Report: McConnell's alleged 'bugger' visited the White House days earlier

It would appear that Watergate 2.0 may be more aptly named for the bugging of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters than was previously thought. The leader of the accused group met with White House officials days before the bugging.

Via Buzzfeed:

The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs.

White House logs and the Twitter feed of Shawn Reilly, one of two men at the heart of the McConnell wiretapping scandal, show he met with White House officials on Dec. 5, just days before his organization Progress Kentucky began a messaging blitzkrieg against the Republican leader.

Reilly and Curtis Morrison are currently under investigation by the FBI for illicitly taping a campaign conversation between McConnell and a handful of his advisors. During the conversation McConnell and his aides discussed the potential candidacy of actress Ashley Judd — including using her mental health problems against her.

Unlike Watergate, the potential for complicit actors to incriminate themselves is greater in today's social media age. Such appears to be the case with Reilly, who appears to have tweeted all about his meetings at the White House and with none other than George Soros' Center for American Progress (CAP) as well as a photo of what he claimed was the White House meeting.

This too is interesting, in light of the fact that the mainstream media has attempted to focus on McConnell's guys laughing at Ashley Judd's mental problems instead of on the act that isn't the least bit dissimilar from what happened in Watergate - save for confirmation of who ultimately was behind it or supported it.

On Dec. 13, eight days after Reilly's meeting with the White House, Progress Kentucky tweeted: "The single most important thing we want to achieve: Electing a new US Senator to represent Kentucky," which started a daily barrage of often more than a dozen tweets and retweets directly aimed at McConnell.

Over the next several months the pace of their Twitter attacks, and the vitriol, escalated. The organization hammered McConnell over his positions on fiscal issues, questioned his personal wealth before moving into more personal territory — at one point, Progress Kentucky sent a series of tweets accusing him of favoring China because of her ethnicity and claiming McConnell is a closeted gay man.

Yes, we are talking about public figures here but that would be called libel and slander, something that McConnell's people did not do to Judd. They didn't publicly mock her, nor did they accuse her of something libelous or slanderous publicly.

Moreover, the visitor log signed by Reilly was also signed by a Valerie Jarrett assistant named Victoria McCullough. Don't worry, though. The White House has an explanation:

Although the White House declined to comment, a source familiar with the situation said Reilly was one of 83 other people from Kentucky and Tennessee who attended the event. An administration official addressed the attendees, discussing the then-looming fiscal cliff fight and other items on the White House's upcoming agenda.

Neither Reilly nor any of the other people in attendance had "intimate" one on one meetings with Jarrett or other senior White House officials, according to this source.

Still, Republicans pointed to the evidence of the visitors logs to argue that Reilly is far more connected to the Democratic establishment than leaders would have the public believe.

The differences between Watergate and Watergate 2.0 appear to be increasingly fewer. To this point though, there are at least two. First, the mainstream media opposed the criminals Watergate while they are running interference for the alleged criminals in Watergate 2.0. Another difference is that Republicans don't seem to be raising their game on this issue. They will have to in order to overcome the media bias.

h/t WZ

Video: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.

Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

Video: White House pushing same false narrative as Sharia law proponents

The 9/11/12 attacks on our embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, were coordinated and planned ahead of time. The narrative that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible is not just one that proponents of Sharia law wanted pushed after the fact. It is now obvious that it is a narrative the White House wanted to push as well. The Obama administration did so while knowing the narrative was false.

Why would it do so unless it agreed with the motivations of those Sharia law proponents, which include a usurpation of our first amendment rights?

Here is video of Catherine Herridge on Fox News explaining her find.

Via GWP:

Is it time to learn from Flight 93's Passengers yet?

The United States is being held hostage. In the wake of the attacks on our embassies, an anti-Muhammad video has been identified not just by the Muslim world, but by our own Government as the reason for those attacks. The real reason - enunciated in Arabic - is to use the video as a tool to get nations all over the globe to criminalize criticism of anything Islam.

In essence, Americans are supposed to surrender a right so sacrosanct to their country's founding principles that our forefathers, in crafting the Bill of Rights, made it a central component of the very first Amendment.

When people are taken hostage in bank robberies - or anywhere else for that matter - what is a common phrase that is universal to all hostage takers?

"Do what we say and no one will get hurt."

It's a phrase that's part of evil's DNA.

In the case of 9/11/01, the hijackers of the first three planes neutralized their passengers by using variations of that phrase. Here is the leader of the 19 hijackers - Mohamed Atta - telling people onboard American Flight 11 to be quiet and everything will be alright:



That leads to another strain embedded in evil's DNA; it lies and it deceives. It will tell you that as long as you do what it wants, you will be ok. Evil has no intention whatsoever of leaving you "ok" when you do what it wants. The flames of hate are fed by the pheromones of fear.

