Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton and Benghazi’ category

Hillary Whines About Being Held Accountable For Benghazi

September 13, 2017

Hillary Whines About Being Held Accountable For Benghazi, Town HallKatie Pavlich, September 13, 2017

(Please see also, Security Contractors: Clinton State Department Silenced Us on Benghazi Lapses. — DM)

Remember this moment?

It seems Hillary Clinton hasn’t changed her opinion about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

During an interview with NBC’s The Today Show Wednesday morning, Clinton complained about the fallout of the attack, which left four Americans dead, because it hurt her politically.

“Boy, it was turned into a political football. And it was aimed at undermining my credibility, my record, my accomplishments,” Clinton said.

Political football? More like accountability. After all, Clinton was Secretary of State at the time and was repeatedly warned the security situation at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was severely inadequate. She ignored pleas for more security and people died as a result. Further, she lied to the American people about what happened in order to protect her political ambitions.

The woman has no shame.

The Russian Connection (Iran and Syria, Too)

October 28, 2016

The Russian Connection (Iran and Syria, Too), Counter Jihad, October 27, 2016

iranhil

According to a blockbuster new report by Christine Brim, Clinton crony Thomas Pickering profited to the tune of half a million dollars while arranging shady deals with Russia, Syria, and Iran.

Some of these deals were outright illegal, the report says:

[Hillary Clinton’s] Foreign Affairs Policy Advisor Thomas Pickering was a paid director for the Russian company Trubnaya Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya (TMK) from June 30, 2009 to June 26, 2012. TMK is majority-owned by Russian billionaire oligarch Dmitry Pumpyansky, a close Putin ally.

I discovered extensive proof of TMK’s business dealings in Iran and Syria while Pickering was on its board, including TMK sales of oil and gas pipelines to Iran that were specifically prohibited under U.S. laws and executive orders.

Emphasis added.

The Brim report notes that this Clinton crony had a similar relationship with Boeing during the Iran negotiations, one that resulted in a $25 billion contract between Boeing and Iran.  When the stakes are that high, corporations are willing to work with tyrants and human rights abusers like the mullahs.  Pickering served as a lobbyist encouraging ratification of the Iran deal while on Boeing’s payroll — a fact he kept secret from those he was lobbying, according to news reports.

We have learned about Pickering’s dealings thanks in part to emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s illegal secret server.  These emails show him engaged in pay for play negotiations between the Clintons and foreign governments, according to the Brim report.

Emails released from Clinton’s private server show that Pickering was emailing, meeting, and coordinating foreign travel with Clinton and her staff from the beginning of her time as secretary of State and arguing for an end to economic sanctions on Iran all during the same years he was on TMK’s board of directors. Starting in December 2011, he also served in official capacity on Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Clinton appointed Pickering chairman for the Benghazi Accountability Review Board three months after he left TMK.

Unsurprisingly, in that role he found that Hillary Clinton was in no way blameworthy for the disaster at Benghazi.  Indeed, in a parallel role he ensured that she received a “Pursuit of Peace” trophy from the International Crisis Group in 2014, the day before the House Select Committee on Benghazi launched its work.

These stories are of course deeply familiar to anyone who has followed the tales of the Clinton State Department.  It’s not a very different story from the story about her taking big money donations from Bahrain to her foundation, and then approving a major arms deal sought by that country.  Official State Department channels had rejected the deal previously, but just like the laws forbidding sales of pipeline technology to Iran, neither the law nor the ordinary standards of diplomatic practice matter for Clinton “friends” who are willing to come across with plenty of cash.

Nor is it very different from the story about how Clinton rubber-stamped a vastly increased number of visas from Saudi Arabia following tens of millions of dollars in donations to her family foundation.  She did this in spite of having herself sent a cable in 2009 stating that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida.”

So this story is one we know all too well.  Is this kind of shameless corruption the future of the American government?  The next few weeks will tell.

Washington Post: Hillary for President, Benghazi ‘No Scandal at All’

October 13, 2016

Washington Post: Hillary for President, Benghazi ‘No Scandal at All’, Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak, October 3, 2016

wapo

The Washington Post endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president on Thursday. That was predictable. What was less predictable was the incredibly weak, and misleading, case the Post editorial board attempted to make as it argued that she is not the lesser of two evils, but will make an “excellent” president.

The Post cannot highlight Clinton’s achievements. Instead, it re-casts her many failures as “a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well” for the Oval Office.

For example, it excuses Clinton’s role in the ill-fated Russian “reset” by pretending that no one could have predicted the result: “When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin — knew how things would play out.” Everyone knew that Putin controlled the real power behind Medvedev, and the Russians immediately took advantage of Clinton’s weakness, pushing back U.S. missile defenses.

The Post cites Clinton’s “executive experience” as Secretary of State, but cites no actual accomplishments. The word “Iran” does not appear once in the editorial.

