Boko Haram murders 50 as it pledges allegiance to the Islamic State

1 Comment

This is from Jihad Watch.

I can say for certain the Islamic State sure as Hell is no longer the junior varsity like Obama claimed they were.


For the caliphate, now as throughout history, might makes right. The longer the Islamic State lasts, the more loyalty it will win among Muslims. The Islamic State now has the allegiance of jihad groups in the Philippines, Libya, and Nigeria, as well as control of a large area of Iraq and Syria.

“Boko Haram declares allegiance to Isis,” The Guardian, March 7, 2015 (thanks to Kenneth):

Nigeria’s militant Islamist group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State, which rules a self-declared caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria, according to a video posted online on Saturday.

“We announce our allegiance to the Caliph … and will hear and obey in times of difficulty and prosperity,” read an English-language translation of the video broadcast in Arabic that purported to be from the Nigerian militant group. The pledge of allegiance was attributed to Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau.

The video script identified the Caliph as Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim al-Awad al-Qurashi, who is better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State and self-proclaimed caliph of the Muslim world. Baghdadi has already accepted pledges of allegiance from other jihadist groups in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and north Africa.

Boko Haram has been waging a six-year military campaign to carve out an Islamic state in northern Nigeria.

Earlier on Saturday, four bomb blasts killed at least 50 people in the northeastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri in the worst attacks there since Boko Haram militants tried to seize the town in two major assaults earlier this year. Female suicide bombers believed to be acting for the group launched a series of attacks in markets, while another detonation was reported at a bus station.

In a fifth incident, a car bomb exploded at a military checkpoint 75km outside the city, wounding a soldier and two members of a civilian defence unit. The attacker in this incident had wanted to reach Maiduguri, a police officer at the scene said. In total, it is believed 58 people have been killed in the incidents and 143 wounded, but both figures were expected to rise….


Six (only six?) examples Obama is purposefully enabling the Islamist cause

Leave a comment

This is from Allen B West.

Obama is looking out for his Muslim Brothers.

Goat Humpers stick together.

Image: via Pat Dollard


The only plausible explanation for many actions taken by President Obama and his administration is that they are working counter to the security of the United States of America. How else can one rationalize the following:

1. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.

2. Providing weapons of support to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government — F-16s and M1A1 Abrams tanks — but not to the Egyptian government after the Islamist group has been removed.

3. Negotiations with Qatar and Turkey, two Islamist-supporting countries.

4. Negotiations with Hamas, a terrorist group.

5. Returning sanction money, to the tune of billions of dollars, back to the theocratic regime led by Iran’s ayatollahs and allowing them to march on towards nuclear capability.

6. Obama’s evident support of Islamists in Libya.

In an operation that was again unilateral with no Congressional approval, U.S. military support and resources were given to Islamist groups fighting against Moammar Qaddafy — and we know the results of that action. Not long after, one of the groups this administration armed, Ansar al-Sharia, took responsibility for the terrorist attack and murder of our U.S .Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glenn Doherty at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC). Oh, and that same group claims it has established an Islamic caliphate in eastern Libya, based in Benghazi. Just two weeks ago, the United States of America evacuated the Libyan embassy in Tripoli due to security concerns.

But I guess it’s all hunky-dory there now, because according to the Washington Free Beacon, “The Obama administration has lifted longtime restrictions on Libyans attending flight schools in the United States and training here in nuclear science, according to a final amendment of the ban recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).”

“Less than two years after the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is poised to sign off on an amendment reversing the ban, which was enacted following a wave or terrorist attacks in 1980s and prevents Libyans from studying these sensitive trades in the United States.”

We just evacuated Libya due to security concerns. There can be no doubt that Libya is an Islamic terrorist sanctuary state, thanks in no uncertain terms to Obama, and now he wants them to come here and learn how to fly planes and understand nuclear science?

Ok Lucy, ‘splain this to me.

The Free Beacon says “the original law effectively disqualified all Libyan nationals and those “acting on behalf of Libyan entities” from training in “aviation maintenance, flight operations, or nuclear-related fields,” according to the ban. “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations by rescinding the regulatory provisions promulgated in 1983 that terminated the nonimmigrant status and barred the granting of certain immigration benefits to Libyan nationals and foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities who are engaging in or seeking to obtain studies or training in,” the amendment states.”

