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:

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.

Hillary on 9/11/12: 'Some' have blamed the anti-Muhammad video

Susan Rice has got to have steam shooting out of her ears... We now know that Hillary Clinton issued a statement on 9/11/12 that pointed to the anti-Muhammad video as being involved in the Benghazi attack:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet." - Hillary Clinton, 9/11/12

Question: What individuals made up the "some" to which Hillary was referring?

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is not getting Hillary Clinton's job for one primary reason. She appeared on five Sunday talk shows five days after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi and lied; she said the attack on our consulate was in response to the anti-Muhammad video. Despite not having any responsibility over the State Department, Rice is the one who was punished politically.

Secretary of State Clinton said she was ultimately responsible for the security of State Department personnel and commissioned the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate. The ARB found no one accountable.

Now we have a great find, courtesy of Terrence Jeffrey at CNS News, who has pointed out that five days prior to Susan Rice blaming the video, Hillary did the same thing... on the day of the attacks and before the death of the two former Navy SEALs.

According to Jeffrey's research, this statement released by Hillary Clinton was published at 10:58pm EST on September 11th. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar fire sometime between 11:16pm EST - 11:26pm EST.

Here is a screenshot of the statement posted to the State Department website before the deaths of Doherty and Woods (click on image to enlarge):

What has been Susan Rice's defense in the face of warranted criticism about her lies on September 16th? She said the following in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired on December 13th:

When I went on the Sunday shows on September 16th, I was doing just as I have always done, providing the best information available to me and available to our government at the time. I was very careful to explain that the information was preliminary, and it could change. And yet I think it was misconstrued and contorted into something much more nefarious, it was never indeed the case nor my intention.

This begs a very important question: If Susan Rice conceded to Brian Williams on December 13th that the information she provided on September 16th was wrong, though based on "the best information available", what does Hillary have to say about her statement, released before two of the four dead Americans were murdered?

This means that Hillary went public with a lie five days before Rice told the same one and became persona non-grata as a result.

Clinton's comments in that September 11th statement are also relevant based on what she said in the days before Rice echoed them.

Here is Clinton on September 13th. Note how close she comes to blaming the video directly. Though she doesn't, the implication is absolutely there. When you couple that implication with what she said in the aforementioned 9/11/12 statement, it means Clinton was clearly on the same page Rice was on 9/16/12. Take note at the :37, the 3:09, and the 3:42 marks as Hillary's comments about the video are like three puzzle pieces that beg for the one found by Jeffrey to complete a four-piece jigsaw patch:



One day later, Clinton was on-hand at Andrews Air Force Base when the caskets holding four dead Americans arrived home. During her speech, she said the following:

This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

Here is the video of Clinton at Andrews on 9/14/12 (13:15 mark):



It's also worth remembering that the father of one of those Navy SEALs told radio talk show host Lars Larson that upon meeting Hillary at the Andrews Air Force ceremony, was told by the Secretary of State that the maker of the anti-Muhammad film would be arrested and prosecuted.

Let's take a look at that one sentence from Hillary's 9/11/12 statement in particular:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

Based on the fact that she made that statement before Doherty and Woods had been killed, are we not left to conclude that Hillary is part of the "some" to which she refers?

Perhaps she might be available to testify "some" day.

Timeline of Hillary Benghazi / Concussion / Brain clot Saga

An interesting chain of events, if nothing else.

Hillary's blood clot appears to be quite rare

When news broke that Hillary Clinton had been hospitalized with a blood clot in an unspecified location and was being treated with blood thinners, it was widely reported that such treatment indicated the blood clot was likely in one of her legs, that blood thinners are rarely used to treat a clot in the brain that results from a concussion.

It's now being reported that the blood clot is on Hillary's brain.

NBC's Robert Bazell said the following in a news report before the location of the clot was made public:

"The problem is, concussions, when they lead to blood clots, the blood clots are not usually treated with blood thinners, as they say she's being treated... there may be more to this story that we don't know."

Here is a report from CBS New York after it was learned Hillary's clot was on her brain:

Clinton’s complication “certainly isn’t the most common thing to happen after a concussion” and is one of the few types of blood clots in the skull or head that are treated with blood thinners, said Dr. Larry Goldstein, a neurologist who is director of Duke University’s stroke center.

The area where Clinton’s clot developed is “a drainage channel, the equivalent of a big vein inside the skull – it’s how the blood gets back to the heart,” Goldstein said.

Blood thinners usually are enough to treat the clot and it should have no long-term consequences if her doctors are saying she has suffered no neurological damage from it, Goldstein said.

This would seem to indicate that Hillary has a rare type of blood clot.

Video: Details about Hillary's condition hard to come by

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly fell after passing out on December 13th, giving herself a concussion. On December 30th, she was admitted to the hospital for a blood clot, after it had been reported two days earlier that she was expecting to go back to work this week.

No one knows where the blood clot is. In this report by NBC reporter Robert Bazell, it's learned that Clinton is allegedly being treated with blood thinners, which tends to eliminate the possibility that the clot is in a dangerous area.

Via MediaIte:

Firefighter Shooter beneficiary of 'Straw Purchasing' (think Fast and Furious)

In the days after the fatal shootings of firefighters Mike Chiapperini and Thomasz Kaczowka in Webster, NY on Christmas Eve, it was learned that the shooter did not have legal access to guns; he had already been convicted of murdering his grandmother with a hammer. So how did he get them?

If you're familiar with what happened in Operation Fast and Furious, you're likely familiar with the term 'straw purchaser'. In the case of that operation, which began in 2009 and ended shortly after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) led the operation with the approval of the Department of Justice. Straw purchasing was a key component of Fast and Furious as gun store owners were instructed by the ATF to sell weapons to straw purchasers, who then walked those guns across the border into Mexico, putting them into the hands of the drug cartels. The weapons found at the scene of Terry's murder were purchased by a straw purchaser with the ATF's knowledge and approval.

Back to the firefighter shootings...

It's now being reported that the man who lured firefighters to his burning home before shooting at them - killing Chiapperini and Kaczowka - was the beneficiary of a straw purchaser, who also happened to be his neighbor.

Via the Daily Caller:

The neighbor, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, was arrested on Friday after police traced the serial numbers on two weapons used by William Spengler, the shooter: a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, both purchased in 2010.

In exactly the same way, the guns found at Terry's murder scene were traced back to a gun store in Arizona where they were sold to someone who was known to be a straw purchaser for the drug cartels. When you add in the fact that the ATF knowingly allowed those guns to walk across the border, it becomes a matter involving the U.S. State Department, as this exchange from October of 2011 between Rep. Connie Mack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illustrates:



Remember, in the case of Fast and Furious, thousands of weapons were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico by U.S. Government officials and hundreds of people were murdered as a result. Here is what Nguyen did in the case of the firefighter shootings:

Nguyen violated federal law by signing a form declaring to a gun retailer that she would be the sole owner of the firearms, U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Friday. She also faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record, a state police investigator added.

“She told the seller of these guns … that she was to be the true owner and buyer of the guns instead of William Spengler,” Hochul said. “It is absolutely against federal law to provide any materially false information related to the acquisition of firearms. … It is sometimes referred to acting as a straw purchaser, and that is exactly what today’s complaint alleges.”

When it came to the weapons sold to straw purchasers in Fast and Furious, all of the aforementioned things took place, with one difference. The ATF knowingly allowed it in advance. There's another difference when it comes to consequences. No one at the ATF has been arrested. To give one an idea of how criminal this all is, consider the charges that Nguyen is facing based on the fact that she provided her neighbor with guns used in the commission of two murders in the U.S. (which didn't included the added element of straw purchasing and then transporting them across international borders):

The federal charges alone could send Nguyen to prison for a maximum of 10 years and levy a fine of $250,000. Both Nguyen and her brother told the media after the shooting that Spengler had stolen the weapons from her, but Nguyen later called police and admitted buying the guns for Spengler, according to police.

Spengler also possessed a .38-caliber revolver during the shooting, which he reportedly used to shoot himself in the head after his rampage. That weapon has not been connected to Nguyen.

Another difference between what the ATF did and what Nguyen did very well could be motive. Did Nguyen know what Spengler was going to do with the weapons she purchased for him? That has yet to be determined but the ATF absolutely knew what was going to happen as a result of allowing straw purchasers to walk those guns into Mexico; hundreds of people were going to get killed.

So what was the motive of the U.S. Government? The answer is the same thing we're seeing today - the exploitation of a 'crisis' to push a gun control agenda.

It becomes obvious that the rule of law applies to some and not others. In another incident involving the ATF, Meet the Press anchor David Gregory was allegedly allowed to break the law by holding up a 30-clip magazine on national television during a recent interview. Subsequent to that interview, it was reported that the ATF gave him permission to do so, despite their having no jurisdiction. To this day, the ATF official who allegedly gave Gregory permission has not been named.

What was Gregory's motive for displaying the magazine during his interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre?

As was the case with the ATF in Fast and Furious, gun control. Yet another example of the ATF allowing laws to be broken for a similar purpose.

Ends always justify the means when you're a creature of the left.

Some might remember this powerful report from Univision earlier this year, in which the carnage that resulted from Fast and Furious was investigated. Remember, straw purchasing is what enabled all of these murders, the same kind of straw purchasing that enabled the Christmas Eve firefighter shooter:

Accountability Review Board's findings on Benghazi: No one Accountable

The 'Independent' Accountability Review Board (ARB) - established by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to investigate the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - has reached at least one bizarre conclusion in its unclassified report. That conclusion appears to run counter to what Clinton herself said approximately two months earlier when asked about the State Department's role in preventing the attack.

"I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. " - Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack, 10/15/12

"...the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty." - Accountability Review Board on Benghazi attack, 12/18/12

"I'll take responsibility but it's not my fault" - unknown

Yes,  it's ridiculously oxymoronic and Orwellian to consider that the 'Accountability' Review Board would investigate something for two months and ultimately determine that no one person is accountable in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Adding to the sick irony is the quote placed at the very top of the report:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Based on the conclusion of the ARB - that no one is accountable - it is the ARB itself that seems not to have grokked that lesson. Perhaps a better quote to headline the report with would be:

"The buck stops here."

If the ARB had any interest in being true to its moniker, it would have agreed with the person who established the ARB and concluded that Hillary was ultimately responsible, and therefore accountable. Then again, when the person who establishes the ARB is the one who wants responsibility without accountability, we have a bit of a predictable report.

As for history repeating itself, holding no one single individual in the State Department's massive bureaucracy accountable does at least one thing; it reinforces bureaucrats' belief in more bureaucracy because it protects them all from accountability. It is the friend of each individual in it.

The ARB is the entity that has not learned from history and is repeating it.

It should also be clarified that no one individual on the ARB will be held accountable for failing to learn this lesson.

Well, at least the bureaucracy was held accountable.

That's ok, it can take it.

Interesting take on Hillary's alleged fall

The American Thinker's Daren Jonescu has an interesting take on whether Hillary Clinton's reported fall and subsequent concussion is legitimate or not.

Hillary in Hiding:

For once, I am inclined to believe Hillary Clinton. The U.S. Secretary of State, suffering from a sick stomach, has reportedly fainted and bumped her head. As a result, her spokespeople have already announced that she will be unable to testify at the Benghazi hearings, although she was not due to appear until December 20, many days after the vaguely reported fainting spell.

Already, the internet is resounding with a chorus of "How convenient!" (See here and here, for example.) Many, upon hearing this news, are assuming that Clinton, who has been hedging for a month on whether to appear at the congressional hearings, has concocted yet another excuse to avoid facing the music on a scandal which, if pursued with integrity, would likely end her political career, to put it mildly.

Read it all. It's not entirely what you might think after those first two paragraphs.

Incidentally, and to Jonescu's point that Hillary should testify anyway, The New York Times reported that her fall occurred "early last week" (presumably Sunday the 9th, Monday the 10th, or Tuesday the 11th), it hadn't been diagnosed until Thursday the 13th and that it was "not severe". This report conflicted with what Foreign Policy reported, that the episode occurred on Saturday, the 15th.

If the concussion was indeed diagnosed on the 13th, that diagnosis took place on the same day that it was reported Hillary would testify on the 20th. Later in the day, on the 13th, reports began to surface that Hillary may not testify on the 20th because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report may not be completed.

On the 15th, it is learned she will not testify.

On the 16th, it is learned that two other State Department officials will testify in her place and oh, by the way, the ARB report will be done by the 17th.

Despite Hillary taking 'responsibility' for security of staff at Benghazi, Barbara Walters thinks questions about hair more important

One month after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the security of everyone who works for the State Department. In a sane world, that would mean that she should have to answer some very hard questions about why the consulate there was repeatedly denied security - in some cases, security was withdrawn. Also worthy of note this week has been Clinton's expected testimony in front of House and Senate foreign relations committees.

Therefore, in her interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, a sane interviewer would want to get some answers relative to Benghazi and the plethora of unanswered questions about that which Hillary said she was responsible for. That's not what happened.

Walters found at least two things more important to ask Hillary about.

1. Her hair
2. Her plans for 2016

That's right. Walters was disinterested in asking questions about Hillary's role in a scandal that could make her unfit for another presidential run.

Via NewsBusters:

Video: Did Hillary out-do Bill's 'meaning of is, is' Gaffe over Benghazi?

The following is the definition of hypothetical:

(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

When it comes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's appearances on five separate talk shows to give the demonstrably false White House talking points, it's not hypothetical; it's fact. It's also factual to say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not do those interviews. Since we're talking about two factual events of the past, asking a question about why Rice did appear on those talk shows instead of Hillary is not about engaging in a hypothetical.

It's about wanting to know why one decision was made instead of an alternate decision.

Yet, when Hillary was asked why Rice and not her, she actually avoided the question by saying she wouldn't engage in a hypothetical.

Pay attention at the :37 mark for this gem that might just make her husband Bill blush.

"I'm not going to answer any hypothetical questions about what could have happened but didn't happen." - Hillary Clinton on why Susan Rice did the talk shows instead of her.

If she was referring to a point in the future, that's one thing but she's referring to what did and did not happen in the past as 'hypothetical'.

Via CNS News:



Perhaps another reason why Hillary buttoned her lips on this subject is that the answer has to do with racism. After all, she reportedly prefers John Kerry to Susan Rice for Secretary of State.

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.

Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz send another letter to Hillary

On the heels of a classified cable provided to Catherine Herridge of Fox News that shows Christopher Stevens issued a cry for help to Hillary Clinton's office on August 16th that was ultimately ignored, Foreign Policy has come into possession of two damning letters for the State Department, obtained from the consulate. House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz have taken notice and are demanding answers from Clinton.

Via FP:

One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads:

"Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322."

The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he wrote hours before the assault.

A potential bold red flag is raised about Obeidi a little later in the article:

Obeidi, the Libyan official named on one of the printouts, said he had not received any such letter, adding, "I did not even know that the U.S. ambassador was visiting Benghazi." However, a spokesman for the Benghazi police confirmed that the ministry had notified the police of the ambassador's visit. "We did not receive that letter from the U.S. consulate. We received a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Benghazi asking for additional security measures around consulate during visit of the ambassador. And the police provided all extra security which was asked for," the spokesman said.

So Obeidi is essentially pleading total ignorance when it comes to being aware that Stevens was even in  Benghazi while a spokesman for the police says his office was made aware. Perhaps the claim that Obeidi never saw one of the documents that mentioned him by name could be believed (because they were found in the consulate) but his not knowing that Stevens was in Benghazi strains credulity. Even if he is to be believed about that, he should have known, which still points to the likely infiltration of security forces.

Here is an excerpt from the letter to Clinton from Issa and Chaffetz:

These documents paint a disturbing picture indicating that elements of the Libyan government might have been complicit in the September 11, 2012, attack on the compound and the murder of four Americans. It also reiterates the fact that the U.S. government may have had evidence indicating that the attack was not a spontaneous event but rather a preplanned terrorist attack that included prior surveillance of the compound as a target.

Given the location where they were found, these documents appear to be genuine and support a growing body of evidence indicating that the Obama Administration has tried to withhold pertinent facts about the 9/11 anniversary attack from Congress and the American people.

Issa and Chaffetz conclude the letter with a demand for answers about why the State Department said there were no indications that anything was wrong at the consulate at all on 9/11/12. Pointing to an October 9, 2012 State Department briefing in which it was alleged that "Everything was calm at 8:30 p.m." the Oversight Committee members rightfully raise concerns that the documents recovered at the scene by FP belie that claim.

They want answers by November 8th.

To view the two documents recovered by FP, click here and scroll to page 4.

Ambassador's Diary pitting CNN vs. Hillary Clinton?

The contents of a seven-page diary penned by Libyan Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens belies the narrative coming from the Obama administration, that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack and that there was no intelligence to that effect beforehand. We know this because CNN came into possession of that diary and reported about its contents.

This has apparently caused a bit of a riff between Secretary of State Clinton and the liberal cable network.

Via Buzzfeed:

“Perhaps the real question here,” CNN responded to the State Department criticism, “Is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”

That is the real question, and State Department’s bizarre criticism of CNN gives clues to the answer. Foggy Bottom is now in full-on damage control mode, with the primary goal of keeping Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Libya — and in Washington — intact.

We're also looking at the possibility of Hillary taking the fall for the attack according to a former State Department official:

...in reality, the fiasco appears to be largely — if not entirely — a State Department botch. It was the State Department that failed to provide its ambassador adequate security; it was the State Department that fled Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack, apparently failing to clear or secure the scene, leaving Stevens' diary behind; and it was State that had taken the lead on the ground after the Libya intervention.

“When it comes to specific critiques about the attack, if either [the White House or State] should be getting blamed, it seems to me the primary one to be getting blamed should be State itself more than the [White House],” says one former State Department official with extensive experience in the region. “I mean if you take away the 'buck stops here' parsing of this stuff, if Stevens was issuing warning or expressing concerns he was doing so primarily through his own chain of command. The security on the ground belongs to State.”

In light of these developments, isn't it about time to take another look at the letters from the Bachmann Five to various Inspectors General, including the one sent to the Deputy IG of the State Department that was the most controversial just a few months ago because it singled out Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin for the latter's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Bachmann Five gave that Deputy IG for State a 90-day deadline to respond with a report. That deadline came and went two days after the Benghazi attack.

Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano blow off deadline in Senate letter

Four Ranking members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget - Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Pat Robers, and Charles Grassley (knows a thing or two about letters being ignored in Fast and Furious investigation) - sent a letter addressed to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on August 6th. It contained an August 20th deadline that requested a response to five questions.

The problem? Allegedly, illegal aliens are being encouraged to apply for U.S. Government welfare programs.

Via Daily Caller:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are mum on why the legal requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government assistance have been watered down, according to some lawmakers.

The deadline for Clinton and Napolitano to respond to a letter regarding admission of immigrants on or likely to be on assistance programs from senior Republicans on the Budget, Judiciary, Finance, and Agriculture Committees came and passed Monday.

On Tuesday Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, blasted the pair for their failure to comply.

“It is unacceptable that Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Clinton have not seen fit to respond our oversight letter,” Sessions said in a statement. “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived. Under their agencies’ guidelines, an able-bodied, working-age immigrant could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal assistance and still not be deemed welfare-reliant.”

Here is a list of the five questions posed by the four Senators that went unanswered by the August 20th deadline:

1. An explanation of why receipt of most welfare benefits is excluded from consideration of citizenship eligibility, and how this complies with the (Immigration and Nationality Act) INA and Congressional intent.
2. From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants and applicants for admission through the Visa Waiver Program were denied visas or admission because they were deemed likely to become a public charge?
3. From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants were found likely to become a public charge but were nevertheless granted a visa and admitted into the United States because they presented an affidavit of support?
4. How many aliens issued visas or otherwise admitted into the United States from 2001 to 2011 became public charges as defined by your agency after entering the United States?
5. If your answers to the above questions are that your agencies do not track this information, then please explain why this information is not tracked.

Again, those questions were ignored when the August 20th deadline came and went.

Gee, for some reason, I'm reminded of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Check out this first paragraph from a Discover the Networks entry:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward-Piven... on steroids perhaps?

Klein: Valerie Jarrett's meeting with Hillary Clinton

According to Edward Klein, author of "The Amateur", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had lunch with Obama's closest advisor Valerie Jarrett recently and when the subject turned to Clinton's interest in a VP slot, there wasn't any. In fact, if Klein is correct, the only reason she's not on the ticket already is because she doesn't want to be, not because Obama wouldn't do it.

Klein has benefited from increased credibility based on the contents of his book. He has demonstrated an uncanny knack for getting sources - even from opposing camps - to talk to him; his audio recorded interviews with Jeremiah Wright went a long way in this regard.

Via Daily Caller:

Pundits and talking heads have discussed in recent weeks the possibility of Vice President Joe Biden being replaced on the Democratic presidential ticket, particularly with news of his brief hiatus from the spotlight this weekend.

“Up until just a couple of weeks ago the White House was putting out feelers to see if Hillary would accept the vice-presidential nod and replace Joe Biden,” Klein said. “Bill Clinton was, I’m told, urging his wife to accept the number two slot. He saw this as a great launching pad for her for running in 2016.”

“But then Hillary had lunch in the White House a couple of weeks ago with Valerie Jarrett — Michelle [Obama]’s best friend, senior adviser to both the first lady and the president … and she told Valerie that she would not accept the vice president’s spot. The lunch was ostensibly about other matters, but it came up. … Hillary felt burned out after four years as Secretary of State. But I’m told there were more important reasons for her not accepting.”

Those reasons, Klein explained, involve the former first lady being put in positions that would make her vulnerable if she should decide to run for president four years from now.

So, Bill wants Hillary on the ticket; Obama - through Jarrett - appears to believe that teaming up with Hillary gives him the best chance in November. If Klein is right, Hillary is the reason it isn't a done deal yet. As Kudlow and Klein discuss in the exchange below, Obama only has about three weeks to change horses. Depending on how relentless the pressure on Hillary gets, coupled with how sweetened the pot gets, things could change.

If Obama continues to drop and Romney / Ryan continues to rise, look for the president's campaign to treat Hillary like every major college treats the nation's top recruit before National Signing Day.


For some reason, this clip from 2008 just came to mind:

Will Hillary replace Biden as VP today?

As Vice President Joe Biden continues to deliver gaffes on a daily basis, speculation is mounting that Obama will drop him for Hillary Clinton. Adding to that speculation are a series of scheduled meetings between Obama, Clinton, and Biden today.

Via Weekly Standard:

10:15AM        THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT receive the Presidential Daily Briefing

                        Oval Office

                        Closed Press

10:45AM        THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT meet with Secretary of State Clinton

                        Oval Office

                        Closed Press

12:30PM         THE PRESIDENT and THE VICE PRESIDENT meet for lunch

                        Private Dining Room

                        Closed Press

Question: Will the selection of Hillary bring increased attention to Huma Abedin?

**UPDATE** If White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is to be believed (I know, believing Carney is always a tall order), Hillary will NOT be replacing Biden:

Huma seated next to ISNA President at White House Iftar dinner

Yesterday, we commented on the news that President Barack Obama defended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin, at the White House Iftar dinner on August 10th.

What we didn't know is that Huma was seated next to the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohamed Magid. The two seemed to be engaged in some friendly conversation and quite comfortable with one another. This is the same ISNA that was not only listed as a Muslim Brotherhood front group that seeks the overthrow of the U.S. Government from within, but also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. A 1991 document, penned by a Muslim Brotherhood leader identified the ISNA as a member group.

Here is the exact quote from that document that is perhaps the most alarming:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

In this photo, Huma is at the far left (resting hand under her chin) and Magid is the man she's talking to on the right.

The U.K. Daily Mail has the video from which the screen shot above was taken. CLICK HERE to view the video. Footage of guests begins at the 1:24 mark.

In light of the firestorm surrounding the issue of Huma's background...

• Why would the White House have her seated next to the leader of a group that is part of the concerns raised by Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney?
• Why would the president of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America be invited to the White House (responding that it's been going on for years is no excuse)?
• How well does Huma know Magid?
• Does Huma know that Magid leads a Muslim Brotherhood group?

We have entered some extremely surreal territory.

Magid was, in fact, named in one of the letters sent by Bachmann, et. al. to various Inspectors General. In particular, the letter sent to the Acting IG for the Department of Defense said, in part, the following:

...the Defense Department - among other federal agencies - has used a liaison with the Muslim-American community named Mohamed Magid. Imam Magid is the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). In this regard, we note that the "Supreme Guid" of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, in September 2010, openly called for jihad by all "the Arab and Muslim peoples" against the United States.

As recently as February 2012, Department officials met with Imam Magid to apologize for the inadvertent burning of Qurans in Afghanistan.

Here is the most powerful Republican in Congress; he has defended Huma against Bachmann. The reason for his crying would seem to warrant his siding with Bachmann. Then again, crying about it might help explain why he's not:

Diana West gets to the heart of Huma Abedin issue

Anyone - and I mean anyone - who is siding with Huma Abedin over the issue of the letters from Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Westmoreland, and Rooney is losing the argument BIG TIME. The latest example comes courtesy of Diana West, whose last four stanzas in her August 3rd column, drive a stake through the heart of any argument Huma's defenders are inclined to put forth.

Via TownHall:

Bachmann & Co. haven't alleged wrongdoing on Abedin's part. Rather, their question turns on the process that permitted a person with close family ties to an array of world Islamic movements and figures hostile to the United States to gain the security clearance Abedin requires to serve alongside the secretary of state.

I looked over the lengthy Form 86 that federal employees fill out to apply for national security positions. One portion is devoted to an applicant's relatives, with a question about relatives' affiliations with any "foreign movement." If Abedin answered fully -- and there are stiff penalties for failing to do so -- she would have noted, for starters, that her mother, Saleha Abedin, belongs to the Muslim Sisterhood (the Brotherhood's auxiliary, primarily for relatives of prominent Brothers) and serves on the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawah and Relief, a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. Saleha Abedin has been a representative of the Muslim World League, whose affiliates have been charged by the U.S. government with funding terrorism. Any ensuing investigation would turn up Saleha's work with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she edits the journal that Huma, too, worked on for a dozen years. That same institute was founded by Huma's father in Saudi Arabia with the assistance and long-term involvement of Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was secretary-general of the Muslim World League and also founded the Rabita Trust, a U.S.-designated international terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaida.

There's more, but just imagine the light dawning on the background-checker: So, Ms. Abedin, let me get this straight: Your folks, and you, too, worked with a guy who founded a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaida, your mom's on the board of a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas, and you want top-secret clearance to work for the secretary of state.

Then what happened?

If there is a signature on that Form 86 belonging to someone who cleared Huma, that person has some explaining to do. If there either isn't a signature on that Form 86 or isn't a Form 86 at all,  Huma and Hillary are the ones who have some real tough questions to answer.

Huma Report UPDATE: Huma Abedin served on Editorial Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather

I hate deleting posts but thought it best in this case to delete from yesterday that linked to the initial report on Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and replace it with this one to avoid confusion. Yesterday, a report was published on the Shoebat website that exposes the ties of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff - Huma Abedin. Since that report was posted, additional bombshell discoveries have been made and they've been incorporated into the new, revised report (I refer you to pp. 14-15 specifically).

Among the discoveries...

1. Huma Abedin served as Associate Editor on the Editorial Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 - 9/24/08
2. Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA's Advisory Editorial Board from at least 12/02/02 - 12/03/03. This means, unequivocally, that Huma Abedin worked with Naseef for at least one year.
3. On October 12, 2001 the U.S. Treasury Department identified Naseef as being connected to Al-Qaeda, more than two years before Naseef left IMMA and Huma continued to serve.

Paging John Boehner, John McCain and all the rest of you spineless establishment Republicans.

Here is the Revised Report

This might just become the official theme song for this scandal.