Most laughable of all, the Post describes the Benghazi terror attack as a “hyper-investigated” controversy that “proved to be no scandal at all.” Never mind Clinton’s dereliction of duty on the night of Sep. 11; never mind her refusal to provide increased security beforehand; never mind her lies about a YouTube video; never mind the intimidation of witnesses when investigations began; never mind the emails she destroyed, while under subpoena.

About those emails: the Post brushes aside the controversy. “Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters.” The Post glosses over her continued lies, and omits her mis-handling of classified information.

The Post‘s nod is not an endorsement, but just the latest cover-up.

Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret’

October 12, 2016

Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret.’, Breitbart, John Hayward, October 11, 2016

hillary-123-81b42706-dbbc-424a-b26b-6e716a6c2503-640x480

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

*********************************

The WikiLeaks dump of those very expensive speeches Hillary Clinton fought to keep secret from the public for so long include some remarkable comments on Libya and Benghazi.

These comments offer a damning indictment of Clinton’s leadership, because it is clear that she and Barack Obama were completely wrong about what would happen to Libya after they toppled dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

For example, she told the Boston Consulting Group in 2013:

So what happened? Well, Khadafy is gone. They start to organize. They had one of the best elections that any of these new countries had. They did not elect extremists. They had a very good outcome of people representing the various factions, but they didn’t – they don’t have a military. They can’t provide security as we found much to, you know, our terrible experience in Benghazi, but we see it all over the country. So the jury is out but it is not for lack of trying by the people who have inherited the positions of responsibility.

The jury wasn’t “out” then, and it is not out today. Clinton and Obama caused a horrific global crisis with their Libyan adventure, and they were completely unprepared for what happened in Benghazi. It’s clear from Clinton’s remarks that she completely misunderstood the security situation.

In the same speech, she explained that now she understands how thoroughly Libya’s “institutions” were “destroyed” by Qaddafi’s rule, and violent overthrow, but sadly for Ambassador Chris Stevens and those who died with him, Clinton did not listen to anyone who tried to warn her about the danger prior to 9/11/2012:

You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn’t trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.

In a Cisco speech in August 2014, she called the Benghazi attack her “biggest regret,” and repeated her observations about how inadequate the security situation was, as if someone else had been Secretary of State at the time:

Of course it was just devastating that there was this attack on our post and on our CIA annex, which I can talk about now, because it’s all been made public. And that the kind of reliability that governments have to count on from the governments in which they operate, like we’re responsible for the security ultimately of every embassy in Washington.

Well, the Libyan government has no capacity to deliver and the people that we had contracted with were incapable or unwilling to do it.  So that was a deep regret.

And you learn from these events, just as we have over the last 30-plus years, where embassies have been attacked or taken over, or the terrible events in Beirut in 1983-84.  You learn from them, but it always comes down to this very hard choice, should American civilians be in dangerous places?

What’s especially galling about Clinton’s 20/20 hindsight is that Democrats have long made the same argument about Iraq, and Clinton claims to have accepted those arguments after mistakenly voting to authorize the invasion.

In the later years of the Bush presidency, Democrats claimed it was patently obvious, in retrospect, that Iraq wasn’t ready to deal with the savage post-Saddam era, because decades of brutal personality-cult dictatorship had destroyed the institutions upon which democracy depends. Supposedly everyone outside of the Bush Administration could plainly see that nation-building was a doomed enterprise.

But here’s Clinton asking us to pardon her while she learns the same horrible lesson from her own nation-building project. Why should anyone give President Obama and his Secretary of State a total pass for not understanding what would happen after Qaddafi was gone, when so many people outside the Administration were yelling those warnings from the rooftops? Who was responsible for understanding that security situation and taking appropriate precautions, if not the Secretary of State?

Clinton boasted about the wonderful Libyan elections in several of her speeches – “one of the best elections in the whole region after the fall of Qaddafi,” as she put it to Hamilton College in October 2013 – but such arguments cut no ice with Democrats after the liberation of Iraq. It wasn’t long before they were waving off those “purple finger” photos of Iraqi voters as irrelevant.

“You try to help, you try to create relationships, and, you know, the hard guys with the guns have a different idea. So if you don’t have overwhelming force, it’s difficult,” Clinton observed to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in 2014.

How can anyone be surprised that “the hard guys with guns” have undue influence in the Middle East? How can anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Middle East in general, and Libya in particular, reinforced by the grim lessons of Iraq, have imagined anything less than “overwhelming force” would be required?

Clinton told the Global Business Travelers Association in 2013 that it was “just a terrible crime” Ambassador Stevens was killed “doing what was really in the best interests of both the United States and Libya.”

On that, we can all agree, but that’s not how Clinton talked during the crucial days after the Benghazi attack revealed she and Obama had no idea what they had done to Libya, and no contingency plan for coping with a terrorist strike on the anniversary of 9/11.

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

“The Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker: “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech”

September 13, 2016

“The Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker: “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech” Jihad Watch

“I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” Nakoula told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.”

The forlorn cry of a man beaten into submission by the fallout he faced because he dared to challenge Islam, thinking he was safe under democratic freedoms. What Nakoula Basseley Nakoula — the Coptic Christian whose video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially blamed by the Obama administration for the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya – really means is that he does not believe in the so-called keepers of our democracy, in which the freedom of speech is supposed to be a core principle. What this man suffered in scapegoated and jailed, and now living in poverty, was a selling-out of our foundation principles by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

What Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has suffered is the mere tip of iceberg when it comes to Sharia subjugation.

nakoula

“Blamed for Benghazi: Filmmaker jailed after attack now lives in poverty, fear”, by Hollie McKay, Fox News, September 12, 2016:

Four Americans died in the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, and those who survived saw their stories of heroism told in a Hollywood movie, but the filmmaker whose work was wrongly blamed for touching off the event lives in obscurity, poverty and fear, FoxNews.com has learned.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian whose short video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially faulted for sparking the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya, is now living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He has served time in prison, been shamed publicly by the White House and threatened with death.

“I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” Nakoula told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.”

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seized on the anti-Islamist film as the cause of a spontaneous protest that turned violent. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when armed terrorists laid siege to the compound and set it ablaze.

The story was told in the Michael Bay-directed film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” which starred John Krasinski.

Nakoula’s video trailer, posted online and credited to “Sam Bacile,” mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammad – depicting him as everything from a bozo and womanizer to predator and homosexual. Although Obama and Clinton were later forced to acknowledge that the attack was an organized assault by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, Nakoula was soon charged with eight counts of probation violation, jailed without bail and deemed a “danger to the community.”

Nakoula had previously been convicted of charges relating to bank and credit fraud, and federal prosecutors found his use of the Internet to post the video violated his terms of probation.

Nakoula, who is in his late fifties and has been in the U.S since 1984, declined to elaborate on his post-jail experiences, but said he plans to write a book about his ordeal.

For now, he deferred queries to the Rev. Wiley S. Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church. In August 2013, Nakoula was relocated from prison to a halfway house – a kind of house arrest although it’s a government facility – to serve out the remainder of his time, and a year later was released into Drake’s custody. For the past three years, Nakoula has been living at the homeless shelter on church grounds.

Drake, an Arkansas native who ran as an independent for the Presidential nomination in 2008 and again for 2016, said he sought out the controversial filmmaker in 2013 because he had grave concerns for the future of democracy in the United States.

“I wanted to find out what was really going on,” Drake told FoxNews.com. “They accused Nakoula of causing Benghazi, but it could not have been further from the truth.”

According to Drake, the federal government was concerned about the potential threats at the halfway house due to Nakoula’s presence, and agreed to release him to the church. Amid the hoopla sparked by his film and the finger-pointing, Nakoula indeed became a hot target for Islamic fatwas. In 2012, an Egyptian court sentenced him – in absentia – to death for defaming the religion and a Pakistani minister issued a $100,000 reward to have him killed.

Drake said that they have received a few anonymous phone threats – the last being about a year ago – but he refuses to back down.

“I have purposely not hidden that Nakoula is here,” he continued. “I’m not afraid of anything.”

Steven Davis, director of security management at the church, stressed that they take Nakoula’s precarious position as a “high value target” very seriously and said the church has well-trained personnel should any external threats arise.

“I talk to him on a regular basis, check he isn’t being followed,” Davis said. “It is hard to know how far the enemy – radical Islam – will push things.”

Nakoula remains under the supervision of the federal government, so he will likely be at the Church for at least another year. The average stay at the shelter is a few months, enough time for most to “get back on their feet,” said Drake.

Kenneth Timmerman, author of “Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed For Benghazi,” asserts that Nakoula was ultimately “the first victim of Islamic Sharia blasphemy laws in the United States.”

“He was collateral damage, as were the actors and actresses who became subject to death threats and fatwas,” Timmerman said. “Nakoula takes the fatwas seriously because he understands they are still active and cannot be rescinded.”

Drake also noted that from time to time he receives phone calls from different people at the State Department checking in on how Nakoula is faring, and while Drake typically gives a vanilla answer, he is concerned for his future. Nakoula has worked various part-time jobs at a pizza parlor and more recently driving for Uber, but as soon as people make the connection between him and Benghazi, work dries up.

“So we have put him to work here,” Drake said. “And he has transportation now so he can go and visit his family nearby, but he wants to keep them safe and out of the spotlight.”

It was revealed in last year’s House Select Committee hearings on Benghazi that, despite public proclamations otherwise, Clinton was well aware that the attacks were well-crafted and not spurred by “The Innocence of Muslims.”…

Sources close to Nakoula say he was indeed “proud” of the film’s content, and has no reservations in continuing his outspoken stance against the Islamic religion when the timing is right. Drake however, noted that Nakoula has expressed some regret – not for the film’s controversial content – but for the trouble and stress it ultimately caused.

“If I could go back, I would do it again,” he told FoxNews.com three years ago from prison. “Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it.”….