The 9/11 Commission determined that the hijackers of United Flight 175 subdued passengers, based on the accounts of eyewitnesses, by sending people to the back of the plane and telling them that compliance would keep them from being harmed.

Indications were that American Flight 77, which flew into the Pentagon, suffered the same fate; passengers were told to get to the back of the plane.

United Flight 93 was a different story because its passengers knew they weren't going to be ok if they did as they were told; news of what happened to the other planes gave them two options - die or fight.

They were told by hijacker Ziad Jarrah to be quiet until their "demands" were met. Fortunately for our White House and Capitol and, by extension, our president and congressmen, that didn't happen - thanks to those courageous Americans who represent all of us.

Here is what Jarrah told the passengers:



Perhaps the sickest irony of all is that Flight 93's passengers prevented the hijackers from attacking either the U.S. Capitol or the White House, two structures that house the leadership which should be doggedly protecting not only Americans themselves but every single aspect of the first amendment the people who agree with the 9/11 hijackers want to take away. Instead, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Martin Dempsey - called a small Florida pastor to talk him out of exercising his first amendment rights so no one gets hurt.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress seem to want to bow to Sharia law and most Republicans are reticent to stand up to it. The message from the White House is that the 9/11/12 attacks are not against the United States but a response to an exercise of free speech (isn't that the same thing?).

Question: If the 9/11/12 attackers are burning the President of the United States in effigy while collectively invoking the name of Osama bin Laden, does that mean the attacks of 9/11/01 were not against the United States either, despite our financial center and Pentagon being primary targets?

The passengers who prevented Flight 93 from reaching its target represent the same Americans who are being told that a video is responsible for the Muslim riots in the Middle East.

Instead of the Obama administration and Congress doing all it can to defend - with all its might - the Constitution it swore an oath to defend, they appear to be on the brink of complying with the demands of those who attacked us on 9/11/12.

"Give up your right of free speech and no one will get hurt."

There comes a point at which storming the cockpit is better than the alternative. Losing the right of free speech will be one of those times.

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:

Secret Service shuts down protest of Eric Holder outside White House

To the left, protesting comes as easily as breathing; it's what they do and they're rarely shut down. I refer you to the countless OWS protests, which actually proudly displays its running arrest count; it now stands at over 7,000. Today, about 30 protesters appeared in front of the White House to protest against Eric Holder and Barack Obama over the handling of Fast and Furious.

The Secret Service shut it down after seeing a backpack with no owner. Apparently, the owner of said backpack was a woman who put it down to take a picture of the White House. We all know that OWS has left quite a few things behind without consequence, but I digress.

Matthew Boyle at Daily Caller has a video report with more details about what happened outside the White House:


Hopefully, this will inspire more protests. There is obviously some hypersensitivity within the administration when it comes to Fast and Furious.

Unsung David Anthony Shaffer on National Security Leaks: 'People have died'

Ret. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was on Fox and Friends yesterday morning to discuss the controversy over the national security leaks that allegedly came from the White House, despite Obama's claim that such a charge is "offensive."

Shaffer knows intelligence. He was an integral part of Able Danger, a data mining program that identified 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, one year prior to 9/11. It's obvious that Shaffer is spitting mad about these leaks. It is his contention that these leaks originated at the "National Security level" at a minimum.

As for Able Danger, it was largely Shaffer's work on that operation, and how he stood up to the full governmental assault against him, that I thought warranted an entire chapter in my upcoming book, Unsung Davids, to tell his very courageous story.

Via Fox Nation:

Who's Lying? David Axelrod or Eric Holder?

At the June 7th House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) asked Attorney General Eric Holder about the AG's relationship with Senior Adviser to Barack Obama, David Axelrod. Fast forward to the 1:30 mark for the relevant excerpt. Here are some quotes from Holder that might raise some eyebrows after watching the exchange between Axelrod and CNN's Candy Crowley.

From the June 7th hearing, via the Daily Caller:



Note that Holder asserts that he'd had conversations with Axelrod about how best to handle political attacks that were being levied against the Justice Department. Forbes also got Holder to admit to having conversations with Axelrod and the White House Counsel's office about how to address Congress relative to Fast and Furious.

Contrast Holder's claims about his meetings with Axelrod with the words of Axelrod himself, today on CNN's State of the Union. Axelrod says he "rarely spoke to (Holder)." When asked by Crowley if he ever offered political advice to Holder, Axelrod had a one-word answer:

"No."