DHS spokesperson S.Y. Lee who told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration is reviewing its policies towards Libya “to see how they might be updated to better align with U.S. interests” in light of its revolution.”

If I may interject here, Libya is not a stable country and there can be no alignment with U.S. interests as long as there are al-Qaida affiliated groups freely operating in that country.

Of course this action is taken when the House and Senate is away on a five-week hiatus from D.C. but at least the House Judiciary Committee responded by acknowledging, “The terror threat continues and numerous news reports document recent terror-related activities coming from Libya.”

Why wouldn’t the Obama administration allow Kurdish Peshmerga members to come to America and receive flight training so they could be given quality helicopter gunships and destroy ISIS? Can anyone explain what the strategy and objective is here in lifting this ban with a nation that is or should be on the terrorist watch list?

Sorry, but I can only explain this one way: Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause. You can go back and listen to his 2009 speech in Cairo, where Muslim Brotherhood associates were seated front and center.

All the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points to that conclusion. The pivot away from the Middle East seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to enable Islamists and their goals. Anyone supporting this Libyan ban being lifted is indeed an enemy of this state.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy doctrine is self-described as “don’t do stupid s@#t”. But I guess that all depends on what your ultimate goal is.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

1 Comment

This is from the New York Times.

The New York Slimes is trying to do damage control for

the Hildabeast Clinton in 2016.

Watch for more stories like this.


December 28, 2013

Benghazi, Libya

ABOYISH-LOOKING AMERICAN DIPLOMAT was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.

It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.

“Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.”

Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald’s and KFC.

The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.

Despite “growing problems with security,” he wrote, the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”

The cable, dated Sept. 11, 2012, was sent over the name of Mr. McFarland’s boss, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Later that day, Mr. Stevens was dead, killed with three other Americans in Benghazi in the most significant attack on United States property in 11 years, since Sept. 11, 2001.

 The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.

The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans. They were his neighbors, his fellow inmates and his comrades on the front lines in the fight against Colonel Qaddafi.

To this day, some militia leaders offer alibis for Mr. Abu Khattala. All resist quiet American pressure to turn him over to face prosecution. Last spring, one of Libya’s most influential militia leaders sought to make him a kind of local judge.

Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

 The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda, several officials who received the briefings said. Like virtually all briefings over that period, the one that day made no mention of Mr. Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it.

Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.

More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.


15 Reasons Why Barack Obama Is the Greatest President In American History!

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.


1) He’s sending weapons to Libya to help repair America’s strained relationship with Al-Qaeda.

2) Parents all across the country can now point to Barack Obama’s performance when they’re explaining to their children why they shouldn’t use drugs.

3) He won the Nobel Peace Prize. Hello!

4) Thanks to, “New Coke” no longer has to bear the shame of being the worst product roll-out in American history.

5) Because of Obama, 91 million people without jobs now have plenty of time to spend with their family.

6) He extended childhood all the way up to 26 by allowing “children” to stay on their parents insurance until then.

7) He’s kept goofy Uncle Joe Biden from becoming President for five long years.

8) No President in American history has done more to further gun sales than Barack Obama.

9) Without Barack Obama, none of us would have ever heard the name Sandra Fluke and what a tragedy that would be!

10) He has already broken Bill Clinton’s record for the most lies told in one presidency with three years left to go in office.

11) When the SEALS asked for permission to kill Bin Laden, he didn’t insist that they merely give Osama a good talking to instead.

12) He has worked tirelessly to know the American people better through invasive TSA searches, reading their emails, and listening in on their phone calls.

13) He’s living proof that even a pothead who thinks there are 57 states can still live the American dream.

14) Because of Obama’s economic policies, more Americans than ever have gotten to experience the sweet, sweet joy of funemployment!

15) Obama’s policies are so bad that even real racists have stopped hating him for being black and hate him for his failed policies.


Republicans voice frustrations on Libya, as intel officials make rounds on Hill

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

Obama and company have been lying their a$$es off.

They knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack.

Yet for weeks they said it was do to some YouTube movie.

The DemocRats and the lap dog media is circling the wagons for Obama.


Republican lawmakers, after struggling for weeks to get answers on the Libya terror attack, ripped into the Obama administration Thursday — with one congressman claiming officials “lied to the American people.”

