National Security

You CAN NEVER TRUST DEMOCRATS with national security.
Obama 2012 campaigned on the idea that Al-Qaida was vanquished and on the run. He slept and then went fundraising in Las vegas as the Ben Ghazzi embassy was overrun. And now we are having to close embassies all over the Muslim world. Who can possibly trust Hillary, who pounded on the table at the Ben Ghazzi hearngs in congress crying "what difference does it make at this point" if it was an organized Al-Qaida attack and then she and obama lied for weeks, claiming it was motivated by a video no one saw? Are they going to blame closiong all our embassies on Disney? These idiots run our country? 9-11 happened because Bill Clinton massively cut CIA during his term, leaving our abilities to weakened. During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship. Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert. These are open facts, easily verifiable. Obama is doing the same now. Huge cuts to our miltary. His main election mantra was "Bin laden is dead". Killed only because of info obtained by Bush's policies that OBAMA campaigned against in 2008. Obama promised Iran will never get nuclear weapons. Netanyahu says they are weeks away from crossing the red line. None of this even touches the way he is destroying the US economy

PRINTEMAIL

TEXT SIZE 

 

Hillary Ordered Benghazi Security Reduced Before Attack

A common tactic when under fire for a “scandal” is to release so many angles and new scandals that critics aren’t sure where to “focus”. The result is often a tangled mess that most people won’t be able to understand — or care to understand. This seems to be the Obama and Hillary response to Benghazi, the IRS attacks, and other scandals.

One story that slipped through the cracks a couple of months was that Hillary didn’t just not act on information about a future attack on the Benghazi consulate. In fact, she had ordered security to be reduced.

This order came during a time where there were over 50 security breaches in Benghazi that year, including direct attacks on the consulate.

From CBS News:

In an interim progress report on the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, five House committees call former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-ranking State Department officials responsible for reducing security levels at the consulate, contradicting the testimony Clinton gave before Congress.

The interim report — released by Republicans on the House Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Government Reform Committees — reaches three major conclusions.

First, the committees’ Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature.

And what exactly were those reductions? From the report itself:

However, in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi. Specifically, despite acknowledging Ambassador Cretz’s March 2012 cable requesting additional security assets, the April plan called for the removal of the two remaining MSD teams, the third initially deployed MSD team having been previously removed.

Maybe it was because there were no security problems in Benghazi? Actually the opposite. From the report:

The deteriorating security environment in Benghazi throughout 2012 mirrored the declining situation in the rest of Libya. From June 2011 to July 2012, then-Regional Security Officer (RSO) for Libya Eric Nordstrom compiled a list of more than 200 security incidents in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.

These incidents included violent acts directed against diplomats and diplomatic facilities, international organizations, and third-country nationals, as well as large-scale militia clashes.

U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi came under direct fire twice in the months leading up to September 11, 2012: first in April 2012, when disgruntled Libyan contract guards allegedly threw a small improvised explosive device (IED) over the perimeter wall; and in June 2012, when unknown assailants used an IED to low a hole in the perimeter wall.

Originally, we weren’t sure what was going on, but now we’re starting to see signs of what occurred. It’s likely possible that the reduced security was to make it easier to keep arms deals on the “down low”. This might be why there were a dozen CIA agents on the ground that the administration also tried to cover up.

In other words, they were ignoring congress to arm radicals, including terror cells, and even reduced security of their agents to make this easier to hide. The end result might be the opposite — the truth is slowly coming to light.

Desperation in the Benghazi Coverup

By JED BABBIN on 8.5.13 @ 6:10AM

A congressional select committee could offer immunity to the CIA’s dispersed, intimidated survivors.

You can always tell the depth of an event’s illegality by the measures people take to cover it up. By that measure, the conduct of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and David Petraeus leading up to the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on 9/11 2012 must be must be so sufficiently wrongful that, if revealed, they could lead to the president’s impeachment.

How else can we gauge what is apparently the most energetic coverup in modern history?  We know, from several sources, that the survivors of the attack — not on the consulate, but on the CIA annex — number a few dozen or more. We also know from those sources that almost all of their names have been concealed from Congress in the course of the coverup.

Those sources also reveal that the CIA has required those survivors to sign confidentiality agreements binding them to never disclose what they were doing in the days or months leading up to the 9/11-12 attack.  Keep in mind that good old Joe Wilson — the former ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to “learn” what Iraq had done to acquire uranium — wasn’t required to sign any confidentiality agreement, hence his ability to become a Democratic political attack dog instantly after Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage leaked his wife’s CIA employment to reporter Robert Novak.

The Joe Wilson episode and the CIA requirement imposed on the Benghazi survivors is entirely consistent with the political conduct we’ve seen from the CIA in the past dozen years.

And it gets worse. Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) disclosed that the CIA’s involvement in covering up the Benghazi scandal goes much further. He said that the CIA was not only requiring the Benghazi survivors to change their names, it is also spreading them around the country in a CIA version of a witness protection program. In this case, the witnesses are being protected from ever telling the truth to the media or testifying before Congress.

We now also know that the CIA’s Benghazi veterans are being required to submit to monthly polygraph tests to check on their behavior: they are being required to answer if they’ve leaked to Congress or the press every time they are polygraphed.   

Why is there such blatant intimidation of these people? We’ve all seen and heard the reports that the Benghazi CIA annex was the locus of a gun-running operation. If it was, the only likely recipients of the arms would be either the Syrian opposition — which is largely made up of al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadis — or the Turks who might have been serving as a pipeline for the arms to those same Syrian opposition guys.

In either case, the president — whose approval had to have been obtained for any such operations — would be directly implicated. He was either acting without congressional authority or in violation of laws on the books that are supposed to block those actions.

Either way Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus would be in the dock personally for having broken the law.

It would be enough to make Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean green with envy. Except for the fact that nobody died in Watergate. And the fact that the other facts of the day don’t just call into question Obama’s Middle East policy: these facts demonstrate that this policy is quite bizarre.

In the past two weeks, there have been massive jailbreaks of al Qaeda members — some of them high-ranking leaders — in Iraq and Libya. In Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban jihadis, again including some Taliban leadership, escaped. There are probably about a thousand al Qaeda and Taliban thugs at large today who weren’t at large last month.

So it should come as no surprise that the State Department issued a travel advisory on Friday and  ordered our embassies in most Muslim countries closed yesterday. Al Qaeda isn’t, as Obama has told us again and again, decimated or out of action. The specific information that led to the warning and closure of 22 embassies is of a widespread al Qaeda threat that could target Americans in any of those countries on President Obama’s birthday. This is his birthday gift from the people who brought us the “Arab Spring.”

The president continues to insist that there is some bloom of democracy in the Middle East. Both he and Eric Holder have admonished the Egyptian military to include the Muslim Brotherhood in any interim government they might form. This would be, Obama and Holder insist, a more “inclusive” government for Egypt.

They obviously believe that the Muslim Brotherhood — for all its ties to terrorism, for all its doctrine of strict Sharia law — is a force for democracy rather than against it. Either they believe that, or Obama and Holder have made America into a force against freedom and democracy. At this point, there is ample reason to believe either interpretation of American policy.