Via DC:

Video: Jay Carney has a Brain Freeze; no ice cream involved

Fox News Channel's Wendell Goler could easily have gotten the same reaction from Jay Carney had he spoon fed him some sherbet straight out of a freezer set at close to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Lying Press Secretary says, 'I never lie'

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Barker) spoke at a scholarship luncheon recently and told a a lie to the young crowd in attendance. He said, "I never lie."

Is it me or was Mr. Carney short of breath when he said that? Isn't that a sign of lying?

Via Washington Free Beacon:

Hey Jay, how about introducing us to those other two Hilary Rosens?

It's quite safe to say that if Hilary Rosen's comment that Ann Romney "has never actually worked a day in her life," was an implemented Axelrod / Alinsky hybrid strategy, it has backfired to such a degree that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney "Barker" chose a defense so absurd that he's being met with sardonic laughter.

First, a recap. Here is Hilary Rosen on CNN this past week when she uttered the ill-advisable words. Pay attention at the :55 mark:



Part of the fallout from the ensuing firestorm has been a discovery that Hilary Rosen visited the White House 35 times and has met with Barack Obama five times. Note what Jay Carney is reduced to in this exchange. He actually implies that because he knows three Hilary Rosens, the Hilary Rosen who is also a Democratic strategist and CNN contributor may not have been the one to log all of those visits.

Via Weasel Zippers:



Before we move on, check out the reaction of a Fox News panel to Carney's claim that he knows three Hilary Rosens.

Via Hapblog:



Now, one day after Carney attempted to pull that off, he's had to concede that the Hilary Rosen of interest has visited the White House quite a bit.

Via POLITICO:

“It is certainly the case that Hilary Rosen democratic strategist has visited the White House on a number of occasions for large events, large meetings having to do with communications, things like that,” Carney said. He gave no precise number and said he was unaware of any meetings with Obama personally.

That is indeed an important excerpt. If the Hilary Rosen of interest is both a Democratic strategist AND a CNN contributor, five meetings with the President are perhaps the most noteworthy aspects to this. There is a reason Carney is not admitting to Obama having these meetings. The article goes on to explain that visitor logs are supposed to record date of birth. Wouldn't it be something if all three Hilary Rosens that Jay Carney knows have the same birthday?

One more question: Do all three Hilary Rosens spell their first name with one "L" instead of two like another Hillary I know?

White House tells Darrell Issa to go pound sand - will not let Kevin O'Reilly talk

This is a follow-up post to one from yesterday, about the White House's failure to meet the deadline for a request from Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley to speak with former White House employee, Kevin O'Reilly. The Oversight Committee wants to talk with O'Reilly - who is currently working in Iraq - about his conversations with former ATF SAC William Newell when he was a member of the National Security Staff (NSS) The April 4th deadline came and went but the White House actually did respond on April 5th and invoked Executive Privilege.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter sent to Issa and Grassley on behalf of the White House:

In light of the important Executive Branch confidentiality interests and institutional prerogatives implicated by your request, including those of NSS, and in the absence of any evidence that suggests that Mr. O'Reilly had any involvement in "Operation Fast and Furious" or was aware of the existence of any inappropriate investigative tactics, there is an insufficient basis to support the request to interview Mr. O'Reilly.

Really? Before agreeing or disagreeing, check out this exchange between Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Newell from July 26, 2011 and then re-read that excerpt from the White House letter again.



For more on the White House's refusal to allow the Oversight Committee to interview O'Reilly, committee member Jason Chaffetz interviewed with Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly. The long and short of this is the White House really has no right to invoke this privilege. There is no legal basis for it, which implicates the administration in the cover-up.

Via Daily Caller:

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz told the Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly on Friday that although a key White House witness in the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program is willing to testify about what he knows, the Obama administration won’t let him appear before Congress.

White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler sent a letter Thursday to Republican lawmakers Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, refusing their request to speak with Kevin O’Reilly, a former National Security staff member whose emails place him in the middle of the unfolding scandal. Issa and Grassley had written to Ruemmler on March 28, asking the White House to step aside and let O’Reilly talk to investigators.

Here is video of the exchange between Kelly and Chaffetz:



Here is a copy of the letter from White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to Issa and Grassley:

Apr-05-2012 WH Counsel reply on O'Reilly Interview

Confirmed: White House now part of Fast and Furious Stonewall

Back on March 28th, Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley sent a letter to White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, requesting permission to speak with Kevin O'Reilly, a former member of the National Security Staff who is currently in Iraq. Telling is the fact that O'Reilly's attorney said his client is willing to speak with Congressional investigators if the White House permits it. The letter to Ruemmler came with an April 4th deadline for a response. It is now April 6th and there has been no response.

