House Republicans on Benghazi Attacks: Hillary's signature on document calling for reduced Security, conflicts with her testimony

Folks, this may just be bigger than previously thought. Yesterday, the news was that a conference of House Republicans found Hillary Clinton accountable for the lack of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks on 9/11/12 but the evidence presented in its report backs up the charge because it includes a document with her signature; that document conflicts with her January testimony.

The report released by a House Republican Conference, made up of five separate Chairmen from five separate Committees is definitely a positive step in that direction.

Those five are:

• Buck McKeon - Armed Services
• Ed Royce - Foreign Affairs
• Bob Goodlatte - Judiciary
• Darrell Issa - Oversight
• Mike Rogers - Intelligence

The conference has just released its report on Benghazi and rests accountability right at the feet of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The report is available through Speaker Boehner's office.

One doesn't have to read past the second paragraph in the Executive Summary to find where the conference has found culpability:

Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

On the same day that Clinton testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During that testimony, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said that if he'd have been president when the Benghazi attacks happened, he would have fired Hillary. It would seem that the report backs up that position.

There are two more bullet points in the Executive Summary, one having to do with the administration altering the talking points in order to blame the anti-Muhammad video for the attacks, the other regarding claims that this one done to protect classified information.

On page two (referenced again on page seven), the conference points to a document with Clinton's signature on it:

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

It was also good to see the report include reference to a 'quick reaction force' that was relied upon to help defend the Consulate (Special Mission Compound) actually had sympathies with terrorists:

...the Benghazi Mission used local, unarmed guards, who were responsible for activating the alarm in the event of an attack, as well as four armed members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, who were to serve as a quick reaction force. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade was one of the militias that fought for Gadhafi’s overthrow. Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.

Let's take a look at what very well could be perjury on the part of Clinton during her testimony this past January. On page 10 of the report, the conference cites the April 19, 2012 document that Clinton signed, which discusses pulling back on security despite acknowledgment that a request for more security had been made, and juxtaposes it with her January 23, 2013 testimony:

“I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB [Accountability Review Board] placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, ‘the rubber hit the road.’”

And...

"...I was not aware of that going on, it was not brought to my attention…"

When it comes to the issue of perjury, the closest Hillary seemed to come was during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), in which she claimed she had no idea - one way or the other - if there was any arms shipments to Turkey from American outposts in Benghazi. It would seem she should have at least known the answer to the question - yes or no.

These new revelations courtesy of the House Republican conference seem to not only point to perjury with respect to Clinton not knowing about the requests for additional security but also a smoking gun in the form of a document bearing her signature that put the lives of the four Americans who were murdered on 9/11/12 in more danger.

For some reason, this :35 second exchange Hillary had with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is taking on increasingly added significance, very much in the spirit of 'thou doth protest too much':



There is a reason the Conference felt confident in resting accountability at Hillary's feet. That reason is far more newsworthy than the report that they did so.

Please read.

Audio: Mother of Benghazi victim says she is being told to 'shut up'

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith - one of the four killed at the Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 - said that she is being told to 'shut up'. However, when asked, she said she wasn't being told that by government employees.

Some might remember that Pat Smith spoke out in the weeks after the attack that killed her son.

This is a compelling interview.

Via MediaIte:

DOD Comes to defense of Fort Hood Jihadist receiving fair trial over giving Purple Hearts to victims

This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on "terror" instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).

The primary objective of the Federal government - and the DOD by extension - is to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It's exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.

If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.

Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar', just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

In hindsight the DOD's treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.

Via Fox News:

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News. 

The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.

Click Here to read the Position Paper referenced above.

Here are some excerpts:

The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.

Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It's also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan's victims.

Soon thereafter...

The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.

This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify "terror" as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don't qualify for Purple Hearts.

As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart...

The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.

Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that's right. The enemy is unidentified so there's no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there's no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.

Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?

Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn't want Hasan's victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?

The Army objects to section 552 because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial.

The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we're still on "the eve of the trial"?

What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!

The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:

The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.

That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan's victims.

Via ABC News:

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. 

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
So who's telling the truth, DOD or Munley?

I'll take Munley, hands down.

Confirmed: John Brennan involved in changing Benghazi talking points

So, after the Senate Intelligence Committee viewed emails, it's now apparent that Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - was involved in altering the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th. When taken together with the book written by a former Navy SEAL who was best friends with Glen Doherty and a former Green Beret, it would make sense that Brennan wouldn't want the truth to come out... assuming the charges made by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are accurate.

Again, they allege that Brennan was covertly ordering weapons raids in the region and that the 9/11/12 attacks were in retaliation for those raids. If that's true, the administration would indeed have a motive to push the narrative that the attacks were retaliation for a video, not Brennan's operation.

Via The Hill:

“Brennan was involved,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said after the briefing. “It's pretty obvious what happened.” 

“At the end of the day it should have been pretty easy to determine who made the changes and what changes were made.” 

He described an “extensive, bureaucratic and frankly unnecessary process” that led to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations publicly linking the attack to a peaceful protest gone awry. Republicans have accused the White House of twisting the talking points to avoid harming Obama's national security reputation ahead of the November elections.

Despite this revelation, the media narrative - even in conservative circles - is that the emails don't show an effort to avoid pinning the attacks on terrorists. The apathy and lack of consideration for the work of Webb and Murphy is a bit stunning, really.

From Greta Wire (via Hot Air):

One source familiar with the briefing indicated that they did not believe the emails shed any new light on anything that was not already known and said the messages did not demonstrate an effort by the administration to deliberately downplay the role of “al Qai’da” or “terrorists.”

Emails I obtained in October made it clear that the State Department said very early on that the attacks were driven by an al Qai’da affiliated group.

That last statement from Greta Wire's Chad Pergram is a bit curious, considering that Hillary Clinton herself released a statement as the 9/11/12 attacks were taking place, before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were murdered, in which she seemed to sow the seeds for the narrative Rice would enunciate five days later on five separate talk shows. Clinton made several subsequent statements between that one and Rice's Sunday show appearances in which she at least implied that same thing. Now we know that Brennan was involved in the process that allowed the furtherance of that narrative.

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.

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:

Documents: FBI knew mentor for Fort Hood jihadist purchased tickets for 9/11 hijackers

Thanks to State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch, it has been learned that the FBI was quite likely aware - as early as September 27, 2001 - that Anwar Al Aulaqi - the man who inspired Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan - had purchased plane tickets for at least three of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack.

Via JW:

According to a September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893)), al-Aulaqi purchased airline tickets for the following 9/11 hijackers:

Mohammed Atta, America West Airlines, 08/13/2001, for a flight from Washington, DC, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida. 

S. Suqami, Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, for a flight from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Orlando, Florida. 

Al-Sheri, National Airlines, 08/01/2001, for a flight from San Francisco, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida. 

The documents also include material showing that al-Aulaqi was uncooperative with FBI agents investigating the 9/11 attacks and was seemingly a central focus of the FBI investigation and monitoring related to 9/11.

That last part, about al-Aulaqi being uncooperative would seem to suggest that the Feds may have decided to rely more on the carrot than the stick when dealing with him. The thinking also could have been that by giving him such access could bring others out of the shadows.

For example, in February of 2002, al-Aulaqi gave a speech on moderate Islam at a Department of Defense luncheon and was given red carpet treatment. Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was also invited. These newly released (and heavily redacted) documents, acquired by Judicial Watch, provide yet another in an increasing number of examples that the U.S. Government in general and the FBI in particular, knew a lot more about al-Aulaqi than they've been willing to admit.

Later that year, al-Aulaqi was detained at JFK airport and then released, despite there being an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Whatever the reasons were behind the actions / inaction of the Feds, it's quite possible that the disastrous consequences for the 14 who were murdered and the 32 who were injured at Fort Hood on December 5, 2009 could have been prevented.

More than three years later, justice has not been served and a judge who ruled that Hasan's beard had to be shaved, was replaced by another judge who ruled the jihadist could keep it.

In testimony before a congressional committee early last year, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was appointed to his position one week prior to the 9/11 attacks, said he was "painfully aware" of what took place prior to the Fort Hood attack with regard to warning signs.

What's more disturbing is the refusal of those in positions like Mueller to admit the truth about the attack and the politically correct culture that helped to facilitate it.

Until that happens, we've learned nothing.

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

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

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

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



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

Hang on a second.

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



Here is the corresponding portion of the transcript via RCP:

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

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

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you Marcia Fudge and Gwen Moore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, the next question that was asked was:

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

If that question was asked, what was the answer?

Via MRC (at the 1:15 mark):



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

About that Paula Broadwell Video...

We're now learning that the FBI had stumbled on to the affair between CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell several months ago when the female recipient of an allegedly threatening email from Broadwell went to the authorities. It's being reported, however, that investigators didn't talk to Petraeus until recently.

Via Washington Post:

The investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago, the officials said. They reviewed the evidence with him but did not suggest that he should resign or that he would be charged with a crime, according to the officials.

One of the officials said Justice Department officials were unclear on what steps to take after they concluded that there would be no charges against the CIA director or Broadwell and that there had been no breach of national security.

“What was our responsibility?” said one of the officials. “We were in an area where we’d never been before.”

The notification finally came Tuesday evening, while polls were still open across the country in an election that would return President Obama to office for four more years.

According to the Daily Telegraph, investigators first interviewed Broadwell on October 21st about what they had found. Yet, five days later, on October 26th, while speaking at a University of Denver Symposium, Broadwell seemed to openly divulge something that, if true, would have been a bombshell. Investigators reportedly first spoke with Petraeus just two days later, on October 28th. Fast forward to the 35:50 mark, at which point Broadwell says:

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”

Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller is reporting that the CIA is adamant that Broadwell's aforementioned claim is false and that the Libyan annex held no prisoners:

The Central Intelligence Agency denied charges Sunday that its annex in Benghazi, Libya secretly held a few jihadi prisoners until it was destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack. Paula Broadwell, the girlfriend then-CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, made that claim during an Oct. 26 speech in Denver, Colo.

Munroe also cites a Daily Beast find, which very well could be the best explanation for where Broadwell got her information - a Fox News report from Jennifer Griffin, which was actually dated October 26th; Broadwell even referred to a news report from Griffin in this speech. Here is the excerpt in question, from Griffin's report:

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Of course, making it even more unlikely that Broadwell was revealing sensitive or classified information is the fact that the FBI had interviewed her only five days prior to this speech about both her emails to Kelley as well as the nature of her relationship with Petraeus.

That her words may be getting increased scrutiny is likely an unintended consequence of scandal. It also could cause more media interest in Benghazi-gate.

**UPDATE** The above video has since been removed but below is a shorter excerpt from the speech that consists of the controversial few minutes in question. Pay attention at the 2:45 mark as Broadwell discusses what appears to be Jennifer Griffin's aforementioned report from earlier that day:



Something that needs to be cleared up...

Did Broadwell get information about the annex taking prisoners from Jennifer Griffin's report that she made reference to or was it separate?

If Griffin reported on October 26th that there were prisoners at the annex and Broadwell talked about that report later that evening while making specific reference to it, how did Broadwell divulge secret information?

Documents on Libya show Sean Hannity was right, John McCain was wrong

Back on September 13th, Senator John McCain appeared on Hannity, the television program of the popular conservative talk show host, to discuss the recent 9/11 attacks. When the topic turned to Libya, the Senator from Arizona was quick to accuse Sean of having been wrong about Islamists taking control of Libya. Hannity appeared to be slightly taken aback as McCain did everything but stick his tongue out at those (Hannity included) who had expressed concern that Libya had fallen into the hands of the Islamists, saying, "You were wrong about Libya... I know you were... you were wrong."

Documents recently obtained and translated by Walid seem to demonstrate that McCain is the one who is wrong and Sean Hannity was the one who was right.

A common complaint of westerners who try to read about the Middle East is the sheer volume of Arabic names they must sift through to reach a modicum of understanding; they lose track and often move on. There's one name that such westerners should grok and it is Abdel Hakim Belhaj. As we previously reported, Belhaj was officially put in charge of Tripoli from August 30, 2011 thru at least May of 2012. He is radical and has been identified as a 'brother' of al-Qaeda by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In Walid's most recent report, the evidence against Belhaj is even more damning:

Several documents officially tie Belhaj to the leadership in Libya, to the support of him by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to his funding of the rebels in Syria, and more. As we reported previously, Belhaj is a known terrorist who was also in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. The Obama administration allowed him into Libya during the war to oust Gaddafi. Obama seemed to have no objection to Belhaj’s leadership position after the revolution. The classified documents reveal that Belhaj actually controls most of the Libyan government, which are puppets under the control of the Islamists. The Obama administration is knowingly supporting Al-Qaeda control in Libya and North Africa.

When the Libyan elections took place last July, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate was a woman who aroused suspicion among the populous, according to the Boston Herald, via the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:

Nijad Sharfeddin was the face of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya’s historic parliamentary elections. Featured prominently on campaign posters in her hijab and glasses, sans makeup, she was the image of both modernity in Arab politics and conservative Islamic values. But voters suspicious of the Brotherhood, which has no real history in Libya, often asked her to name a Libyan on her ticket whom they would have heard of. She couldn’t. Those suspicions and a lack of an identity in the Libyan street were some of the many factors that led to the Brotherhood slate’s distant second-place finish in Saturday’s vote, experts and everyday Libyans said.

So, the Muslim Brotherhood, which eschews the idea of placing women in power (unless in a support role such as the Muslim Sisterhood), decided to make a woman its face in Libya?!

As candidates like Sharfeddin were going down in flames, Islamists like Belhaj were rising from the ashes.

McCain remains indignantly ignorant.

The September 13th exchange between Hannity and McCain is below. If it seems that McCain had a 'thou doth protest too much' moment, it's because he did.

Via MediaIte:

The Power of the Press: Local Reporter causes Obama Benghazi trouble

The mainstream media has just been handed a teachable moment. Back on October 26th, a reporter named Kyle Clarke at NBC 9 in Denver had an interview with Barack Obama and asked him three rather pointed questions about Benghazi while Brian Williams was relaxing in the time share he has somewhere inside Obama's... uh, never mind.

Anyway, though Clarke didn't really get any of his questions answered by Obama, the president's responses have captured the attention of the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon.

Via Armed Services Committee:

October 29, 2012
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I noted with interest your interview with Kyle Clark on October 26th, in which you stated, in reference to whether or not any requests for help from U.S. personnel under attack in Benghazi were denied, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” (Emphasis added.) Although this response did not specifically answer the reporter’s question, your first directive would appear to involve potential actions by the U.S. military. Since you personally provided this directive, I have a series of additional questions that I am confident you can answer in advance of the conclusion of any formal investigation.

There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, could you please clarify:

•To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies – verbally or in writing?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?
• At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?
• Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so, could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Members of the Committee on Armed Services are keenly concerned that any breakdown in communication that may have occurred not be repeated. Given your stated interest in transparency and sharing all relevant information with the American people and the families of our fallen, I am hopeful you can promptly address these questions.

Respectfully,

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Chairman

Here is a real journalist, Kyle Clarke, in the interview that prompted this letter from McKeon:



Here is a pathetic example of a man masquerading as a journalist, Brian Williams, bowing to Obama in 2009:



Time to start a campaign to have Brian Williams and Kyle Clarke switch jobs. No, wait. Clarke should get Williams' job and Williams should be a gopher at NBC 9 (no disrespect to gophers intended).

h/t GWP

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

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

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

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

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

Via Breitbart:



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

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

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

Video: American Crossroads nails Obama administration over Benghazi

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

Check out this latest ad from American Crossroads:



h/t GWP

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

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

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

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

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

Via CNN:

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

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

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

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

This is called taking responsibility without accountability.

Videos: Highlights from today's Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi attacks

The Oversight Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa convened a hearing today on the 9/11/12 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya. There were two primary issues addressed relative to the attacks. One dealt with the huge lapse in security that led to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The other was the Obama administration's insistence for days afterward that the attack was "spontaneous" and the result of the Innocence of Muslims video.

Four people testified today - two good guys and two questionable characters. First the good guys.

Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, Utah National Guard who headed a security team in Benghazi. You can read his testimony here. As I wrote previously, he is a whistleblower who decided it was better to come forward than to sit back, regardless of consequences.

Eric Nordstrom, Regional Security Officer (RSO), U.S. State Department. He asserts that he asked State main to provide additional security but was denied. His testimony can be found here.

Now on to the bureaucrats...

Ms. Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. State Department. She was one of Nordstrom's points of contact when the RSO contacted the State Department for more security in Libya. She was on the hot seat much of the day, and rightfully so. Here is her written testimony.

Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management U.S. Department of State. Like Lamb, Kennedy took some tough questions. Here is his testimony.

As for the clips, many of the same congressmen you saw go after the Justice Department witnesses in Fast and Furious picked up right where they left off.

Here is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC). Remember, he is a freshman. If only establishment guys were this tough:



Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who recently returned from a trip to Libya:



Here is Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) grilling Ambassador Kennedy for defending U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's assertions on September 16th that the attacks were due to the video. Notice how Kennedy equivocates about whether the attack was known to have been pre-meditated or the result of the video. Labrador then goes to Lt. Col. Wood, who says it was "instantly recognizable as a terrorist attack". This exchange highlights perfectly the contrast between bureaucrats and people who use reason:



Here is Chairman Issa, ripping the two bureaucrats - Kennedy and Lamb. Note Kennedy's argument at the beginning of this exchange. When Issa asks him about multiple unclassified documents, Kennedy actually argues that while the individual documents may be unclassified, they should be considered classified when viewed in their totality. Fortunately, Issa calls him on it and is clearly agitated at the nonsense:



More video exchanges from today's hearing at Oversight YouTube channel.

Video: John McIrony - Senator who blindly defended Huma Abedin accuses State Department of 'Abysmal Ignorance'

During an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, Senator John McCain was brought on to talk about the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attack. During the exchange, McCain (see 2:00 mark) rightfully asserted that the State Department's public stance five days after the attack was the result of either 'abysmal ignorance' or 'willful deception'.

To his credit, McCain is on the right side of this issue. To his discredit, when Rep. Michele Bachmann raised questions about Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin and the latter's familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, McCain did what he is now accusing the State Department of doing. Yes, Abedin has a high position of influence inside the same State Department that has left McCain apoplectic.

Here is what Bachmann's letter to the State Department's Deputy Inspector General said about Abedin:

...the Department's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members - her late father, her mother and her brother - connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.

In what was probably the most vehement defense of Abedin from a Republican member of Congress, McCain chastised Bachmann from the floor of the Senate. In so doing, he exhibited either 'abysmal ignorance' or 'willful deception'.

Here is McCain's October 8th appearance on O'Reilly.

Here is McCain defending Huma Abedin earlier this summer:

Shoebat: Anti-Muhammad film the result of Muslim Provocateurs?

The Innocence of Muslims film is looking increasingly like the work of some very bad actors, not the work of Coptic Christians. Shoebat has uncovered some very powerful and indisputable facts.

Via Shoebat:

The Innocence of Muslims and the spark of an Islamic revolution can be linked to a handful of culprits. The mystery is unlocked when we review the original YouTube page of one named Sam Bacile (the same name attributed to the filmmaker at one time). Bacile forgot to cover his tracks, leaving two links to three very crucial videos. On the “Feed” tab are two of those videos.

One features a Muslim named Wisam Abdul Waris, uploaded to YouTube on September 9th (linked from the Bacile page no later than September 10th). Wisam’s video was uploaded to Bacile’s page because Bacile commented on the video. Yet, when one attempts to view the comments, all have been scrubbed and the comment feature disabled, though the comment allegedly made by Sam Bacile appears on the “Feed” tab, just above the video.

The second video on the Sam Bacile “Feed” tab is none other Nader Bakkar, from as far back as May of 2012. This video was added to Bacile’s YouTube page as a “Favorite” about one week prior to the embassy attack in Cairo on 9/11.

The third video is on the “Likes” tab of the Sam Bacile YouTube page. It consists of an interview with an English speaking western woman who converted to Islam.

Why would a supposed Christian filmmaker “like” this video?

Who are these two named Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar?

Waris and Bakkar, the two main interests on Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel, were the two men we identified back on September 13th as being the two primary culprits behind the Cairo riots on 9/11.

These two have been conspicuously absent, all along, from all western media narratives. For example, days after the attacks in Egypt and Libya, Reuters reported an incomplete narrative that the “flashpoint” of the violence was when Sheikh Khalid Abdallah on Al-Nas TV in Egypt aired portions of the film Innocence of Muslims.

The clip Reuters is referring to (uploaded September 9th) was a TV interview on al-Nas, where Sheikh Khalid Abdallah interviewed an activist named Mohammad Hamdy, who was engaged in a blatant form of guilt by association, creating a link between the Copts in Egypt and the Copts in the Diaspora. He blamed all Copts worldwide, not just the ones involved in the film.

Then came these two on September 9th, Wisam Abdul Waris, a Salafist who announced the formation of a new organization, the Coalition of Dar al-Hekma, an activist group wanting to enforce blasphemy laws worldwide and especially in the West. Nader Bakkar was the head of the Nour Salafist party, who gladly announced his new membership in the coalition on the day these two condemned the film.

Contrary to what Reuters reported, what caused the riots was when Waris called in to Khalid to promote them. Khalid simply asked for the date and accepted the invitation. The details and evidence of how the riots erupted by these two was explained here. The rest is history.

The conclusion is that all evidence reveals a small circle of predators—the filmmaker and two individuals prominently displayed on the Sam Bacile YouTube channel.

Wisam and Bakkar planned and executed the riots.

Read it all. There's a lot more...

Victory for First Amendment; Press gets administration to admit the truth about Benghazi

With all the talk about whether any speech against Islam should be criminalized, perhaps we should look at the upside of freedom of speech and possibly one of the reasons it rankles the Obama administration. That would be freedom of the press. For more than a week after the act of war committed against a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed - including our ambassador to that country - White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted that the attack was the result of a crudely made video in the United States.

Here is a montage of Carney's responses to questions about the attack. These excerpts take place between 9/12/12 - 9/19/12.

Via Right Newz:



Freedom of speech in general - and freedom of the press in particular - obviously dogged Carney and the administration. It helped force both to admit the truth.

That truth?

The attack on our consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack. On Air Force One - at the end of the above video - Carney admitted to a press gaggle that very thing, saying it was "self evident". Even NBC news had to report that because it came straight from the administration's mouthpiece.

Without freedom of the press, the Obama administration could have continued to further the lie that the attacks were spawned by an anti-Muhammad video. That could lead to shifts in policy that actually serve to further an anti-free speech agenda, which many leaders in the Muslim world have. Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and Turkey's Foreign Minister seem to share in that agenda.

Can you imagine a press corps. challenging the likes of Mursi over such matters?

The Obama administration is likely quite roiled at the fact it has egg on its face as a result. Had it been allowed to let such a lie take root as fact, the first amendment to the Constitution they all took an oath to protect and defend would have been in even greater danger; the conditions for policies that could potentially criminalize criticism of Islam would become even more ripe.

The irony is that as frustrated as administration officials may be at the press for dragging them to the truth, in so doing, the press actually helped to protect the first amendment rights of those same administration officials.

Accountability is uncomfortable but that doesn't make it any less right.

Innocence of Muslims producer arrested by the Feds

Folks, the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for violating his parole may seem like a victory for Muslim and leftist forces who want to squash our First Amendment right of free speech but, as they say, things aren't at all what they seem. Early indications are that his arrest is indeed a victory for the good guys.

Via the Smoking Gun:

The producer of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has been arrested for violating terms of his probation and is set for an appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Christina Snyder, who sentenced him in June 2010 following a bank fraud conviction.

Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the “Innocence of Muslim” production is central to the government's new charge.

Nakoula (seen above) was sentenced to 21 months in prison to be followed by six months in a halfway house. Upon completion of the custodial term, he was placed on probation for five years.

Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”

While producing “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula repeatedly used the alias “Sam Bacile” (and other variants) in communications, online postings, and dealings with cast and crew working on the film.

Nakoula has a history of criminal behavior and has been on parole ever since he was convicted for his role in a bank fraud scheme back in 2010. That's why he was arrested, not because he made an anti-Muhammad film. The narrative being pushed by the mainstream media, in fact, has been that Nakoula is a Coptic Christian.

In reality, according to Shoebat, Nakoula gave an interview in Arabic in which he admitted that he is neither Christian nor Jew.

Moreover, the crimes he was found guilty of committing were done in conjunction with a man named Eiad Salameh, a Muslim fundamentalist who hates Christians and Jews.

In short, the arrest of Nakoula should be cheered by conservatives, Christians, and Jews. He broke the law and quite possibly scammed everyone who was even remotely involved in the production of the film.