Hundred migrants feared dead off Libya coast

I don't understand this one bit.  Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, made it one of her missions to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya so that Libya would become this paradise for EVERYONE and now, we have hundreds and hundreds dying as they try to leave this country.  Why?  Could it have anything to do with the ruthless, blood thirsty scourge of al Qaeda/ISIS type jihadis that now run the country after Hillary handed it over to them?

Hmmmm.

The story comes from Al Arabiya.

Hundred migrants feared dead off Libya coast

At least 110 people are feared drowned off Libya after a migrant shipwreck and more may have died in another stricken vessel, the UN’s refugee agency said Thursday citing survivor testimony.

“A vessel with around 140 people on board overturned Wednesday just a few hours after setting off from Libya, throwing everyone into the water. Only 29 people survived,” UNHCR spokesperson Carlotta Sami told AFP.

The Norwegian Siem Pilot was first on the scene, some 20 nautical miles off Libya, and rescued the survivors -- all of whom were in poor health after spending hours in the water -- as well as recovering 12 bodies from the water.

Those pulled to safety were transferred to the island of Lampedusa by the Italian coast guard. They included two women who told the UN agency they believed they were the only survivors from a shipwreck in which some 125 people drowned.

“They told us they were on a faulty dinghy which began to sank as soon as they set sail. They were the only survivors,” Sami said.

But the Italian coast guard said it had no information on a second reported rescue on Wednesday or the saving of two women.

At least two rescue operations were underway in the Mediterranean on Thursday, with close to 180 people pulled to safety according to an AFP photographer aboard the Topaz Responder, run by the Malta-based MOAS (Migrant Offshore Aid Station).

The rescue situation is often chaotic, with people confused, sick or exhausted after periods in crisis-hit Libya unable to specify how many people were on board their dinghies at the outset or what vessel pulled them from the water.

Over 4,000 migrants have died or are missing feared drowned after attempting the perilous Mediterranean crossing this year.

Hillary's War: "US has launched more than 300 airstrikes against the Islamic State in Sirte, Libya"

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

US has launched more than 300 airstrikes against the Islamic State in Sirte, Libya

The US has launched 330 airstrikes against the Islamic State in Sirte, Libya since Aug. 1, according to data released by US Africa Command. Nearly half of the bombings, 150 in total, were carried out during the first 18 days of October.

Operation Odyssey Lightning, which aims to liberate Sirte from the jihadists, began in May. Since then, militiamen fighting as part of the “Solid Structure” operations room have made significant progress, clearing Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s loyalists from much of the city. But the Islamic State continues to maintain a foothold in Sirte several months into the offensive.

The so-called caliphate has trumpeted its continued presence in the city, even as its safe haven has shrunk. The 50th edition of the group’s weekly Al Naba newsletter, which was released online on Oct. 13, contained an article bragging that the jihadists continue to fight on. Al Naba’s editors reported that three of their enemies’ vehicles were destroyed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on the road from Sirte to Misrata, another coastal city. Many of the men fighting as part of “Solid Structure,” which is allied with the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), come from Misrata.

Al Naba’s editors added that the GNA, which is supported “by Crusader-American warplanes,” has been trying to take control of Sirte for several months but “has failed.” Al Naba also claimed that Solid Structure has incurred “thousands” of casualties during the battle. The Islamic State is not exaggerating. Independent accounts support this figure. For example, Agence France Presse reported earlier this month that “550 GNA fighters have been killed and 3,000 wounded in the assault.” There have been additional casualties since then. It is not clear how many fighters the Islamic State has lost.

The intense fighting in Sirte is reflected in US Africa Command’s data on the number of airstrikes inside the city.

The US began the air campaign on Aug. 1. As of Oct. 18, according to US Africa Command, there have been a total of 330 airstrikes. Almost half of these bombings, 150 (or 45 percent), were carried out between Oct. 1 and Oct. 18. The remaining 180 were launched in the previous two months. Therefore, the US air campaign has not slowed. If anything, it has accelerated in its third month.

In many instances, the US airstrikes have targeted more than one “enemy fighting position.” For example, US Africa Command’s press releases indicate that 422 “enemy fighting positions” have been struck thus far in October. On average, therefore, each bombing hits between two and three such positions.

In addition, the bombings have targeted command and control facilities, vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), and the locations where VBIEDs are built. Five VBIEDs and two VBIED facilities were hit in October, according to US Africa Command’s reporting.

As The Long War Journal previously reported, the Islamic State claimed only one suicide attack in all of Libya between January and April. And that bombing purportedly took place in Benghazi. But the group claimed 26 “martyrdom operations” in and around Sirte between May and the end of August. Some of these may have failed to reach their target. Regardless, the Islamic State was clearly forced to deploy its “martyrs” as its grip on Sirte began to slip.

Amaq News Agency, an Islamic State propaganda arm, has reported far fewer suicide attacks in the city in recent weeks. However, Amaq continues to issue occasional updates on the fighting. On Oct. 20, for instance, Amaq claimed that GNA “fighters sustain[ed] deaths and injuries during clashes.”

The “Solid Structure” operations room continues to provide reports from Sirte as well. The group has posted a series of images on its social media pages this week. Some of the photos depict a city ravaged by war.

The U.S. Airstrike in Libya

Perhaps I'm missing something but I thought that Barack Obama ordered the bombing of Libya long ago to get rid of the problem, that being Ghadaffi....so why is he ordering the bombing now?  Could it be that Ghadaffi's replacements aren't so good either?  What kinda foreign policy is this, people?

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

US airstrike targets Islamic State operative, training camp in Libya

The US military launched an airstrike in Libya earlier today targeting an Islamic State “training camp near Sabratha” and a jihadist named Noureddine Chouchane, according to the Pentagon. Chouchane, a Tunisian who is also known as “Sabir,” is a “senior facilitator” for the Islamic State in Libya and “associated with the training camp.”

The Tunisian government has “named Chouchane as a suspect in the March 18, 2015, deadly attack on the Bardo Museum in Tunis.” More than 20 people, mostly foreign tourists, were killed in the assault on the Bardo Museum. There has been some confusion over who was responsible for the massacre. The Islamic State quickly claimed credit, but Tunisian authorities blamed members of the Uqba bin Nafi Battalion, which is part of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

If Chouchane was involved in the Bardo killings, then his role is further evidence of the Islamic State’s culpability. Chouchane may have also played a part in the July 2015 shooting spree at a beach in Sousse, Tunisia.

The Pentagon says Chouchane has “facilitated the movement of potential” Islamic State-affiliated “foreign fighters from Tunisia to Libya and onward to other countries.”