Via the Daily Caller:

The Obama administration is stonewalling two lawmakers’ requests to interview a former member of the National Security staff in connection with the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program, according to a March 28 letter obtained by The Daily Caller.

California Rep. Darrell Issa and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, requested a response by April 4 to their letter, which asks for an interview with Kevin O’Reilly, that former staffer. But the White House, according to the letter, is blocking access to him.

Through staff, both Grassley and Issa confirmed to TheDC on Thursday that April 4 came and went without any response from the Obama administration.

O'Reilly became a person of interest when it was learned by the Oversight committee that he had had e-mail correspondence with then ATF Special Agent in Charge, William Newell about Fast and Furious when O'Reilly was working at the White House.

Again, here is video from July 26, 2011 of the exchange between Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Newell about one particular e-mail between the former SAC and O'Reilly:



More here.

Issa pressing to talk with White House aide connected to Fast and Furious, Bill Newell

Those who have been following the Fast and Furious investigation might remember a compelling exchange Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) had with former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell last summer. It had to do with e-mail correspondence Newell had with a man named Kevin O'Reilly, who, at the time of those e-mails was a National Security Council staffer for the White House.

Issa's Oversight Committee is now pressing the administration for access to O'Reilly.

Via Fox News:

Two top Republican lawmakers investigating the Fast and Furious controversy are demanding the White House make a former aide available for testimony to see whether the scandal reached the upper echelons of the administration, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, fired off the letter Wednesday urging the White House to make available Kevin O'Reilly, a former National Security Council staffer who is currently stationed in Iraq for the State Department.

The lawmakers are giving White House staffers the deadline of April 4 to respond, with Republican aides privately saying the back-and-forth could provoke a showdown over executive privilege if the administration tries to shield O'Reilly from talking to investigators.

Issa and Grassley wrote in the letter that O'Reilly's personal lawyer has told them that he would permit his client to speak to the lawmakers as long as the White House does not object, and they are willing to do the interview by phone to accommodate O'Reilly's work.

That last paragraph is very telling. It shows that O'Reilly is not willing to fall completely on the White House's sword. By taking that stance, he is necessarily implicating the Obama administration as being complicit in the stonewall if he is not permitted to testify.

HERE is a copy of the letter from Issa and Grassley to White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler.

Below is video of the July 26, 2011 exchange between SAC Newell, Gowdy, and Issa about the former's e-mail correspondence with O'Reilly.

Video: Carney says Contraceptive Mandate 'Virtually Identical' to Romney's

If you accept the premise, as I do, that Obama's preferred Republican opponent in the general election is Mitt Romney, we may have uncovered another reason that the recent contraceptive mandate was an overreach.

When asked to respond to criticism from Mitt Romney about the HHS rule which mandates that Religious institutions offer contraceptive services, to include the "morning after" pill, White House press secretary went after Romney for implementing a 'virtually identical' program when the latter was governor of Massachusetts.

Obama's rule has clearly become a campaign issue because of its controversy; it's an issue that Romney must address with Republican voters, though he probably would rather not have to based on his own record. Nonetheless, he did and Carney appears incapable of withholding his criticism of Romney, despite it being the most advantageously strategic thing to do if Mitt is the administration's desired opponent next November.

CNS News has the VIDEO

Fast and Furious Bombshell: Holder Toast; Damning E-mails released

Looks like there has been another Friday night document dump from the White House on Fast and Furious and the e-mails included in that dump show that Attorney General Eric Holder was informed about Brian Terry's death within 24 hours AND that Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene.

The most damaging email exchange for Holder appears to be one between then Arizona US Attorney, Dennis Burke and Holder Deputy Chief of Staff, Monty Wilkinson.

NPR has the emails. I've posted screen shots of the two exchanges that point to Holder committing perjury when he said on May 3rd that he'd first learned about Fast and Furious a "few weeks" earlier. He later had to concede that he knew about the operation approximately two months earlier and tried to argue that eight weeks could still be classified as "a few."

First, the email in which Burke notified Wilkinson that Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry had died after being shot near the Mexican border. Note Wilkinson's response. He says that he has alerted the Attorney General. This shows that Holder was informed of Terry's death within hours.

Next, this email shows that Burke communicated to Wilkinson less than twelve hours later that the guns found at Terry's murder scene were tied back to Fast and Furious. It is simply not believable that Wilkinson withheld this information from Holder. It will be interesting to see how quickly Issa's team seeks testimony from Wilkinson.

Of course this puts an entirely new spin on the already suspicious testimony of Holder back on May 3rd. Though his assertion that two months equates to "a few weeks" was laughable, it will not be possible for him to make the claim that "a few weeks" equates to more than four months.



Holder is in deep, deep trouble here. This all comes out just days before Holder is set to appear in front of the committee that Rep. Darrell Issa chairs. On February 2nd, Holder will be in front of the Oversight Committee.

As Sipsey Street points out, these emails are the ones that the White House voluntarily released, which indicates they may be willing to throw Holder under the bus now. That leads to another very interesting question.

What is the level of White House involvement?

h/t Sipsey Street and Gun Rights Examiner

Video: Carney asked about Saul Alinsky, avoids question

This is precisely why Newt Gingrich's repetitive attacks on Barack Obama for the latter's ties to Saul Alinsky are so effective. It generates discussion among the media. In this case, Fox's Ed Henry asks White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about Gingrich's charges and gives Carney the opportunity to confirm or deny them.

Carney did neither; he obfuscated and it showed weakness in the administration.

It's clear that by avoiding the question, the truth isn't meant to be known.

Alinsky is Obama's achilles heal.

Via Fox Nation:

Obama Campaign Manager Cusses in Official Video

The Obama reelection campaign released a video featuring campaign manager Jim Messina in which the latter uses a pointer and various electoral maps that are intended to communicate the many possible paths to victory for Obama in 2012. It actually has a bit of a Glenn Beck feel to it at first.

And then Messina lets fly the "Bull S**t" expletive on an official campaign video, which means this was scripted, choreographed, and intended for viewers to see. What did Messina object to? Well, the notion that Obama is stockpiling a billion dollar war chest, courtesy of union dues, money laundering, etc. Fast forward to the 2:45 mark if you must but watch the whole thing if you can.

Check it out...



Messina was the Deputy Chief of Staff back in 2010 and was involved in the Jobsgate scandal that implicated the White House in the alleged offering of a job to Senatorial candidates Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff in return for those candidates' agreeing to drop out of their primary races.

Messina's involvement in offering Romanoff jobs to drop out of his race with incumbent Michael Bennet should call into question, the decision to make him Obama's campaign manager.

Letting fly the "Bulls**t" line on a prepared White House video not only smacks of low class but also a bit of 'thou doth protest too much.'

Did Obama Administration Invite an Accomplice to Khobar Towers Bombing to White House?

The Khobar Towers bombing of 1996 killed 19 American servicemen. The FBI named the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) in an indictment. A man named Hadi al-Ameri was once the commander of the IRG. Suspicions of his involvement in that bombing are well-founded.

Today, he is Iraq's Transportation Minister under Nouri al-Maliki. On December 12th, al-Ameri was part of a delegation that visited the Oval Office. This raised concerns among a former FBI Director and a current Congresswoman, which prompted an official response from the White House. I draw your attention to what is in bold.

Via Fox Insider:

“We have no evidence of al-Ameri’s involvement with the Khobar Towers attacks, nor do we have any evidence of Hadi al-Ameri’s involvement in any act of violence against U.S. citizens. Hadi al-Ameri is the minister of transportation in the democratically elected Iraqi government. He is a longstanding partner and interlocutor of the Unites States Government, going back to the previous administration.”

It would seem that the White House, as has become commonplace, is parsing its words. This is very lawyerly verbiage and indicates a willingness to concede that al-Ameri HAS perpetrated violence against non-U.S. citizens. You will be shocked at just how bad it is.

There will be more on this in coming days.

Al-Ameri, like al-Maliki, is Shi'ite and the fact that the former holds a position this high in Iraq's government is not only disturbing but could be evidence that Iraq has already begun the process of falling into the hands of Iran.

Bringing US troops home only to leave Iraq in the hands of people like this cannot be good.

Here is an interview with a survivor of the Khobar attacks, William Schooley, on Fox News. He is obviously not happy with al-Ameri's White House visit.

Video: Ron Paul Catering to Truther Vote

It is a very short jump from what Paul espouses here to believing that the Bush administration brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11. It's talk like this that leads one to believe that Paul is a truther himself but knows admitting it would be political suicide. Many of his followers believe that.

To cut the Pauliens a very small modicum of slack, there are things like the way the Oklahoma City bombing was handled and the cover-up of Able Danger, a program that allegedly identified Mohamed Atta one year before 9/11, that should cause Americans pause but those things were far more political in nature and involved webs of deceit that would implicate powerful people. They did not hide an American plot to bring down our own buildings.

Watch Paul serve his lemmings a big slice of red meat, a bottle of A-1, and a bib.

Via CBS:



h/t Weasel Zippers