Audio: Rand Paul asked about Hillary committing Perjury at January Benghazi hearing

Back on January 24th, after then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I wrote about her response to Senator Rand Paul's question about arm shipments from Libya to Turkey. That response struck me as being the most noteworthy because it was a question she should have known the answer to. Instead, she said she didn't know.

If she did know - one way or the other - it seems her response would constitute perjury.

Fast forward to this week. On his radio show, Aaaron Klein asked Senator Paul if he thought Clinton may have committed perjury when she said she didn't know the answer to that question.

Via WND:

Audio: Is Ted Cruz separating himself from the Rand / Rubio Immigration Chaff?

Conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - in the halls of power to actually assert his / her power. In the House, there are a handful of courageous Republicans (Bachmann, Gowdy, Gohmert, and a few others) but in the upper chamber, where more power is wielded and more weight is carried by each Senator, the battle has seemingly come down to three people.

Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In a world where a few hot-button issues rotate to the front burner with increasing frequency and intensity, immigration appears to be taking its turn. In this battle, Cruz has taken the lead among conservatives and that is evident when comparing the recent positions / activities of the three men, coupled with Cruz's stated positions on Sean Hannity's April 1st radio show.

Let's take a look at the three Senators who are attempting to tap into the most passionate and sought after voting bloc of the Republican Party - the conservatives.

Paul won major points with conservatives when he decided to filibuster for twelve hours over a response he did not get from the Obama administration over the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, Paul exhibited a fighting spirit that is far too often lacking from Republican leaders. However, when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul has deviated from the conservative position and has called for a pathway to citizenship, which in the minds of conservatives, is a pathway to amnesty. Helping Paul among conservatives was the way he confronted Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Rubio essentially began his dance with the devil when he joined the gang of eight, which included Socialist Democrats Durbin, Schumer, and Menendez along with RINOs McCain and Graham to cut a deal over comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio's achilles heal with conservatives has long been his rather vague stance on immigration. His decision to join the gang of eight didn't help him much, though to his credit, he is calling for open and robust debate, which just might scare the rest more than the prospect of not getting a deal done. Rubio was also incredibly weak when he had five minutes alone with Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Cruz appears to be separating himself from the other two in the pack when it comes to the immigration debate. He understands that until everyone agrees - and then demands / acts on that agreement - to secure the border before any other discussions take place, will get us nowhere, at best. Every time something is done about immigration (Rubio and Rand should listen up), it comes with an empty promise to secure the border after granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Cruz isn't falling for it. As a result, his stock among conservatives will undoubtedly rise faster than will Rubio or Paul on the issue of immigration, which is a big one.

Via MediaIte:

Did the New York Times expose Hillary Clinton?

At the time of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Benghazi a couple of months ago, I wrote that Hillary Clinton quite possibly committed perjury during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In a hearing that was disappointingly more about lobbing powder puff softballs at Clinton, Paul performed best, followed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Other than those two, Republicans failed to deliver - including Marco Rubio. Ranking member Bob Corker's performance was nauseating. Perhaps in a bit of foreshadowing, Corker said one day before the hearing that he didn't expect any "bombshells". Well, perhaps if he had done his homework and followed Paul's lead, Corker could have been responsible for dropping a few. His words before the hearing indicate he didn't want any during the hearing.

Based on what is being learned now, Corker appears to have been woefully wrong and should perhaps answer a few questions himself about why he didn't do his job at that hearing.

In fact, if the Republicans on that committee had done their jobs, the American people might be much closer to the truth about Benghazi today. Thanks to an unlikely source in the New York Times - coupled with Paul's questions - Hillary's testimony should take on renewed interest.

Via Aaron Klein at WND:

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries? 

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. 

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

The impetus for Klein's piece is the New York Times article, which should indeed raise questions about Clinton's forthrightness at that hearing:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.

The most maddening part may not be Hillary potentially getting away with perjury. Instead, it may be Republican Senators taking such an obvious dive when they could have made things very difficult for Clinton. Paul could have used some help. That he didn't get it from Rubio is particularly disappointing.

Here is that exchange.

"To Turkey?!"

Video: Krauthammer mocks Rand Paul on Drones

It's time to count Charles Krauthammer among those who don't take Senator Rand Paul's filibuster seriously. Say what you will but this debate has created polarizations the likes of which we have never seen. On Rand Paul's side is the Tea Party, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and CAIR. Against him are establishment Republicans and now... Krauthammer.