The Defense Department also suggests that Chouchane could “potentially” be involved in “planning external attacks on” American “interests in the region,” in addition to recruiting new members for Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s global operation and “establishing bases in Libya.”

According to officials contacted by The Long War Journal, the US government has become increasingly concerned about the Islamic State’s ability to plot attacks in the West and against American interests from its base of operations on the Mediterranean coast. It is possible that Chouchane was involved in such plotting, but that has not been confirmed.

Initial reports in the aftermath of the bombing say that dozens of people were killed. The identities of those killed have not yet been verified.

The US has targeted senior leaders of both the Islamic State and al Qaeda inside Libya on several occasions since the fall of Muammar al Qaddafi’s regime in 2011.

On Nov. 13, 2015, the US killed Wissam Najm Abd Zayd al Zubaydi, also known as Abu Nabil al Anbari, in an airstrike. Zubaydi, an Iraqi national, “was a longtime al Qaeda operative and the senior ISIL [Islamic State] leader in Libya,” according to a statement by the US military. He is thought to have served as the lead executioner in the February 2015 massacre of Coptic Christians on the Libyan coast, although there is some uncertainty concerning his putative role in the murders.

The Islamic State’s so-called Libyan “province” launched an offensive in early January named after “Sheikh Abdul Mugirah al Qahtani,” which is likely one of Zubaydi’s several aliases. The operations targeted oil facilities and towns in northern Libya. [See LWJ report, Islamic State’s Libyan ‘province’ launches new offensive.]

In mid-June 2015, the US bombed a location in Libya where Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a veteran al Qaeda operative, was suspected of meeting with other jihadists. Months later, according to The Washington Post, US officials are still not certain of Belmokhtar’s fate.

Al Qaeda has, for the most part, acted as if Belmokhtar survived. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) issued a statement saying Belmokhtar is “alive and well.” Al Murabitoon, another al Qaeda group operating in North and West Africa at the time, also denied that he had perished and released a statement in August 2015 naming Belmokhtar as its overall emir, or leader. In December 2015, Ibrahim al Qosi, an ex-Guantanamo detainee who is now an Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader, referred to Belmokhtar as if he is still alive and praised him for bringing Al Murabitoon and AQIM together in a merger.

These statements are not definitive, however, and the jihadists have not released a proof of life audio or video message from Belmokhtar himself.

American troops captured Abu Anas al Libi, who was wanted for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and suspected of leading al Qaeda’s network in Libya, during a raid in October 2013. Al Libi subsequently died in US custody as he was awaiting trial.

The Obama Legacy of Complete and Utter Foreign Failures

Those of you regular readers at this site and/or regular listeners to my Blog Talk Radio show have heard me say or see me write MANY times that "everything Barack Hussein Obama touches, turns to shit."
I stand by that statement more than ever as I read the headline of the below-captioned story.  Some will say "big deal, it's Libya, don't worry about it" - well, it's the point of the matter, it is HOW THIS COUNTRY IS PERCEIVED by the rest of the world, especially our enemies.

Here's the sad facts of what Barack Hussein Obama has done in military operations involving the U.S.:

• Obama was handed a war in Iraq that had been won by America and Iraqi forces and the lost that war.  He screwed the pooch and he 100% allowed ISIS to gain entry into the country through Syria, resurrect the old al Qaeda in Iraq machinery and infrastructure and thus assisted in the launch of the world caliphate under ISIS.
• Obama decided to set a timetable for full withdrawal from Afghanistan and that backfired so badly he had to change his mind - it's all too late, he screwed the pooch yet once again and the Taliban are less than 2 years away from reclaiming the country.
• Obama set his sights on Libya - he wanted Ghaddi out and so he set about involving the U.S. in operations there and before you knew it, Libya has descended into a lighter version of Syria and America is screwed in the ass, yet once again.

This President wants a legacy?  How about an art form to depict his legacy?  How about a stunning sculpture of a monkey fucking a football or a guy pissing down his leg?  Either of those would work to describe the prowess of one Barack Hussein Obama in military affairs across this world.

The story comes from Times of India.

US, Italy warn of rising IS threat in Libya but strikes off agenda

ROME: The United States and Italy warned on Tuesday that the Islamic State (IS) group is expanding its reach, threatening to seize Libya and launch attacks in Western countries.

But as representatives from the 23 countries of the US-led coalition battling the jihadists' self-declared "caliphate" reviewed their progress at talks in Rome, Italy and France made it clear military action against IS's Libyan wing is not on the immediate agenda.

Italian foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni and US Secretary of State John Kerry opened the talks by telling their allies that, since their meeting six months ago, the IS group had suffered setbacks in its core territory in Syria and Iraq.

But the hosts warned that the group is adapting to the pressure on its heartland and is redirecting its efforts towards Libya, where it has seized new territory, and into attacks like those in Paris, Ankara and San Bernadino, California.

"We are surely not here to brag about anything," Kerry said, after saying IS fighters have lost 40 per cent of their territory in Iraq and 20 per cent in Syria.

"We're here to recommit, we're here to re-evaluate, we're here to make judgements about things we have started that we could do better," he said.

Gentiloni said the challenge facing the coalition of mainly Western and Arab nations is stark.

"We know that we have in front of us an organisation that is very resilient and able to plan strategically and so we should not underestimate it," he said.

"If anything we need to be ever more wary and more watchful because we know that the more Daesh is squeezed in its core territories, the more tempted it is pursue its terrorist activities elsewhere," he warned, using an Arabic acronym for IS.

"We are witnessing renewed activity in Libya and in sub-Saharan Africa," he said.

Within the coalition, Italy has taken the lead in planning how to address the IS threat which is just a short boat ride from its southern shores, in and around the Libyan city of Sirte.

Rome's focus is on trying to rally the international community behind efforts to create a national unity government in Libya that is capable of stabilising its former colony.

Direct military intervention against IS fighters is not on the immediate agenda, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters, rubbishing reports that Paris was pushing for strikes.

"There is absolutely no question of military intervention in Libya," Fabius said. "There is pressure (for that) but that is not the position of the government."

Gentiloni told the Messagero daily time was running out to stabilise Libya but stressed there was no enthusiasm in Rome or the international community for "hasty military intervention."

Washington says it has built a 66-nation coalition to fight the IS group, with Afghanistan becoming the latest country to join, Kerry said.

But a so-called "small group" of 23 nations has taken the lead in carrying out air strikes in Iraq and Syria and training and arming local forces to fight the jihadists.

