White House releases additional documents related to Benghazi response

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read on firstread >>

White House releases additional documents related to Benghazi response

Benghazi: If Only Charles Ramsey Were Secretary of State, Not Hillary Clinton

Pajamasmedia

Benghazi: If Only Charles Ramsey Were Secretary of State, Not Hillary Clinton

Is This The Reasion Why The White House Will Not Release The Benghazi Emails?

War News Updates

Acting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones told Libya's president one day after the Benghazi attack that Islamic terrorists had killed the U.S. Ambassador and reduced the compound to a burnt-out shell

Secret Email Reveals Top Official Told Libya's U.S. Abmassador That Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack - Four Days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador To UN Said It Was A Spontaneous Attack -- Daily Mail

Sept. 11: Terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya
Sept. 12: State Dept. Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs tells Libya's President that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible
Sept. 13: CIA writes candid talking points for members of Congress
Sept. 15: White House deputies edit the talking points, removing all references to Islamic terrorism
Sept. 16: UN Ambassador Susan Rice, in five television interviews, blames the attack on a spontaneous mob angered by an anti-Islam YouTube video

A top State Department appointee told Libya's ambassador to the United States one day after the military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that the terror group Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.

But four days later, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said on television that it was the product of a spontaneous protest.

During a fiery and emotional congressional hearing on the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy read aloud from an email dated Sept. 12, 2012 to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

Read more >>

Is This The Reasion Why The White House Will Not Release The Benghazi Emails?

Boehner calls for release of Benghazi emails as pressure grows on administration

Fox News

Pressure on the Obama administration to release more information about the Benghazi attack grew Thursday, as House Speaker John Boehner demanded officials turn over emails pertaining to the controversial "talking points" and another top Republican appealed for more whistle-blowers to come forward.
On the heels of a dramatic hearing where three whistle-blowers testified, Fox News has learned that former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday, on the Hill for a meeting with House Republicans, also told lawmakers: "I think Hillary (Clinton) should be subpoenaed if necessary."
The comments and developments signal that Republicans will continue to press for answers on the deadly Sept. 11 attack. Despite arguments from Democrats that the hearing was not nearly as shocking as Republicans made it out to be, GOP lawmakers said it raised troubling questions that need to be investigated.
"The truth shouldn't be hidden from the American people behind a White House firewall," Boehner said Thursday. "Four Americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal."
Boehner specifically urged the Obama administration to make public a set of internal emails that some lawmakers had been able to review but not keep.
One of the emails apparently showed a top State Department official saying a group affiliated with Islamic terrorists was responsible for the strike. Separate emails, though, allegedly depict the White House and State Department pressing lower-level officials to remove references to terrorism in talking points about the attacks.
Based on those talking points, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice would go on five Sunday talk shows shortly after the attacks to claim they were triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film. Top officials would later claim the flawed assessment was based on the best intelligence at the time, but the testimony from whistle-blowers Wednesday indicated that those on the ground knew the attack was terrorism.
"The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," Greg Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified Wednesday.
After the hearing, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said he will continue to seek whistle-blowers to "come forward."
"Candidly, as quickly as possible, we simply want to have the whistleblowers that are still out there, in fact witnesses that are still out there to come forward, tell us their story. We will get it out and we will close up this investigation," he told Fox News.
Issa, R-Calif., is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which held the hearing.
The wide-ranging and dramatic testimony Wednesday raised several fresh questions about the attack. Witnesses questioned why security had not been tightened in Benghazi in the months leading up to the assault and why U.S. military assets did not respond sooner that night, with one alleging a military team was not given permission to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi the next morning.
Further, they raised serious concerns about the administration's initial decision to describe the attack as a protest gone awry despite evidence on the ground to the contrary.
In startling testimony, Hicks also claimed the State Department retaliated against him after he raised questions about that decision. He claimed that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones delivered a "blistering critique" of his management style after he criticized Rice's initial claim that the attack was tied to anger over an anti-Islam film. He also claimed that he was counseled to avoid personally discussing the attack with Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz and was "effectively demoted" to a desk officer in the end.
Issa, in a written statement after Wednesday's hearing, called the alleged retaliation and intimidation "perhaps most troubling."
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, vowed to protect the whistle-blowers while criticizing his Republican colleagues for allegedly trying to politicize the tragedy. He claimed afterward that the testimony only served to undercut Republican allegations.
"What should have been a bipartisan investigation involving our national security was another sorry example of Republicans promising explosive new facts but delivering only a press spectacle," he said in a statement.
The committee may move to hear testimony next from at least one leader of the State Department's internal review of the Benghazi attack. Though the leaders, former Joints Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, apparently declined to testify, Pickering told MSNBC on Wednesday that he is willing to speak.
Issa spokesman Frederick Hill on Thursday noted the "change of heart" -- but also said neither Pickering nor the administration has contacted the committee about possible testimony.
Several claims from Wednesday's hearing could open up new lines of inquiry on the attack and its aftermath. Among them, Hicks claimed that Rice's faulty claims about the nature of the attack hurt the FBI investigation.
Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation.
"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.
This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days.
"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/issa-seeks-more-whistle-blowers-after-dramatic-benghazi-hearing/#ixzz2Sp6u0oH4

Boehner calls for release of Benghazi emails as pressure grows on administration

Diplomats criticize Benghazi response in GOP-led probe

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read on Nbc >>

Diplomats criticize Benghazi response in GOP-led probe

Benghazi Hearing Aims to Reveal High Level Decision-Makers

breitbart

By Kerry Picket 

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee say there will be “explosive” revelations that will come forth during the Committee’s hearing on Wednesday when three State Department witnesses reveal what they knew the night the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya were attacked by terrorists. Committee members will be hearing the testimonies of State Department employees Greg Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom.

The Committee appears to be interested in finding out who ultimately made the decision to tell military assets not to send help to the Americans who were under assault in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The attack took the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a member of the Oversight Committee, has said the whistleblower witnesses will discuss whether or not there could have been military assets deployed during the siege that could have saved the lives of former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty.  

Hicks told the Oversight Committee in April:

If we had got clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them.  And so, in my personal opinion, a fastmover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.

“[T]he administration says we couldn’t have gotten there in time which defies logic, because they had no idea had long the attack was going to last,” Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday night. “Mr. Thompson is going to shed light on...the siege itself and whether or not our fellow Americans were crying for help and we could have helped them and for whatever reason chose not to,” he said.

Additionally, Gowdy says he will be questioning the witnesses about the administration’s explanation for falsely blaming an online video, made in part by California resident and Coptic Christian Mark Basseley Youssef, for instigating the attack on the consulate. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went onto five Sunday news shows following the attack and touted the administration’s position that the video was the reason for the attack on the consulate.

“You’re going to know that [Ambassador Susan Rice] was demonstrably false. You’re going to know that she was the only person who held onto that narrative even after everyone else went away from it,” Gowdy said, adding, “And importantly..what you're going to hear that this cover up, her choosing to rely on those false talking points about the video, impeded and obstructed our ability to get at what happened in Benghazi. The [FBI] was denied access to the crime scene as a direct result of her false narrative that it was a video.”

Hicks will tell the Committee, according to Gowdy, how the State Department attempted to protect high-level officials at the Department after the attack. Excerpts of Hicks’ interview with the Committee show Hicks thought the Department's Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) report did not palace blame on anyone, telling the Committee:

I thought it was incomplete. I thought that it was--that the recommendations were unbalanced in favor of building higher walls, pouring more concrete, that it was insufficiently strong in recommending that the State Department personnel needed to have more and better training to be deployed to critical threat environments…
I mean, the ARB report itself doesn’t really ascribe blame to any individual at all. The public report anyway....It does let people off the hook. In our system, people who make decisions have been confirmed by the Senate to make decisions. The three people in the State Department who are on administrative leave pending disciplinary action are below Senate confirmation level.  Now, the DS assistant secretary resigned, and he is at Senate confirmation level. Yet the paper trail is pretty clear that decisions were being made above his level. Certainly the fact that Under Secretary Kennedy required a daily report of the personnel in country and who personally approved every official American who went to Tripoli or Benghazi, either on assignment or TDY, would suggest some responsibility about security levels within the country lies on his desk...

The witnesses will likely be asked to describe what their transition was like after the attack, particularly focusing in on any threats they may have received from the State Department if they broke their silence about what they knew.

Benghazi Hearing Aims to Reveal High Level Decision-Makers

CBS News: U.S. Diplomat Contradicts White House on Benghazi

breitbart

CBS News: U.S. Diplomat Contradicts White House on Benghazi

Special ops called for military backup during Libya attack, sources say

Fox News

By Adam Housley

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help -- but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.
The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.
"When you are on the ground, you depend on each other -- we're gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that's a bad feeling," one source said.
Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.
"They had no plan. They had no contingency plan for if this happens, and that's the problem this is going to face in the future," one source said. "They're dealing with more hostile regions, hostile countries. This attack's going to happen again."
Under normal circumstances, authorities in Benghazi would have fallen under the chief of mission, one source said -- the person in charge of security in the country who in this case was Stevens. But once Stevens was cornered and members of his security detail pushed his distress button, that authority would have been transferred to his deputy. However, that deputy was out of the country.
That meant the authority then reverted directly to the U.S. State Department, and oversight of the response to the attack that night fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who were calling the shots.
Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 p.m., special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.
"What that does is that enacts ... every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority," one source said. "I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack."
However, the source said, "Assets did not move."
The failure of the State Department or White House to give the military permission to go into Libya, according to the source, only accentuates the significant breakdown in communication among the State Department, military, CIA and White House.
"I can see the initial confusion in the beginning. I mean, you have a situation that's developing. The problem with the State Department is they don't have procedures in place. And if they do, they haven't practiced or exercised them. And now they are making up for all the mistakes they have made, with excuse. And there is no excuse," the source said, describing a "huge breakdown between State and military."
Last October, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the response, saying the military was reluctant to put forces at risk.
"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta said. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
The State Department Accountability Review Board, which investigated the attack and what led up to it, also claimed that "Washington-Tripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and coordination on the night of the attacks were effective."
But one source told Fox News there was "not good communication" between State and Defense "on any level."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/special-ops-called-for-military-assets-to-move-into-position-during-libya/#ixzz2S9GqlqN1

Special ops called for military backup during Libya attack, sources say

Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

Fox News

By Eric Shawn
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr.  was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.
According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
"I think this helped uphold the integrity of the electoral system," the prosecutor, Stan Levco told reporters.
“Their verdict of guilt is not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections,” he said.
The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit. He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.
The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.
“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.
Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.
Prosecutors say that in President Obama's case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 names, which, if faked, could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify. Prosecutors say 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures.  Even if 130 signatures had been challenged, it would have still left Mrs. Clinton with enough signatures to meet the 500 person threshold.
Levco said a total of “100 to 200” signatures had been forged on Obama’s and Clinton’s petitions.
An Indiana State Police investigator said in court papers that the agency examined the suspect Obama petitions and "selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed" petitions "or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear."
Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed the petitions.
"That's not my signature," Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told us when we showed her the Obama petition with her name and signature. She was stunned, saying that it "absolutely" was a fake.
Charity told Fox News that her husband's entry was also a forgery, and that they have never been contacted by investigators or any authorities looking into the scandal.
"It's scary, it's shocking. It definitely is illegal," she told us.
Robert Hunter, Jr. told Fox news that his name was faked, too.
"I did not sign for Barack Obama," he told us. As he examined the Obama petition in his hands, Hunter pointed out that "I always put 'Junior' after my name, every time...there's no 'Junior' there
Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.
“This is a bitter sweet moment for free and fair elections," observed Ryan Nees, the Indiana born Yale “University senior who first exposed the scheme in the independent political newsletter, Howey Politics Indiana and South Bend Tribune.
Nees said the multiple guilty verdicts were "bitter, because a five-person conspiracy succeeded in illegally placing two presidential candidates on the ballot, but sweet because they were exposed, tried for their crimes, and convicted."
Nees previously told Fox News that the fraud was clearly evident, "because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting," and that nobody raised any red flags "because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures."
Fox News' Meredith Amor contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/#ixzz2RadqhiYN

Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

Full Release Of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hacked’ Benghazi Emails

patdollard
Excerpted from RT:

Excerpt missing

Keep Reading >>

Full Release Of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hacked’ Benghazi Emails

Could it be Clinton and Obama in 2016?

visiontoamerica

pacifista.wordpress.com

Many Americans would like to believe, barring an unlikely repeal of the 22^nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution Barack Obama would never be able to run on a Presidential ticket again. However, given the Democrat Party’s addiction to stretching and twisting U.S. laws to steal victories when failure is imminent, Americans cannot ignore the very real possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2016.

Be advised, lack of legal clarity has always been Obama and the Democrat Party’s greatest ally in their war on American traditions. Obama is a shameless specialist in murky law and questionable executive orders designed to trample on the U.S. constitution. After having read a variety of opinions from differing schools of legal thought, I have come to a troubling conclusion that a history making 2016 Hillary/Barack Democrat ticket could be in the works. Let me attempt to explain.

The 22^nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for the prohibition or the disqualification, for “election” only, to a third presidential term, for anyone who has held the Office of President for 2 terms or 8 years. It does not define a candidates “eligibility” to hold that office. The 12^th amendment to the Constitution defines Presidential and Vice-Presidential “eligibility.”
Post Continues on lastresistance.com  >>

Could it be Clinton and Obama in 2016?

Benghazi – Where was the Commander-in-Chief?

canadafreepress

Paul E. Vallely

After the testimonies of Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi tragedy, it appears the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama was off duty and not available to make a hard decision to press the military Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack. The cover up appears to be a White House order to “Stand Down” and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours he did nothing; no communications with his National Security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. “Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better.”

The testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.” Where was the order to execute a rescue mission NOW Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans.

I have promised Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods, and family, that at Stand up America, we will press this investigation to the end. Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naiveté in the least and complete indifference to threat conditions provided by the Intelligence Community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the National Security team.

What we have had is myriad conflicting and/or changing stories and moving people and parts from all manner of sources, players, and decisions makers. We have internet rumors, official statements, hearings, in camera probes, an ARB report, talking heads ad nauseum, political spin and a very clear ‘circling of the wagons’ where blame encompasses all involved within the Obama circle of influence.

We have witnessed hearings that were more congratulatory than probative, and a steady parade of the changing of the guard. Facts cannot be disputed, yet access to facts has been impossible. The objective has been to obscure actions to prevent the ability to sift through the events, conjecture, political rhetoric, and the steady attempt to move beyond the elections and to the cabinet changes; especially by those of us without high clearance in ‘fly-over’ country.

The cumulative effect of all these facets is that one must suspend all manner of logic and reason to swallow the miasmic trail. This is precisely the point – there has been an obvious attempt to muddy the waters, ‘chill the mark’, and deflect focus. It expected the onlooker to be so confused they have to just look away, feel bad for the losses, and swallow that this is all a learning experience and rest assured that they will all try harder, now under newer administration.

The most cogent report to date on Benghazi was crafted Senators Lieberman and Collins but it does not go deep enough into the weeds with regard to dereliction of duty, omissions, waivers, mission, objective, and names to hold responsible. We need to know without varnish, spin, and purposeful evasion what did and did not take place during the events as they unfolded, and an adult, clear minded understanding of what was at stake that prompted people to make poor and deadly decisions. We must first start with how the lines of communication would have unfolded, where decision making nodes occurred, what those decisions were, and why they were made.

Most important, where was the President? Was he ‘absent’? Absent, really? No, he just did not want to make himself available and have to make a difficult decision or have his actions traced with any paper trail. He seems to hide or not be available when the going gets tough? What, the President is unavailable during a crisis?

All citizens must ask the following questions and more, and demand a complete map to understand how our government is supposed to work at the highest levels in times of crisis by those who took the oath of office:

1. Career professionals in the CIA, the Military, the State Department, and other integral professionals including the National Security Team are trained and expected to ensure all Americans and USA interests are protected at all costs. To many, Benghazi was likely the apex of their respective careers to prove their worth and value. How could so many fail and hide the realities of terror attacks and threats and as one Senator asked who was in charge or supposed to be in charge?
2. The entire National Security apparatus was well aware of the events leading up to and including the attack(s) on Libya and beyond, so why the indifference and lack of any response?
3. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey admitted during their testimony that there is no firehouse mentality, the question is why as this is outside the scope of Rules of Engagement and historical training?
4. The Benghazi annex was the largest CIA base in North Africa.  The primary mission was to chase the illicit and illegal arms stream as well as the Middle East militia members. The question is how far reaching and effective was this mission for the end result to be terror attacks and death and how politically charged was this to the administration’s overall goals in the Magreb and Middle East and beyond?
5. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey clearly both revealed that the meeting with Barack Obama on 9-11 was thirty minutes long and only 20 of the thirty minutes centered on Benghazi. Just how deep was the commitment of Obama to re-election versus Foreign Service officers in Libya and beyond as more than 20 locations had demonstrations or attacks against the United States during the week of 9-11?
6. Did Hillary Clinton sign a waiver to deny Marine security at both locations in Libya to include Tripoli and Benghazi despite Congressional laws against her actions (SECCA) perhaps in favor of government contractors like Blue Mountain or DynCorp and did the administration wave off rescue missions?
7. While General Ham was in Washington, DC. on 9-11-12, who gave orders for any and all actions or lack of actions in Benghazi including the dispatch and re-dispatch of surveillance drones and in favor of what?
8. Given that several hundred terror-related incidents occurred in Libya over the previous 24 months in Benghazi, where are the surveillance drone videos, and who assessed the conditions on the ground with regard to weapons and militias?
9. The members of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) were chosen by Hillary Clinton and with the classified and non-classified publication of the ARB, the matter of the terror attack has been insufficiently addressed. Congress gave Hillary Clinton many questions, both within and without the scope of her testimony. Where are her written responses and those members of the ARB that she promised after her testimony?

The weak link also appears to be the representations made by Hillary Clinton and others about the communications protocols in the event of a most critical incident (referred to as ‘critics’ in the community) in one of the ‘hottest’ spots on Earth. It is a matter of procedure that communications between selected embassies, if not all embassies, have an Imminent Danger Alert System that is directly ‘on-hook’ with at least four destinations which include: the White House Situation Room (WHSR), the State Department Operations Center, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Pentagon. ‘Critics’ are graded with an urgency status, and in the matter of Benghazi, the ladder of escalation included the top urgency status, calling for an immediate and urgent response.

Why haven’t we seen or heard the Situation Reports (SitReps) from the witnesses from Benghazi including all those located or functioning out of either or both the compound and annex? How many non-American people were there or co-located there? Due to the nature of the attack(s), how many people in total have died or been injured and for those that died, were autopsies performed? Why haven’t the estimated 32 survivors been interviewed; where and who are they?

Secretary Clinton correctly admitted that Marine detachments are assigned to diplomatic posts to guard classified material from being compromised. So why aren’t our elected Congressmen NOW publicly discussing the “Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999” (SECCA) over her decision not to have Marines at Benghazi? In the absence of a Marine assignment how many government contractors were under contract to assume the same duties of Marines and why would we allow the Libyan government to approve our hires?

The functional security budget for Benghazi alone was $ 11 million. Blue Mountain was a ‘no bullet’ contract and the hiring of the February 17th Brigade to provide outside security to the compound was mired in a labor dispute due to the number and time of working hours, working conditions, and pay scale. Many members of the February 17th Brigade were on strike at the time of the attacks and many fled prior.

The administration allowed a well armed, well trained, 16 member security forces to be removed from Libya in August, about a month before the attack. They were to eventually be replaced by a Libya security force who Ambassador Stevens wrote could not be trusted because it was forbidden to vet the personnel under Libyan government rules.

The House Oversight Committee had documentation that the WHSR started receiving emails that the mission was under hostile surveillance as early as 1 PM, on the day of the attack. The WH/DoD/Pentagon ordered the drone to the location to video the actions at the compound. No order or permission was provided to the CIA annex to render assistance to those under attack at the mission as the attack was imminent and later under assault.

Those at the annex, without DC knowledge or approval, later did provide lethal protections and countermeasures as no other military assistance was dispatched. As soon as the attacks began, the mission sounded an audible alarm for the whole compound, alerting Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security in Washington DC. The Diplomatic Security headquarters in DC which resides in the State Department also went to the Department of Defense while DSHQ maintained opened communications with the mission during the whole attack. At this time, the CIA annex was also alerted and told to prepare to aid personnel.

Where was the President? ‘Absent’ yet?

The administration refuses to fully describe the nature of the personnel in Tripoli that were dispatched to Benghazi on a chartered aircraft. They were however, not Marines, but likely a hired substitute group FAST team of government contractors. It has been stated under oath that there were no assets within any favorable distance or within time constraints to respond to the attack in Benghazi, why? As Libya was the highest threat and greatest hotspot for attack, no proactive measures were in place for more than two years and no one took any initiative to either offer, or better still, demand rescue and safety measures for Benghazi or other locations including Cairo, Tunis, or any number of other diplomatic posts.

Where was the ‘Fire Station’ set up for any and all contingencies that were more than likely to occur? There were no contingency plans or a ‘firehouse’ set up in one of the most fire prone areas where Americans were in harm’s way. Leadership?

Given the ‘on-hook’ destinations of communications coming from Benghazi pleading for assistance, there were an estimated 300 to 400 personnel in national security positions that were receiving the emails, the encrypted mobile texts, or simply desperate phone calls via secured systems. After the dismissal of the national security officials, all actions were handed off to the NSC and the military command center – ‘nothing else to see here folks back to business as usual.’

Remember, the President of the United States is NEVER, EVER more than a few minutes from secure communications… ‘Absent’? AWOL?

Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said lawmakers viewed the video of the mission showing the post before the attack, the full set of incidents, and the exodus. These videos were a combination of surveillance cameras at the compound and the drone feed. The video(s) included the Ambassador’s body being dragged out of a building. This speaks to and proves that an ‘anti-Muslim’ YouTube video was clearly not the reason for the attack as fabricated by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice. David Petraeus did provide an immediate assessment that the attack was performed by a radical Islamists group known as Ansar al Sharia.

They knew immediately, and there never was any question despite what many surrogates have said, even during Thursday’s hearings.

It is an indisputable fact that much of the objective in Benghazi was to restore order from a pre and post Qaddafi regime. Much of the order included identifying lethal weapons smuggling, in and out of Libya, to destinations that include Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iraq, and Algeria to list a few countries. A buyback program was initiated by the CIA in the area for high grade military weapons that included manpads and stinger missiles.

The U.S. government under the Obama administration did in fact provide lethal weaponry to Libyan rebels for the eventual overthrow of Qaddafi and the same is true in Syria. So a high grade weapons pipeline was established, chased, smuggled, and transferred. This now begs additional questions that include who did the State Department and the Department of Defense hire for all parts of all missions in the Middle East? Could it be that the four dead Americans were actually killed with weapons provided by the United States that eventually went to the wrong hands?

Did the United States solicit historically recognized jihadists/Islamists of known and unknown quantity and quality via militias from the start to the finish in overthrowing Libya strongman Qaddafi and beyond? Should attention be placed on a domestic arms security company known as Turi Defense Group out of Las Vegas who was in communication with Benghazi? Marc Turi is/was an authorized GSA arms vendor that held several government contracts for providing arms that included destinations such as Qatar and other Gulf States, all at the core of providing lethal military grade weapons as directed by the Obama administration. Incidentally, Turi lives in Arizona and his home was raided by Federal law enforcement in 2012.

The State Department applied millions of dollars to Libya under the premise of grants and humanitarian aid and to what accounting have these monies been scrutinized to date and/or will be in the near future? Simple searches on open sources have shown that more than $30 million was assigned for various objectives in Libya in a post Qaddafi landscape. Have those funds or unspent funds been accounted for?

What is the status today of the FBI investigation into Benghazi? Hillary Clinton, in her testimony, said many things, one of which was that al Qaeda is a “brand.” This speaks to the matter that there are several associated militias in Libya and MENA that include Ansar al Sharia or any other factions and may also include members of the February 17th Brigade. At the time of the attack, there were only three members of the February 17th Brigade at the compound who were actually deputized by the Libyan government.

The most shocking point spoken by Hillary Clinton was “what difference at this point does it make?” She went on to say, “to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice.” These two statements are key as they speak to timing, both of which point to pre-election conditions of Barack Obama and post-election conditions as the administration maintains power to ensure the facts on Benghazi remain opaque and oblique.

All deference was paid to Libyan placeholders as they demanded that any official rescue teams had to dress in civilian clothing to keep tensions at a minimum. 300 threats were provided from the intelligence community yet blame is placed back on the intelligence community saying that none of the intelligence was actionable per Panetta’s testimony. General Ham was in constant communications with the Ambassador in Libya for many months. He delivered specific reports to General Dempsey, of which Dempsey admitted he received, and was well aware of conditions, yet never offered or suggested an increase of security or military assets as a safety measure. He also did not set up any contingency plans such as the ‘Fire Station’ to handle any eventuality. This is completely against all military policy throughout the ranks and now sends a very sad message – ‘will they have my back no matter where I am assigned?’

Both Secretary Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that after the one single meeting for thirty minutes at the White House, there were no further conversations with the President regarding Benghazi and that includes not only Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus. The matter for all involved was closed and an Executive Privilege was attached to 9-11-12 Presidential Daily Briefings (PDHs) associated to Libya for public or investigative purposes. The investigation as we are told is in the hands of the FBI and the Department of Justice to determine if there will ever be enough to build a case for future prosecution of the terrorists involved.

Panetta admitted in his testimony that the terrorists are emboldened, regardless of capture or response possibilities now, which in summary, is the most disturbing revelation of all. The threat to American safety and assets across the globe remain at high risk, yet there is no ordered readiness condition to save our brothers and sisters or sovereign locations worldwide.

Where was the President? Our sources tell us, that though he was ‘absent’, he indeed gave the ‘stand-down’ orders. Prior to that, it was his naïve approach, inept preparation and response to obvious needs that set the scene in place – the most obvious day for retaliatory action on the part of al Qaeda. What are we being asked to believe?
______________
Research and contributing to this article are SUA Staff members Denise Simon and Monica Morrill; Edited by Scott W. Winchell.

Paul E. Vallely , MG US Army (Ret), is Chairman of Stand Up America USA, and a writer for American Daily Review. Paul’s latest book is “Operation Sucker Punch – Blood for Our Future”. He is the co-author of “Endgame- A blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”. Paul can be reached at: standupamericaceo@gmail.com

Benghazi – Where was the Commander-in-Chief?

Clinton Blames Bush for Lack of Funds to Secure Benghazi

breitbart

Dr. Susan Berry

In an “exit” interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued the theme that, during the Bush administration, requests for monies from Congress to secure embassies and consulates were rejected.

When asked by Van Susteren whether, in the wake of the Benghazi attack in which four American diplomats were murdered, Americans could now feel safe or satisfied that our consulates, embassies, and diplomats are secure, Clinton responded:

Well, as to the first question, you know, the accountability review board made a set of recommendations. We are embracing and implementing all of them, and making sure that we apply them.
Now, it's not all a question of money. I am the first to say that. You know, you have to have the right people and the right job, making the right decisions. But money is a factor. And ever since the Bush administration, our requests for security monies from Congress have not been met. So you've had to make priority decisions. And it's been difficult.
So I am determined to leave the State Department safer and stronger when I walk out the door. And I know that John Kerry will just pick up the ball and run with it.

In October, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified that the size of the attack, and not the money, was the central issue. When asked, at that hearing, whether there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, Lamb responded, “No,” and added, “This was an unprecedented attack in size.”

In response to yet another question about budgetary issues, Lamb replied, “Sir, if it’s a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that.”

However, during her testimony last week, Clinton said that the Accountability Review Board (ARB) found that budget issues played a role in the failure to secure the consulate.

“That’s why you have an independent group like an ARB; that’s why it was created to look at everything,” Clinton said.

Republican lawmakers, however, said that suggestions that the consulate in Benghazi was not secured because of finances were politically-based. They observed that the State Department has spent millions on lower-priority projects that could have been spent on security.

Clinton Blames Bush for Lack of Funds to Secure Benghazi

Former Secretary Clinton Comments on Cuba

capitolhillcubans

From today's "Global Townterview" with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at The Newseum:

QUESTION: How do you evaluate the diverse democracies in our region, and how do you see our future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think I see a lot of progress, but still work that needs to be done. If you look at Colombia, you are not the country you were 15 years ago. You have consolidated democracy. You – I know President Santos is attempting to try to negotiate a peace agreement so that people will turn away from violence and participate politically. In Mexico, we see great economic growth but also a very vibrant political system in the last election. In Brazil, similarly, we see the same kind of trends. There are others that you can point to.

But there are some outliers. Unfortunately, we still have a dictatorship in Cuba, which we hope will change soon. We have democratic challenges in other countries in Latin America. But overall, I think that progress has been made and you have to stay the course. It doesn’t happen quickly, but there is great reason to be quite optimistic about the institutionalization of democracy throughout Latin America.

Former Secretary Clinton Comments on Cuba

O'Reilly: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, friends forever

O'Reilly: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, friends forever

'60 Minutes' Obama, Clinton interview heavy on laughs, light on substance

foxnews

AP/CBS

By Dan Gainor 

If CBS ever needs a softball team, they should sign Steve Kroft. The veteran newsman filled nearly three fourths of his big interview with President Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with easy questions (11 out of 15). So much so that laughter was more commonplace that any challenging questions.

For media watchers, the much-ballyhooed half-hour was a waste of good interviewing time. Kroft only threw four mildly tough questions at the power duo and two of those were still fairly easy health questions aimed at Clinton. Only the last two questions tackled Libya, Syria and conservative criticisms that there has been “an abdication of the United States on the world stage.”

Kroft then let Obama dodge questions of his failure in Syria and let stand Obama’s bizarre assertion that the revolution in Egypt has turned out well. “When it comes to Egypt, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there,” said Obama. 

For media watchers, the much-ballyhooed half-hour was a waste of good interviewing time. Kroft only threw four mildly tough questions at the power duo and two of those were still fairly easy health questions aimed at Clinton.

Had Kroft not wasted the entire first two thirds of his interview on slow pitch, he might have thrown a fastball about the ongoing violence there now, the Muslim Brotherhood’s power grab, threats to Israel and bigoted comments from Obama’s buddy Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. (Just hours before the pre-recorded broadcast, Morsi declared a state of emergency in three provinces as 50 people had been killed in rioting.)

It was the questions that weren’t asked that left viewers wondering if Kroft reads international news. What about tensions between China and its neighbors and U.S. allies Japan, Taiwan and South Korea? Or the increased tensions over the Falklands? Or that pesky little would-be nuclear state of Iran? Or how about U.S. involvement in Mali or terrorism in Algieria? Maybe even our relations with our nearest neighbors Canada, which is waiting on word about pipeline approval, and Mexico which is wondering about fast and furious?

CBS had certainly built up to the event with pre-show promotion that included the network’s Bob Schieffer remarking how unusual it was for president’s to share the stage with anyone. In that vein, Kroft began by reminding viewers that of the Obama-Clinton “rivalry that is one of the richest in American history.” Someone needs to get Kroft a better history book. Even Obama admitted that the pair agreed on policy.

Kroft’s questions weren’t just softballs. More than half resulted in laughter from Obama or Clinton and sometimes both. A couple were so bad that even Kroft laughed as well. 

The most embarrassing one was a public relations person’s dream as Kroft reflected how he had been with both candidates back in 2008. “That was a very tough, bitter race and I’m going to spare you really some of the things that you said about each other during the campaign,” to which even he laughed.

He laughed again when he asked about Obama’s support for Clinton. “What’s the, I have to ask you, what’s the date of expiration on this endorsement?” Both Clinton and Obama’s responses were equally sickening. Clinton threw out an “Oh, Steve…” and Obama commented, “You guys in the press are incorrigible.”

This wasn’t the first embarrassing Kroft interview of Obama. Back before the election, “60 Minutes” ran another interview but left out key elements where Kroft asked Obama if the Libya attack had been by terrorists. Obama dodged and CBS dodged even more, releasing that full interview with less than 24 hours before Election Day.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/28/60-minutes-obama-clinton-interview-heavy-on-laughs-light-on-substance/#ixzz2JHy9fdvC

'60 Minutes' Obama, Clinton interview heavy on laughs, light on substance

O'Reilly: Is Hillary Clinton the new Obama in the eyes of the media?

O'Reilly: Is Hillary Clinton the new Obama in the eyes of the media?

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read at nbc >>

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack, clashes with Republicans

Senator calls for 'top-to-bottom review' of State Department ahead of Clinton testimony

Read at foxnews >>

Senator calls for 'top-to-bottom review' of State Department ahead of Clinton testimony

The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration: ‘People For the American Way’ Smears Michele Bachmann

frontpagemag

By John Perazzo

Huma Abedin/ policymic.com

Last June, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four Republican colleagues sent letters to the Inspectors General at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking them to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood—the ideological wellspring from which such terrorist outfits as al Qaeda and Hamas first emerged—might be gaining undue influence over high-level U.S. government officials. One letter, for instance, noted that Hillary Clinton‘s closest aide, her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, “has three family members … connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.”

A few days ago, when Bachmann was reassigned to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the left-wing activist group, People For the American Way (PFAW)—which had originally launched an unsuccessful petition drive to have the congresswoman removed from that Committee last year—decided to revive that effort. By PFAW’s telling, some 178,000 people have signed the petition thus far.

According to PFAW president Michael Keegan, Rep. Bachmann’s warnings amount to nothing more than a “smear campaign” of “baseless conspiracy theories” designed to ruin “the reputations of honorable public servants.” PFAW spokesman Drew Courtney accuses Bachmann of engaging in “reckless extremism” aimed chiefly at “making headlines and pandering to the Tea Party.” And PFAW’s online strategy manager, Ben Betz, derides Bachmann’s “Islamaphobic fear mongering” and her “disregard for honesty.” These accusations are entirely consistent with PFAW’s previous claims that “right-wing anti-Muslim activists,” filled with “anti-Muslim paranoia,” routinely “demoniz[e]” and “vilif[y]” members of the Islamic faith in an effort to stoke Americans’ “irrational fears.” Such conservative activists, says PFAW, “sanction and encourage [the] persecution” of Muslims while aiming to “prevent” them from “freely worshiping and practicing their religion.”

These very serious allegations about a sitting Member of Congress raise a single, obvious question: Are Bachmann’s stated concerns about Huma Abedin and others associated with radical Islamic organizations unfounded or illogical in any way? The evidence suggests otherwise:

From 1996-2008, Ms. Abedin was employed as an assistant editor of a publication produced by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a group founded and developed by her parents. As the intrepid journalist Walid Shoebat has made plain, “Muslim Minority Affairs” refers unequivocally to a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed to: (a) persuade Muslims who reside in non-Muslim lands to consciously refrain from assimilating into the cultures of their host countries; (b) advance an agenda based on fundamentalist Wahhabi teachings and Sharia Law; (c) gradually shift the demographic scales by means of Muslim population growth in the host countries; and (d) eventually reach a critical mass that tilts those societies toward majority-Muslim status and membership in the Muslim commonwealth. Key to this process is the influence of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and support groups like the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and the IMMA.

But, according to PFAW, there’s nothing to see here, so don’t trouble yourself with any of this information; it’s really just an old-fashioned “smear campaign.” And, presumably, we are likewise expected to believe that only a delusional “right-wing” bigot could possibly feel even the barest shred of concern regarding other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates with similarly close ties to the Obama administration.

Arif Alikhan/ dailytarheel.com

Consider Arif Alikhan, who joined President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2009.  Previously, Alikhan had helped derail the Los Angeles Police Department’s efforts to monitor the activities of that city’s well-known radical mosques and madrassas (where some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, had received support from local residents).
 Shortly prior to his DHS appointment, Alikhan participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization founded by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah. On another occasion, Alikhan spoke at a California banquet/fundraiser alongside Agha Saeed, a Cal State professor who defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian during the latter’s prosecution on terrorism charges. But alas, PFAW wouldn’t want any of us to wade, unwittingly, into the murky waters of “baseless conspiracy theories.”

Then there is Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based Islamic cleric who joined
 President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in October 2010, even though he had previously spoken at a Dallas conference titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” held in honor of none other than the late Ayatollah Khomeini. But before you jump to any conclusions about Mr. Elibiary’s ideological makeup, take a moment to unburden your mind of those pesky “irrational fears” that PFAW has painstakingly traced to the doorstep of “right-wing anti-Muslim activists.”

Mohamed Elibiary/ vimeo.com

Along the same lines, who, other than an “Islamophobic fear monger,” would have any misgivings about Rashad Hussain, who has served the Obama administration as a deputy associate counsel and a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 57-country coalition that seeks to outlaw any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments? Sure, Hussain once spoke at a conference sponsored by a Muslim Brotherhood front group and headlined by numerous leaders of the global Brotherhood movement. And yes, he participated in a panel at an annual convention of the American Muslim Council, which was then headed by the Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdurahman Alamoudi—later convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.
 And true, in September 2004 Hussain took part in a Muslim Students Association event where he denounced the “politically motivated persecution” 
of the terrorist Sami Al-Arian. And yes, in 2008 he published a paper that contained a number of recommendations consistent with the agendas and worldviews of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. But hey, nobody’s perfect.

And what are we to make of Mohamed Magid, the Virginia-based Imam who was appointed to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2011? Claiming that media references to jihad as “holy war” constitute an egregious “misuse” of that term, Magid currently serves as president of America’s largest Muslim organization, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was founded by U.S.-based members of … yes, you guessed it, the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of five officials of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terror-financing trial in American history. Ah, but surely PFAW would wisely counsel us not to let “anti-Muslim paranoia” about such trivia spoil our day.

Another character of note is Ingrid Mattson, a Connecticut-based professor of Islam who delivered a prayer at the National Prayer Service, one of the events associated with President Obama’s 2008 inauguration. In June 2009 she was invited by Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls.
 Mattson, whose resumé features a stint as president of the Islamic Society of North America, has characterized Wahhabism—an extremist, intolerant form of Islam with close ties to Saudi Arabia and terrorism—as “a reform movement … analogous to the European Protestant Reformation.” If by any chance you were to find this troubling, PFAW would surely remind you to hold your tongue, lest you “sanction and encourage” the “persecution” of Muslims.

In April 2009, Dalia Mogahed, a senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, was appointed by President Obama to serve on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, making Mogahed the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. She was also assigned to the advisory council of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. Prior to these appointments, Mogahed had co-authored a book with Professor John Esposito, an apologist for radical Islam and an editorial board member of the same Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs journal that employed Huma Abedin for a dozen years. In addition, Mogahed’s research provided key data for a project by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the New York City Imam who was associated with the proposed contruction of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Mogahed has stated that most Muslims view Sharia Law as a framework for achieving “a more just society” and the “protection of human rights.” Moreover, she has consistently defended and reached out to Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. In September 2008, she stated that it would be unfair for such groups to be “disenfranchised” by a “witch hunt” designed to “malign” them. If you find any of this problematic, you just might be one of those “reckless,” irresponsible “demonizers” whom PFAW deplores.

Eboo Patel/ asmasociety.org

In February 2009, Eboo Patel was appointed to President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. 
This same Mr. Patel has asserted that “Muslim totalitarians” are hardly distinguishable from “the Christian totalitarians in America,” “the Jewish totalitarians in Israel,” or “the Hindu totalitarians in India.”
 At the main event of a three-day convention held by the Muslim Students Association in 2011, Patel participated in a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna) and Siraj Wahhaj (a former Islamic Society of North America vice president who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). 
And, for good measure, Patel has depicted Van Jones, the revolutionary communist who served several months as President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, as an “American patriot,” a “faith hero,” and one of “the true giants of history.” But bite your tongue if you feel an impulse to “demonize” or “vilify” this esteemed presidential adviser.

In the final analysis, we must indeed be grateful for the existence of groups like People For the American Way—ever prepared to alert us to the menacing presence of “right-wing anti-Muslim activists” who would rather “make headlines” with their own brazen rhetoric, than show proper respect for devoted public servants whose only transgression is that they just happen to be supportive of an organization that gave rise to Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; an organization that seeks unequivocally to establish an Islamic caliphate spanning the entire globe; an organization that aims to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist; an organization that advocates Islamic Law as the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth; and an organization that unapologetically embraces the credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.” Now, what reasonable person could possibly have a problem with any of that?

The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration: ‘People For the American Way’ Smears Michele Bachmann