and that the White House sent her onto those talk shows.



Frankly, McCain and Graham should take Obama up on this offer for a few reasons. First, according to CBS, these CIA talking points were altered prior not just to Susan Rice uttering them on September 16th but before Jay Carney seemed to make the same case on September 14th, that the Benghazi attack was a result of the anti-Muhammad video. Second, as the official mouthpiece for Obama, going after Carney would equate to doing exactly what Obama suggested those two old, white, male Senators should do - go after Obama. Third, by going after Carney instead of Rice, Graham and McCain cannot be accused of attacking him over his race or his sex; he's as white and male as they are.

Then again, perhaps Rice was traipsed out to all of those shows for a moment such as this - the race and  gender cards. Her making demonstrably false statements is irrelevant, apparently.

Forget Susan Rice; who gave Jay Carney his September 14th Talking Points?

As a direct result of the November 16th testimony given to House and Senate Intelligence committees by former CIA Director David Petraeus, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has come under the public spotlight. Everyone wants to know who altered her talking points prior to her five Sunday show appearances on September 16th, five days after the attack in Benghazi. According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Petraeus told the committee that the original CIA talking points made specific reference to al-Qaeda involvement. Rice's talking points did not.

CBS News reported that the talking points prepared for Rice were issued on September 15th. Petraeus briefed both Senate and  House Intelligence committees on September 13th and 14th respectively. After his November 16th testimony, King told reporters that Petraeus insisted that he always knew that it was a terrorist attack that involved al-Qaeda elements. The congressman said the recollections of both himself and Petraeus about the September 14th testimony were different. King remembered Petraeus saying the attack arose from a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. Petraeus' recollection was that he knew it was a terror attack.

Again, here is what King said after Petraeus testified on November 16th. Take note of what King says about the CIA talking points going through a "long process" that involved State and DOJ:



For the sake of argument, let's assume that Petraeus' recollection was correct and that on September 14th, he testified that there was al-Qaeda involvement in the attack and that it wasn't caused by a video. We're to believe then, that he delivered CIA talking points.  If Petraeus delivered the unchanged CIA talking points on September 14th, that "long process" likely would have begun sometime thereafter, taking approximately 24 hours to be given to Susan Rice.

Hang on a second.

At precisely 11:42am on September 14th, the daily White House press briefing began. During that briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney - not just the voice of the administration but of the President himself - said this:



Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:

JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Again, if Petraeus was truthful with the committee on November 16th, that the CIA knew almost immediately that the attack was not "spontaneous" or in response to a video and that he relayed that information to the Senate Intelligence committee on September 13th and to the House Intelligence committee on September 14th, then Jay Carney lied. This is significant because Carney gets approved talking points from the President. Again, Rice is the voice of the administration while Carney is the voice of the President specifically.

Now, back to King's assertion that the CIA talking points went through a "long process, involving many agencies". Taking Petraeus at his word on November 16th, that he issued CIA talking points to congressional committees on September 13th and 14th, how did they go through such a lengthy process quickly enough for Carney to enunciate the new talking points before lunch on the 14th?

So, Rice was given her altered talking points on September 15th but the voice of the president had them by the morning of September 14th.

The question that needs to be asked is not who altered Susan Rice's talking points but who altered Jay Carney's talking points one day earlier?

This smacks of racism and sexism by the way. The black, female, U.N. Ambassador is being hung out to dry by the administration while the white, male, press secretary is getting a pass.

What say you Marcia Fudge and Gwen Moore?

**UPDATE** CBS News is now reporting that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reviewed the talking points before they were given to Rice and the House intelligence committee:

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Uh, are my eyes deceiving me or did the date that Rice received the talking points change? Does this mean Clapper reviewed the talking points on the 14th or that they were given to Rice on the 14th? CBS no less, reported on November 15th that Rice received the talking points on September 15th:

CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier.

So which is it? Was Susan Rice given the talking points on September 14th or on September 15th?

Incidentally, James Clapper is the guy who told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular". This is relevant because that lie speaks to his credibility:

How is CNN different from makers of anti-Muhammad video?