Amazing.

Via MediaIte:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

RINO Lindsey Graham 'honored' to have dinner with Obama while chiding Rand Paul's filibuster

On the same day that Republican Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, Barack Obama had dinner with 13 other Republican Senators. Perhaps there is not better allegory to illustrate the complete inability of Republicans to put forth a united front.

It didn't end there, however. The man who organized the dinner was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who spoke glowingly of the President while chiding Paul for filibustering.

This statement from Graham, from the Washington Post (via GWP) is outrageous:


If you think that was low, take a look at Graham the morning after, slamming Paul's filibuster after saying he was 'honored' to have dinner with Barack Obama:



At the end of the clip, Graham said 'the American people need to understand the threat we face'. Ironically, it is Graham who doesn't seem to understand the threat the Obama administration poses. Not only should Graham do some serious self-examination about praising the most radical Democratic President in the history of the United States while chiding a Republican counterpart who took a stand but he obviously doesn't understand the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in the United States.

**UPDATE** Here is the list of the 13 Senators who dined with Obama as Paul ate candy bars while speaking for 12 hours, via the White House Dossier:

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

This is not ok.

Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Eric Holder to Rand Paul: We reserve the right to kill Americans on U.S. Soil

A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) comes on the same day that the Senate Intelligence Committee approved John Brennan's nomination for CIA Director. Paul has been threatening to delay a full Senate vote until Brennan would unequivocally state that Drones could not be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Brennan hasn't answered Paul's question but Holder has.

Via Washington Examiner:

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Once again, threats by Republican Senators to filibuster nominations appear to be empty because there is no united front when it comes to doing so.

Via the L.A. Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants the full Senate to consider the nomination by week’s end.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) vowed to delay the vote until the White House assures him it does not have authority to conduct a targeted killing of an American within the United States. But Paul acknowledged he probably cannot find enough senators to support a filibuster, which requires 41 votes.

It appears that Paul has gotten his answer via Holder but despite it being the wrong one, Brennan just got one step closer to becoming the new CIA Director.

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

Good News: Rand Paul rankling his father's Supporters

This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.

When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.

Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.

Via Right Side News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.

That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.

Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.

“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”

That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”

It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.

Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.

But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.

Via The Daily Mail:

Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.

The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.

Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.

The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?

Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.

Again, via the Daily Mail:

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.

Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.

Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.

The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.

According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.

Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:

John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.

Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).

If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.

Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?

That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.

People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.

Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...

If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.

The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.

That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.

The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.

Panetta: Arming Syrian Rebels a good idea

The appearances of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn't just reveal that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found during the attacks. Panetta also revealed that he supported arming the Syrian rebels, which immediately made Clinton's interaction with Rand Paul at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month more relevant.

First, what Panetta told McCain, via the BBC:

In testimony to Congress, Leon Panetta said he still supported the supply of weapons to rebels fighting forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The plan was proposed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, then director of the CIA, but reportedly rebuffed by the White House.

The US has so far offered only diplomatic backing to Syria's rebels.

Later in the day, McCain was interviewed by Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Here is a relevant portion of the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: And the reason that I ask you about the question what was the CIA doing is because one of the other issues that came up is arming of the Syrian rebels, a question that came up, and there had been a long controversy whether or not the United States was going to arm the Syrian rebels or not and who was on board and who wasn't on board. And there has been some suggestion that through that consulate that weapons were being sent through Turkey to the Syrians. And I'm curious whether or not that consulate was used to channel weapons to the Syrian rebels for one. And number two, what do you think about the response from General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta about weapons to Syrian rebels?

MCCAIN: Well, there were published reports that some of the arms were coming from Libya that were arriving for the resistance in Syria. But that information that we had was not through the United States government, but through other sources, but I'm not clear on that.

Of course, the way to arm the Syrian rebels was ostensibly through Turkey, which leads to Paul's interaction with Hillary Clinton during sworn testimony. When he asked Clinton about the CIA Annex being used to ship weapons from Libya to Turkey, which would then be sent to Syria.

Clinton committed perjury if she knew the answer to Paul's question because she said she didn't know anything about such shipments. Here is an exchange between Paul and Fox News Channel's Martha McCallum before the hearings yesterday.

Hats off to Paul for pressing on this issue.

Leftists just Refuse to Learn: Founder of Group that helped overthrow Mubarak face to face with reality

Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian who co-founded the April 6th Movement, a leftist group formed circa 2008 to fight for social justice and other left-wing causes in Egypt and elsewhere. Ultimately, Maher's movement was instrumental in the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in early 2011.

Now, two years later, an Irish news source is reporting that Maher has come to a realization. According to RTE News, Mather tweeted the following after brutal crackdowns on protesters by the Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Here is Maher's tweet:

"Mursi has been stripped bare and has lost his legitimacy. Done," tweeted Ahmed Maher, founder of the April 6 youth movement that helped launch the anti-Mubarak protests.

In the fall of 2011, several months after Mubarak's fall, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement went on an offensive. Van Jones, fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and former Obama administration Green Jobs czar, promoted OWS publicly on MSNBC. On 9/29/11, he called for "an American fall" (a not-so-subtle reference to 'Arab Spring'). About six weeks later - on CNN - Jones called for ratcheting up the protests.

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

Jones' CAP caught up with Maher, who had traveled to the U.S. and was at Occupy Washington, D.C. a few weeks after Jones called for that 'American fall' on MSNBC. Here is the video of that interview:



If you had difficulty understanding Maher, TP has the transcript.

This should be an extremely teachable moment not just for Maher but for all of the leftists in the U.S. Perhaps no one has enunciated this dynamic as well as Andrew McCarthy, who wrote in his book - The Grand Jihad:

Revolutionaries of Islam and the Left make fast friends when there is a common enemy to besiege. Leftists, however are essentially nihilists whose hazy vision prioritizes power over what is to be done with power. They are biddable. Islamists, who have very settled convictions about what is to be done with power, are much less so. Even their compromises keep their long-term goals in their sights. Thus do Leftists consistently overrate their ability to control Islamists. Factoring the common denominator, power, out of the equation, something always beats nothing.

While the left in America - to include the Obama administration - spends practically every waking moment plotting to defeat Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood egg them on while Obama's ventriloquist dummies run interference for Brotherhood groups in America through the media.

Unfortunately, it's not just the left in America that is furthering the cause of Islamists. It's also the John McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would stop shipment of Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. More Republicans voted to continue sending those tanks than those who sided with Paul.

What happened to Maher is another in a long line of examples that western leaders continue to refuse to learn from.

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

John Kerry hearing: Rand gets the better of Rubio... again

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are both early frontrunners for the Republican nominee in 2016. Each had two cracks at challenging two Democrat heavyweights this week. On January 23rd, Hillary Clinton was in front of the committee over the Benghazi attacks and a day later came the confirmation hearing for Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Not only did Paul do much better than Rubio in front of Clinton but he out-performed every other member of the Senate and House committees that questioned the outgoing Secretary of State.

So how'd each Senator do with Kerry? Once again, Paul clearly out-did Rubio and someone should really coach Rubio on how to question a witness; it's not his strong suit. One thing to watch for in both exchanges is how quickly Kerry is expected to answer. Remember, each committee member gets ten minutes to use as he or she chooses and the longer each member speaks, the more comfortable the nominee is because it means less time playing with the rope of your own words and positions. Paul seems to grasp this concept much better than Rubio does. Note how Paul wraps up his first question and expects Kerry to respond to it thirty seconds in.

Conversely, though Rubio demonstrates that he has a comprehensive understanding of international events, that's not why he's there. He's there to ask the very liberal Senator from Massachusetts some tough questions. Rubio takes up nearly half of his ten minutes showing cameras that he knows what's going on while Kerry does little more than root for the clock to keep running before he has to speak. In fact, such pontificating can be counterproductive in another way.

For example, during his opening four and a half minute speech, Rubio actually asserted that it's debatable to argue that the Honduran government's removal of Manuel Zelaya in 2009 was a coup. No it isn't. It absolutely was not a coup. Zelaya was a stooge of Hugo Chavez who attempted to seize power by usurping the Constitution. As such, he was constitutionally removed. That is not debatable.

Kerry inexplicably supported Zelaya in that circumstance and was irrefutably proven to be on the wrong side, on the side of a would-be communist dictator. Rubio would have been better off asking Kerry to explain why he supported Zelaya. Instead, he came across as willing to listen to an argument that says Zelaya was wrongfully removed. Kerry never addressed the issue in his seven-plus minute response.

Congressional hearings are most effective when the questions are like those found in a cross-examination. To cross-examine means to examine closely or minutely, the record of a nominee or witness. When you have a time limit, this is best done with short, direct questions. As you'll see, Paul does this very well. Rubio does not. In fact, Rubio never spoke after his opening remarks and when Kerry is done, you won't know what questions Rubio asked or if Kerry answered them.

Rubio is a smart guy but he needs some serious coaching in this area.

Here is Paul's exchange with Kerry:



Here is Rubio's exchange with Kerry:

Did Hillary Commit Perjury... Twice in the same day?

In two otherwise pathetic performances by Republican congressmen - save for a few exceptions - who laid down like subjects in front of Queen Hillary, there were two exchanges - one during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and the other during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing - where the Secretary of State may have committed perjury.

First up, perhaps the best performance from any of the members of either committee. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn't just tell Clinton she should have been fired, and would have been had Paul been president during the Benghazi attacks. He also asked her a question she denied knowing the answer to. Her claim of ignorance strains credulity.

Moreover, when someone says she doesn't know something when she does, it's still a lie.

This entire exchange is worth watching, to include Hillary's body language when Paul says he would have fired her, but pay attention beginning at the 2:17 mark. Here is the portion of that excerpt transcribed:

Paul: …Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.

Did you catch her ultimate response? Her answer to the 'yes' or 'no' question about whether the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for weapons trafficking was, 'I don't know'. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) that Clinton herself commissioned to investigate the failures of Benghazi found the State Department most responsible, right?

Shouldn't the question about whether the Annex was being used to traffic weapons have been answered by the ARB? Wasn't it the group's job to investigate the attacks? Wouldn't it only demonstrate further incompetence for the ARB not to make that determination, one way or the other?

That aside, is the American public supposed to believe that more than four months after the attacks, Clinton had no interest in ascertaining the answer to such a question, despite news reports that made the claim? At no point, did she or one of her subordinates seek to find out if there was any validity to those reports? If she did not seek out that information, why didn't she do so?

Another possibility is that Clinton knows full well, the answer to the question. If the answer was 'no', what harm would there be in her answering it that way? If the answer was 'yes' and she knew that, one can conclude that the reason to portray ignorance would be to cover up wrongdoing. Otherwise, why commit perjury?

There is something else to take note of here and it's a common reaction by people who are confronted with uncomfortable truths. An attempt is made to diminish the credibility of the messenger. Hillary's initial reaction to Paul's question is to repeat the word 'Turkey' as if it was a question completely out of left field and foreign to her. By appearing surprised, Paul can be painted as a lone voice with an obscure theory.

Nonetheless, her ultimate answer means we are to believe that she has no idea whether the CIA Annex was involved in weapons trafficking.

If she does know, she committed perjury by saying she didn't.



Later in the day, Clinton appeared in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify on the same subject - the Benghazi attacks. Take note beginning at the 5:10 mark. Here is the relevant portion of her response to a series of questions from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL):

Clinton: With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.

Check out the statement about the Benghazi attacks - from Hillary herself - on 9/11 (h/t Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News). It said, in part:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any international effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Here is a screenshot of the statement (note it says 'Statement on the Attack in Benghazi' at the top):

Have a look at the exchange with Kinzinger. Again, pay attention beginning at the 5:10 mark:

Rubio v. Paul in 2016? Rand wins Round 1 BIG

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are both considered to be frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016. They are also both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such, both men had the opportunity to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton some tough questions today about the State Department's handling of the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Contrasting these two exchanges becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Assuming that reality comes to fruition, either Rubio or Paul could be the face of the Republican Party debating Clinton in four years. How did each Senator do while having the upper hand in today's Senate hearing?

Though Rubio asked relevant questions, he came across as rather dispassionate and gave Hillary plenty of room to give long, meandering answers. He did not stop her when she got off track. Rubio looked rather weak today. No presidential timber shown today.



How about Rand Paul? Arguably the best exchange of the day, though an argument could be made that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves that distinction. Two things stand out in Paul's exchange with Hillary.

1. Paul stated clearly that if he were president during the Benghazi attack, he would have fired his Secretary of State.
2. When Paul asked the Senator if the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for shipping weapons to Turkey "or any other country", Hillary told him to check with the CIA. Are we to believe that she didn't know the answer? Hardly. If the answer was no, there wouldn't be any harm in answering it. Not answering it at all only raises the legitimacy of the question.

If all of this was round 1 between Paul and Rubio, Paul won going away.