State Department agency deemed ‘critical’ to information security is a mess, report shows

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

The State Department was first ran into the ground by

Hillary ‘What Does It Matter” Clinton.

It is  destroyed by John “Lurch I tossed my medals”Kerry.

We are being laughed at world-wide.

An obscure little State Department agency whose work is called “critical to the Department’s information security posture” has been in a shambles for years, and is still in chaos, according to an audit report by the department’s inspector general released yesterday.

As one result of all the bumbling and inaction, the security checks that the agency is supposed to perform and subsequent approvals for use that it is supposed to bestow every three years on 36 of those State Department systems have lapsed entirely, meaning that they are operating, in effect, illegally.

Some of the lapses have gone on for two years; in at least a couple of cases involving information systems that the audit calls “primary general support systems,” the lapses have gone on since 2007.

One of the systems that is operating without a current license, known as iPost, was given an award two years ago for “significantly improving the effectiveness of the nation’s cyber security.”  According to the inspector general’s report, auditors couldn’t find any documentation to back up how the award-winning system was created or maintained, nor any source code for the information it was supposed to track.

There is more — much more — concerning the 22-person agency, known as the Office of Information Assurance of the State Department’s Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM/IA), which among other things certifies the security status of more than 170 information systems in the State Department. The report comes at a time of heightened concern about both cyber-security and torrents of information leaks in the U.S. government.

According to the audit report, the agency has statutory responsibility as State’s “lead office for information assurance and security.” Its top official, currently William Lay, is known as State’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), who reports up to State’s Chief Information Officer, currently Steven C. Taylor.

Despite the agency’s august legal status, IRM/IA’s staff apparently has no sense of what security functions their unit is actually required to perform, has failed for years to update information security manuals used by thousands of other State Department personnel, and has often left important details about the  vulnerability of  State’s  information systems where they can be accessed by  people with lower-level security classifications.


The State Department said in a statement that it was taking the report’s findings seriously.

Much of the agency’s certification work has apparently been done by outside contractors, often unsupervised, and often performing duties that are supposed to be done only by government employees.

Neither contractors nor staffers apparently maintain much documentation about their work, or even about how the contractors are being paid under a $19 million contract that could swell to $60 million in outlying years.  As the report puts it tersely, “Management is unable to verify the accuracy of reported costs.”

Even the presence of inspectors didn’t seem to stir much concern. Though the unnamed CISO said he would reassign responsibilities to fix some of the oversight problems, “no corrective action was taken during the course of the inspection,” which lasted for six weeks earlier this year.

In effect, IRM/IA seems to be something of a zombie agency. IRM/IA staffers, according to the inspector general’s report, don’t show up for inter-departmental meetings, don’t participate in their Bureau’s strategic planning exercises, don’t keep track of important documentation in the security certification process, and can’t find a major portion of their budget receipts.

Even the relatively good news that many of the agency’s functions have migrated to other parts of the larger Bureau comes with the fact that in some important cases, this occurred because IRM/IA personnel didn’t show up for meetings where they shared joint responsibility.

Nor does the agency’s management seem to have cared much for a long time about where it is going or what it needs to do to get there. According to the report, the agency “has no mission statement and is not engaged in strategic planning.”

“There is no evidence of IRM/IA management engaging in a comprehensive strategic review to assess its current capabilities and future needs,” the report says. “The CISO and his division chiefs have not reviewed operations to determine what information assurance and security functions they are required to perform or are currently handling.”

Or, to put it even more bluntly, the inspector general’s auditing team “could not validate whether IRM/IA has not been able to meet priorities since the office has not defined any priorities.”

In a bid to correct the fiasco, the inspectors has issued 32 recommendations, including the requirement that IRM/IA “participate regularly”  in department-wide meetings and “share learned information from such meetings with its staff,” along with a strong hint that other functions might be hived off to others — who happen to be doing some of them anyway.

The State Department said in its statement, in response to the report: “The Department takes the OIG feedback seriously and is committed to addressing the recommendations and the concerns that led to the assessment. Mr. William G. Lay was appointed to the position of Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information Assurance and Chief Information Security Officer for the U.S. Department of State in late 2012.”

Read more:



Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Odie.


Bob: “Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?”

Jim: “You mean about the setting up of Seal Team 6?”
Bob: “No, the other one.

Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The State Dept. lying about Benghazi ?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?”
Bob: “No, the other one”

Jim: “The State Dept. interfering with an IG investigation on dept. sexual misconduct?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper & Holder all lying to Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it!
You mean that 65 million uninformed ignorant liberal voters stuck
us again with the most corrupt administration in American history ?!?”



Bill May Allow Korean M1 Garand Rifles to Finally Return to the U.S

Leave a comment

This is from Outdoor Hub.

I think this is great but I do not see Obama and DemocRats

letting this happen.

I do not think the M-1 Garand’s or M-1 carbines are being used

in drive by shootings by gang bangers.

 Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) is to be applauded.  

A large number of M1 Garand rifles exported to South Korea several decades ago may be able to return to the U.S. with the introduction of a new bill by Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming).A large number of M1 Garand rifles exported to South Korea several decades ago may be able to return to the U.S. with the introduction of a new bill by Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming).

Tens of thousands of M1 Garand rifles and even more M1 Carbines lay in storage somewhere in South Korea. Originally shipped to the Asian nation several decades ago to help equip their military, the weapons are now outdated on the modern battlefield. Among collectors and enthusiasts however, they are held up as invaluable pieces of American history and ingenuity. Stocks of the rifle within the U.S. are fast dwindling (if not depleted already) and those who want to get their hands on one are looking across the Pacific.

Those in favor of returning these firearms home have been trying for years to import the surplus rifles and carbines. The South Korean government was eager to offload the rifles for much needed funds, but efforts to ship the rifles back were blocked repeatedly on the U.S. end due to security concerns. Those against the import say that the firearms could be purchased by individuals for illicit purposes. Gun advocates say that was no reason to ban the import of the rifles.

“Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these [M1 Garands], can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System,” David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute, told Fox Newsin 2010. “There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States.”

In 2012 it seemed that the federal government reversed its decision and will be allowing the M1 Garands to come home, along with a limited number of carbines. The plan was for the firearms to be auctioned off and imported to the U.S., where they will be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Reportedly, the State Department delayed the import and now will not allow the rifles to enter the country. Frustrated over the situation, U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) recently introduced a bill to counter the State Department’s decision.

“It’s disappointing that legislation is even necessary to allow U.S. citizens to access perfectly legal and regulated firearms, in this case storied, U.S.-made rifles that are pieces of U.S. military history,” Rep. Lummis said. “This is a political stunt on the part of the State Department, pure and simple, while denying the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding citizens, firearm collectors, and competitive marksmen. The State Department has no business blocking domestic firearm ownership; they are way out of bounds and my legislation will put them back in their place.”

A release on the congresswoman’s website read:

On Tuesday U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo) introduced H.R. 2247, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act. The bill reverses a State Department decision to block the importation of historic M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines from South Korea. Originally furnished by the United States to South Korea for military purposes over 50 years ago, the rifles are widely sought collectors’ items and among the most popular rifles in marksmanship competitions. The rifles are perfectly legal to manufacture and sell in the United States and like all firearm imports would be subject to the federal rules and regulations governing retail firearm sales. A similar sale from South Korea was approved during the Reagan Administration. The current State Department’s interference with the sale runs counter to the intent of Congress, which on two prior occasions amended the law to allow for this kind of transaction.

Thanks to The Truth About Guns for highlighting this bill.

Image from user Curiosandrelics on the Wikipedia Commons




Administration moves $500M in Palestinian aid, as agencies scramble to delay furloughs

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

Obama can find money for his Moose Slime Brothers.

But is willing to make the American Military suffer due

due to money cuts because of sequester.

The Whit House tours have been canceled.

But Muslims are getting millions so they can hate 

American‘s and commit acts of terrorism against America.


As federal agencies scramble to avert or delay sequester-tied furloughs, the Obama administration continues to spend millions of dollars on foreign aid to the Palestinians – and seek millions more, despite past efforts by Congress to freeze the money.

The State Department confirmed this month the administration has moved forward with $500 million in aid, and is trying to secure another $200 million from Congress. Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says the aid is important, because an “economically viable Palestinian Authority” would help regional peace and security.

The administration confirmed the transfers as President Obama, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, toured the Middle East last week. Obama met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as top Israeli officials.

But lawmakers have heavily scrutinized a number of foreign aid transactions, given the fiscal crunch facing Washington. The capital was awash last week with memos and updates from federal agencies scrambling to manage sequester cuts and cushion their staff from the impact of furloughs.

