The Incompetent Susan Rice Gets Promoted

The Incompetent Susan Rice Gets Promoted

By Richard Grenell
Thursday, June 06, 2013

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice will be the next National Security Advisor to President Obama. Her appointment from President Obama does not require the approval of the U.S. Senate. As the President’s National Security Advisor running the National Security Council, Rice will be responsible for settling bureaucratic disputes between the Department of Defense, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies. The job requires someone willing to speak up and make decisions based on facts. Susan Rice will undoubtedly be a failure – we have seen her struggle with these same issues in her current role all too much.

While most Americans will only remember Rice as the face of the Sunday shows where she spun the tale about a YouTube video as the reason radical Islamists attacked U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East and North Africa on the anniversary of 9/11, she has a long history of failing to lead or even speak up on important issues.

While the national media debates whether or not she knowingly misled the public on the Sunday shows, her failings and shortcomings before the Benghazi terrorist attacks have not received the attention they deserve.

Here are 30 reasons (that have nothing to do with Benghazi) why Susan Rice should not have received the promotion she did this week:

1.   failed to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after the 2010 Haiti earthquake 
2.   skipped the Security Council debate and vote to add new UN Peacekeepers in Haiti after the earthquake 
3.   led the US during the most inactive Security Council since 1991 during her first year as Ambassador 
4.   held her first press conference with the UN Secretary General on the pressing international issue of texting while driving 
5.   failed to speak out when Col. Gaddafi’s Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission 
6.   waited 17 months before voting on the one and only UN resolution on Iran passed during her tenure 
7.   dismissed by Hillary Clinton from negotiating most of the Iran resolution with the French 
8.   lost the support of more nations on her one Iran resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined 
9.   took 103 days to move the Security Council to issue a statement after a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean ship that killed 46 sailors 
10.   took 18 days to lead the Security Council to action after a North Korean nuclear test (it took John Bolton 5 days in 2006) 
11.   failed to support the Iranian opposition during their Green Revolution 
12.   failed to speak out when Iran was elected to the UN Women’s Commission 
13.   skipped the UN Security Council‘s emergency meeting on the Gaza flotilla crisis 
14.   snubbed Israel to the point they skipped President Obama’s 2010 UN speech 
15.   took more than 2 years to find someone to head America’s UN reform team 
16.   failed to address the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to ascertain how erroneous scientific claims were added to official UN reports 
17.   painfully slow in getting a UN resolution on the Sudan-South Sudan referendum 
18.   ignored Canada’s pleas for help in getting elected to the Security Council 
19.   negotiated with the UN’s Arab Group to condemn Israel’s settlements 
20.   failed to lead the Security Council during Tunisia’s Arab Spring protests 
21.   didn’t speak out on the Libya crisis until the French, British and Arab League had done so 
22.   failed to attend the first Security Council meeting on the Arab Spring protests 
23.   failed to get the support of allies India, Germany and Brazil on the UN’s Libya resolution 
24.   failed to lead the Security Council during Egypt’s Arab Spring protests 
25.   failed to lead the Security Council during Yemen’s Arab Spring protests 
26.   failed to lead the Security Council to confront Bashar al-Assad’s brutal violence where US resolutions received an unprecedented three vetoes on three different votes 
27.   agreed to send former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Syria where he failed miserably 
28.   skipped the last open meeting before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood 
29.   failed to speak out when Iran was elected Vice President of the Global Arms Treaty negotiations 
30.   delayed Security Council action and the UN report on Rwanda 


Is the Obama Dam of Lies About to Burst? – Tea Party Nation

Is the Obama Dam of Lies About to Burst? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Usually there are signs a dam is about to burst. Tiny cracks show up, the structure makes strange noises, and then, whoosh! That’s what we are witnessing as the President, the former Secretary of State, and the Attorney General struggle to keep the bulwark of lies and half-truths they have built intact. It is showing signs of collapse.

Liberals say absurd things all the time—mostly because they either don’t know the facts or because they prefer to ignore or obfuscate them. The current example is the shout-it-from-the-rooftops claim that Republicans are “politicizing” the events in Benghazi that left a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel dead.

In the wake of the House hearings on May 8th, the most elemental politics is at work within the White House and that is the decision to abandon Hillary Clinton. The decision to appoint her Secretary of State was political and, since the President sets foreign policy, it kept her wing of the party in the tent while affording the White House the opportunity to keep her conveniently on the road and largely out of the spotlight.

Name a single treaty or significant foreign policy achievement of Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nienta.

Consider the meltdown of influence the United States has had in the Middle East where the single act of a Tunisian peddler who committed suicide as a response to the harassment of the police set off a revolution that drove its dictator from office and then spread rapidly to Libya where Gaddafi was killed and to Egypt where its dictator (and ally of the U.S.) was driven from office with the President’s blessing. And, for two years, the U.S. has stood on the sidelines and watched as the Syrian dictator has slaughtered 70,000 Syrians, driving some 2.5 million to flee to Turkey and Jordan.

It has taken eight months since the September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate and a House committee hearing to learn the truth as to why repeated requests for increased security assets were denied in a nation that is still essentially a war zone between the north and the south. We still do not know who told available forces to stand down. The President and his regime call this “politicizing.”

Beyond Benghazi, every decision the President makes or chooses not to make has political implications. The choice to go to bed the night of the attack and then fly to a fundraiser the following day was political. As Commander-in-Chief he had responsibility to issue the orders to protect his diplomats—our diplomats—but he is also the Great Delegator and, as the noose tightens around Hillary, she is very expendable.

It’s a political decision to exploit the murders in a Connecticut elementary school to attack the Second Amendment and gun ownership. The response of ordinary people was to go out and buy a gun. Indeed, fear of the White House’s intentions has made the President the greatest gun salesman in the nation.

Even in the Obama Justice Department there is the odor of deception that still reeks from the bungled gun-running program called “Fast and Furious” which allowed guns purchased In the U.S. to be transferred to various Mexican drug cartels. The result, in one case, was a dead U.S. Border Patrol officer, an ICE agent, and an unknown number of Mexican cartel victims. It took a presidential executive order to throw a blanket of silence over the role of the Justice Department in this lethal debacle. That’s political.

Now we learn that the Justice Department obtained Associated Press phone records in a probe to discover the source of a leaked story. AP officials called it a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how a news organization gathers news. The ever-reliable, politically-correct, liberally oriented AP has become a crack in the dam.

The revelation that the Internal Revenue Service “targeted” the Tea Party, patriotic, and pro-Israel groups for special attention regarding their tax status now adds to a growing sense of a regime without any internal limits on its exercise of power.

The result is a period in which the barely concealed scorn of the President, his wife, and those around him in appointed and elected office has half the population outraged while the other half is content to live parasitically, not paying taxes, and receiving an amazing array of benefits which a bankrupt nation cannot afford.

When enough people—citizens, voters, taxpayers—think they are being lied to and betrayed by those in high office, the dam of lies will begin to show signs of bursting under the pressure of their pent up anger.

© Alan Caruba, 2013


Who is Susan Rice? – Tea Party Nation

Who is Susan Rice? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Having taken the fall for President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice is poised to make her way up the career ladder as the “top contender” for the position of national security adviser to the President.

The proposed appointment as Secretary of State, a reward for going on television and spreading the administration’s outright lies about the Benghazi attack, was swiftly derailed by the backlash to her appearances. If appointed as national security adviser, she will not have to be approved by the U.S. Senate, thus avoiding its oversight and consent.

The obvious question is “What does Susan Rice know about national security?” though she did serve on President Clinton’s National Security Council. As the Assistant Secretary of State on the Africa desk when the Rwanda genocide occurred in 1994, both Clinton and she were missing in action. He later would say it was one of the biggest mistakes of his time in office.

Her area of expertise for many years has been Africa and, in that capacity, even The New York Times noted that in 1998 she celebrated a “new generation” of African leaders, many of whom turned out to be despots after having been rebel commanders.

One example The Times cited was Meles Zenawi, the late prime minister of Ethiopia who she eulogized in September as “brilliant” and “a son of Ethiopia and a father to its rebirth.” The Times noted that “Mr. Meles dismantled the rule of law, silenced political opponents and forged a single-party state.” Others whom Ambassador Rice found little to criticize were Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea, Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda, all still in power.

Richard Grenell, who served as the spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the UN, wrote a scathing commentary which was published by Fox News in November 2012. Referring to the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, Grenell wrote “To veteran foreign policy observers, Rice’s performance that Sunday was one of many blunders over the last four years.”

“The case against Susan Rice has been building for years with little fanfare,” wrote Grenell. “Not surprising, the mainstream media reporters based at the UN have either ignored her mistakes or strategically covered them up.”

“”Rice’s diplomatic failures and silence in the face of outrageous UN antics have given the United States pathetic representation among the 193 members of the world body,” wrote Grenell. “UN members, not surprisingly, prefer a weak opponent. Rice is therefore popular with her colleagues. It may explain why she ignored Syria’s growing problems for months.” Grenell noted that “Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab Spring revolution last year” and “when she actually does show up, she is a miserable failure.”

Even more surprising, given her status as a diplomat, Ambassador Rice is widely described in the most unpleasant terms as abrasive and difficult to work with. Her mentors have been former Secretaries of State, Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton, and if getting along with one’s boss is the key to success—and it is—her pending appointment to the National Security Council is proof of that. Even so, the White House has rolled out word of it to test the waters and see if she draws too much fire.

When she was being considered for Secretary of State—from which she withdrew—Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow in defense and homeland security at the libertarian Cato Institute, had some unkind thoughts about her, noting that “she has supported just about every proposed U.S. military intervention over the two decades. The president should nominate someone that occasionally opposes a war.” In retrospect, that would appear to be a fair judgment. Obama ran in 2008 opposing the war in Iraq, but also increased troop levels in Afghanistan in an effort to score a few points before setting in motion the U.S. withdrawal from there. Both wars have proved to be deeply unpopular.

The Rwanda experience no doubt increased Ambassador Rice’s preference for intervention, but the “lead from behind” intervention in Libya has not turned out well.

Indeed, little in the way of foreign policy in the Middle East has turned out well for either former President George W. Bush or his successor, Barack Obama. Moreover, Africa has become a new battleground for al Qaeda and a place where Western interests and workers are now attacked, kidnapped, and killed with increasing frequency.

Ambassador Rice’s rise through three administrations will likely culminate with her National Security Council appointment. It is doubtful that the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, or the new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, will turn out to be in any hurry to intervene anywhere for any reason. No doubt Ambassador Rice will put her finger in the wind and go in whatever direction it blows.

© Alan Caruba, 2013


The Petraeus Debacle – Tea Party Nation

English: Congressman John Hall with General Da...

English: Congressman John Hall with General David Petraeus in Iraq, October 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Petraeus Debacle – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

In March 2012, as part of my monthly report on new books,, I recommended “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus”, noting that Paula Broadwell “had considerable access to the man who now is director of the CIA and who had an illustrious military career.” Neither I, nor anyone else realized how much “access” she had. It turns out, as well, that much of the book was ghost-written by Vernon Loeb, who received credit on the cover. Even he was caught unaware.

As the story continues to unfold in the wake of Petraeus’ resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, just a day after the reelection of President Obama, the stench of moral and political corruption continues to rise from everything that led to his resignation.

First there was the general’s affair with the married biographer, Ms. Broadwell. It is not uncommon for men to betray their marriage vows, but we expect men granted power and prestigious positions to maintain a higher degree of morality. As often as not ambitious men do not and one need only consult the Bible for the story of David as evidence of that. Even those around Petraeus may have had their suspicions, but they understandably said nothing. He was, after all, a four-star general and a hero of the Iraq war, the creator of a counter-insurgency program that rescued the U.S. from defeat after the “surge” approved by former President Bush.

What is, to my mind, most disturbing of the facts we have since learned, was that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had stumbled on the affair months prior to the election and the resignation. The key question becomes whether Petraeus’ testimony to a Congressional intelligence committee was influenced by the fact that his indiscretion was known to persons high in the Obama administration?

Was Petraeus under pressure to validate the false cover story that the Benghazi attack was the result of a “flash mob” and triggered by a video no one had seen? That was, in essence, what the general told the committee. It was the same story put forth by the administration’s UN ambassador, Susan Rice, as well as the President.

Scheduled to testify under oath, Petraeus rendered his resignation and one can only think that he did so in order not to perjure himself. The question remains whether he will be subpoenaed to testify.

The Nov 13th Washington Post reported that “some of his closest advisers who served with him during his last command in Iraq said Monday that Petraeus planned to stay in the job even after he acknowledged the affair to the FBI, hoping the episode would never become public. He resigned last week after being told to do so by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. on the day President Obama was reelected.”

Another key question is why the FBI was authorized to pursue the investigation that arose out of a complaint of email harassment by Broadwell of someone unrelated to the Benghazi event, but known to Petraeus. Why would the FBI investigate such a seemingly minor offence? And, knowing well in advance that Petraeus had engaged in an affair with Ms. Broadwell following his CIA appointment, how high up the chain of command did that knowledge go? Did, for example, the Attorney General give his blessing to the investigation? Did he inform White House intelligence officials? Did they, in turn, inform the President?

None of this is trivial. I can well remember the long months it took before the Watergate scandal of the 1970s eventually forced the resignation of Richard Nixon in the face of an impending impeachment.

President Clinton survived an impeachment effort in the wake of his sexual dalliance with a White House intern. He has long since been forgiven for it by many, if not most, Americans, despite the fact that he deliberately and knowingly lied to them at the time.

What did President Obama know? In hindsight, why did he offer the CIA position to Petraeus whose entire background was in military affairs, a consumer of intelligence, but not a producer of it? No doubt his leadership record qualified him to run a huge bureaucracy, but this one is as much a keeper of secrets as one that uncovers them. The agency has received a serious blow to its integrity.

On, Doug Hagmann recently wrote, “The alleged trysts of powerbrokers are a component to the story of Benghazi, but they are not the story. They provide convenient cover for emerging revelations. Like arrows in a quiver of those in positions of power, they exist as leverage to be used to neutralize existing or potential threats at the precise moment they are needed, without the untidiness and inconvenient inquiries that tend to accompany dead bodies. They are also powerful weapons that control the perception of a voyeuristic public, which is dutifully fed the salacious details by a complicit media.”

So, as the public’s attention is diverted to the Petraeus scandal, one is left to wonder if the full story of Benghazi and what now appears to be a major Obama administration failure to respond to the growing threat to our ambassador and his staff in Libya will fully emerge; misjudgments that cost him and three others their lives and was followed by weeks of outright deception by the President and those who answer to him.

In the wake of an election where it is increasingly clear that massive voter fraud contributed to the reelection of President Obama and possibly congressional candidates, one wonders whether there is sufficient voter outrage to have the fraud investigated. It has been reported that 59 districts in Philadelphia did not record one vote for Mitt Romney!

The stench of political corruption hung over the first term of the President in scandals such as the government gun-running scheme to Mexican cartels, “Fast and Furious” that cost a border patrol office his life. There was the long succession of the failures of green energy companies that cost taxpayers billions. There was the slush fund called a “stimulus” that achieved few jobs and no recovery from the recession Obama “inherited.”

Those who voted for a change are now thoroughly dispirited and depressed. Those who voted for Obama expect an extension of unemployment benefits, the food stamp program, and other government handouts. There is, however, a limit on how long such programs can be sustained. As the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, once said, “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” As the nation continues to hemorrhage lost jobs, that won’t take long.

Is it too much to hope that General Petraeus will testify and tell the truth about what the CIA knew about the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2011, the anniversary of 9/11?

If he does not, a distinguished career of service to America will be ruined by the worst mistake of his life.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Failure – Tea Party Nation



Failure – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

How many other words can you use to describe the Obama Regime?  The failures are massive.  But it is not just the failures that we look at.  If we look behind the failures, to the not so obvious questions, the Obama Regime only gets worse.

 What is the cost of these failures?  Is it simply a wrecked economy and a diminished nation or is it even worse?

 It is worse.

 The greatest failure of the Obama Regime is the way they have killed those who are working to protect America

 Obama’s policies have been so far beyond wrong, they are criminal.  To start with, the rules of engagement in Afghanistan do nothing but make American military personnel there targets.  With no clear plan for victory, all Obama is doing is asking young Americans to go and die for him so he will not get blamed for losing Afghanistan (at least before the election).

 And now there is Benghazi.

 According to retired military officers who appeared on Fox News, their sources told them that Obama watched the attacks live in the White House.   Not only did Obama not give orders to help those men under attack, someone in the White House gave an order for troops only a mile a way, who could have helped, to stand down.   Given the way Obama acted towards our troops in peril, I have to wonder if he stood up and cheered when the compound was overrun!

 The death of our Americans in Benghazi is criminal.

 The story gets worse the more we hear about it. Obama knew immediately this was a terrorist attack.  For two weeks, he and his regime instead went out and not only groveled before radical Islamists but attacked our First Amendment.  He gave aid and comfort to the radical Islamists worldwide who want to deny freedom of speech and criminalize “Insulting Islam.”

 Then the details slowly leaked out that this was not a short firefight.  The former Navy Seals, who may have disobeyed orders to stand down and instead went to the aid of their fellow Americans, fought for seven hours before being killed.  There was easily enough time to bring in reinforcements.

 This story may even be worse.

 There may have been reinforcements on scene that were denied permission to intervene.   According to published reports, there were CIA personnel who had spotted the mortar crew that was attack the compound.  This group was “painting” the mortar with a laser designator. 

 Why do you do that?

 The answer is simple.  You are identifying a target so it can be struck immediately by airpower. 

 Why were these guys designating a target if there was no air support available?   The answer is simple.  There was something there and someone denied it permission to fire and help our guys on the ground.  According to a former Delta Force Operator on the blog site BlackFive, there are only two people who could have ordered a plane or an armed drone overhead not to fire.  One was the Africom Commander, who has been mysteriously relieved of his command, and the other is the President.

 Here is another failure to ask about.  After the incident was over, and Ambassador Stevens had been drug through the streets, tortured and murdered, why wasn’t the compound secured?

 This compound has been referred to as a Consulate.  It is nothing of the kind.  It was a CIA operations hub in Libya.  In theory it was being used by the CIA to try and track down weapons that had been lost during the revolution against Muammar Qaddafi.   According to other published reports it was a hub for the recruitment of jihadist fighters to go to Syria and to facilitate the transfer of weapons to the Syrian rebels.

 Why wasn’t this compound immediately secured?  For days it was left open.  CNN employees came in to the site and found Chris Stevens’ diary.   Other media members went to the site and found sensitive and possibly classified documents at the burned out compound.

 The Obama Regime has failed completely.  The whole Benghazi affair stinks to high heaven.  One of the first things President Romney should do is direct the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation of this matter, present it to a grand jury and let American citizens decide what should be done with those who willingly let Americans die.

Scandal – Tea Party Nation

Scandal – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

This is now growing to be the biggest scandal in American Presidential history.   If the mainstream media were objective instead of part of the propaganda arm of the Obama Regime, this story would be headline material.

 You may know what the story is, but there are shocking details you may not know.  What must we do about this scandal?

 The scandal is the attack on our American consulate in Benghazi.  This scandal has gone from bad to worse.  Usually it is the cover up that is worse than the scandal.  Remember, it was the cover-up, not the break in at the Watergate that brought down Richard Nixon.

 For two weeks, the Obama Regime lied to us about the attack, claiming that this was not an organized terrorist attack but a response to an anti-Muslim film.  Every member of the Regime was dutifully trotted out to not only lie to the American people but to make a full frontal assault on the First Amendment.

 Then we find out that Hillary Clinton and others in the State Department had requested more security for the Benghazi site and Obama denied that request.

 The media reporting on the attack on the compound makes it sound like the Compound was quickly over run.  Former Navy Seals Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were part of a unit that was near by.  They repeatedly asked for assistance and fought for seven hours before being killed.

 Part of the compound was a CIA operation to help track down weapons missing since the end of the Qaddafi regime.  The existence of this CIA operation and its headquarters was apparently an open secret in Libya.

 As the CIA operators called for help, a CIA paramilitary team was a mile away and was told repeatedly to stand down.  Special operations forces, including C-130 Specter gunships were an hour away.

 They were not sent.   Reports are now coming out that there was a drone over Benghazi at the time sending back real time images to the White House.

 Now even more reports are coming out that the slain Ambassador Chris Stevens may have been up to his eyeballs recruiting jihadists for Syria.  Before his death, a freighter from Libya, with a Captain from Benghazi docked in Turkey carrying 400 tons for weapons for the rebels fighting in Syria.  These included sophisticated surface to air missiles.  These surface to air missiles are shoulder fired, meaning they are very portable and only need one or two people to fire them.  This is an arms smuggling scandal that could make the former Iran-Contra scandal look insignificant. 

According to Aaron Klein at WND, the Consulate itself was not a consulate but an operations hub that served to coordinate aid for rebel led insurgencies through out the Middle East.

 The weapons that Chris Stevens and the American government were helping to smuggle to Syria, with the help of the Islamist government in Ankara, were going to not to the secular moderates, but to Al-Qaeda type terrorists. 

 Republicans have a habit of coming into power and deciding they are simply going to ignore scandals from the previous Democrat administration. 

 This cannot happen this time.

 Mitt Romney’s first priority when he is sworn in must be the economy.   That is good.  But he needs to find a really tough Attorney General and tell him to launch an investigation, get to the bottom of what happened and present the matter to a Federal Grand Jury and start getting indictments and convictions.

 When an American President leaves Americans to die the way Obama did, it is criminal.  When American forces that could easily help are told repeatedly to stand down, and other Americans who are calling for help are killed, it is murder.   When American officials are funneling weapons to Al-Qaeda type terrorists, weapons that one-day might be used against us, that is not just wrong.  It is illegal. 

 Republicans far too often treat Democrats as “Members of the club.”  That club being the political class that runs Washington.  They believe there are certain courtesies you give to members of the club, including covering for them.  Remember what the Clinton administration people did to the White House when George W. Bush was sworn in?  What did Bush do?  He simply ignored it.

 Remember what happened to Bill Clinton and the independent investigation into his conduct?  The day before he left office, it ended with a joke.   He paid a $25,000 fine to resolve the issues related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and agreed to be disbarred in Arkansas.    On the last day in office, he pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive financier.  Many have argued that this was done in exchange for various contributions.  That might have been bribery but the Republicans would not investigate. 

 The American people are tired of business as usual.  The Benghazi scandal is the biggest scandal ever to reach a President.  There have been other scandals but no one died in those scandals.

 If Mitt Romney’s administration will not investigate and prosecute this because it is the right thing to do, then they should do it out of a sense of self-defense.

 Obama’s “Arab Spring” which has toppled regimes all over the Middle East, has opened the door for terrorists to acquire not only surface to air missiles but also possibly chemical WMD’s.  Thousands of these shoulder fired surface to air missiles that were in Libya are now missing. 

 It is not a question of if, but only when some of those weapons will be used against America. 

 If the Romney administration does not aggressively investigate and prosecute those responsibly early, the Democrats will show them no such mercy.

PAUL: Where were the Marines? – Washington Times

PAUL: Where were the Marines? – Washington Times.

Buck stops with Obama in Benghazi security breach

By Sen. Rand Paul

Monday’s foreign policy debate between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was designed to help voters better understand each man’s vision for America’s role abroad. While I have publicly taken issue with both candidates on aspects of their foreign policies, there is no question that Mr. Romney remains the right choice for Americans on Nov. 6.

However, it is also clear neither candidate adequately addressed the gross intelligence failure in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Too many important questions remain unanswered concerning Mr. Obama’s entire mishandling of the recent siege of Benghazi.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the questions Americans want answered.

The first and most pressing question for Mr. Obama remains: Where the hell were the Marines?

Two of the most potentially vulnerable or dangerous American embassies are in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq, we have roughly 17,000 people guarding our ambassador. Not all of them are Marines, but some several hundred are, and they guard our ambassador behind a 10-foot-high walled fortress. In Iraq, we cannot afford to take any unnecessary risks with our diplomats and go to great lengths to ensure that there are plenty of armed personnel between our representatives and any potential threats.

In Libya, there were no uniformed Marines guarding our ambassador. Originally, there was a 16-person security team led by Col. Andrew Wood, who had requested to stay in Libya. In July, Stevens sent memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requesting an “extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel.” Stevens was referring to Col. Wood’s 16-man team, which was scheduled to leave in August. Stevens requested on Aug. 2 — just six weeks before his murder — to keep security personnel in Libya “through mid-September,” calling the conditions there “unpredictable, volatile and violent.”

Col. Woods has also said that he repeatedly requested to remain in Libya because he felt both the environment and the ambassador were unsafe. Now, after the tragic fact, no one knows what happened to Stevens‘ original request.

Why was the security team that both Stevens and Col. Woods requested sent home? Who made this decision?

What happened to the plane, Mr. President? There was supposed to be a DC-3 available to help people get out of Libya or to travel around the country as needed. But that plane was taken away on May 4. On May 8, just four days later, the State Department spent $108,000 on a new electrical charging station to “green up” our embassy in Vienna.

You have to ask: Was this “green” initiative more important than the security of our embassy in Libya? We spent about $1 million on electric cars to make a political statement in Vienna, but we somehow couldn’t find the time or resources to have just one Marine guarding our Libyan embassy, much less a much-needed 16-man personnel team. We spent $100,000 on an electric car-charging station to show Vienna how green we are, but did not keep a plane in Libya that could have been instrumental in transporting our own diplomats to safety.

The president now says the buck stops with him. Fair enough. So, President Obama, again: Where the hell were the Marines? Where was the plane? Saying the buck stops with you sounds good, but you have to follow through.

We’ve seen this kind of government incompetence before.

Once the initial shock and horror of Sept. 11, 2001, began to subside, the finger pointing commenced. Everyone agreed that our intelligence had failed — massively — but no one would claim responsibility for this failure. Reports of possible terrorist attacks had been repeatedly ignored, including the FBI turning down search warrants from their Minnesota branch that could have potentially provided us valuable information.

Still, after the worst terrorist attack in American history, no one was held accountable.

In 2001, 3,000 innocent people lost their lives — but not one government bureaucrat lost his job.

The siege of our embassy and the murder of our diplomats in Benghazi should never have happened. But these events did happen, and this administration continues to be reluctant to give us answers and provide accountability.

As a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I am calling for hearings and a full investigation into what really happened in Benghazi, how our intelligence failed and how, ultimately, we failed to protect our own people.

What happened in Libya was inexcusable. I’m tired of hearing too many government officials make too many excuses. Those responsible must be held accountable and those at fault should be fired.

The president now says, “The buck stops here.” It’s time for him to prove it, and if he won’t, it is time for Congress to do its job and get to the bottom of it.

Sen. Rand Paul is a Kentucky Republican.

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Benghazi lie – Washington Times

Benghazi Mosque

Benghazi Mosque (Photo credit: an agent)


EDITORIAL: Obama’s Benghazi lie – Washington Times.


Presidential whopper is easily debunked


Debate moderator Candy Crowley stepped out of her purportedly neutral role in Tuesday’s presidential debate by spontaneously fact-checking Mitt Romney’s assertion that President Obama delayed calling the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya an act of terrorism. She later corrected herself, saying Mr. Romney was “right in the main” on Benghazi but that the Republican “picked the wrong word.” In fact, Mr. Romney simply was right.


Contrary to his boast, Mr. Obama did not single out Benghazi as an act of terrorism in his Sept. 12 Rose Garden statement. He referred to it as an “attack” and to the perpetrators as “killers.” He then said, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” an obvious reference to the YouTube video to which he alluded as the motive for the mayhem. Later he said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” but this was in the context of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t a direct reference to Benghazi. The presidential proclamation on Benghazi, issued the same day, made no reference to terrorism. That evening, however, Undersecretary of State Patrick F. Kennedy, whose portfolio includes overseas facilities and operations, called Benghazi a terrorist attack in a private conference call with congressional staff.


On Sept. 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed the spate of Mideast unrest, including the Benghazi assault, was “in response to a video that Muslims find offensive.” He avoided calling those who attacked the Benghazi consulate terrorists, referring instead to “assailants” and “attackers.” The same day, Mr. Obama attended the transfer-of-remains ceremony for the Benghazi fallen and made no reference to terrorism in his remarks. In his weekly address on Sept. 15, Mr. Obama made much of the denigration of Islam and angry mobs but said nothing of terrorism. On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was dispatched to the Sunday talk-show circuit to state authoritatively that the attacks were “spontaneous — not premeditated” and “in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”


The White House stuck to this line until Sept. 19, when National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen testified publicly before Congress that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Even after this admission, the White House kept promoting the spontaneous-mob theory. On Sept. 20, Mr. Carney said the Benghazi tragedy was “an opportunistic attack” that grew from alleged video-based unrest. In his speech to the United Nations on Sept. 25, Mr. Obama referred to the video six times but didn’t once describe the events as terrorism.


The Obama administration’s video-inspired, spontaneous-mob fiction was concocted so the White House could dodge charges of massive intelligence failure. The reality — a planned, focused, al Qaeda-linked jihadist battlefield victory — didn’t fit the White House’s rosy election-year storyline. Instead, Obama officials tried to make the tragedy into a teachable moment to lecture Americans on tolerance for Islam and the limits of the First Amendment. The story keeps shifting. In the wake of the debate, Mr. Obama admitted he delayed using the terrorist designation in the interest of acting on sound intelligence. We’ll see how long this new tale lasts.


The Washington Times



NAPOLITANO: Obama is responsible for the mess in Libya – Washington Times


LIBYA/ (Photo credit: شبكة برق | B.R.Q)


NAPOLITANO: Obama is responsible for the mess in Libya – Washington Times.


Intelligence community knew attacks were deliberate


By Andrew P. Napolitano


How many times have you heard the truism that in modern-day America the cover-up is often as troubling as the crime? That is becoming quite apparent in the case of the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the former U.S. ambassador to Libya.


Stevens and three State Department employees were murdered in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month, on September 11th. About an hour before the murders, the ambassador, who usually resides in the U.S. embassy in Tripoli but was visiting local officials and staying at the consulate in Benghazi, had just completed dinner there with a colleague, whom he personally walked to the front gate of the compound. In the next three hours, hundreds of persons assaulted the virtually defenseless compound and set it afire.


Around the same time that these crimes took place in Benghazi, a poorly produced, low-grade, 15-minute YouTube clip was going viral on the Internet. The clip shows actors in dubbed voices portraying the prophet Mohammed and others in an unflattering light. The Obama administration seized upon the temporary prevalence of this clip to explain the assault on the consulate. Indeed, the administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to represent it on five Sunday morning TV talk shows on September 16th, to make the claim that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube clip, that it could not have been anticipated, and that the perpetrators were ordinary Libyans angry at the freedom moviemakers in America enjoy.


Soon, U.S. intelligence reports were leaked that revealed that the intelligence community knew the attack was not as described by Ms. Rice. The intelligence folks on the ground in Libya reported before September 16th that the attack was well organized, utilized military equipment and tactics, and was carried out by local militias with ties to al-Qaida. In response to these leaks, the State Department, for which Ms. Rice works, acknowledged that the assault was an organized terrorist attack.


The Obama administration has publicly rejected the intelligence leaks and insisted as recently as last week during the vice presidential debate that “we” did not know the assault was an act of terrorism against American personnel and property. The word “we” was uttered by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, whose credibility hit a new low when he insisted that the government did not know what we now know it knew. A day after the debate, the White House claimed that the “we” uttered by Mr. Biden referred to the president and the vice president, and not to the federal government or the State Department. This is semantics akin to Bill Clinton’s “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”


Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in one of her rare forays into domestic politics, backed up the White House. She actually claimed that the White House was kept in the dark by the State Department.


What’s going on here?


What’s going on here is the unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences. The whole reason that the streets in Libya are not safe and the country is ruled by roving gangs of militias is because the U.S. bombed the country last year. In an unconstitutional act of war, the president alone ordered the bombing. It destroyed the Libyan military, national and local police, roads, bridges, and private homes. It facilitated the murder of our former ally Col. Gadhafi and ensured the replacement of him by a government that cannot govern.


The consulate attack defies the claims of the president, articulated loud and long during this presidential campaign, that because he killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida is dead or dying, and the terrorists are at bay. Thus, in order to be faithful to his campaign rhetoric, the president has been unfaithful to the truth. I personally have seen excerpts from intelligence cables sent by American agents in Libya to Washington on September 12th, the day after the attack and four days before Ms. Rice’s TV appearances, acknowledging the dominant role played by al-Qaida in the attack.


So, who is to blame here? The president. He is responsible for destroying the government in Libya, and he is responsible for the security of U.S. personnel and property there. He is accountable to the American people, and he is expected to tell the truth. Instead, he has leaked the possibility of more bombings in Libya. These bombings would be more than a month after the Benghazi consulate attack and would attack the very government that Obama’s 2011 bombs helped to install.


Is it any wonder that Bill Clinton, in an unguarded private moment, referred to Obama as an “amateur”?


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).


Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation

Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in PJ Tatler.


The Barack Obama administration has been engaged in non-stop global bungle-buffoonery.  And that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt – it may be that these horrific anti-American Interest results are their intention.

 An example: Allegedly, President Obama — given his partial upbringing in Islamic Indonesia – was going to have a better understanding of and relationship with the Muslim World.

 But a year after the Obama-backed “Arab Spring,” at least twenty U.S. Embassies were attacked on this year’s 9-11 anniversary.  In Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were brutally murdered.

 And as the Muslim World rose nearly as one against us, the administration issued pathetic statements/apologies, generated much sterner stuff against Governor Mitt Romney and lied their faces off about why it all was happening.

 And all the while the President campaigned and raised coin for his reelection effort and blew off world leaders to instead meet with David Letterman and the ladies of The View.

 Yet another global demonstration of Obama Administration fecklessness.  The president extends to our enemies an open hand – and they crush us again and again with their clenched fists.

 Not all the attacks on U.S. interests are violent.  Sometimes the thugs dress up in suits and ties and head to Turtle Bay for a little United Nations (UN) America-abuse.

 Looming before us is a prospective titanic international attack on American Internet interests.  The Web wing of the UN is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – and they in December will vote on whether or not to power grab much greater control of all things ‘Net.

 The Obama administration has expressed their opposition to ITU Web-control passage.  As on all things, Obama’s opinion has meant to the rest of the world exactly nothing.

US Ambassador: Internet Fee Proposal Gaining Momentum

 U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer warned on Friday that a proposal to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet is gaining momentum in other countries….

 Powerful influence, Mister President.

 (A) proposal by the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association could force websites like Google, Facebook and Netflix to pay fees to network operators around the world.

 Kramer said the idea of an international Internet fee is “gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states.”

 Oh – the same Arab states that are setting ablaze our embassies and consulates.  Here again is another potential clenched fist to our face.

 Clearly the vaunted President Obama persuasiveness is again failing him – and us.

(Kramer) said the United States delegation to the conference will have to redouble its efforts to convince other countries that the proposal would only stifle innovation and economic growth.

Seriously, genuinely – good luck with that.  We absolutely need to stop this US-and-global-economy-crushing proposal.

 The Obama Administration’s demonstrably degraded world standing has weakened our efforts to stop this UN power grab.  Another problem is the administration has been on this issue utterly schizophrenic.

 While proclaiming opposition to an international Internet takeover, they have stateside illegally imposed multiple Web takeovers of their own – like the all-encompassingly-bad Network Neutrality and forced-cellular-network-sharing.

 So we have an enfeebled Obama administration standing on the world stage, asking the United Nations to – PLEASE!?! – “Do as we say – not as we do.”