Posted tagged ‘Benghazi’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

Bodyguard Gives Harrowing Account of Benghazi Attack

October 3, 2017

Bodyguard Gives Harrowing Account of Benghazi Attack, Breitbart, October 3, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) — A diplomatic security agent testified Monday that after militants stormed the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, he turned to U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was hiding in a safe room, and said, “When I die, you need to pick up my gun and keep fighting.”

Agent Scott Wickland was the government’s first witness in a trial of Ahmed Abu Khattala, a Libyan suspected of orchestrating the attack that killed the ambassador and three other Americans. Wickland took the stand and gave a harrowing account of how he tried without success to save the ambassador and Sean Patrick Smith, a State Department information management officer.

The smoke from weapons’ fire and explosions was so thick and black that it blinded the three. They dropped to the floor and crawled on their bellies, gasping for air. Wickland said he was trying to lead them to a bathroom where he could close the door and open a window.

“I was breathing through the last centimeter of air on the ground,” Wickland said. “I’m yelling, ‘Come on. We can make it. We’re going to the bathroom.’ Within 8 meters, they disappeared.”

Wickland kept yelling for them. He was feeling around on the floor through the toxic smoke, which made the lighted room darker than night.

“To this day, I don’t even know where they went. I was right next to them, and then that’s it,” Wickland said. “I had my hand on Ambassador Stevens. I could hear Sean shuffling.”

Twelve jurors and three alternates assembled for the opening day of one of the most significant terrorism prosecutions in recent years. Abu Khattala is being tried in U.S. District Court, a civilian court, at a time when the Trump administration has said terror suspects are better sent to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

During Wickland’s testimony, Abu Khattala hung an arm over his chair and held his chin, covered in a long, grayish white beard. He listened through earphones to an Arabic translation of the proceedings.

The opening testimony was aimed at turning the jury against the defendant, but his name was never mentioned throughout Wickland’s nearly three hours on the stand. He is expected to retake the stand on Tuesday.

An 18-count indictment against Abu Khattala arises from a burst of violence that began the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Stevens and Smith were killed in the first attack at the U.S. mission. Nearly eight hours later, two more Americans, contract security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack on a CIA complex nearby

Abu Khattala, who appeared in court wearing a white shirt and dark pants, has pleaded not guilty to his charges, including murder of an internationally protected person, providing material support to terrorists and destroying U.S. property while causing death.

In his opening statement, defense attorney Jeffrey Robinson called Abu Khattala a “Libyan patriot” who fought on America’s side in the war against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. He said Abu Khattala didn’t mastermind the attack. The lawyer said the defendant simply went to the attack site because he heard there was a protest and wanted to see what was happening.

“He didn’t shoot anyone. He didn’t set any fires. He did not participate in the attacks,” Robinson said.

Robinson also said Abu Khattala was a deeply religious man who believes in conservative sharia law as outlined in the Quran. He reminded jurors that in America, people are not prosecuted because of their religious beliefs.

The prosecution gave a starkly different portrayal of the defendant. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb said that when Abu Khattala’s hatred of America boiled over, he orchestrated the attacks and then triumphantly strode around the attack site carrying an AK-47.

Crabb said that later, the defendant told someone at his apartment: “I attacked the American Embassy” and would have killed more Americans that night if others had not intervened.

He said Abu Khattala “hates America with a vengeance.”

“He killed Ambassador Stevens — a man of peace.”

The trial is expected to last for weeks. Crabb said the prosecution would show the jury videos of the attack site and Abu Khattala’s phone records, which he said showed a spike in activity during the attacks. He said witnesses would include weapons and fire experts and a man named Ali, who was paid $7 million to befriend Abu Khattala and help U.S. forces capture him in Libya.

After he was captured, he was taken to a U.S. Navy ship that transported him to the United States. During the 12-day journey, he was first interrogated by intelligence personnel and then by FBI agents. Crabb said Abu Khattala told FBI agents that America was the “root of all the world’s problems.”

His defense lawyer said Abu Khattala cooperated aboard the ship and he “continued to deny, as he denies today, any participation in planning or masterminding the attack.”

Categories: Benghazi, Benghazi cover-up, Benghazi security, Benghazi trial
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Security Contractors: Clinton State Department Silenced Us on Benghazi Lapses

September 13, 2017

Security Contractors: Clinton State Department Silenced Us on Benghazi Lapses, Washington Free Beacon,  , September 13, 2017

 

Two security contractors on Tuesday blew the whistle during an exclusive interview with Fox News’ chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge about Hillary Clinton’s State Department silencing them on Benghazi lapses.

Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were killed on September 11, 2012 in a terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

“Was the State Department contract officer trying to silence you?” Herridge asked.

“Oh absolutely,” longtime special forces soldier and security contractor executive Joe Torres said. “The U.S. ambassador is dead and nobody is held accountable for it.”

Brad Owens, a former Army intelligence officer echoed Torres, saying that those “who made the poor choices that actually, I would say, were more responsible for the Benghazi attacks than anyone else, they’re still in the same positions, making security choices for our embassies overseas now.”

Torres went on to say that this terrorist attack could happen again and ‘nothing [has] changed” in making the security safer.

“In the spring of 2012, Torres bid on the security contract for the State Department compound in Benghazi, but the nearly $700,000 deal, handled by State Department contracting officer Jan Visintainer, went to a mysterious foreign company Blue Mount Group,” Herridge said. “The guards were local hires through another company and not armed.”

Owens said that Blue Mountain Group was “a teeny tiny little security company registered in Wales that had never had a diplomatic security contract, had never done any high-threat contracts anywhere else in the world that we’ve been able to find.”

Herridge said Fox News received a classified cable in October 2012 after the attack that showed Libya ambassador Chris Stevens and his team knew they were in trouble in mid-August and that they had warned the State Department that radical Islamist groups were everywhere.

“They were sending these cables back to the contracting guys and the decision makers back here and they weren’t responding,” Owens. “It’s gross incompetence or negligence, one of the two.”

Herridge said that Visintainer summoned Torres to visit the State Department building in Arlington, Va., to discuss Benghazi.

“She said that I and people from Torres should not speak to the media, should not speak to any officials with respect to the Benghazi program,” Torres said.

Herridge asked Torres whether he felt guilty for not speaking out sooner, prompting him to respond, “absolutely.”

“We had about 8,000 employees at the time and we just didn’t need that level of damage because these guys–their livelihood rely on the company,” he said.

Herridge said that the State Department declined a request to make Visintainer available and that the two contractors alleged that repercussions have continued against their company.

Categories: Benghazi, Benghazi - Rescue Interrupted, Benghazi cover-up, Clinton Dept. of State, Deep state
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

EXCLUSIVE: Libyan Army Spox Says Obama, Clinton “Abandoned the Libyan People to the Terrorists”

July 11, 2017

EXCLUSIVE: Libyan Army Spox Says Obama, Clinton “Abandoned the Libyan People to the Terrorists” PJ Media, Patrick Poole, July 11, 2017

Col. al-Mesmari also claims that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade — hired by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to protect the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi — cooperated with Ansar al-Sharia in attacking the consulate compound on September 12, 2012. 

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

In an exclusive interview with PJ Media, the Libyan National Army (LNA) spokesman, Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, says that President Obama and Hillary Clinton “abandoned the Libyan people to face these terrorists alone.”

He also implicates the Obama administration in supporting terrorist militias — including Libyan al-Qaeda leader Abdelhakim Belhadj and Muslim Brotherhood militias allied to al-Qaeda.

Rather than backing the LNA and the elected Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives (HoR) in the fight against these terror groups, the Obama administration — along with the United Nations and the European Union — have been trying to impose a “Government of National Accord” (GNA) that has zero constituency in Libya. Further, it is accused of working with terror-linked militias in Tripoli.

With the continuing crisis between several Arab nations — including the Libyan HoR and Qatar — Col. al-Mesmari discusses Qatar’s role in arming and financing terrorist militias in Libya. He also connects the Muslim Brotherhood militias that have been fighting against the LNA with al-Qaeda and ISIS elements operating in the country.

Col. al-Mesmari also claims that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade — hired by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to protect the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi — cooperated with Ansar al-Sharia in attacking the consulate compound on September 12, 2012. 

That attack led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Libyans celebrated last week when, after three years of battle, the LNA finally liberated Benghazi from all terrorist groups in the city:

Photo published for Libyan Army recaptures Benghazi from ISIS
Libyan Army recaptures Benghazi from ISIS
The Libyan Army announced on Wednesday that it has recaptured the city of Benghazi from ISIS, Al
english.alarabiya.net

Reuters Top News 

6:57 PM – 5 Jul 2017

And over the past month, Col. al-Mesmari has publicly charged Qatar with direct support of terrorist groups operating in Libya:

Al Arabiya English 

11:37 AM – 9 Jun 2017
Al Arabiya English 

Official says ,  and  are ‘triad of terrorism’ in http://ara.tv/95xs3 

1:32 AM – 29 Jun 2017

The following is an exclusive interview I conducted by email earlier today with Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, official spokesman for the Libyan National Army:

————————————–

1) It’s been six years since the U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya. Hillary Clinton was the leading voice in the Obama administration for the U.S. action. What responsibility does she and Obama bear for that decision?

The main responsibility falls on NATO, which interfered in Libya in 2011 to end the Gaddafi regime and destroyed all Libyan army weapons and infrastructure, only to then leave Libya alone to fight the terrorists. They took none of the necessary measures to help rebuild the Libyan Army or even help to reactivate other security facilities.

The U.S. administration led by Obama and Hilary Clinton was not up to the challenge in Libya and didn’t give much attention to the Libyan situation.

We don’t have any doubts that the Obama administration and his ambassador to Libya, Deborah Jones, had considerable contact with militias and terrorist groups in Libya.

There was a U.S. plan for Libya that we still don’t know the details about, but in the end they abandoned the Libyan people to face these terrorists alone.

2) Given the current crisis over Qatar’s role in financing extremism, what kind of interference by Qatar has been seen in Libya?

Qatar started working in Libya even before NATO arrived. Qatar interfered in Libya under the cover that it was willing to help the Libyan people’s uprising. Later NATO left the scene and Qatar was all over Libya with their support for Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and other militias.

Qatar also supported these groups with money, weapons, ammunition, in addition to transporting fighters from Libya to Syria via Turkey.

Qatar continues until today supporting al-Qaeda militias and Muslim Brotherhood Shield militias in Tripoli and Misrata.

3) Many in the U.S. remember the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. What role, if any, did Qatar play in financing and arming Ansar al-Sharia who conducted the attack?

First, this operation was led by Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, and also another militia called the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, which is one of the Muslim Brotherhood Shield militias that took part in this attack. Qatar is the main supporter and financier of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Libya. In this particular brutal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi they provided weapons and communication equipment to the terrorist militias.

The paradox here is that the 17 February Muslim Brotherhood militia was the militia that the U.S. contracted to protect the consulate. They had an agreement with the attackers to fake a weapons clash then later opened the gates into the consulate for them.

4) What role does Qatar play now in financing and arming extremists in Libya?

The last clear support of Qatar to terrorist groups was their support of the so-called “Benghazi Defense Brigades,” another al-Qaeda affiliate that was labeled terrorist group by the Libyan HoR and by other Arab countries. The Qatari support to them arrived in Al Jufrah in form of weapons, ammunition, armored vehicles, telecommunication equipment, and money in cash.

5) The Libyan House of Representatives recently designated several Muslim Brotherhood leaders as terrorists. What connections have been discovered tying the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya to extremists?

In Benghazi we fought against the Muslim Brotherhood militias known as Libyan Shields. These militias fought next to Ansar al-Sharia (al-Qaeda) and ISIS against the Libyan Army.

This alliance shows clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood had an alliance with ISIS and al-Qaeda, and we know that all these groups including the Muslim Brotherhood all have terrorist religious views.

6) What connections have been discovered linking the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt with extremists in Libya?

The Muslim Brotherhood is an international terrorist group and all their groups in any country ideologically go back to their “murshid” or Supreme Guide who is in Egypt.

7) One of the leading militia leaders backed by the U.S. has been former al-Qaeda leader Abdelhakim Belhadj. Many U.S. media outlets describe Belhadj as a former extremist.

Based on the available evidence now, is it true that Belhadj has abandoned extremism, or is he still involved in extremist activity?

Not at all, Belhadj is still a terrorist leader. In addition he has a lot of money to support his terrorist group as well as financing other groups in Tunisia and Syria.

Belhadj is a founder of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and will not let go of his terrorist views. For us Belhadj is the leader of LIFG, an al-Qaeda affiliate.

8) We know that arms from various parties in Libya were being sent to extremists in Syria, particularly in 2011 and 2012. What do we know now about those networks, and who exactly were these arms being sent to? What way, if any, was the U.S. involved in those arms transfers?

First, it wasn’t just sending weapons and ammunition, but also fighters from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and other nationalities.

Their first stops were training camps in Sabratha, Tripoli, Misrata, Derna and Benghazi, then later airlifted and transported by sea to Syria via Turkey.

Liwa Al-Umma in Syria was established from these fighters and their commander was the al-Qaeda terrorist Mahdi al-Harati, who is a Libyan-Irish national. He is one of Belhadj’s inner circle and was fully supported by Belhadj and Qatar. Liwa Al-Umma fought next to Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) in Syria.

We still don’t know exactly what the American role in this was, but we have what makes us believe that the U.S. knew all about it as well as some European countries.

9) This week we saw, after several years of fighting, the Libyan National Army recover all of Benghazi. With that accomplished, what are the next major objectives for the LNA?

Our duty is to protect the Libyan people and we will always be after terrorism and terrorist groups wherever they are. We have no doubt that we will target every al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group in Libya, or any group that affects the security of the Libyan people.

10) We have seen a rise in the flow of migrants from Libya to Europe over the past two years. What role do extremists take in human trafficking in Libya?

You must know that there is zero illegal immigration to Europe from the areas under our control.

We know that some organized crime groups are human trafficking, so some of these groups simply engage in this activity for the sake of the financial income.

We also know that other groups do it to send terrorists to Europe masking them in forms of illegal immigration.

11) Now with a new U.S. administration under President Trump, what are the steps the U.S. can take to assist Libya in moving forward with political and security solutions for the future?

Politics is not my field, so I will leave it to the politicians to answer that question.

Military-wise, we ask the Trump administration to support our armed forces and its leadership so we could easily and fully control our own soil, then we could end illegal immigration by protecting our borders and coast.

Categories: Benghazi, Hillary Clinton and Libya, Libya, Libyan National Army (LNA) militia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim refugees, Obama and Libya, Qatar and Libya, UN and Libya
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Patrick Kennedy, Hillary Clinton’s Fixer

October 19, 2016

Patrick Kennedy, Hillary Clinton’s Fixer, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 19, 2016

Patrick Kennedy, the State Department official who tried to get the FBI to change email classifications in exchange for helping the FBI meet its staffing needs in Bagdhad, is what they used to call a “fixer.” A fixer is not quite the same thing as a henchman. Cheryl Mills played that role at the Clinton State Department.

Kennedy has been a fixer in both Democratic and Republican administrations. But until Hilary Clinton came to Foggy Bottom, there’s no evidence that Kennedy needed to fix things corruptly.

The Clintons corrupt everything they touch, so it’s not surprising that as Hillary’s State Department fixer, Kennedy went to corrupt lengths. In the case of the FBI negotiations, the Bureau either needed extra personnel in Baghdad or it didn’t. If it didn’t, Kennedy should not have offered to help the FBI. If it did, he should have helped the FBI unconditionally.

Baghdad is not some way station; it is at the center of American foreign policy and national security concerns. For Kennedy to condition his assistance in obtaining extra U.S. personnel in that hot-spot on a favor for a presidential candidate is deplorable. And, as argued below, it’s clear that he did this in concert with Hillary Clinton.

The FBI negotiation is just one example of Kennedy trying to fix things for Clinton. Steve Hayes reminds us of another.

It was Kennedy who helped Cheryl Mills select Clinton-friendly members and staff for the State Department’s Administrative Review Board (ARB). Clinton would later use the findings of the ARB as the key component of her defense on Benghazi. However, as Hayes says, the in-house State Department investigation of those attacks was hardly independent:

The chairmen acknowledged under congressional questioning that they had advised Clinton and her team about potentially problematic witnesses before congressional hearings, provided an advanced copy of their final report to several top Clinton staffers, allowed [Cheryl] Mills to edit the report, and even briefed Clinton for two hours on their findings before they were made public.

In this instance, Kennedy wasn’t just fixing things for Hillary, he was fixing them for himself. Kennedy was at fault for the poor security at Benghazi. Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s charge d’affaires in Libya, testified before Congress that “given the decision-making that Under Secretary Pat Kennedy was making with respect to Embassy Tripoli and Consulate Benghazi operations, he has to bear some responsibility” for the Benghazi terror attack.

As Clinton’s fixer, it was only natural that Kennedy assist the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Examiner reports that Kennedy was involved in pushing plans for a new $177.9 million embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo. Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

“Yes” to $177.9 million for an diplomatic officials didn’t want; “no” (absent help for the Clinton campaign) to two FBI agents in Baghdad. And “no” to beefed up security in Benghazi.

Kennedy also helped fix it so that Brian Pagliano, the man in charge of Hillary’s home-brew email server, got a job at the State Department. A State Department official told the FBI:

Around the time of Clinton’s onboard transition, Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, suggested [redacted] interview Brian Pagliano, who served on Clinton’s. . .presidential campaign. [Redacted] and [Redacted] interviewed Pagliano, who had an MBA form the University of Maryland. After interviewing Pagliano [Redacted] agreed he would be a good fit for [Redacted] team. Pagliano was subsequently hired on to DoS in a Schedule C position, and was tasked with assisting mainly with cost recovery planning and researching DoS technical enhancement opportunities.

(Emphasis added)

Kennedy claims he had no knowledge that Clinton was using a private email server. However, he exchanged dozens of emails with Secretary Clinton’s private email address. In fact, he emailed Clinton at two private addresses: HDR22@clintonemail.com andhr15@att.blackberry.net.

Kennedy’s official job at the State Department isn’t fixer, it is Undersecretary of State for Management. As such, he oversees the department’s compliance with federal records laws. Clinton’s use of a private email server undermined the department’s ability to comply with federal records laws. Kennedy knew from his own correspondence with Clinton that she was using private email for State Department business.

All of this is clear. The remaining question is whether Kennedy sought to have the FBI help Clinton’s position in the email scandal on his own or, instead, at the behest of Clinton.

It seems unlikely that Kennedy would do this something this risky — the FBI could have gone public immediately with Kennedy’s quid pro quo offer — without sign off from the party he was serving. However, we need not speculate. The timing of events demonstrates Clinton’s involvement in Kennedy’s efforts.

As John pointed out, quoting FBI memos, prior to the end of the conversation between Kennedy and the key FBI man on the classification issue, “KENNEDY asked whether the FBI or STATE would conduct the public statements on the matter.” The FBI man “advised KENNEDY that the FBI would not comment publicly on the matter.”

Safe in the knowledge (dutifully provided by Kennedy) that the FBI would not be commenting, Hillary Clinton promptly met the press, a rare event, “to deny having sent classified emails on her private email server.”

Thus, when Kennedy tried to influence the FBI, via a quid pro quo, to help the Clinton campaign, he was no rogue fixer. He was a fixer working closely with Hillary Clinton, as he had in the past.

As President, Bill Clinton needed not just an ordinary fixer but a “Secretary of Sh*t” (John Podesta filled that job for a time). As President, Hillary Clinton will need at least one. Patrick Kennedy is perfect for the role.

Categories: Benghazi, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Department of State, Patrick Kennedy
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Court orders State to hand over new Clinton emails by Sept. 13

August 26, 2016

Court orders State to hand over new Clinton emails by Sept. 13, Washington Examiner, Anna Giaritelli, August 25, 2016

A federal court has ordered the State Department to review and turn over emails from a new batch of communications that Hillary Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state by Sept. 13, but which she deleted, Judicial Watch announced Thursday afternoon

“The State Department shall search the material, determine whether any responsive records exist, and complete its first production of non-exempt records, to the extent any exist, by September 13, 2016,” the court ruled.

Judicial Watch said the department has admitted in a court filing that some of the emails that Clinton had deleted included some “Benghazi-related documents.”

That case involves emails between Clinton and the White House in the week after the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Judicial Watch is also pursuing another case that involves a separate batch of Clinton emails. Those emails will start being delivered to the group on Sept. 30, and the court said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on Aug. 30 on whether State should make it known sooner how many documents are involved.

Categories: Benghazi, Clinton e-mails, Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Only Bombs Libya When the Muslim Brotherhood Lets Him

August 2, 2016

Obama Only Bombs Libya When the Muslim Brotherhood Lets Him, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 2, 2016

benghazi_victims

Obama is rather belatedly bombing ISIS in Libya after having essentially turned over Libya to Jihadists. That particular course of action cost the lives of four Americans in Benghazi.

Why can Obama bomb Libya now but not to save the Americans who were under siege in Benghazi? The answer is simple and ugly.

In Washington, the Pentagon said the raids were launched in response to a request from the unity government.

“At the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord, the United States military conducted precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya, to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL in its primary stronghold in Libya,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said, using another name for IS.

The GNA is significantly Muslim Brotherhood influenced. Obama refused to provide aid until the GNA, which incorporates Islamists, came into being.

A  third deputy is Abdessalam Kajman who aligned with the Justice and Construction Party of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest component while Musa al-Kuni represents southern Libya.

Whether it was going after Gaddafi or ISIS, Obama needs to be on the right side of his political Islamists first. And he isn’t about to bomb them merely to save American lives.

Categories: Benghazi, Islamic State, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party’ Premieres in Hollywood

July 13, 2016

Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party’ Premieres in Hollywood

by Daniel Nussbaum

12 Jul 2016

Source: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party’ Premieres in Hollywood – Breitbart

D’Souza Media

LOS ANGELES — Hundreds of eager fans and conservative celebrities packed the premiere of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood Monday night.

Before the screening, D’Souza explained that his latest film is tonally different than his previous documentaries, 2016: Obama’s America and America: Imagine the World Without Her, adding that if he had to pick a genre for Hillary’s America, it would be horror.

The 55-year-old filmmaker said that if every American could see this film, it would be “impossible for Hillary Clinton to get elected.”

L-R: Debbie D'Souza, Dinesh D'Souza, Jon Voight, producer Gerald R. Molen

L-R: Debbie D’Souza, Dinesh D’Souza, Jon Voight, producer Gerald R. Molen

 

“We’re opening our film July 22nd, about two weeks from now, right between the two conventions,” D’Souza said. “The idea is that the Democrats, the Hillary Democrats, have their narrative, and we will have our counter-narrative opening in 1,500 theaters across the country.”

The 100-minute film differs from D’Souza’s previous efforts in that it uses narrative elements mixed with interviews to present a complete picture of the history of the Democratic Party, starting with slave-owning President Andrew Jackson and guiding viewers through Margaret Sanger’s founding of Planned Parenthood and up to President Woodrow Wilson, who screened the Ku Klux Klan-glorifying movie The Birth of a Nation at the White House.

The film begins with D’Souza serving time in a correctional facility for violating campaign finance law, a punishment the filmmaker believes was retribution for his previous documentaries critical of the Obama administration.

D’Souza quickly realizes all of the inmates have committed crimes far more heinous than his, but the filmmaker soon wonders whether the “cons” perpetrated by his fellow inmates are similar to those being perpetrated on the American people by the Democratic Party and its standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton.

D’Souza traces the early days of Clinton’s political career, from her meetings with radical community organizer Saul Alinsky to her early relationship with Bill Clinton and on to more recent scandals including her role in the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, her private email server and allegations of corruption at the Clinton Foundation.

Interviewees featured in the film include Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, National Review editor Jonah Goldberg and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer.

“At the end of the day, we want this film not only to help mobilize and rally and unify Republicans, but we also want the film to reach middle-of-the-road guys and Independents and the kind of people who will probably decide this election,” D’Souza said after the screening had concluded.

“I’m not really trying to convert the left. I’m content to dismay and flummox them,” he joked. “But ultimately we want to get this film to as many people as possible.”

Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is in theaters nationwide July 22.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Michael Cutler on The Hillary-FBI Fix — The Glazov Gang.

July 9, 2016

Michael Cutler on The Hillary-FBI Fix — The Glazov Gang. ViaYouTube, July 8, 2016

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Benghazi, Clinton character, Clinton e-mails, Clinton lies, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clinton perjury, Contempt for America, Department of Justice, FBI, Obama - rogue president, Obama's America, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences

July 7, 2016

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 7, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary Clinton, who if elected would be President Obama Part Two, is a world-class liar. Whenever She considers truth damaging to Herself — as it usually is — She lies. Normally, She gets away with it. She lied about her State Department e-mails: guilty as hell and free as a bird. She lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, thus far, has got away with it. This year, it is up to the American people to do the only thing we can to prevent Her from becoming President Obama Part Two. Our only way to do that will be to deny Her what She considers “Her turn” to continue Obama’s quest to destroy America.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

First, a flash-back

She lied misspoke, as She often does.

On July 5th, during FBI Director Comey’s address on his recommendation that She not be indicted, She was revealed as a consummate liar. She then got adverse press, even from the lamebrain media. For her lies evidenced there alone, She should not become “our” president. She will not if we stand firm. Please see The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump.

This brings us to The Benghazi Clusterdunk

The following video shows that the Obama-Clinton administration should, and could, have sent American military resources to prevent American deaths in Benghazi. For political reasons, resources were not sent: elections were comings soon, so Islamic terror needed to have been defeated and nation-building had to have been successful in Lybia. Both were lies.

The next video provides what we know about the Clinton-Obama administration refusals to send American military help. There is much that we don’t know, because of the Obama administration chose to provide lies instead of truthful answers.

Hillary lied, Obama lied. Americans died and Obama got a second term in office. Now Hillary wants Her “turn.”

Knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a poorly made video — for which the maker was gratuitously jailed — Hillary and Obama lied. Ambassador Rice may also have lied intentionally. Either that or she was given a political spin instead of accurate information and had no reason to believe that she had been lied to.

September 25, 2011

According to the Majority Report on the Benghazi clusterdunk, as summarized by Robert Spencer,

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154] [to avoid offending the locals by wearing military attire — DM]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

And now, two wrap-ups:

Conclusions

Hillary lied, Obama lied and Islamist al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists murdered Americans because no American military resources were sent, even though available. Their deaths were not only unnecessary, they were and remain a disgrace.

There is now only one action that we can take, and that will be on November 8th. Then, we will vote either for Obama Part Two becoming Obama Part One, thereby affirming their disgraceful actions and inactions or disown them. It’s up to us to disown them both.

Categories: 2016 elections, al-Qaida, Benghazi, Benghazi - Rescue Interrupted, Benghazi report, Clinton cover ups, Clinton lies, Democrats, Department of State, Federal Government, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans, U.S Government, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. politics, You Tube
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi

July 5, 2016

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 5, 2016

Witch of Benghazi

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

Categories: Benghazi, Department of State, Foreign policy establishment, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamist moral values, Moderate Muslims, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's leadership
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries