Editor’s Note – You know you have really ‘jumped the shark’ when the Huffington Post and NBS report that AG Holder was the one who signed off on the probe into Fox News’ James Rosen and demanded Holder’s head. Is that the fat lady I hear singing? SUA has been demanding Holder’s resignation, impeachment, or arrest for ages, well before Fast and Furious.
Its time to go Mr. Holder – ‘perp walk’ anyone? In a full page posting, the Huffington Post has entered in the largest font we have ever seen the following:
Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal email, NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported Thursday.
The report places Holder at the center one of the most controversial clashes between the press and the government in recent memory. The warrant he approved named Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism. The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.
The Justice Department later said that it did not intend to press any charges against Rosen.
The attorney general is usually required to approve requests to search journalists’ materials, but that rule does not extend to email records.
(Holder recused himself from the investigation into the Associated Press, meaning that he absolved himself of that responsibility.) Holder has previously said that he was not sure how many times he had authorized the search of journalists’ records.
The revelation came hours after President Obama said in a speech that he was concerned about the potential implications of the Fox News and AP investigations. Obama said that Holder would be reviewing the department’s rules for investigations that involve reporters.
“We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime,” Ailes wrote. “I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it.”
It is with extreme sadness that America no longer has four committed civil servants and patriots to walk among us. The terror attack that struck our sovereign diplomatic mission in Benghazi on 9-11 will be remembered for more than just the loss of these men, and the fact that it was an act of brutal, premeditated terror.
Since that day, evolving official explanations have all been proven to be lies. Not just misleading tales or the “fog of war”, not the need to wait for investigations; the narrative that arose from the administration was a designed lie. It was all a lie designed to hide the failed foreign policy of the entire Obama administration.
Today, Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty must now be considered heroes that saved America from a corrupt regime, from a decidedly un-American goal of appeasing Islam and reducing America’s standing across the globe. They did not just die in the line of duty in a harsh and dangerous den of evil, bravely trying to advance American interests without support and security they deserved. Their loss is now proven to have exposed an even greater evil, an enemy ‘inside the wire’.
We mourn the lost of these men and pray for peace and healing for their respective families, but we should also take some solace in the notion that their deaths, with the will of God, may have just altered the future of America. They may have, unknowingly, provided the first step in the restoration of our once great nation and her constitutional rule-of-law tenets. They have, through dutiful professionalism in the field; doing the right thing – exposed those who are unprofessional, self-serving, power hungry, greedy – those who will say or do anything to attain or preserve power.
There is an unknown quantity of components of the terror attack in Benghazi and perhaps some components we as citizens will never know. It is submitted however, that there are a few factual conclusions that cannot be disputed or denied. The Obama administration found no limits on people and conditions to blame or to fabricate lies. Benghazi pointed us back to a deeper, broken system of foreign policy where no associated government agency is insulated from blame, or was employed for nefarious ends. The stories changed so often, it is clear that the administration, all of them, whether by their own design or by obeying orders, practiced a ‘scorched Earth’ policy where nothing was too low or too base to employ in the cover-up.
What is even more egregious is that our standing in the community of nations is deeply harmed. Those who wish to do us harm no longer fear us. In fact, many openly defy us. Ahmen Abu Khutalla and Sulfian bin Qumu members of the terror team that killed and destroyed the good work of so few, not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East revel in their deeds. President Obama told us that justice will be done and yet both of these evil men and other terrorists still openly walk the streets of Libya brazenly, so much so that one even gave a two hour interview to the New York Times.
In support of these heroes, people who take their jobs seriously, did not stop investigating and reporting their findings. They did this while lessor icons of the main stream media not only did not tell the truth to America, they openly tried to buoy the very people who were deceiving America. When a member of the media attempts to correct the record on live television, in a non-factual manner, in an attempt to rescue those deceiving, the contrast is even more stark.
Last night, an example of true journalism appeared for all to see. In a must see Fox News expose of the nightmare in Benghazi, the deceivers were clearly brought into the disinfectant of the bright sunshine so shrouded to date. Bret Baier, Greg Palkot, and James Rosen detailed the facts, exposing just how disingenuous the evolving narrative and conspiracy was perpetrated on the American people.
Not all in Washington were complicit. There were others who stepped up for the people. We must give praise to some lawmakers that are doing stellar work in asking the hard questions. The few that are also exposing the facts that will prove who was complicit and essentially acted as accessories to murder by denying proper protections of civil servants that work in dangerous locations across the globe, especially in Libya.
From lower ranking career employees at the State Department and Department of Defense, on through to the NSC, and rising all the way to the top in each area, including the President – all failed at standing on principle, and defending America. They placed the sensitivities of Islam/Muslims above America’s interests, they did not do the most basic chore; provide for the protection of four Americans to mask a policy so anathema to our survival. Benghazi is one of the saddest days in American history, where Barack Obama tells us it was just not optimal in his political career. Shame on all of them.
‘I do not think,” Nixon campaign aide Jeb Magruder told the Senate Watergate committee in the spring of 1973, “there was ever any discussion that there would not be a coverup.” Mr. Magruder’s lament aptly described the bureaucratic impulse to hide inconvenient facts that seizes every modern White House at some point. His testimony was brought to mind by the growing number of high-profile Republicans accusing the Obama White House of engaging in a cover-up in the Benghazi case.
In Nixon’s day, his crimes did not kill anyone – here, four heroes have sacrificed all, yet the cover-up continues. If America is truly watching – this may prove to be the end for Obama’s chances on November 6th. This also exposes the mindset on all his other issues. What you are being told needs to be viewed through this new lens of clarity. Ask yourself what Joe Biden asked us all in the VP debate: “Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?”
Edited by Scott W. Winchell, Denise Simon is the Senior Research Director at Stand Up America US.
Editor’s Note – Once again, the facts and documents are emerging that completely disprove ALL versions of the Obama administration’s assertions about the Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans. Obama said:
“Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page,” to Jon Stewart on the non-news shows he runs.
Of course it was not optimal, they are covering up, obfuscating, misleading, changing stories, and plain old lying. To that, many responded including Sen. John McCain:
“Well, even from someone like the President, who has never known what these kinds of tragedies are about, and the service and sacrifice that people make, it’s still just — You know, I can’t even get angry. It’s just so inappropriate,” McCain said. “And I’m sure that families of those brave Americans are not amused.”
Its not just inappropriate, it is also beyond disrespectful – ask Mrs. Smith, mother of slain American Sean Smith:
Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, a State Department computer specialist killed in the attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya on the anniversary of Sept. 11, said Friday in an interview with the Daily Mail that President Barack Obama had been disrespectful in his most recent attempt to explain the incident.
“My son is not very ‘optimal’ — he is also very dead. I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell,” she said. “How can you say somebody being killed is not very ‘optimal’? I don’t think the president has the right idea of the English language.”
Now we see the following report – explain this away Mr. Obama. Its at the very least “not optimal” – in fact, its probably the lowest thing your administration has done since the Fast and Furious debacle which is still hanging out there in a court.
BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda
Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents – released today by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack – slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.
On September 11 – the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed – the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”
Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape…The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities…”
The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to 9/11 may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.
“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a February 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador [Gene Cretz, at that time] that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD [a mobile security detachment] there and been advised that DS [Diplomatic Security] isn’t going to provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”
“DS is hesitant to devout [sic] resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS [Department of State] personnel present. That often also means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”
Earlier that day, February 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi. Crowley added: “[T]omorrow Benghazi will be down to two [DS] agents….This will leave us unable to do any outreach to Libyan nationals…and we will be extremely limited in the ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”
These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier from Nordstom. In a February 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political turmoil in Libya. The U.S. Government remains concerned that such individuals and groups…may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct attacks in the region.”
By February 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted, crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”
In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). In a letter to President Obama, dated October 19 and accompanied by the documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing inadequate security before 9/11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of the events on 9/11.
“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote. “For this administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”
At the State Department briefing today, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the Central Intelligence agency had informed the Obama administration on September 12 that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.