Kerry said the effort now needs to be stepped up, citing the example of Washington's deployment of small numbers of special forces troops inside Syria.


The allies need to "push ahead with a strategy we have learned will work and to do so relentlessly, giving Daesh no time to regroup, no place to run, no safe havens in which to hide," he said.

Fabius said France also supported intensified strikes in Syria but suggested "more strategic" targeting was required while peace talks are under way in Switzerland.


"We cannot bomb in Syria and negotiate in Geneva," he said in an explicit allusion to Russia's air campaign in Syria.

Things Go From Bad To Worse In Libya

Remember when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power all said that things just wouldn't be okay in Libya until they mobilized the American war machine and took out Ghaddafi?  Well, they took out Ghaddafi.  And things are worse.

Everything Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have ever touched has turned to shit.

The story comes from The Long War Journal.

Islamic State’s Libyan ‘province’ launches new offensive

The Islamic State’s so-called “province” in Libya has launched a new offensive and claims to have captured a town on the Mediterranean coast.

“The soldiers of the Khilafah [caliphate] managed to take complete control over the coastal city of Bin Jawad,” the Islamic State’s Wilayat Barqat (or province) said in a short statement released online earlier today. The “blessed operations come during the battle of Sheikh Abdul Mugirah al Qahtani (May Allah accept him), and all praise is due to Allah, master of the universe,” the statement continued.

In a concurrent operation, the “caliphate’s” fighters attacked the port town of Al Sidr, which is approximately 20 miles away from Bin Jawad and home to one of Libya’s largest oil ports. One or more suicide bombers may have initiated the assault after they struck guard positions with car bombs. Photos posted on social media appear to show the wreckage caused by their blasts, but the images have not yet been verified. The status of the fighting in Al Sidr is also not clear as of this writing.

Separately, the jihadists set fire to a storage tank at an oil facility in Ras Lanuf, another port that houses an oil refinery. Libya’s rival factions have long fought over access to Ras Lanuf.

Bin Jawad, Al Sidr and Ras Lanuf are all in the district of Sirte. The Islamic State’s Libyan arm took over much of the city of Sirte last year, turning it into an operational hub. Bin Jawad is also a short drive from the town of Nawfaliyah, which the “caliphate’s” men overran in March 2015. [See LWJ report, Islamic State ‘province’ in Libya claims capture of town.]

The Islamic State’s Libyan branch has repeatedly targeted the country’s oil infrastructure, some of which has been shut down for months or longer because of the violence. As in Iraq and Syria, the “caliphate” seeks to control key Libyan oil fields, refineries, ports and other facilities. It remains to be seen if today’s attacks, which are testing local security forces, lead to further advances.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s followers in Libya have named their new offensive after Sheikh Abdul Mugirah al Qahtani, who was identified in an issue of Dabiq magazine released last September as the head of the Islamic State’s province in the country. [See LWJ report, In Dabiq magazine, Islamic State complains about jihadist rivals in Libya.]

In his interview with Dabiq, Qahtani complained bitterly about the Islamic State’s jihadist rivals in Libya, including the leaders of Ansar al Sharia. Qahtani said Ansar al Sharia’s leaders are close to their counterparts in Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which opposes the Islamic State’s expansion in North Africa. Qahtani promised that the “caliphate’s” opponents “will continue to be a target for our swords, which we will not hold back until they repent.”

Qahtani’s true identity has always been murky, as he was not clearly identified in the Islamic State’s propaganda.

CNN reported in November 2014 that an Islamic State leader known as Abu Nabil al Anbari, a jihadist “veteran” who was imprisoned with Baghdadi in Iraq, had been dispatched to Libya to oversee the group’s efforts. The Wall Street Journal offered a similar account, saying that Anbari was an ex-Iraqi policeman.

The Defense Department announced in November 2015 that Anbari was killed in a US airstrike in Libya. Anbari (also known as Wissam Najm Abd Zayd al Zubaydi) “may have been the spokesman in” an Islamic State video showing the execution of Coptic Christians in February 2015, according to the Pentagon.

Anbari’s “death will degrade [the Islamic State’s] ability to meet the group’s objectives in Libya,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook claimed at the time. Cook said the organization’s objectives include “recruiting new…members, establishing bases in Libya, and planning external attacks on the United States.” In December 2015, the Pentagon claimed to confirm Anbari’s death, describing him as “a longtime al Qaeda operative and the senior [Islamic State] leader in Libya.” The airstrike that purportedly killed him was the first US “strike against an [Islamic State] leader in Libya.”

It is possible that Abdul Mugirah al Qahtani and Abu Nabil al Anbari were the same Islamic State official, but that has not been confirmed. Their aliases indicate different countries of origin (Anbari refers to Iraq, while Qahtani is generally used by jihadists from the Arabian Peninsula), but the jihadists often adopt new pseudonyms for various reasons. Regardless, the Islamic State, like al Qaeda, has proven to be adept at replacing fallen leaders. And Qahtani’s death did not stop the jihadists’ latest advances on Libya’s coast.

The Gaddafi Rape Chambers

Some people just deserve to die a violent death....Muammar Gadaffi was one of them.

The story comes from The Clarion Project.

Gaddafi's Rape Chambers Revealed in BBC Documentary

Children -- boys and girls as young as 14 -- were regularly kidnapped from their schools and raped by the former leader.


A new documentary by the BBC reveals for the first time former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s rape chambers, where – after kidnapping girls and boys from their schools – they were tortured, raped and made to watch pornography.

"Some were only 14," remembered one teacher at a Tripoli school, where one of the chambers existed. "They would simply take the girl they wanted. They had no conscience, no morals, not an iota of mercy, even though she was a mere child."

The documentary, “Mad Dog – Gadhafi's Secret World,” which airs on the BBC program Storyville on February 3, interviews eye witnesses and survivors who recount horrific moments in Gaddafi’s warped world.

Witnesses testify how Gaddafi and body guards would regularly visit schools, where his victims would be chosen. A pat on the head of an innocent child would mean abduction later by Gaddafi’s guards. The child would then be brought to one of his chambers – preserved as they were and shown for the first time in the documentary – where they would undergo gynecological tests for sexually transmitted diseases before being taken to the dictator to be raped.

"The women would first be raped by the dictator then passed on, like used objects, to one of his sons and eventually to high-ranking officials for more abuse," said Seham Sergewa, a Benghazi-based psychologist who interviewed victims for the International Criminal Court.

Those that survived were often drafted into Gaddafi’s female corps of private body guards, where they were made to endure the abuse for years.

One such guard recounted how the girls were forced to witness the execution of Gaddafi’s enemies. "Early one morning, we were taken to a closed hall," one former guard recalled. "We were to witness the murder of 17 students. We were not allowed to scream. We were made to cheer and shout. To act as though we were delighted by this display. Inside I was crying. They shot them all, one by one."

Some of the girls were held for years, while others – those with gaping injuries -- were left to die in parking garages or garbage dumps.

"One just disappeared and they never found her again, despite her father and brothers searching for her. Another was found three months later, cut, raped and lying in the middle of a park. She had been left for dead," said a teacher at a Tripoli school.

Those who managed to escape were often rejected by their families, as women who have been raped are considered by many Muslims to have “dishonored” their families.

Gaddafi’s harem also included young boys. "He was terribly sexually deviant," testified Gaddafi’s former chief of protocol Nuri Al Mismari. "Young boys and so on. He had his own boys. They used to be called the 'services group.’ "

While filming the documentary, the BBC discovered that Gaddafi – who was the dictator of Libya for 42 years --had employed a personal hit squad based in Cuba to kill his enemies, many of whom were kept by the dictator in his freezer after their deaths so that Gaddafi could view their bodies.

"He would visit his victims. It was as though they were some sort of macabre souvenirs,” said Baha Kikhia, whose husband, a foreign minister was killed by Gaddafi and whose body was one of those found a freezer after Gaddafi’s demise. “Something that he could look at and touch to remind himself of his omnipotence. Some had been there as long as 25 years. "

Gaddafi was shot and killed by Libyan rebels in 2011, after he was found hiding.

Why Doesn't the Obama Administration Want To Talk About the 400 Missiles Stolen In Benghazi?

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Obama Administration Covers Up Missile Theft

The Obama administration is covering up the theft of 400 surface to air missiles by "some very ugly people," the lawyer for a Benghazi whistleblower told WMAL Radio in Washington D.C. last week.

Joe DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney, represents Mark Thompson, who was Deputy Coordinator for Operations in the State Department's Bureau of Counterterrorism.

He was referring to MANPADS (man portable air defense systems) such as the American Stinger or the Russian SA-24. They're now in the hands of al Qaida, Mr. DiGenova said.

The theft was the reason why the administration shut down 22 diplomatic missions, he said.

"They were afraid that there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies," Mr. DiGenova said.

Fear that U.S. troops coming to the rescue might be shot down may also be why no help was sent during the seven hour siege of our consulate in Benghazi and its annex on 9/11/2012, he said.

"We had troops in Croatia ready to deploy," Mr. DiGenova said.

A former diplomat told him AFRICOM "had special ops assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately," Roger Simon of PJ Media reported in May.

He didn't know whether the missiles were taken from the CIA annex, but "it's clear" the annex was "somehow involved" in distributing them, Mr. DiGenova said. He didn't say to whom.

MANPADS from Libya have been reported in the hands of Somali pirates, an Islamist militia in Niger, and Syrian rebels.

Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi bought thousands of MANPADS from Russia over the years, which fell into Islamist hands when he was overthrown, Con Coughlin, defense editor for the London Telegraph, wrote in October 2011.

The CIA annex "had been a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles," Reuters News Service reported last October.

Rebels had MANPADS before Qaddafi fell. They used them to shoot down Libyan air force aircraft during the civil war.

The rebels got some early in the conflict from raids on regime weapons depots.

Rebels showed him Stinger missiles, a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Company said in March, 2011. There's an enormous difference in capability between the modern Stinger and the old Soviet SA-7s (first manufactured in 1972) looted from the regime's arsenals.

Perhaps Ben Knight, the Aussie reporter, was using the term to describe MANPADS generally. But rebel leaders specifically requested Stingers. The rebels were getting Stingers from foreign sources, Khadafy's intelligence service suspected.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11/2012 to buy back from al Qaida groups Stinger missiles "issued to them by the State Department," Mr. Simon said he was told by two former diplomats.

The CIA was against giving missiles to insurgents for fear they would fall into the wrong hands, but Secretary Clinton wanted "to overthrow Khadafy on the cheap," one of his sources told him, Mr. Simon said.

"This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the 'insurgents' actually were al-Qaeda," he wrote.

Whatever was going on, the administration is going to considerable lengths to conceal it.

There were "dozens" of CIA operatives at the annex on 9/11/2012, CNN reported Aug. 1. Survivors "have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations."

"The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress," CNN said. "It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career."

The administration is "dispersing" witnesses across the country, and is changing their names to hide the truth from Congress, charged Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC, a member of the House Oversight Committee investigating Benghazi, and a former federal prosecutor.

The Obama administration "did not take proper measures to secure the weapons," said Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who heads the Counterterrorism and Intelligence subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"They are now responsible for all the stepchildren of violence that happens as a result of this," Mr. DiGenova said. "That's why they have lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi."

Christians 'being rounded up and tortured' in Libya

The story comes from The Independent via The Religion of Peace.

Christians 'being rounded up and tortured' in Libya


Christians living in Libya have been rounded up, beaten and accused of proselytising, in the latest evidence of a militant Islamic movement gripping the country since the revolution.

The men, Egyptian Copts working in Benghazi, were seized by an Islamist militia but handed over to the government. One, named as Ezzat Atallah (44) died at the weekend after allegedly being tortured, his brother, Effat, said.

The authorities have condemned an attack on the community's priest, but in a sign of their powerlessness in the face of sectarian violence, have taken no further action. After the death of Mr Atallah, four men remain in custody out of 60 detained, while 35 of the remainder have been deported on the grounds of illegal immigration.

Ragaa Nagah, the wife of one of the four incarcerated men, Emad Seddeek, said: "When I visited him he was in a pitiful condition. He was afraid to tell us how he was tortured, but he couldn't see out of one of his eyes.

"They were standing over him and beating him while they asked him to confess and when they were about to give him an electric shock he said, 'Don't do that and I will say anything you want me to say'."

Video

The arrests were revealed in a startling video that sent shock waves through Egypt's Christian minority. It showed a room full of prisoners, lorded over by Islamist militiamen who had shaved their captives' heads.

The round-up appears to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, a notorious militant accused of involvement in the death of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, in the city last September. That group is not recognised by the authorities, though it operates with impunity.

The video makes clear that the incident started as a business dispute.

Muslim stallholders complained that Christians overpaid for their stalls, making it hard for them to compete.

The seizing of the men followed the arrest of four Christians from different countries for proselytising earlier in February.

Among the recent arrests was that of a bookseller and evangelist called Shareef Ramses, said to be in possession of "thousands" of Bibles.

The men kept in custody in the most recent incident, including Mr Atallah, were being investigated because their numbers were on Mr Ramses's telephone, the Egyptian consul in Benghazi, Ashraf Shiha, said. He denied that they had been tortured.

The militants allegedly attacked the priest of the community's church, Father Pola Isaac, and his assistant.

"They shaved Fr Pola's moustache off, and his head, and beat him up before letting him go," said Yussef Shaker, the son of another of the detainees, Adel Shaker. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

There Is Nothing You Can Do About It!

By  Findalis

Is what President Barack Hussein Obama will demand of Israel when he visits on March 20th.  That is the word coming out from pre-visit meetings.

From Debka

President Barack Obama will visit Israel later this month, the 20th, even if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fails to put together a governing coalition beforehand. "We're going," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a briefing for reporters Friday, March 9. In answer to a question, he said, "The formation of the Israeli government is the responsibility of Prime Minister Netanyahu and other senior officials of the Israeli government..."

Secretary of state John Kerry thought otherwise when he skipped a visit to Israel as not worthwhile until a government is in place. (Netanyahu’s deadline for forming a government has been extended to March16.) debkafile reports from its Washington sources that President Obama’s calculations for making the trip are a lot more complicated than Kerry’s. According to some Israeli circles, none of them are good news for their country. He arrives less than a month after the last Six-Power (US, Russia, UK, France, China and Germany) nuclear discussions with Iran ended in Kazakhstan. After those talks, US and Western media trumpeted “an unusual sense of optimism” or more cautiously allowed “a faint and perhaps fleeting light at the end of one of the world’s most durable tunnels.”

Western sources predicted on the strength of these assessments that the follow-up to Kazakhstan in April, shortly after Obama’s talks in Jerusalem, would be devoted to “cementing that progress,” which translated into rewarding putative nuclear concessions by Iran with the easing of economic sanctions.

However, according to debkafile’s military and intelligence sources, this diplomatic fluff, while representing elation in Washington, London, Moscow, Paris and Berlin, caused serious disenchantment in Jerusalem, which viewed it as a smokescreen for concessions to, and not by, Iran.

They have found that the “fleeting light” appearing at the end of the Iranian nuclear tunnel obscures three dangerous US concessions to Tehran:

1. President Obama has given in to the Fordo uranium enrichment plant continuing to operate instead of shutting down, as demanded by Israel – even though its function is to turn out 20 percent pure (near-weapons grade) uranium;
2. He has even consented to the Iranians continuing to manufacture uranium to that level;
3. Washington has dropped its insistence on Iran sending out of the country its stocks of 3.5-5 percent enriched uranium.

With these gains, the Iranian negotiators must have been laughing all the way home from their talks with the six big powers on 26-27 of February and crowing over what one Israeli official called "Tehran’s huge success and Israel’s total defeat.”

Conscious of how these concessions to the Islamic Republic are received in Jerusalem, it is no wonder that President Obama brushed off the invitation to address the Israeli Knesset, where lawmakers would likely put him on the spot. He has chosen instead to deliver a speech at Jerusalem’s Convention Center, so as to deliver his message straight to the Israeli public.

By going over the heads of Israel’s government and parliament to face a less informed audience, he believes he can get away with sweet-talking his surrender to a nuclear Iran.

Former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin stepped in with a timely comment last week when he said that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be no more than a one-night operation.

So when Air Force One lands in Israel March 20 and Israeli dignitaries push forward to greet the US president, a small group of anonymous Air Force pilots will be watching from a distance, waiting for the order to fly out and carry out their mission in a single night.

After Jerusalem, President Obama continues to the Palestinian Authority and then Jordan.

It has long been suspected by many in Israel that President Obama's true agenda in the Middle East is the total destruction of Israel.  His behavior towards Netanyahu and the people of Israel has not been one of an close ally but of an lukewarm acquaintance.

President Barack Hussein Obama is more concerned with propping up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al-Quada in Libya, the rebels of Syria but not the democracy of Israel.  He is even in favor of allowing Iran to build an nuclear weapon or two.  Anything to appease the Muslims.

I wonder if Netanyahu will roll over and die this time or show the little tin-plated dictator the door.  I hope it will be the later, but know it will be the first one.

Libyan Prime Minister Agrees With Hillary Clinton Regarding Benghazi Attack...What Difference Does It Make?

The Prime Minister of Libya just can't seem to understand what all of the fuss is about the Benghazi attack...he called it all an "exaggeration."  You know, do 4 Americans were murdered in an al Qaeda plot and terror attack, so what?  Yes, the American ambassador was killed but what is the big deal?

So let me get this straight - America invested the money and risked the lives of our military in freeing that country from Ghadaffi and when it's all over, the Libyans can't even help protect the lives of our embassy people and when those embassy people end up dead, the response from the Libyans is ....what is everyone so damn upset about?

The story comes from CNS News.

 

Libyan PM Calls Reaction to Benghazi Attack an ‘Exaggeration’

(CNSNews.com) - The prime minster of Libya called the reaction by countries around the world to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an “exaggeration.”

Prime Minister Ali Zeidan added that everything that is being said at this point about the attack is “just guesses.”

“What happened in Benghazi, I think there was exaggeration on behalf of some countries who took some preventive measures and we can understand that,” Zeidan said through an interpreter during a discussion Friday at the 43rd World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

“They asked their citizens to leave, but the reality is that these people of foreign nationality live very peacefully in Libya, and there are security measures to protect them” he said.

Discussion moderator Fareed Zakaria of CNN then asked Zeidan, “Do you have an al Qaeda presence in Libya?”

Zeidan responded, “It is said that that is so. There are some Islamists whose beliefs are close to those of al Qaeda but the reports we received from our security apparatus show that there are a few people who have come who are known to be affiliated with al Qaeda but there are not many.”

However, Zakaria pressed further: “So you do not believe the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi was an attack by al Qaeda?”

Zeidan replied that the Libyan government’s investigation into the attack is ongoing and “We have not reached any final conclusions.”

“We have to talk to all of the witnesses and all of the accused and then we will draw conclusions,” Zeidan said.. However, everything being said now is really just guesses.”

The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, which took place four months ago, left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens.

The State Department received information to indicate the Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility.

On Thursday at a Pentagon press conference, outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said of the attack in Benghazi, “If we find out who the perpetrators were, we’re going to go after them.”

He added: “Americans were killed and we don’t stand by when Americans were killed and not take action.”

This Is What Democracy Looks Like? Libya Grand Mufti: Remove References to Democracy and Religious Freedom From School Textbooks

But...but....but I thought Barack Hussein Obama promised us all a thriving democracy in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt?

Did he....lie to us?

The story is from CNS News.

Libya Grand Mufti: Remove References to Democracy and Religious Freedom From School Textbooks

(CNSNews.com) – The Libya Herald reported on Thursday that the “Fatwa Office” has asked the Ministry of Education in Libya to remove passages related to democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks.

“Libya’s Dar Al-Ifta’ (the Fatwa office), presided by Grand Mufti Sheikh Sadeq Al-Ghariani, has called on the Ministry of Education to remove passages relating to democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks,” the article states.

The article also reports that the religious official asked for “clarification” as to why extracts of the Prophet Muhammad’s Sunnah had been deleted. The Sunnah is the second book for Islam jurisprudence after the Quran, according to scholars.

The article cited reporting from LANA, the state-approved news outlet.

“According to official news agency LANA, the Fatwa office issued a statement on Tuesday saying that the Grand Mufti had published an article entitled The Curriculum and the Instilling of Values in which he highlighted a number of criticisms of the new school syllabus textbooks for the current academic year,” the report states.

“The first was about the deletion of some of the Prophet’s Sunnah within the Islamic education syllabus, and the second addressed the two paragraphs included in the basic education textbooks about religious freedom and democracy,” stated the Libya Herald.

“The statement said, according to LANA, that the Ministry of Education had responded positively to the remarks made by the Grand Mufti and had promised to investigate the reasons behind the absence of the Sunnah texts from the Islamic education curriculum,” said the newspaper.

The statement claimed the information in the textbooks about Greek democracy might be “too detailed” for students to comprehend and that references to freedom of belief and religion should be removed because “it suggests to younger students that they could choose any religion they wanted,” according to the article.

The article said the Fatwa office warned that because of the public’s religious values the textbooks “could spark public anger.”

Breaking: Hillary Clinton Takes Blame For Benghazi Fiasco, Another Servant Throws Themselves Under the Bus For Damien (Obama)

It appears that another helper from the Dark Side has stepped up to offer their political life in order to protect Damien...a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama.

This time it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who accepted all blame for what went down in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th.  Hillary Clinton calmly accepted responsibility for the deaths of 4 Americans setting the President of the United States of America free once more from any kind of accountability.

(Hat Tip:  James Trowbridge)

Cue clip ....




The story comes from CNN:

Clinton: 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the bucks stops with her when it comes to who is blame for a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she added, noting that it is close to the election.

The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the consulate.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week's vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. Following the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.

In the wake of an attack, there is always "confusion," Clinton said. But the information has since changed, Clinton said in the interview.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an "intense, long ordeal" as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again - but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

"We can't not engage," she said. "We cannot retreat."

The Benghazi Coverup

From Family Security Matters.

Benghazi Cover-Up – The Buck Stops Here!


On Wednesday, October 10, I spent four hours glued to the television, watching the Congressional hearing on the Benghazi attacks that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. I am now no more enlightened than I was before about why the government blamed the attack on a concocted story about a crude, amateur video clip. When I awoke on the morning following the late-night attack on our Consulate in Benghazi and heard the first reports of the murder of our Ambassador, the first thing that came to mind was al Qaeda and terrorism. Although I have been an intelligence analyst for over twenty-five years, this was not a great leap of intellectual prowess or the product of great expertise in the domain. It was well-known that al Qaeda has been very active in the region of Benghazi. And in case we had forgotten that fact, its off-shoot, Ansar al-Shariah, was quick to appear on international television from Benghazi to praise the attack and remind us of al Qaeda's influence throughout the region.

The first descriptions of the military-style assault were vivid. They made crystal clear that this was a military-style attack, carried out by fighters carrying heavy weapons and mounting their attack in well-disciplined waves. The totality of the damage was testament to the planning and determination of the attacking force. The use of RPGs and truck mounted artillery, of flame accelerants (diesel fuel) to cause heavy smoke and nearly total damage from the heat of the flames, and the number of attackers (estimated at the time at about 100), all indicated a well-planned, well-coordinated, targeted attack by a terrorist organization.

Like our government, GerardDirect also waited until we had our facts in order, before we published our first analysis. But when we published, we got it right. And that took only two days, not two weeks. Although many details were still missing, the broad evidence was clear, and we published our first full analysis on September 13, followed by a second, more complete report on September 14. 36 hours after the attack. In the first report, we not only reported that this was a terrorist attack, but that there had been multiple warnings prior to the attacks that had been ignored by the State Department.

Despite the fact that this information was already available in open source to private sector analysts, the State Department and White House spokespeople, whose resources include a massive intelligence network, access to the videos, cables, and interviews with survivors, got it wrong. From the beginning and for the two weeks that followed, the administration continually emphasized that the attack was a "spontaneous demonstration" which got out of hand, and they blamed the anger that provoked the attack on an amateur video that insulted Mohammed, That, at least, was the story they told the world, and repeatedly validated, and it was dead wrong.

Among the spokespeople who gave credence to the story included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, White House Spokesman Jay Carney, and the President himself. It took two weeks for the administration to admit that the assault on our Consulate was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video.

SO HOW COME WE KNEW IT AND THEY DIDN'T?

GerardDirect is a just small firm that analyzes business and homeland security intelligence for large corporations. How is it possible that we were able to get the story right from the beginning and the State Department and the White House couldn't? Surely they had better information than we had! How could they have been so wrong?

And what could possibly have motivated the Obama administration to continue to put forward such a lame explanation for the brutal murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans, in light of the wealth of information that emerged almost immediately after the event?

That is what the Congressional hearing on Wednesday was all about: to find out who knew what, and when did they know it? And it turns out that the administration knew quite a bit. So why did the administration continue to deliver to the American people a story they must have known was patently false from the beginning?

The outrage and relentless courage of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, headed by Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA) was heartening. Among the committee members who refused to back down from asking the tough questions were Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

The panel was divided. On the left were Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who was the top security official at the US Consulate in Libya, and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya with the State Department. These men represented the people on the ground in Libya, who requested the extension of the security teams because of the enhanced danger, particularly in Benghazi, but were repeatedly refused. On the right, sat Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for International Programs at the State Department's Bureau of Diplomat Security, and Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management at the State Department. Neither of them had ever been to Libya, and they represented the bureaucratic nightmare that Nordstrum, in his testimony, called "the Taliban in the building".

Here are just some of the facts that came out in Wednesday's hearing that should have motivated the State Department to keep their personnel safe but didn't:

1. THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD 0VER 230 WARNINGS BEFORE THE ATTACK Between June 2011 and September 11, 2012, there were 230 "incidents" (threats, warnings, and physical attacks) against Western targets in Libya, prior to the one that destroyed the Consulate and took the lives of four Americans. These included violent attacks against UK diplomats, the Red Cross, and even an earlier bomb attack against the American Consulate in Benghazi!

2. SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR SECURITY PERSONNEL REFUSED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT Senior diplomatic officers, Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood and Eric Nordstrom, attached to the US Embassy in Libya, were among those who testified on Wednesday. They recounted how they had made several requests for extending the assignments of the existing security team, and how they were turned down by the bureaucrats in the State Department in Washington.

In Wednesday's hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb admitted that she had turned down the requests, and that she had never been to Libya to see the situation there for herself. Lamb told Nordstrom, when he requested the extension of the security team, "Don't bother to make another request, because I will just turn it down".

So in August, the State Department refused to alter its scheduled rotation of a 16-man Special Ops team that had been assigned to diplomatic security in Benghazi, in August, only weeks before the attack. Leaving with them was a six-man security team from the State Department.

According to Nordstrom, the request for more security was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." In all, 22 security personnel, who could have made the difference between life and death, were transferred out of Libya, despite the urgent requests of two security officers for an extension of their assignments.

The desperately needed security personnel were replaced by ill-prepared Libyan guards and a handful of British mercenaries. And the State Department authorized a rise in "danger pay" for the remaining American security staff, acknowledging that there was, in fact, a heightened danger for US personnel stationed in Libya. Just not enough to ensure their safety.

Just two days before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens' security concerns were again outlined in a cable, approved by Stevens, and sent on the day of the attack. The dispatch contained a number of examples of the chaotic situation unfolding on the ground in Libya.

3. SUB-STANDARD SECURITY FOR BOTH EMBASSY AND CONSULATE Neither the US Embassy in Tripoli nor the US Consulate in Benghazi met minimum federal standards for facility security. These requirements for embassies and consulates abroad, called the Inman Standards, are security-driven design and building benchmark requirements for the security of all embassies and consulate compounds. Not only did neither facility in Libya meet those minimal standards despite the known threats against them, there were no plans to improve the security to what would be minimally required.

4. STATE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL IN DC WATCHED THE ATTACK IN REAL TIME One of the most shocking reports given at Wednesday's hearing came from DAS Lamb, who gave a blow-by-blow account of the attack, taken from the live video feeds and telephone calls that recorded and relayed the events of the attack in real time. She was among those following the events that night, and her report was a detailed chronology of what actually happened at the Consulate. Among the items in her report was that one hour before the first attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens walked a guest from the Turkish mission to the front gate, where all was quiet. An hour later, the violent assault began. Lamb read her report of the events in a dispassionate, monotone recounting of the events. (You can watch the entire four-hour video here (see playlist on right of screen) or Lamb's report here.)

This is important, because despite the hard evidence in front of them, the first official story from the State Department - and the one that the administration stuck to for two weeks following the attack - was specific and, according to UN Ambassador Rice, based on "fact". Rice, Carney, Clinton, and Obama, all made it clear that the attack was the result of a "spontaneous demonstration" which got out of control, and that the anger was caused by an amateur video that insulted Mohammed. It was clear, however, from Lamb's report that no demonstration took place even one hour before the attack, and that the attack itself came suddenly and with massive, well organized violence.

Had the State Department responded appropriately to the security requests of its personnel, the attack might never have happened. According to Col. Wood, the security team that was removed from the compound had served as a serious deterrent, and could have prevented the horrific consequences of the September 11 attack. The team's removal made the consulate a soft target, and contributed to the loss of our personnel.

WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?

The lack of regard for the truth in reporting both the details and the true cause of the attack to the American people was shocking.

The lack of respect for our fallen Ambassador and the three other Americans who were not even given a day of national mourning was appalling.

Blaming the attack on a rude video clip for nearly two weeks after the Benghazi attack instead of on a cascade of bad decisions by the State Department was insulting to the American people.

And the blatant and wanton disregard for the safety of their own personnel by State Department officials, which resulted in the death of our Ambassador and three other brave Americans, should be actionable. All contributed to a scandal which is far worse than any that have come before it - because the lies, the callous disregard, and the disrespect all resulted in the murder of four Americans who should have been supported by the security teams they requested. The ultimate cover-up that kept the truth from the American people is inexcusable and unforgiveable.

I have yet to hear anyone in the chain of command take responsibility for the events of September 11, 2012. It was too easy to blame the hapless producer of a stupid video, and, when that failed, to shy away from any responsibility whatever for the failed security that could have protected our personnel. That there is so little outrage is difficult to understand. Have we become so cynical and blasé that even the wanton, targeted murder of our Ambassador in cold blood raises barely an eyebrow?

That the Benghazi attacks were not the fault of a video was clear from the beginning. The fault lies with an administration that cares more for political victory than for the responsibilities of office. It lies with a bureaucracy that is so overblown and full of its own importance that it cannot manage to effectively manage the responsibilities that should be its primary concerns. And it is the fault of a flawed foreign policy that fails to take into account the driving ambitions of a radical culture that is determined to destroy our own hard-won freedoms in favor of their repressive and depraved seventh century society.

For these reasons:

I CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF DAS LAMB, who refused to authorize the requested security to protect our officials in Libya from an increasingly dangerous situation that they recognized but she refused to acknowledge, security that could have saved the lives of the four Americans who died there.

I CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON, who perpetuated the lie that blamed the violence on the video trailer, giving it credence and deflecting responsibility from the administration, and empowered the organizers of other attacks on our embassies around the world and put many more of our diplomats at enhanced risk.

I CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF UN AMBASSADOR SUSAN RICE, who repeatedly gave authority to the lie, repeating as fact on five national television interviews nearly a week after the attacks took place, that the video clip was the only cause, and that the attacks had nothing to do with 9/11, or with our failed foreign policy.

And finally, I CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, on whose watch this attack against US sovereignty took place, and who refused to take or assign any responsibility for anything that happened that night in Benghazi. He dishonored Ambassador Stevens, the President's personal representative to Libya, and the three other government personnel who were murdered that night, by prioritizing his re-election campaign above national concerns at a time of crisis and loss. Instead of remaining in Washington to provide leadership during the developing emergency, the President flew to Las Vegas for a fund-raiser within hours of hearing the news, referring to the murder of our Ambassador as a "bump in the road". As President of the United States and leader of the free world, he should have declared the attack an act of terrorism, and called for a day of national mourning to honor our fallen heroes.

Even at this late date in a hotly contested campaign for the White House, the sitting President's first responsibility is to lead the nation, particularly in times of crisis. As the Middle East continues to dissolve into revolution, and as the threats against US interests continue to grow, our President has abdicated his responsibilities in favor of celebrity parties and light-weight television interviews. Enough is enough! The buck needs to stop here. And now.

Considering the LibyaGate Coverup...Does Anyone STILL Think Michele Bachmann Jumped the Shark On Muslim Brotherhood Infuence In the White House?

The article comes from Family Security Matters.

Libya Cover-Up Vindicates Bachmann


What is the truth about the horrific attack in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 that killed our ambassador to Libya and three others? And why has it been so hard to get that truth out of the Obama administration?

We now know that these murders were not the result of some spontaneous demonstration run amok in response to a video critical of Islam's founder, Mohammed. Rather, they were the result of a carefully planned and well-executed military operation conducted by jihadists associated with al Qaeda.

It turns out the Obama administration knew at least the broad outlines of that reality within hours of the attack.

So why did assorted administration officials tell us otherwise for days afterwards? For example, long after there was reason to believe a jihadist military attack killed the four Americans in Benghazi, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the President himself insisted that it was just unpremeditated, disorganized violence which was precipitated by an amateur filmmaker in California.

Fortunately, that preposterous party line has now become untenable, thanks to a series of statements - both on and off the record - by counterterrorism and intelligence officials and congressional sources disputing Team Obama's original, dissembling accounts.

The administration is clearly furious that it is being exposed in the run-up to the President's reelection as having deliberately and knowingly disinformed the American people, so it is now trying to shunt the blame onto the intelligence community.

The new line is that the Obama administration didn't mislead the American people. Rather, we are told it was given bum dope by its intelligence agencies. Specifically, the President's flaks want us to believe that, because some in the intelligence community were unable - or at least unwilling - to say early on exactly which jihadist group was responsible, the administration was on solid ground in saying there were none involved. This is, of course, no more tenable than the previous lie.

So why would the Obama administration engage in such dissembling - both the original deception and the effort to cover it up?

There seem to be three factors at work.

First, Team Obama is frantically trying to obscure the utter failure of the President's reckless engagement with and investment in the Muslim Brotherhood, its various fronts in this country, and other Islamists.

The calculation seems to be that, if the administration can deflect attention from the fact that such jihadists have predictably begun to institute totalitarian shariah rule and otherwise destabilize the Middle East, Mr. Obama can dodge a potentially lethal political bullet - at least until after the critical presidential election on November 6th.

Second, Team Obama seems to have calculated that, by insisting a video was responsible for the attack - and not its own fecklessness and submissiveness that have greatly emboldened our enemies - it can protect and actually advance an agenda it has been developing together with the Islamists.

In fact, ever since it came to office, the Obama administration has sought to accommodate Islamist demands that freedom of expression be curbed, lest it offend Muslims and stoke violence.

For example, in 2009, it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution along those lines. In 2011, it launched the so-called "Istanbul Process" to find common ground with proponents of shariah blasphemy laws who seek to strip us of our First Amendment freedoms.

And in September 2012, President Obama announced at the United Nations: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" - a stance indistinguishable from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and al Qaeda.

In practice, the administration's insistence on avoiding offense to Muslims - and, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, "old-fashioned shaming and peer-pressure" on those who do so - has had the inevitable effect: self-censorship is now being widely practiced in America.

Ironically, this appears to be the case, for example, with Hollywood filmmakers now fearful of releasing a flattering movie they had made with help from Team Obama about the President's role in killing Osama bin Laden.

All other things being equal, further shariah-commanded erosions in our constitutional freedom of speech seem inevitable.

Third, the Obama administration's Libya debacle and subsequent cover-up demand the sort of investigations that five Members of Congress - Representatives Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney - asked for back in June. They formally requested that five federal agencies' inspectors general examine the extent to which individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who are, nonetheless, serving in various official capacities may be influencing U.S. government policies. Of particular concern is the extent to which those policies are coming ever more into alignment with the Islamists' agenda.

The Muslim Brotherhood's penetration of the Obama administration was put into even sharper relief after the Libya attacks when a prominent - and highly controversial - figure in the Islamist infrastructure in America, Salam al-Marayati president of the Muslim Brotherhood's Muslim Public Affairs Council, was made an official U.S. representative at an international human rights conference in October in Warsaw. In response to well-founded criticism about Marayati's long record of anti-semitism, support for terrorist groups and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the State Department spokeswoman actually defended him as "valued and highly credible."

We need the truth - about what happened in Libya, about the subsequent cover-up, about the Obama administration's acquiescence to shariah blasphemy laws and, not least, about the influence Islamists "inside the wire" are exercising in all these areas and more - to the grave detriment of our constitutional rights and security.

Is BenghaziGate Worse Than Watergate?

The story comes from Family Security Matters (full article available thru link).

Benghazi Worse than Watergate


For over forty years now, the Watergate scandal - the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration - has been the sine qua non of American political malfeasance. It has been followed by myriad other "gates" affecting both parties but has never been superseded.

Until now.

Benghazi or Benghazigate, as some call it, is worse. Far worse. Incomparably worse.

Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.

It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama's court eunuchs.

Sound excessive?

Hear me out.

But first a word from Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who evidently feels the same way:

First of all, we've had 9 days of lies....If a president of either party...had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified...it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush's "flying over Katrina" moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. [The MSM] has made themselves the enemy of the American people. It is a threat to the very future of the country; we've crossed a new and frightening line on the slippery slope, and it needs to be talked about. (h/t: The Anchoress)

Not to mention Democratic pundit Kirsten Powers:

There are so many unanswered questions, not just about Libya, but also about Cairo. Who is it that Rice thinks "widely disseminated" this "movie?" Surely she can't believe that the Egyptian Coptic Christian who made the video had the capacity or even desire to put it in the hands of the people who did the inciting. Also, has the administration noticed that the mob in Cairo, so spontaneously upset about the video, just happened to be carrying an Islamist flag to hoist over our embassy? On 9/11. What a massive coincidence.... They say curiosity killed the cat. In this case, lack of curiosity on the part of the American media very well may kill more Americans. (h/t: Hot Air )

And so on. There's more at both of these links. Watergate is child's play by comparison.

What really is going on here?

FINISH AT PJ MEDIA