Tempers boiled over as the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing with several analysts, though none would be considered key figures in the administration’s Benghazi attack response. A few officials with inside knowledge were briefing select lawmakers behind closed doors Thursday; and in a win for lawmakers, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify next month.

But the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing swiftly became a venue for lawmakers to voice their frustrations and lob accusations at the administration. Lawmakers sparred early and often, with Democrats accusing Republicans of turning a tragedy into a “political football” and Republicans accusing the administration of hiding the truth.

“This administration has lied to the American people about this tragedy,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said. “The arrogance and dishonesty in all of this is breathtaking. Let’s not stonewall this issue and cover up mistakes, which seems to be what is going on today.”

Lawmakers continue to express concerns on several fronts — on whether warnings in the months preceding Sept. 11 were ignored, and on why the administration first insisted the attack was a “spontaneous” act.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., also suggested the U.S. was ill-prepared for the threat posed in eastern Libya on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. “Somebody forgot to circle the calendar on 9/11,” he said.

While lawmakers sparred on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House and Senate intelligence committees were both holding closed oversight hearings Thursday where a roster of top-ranking intelligence and other officials were set to testify. These include Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, who was tapped to replace David Petraeus after he resigned last Friday.

Petraeus, though, has agreed to speak to the intelligence committees about Libya, with back-to-back appearances before the House and Senate panels scheduled for Friday morning. Those, too, will be closed to the public.

While the round of closed hearings is a start, other lawmakers are calling for a more robust inquiry into what happened before, during and after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which left four Americans dead.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and two other Republican colleagues on Wednesday called for the creation of a “select committee” to investigate Benghazi.

“Let me be clear: There is no credibility among most of us concerning the administration and the numerous controversies and contradictions that have been involved in their handling of this issue,” McCain said, at a lengthy news conference on Capitol Hill.

McCain was joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., in calling for a temporary Senate committee established specifically to investigate Libya. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid later said he would not support their proposal.

Though the administration has urged lawmakers to wait until an internal review is completed, lawmakers have raised a litany of questions about the attack.

The latest dispute centers on U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who repeatedly said the attack was spontaneous on five Sunday shows after the attack despite other officials preparing to call it terrorism. Obama, in his first post-election press conference Wednesday, called the criticism “outrageous” and told those lawmakers to “go after me.”
Graham responded: “Mr President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack.”

Though Petraeus is embroiled in a scandal over an extramarital affair — which led to his resignation — he is not expected to address that when he speaks to lawmakers Friday. Rather, he will stick to Libya.

Lawmakers want to know, among other things, about a trip Petraeus took to Libya the week of Oct. 31. They are curious about a report that was put together summarizing his meetings and which may include details of his personal interviews with the CIA station chief in Benghazi about the attack. A State Department consulate, as well as a CIA annex, came under heavy fire that night.

Read more:


Sen. Rand Paul on Benghazi: ‘Where in the hell were the Marines?’ [AUDIO]

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

I agree with Senator Rand Paul why were more Marines in Paris than Benghazi?

Why spend all that money for chargers for Volts in Vienna?

Did Obama with hold help knowing Ambassador Stevens was running guns?

Someone needs to be held accountable for the death of four Americans.

On the Thursday broadcast of Dennis Miller’s radio show, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul raised his concern over the Obama administration’s priorities regarding its embassies and consulates abroad, and how the State Department is allocating resources.

Paul argued the State Department should have had as many Marines protecting its ambassador in Libya as it had protecting the U.S. Embassy in Paris.

“Well the thing is, is I’ve been asking around the country where in the hell were the Marines?” Paul said. “I’m not talking about after the firefight. I’m talking about before the firefight. I’m talking about: who made the decision to put an ambassador in probably one of the most dangerous countries in the world and not have any uniform Marines? I mean, to have more uniform Marines in Paris than you have in Libya — somebody should be fired for that. I mean, this is above and beyond before the firefight started, which obviously is a big problem. Once the firefight starts and people call for help, why wasn’t help sent?”

The Kentucky senator also pointed out the money the State Department is spending on “greening” the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, which he called an effort by President Barack Obama to “show off” to his liberal friends.

“When you think about it, even 10 Marines are pretty tough with automatic weapons,” he said. “They would have had a fighting chance had there been 10 Marines there. I think that’s how many Marines are in Paris. So, you got 10 Marines in Paris and about the same time they’re denying security for Libya, they’re spending $100,000 greening up the embassy in Vienna. So we got money to promote this global warming agenda of the president’s — to show off for his liberal friends in Europe. But they seem to not have enough money for security? That’s inexcusable and to me enough reason to fire the president.”