After initial warnings that furlough notices would start to go out for thousands of civilian employees at the Pentagon last Thursday, the Defense Department announced it would delay those notices for about two weeks while it continues to analyze the situation.

Attorney General Eric Holder also said in a memo that he was using his “limited authorities” to shift around funds and give the Bureau of Prisons $150 million to avoid furloughing correctional workers at federal prisons. This, he said, would have created “serious threats to the lives and safety of our staff, inmates and the public.”

But he said he was still “evaluating” whether his department can avoid other furloughs.

Foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority alone, though, easily eclipses the amount Holder used to spare the correctional workers division.

Nuland explained that the U.S. has moved forward with $295.7 million in fiscal 2012 funds, part of which is for economic development and humanitarian assistance, and part of which is for law enforcement aid.

Another $200 million falls under fiscal 2013 assistance.

Further, the administration notified Congress in February that it wants another $200 million for programs under the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Despite suggestions that the administration had “quietly” released the money, Nuland on Friday stressed that she had publicly announced the aid at a March 15 briefing.

Congress in 2011 voted to freeze part of the U.S. aid package to the Palestinians in response to their push for statehood before the U.N.

But President Obama last year signed a waiver removing those restrictions on national security grounds. He reportedly moved to unfreeze hundreds of millions of dollars in aid last month.

The International Monetary Fund this month warned that the Palestinians were facing serious fiscal shortfalls, in part because of dwindling international aid packages.

Read more:






State Dept. Recruits Jihadists to Join Foreign Service

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This one of those stories that makes you say WTF?

People better start to wake up before we lose this country.

America is slowly sliding into the sewer.

We maybe looking at Sharia law.

It is time to say Sic Semper Tyrannis.


In what can only be described as a mind-boggling policy move, the State Department recruited Muslim participants at a conference sponsored by groups with ties to radical Islamists to become members of its foreign service.

Foreign Service officers represent the United States at its embassies and consulates around the globe. The recruitment drive is part of the Obama Administration’s larger Muslim outreach policy.

Mark Ward, the Deputy Special Coordinator in the Office of Middle East Transition, gave a 90-minute seminar on career opportunities for Muslim youths during a recent conference held in Chicago by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America.

Other speakers at the conference included a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation convicted of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, and a founder of the MAS who praised Palestinian terrorists in a presentation on jihad and “martyrdom.”

Joining Ward in presenting the jobs seminar was a man named Oussama Jammal, president of the Mosque Foundation, which raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Holy Land Foundation.

As part of its Muslim outreach efforts, the State Department has also reportedly been meeting in secret with Islamist groups, has sent a known anti-American cleric on a Mideast outreach tour, and has dumbed down federal anti-terrorism training to eliminate “negative references” to Muslims. Hillary Clinton even used her authority to allow two banned Islamic scholars to enter the United States.

Much has been written, outside the mainstream media, about the infiltration of the Obama Administration by the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly at the State Department, where Clinton’s top aide had undisputed family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Radio host and author Mark Levin takes it further, though, calling President Obama a “sympathizer” who has deliberately armed the “Islamonazi” regime in Egypt and nominated “Israel hater” Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.

“So why would a president nominate somebody like Chuck Hagel?” Levin asked rhetorically. “Because the president is Chuck Hagel. He’s a sympathizer with the most radical elements in the Middle East and he’s an Israel hater. That’s why he nominated Hagel.”

This Administration’s blind trust of radical Islamists has led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. It is driving the war in Syria and blocking action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

With the White House delivering F-16s to the radicals in charge of Egypt even as it tries to disarm Americans, it’s clear the wolves are in charge of the hen house.

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:


WH: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi

1 Comment

This is from CNSNews.

Who will Obama to fall on their sword for him?

He got Hillary to take the blame for a while.

No matter what happens Obama is never to blame.

Will Hillary will take the blame once more?


( – The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.

The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.

“I have been asked by one of our spokespeople to relay ‘that we decline to comment,’” said White House National Security Staff aide Debbie Bird in a written response to had asked Bird: 1) “When did the President first meet with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12?” 2) “When did White House staff first discuss the substance of the e-mails that went to the White House with the President or with the National Security Advisor?”

Carney also took a question about the e-mails today during a press gaggle held aboard Air Force One at 9:34 a.m. A reporter asked: “Jay, there are some emails that have emerged, which suggest that the White House and other areas of the government were told within hours of the Benghazi attack that an extremist group had claimed responsibility. How is that compatible with the idea that it was a spontaneous attack?”

Carney downplayed the significance of the State Department emails.

“There were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,” Carney said. “The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in.

“The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible,” said Carney, “and I would refer you to what we’ve already said about, and what the DNI [Director of National Intelligence] has already said about, the initial assessments of the intelligence community, and the fact that throughout this process, I and others made very clear that our preliminary assessments were preliminary, that an investigation was underway, and that as more facts became available, we would make the American people aware of them.

“Again,” said Carney, “this was an open-source, unclassified email about a posting on a Facebook site. I would also note I think that within a few hours, that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact. That’s why there’s an investigation underway.”

The NSC is chaired by the president, and includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. A NSC meeting would allow the leader of the intelligence community to communicate directly with the leader of the State Department in the presence of the president and for all of them to weigh any conflicting information.

The three emails in question, which were obtained by CBS News, were sent by the State Department to various government officials, including two officials in the Executive Office of the President, on Sept. 11, 2012, while the attack on the Benghazi was taking place and immediately after it had taken place.

Each of the emails has been redacted so that the suffixes of most of the email addresses are intact—showing where the people who sent them and received them work—but the prefixes are blacked out, so the personal identities of the senders and receivers is obscured.

The first email was sent by a State Department officials at 4:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012. It carries the subject line: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The text of the email says: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots, explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

This email went to at least 32 other officials in the State Deparment. It also went to an official at the office of the Director of National Intelligence, to someone at the FBI, and to someone at the Defense Department. It also went to two officials at the White House.

A State Department official sent out a second email to the same list of recipients 49 minutes later at 4:54 PM. The subject line on this email said: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi.” The subject line said: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response is on the site attempting to locate COM personnel.

A State Department official sent out a third email at 6:07 PM on Sept. 11, 2012—a little over two hours after the first email went out. This email went to a different set of recipients, but still included two officials at the White House. The subject line on this email was: “Ansal al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The text said: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

None of the emails said anything about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstrations at the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Five days after the State Department sent these emails to the White House, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice went on national television programs and told the nation that the administration believed that what had happened in Benghazi had started as a spontaneous protest against a video that had been posted on YouTube.

“But based on the best information we have to date,” Rice said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.”

“We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned,” said Rice.

The day after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the president traveled to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.


That Bus Is Rolling . . .Hillary’s Headed Under?

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

What will Bill do to keep Hillary from being tossed under the bus?

What will Bill do if Hillary ends up under the bus?

Ask Vince Foster about crossing Bill and Hillary.

My advice is if you cross them stay away from Fort Marcy park.

As Eliana Johnson points out over at NRO, this morning,David Axelrod continued to throw Hillary Clinton and the State Department under the bus, doubling down on the story that Joe Biden‘s royal “we” at the veep debate referred only to a party of two — himself and the President — not knowing about the requests for enhanced security at Benghazi. Apparently, in the Obama presidency, the buck doesn’t stop with the President . . . it stops with, in Axelrod’s words, “the security folks at the State Department.”

What Biden and Axelrod are essentially saying is that Hillary Clinton is thoroughly to blame for this debacle.  If she somehow knew about the requests but denied them (and then failed to communicate that fact to the higest levels after the attacks), she’s been guilty of a serious breach of judgment.  It’s really a firing offense (not that President Obama can do that for political reasons . . .) If, on the other hand, those requests were being denied and she didn’t even know about them, then she’s manifestly incompetent — also a firing offense.

I’ve never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton’s, but I can hardly believe she’d make the mistake of not doing proper CYA on a matter of this magnitude, especially when thoughts of 2016 lurk in her (and certainly her husband’s) brain. It seems to me more likely that the Obama White House generally is just trying to insulate itself from blame by letting all the garbage run downhill into the Secretary of State’s office.  And in addition, Joe Biden would probably looove to dispatch a potential rival for 2016, since he apparently harbors presidential ambitions (case closed: that means he’s absolutely delusional, especially after that bizarre debate outing last week).

Ed Klein is reporting that Bill Clinton doesn’t like this turn of events one bit.  As I predicted here, the whole Clinton-Obama dynamic is becoming more fascinating by the day.  Indeed, “rev the bus — someone’s going under it” . . . but the Clinton are no doubt determined that Hillary isn’t going to be the one to take the fall for this.

So expect more details damaging to Obama and Biden slowly to trickle out.

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:


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: