Tag Archives: Susan Rice

FINAL BENGHAZI REPORT RELEASED

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final Benghazi report  early this morning (Tuesday, June 28, 2016).

The final Benghazi report was comprised of approximately 800 pages of investigations and conclusions and suggests that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11/2001. The report also illustrates how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public regarding the cause of the attack.

Democrat members of the House, who always maintained that the investigation was politically motivated, produced a report finding no wrongdoing by the Secretary of State and the Obama Administration.

According to Breitbart, for over two years, the Democrats refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation, claiming everything had been asked and answered. They said that the committee had found nothing new.

Libya-640x480

New insights to the investigation from the final Benghazi report included, but are not limited to the following:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed, almost 8 hours after the attacks began.
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 pm, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases, “if any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “will not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli of Benghazi.”
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times.
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution.
  • Five of the ten action items from the 7:30 pm meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. There was no mention from the agents on the ground about a video.
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted over inflammatory videos.”
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated that the FBI had already begun looking at all sorts of evidence and the FBI has a lead in this investigation. But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating, “McDonough apparently told the Secure Video Teleconference group today that everyone was required to “shut their pie holes” about the Benghazi attacks in light of the FBI investigation.
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Easter Affairs, State Department wrote, “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department responded, “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department wrote, “WH very worked about politics. This was all their doing.”
  • Former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, bluntly told the committee an intelligence failure occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director, Michael Morell, also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks.

To read the full list, go to: Committee releases last Benghazi Report, slams Clinton,

Now, according to the Huffington Post, the House Republicans Spent Millions of Dollars on Benghazi Committee to Exonerate Clinton. In other words, their report found nothing. That’s quite a spin.

But, according to the Conservative Tribune, moments after the committee released its final report of the Behghazi investigation, Hillary Clinton pulled a classic liberal stunt by attempting to change the subject. Attempting to change the subject is a technique by liberals when they have no arguments to make in order to throw the conservative counterpart off. If there was nothing new in the report as the Huffington Post claims, why would she find it necessary to change the subject? Shouldn’t she be celebrating and pointing out to everyone just how disingenuous Republicans are.

In addition to studying the above bulleted points, I suggest that you go to Breitbart’s website (above link) and read all of the bulleted points yourself.

Note: A special thanks to Brietbart.com for much of the information contained in this post.

Facebooktwitter

BRINGING BENGHAZI AND EMAILS TOGETHER

When Islamic terrorists attacked the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, killing four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, much was written and much was portrayed in the media. On the Sunday following the attacks, United Nations Ambassador appeared on several Sunday news talk shows indicating the attacks were spontaneous and the sparked by a hateful video.

Following Ambassador Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk shows, it was determined that neither were the attacks spontaneous nor caused by a hateful video.

Fast-forward to today. We know that both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama knew the attacks were terrorist attacks from the onset, but allowed Susan Rice to go on TV claiming they were the cause of some video. We also know that, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used a private email server for official and possibly classified emails. She subsequently “wiped the server” clean, deleting many, many of her emails as Secretary of State.

An article published on 11/3/2015, by Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, now indicated that State Department emails conflict with Ms. Clinton’s Benghazi testimony. According to the article, newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s eleven hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee. One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.

But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”

A second email from former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in March 2011, also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”

In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.

In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.

In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and the, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Norther Ireland.

Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all an adviser on Libya. “

Another area of conflict involves security and aid requests. In an exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan, Clinton told the House committee none of the requests for diplomatic security reached her. “That’s over 600 requests,” Pompeo said. “You’ve testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk, is that correct also?”

Clinton responded, “That’s correct.”

However, the State Department website, under a section on embassy security, states that the secretary has overall responsibility for the well-being of personnel on assignment. The buck does not stop with “security professionals” as Clinton has testified.

It states,: “The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad.”

Yet, the new emails show a request for humanitarian aid sent by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens did reach her desk. The August 22, 2011 email from Stevens was circulated among Clinton staff and delegated for action in under an hour.

With the overthrow of Qadafi, Stevens wrote that the Libyan opposition, known as the TNC, would soon release a statement saying it would insure the delivery of essential services and commodities (esp. addressing the acute shortages of fuel, children’s milk, and medication for blood pressure and diabetes).”

Seventeen minutes later, Clinton responded, “Can we arrange shipments of what’s requested?”

While the request for humanitarian aid from Stevens did reach her office, during her testimony, Clinton emphasized, “Chris Stevens communicated regularly with members of my staff. He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I communicated with him about certain issues. He did raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals.”

The emails also further depict Clinton’s treatment of sensitive material. A February 2012 email shows Clinton sent an urgent message to an office manager that a white briefing book, used for sensitive and classified information, was left on her desk. The office manager confirmed when it was correctly stored in the State Department safe.

The 7.000 pages released Friday leave no doubt that Clinton’s personal account mingled information now considered classified with the mundane such as social media requests and the taping of a television period drama. On Feb. 1, 2011, Clinton sent a “Lindkedin” request from a “Susan Kennedy” to a State Department IT specialist asking, “How does this work?”

An email from Feb. 23, 2012, from the State Department’s senior official on Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, called “Bingol” is fully redacted, citing the B1 exception which is classified information.

And in January that same year, Clinton wrote to an aide, “I’m addicted to Downton Abbey which runs on Sunday night and reruns on Thursday at 8 pm. Since I missed it Sunday and will again tomorrow so wondering if we could tapa a DVD for me.”

President Obama, meanwhile, is now under scrutiny after having told CBS’s 60 Minutes he was not aware of Clinton’s personal account, even though the White House said Friday there are emails between the two, only they will not be available under FOIA requests until after Obama leaves office.

In the 60 Minutes interview, when asked if he know about Clinton’s use of a private email server, Obama twice said, “No.”

At thie poing between 600 and 700 emails have been identified containing classified information. An intelligence official familiar with the review says there is no such thing as a “retroactive classification,” the information is born classified, and the State Department only has the right to declassify information it produced.

While Clinton testified that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were captured by the State Department system, and nothing she sent or received was “marked classified,” the State Department said that estimate represents the campaign’s data and not their own.

The above information was taken from an article on foxnews.com, authored by Catherine Herridge, Chief Intelligence correspondent for the Fox News Channel. While the above does not represent all facets of Benghazi and the Clinton email scandal, it will serve to fill in some blanks and perhaps prompt the reader to do more investigation on his or her own and determine if Hillary Clinton is fit to serve as president of the United States.

Facebooktwitter

CNBC DEBATE REVIEW

Like most Republicans, I was disappointed in the debate this past Wednesday evening. Well, maybe, disappointed is not exactly the right word. Mad, disgusted, infuriated might be better words to describe our collective feelings.

On the other hand, though, should Republicans be happy that the debate turned out like it did? Of course, it was quite obvious that the CNBC commentators were out to make the Republican presidential candidates look bad by pitting them against one another. The attitudes of the commentators (John Harwood, Becky Quick, Rick Santelli, Jim Cramer, Sharon Epperson, and Carl Quintanilla) toward the candidates were contentions and condescending.

Enter Senator Ted Cruz, about thirty minutes into the debate, who called out the commentators and the entire mainstream main stream media, for that matter. The senator pointed out that the questions asked so far indicate why the American public doesn’t trust the media. For that remark, the audience cheered. The senator went on to lecture the media that this wasn’t a “cage match” and continued to unload on them for indicating that Donald Trump was a comic book villain, that Ben Carson couldn’t do math, that Marco Rubio should resign his senate seat, and that Jeb Bush’s numbers were low. He asked the moderators why they didn’t talk about the substantive issues people care about. He also contrasted this debate with the Democrat debate in which the moderators were fawning all over the candidates. He also indicated that none of the moderators had any intention of voting in a Republican primary. A heated exchange between Senator Cruz and Charles Harwood followed.

Afterwards, every candidate seemed emboldened, and while there were policy differences between the candidates, all ten of them seemed to unite in their dissatisfaction with the media. In addition to Senator Cruz’s outburst, Governor Chris Christy let his true feelings come out after Jeb was asked about Fantasy Football. Governor Christy interrupted and vehemently indicated that we have almost $19 trillion in debt, people out of work, and ISIS and Al Qaeda planning attacks against us and we’re talking about Fantasy Football? This took place near the end of the debates, but it certainly serves to further put the moderators and the mainstream media in its place.

CNBC is a bottom feeder cable channel having a very small viewership. In fact, I don’t know anyone who watches it. My liberal friends who claim to be somewhat informed, watch CNN and MSNBC. Others who are not informed get their news from the mainstream networks and the newspapers. Furthermore, the World Series was on opposite the debates. So, how many people do you think were actually watching these debates? I haven’t seen the numbers, but I would have to guess that the ratings weren’t very high. Unless they read or heard about the nature of the debates, most Americans would have no idea what took place. After Senator Cruz’s exchange with the moderators took place, the candidates, not only seemed to unite against the media, but there supported each other on the issues where they agreed.

This was a start by the Republican presidential candidates in exposing the fallacies of the mainstream media. The American people elected our country’s current leaders. Never in the history of our country have we had such a leftist government. We also have a far left-leaning media. To those folks who get their information from the three major networks and the newspapers, when they take time out of their busy schedules which include watching daytime soap-operas, Ellen, Oprah, reality TV, American Idol, and Dancing With the Stars, I consider you a low-information voters and fully responsible along with the leftist media for the mess this country is currently in.

Marco Rubio also got his digs in on the mainstream media by pointing out that while Hillary Clinton was exposed as a liar because she knew the tragedy in Benghazi was not caused by an American made video but still sent Susan Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to tell the America people that it was caused by a video. None the less, the main stream portrayed that this was Hillary Clinton’s best week ever.

We must make every effort to establish a fair and balanced media if we’re going to continue to be the country we once were.

My other thoughts on the debate include the following. Governor Kasich referred to his past record in Congress and as governor of Ohio. Referring once or twice is okay, but it became redundant. I particularly enjoyed the comments of Senator Cruz and Ms. Fiorina regarding women. Under the current president’s policies, more women are now living in poverty and the Democrats continue to push bigger government and additional regulations that hurt women and everyone, for that matter. As I’ve said many times before, the Democrats don’t care about women, they don’t care about minorities, the middle class, and the poor, either. All they care about is gaining as much control over our lives as possible, making us little square people in little square holes. I also liked Dr. Carson’s comments indicating that if we took everything from the top one percent of earners and gave it to the government, it wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit or the debt. While there has not been much said about this zinger, I thought it was one of the best answers of the evening. Governor Huckabee was asked if he thought Donald Trump had the moral authority to be President of the United States. Governor Huckabee soundly replied in the affirmative and further indicated that every candidate participating in the debate would make a better president that Hillary Clinton or the other Democrat candidates for that matter..

From this little watched debate, will we be able to expose the disingenuousness of the main stream media. It’s a start, let’s hope we can sustain the momentum.

Facebooktwitter

HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY GET ELECTED FOR A THIRD TIME

This past Tuesday, July 28, 2015, the current president said he felt he had been a “pretty good” President of the United States and was confident that he would be elected again if he could run again. Most conservatives responded to this saying no way. These are the same folks who were so sure that he would not be re-elected in November 2012. And look what happened!

If he was able to run for a third term, my prediction is that he would definitely have an excellent chance of being re-elected. He has majority of the media on his side, low information voters have generally supported him, and of course, everyone from the far left to the slightly left of center support him.

In 2012, I felt good about Mitt Romney’s candidacy after the first presidential debate. The current president seemed week and off-balance. Furthermore, candidate Romney did blow holes through the president’s socialist policies. Then came the debate on foreign policy when candidate Romney questioned the President about his labeling of the Benghazi killings as acts of violence and not terrorist attacks. Mediator Candy Crowley indicated that the President did call them acts of terror. However, it wasn’t until two weeks after the attacks that the President admitted they were terrorist attacks. Initially, the current President, through U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, publicly blamed the attacks on an anti-Islamic video. Candidate Romney seemed off-balance and no longer pursued Benghazi. When this happened, I thought to myself, Romney has just handed the election to the current President. Romney had his chance to expose the President for actions taken/not taken by him and his administration regarding Benghazi, but he blew it.

Enter Hurricane Sandy that traveled up the east coast wreaking havoc on densely populated areas. The President seemed genuinely concerned about the plight of the affected Americans and the loss or property. So, people who were undecided and might be leaning toward Romney, did an about face and voted for the current President.

Come election night, every toss-up state went for the current President. I thought that a bit strange because in most Presidential elections, the candidates split the toss-ups. Am I insinuating that there may have been some fraud? Yes, I think that’s a possibility, especially in Ohio. Can I prove it? No.

Conservatives do have a better message than liberals. If I had the chance to debate a liberal and had at my fingertips, all the facts and figures, I have no doubt that I would win the debate. However, in all likelihood, my liberal counterpart would get frustrated and emotional and start yelling all sorts of things at me, including racism, sexism, hater of the poor, hater of minorities, hater of the elderly, and the list goes on. I would find myself having to disprove the allegations. Of course, I can to that. But having to do that would derail the message I was attempting to deliver.
I have a huge imagination. In fact, it’s too big for my own good. But it’s proved useful for my fiction writing. Currently, I’m imagining that all of Hillary’s scandals come home to roost. Because Senator Bernie Sanders is an old white guy and not very exciting, it looks like the Democrat party may be down on their luck. Then in some unimaginable way, the current President is able to qualify and run for a third term, and comes in to save the Democrat party. Unfortunately, I know some Obama-zombies who would literally weep with joy should that happen. Sickening, isn’t it?

While I’ve always said that if most people really knew the difference between Republicans and Democrats, most people would be Republicans. In the summer of 2015, I’m not so sure. A liberal friend of mine, in failing to win an argument with me on Obamacare, indicated that the American people would get used to the increased premiums, diminished quality of healthcare, and the fact that the Federal Government, in forcing the American people to purchase something, is unconstitutional. I guess that will become part of the liberals’ mantra…”you’ll soon get used to it.”

The United States of America seems to have lost its moral compass. People are more outraged over the killing of a lion in Africa than they are over the illegal harvesting of organs from aborted fetuses. Twenty-five years ago, most American were pro-choice, but most of those pro-choice folks were against partial birth abortions and were pro-choice because they felt, that in the early stages of pregnancy, an embryo was not yet a human being. Liberals are set to ruin the life of the Minnesota dentist that killed Cecil, the lion. They are demonstrating outside of his closed office seething with hate. It seems okay for liberals to do this to the dentist, but not okay for pro-life groups to conduct organized protests outside various Planned Parenthood offices. It’s okay to have that awful George Soros pay protesters to destroy property and lives in the towns of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, but if there’s a sign at a Tea Party rally that may not be in the best of taste, those people are all dubbed terrorists and subjected to being called lots of bad names.

I don’t know that there’s any one person or group of people who can save the United States of America. But the United States of American can be saved and I believe it will be saved. Only God, at this point, can.

Facebooktwitter

THE CURRENT PRESIDENT’S SPEECH AT THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

I read the current President’s speech for the National Prayer Breakfast taking place on February 5, 2015. And while I certainly didn’t like his comments where he brought up atrocities committed during the crusades, many, many years ago, I’m not as upset and vocal about it as some of the talking heads and I think that we need to move on to more pressing issues such as current President’s stance on ISIS and other terrorist groups that have the United States of America in their crosshairs.

He should not have brought up the crusades or the inquisition. Nor should he have brought up slavery and Jim Crow. February 5, a national day of prayer, is to honor our faiths and promote living in the spirit. Slavery and Jim Crow were wrongs that our great nation recognized and righted. Our continued faith plus our constitution has allowed for the righting of our wrongs.
Now that he has said what he has said, we’ll all continue to wonder what he meant. Was he speaking to Christians when he said, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place.” Was he attempting to remind us who are also conservatives that atrocities were committed by Christians during the crusades and the inquisition, so the fact that atrocities are currently being committed by groups who are Islamic, makes us no better than them? That’s what it did say to me. But again, I think his comments were uncalled for on the National Day of Prayer. Instead of replaying these comments over and over again, we need to address the real problems which include the threat to the United States of America and this administration’s lack of attention to it.

I don’t think there’s anything that I can say that I’ve agreed with this President on anything since he’s been in office. I didn’t like some of the things that he said at the National Prayer Breakfast, but I generally don’t like anything he says. I wish this President would call Islamic terrorism what it is, Islamic terrorism. But I’m more concerned about what this president is doing or not doing about what most of us do call Islamic terrorism.

Do I think this President knows the Lord? I don’t know. Do I think former President George W. Bush knows the Lord? I think he does. The current President seems uncomfortable talking about Christianity, but does tout the religion of Islam. I remember back to September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the President was reading from the Bible at ground zero. He really seemed uncomfortable that day and his delivery of God’s Word was choppy. Other people noticed it also. I grew up reading from the Bible as did most of my friends and when we do read the Bible out loud, it flows. It didn’t flow when the current President was reading it on 9/11/11. That disturbed me and it still does.

I am worried about more about Islamic terrorists having us in their crosshairs and the current President’s lackadaisical attitude toward terrorism. On Friday, February 6, 2015, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, at the Brookings Institute, said the following: “But, too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there’s a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War. We can’t afford to be buffeted by alarmism and an instantaneous news cycle. We must continue to do the hard work of leading a complex and rapidly evolving world, of seizing opportunities, and of winning the future for our children.”
Since the Friday conference, the President has espoused Rice’s words and has indicated that he feels that we are indeed overplaying the danger of Islamic Terrorism and the Islamic State/ISIS. He instead feels that the greatest threat to our nation and to the world is climate change. I skimmed the remainder of Ms. Rice’s speech and found it to be mostly drivel.

I don’t agree with him or Ms. Rice at all. If we don’t stop the threat of Islamic Terrorism, climate change will become the least of our worries. Get a grip, current President, the terrorists have already declared war on the United States of America. What is it going to take for you to take this treat seriously? I think Justice Jeanine Pirro’s opening on Saturday, February 6 on Fox News, said it all. The Judge asked the current President why was it so easy for him to throw a rock at Christians, but never speak of Islamic Terrorists. She further indicated that he boasts of a security policy of strategic patience and asks what he’s waiting for while Iran gets closer to nuclear enrichment. He’s opened our borders, reduced our military, and continues to apologize for the actions of the United States of America. Judge Pirro challenges the President to stop defending Islam and start protecting Americans. The crusades were like a thousand years ago and Islamic Terrorism is now.

What the President said at the National Prayer Breakfast was uncalled for, but right in line with what he’s been saying about Islamic Terrorism. Let that embarrassing moment go and focus on his strategic patience security policy. It’s shallow, it’s wrong! The current President obviously hopes that the threat of terrorism will just go away or does he?

Facebooktwitter