Read more:


The Media Forgot that We Aren’t Stupid

1 Comment

This is from Political Outcast.

The media is living in a fantasy world where are the only news source.

The media thinks when the say something about an issue it is the final word.

The media is a lap-dog for Obama and the DemocRats.

They are disgraceful.


Congressional hearings are looking into the atrocity that took place in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department, in an unheard-of turnabout, refused to go quietly under the bus. Not only did they confirm that the incident was part of a coordinated attack, but they stoutly insisted that the tale told by the administration, that the “riot” was caused by rage generated by a three month-old video trailer, was not information they had and that this pretext was “not the conclusion we came to.”

Despite the best efforts of the president, Mrs. Clinton, and a complicit media, the State Department doesn’t seem to want to take this one for the “team.” Yes, unhappily for the members of the administration, try as they might, they are meeting some stubborn resistance. So, if not the State Department, where does this story come from? Why is this appalling cover-up still not being reported as such by a unified press?

There is no question that some of the media rats appear to be deserting the sinking ship Obama as fast as their little legs will carry them. Television pundits, in particular, are expressing “outrage” over the lies they have been broadcasting to the nation for weeks. And they are acting surprised and indignant. Ironically, it seems that the radio arm of network broadcast and the mainstream print media haven’t gotten the memo yet.

After Rush Limbaugh spent the first hour of his program going into the importance of this story on Wednesday, WABC radio news led off with this life and death account:

“Police are called to a fight that took place between Lindsay Lohan and her mother; there was no information about what the fight was about.”

Mr. Limbaugh suggests that the media are infuriated that they have been lied to. He questioned “how stupid do they have to be” to have bought it in the first place. That may be the wrong question. Clearly, the information was available had the press done its job instead of being enthusiastic stenographers for the administration. Their “indignation” just doesn’t ring true. So, the real question is not how stupid do they have to be; it’s “how stupid does the media think we are?”

FOX news broke the story of the real cause of the attacks weeks ago. Less than 24 hours after the attacks took place, in fact. Authorities up to and including the president of Libya confirmed that there were no demonstrations before the attack and no one in Libya had ever heard of the video that was reputed by our president to have caused the violence. On Wednesday, in front of Congress, Susan Lamb of the State Department admitted that multiple requests for protection by Mr. Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were denied prior to the physical attack. The reasons for the denial? Mr. Stevens apparently didn’t make a good enough case for his request. Ms. Lamb also said that the state department had “sufficient” assets in place. That must be a very hard sell to Mr. Stevens’ family and the families of the other three Americans who lost their lives that night.

The State Department claims the video, insulting to Islam, was not their story. Yet the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, affirmed that the video was the cause of “copycat” violence in Libya. She was plastered all the Sunday morning television shows, peddling the president’s take on the event, to anyone who would give her the time. Everyone in the mainstream media gave her the time. The president addressed the United Nations to perpetuate what had already been exposed as a lie, blaming the video and its “disgusting” message, claiming that United States policy had nothing to do with it.

So, again, where did the video trailer canard come from? It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that the president had nothing to do with it. Never mind that the culpable video had been posted on You Tube since June and was never noticed by anyone, anywhere. The president spent seventy thousand taxpayer dollars on an apology commercial, to run in Pakistan, forcing his pretext that the anti-Islamic video was the catalyst for brutality and he was not responsible for it.

The president is still hawking the absurd video yarn, apologizing, and still lying. Don’t take my word for it; ask the mother of one of the Benghazi dead, interviewed on CNN last night. Even the media, willing to confront the story, are now calling it a cover-up. The president has, since the uprisings in the Middle East and even as far as Asia, excused the terrorists because their “rage” is understandable. Understandable? The Muslim world understands that President Obama is weak and apologetic for America. This makes us vulnerable to more attacks.

Read more:


Stephanie Cutter: “Benghazi Only an Issue Because of Romney & Ryan”

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

The lies coming for this administration  makes Joseph Goebbels smile.

How do these people sleep at night?

On CNN this afternoon, Obama‘s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, managed to record what might be the most offensive and out-of-touch soundbite to come out of this election cycle. Speaking with Brooke Baldwin about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Libya that claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, Cutter actually had the gall to say that this is only an issue because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are making it one: 

In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

Hey — if that’s why this is in the news, them more power to them. It’s not simply stump fodder, as Cutter portrays it to be; it was a troubling and yet-unsolved breach of national security. It should be getting airtime, and what’s more, the Obama Administration’s foreign affairs policy should be receiving some skeptical attention. It’s fast becoming clear that threats weren’t taken seriously — threats for whichStevens himself requested help — and as Guy reported earlier, even family members of the deadhaven’t received answers.

The tragedy never should have occurred to begin with — not with sufficient embassy security — but now that it has, it’s also been mishandled at every turn. Officials at the highest level of the Obama Administration have distorted the facts — most glaringly, in blaming a ridiculous YouTube video for the violence. This was a policy failure, and as the man who wishes to become our nation’s top policymaker, Romney is well within his rights to question how Obama and co. have dealt with the disaster. He’s addressing an issue that many Americans are concerned about, and feel the president has handled poorly.

So for a moment, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, and say that Cutter means Romney is trying to use this issue to make Obama look bad. But that’s not even true — he’d look bad regardless of whether another candidate for his office challenged him on it. The facts about what they knew and when, and the ensuing public relations disaster speak for themselves. For her to sit there and simper into a camera about how Romney is “reckless and irresponsible” about reacting to Libya takes a lot of guts. It was her boss’ reckless and irresponsible strategy that landed us here in the first place.

Update: Cutter took to Twitter moments after her disastrous CNN appearance and responded to Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski with the following:


Well, that whole “getting facts” line is not terribly accurate — see any one of the links above — and accusing Romney of having “no plans of his own?” How about this: he’s in adamant opposition to the sequestration cuts to our national defense, set to take place January 2, 2013, and which would include a $129 billion cut to embassy security worldwide. It certainly seems like preserving and strengthening security at our embassies worldwide is a solid step in the right direction — and it’s clear which candidate has an eye to accomplishing that.

Just keep digging, Cutter.

Update II: Andrea Saul, Mitt Romney’s press secretary, just issued the campaign’s statement in response to Cutter’s remarks:

“President Obama’s campaign today said that Libya is only an issue because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They’re wrong. The reason it is an issue is because, for the first time since 1979, an American ambassador was assassinated and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy of ‘leading from behind’ is failing. This administration has continually misled the American public about what happened in Benghazi and, rather than be truthful about the sequence of events, has instead skirted responsibility and dodged questions. The American people deserve straight answers about this tragic event and a president who can provide leadership, not excuses.”



Romney to call for change in America’s approach to Middle East

Leave a comment


This is from The Daily Caller.

Mitt Romney is correct we need to put teeth back in our foreign policy.

If you want peace you must prepare for war.

You have peace through superior firepower.

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.
Ronald Reagan


Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney used a wide-ranging foreign address at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday to criticize the Obama administration’s foreign policy approach and declare, “It is time to change course in the Middle East,” according to excerpts provided by the Romney campaign.

The Republican departed from his usual economic-focused campaign message in his “The Mantle of Leadership” speech and hit Obama on his administration’s policies on Israel, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan.

Romney directly criticized the Obama administration for its response to the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi last month that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead.

“This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long,” Romney said at the Virginia school.

“No, as the administration has finally conceded,” Romney said, according to prepared remarks, “these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”

Romney also said that Obama’s “hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States” is “not a strategy.”

“We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity,” Romney said.

When it comes to dealing with Iran, Romney promised to “not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have.” He also promised to work with Israel to increase America’s military assistance and coordination.

“For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions — not just words — that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated,” he said.

He also criticized Obama for not signing any new free trade agreements over the last four years.

“I will reverse that failure,” Romney said.

As for the war in Afghanistan, he called for a “real and successful transition to Afghan security forces” by the end of 2014.

“President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war,” he said. “But the route to more war — and to potential attacks here at home — is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9-11.”

Romney also said that Obama has failed at the “goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.”

“In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew,” he said.

Read more:


Issa: Obama Admin Ignored Requests for Increased Security in Libya

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Peace.

Why were requests for additional protection repeatedly denied?

Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Susan Rice have blood on their hands.

Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.

June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG.  This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers.  Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:

1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above.  How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: