McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Bin Qumu – Why WH is covering on Benghazi?

Editor’s Note – Sufyan Bin Qumu – have you heard this name before? Back on October 20, 2012, SUA Associate Editor Denise Simon wrote an article posted at SUA and many other outlets about him and what he meant to Hillary Clinton, the Libyan revolution, and then Benghazi.

So many theories abounded on what was going on in Benghazi, especially concerning arms, but here we see Ben Qumu and his al Qaeda affiliations may have been that reason. Read his Guantanamo Bay Detainee Assessment here. Intersting that he has been at Gitmo once already, yet Obama does not want to pursue this ‘friend’ of Hillary Clinton’s.

Why The White House is Dragging Their Feet Re: Benghazi Suspects

by Jack Murphy – SOFREP.com

Some frustrated voices are starting to come out with information about how the FBI has positively identified a number of suspects who are thought to be behind the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th of last year.  Fox News cites an anonymous Special Operations soldier voicing his frustration, in many ways the frustration of much of America, about the Obama administration’s inaction.  The problem is, we don’t know what we don’t know.

Sufyan Bin Qumu – ex-Guantanamo Bay Detainee, reason for Benghazi cover-up, al Qaeda connection?

Meanwhile in Libya, many associated with the late Gaddafi regime have been dropping like flies.  The media has been chalking it up to tribal violence, even as non-Gaddafi regime Libyans are targeted, most of them seeming to be killed while inside their vehicles.  Even Ben Qumu, the former Gitmo inmate in charge of Ansar Al-Sharia, the militia primarily behind the Benghazi attack has a bulls eye painted on the back of his head as he dodged an assassination attempt about a month ago.  His right hand man, Yahya Abdel Sayed ate it in Sitre just prior to that.

The leaking of the FBI’s five Benghazi suspects is problematic for the Obama administration in a number of ways.  For one thing, it puts the suspects within the frame of reference of law enforcement, making it essentially impossible to vector in on the suspects for “targeted killings” or even a low-visibility snatch and grab operation which would deliver them to Gitmo.  With the spotlight on them, the only recourse left may be to have them arrested.

But there is another good reason why the Obama administration would prefer to kill those behind Benghazi with a drone strike or by sending in JSOC shooters.  As I’ve written previously, the United States had to kill Osama Bin Laden.  Bringing him to trial was out of the question because of the things he would begin to talk about when put on the stand.  There is no need for conspiracy theory here, just talking about any US support he may have received while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980′s would have been a massive embarrassment for America and American foreign policy.  This is why the Benghazi suspects need to be eliminated from the administration’s perspective, one suspect in particular.

You know where this is going.  One of them received covert US support not long after the Libyan Civil War.  Apparently he had a fairly cordial relationship with the US government, a quid pro quo arrangement.  If the FBI manages to arrest him and bring him to trial it will look like Iran-Contra part two for the Obama administration.  That’s why the suspects, along with Ben Qumu will more than likely quietly disappear.

And everyone knows that a post-conflict environment, filled with tribal violence, and an extremely weak transitional government sets the perfect stage for hiding an assassination.

Andrew McCarthy – McCain’s Mideast Blunders

He fails to see the situation clearly.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review

I wonder if the jihadists of eastern Libya are still “heroes” to John McCain. That’s what he called them — “my heroes” — after he changed on a dime from chummy Qaddafi tent guest to rabid Qaddafi scourge.

See, the senator and his allies in the Obama-Clinton State Department had a brilliant notion: The reason the “rebels” of eastern Libya hated America so much had nothing to do with their totalitarian, incorrigibly anti-Western ideology. No, no: The problem was that we sided with Qaddafi, giving the dictator — at the insistence of, well, McCain and the State Department — foreign aid, military assistance, and international legitimacy. If we just threw Qaddafi under the bus, the rebels would surely become our grand democratic allies.

This, of course, was a much more sophisticated theory than you’d get from lunatics like Michele Bachmann. Sit down for this, because I know it’s hard to believe anyone could spout such nutter stuff, but Bachmann actually opposed U.S. intervention in Libya. She claimed — stop cackling! — that many of McCain’s heroes might actually be jihadists ideologically hostile to the U.S. and linked to groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the terror enterprise’s North African franchise. She even thought — yeah, I know, crazy — that if Qaddafi were deposed, the heroes would get their hands on his arsenal, ship a lot of it to AQIM havens in places such as Mali and Algeria, and maybe even turn rebel strongholds such as Benghazi into death traps for Americans.

Good thing we listened to McCain, no?

This week, while the guys the senator and the Obama administration aligned us with in Libya (and would like to align us with in Syria) were busy taking Americans and other foreigners hostage in Algeria, in addition to using Qaddafi’s arsenal to fight the French in Mali, McCain was working his magic in Cairo.

An unfortunate hiccup: McCain and his entourage, including fellow Libya hawk Lindsey Graham, showed up on President Mohamed Morsi’s doorstep just as it was revealed that Morsi, while a top Muslim Brotherhood official in 2010, had inveighed against Jews, calling them “blood-suckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs” and claiming it was incumbent on Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” toward them.

Thank goodness Morsi was able to explain to McCain that his remarks had been “taken out of context.” I mean, you can see how that could happen, right? You’re making a few benign remarks about perpetuating hatred for enemies you describe as subhuman and all of a sudden they’re calling you an anti-Semite. Why, next thing you know, they’ll be saying Morsi could be an Islamic supremacist who is hellbent on imposing a sharia constitution on Egypt when he’s not otherwise rolling out the red carpet for Hamas and demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh!

Not to worry: McCain & Co. have promised to go to bat for Egypt’s swell president. Sure, he has imposed a sharia constitution just as crazies like Michele Bachmann predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would do if it took power. That would be the same sharia that, less than two years ago, McCain condemned as “anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned.” Back then, McCain was warning that the Brotherhood had to be kept out of the government if there was to be any hope for democracy in Egypt. After all, he explained, the Brothers “have been involved with other terrorist organizations.”

Now, however, McCain says he will push for American taxpayers to fork up another $480 million for Morsi. Or, to be accurate, borrow another $480 million. You see, the United States is already so deep in the red that a $16.3 trillion debt ceiling is not high enough. In fact, we’re such a basket case that our debt-service and “entitlement” payments alone put us in a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit hole even before we borrow and print another trillion-plus for such ancillary expenses as the Defense Department, the Obama family’s vacations, and the $80-odd million that funds “democratization” programs at McCain’s International Republican Institute. But hey, no problem — what’s another $480 million on top of the $2 billion–plus the Obama administration has already extended to Morsi’s regime . . . to say nothing of the sizable U.S. taxpayer chunk of the $4.8 billion IMF loan the Brotherhood government is also about to get its mitts on?

Naturally, “extremist” conservatives like Michele Bachmann are wet blankets when it comes to this gravy train, too. Get this: She thinks that when you get to the point where you have to borrow in order to pay the interest on the loans you already can’t pay off, somebody needs to cut off your credit line — not inflate it by another two or three trill. Even more daft: She thinks that if you subsidize an organization, like the Brotherhood, that promotes sharia and Hamas, you’re apt to get more sharia and more terrorism.

But look, that’s the kind of passé thinking we’ve come to expect from Bachmann. She’s the one, you may recall, who had the audacity to argue last year that it might not be a good idea for the secretary of state to keep as a key staffer a woman who worked for several years with a notorious al-Qaeda financial backer whose “charity” is formally designated as a terrorist organization — indeed, worked with him at a sharia-promotional journal he founded and in charge of which he put her parents, Muslim Brotherhood operatives (the surviving one of whom runs an Islamist organization, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, that is part of an umbrella entity called the Union for Good — a designated terrorist organization run by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist).

Congresswoman Bachmann was acting on the obviously irrational belief that Muslim Brotherhood influences in our government might lead to pro-Islamist policies detrimental to American security and interests — as if the State Department might tell pro-American Egyptian military rulers that they should stand down so the Brotherhood could take over; as if the Obama administration might order that information about Islamist ideology be purged from the materials used to train our intelligence agents; as if the Brotherhood, even as it counted its American aid dollars, would impose sharia, prosecute its detractors, and green-light the persecution of minority Christians.

Such insane, Islamophobic scaremongering! Insane enough that McCain, between praising his Islamist “heroes” and championing ever more funding for Islamist Egypt, made certain to lambaste Bachmann on the floor of the Senate over her concerns about Brotherhood infiltration of our government – leading other influential Republicans to follow suit. And now, aping that display, People for the American Way — “PAW,” the outfit created by a hard-left Hollywood icon to smear Robert Bork and derail his Supreme Court nomination — is campaigning to have Bachmann booted from the House Intelligence Committee.

There is a war on over the course of American foreign policy and the security of the United States. The Left has aligned with the Brotherhood — some naïvely relying on the fiction that the Brothers are not the enemy vanguard, others seeing the Brothers as comrades in the quest for a utopian, post-American future. In opposition, the GOP can either continue looking to McCain for leadership or rally behind Bachmann the way the Left always circles the wagons around its stalwarts.

Anyone want to bet me on which way the Republicans will go?

 Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was published by Encounter Books.

ARB Report not enough – Senators demand more

Editor’s Note by Denise Simon – This Benghazi ARB report is meaningless given those assigned to compile it. Why was there no inclusion of interviews of the survivors to the attack, why no inclusion of the members of the NSC or Panetta?

Why no inclusion of FBI findings or those of the CNN staff that was at the compound the same day? Why no inclusion of General Ham?

What is the justification for blaming Congress on lack of funds for security and then Kerry demands $1.6 billion?

Why no mention of the February 17th Brigade members or Ansar al Sharia? C’mon, there is no one that takes the hearings seriously most of all the Administration.

Senators demand review of intelligence operations on Benghazi

By Carlo Muñoz – The Hill

A trio of Republican Senators are demanding an independent review of all U.S. intelligence operations leading up to, during and after the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which ended in the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The review would be similar to the recently completed analysis by the independent Accountability Review Board (ARB) on the intelligence and security mishaps within the State Department that preceded the September attack, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said Friday.

“The American people were deceived … for an incredibly long amount of time,” on the Libya attack, McCain told reporters during the press conference on Capitol Hill.

Top officials in the U.S. intelligence community, as well as those at the Pentagon and State Department, must be held “accountable and responsible to the American people,” McCain added.

The board, led by former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department, but it also placed blame on Congress for cutting funds.

One senior State Department official has resigned in the wake of the ARB findings, and three others were put on administrative leave as a result of the scathing review.

The White House is already moving forward with instituting the recommendations put forth by the ARB, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Thursday.

“We have an obligation to them, to their families, and all other Americans serving abroad to figure out exactly what happened and learn from those mistakes so that we can prevent this from happening again,” Carney told reporters on Thursday. “That was the purpose of the establishment of the Accountability Review Board.”

However, lawmakers say U.S. intelligence agencies should shoulder some of the blame in the run-up to Benghazi and that those agencies should be subjected to the same critical oversight as the State Department, Ayotte said.

“This was inevitable,” Graham said, regarding the failures by the American intelligence and diplomatic corps in anticipating and possibly preparing for the Benghazi attack.

Obama administration officials have repeatedly cited intelligence provided to the White House as the reason for its initial claims the consulate attack was the result of a anti-American protest gone violently wrong. Later, the White House acknowledged the strike was the work of Islamic militants based in northern Libya.

Top White House officials, including Clinton and Vice President Biden, claimed a lack of timely intelligence led to the administration’s flawed initial assessment of the situation in Benghazi.

Last month, Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told The Hill that only changes made to the administration’s talking points on Benghazi were made by the intelligence community and not other “interagency partners” in the White House.

But given the ARB “thoroughly discredits the administration’s [initial] narrative,” a similar review is necessary for the U.S. intelligence agencies to find out what kind of analysis led the White House to its flawed conclusion, Ayotte said Friday.

The New Hampshire Republican also said that she, McCain and Graham had requested Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) call hearings to examine the Defense Department’s role in responding to the attack.

For their part, defense lawmakers agreed to  add 1,000 Marines to the Pentagon’s embassy security force, assigned to protect American diplomatic outposts across the globe, as part of the compromise version of DOD’s fiscal 2013 budget policy bill.

The DOD hearing called for on Friday will focus on what other measures the Pentagon needs to take, in order to ensure the security of U.S. diplomats stationed worldwide.

The final version of the legislation was approved by both chambers and was sent to the White House for the president’s signature on Friday.

However, the ARB-like review for the intelligence community and the possible Senate hearing on DOD’s role in Benghazi are, in the end, not about assigning blame, Graham said.

The lawmakers, according to Graham, are simply “trying to correct” the mistakes made in the run-up to the Benghazi strike and to ensure a similar attack does not happen again.

Four Dead Americans and Fox Saved a Country

By Denise Simon

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.

American Heroes

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.

James Rosen reminds us:

‘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.