On September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. embassies took place all across the Middle East, most notably in Cairo. Attackers blamed an anti-Muhammad video called Innocence of Muslims. Magically, those who laid siege were not responsible for their own actions. There was evidence of foul play in the video's production as well. In post-production editing, the words Muslims found most incendiary appeared to be dubbed in; the actors said they were duped.

We have now learned that CNN is responsible for putting forth egregious propaganda... on video. It is the kind of propaganda that, in the past, has been blamed for - you guessed it - violence in the Middle East. Like in the year 2000, it involves the exploitation of a young Palestinian boy.

In 2000, a Palestinian cameraman who was a stringer for France 2 shot what he claimed was news footage (rushes) at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. When Talal Abu Rahman sent the rushes to Charles Enderlin at France 2, he claimed to have footage of the now infamous shooting death of a young Palestinian boy named Muhamad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli forces. This news report was pointed to as being responsible for the second intifada; mass riots ensued.

Osama bin Laden pointed to the death of al-Dura as a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks; Daniel Pearl's murderers blamed the al-Dura shooting for Pearl's murder; and two weeks after al-Dura was allegedly gunned down by Israelis, two Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by an angry Palestinian mob in Ramallah.

There was one problem. The world was set on fire over a lie. The rushes captured nothing more than manufactured scenes that were passed off as news.

Boston University professor Richard Landes had a chance encounter with Enderlin in 2003 when the latter thought he had an ally in Landes after the professor was introduced to Enderlin by the Israeli ambassador to France. Upon visiting the France 2 studios, Landes was exposed to staged scene after staged scene. In 2006, he produced the first of three documentaries that would reveal the truth about a conspiratorial culture he identified as "Pallywood".

Fast forward to 2012. As Israel bears down on Gaza after having to endure rocket attack after rocket attack, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil attempted to capture some of the al-Dura / Pallywood glory while Kandil was visiting Gaza. Photos of the two men holding and kissing a dead Palestinian child appeared to lay the foundation for the narrative that Israel's attacks on Gaza was responsible.

It wasn't. The child was killed by Hamas, the same group led by Haniyeh, who was all too willing to exploit the young boy over a lie. In hindsight, perhaps the propagandists wish they hadn't included Kandil in the photos; there were no Israeli rockets fired into Gaza while he was there.

CNN's Sara Sidner, in much the same way that Charles Enderlin did in 2000, produced a news report that echoed the narrative of Hamas, saying that the boy's death was the result of Israeli rocket fire. You can watch that report here.

This report from Sidner is an outright lie, Pallywood style:



That is not the only example either. Earlier, the BBC had captured video of a large man, allegedly injured, being carried away by several Palestinians. Moments later, the man was walking around as if nothing happened. During a CNN report anchored by Anderson Cooper, the footage of the man being carried away, as if injured, was used to portray Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis.

In a word - fraudulent.

CNN is now officially complicit in Pallywood. If, as many on the left believe, a video can spawn outrage in the Middle East, then CNN is using fraudulent footage of a boy's death that could lead to the same outcome.

Can someone please explain how CNN, Anderson Cooper, and Sara Sidner are any different from the makers of Innocence of Muslims?

If you haven't seen the 2006 Pallywood documentary, please have a look:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

1. How is Bubba the Love Sponge involved in Benghazi-gate?
2. Are the Unions blaming Romney for no more twinkies?
3. Was David Petraeus completely truthful during his hearings?

Rock Me, I'm Petraeus and the introduction of Bubba the Love Sponge into Benghazi-gate

Just when you thought the Benghazi-gate scandal couldn't get any more bizarre, a Tampa Bay shock jock named Bubba the Love Sponge makes an appearance. I'm not sure what's more surprising, that or the fact that CIA Director David Petraeus and General John Allen viewed him as enough of a threat to warrant reaching out to State Department socialite Jill Kelley to reach Tampa's mayor in order to prevent the Love Sponge from following through on a pledge to "deep fat fry" a Qur'an.

Via Tampa Bay Times:

Does Bubba the Love Sponge Clem have anything to say about the fact that Tampa's mayor called him a "complete moron" in an email to Tampa socialite Jill Kelley?

Does he ever.

"For Bob Buckhorn to call me a moron? I mean, are you kidding me? Let's talk about moron status," the shock jock told the Tampa Bay Times.

So why did Tampa's mayor call the Love Sponge a moron?

Kelley emailed Buckhorn earlier this year, saying then-CIA director David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen were emailing her about a plan Clem had to "deep fat fry" a copy of the Koran. She said Allen was worried that the radio stunt could put troops in harm's way and was going to call her from Afghanistan to discuss a next step.

In an email response to Kelley, Buckhorn wrote, "This Bubba the Love Sponge is a complete moron."

Clem said the people who got him to stop the Koran burning were his lawyer and the heads of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the Tampa Police Department. But he said Kelley "probably did get intel to have me stop it, and that's the problem itself."

A Bubba's Army truck circled the Bayshore Boulevard block of the Kelley home for about a half-hour Friday, pumping a parody to the tune of Falco's Rock Me Amadeus about Petraeus.

Ladies and gentlemen, Bubba the Love Sponge is now officially part of Benghazi-gate but the much larger issue is that four star Generals like Petraeus and Allen are more concerned with what a small town Gainesville pastor and a Tampa Bay radio personality do with Qur'ans than what radicals who follow the Qur'an plan to do to us.

Before checking out the video, have a look at the Love Sponge van as it circled Jill Kelley's home while blaring the Rock Me Amadeus parody:

(Love Sponge van circles Kelley residence)

(Bubba the Love Sponge)

Petraeus: Administration's knowledge of affair did not influence my testimony

The headlines that seem to be dominating the news relative to the closed-door testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus in front of House and Senate Intelligence Committees was that someone changed the CIA's talking points before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice recited them on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th. Petraeus reportedly told the committees that he knew the attack was coordinated and not the result of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

That is indeed significant but there is another aspect of Petraeus' testimony that warrants further investigation. When House Intelligence committee member, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was asked if the extramarital affair Petraeus engaged in with biographer Paula Broadwell in any way influenced the former CIA Director's testimony on September 14th, King volunteered that Petraeus said that it did not.

Hopefully, the next question that was asked was:

Did you know at the time of your September 14th testimony that the administration knew about your extramarital affair?

If that question was asked, what was the answer?

Via MRC (at the 1:15 mark):



Lt. Col. Ralph Peters indicated on November 9th that he thought the administration likely held the affair over Petraeus' head, as did Charles Krauthammer on November 13th. If such a thing were true, it would constitute blackmail and be a much more serious infraction by the White House than altering the CIA talking points from September 14th by taking out any reference to al-Qaeda and putting in that line about the attack being caused by the anti-Muhammad video.

While it is a bit of a bombshell for Petraeus to admit that he knew the 9/11/12 attack was terrorism and not related to a video, he almost had to concede that ground based on what had come out so far. Not doing so would have opened up an entirely new can of worms.

Also take note of what King said in the above video when Petraeus allegedly insisted that he knew it was terrorism all along. King made reference to the fact that Petraeus clearly left a different impression during his September 14th testimony. Here is the opening of an ABC news report at the time:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

This is important because it looks like Petraeus wants to say he didn't say what he said. King made reference to that but doesn't underscore it enough. On September 14th, Petraeus seemed to allege that the attack began as a spontaneous reaction which drew in al-Qaeda elements. On November 16th, he seemed to say the attack was coordinated and planned in advance by al-Qaeda elements.

Let's go back to that October 26th speech by Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' mistress. In it, she said two things of import relative to the discrepancies between how Petraeus testified on September 14th and November 16th. First, at the 1:30 mark, Broadwell asserts that Petraeus knew what was going on within twenty-four hours of the attack in Benghazi and then says everyone thought that all of the protests were the result of the video.



So which is it? Did Petraeus know within 24 hours of the attack that it was an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with the video or did he think it was the result of the video? Inconsistencies between what he said on September 14th and November 16th absolutely exist. That is what makes this an issue of Petraeus' credibility.

That is why questions about the possibility that Petraeus' September 14th testimony being unduly influenced by an administration that knew of his extramarital affair should continue to be asked.

That would mean blackmail, which would be an impeachable offense. This debate about whether the talking points were changed, though important, pales by comparison.

Ted Cruz Video: Romney 'French Kissed Barack Obama' in third debate

This is great on so many levels. First of all, our newly elected U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz is absolutely right here. Mitt Romney did french kiss Barack Obama in the third debate. The first debate between the two won a lot of people over to Romney's side because it was the first time we saw the Republican nominee actually fight. He surged in the polls, gaining about 5 percentage points.

In the third debate - which was supposed to be about foreign policy at a time when Barack Obama was on the ropes over Benghazi - Romney stopped fighting.

I can honestly say that as the sages were championing Romney's performance as brilliant and presidential, I was yelling at my television in real time and didn't even watch the entire debate. It was truly pathetic.

It's also nice to see someone talk like this after winning an election.

Via Washington Examiner: 

Pallywood is back... in Gaza

The term "Pallywood" was coined by Boston University professor Richard Landes, who by an encounter that resulted from sheer happenstance, was exposed to raw video footage (rushes) shot by a stringer for France 2 in the Gaza Strip in 2000. What Landes uncovered was jaw-dropping. He was exposed to a tactic of war used by Palestinians and captured a glimpse, via those rushes, of what goes on behind enemy lines.

In essence, Palestinians were caught staging scenes for the cameraman, who then proceeded to send the footage to France 2, who would use those scenes in a news report that ultimately favored the actors and made the Israelis look bad. What Landes subsequently discovered what that this phenomenon was actually part of the Palestinian culture. It is gross journalistic malfeasance and he blew the lid off of it with his 2006 Documentary, Pallywood: ...According to Palestinian Sources.

Now, fast forward to today. As Israelis seem to have reached their breaking point again, killing Hamas Military commander Ahmed al-Jabari. Pallywood is now back. Watch this short video, shot by the BBC. In 30 seconds, you will understand fully what Pallywood really is. This is not an isolated incident but a stratagem of war.



Unsung Davids consists of an entire chapter on Richard Landes, along with his discovery of and fight with... Pallywood.

h/t Shoebat

***UPDATE*** Warner Todd Houston over at Breitbart has noticed that CNN is using the footage from Pallywood above, in its newscast (Anderson Cooper in particular).

Tyrone Woods and David Petraeus: A tale of two future legacies

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has volunteered to testify to House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session on Friday, November 16th. The families of four dead Americans still have not been told the full truth about what happened in Benghazi. Now, the scandal-rocked Petraeus, who has had his legacy forever tarnished by an extra-marital affair, has an opportunity to reclaim much of his honor at great personal risk or place it in a circular basin and pull down on the lever.

When it comes to former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, there are two aspects to his super-heroic story. One is that he gave his life to save fellow Americans. The other is that he allegedly disobeyed an immoral order to do it. If the latter is indeed true, it is the least that Petraeus could do to tell that truth to Congress, regardless of who gave it.

Fox News reported that Woods was ordered to "stand down" at least twice before he decided to put his career and his life in danger; he lost both. In that same report by Jennifer Griffin, the CIA chain of command was identified as having denied Woods the military back-up he requested:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

That "CIA chain of command" is something that then CIA Director David Petraeus was ultimately responsible for but on the exact same day that Griffin's report was published, ABC's Jake Tapper tweeted an excerpt from a CIA statement:

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

So, Petraeus essentially put himself on record as saying his agency did not tell Woods to stand down. If that's true, it meant that either someone else did or no one else did. If Woods was told to stand down and that truth is not told, it will be a slap in the face to his honor because it will have meant that he put so much on the line to do what was right, and future generations will never know it.

If the CIA statement is correct, the spotlight logically shifts to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who basically accused anyone who questioned his judgment as being engaged in Monday morning Quarterbacking.

Via CBS DC:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

Aside from the fact that Tyrone Woods didn't know what was going on either, except that Americans were in harm's way and needed help. He risked and lost his life doing just that, despite not having all the facts about what was happening. Applying Panetta's standard, the Defense Secretary wasn't even willing to risk his own reputation to protect American lives. That quote from Panetta also comes across as a tacit admission that Woods would not have received back-up if he asked for it, which lends credence to the claims that he disobeyed orders to stand down.

Petraeus can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

In a November 2nd UPI report, the CIA was the entity identified as being responsible for the Benghazi Consulate:

The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.

Of course, this doesn't square with the multiple requests for additional security made to the State Department by Consulate personnel. In an October 31st report from Fox's Catherine Herridge, she revealed that an August 16th cable was sent from Ambassador Christopher Stevens directly to the office of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, for additional security. That request was very detailed and very specific.

Via Fox News:

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

A little later in the report...

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

Of course, this example is one of many that the Consulate reached out to the State Department - not the CIA - on issues of increased security. In testimony before the House Oversight Committee, State Department officials admitted both to being aware of additional requests for security as well as to watching the attack on the Consulate as it happened, in real time. Yet, the UPI report seems to attempt to absolve the State Department of culpability.

That poses a small problem. Hillary Clinton personally accepted responsibility for the security of her State Department officials, which necessarily includes Stevens.

There are at least four people who know far, far more than what we're being told. They include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.

Again, the former CIA Director can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

True leadership means putting your men above yourself. As CIA Director, one of Petraeus' subordinates was Tyrone Woods, who is a national hero the likes of which we rarely see. If Petraeus is capable of putting his men above himself, he will tell the truth on November 16th, no matter what it is.

If he does not, he will only further tarnish his own legacy in the name of self-preservation while doing a gross disservice to a true American hero.

Was David Petraeus Blackmailed by the White House?

The definition of "blackmail" is as follows:

any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

If then CIA Director David Petraeus was instructed to give false testimony to Congress in the days after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack in exchange for his extramarital affair to remain under wraps, that would be a form of blackmail. The payment would be his compliance / false testimony. We now know that Petraeus did in fact give false testimony on 9/13/12.

Via ABC News:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

The question then becomes: Did Petraeus knowingly give false testimony?

According to the October 26th speech by his alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, Petraeus knew what was happening "within 24 hours" of the attack. If that can be confirmed, then we can rightfully conclude that Petraeus DID knowingly give false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

This leads to a very simple question: Why did he do it?

With hindsight, a few important things have come to light:

1. The Obama administration wanted to push a narrative that said the attack in Benghazi was caused by a reaction to the anti-Muhammad video, as evidenced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's five appearances on five different Sunday shows in which she parroted that narrative.
2. Attorney General Eric Holder likely knew of the Petraeus affair prior to the 9/11/12 attack.
3. The FBI knew of the affair as far back as last spring.

The amazing thing here is that because these officials had this information and didn't act on it, Petraeus was indeed susceptible to blackmail, not by external forces but by internal ones - the Obama administration itself.

Here is Charles Krauthammer speaking to this very thing on November 13th:

Or how about Lt. Col. Ralph Peters from November 9th:



As has been made clear since news broke of an extramarital affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell, the reason it is significant is because it exposed him to blackmail. Since his resignation, we have been told by pundits and reporters that while the Petraeus affair was unfortunate, it ultimately posed no threat to national security.

Via CNN:

Retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks, for whom Broadwell once worked and who knows Petraeus, said he doubts security protocols were breached despite what seems an unlikely indiscretion on the part of Petraeus.

"There's almost zero percent chance that national security was compromised or at risk," he said Monday.

Via the Youngstown Vindicator:

...the affair between former general and ex-CIA director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, may not have any greater national security implications than the celebrated affair of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor during the filming of “Cleopatra.”

Matthew Miller at the POLITICO, which is essentially a White House ventriloquist dummy, insists that the FBI followed the rulebook in its handling of the matter:

In this case, it appears the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation handled the matter entirely in keeping with those rules and precedents. And, importantly, they passed the most crucial test faced whenever the department investigates a senior member of the existing administration: They conducted the entire investigation without playing favorites and without a hint of political interference.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Miller is right and that the handling of the Petraeus matter by DOJ and FBI was flawless. He doesn't account for one very disturbing possibility.

Blackmail by the White House.

h/t WZ

Video: The case of Paula Broadwell's Photoshopped Book Cover

You just can't make this stuff up.

Keep in mind that the title of the book written by Paula Broadwell about David Petraeus is, "All In".

Now watch. Denver's local ABC affiliate inadvertently aired a photoshopped version of the book cover in a news report.

h/t Weekly Standard

Why was Paula Broadwell's Driver's License found in a Washington, D.C. Park?

Paula Broadwell, the alleged mistress of former CIA Director David Petraeus, lives in Charlotte, NC. Yet, for some reason, her Driver's License was found in a Washington, D.C. park.

Via U.S. News:

The woman revealed to have been carrying on an affair with former CIA Director David Petraeus lost her driver's license in a Washington, D.C., park recently, sources tell U.S. News.

A Maryland National Capital Park Police spokesman confirmed that a jogger found a North Carolina license in Rock Creek Park belonging to Paula Broadwell. Park Police planned to hold it for 90 days, per policy, and then send it back to the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

The Park Police also alerted the FBI, says Bill Kellogg, a spokesman for the Park Police. The FBI did not initially return calls for comment on the report.

Broadwell's attorney, Robert F. Muse, confirmed that Broadwell, a North Carolina resident, lost her driver's license in the park.

Of course, if there is nothing to the fact that Broadwell was in Washington, D.C. recently, there should be no problem with telling us all why.

On the other hand, if there is a problem with telling us why, we won't be told.

And that's a problem.

What do David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen have in common besides being tied to Sex Scandal?

In addition to both David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen now apparently being involved to varying degrees in a sexual scandal, both men expressed questionable outrage over the treatment of Islamic Qur'ans in the past.

Here is Petraeus in April of 2011 condemning Florida Pastor Terry Jones for burning a Qur'an:



Here is General John Allen earlier this year, apologizing for the alleged mistreatment of Islamic materials, which included Qur'ans:

The United Gaults of America

Unfortunately, this kind of reality was totally predictable and totally avoidable. Nonetheless, the miscreant Obamautomatons wouldn't listen. Now, reality is smacking them in the face and they still don't get it. We are beginning to see where the road of an organized labor mentality leads.

The Hostess baking company told its Baking union employees that if there was a strike, plants would be closed. The union members went on strike anyway.

The very predictable result?

You guessed it.

"We should be treated with respeck."



Last week, Applebee's CEO Zane Tankel indicated that all of his full-time employees may have to go to part-time because of Obamacare. Layoffs are also a possibility.



Let's not forget Papa John's. The CEO and founder, John Schnatter said he will pass the additional costs of Obamacare onto the customers and will likely do things similar to what Tankel seems to be preparing to do if sales drop.

Here is a news report from before the election about Schnatter's plans if Obamacare is enacted:



These business owners and CEO's are not colluding; these are natural reactions to insane policies and laws.

I don't blame them one bit.

h/t GWP

The Entire Paula Broadwell speech is back up

Some time after posting this yesterday, the full forty-one minute video of a speech given by CIA Director David Petraeus' mistress - Paula Broadwell - was pulled down from YouTube. It has since been uploaded again and can be seen below. The excerpt getting the most attention begins at the 35:50 mark and involves Broadwell telling a University of Denver Symposium audience that the CIA Annex in Benghazi was actually being used to house prisoners.

If true, especially since the CIA is denying that claim, it would almost necessarily mean that she divulged classified information back on October 26th, when this speech was given. That begs another question:

Why was the entire speech taken down and the relevant excerpt all over the internet? Is there more that she divulged that hasn't been identified yet?

Still, one thing that remains very curious is that if the FBI interviewed Broadwell on the week of October 21st, why would she have such loose lips so soon thereafter, at a public symposium?

h/t KleinOnline: