O’Keefe Exposing Possible Clinton Election Fraud in NV

Editor’s Note – James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team were in Bigfork, Montana speaking at MG Vallely’s Glacier Forum series, a Stand Up America US project on Thursday, September 10th and brought the house down revealing his latest undercover work released earlier.

Staying at the General’s home, O’Keefe explained how Project Veritas succeeded in exposing what looks to be fraud in the Hillary Clinton campaign in Nevada.

James O'Keefe and James "Sarge" Olsen visit the grave of Paul Vallely's son Scott. The Major General is in the middle, with James on the left and "Sarge" on the right.
James O’Keefe and James “Sarge” Oleen visit the grave of Paul Vallely’s son Scott. The Major General is in the middle, with James on the left and “Sarge” on the right.

O’Keefe gave an exclusive interview to Breibart  today from the Vallely home and confirmed that Christina Gupana is already being investigated by the state of Nevada.

Top election officials in the state of Nevada are investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign official who was snared in the latest James O’Keefe video, Breitbart News has exclusively learned.

Nevada attorney Christina Gupana, who is managing voter-registration efforts for the Clinton campaign in the key state of Nevada, was the unwitting star of O’Keefe’s undercover sting video this week. Gupana was caught on film apparently conspiring to violate election laws. (Read the rest at Breibart)

Jim Wheeler, a Republican Nevada Assemblyman told SUA that “It seems like some people in the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to win. Even break the law. This should tell you something about their motives.”

Nevada is a crucial State because it is one of the earlier caucus/primary states, with its Closed Democratic Caucus scheduled for February 20, 2016; only 19 days after the Semi-Open Iowa Caucus, and less than two weeks after the New Hampshire Semi- Open Primary.

It is also only a week before the South Carolina Open Primary. 39 Democrat Party delegates are at stake in Nevada.

With the Clinton Campaign fast approaching a must-win situation with poll numbers dropping for Hillary, it seems Assemblyman Wheeler is spot on.


O’Keefe Strikes Again: Undercover Video Purports to Show Hillary Clinton Campaign Violating Election Law

By John Nolte, Breitbart News

An undercover video published Thursday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas purports to show Nevada-based Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers ignoring and knowingly violating Nevada’s voter registration laws. 

Moreover, the video appears to show that this conduct is being condoned and encouraged by a local attorney who works for the Clinton campaign.

According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.”  

Christina-GupanaThe video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law.

Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters

The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law

According to the video, when the attorney in question, identified as Christina Gupana, was told about this alleged lawbreaking, she advised the staffers to, “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out like totally.”

More than one staffer says that the campaign’s motto towards these laws is “Ask for forgiveness, not for permission.” 


Aronoff Responds to Shameful HuffPo Attack On Adm. Lyons

Editor’s Note – Stand Up America US (SUA) is in complete agreement with Roger Aronoff from Accuracy in Media (AIM) regarding the malfeasance of the left in media as witnessed in a column written by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post.

Aronoff responds to his slam of Admiral James “Ace” Lyons in a very thorough manner.

We would add that Admiral Lyons is also a SUA Kitchen Cabinet member and long time friend and colleague of MG Paul Vallely’s (SUA Chairman) and the staff at SUA. We take great umbrage to Stein’s screed.

In addition, the Admiral is also a co-founder and integral part of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely.

US-Admiral-James-Ace-Lyons-on-IslamThis group is comprised of highly experienced command and flag officers, now retired, who are accompanied by seasoned veterans of the intelligence community. Each of these members are proven, stellar leaders, and to belittle one is to belittle them all.

Stein has also committed a fatal journalistic sin in his attempt to besmirch the 240 flag officers (each a proven leader in their own right) who signed onto the letter to Congress opposing the Iran Deal because he simply did not do his research. Not on the Admiral’s exemplary record, nor the members of the Legacy Group, nor on the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

Also, Stein obviously did not read the detailed and well-documented work produced in the “Betrayal Papers” that completely bolsters the Admiral’s proven claims of Obama’s ties and fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood. Then again, they would just tend to marginalize that too!

Facts trump arrogant ignorance and blind allegiance to ideology; so dishonest to the American public it purports to serve. This is just another shining example of how the left does not seek truth, just success for their leftist team at any price. The “do anything, say anything to win crowd” strikes again and America loses once more.

It is utterly shameful for the ‘lame stream media’to minimize and attempt to marginalize one of America’s TRUE PROVEN LEADERS at a time when leadership is most lacking at the highest levels. Stein owes the Admiral a formal apology.

Huffington Post Attack on Admiral Lyons is Based on Willful Ignorance

By Roger Aronoff – Accuracy in Media

roger_aronoffToo often members of the mainstream media are content to marginalize those with whom they disagree, and mock experts as dark conspiracy theorists rather than rebutting their points. When the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) held its first conference exposing the Benghazi scandal, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank followed this derogatory playbook to the letter.

Now, it seems, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is also content to emulate Milbank’s distortions, and to simply mock that which he knows little about. His August 18 column, “AIPAC Chose A Peculiar Admiral For Its Memo Against The Iran Deal,” calls esteemed CCB member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons a figure who “hasn’t operated at the heights of political power,” and casts it as “peculiar” that Admiral Lyons’ name would be listed among other national heavyweights.

Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Stein
Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Sam Stein

Lyons is a retired four-star admiral who was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which at that time was the largest single military command in the world. “As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.”

He also served as the senior military representative to the United Nations, and is far from a babe in the woods when it comes to navigating the politics of power. Following the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, the first military person that then-CIA Director William Casey sent for was Ace Lyons. Admiral Lyons was clearly a major player at the highest levels of government.

But facts don’t matter to Stein—he has a phony narrative to sell. “Instead, he [Admiral Lyons] has spent his time peddling dark conspiracy theories that probably explain why he doesn’t support the deal with Iran,” writes Stein.

“In particular, Lyons is of the firm belief that the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he argues. “Elsewhere, he said the Muslim Brotherhood has ‘carte blanche entry into the White House’ and in effect has ‘become an effective cabinet member.’”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has provided a detailed analysis of several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who are official advisors to the White House or various agencies within the Executive branch. The question for Stein, and for the public in general, is whether or not we should care about the influence of the MB on this and other administrations.

Stein must not be aware that earlier this year President Barack Obama invited a number of radical Muslim leaders to the White House to discuss “‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement,”according to Investor’s Business Daily. The IBD editorial board wrote about several of those visitors:

  • “Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.”
  • “Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.”
  • “Hoda Hawa, national policy adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement.”

MPAC’s “leadership praised Hezbollah and Islamist leaders like [Hassan] al-Banna in the 1990s, opposed the designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in 2003, and promoted the [Muslim] Brotherhood as a moderate force and potential U.S. ally in 2010,” wrote Ryan Mauro for The Clarion Project in 2013.

muslim-brotherhood-white-house“It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals,” reported Breitbart last February. “Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS ‘caliph’ Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood.

Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: ‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.’”

President Obama has been unduly influenced by this radical group during both terms in office. “And I remind you that as [President Obama] was giving that [2009 Cairo] speech, two very important things that people forget about it,” said journalist Ken Timmerman at our Benghazi conference last year.

“First of all, he was in Cairo, Cairo University, and there was an important person who was not even invited—not just not there, but wasn’t even invited.”

That person was then-Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. “And sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving this speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group, although tolerated by the Mubarak regime,” continued Timmerman.

As the CCB Interim Report exposed, “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.”

“With allegiances like these, Lyons seems to think, it’s no wonder Obama struck such a bad deal [with Iran]—indeed, it’s a shock he pursued any concessions at all,” writes Stein.

As we have reported, it was President Obama—not Iran—who made concession after concession as part of the flawed Iran deal. This disastrous arrangement will guarantee that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

It is Admiral Lyons’ historical memory that shines a light on the danger of President Obama’s decision to give in to this totalitarian regime’s demands.Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood

Lyons explained at last year’s conference how the U.S. had plans to take out the Islamic Amal, the “forerunner to Hezbollah,” immediately after the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing.

“We had the photographs. We were going to make it look like a plowed cornfield in Kansas. We had the planes loaded,” said Admiral Lyons, then Deputy Chief for Naval Operations.

“And, at the meeting they go around the table, they brief [Ronald] Reagan, and it gets to [Caspar] Weinberger and he says, ‘I think there are Lebanese army troops in those barracks,’” said Admiral Lyons. “And okay, lo and behold, come back, and no, there are no Lebanese army troops in those barracks.

But this time, and I get this direct from Bud McFarlane, who is the National Security Advisor, Weinberger starts waving his arms and so forth: ‘We’re going to lose all our Arab friends if we go ahead with this strike.’”

“We never got the orders to strike,” said Admiral Lyons. “And of course, what was the message? The message became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry: ‘The Americans can’t suffer casualties. They will cut and run.’”

President Obama recently excused the concession to let Iran enrich uranium during an August 9 appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. “And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table,” Obama said. Apparently that was the same reason for all of the other concessions as well.

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Obama and Kerry crossed off every one of their own red lines” in pursuit of this deal..

Like Weinberger, Obama is clearly more concerned about his international legitimacy, and legacy, than standing up to Iran. His continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood agenda also undermines our national security.

This could serve as a “teachable moment.” Should the Muslim Brotherhood be viewed as some benign, moderate organization? Or instead as the organization that spawned Al Qaeda and other significant terrorist organizations?

Each and every candidate from both parties should be asked whether he or she believes the United States government should receive counsel from the Muslim Brotherhood or entertain their influence. And that is especially true for Hillary Clinton, whose top aide and confidant, the controversial Huma Abedin, has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Retired Command and Flag Staff Remain Quiet on Iran Deal

Editor’s Note – Many recent retirees from our military remain on the sidelines concerning the Iran Deal but the following article does not address the opinions of longer term retirees who have been very vocal in their opposition.

Of the many retired generals, admirals, and other command staff, several stand out in stark opposition to how the Obama administration began the process of talking to Iran, then the lengthy negotiation process, and the resulting agreement now in the hands of Congress.

Some include the founder of SUA, MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret.), Kitchen Cabinet member and co-founder of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi, Adm. Ace Lyons, USN (Ret.), and close friend and former Congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West, US Army (Ret.).


In fact, last July, MG Vallely, Adm. Lyons, and Lt. Col. West gave speeches in opposition at the “Stop Iran Rally” in Times Square. Many other notable people joined them in a bi-partisan manner including more active and former politicians and world leaders.

We applaud recent retiree Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn for his stance in opposition, and like the article below explains, the Obama administration attempted to down play those in opposition by pushing a cadre of others to support his efforts by signing a letter to that extent.

We saw that move as yet another attempt at skewing the picture for the public and displaying the politicization of the military. If certain other retirees wish to remain silent, so be it, but far more oppose the deal than support it, of that we are certain.

We are also pleased that NY Senator, Chuck Schumer for standing in opposition and invite you to join him as another rally is planned to take place at the office his fellow NY Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand on September first. Kill the deal!

Retired brass avoid firm positions on Iranian nuke deal

By Andrew Tilghman, Staff Writer – Military Times

Many of the most prominent retired U.S. military officers are opting against expressing any firm public endorsement of or opposition to the controversial Iran nuclear deal.

“I have not yet taken a position,” retired Army Gen. David Petraeus said in a recent interview.SchumerIranDeal

“I recognize the benefits, significant benefits in rolling back the Iranian nuclear program for a 10- to 15-year period,” said Petraeus, the former commanding general of the U.S. war in Iraq who later also oversaw U.S. military strategy across the Middle East as the head of U.S. Central Command.

“But I also recognize that these have to be weighed against the downsides of an agreement in terms of additional resources going to [Iran’s] proxy elements that are causing problems in the region and beyond,” Petraeus said.

As the debate about the Iranian nuclear deal grows increasingly politicized, partisan advocates are eager to seize on any strong views from respected military officers. Yet very few military officers are weighing in with public views on the deal. If and when they do, they avoid making sweeping conclusions.

“I would debunk the idea that the deal is it — and you either like it or you hate it, or it’s good or it’s bad. That is a bunch of nonsense,” retired Adm. William Fallon, another former CENTCOM commander, told a room of national security professionals at a think tank event in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 4

The deal struck in July between Iran and the U.S. and other Western countries is a 159-page document that would essentially limit Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting the financial and oil sanctions that have constrained the Iranian economy.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis declined a Military Times request to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. (Photo: Staff)
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis declined a Military Times request to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. (Photo: Staff)

Congress will vote in September to potentially block President Obama’s authority to lift the sanctions, which would effectively kill the long-sought deal.

For now Obama appears to have enough support to weather the stiff opposition and retain the authority to execute the deal. But as many Republicans and some Democrats line up to oppose him, the outcome is uncertain.

The White House touted an Aug. 11 letter from three dozen retired generals and admirals offering firm support for the deal and urging Congress not to kill it.

The letter’s signatories include retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, who oversaw the Pentagon’s nuclear force as head of U.S. Strategic Command, and retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, who headed CENTCOM from 1991 to 1994.

Yet many national security watchers noted numerous names missing from that list, including Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who served as Obama’s national security adviser during his first term. Jones did not return Military Times’ request for an interview about the nuclear deal.

In fact, none of the CENTCOM chiefs or Joint Staff chairmen from the past 20 years signed the letter.

“I noticed that very few of them are the most senior people,” said Prof. Richard Kohn, who teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Kohn said the controversial issue is far too politicized.

“The overwhelming majority of retired senior officers recognize they should avoid partisanship and even the appearance of partisanship because it lowers respect among the American people for the loyalty and nonpartisanship of the military profession,” Kohn said in an interview.

Letters like the one signed by the 36 generals and admirals can “give the impression to many people who are not well-informed about the military profession that they are speaking for a large number of retired military or for the military itself.

It looks like a military intervention in politics.”

Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn
Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn

Very few retired military officers have publicly opposed the nuclear deal. Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn has criticized it.

And a newly created group called Veterans against the Deal is distributing a video highlighting Iran’s link to hundreds of catastrophic attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

The new agreement could empower the anti-American regime, they say.

The Obama administration’s handling of its Iran policy was reportedly a source of tension between the White House and former CENTCOM Commander Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis.

For years he expressed hawkish views about Iran, but Mattis, who retired in 2013, declined a Military Times request to talk about the deal.

Fallon described the deal as a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran and said he believes the U.S. should press ahead with the agreement and bring the appropriate skepticism to the implementation process.

“In my mind it comes down to basically a choice: Do we continue the stalemate (between the U.S. and Iran) with the likelihood that sooner or later a mistake of some magnitude is going to be made. I witnessed several errors in judgment during my time out in the region that could have quite easily escalated into something ugly in terms of military action.

“My perusal of history is that sooner or later virtually every impasse, every stonewalled negotiation, every ‘us-against-them’ reaches a point where there is some sort of dialogue initiated to try to move forward and change the future from the past. I think that is what we really have going on here.”

“In my mind it’s pretty much of a no-brainer; we ought to take the next step and see if we can get this thing implemented. And try to move forward — no illusions either side trusts the other. … It’s all going to be about how it’s implemented,” Fallon said.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former CENTCOM commander, recently suggested a similar wait-and-see approach.

“The agreement cannot be judged as good or bad on its own,” said Zinni in an interview with the Virginia Gazette newspaper. “Like all agreements, the judgment will come based on how it is implemented. The quality of the inspections and verification will be key as will Iran’s degree of cooperation. If Iran cooperates and begins to agree to open talks on other issues, the agreement will have been a success.”

Some retired officers are offering views behind closed doors in an effort to aid policymakers facing a complex issue.

Petraeus has worked closely with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its Iran Study Group, a team of former top government officials who helped examine and clarify the technical details of the legal agreement.


He said the Obama “administration has engaged us and has addressed some of the reservations that we have expressed. And that dialogue is continuing.”

“Clearly there are benefits from the Iranian nuclear deal in terms of eliminating the 20 percent enriched uranium, reducing the low enriched uranium stockpile by some 95 percent, eliminating the plutonium path to a bomb, reducing significantly the number of centrifuges and providing for increased inspections as well as some other clear benefits,” he said.

Petraeus said he was reassured by one aspect of the deal that clarifies nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted on Iran, but those sanctions imposed for terrorist activity, specifically targeting Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds force, can remain intact.

Nevertheless, Petraeus said, “There should be no question that some of the $100 billion, $150 billion in assets that Iran will receive — currently frozen assets — when the sanctions are lifted, some of that will go to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force and undoubtedly to Iranian-supported elements such as Lebanese Hezbollah, various Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthi forces in Yemen, and Bashar al-Asad’s regime in Syria, and possibly Hamas.”

“The single biggest issue really is assurance, assurance that Iran will not be allowed to enrich weapons-grade uranium.”

Najjar Updates Full House on ME – Glacier Forum Series

By Scott W. Winchell

SUA and MG Vallely’s Middle East expert, Nagi N. Najjar, gave an excellent presentation on the current state affairs regarding Syria, al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Middle East at the Glacial Forum in Montana.

The event was sponsored by Stand Up America US and is the latest in its series of events hosting prominent speakers and experts for the “Glacier Forum Series.”

His singular insight on the region’s complicated and violent past and present based on daily knowledge/updates only he receives from his trusted and vetted sources in the war zone was well received.MontageFinal

Mr. Najjar discussed the long history of the conflict in Syria, its roots, the world’s response or lack thereof, and the way things evolved from what began as a nationalist movement to over throw Syria’s Bashir al Assad and subsequently turned into a nightmare for the region and the world.

He explained how the vacuum of leadership created by the lack of western support and the many “red lines” that were crossed without repercussions was filled by militant Islam’s most notorious and heinous actors, the “Islamic State.”

He spoke of his trips to the region, accompanied on several occasions by MG Vallely (US Army-Ret.) as part of SUA’s Syrian Opposition Liaison Group (SOLG) and their humanitarian efforts and fact finding missions, especially the time he escorted the General into the war zone all the way to Aleppo.

He also discussed how the SOLG came to be, through the establishment of trust and respect he and the General cultivated with the original FSA (Free Syrian Army), before the influx of al-Qaeda and the creation of ISIS.

MG Paul E. Vallely introduces Col. Nagi N. Najjar to the audience at the Glacier Forum in Montana
MG Paul E. Vallely introduces Col. Nagi N. Najjar to the audience at the Glacier Forum in Montana
Mr. Najjar speaks to a full house.
Mr. Najjar speaks to a full house.
Mr. Najjar continues his presentation to a rapt audience.


Here is the invitation and synopsis distributed prior to the event:


Frank Miele – Here's why I haven't forgotten Benghazi

Editor’s Note – Frequently, the Managing Editor at the Daily Interlake, Frank Miele has submitted and published some very concise and insightful editorials for his local paper in Northwest Montana, the area that SUA’s chairman, MG Paul E. Vallely calls home.

Because of that connection, we here at SUA take special interest in that great publication, and though it is written more for the local area, it is often very pertinent to the rest of America.Daily Interlake

He wrote a summary for his readers that many of you might appreciate on Jerry Corsi’s four-part series posted here on SUA and originally at WND, World Net Daily. (Interlake article summarizes first three parts.)

Please read on and see what people in ‘fly over’ country-north have to say, you will be thankful that they mirror the heartland of America and very likely he shares your thoughts.

Here’s why I haven’t forgotten Benghazi

By FRANK MIELE – Daily Interlake

I haven’t forgotten Benghazi. Have you?

FRANK MIELE - Managing Editor, Daily Interlake, Montana
FRANK MIELE – Managing Editor, Daily Interlake, Montana

Yeah, I know there is lots of pressure on you to just pretend it never happened, or that it was an unfortunate but unavoidable incident that just so happened to result in the death of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

I also know that the House Intelligence Committee put out a unanimous report in November that “found no evidence” of an intelligence failure, nor of any failure to mount a rescue effort, nor of any coverup of said illusory failures.

I know that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was established in May 2014, and has done virtually nothing in the subsequent nine months other than holding a hearing on how security has been improved at embassies worldwide. And, yep, I know that’s putting the cart before the horse, and that it is increasingly unlikely that the committee will ever actually investigate the aromatic but illusory dead horse being dragged behind.

But I also know that the massacre at Benghazi is not going away. I know that no matter how inconvenient, unpleasant or downright threatening the truth is, it will eventually come out, thanks to patriotic Americans who are willing to dodge unfriendly fire from the U.S. media and political hacks in order to honor the principle that you never leave a fellow soldier behind. 

The mutilated, tortured body of Ambassador Chris Stevens came home from Benghazi, but until his story is told, the ghosts of Stevens and the three other Americans killed that night of Sept. 11, 2012, should haunt you.

Retired MG Paul E. Vallely addresses attendees at the press conference.
Retired MG Paul E. Vallely addresses attendees at the press conference.

They do haunt retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and his fellow members of the independent Citizens Commission on Benghazi, which has been working for more than a year and a half to find out just what happened  before, during and after the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Vallely, who has been a resident of Bigfork, Montana, for many years, founded the commission, along with Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney and four-star Adm. James Lyons.

The 17-member panel includes three former CIA officers, a Navy SEAL, a former member of U.S. Army special forces, a former deputy undersecretary of defense, two representatives of the media, two former congressmen and other high-ranking military figures.

In the past week, their work has been highlighted by Jerome Corsi, senior reporter at World Net Daily, in a series of stories that describe a disturbing pattern of deceit, abuse and morally obtuse behavior by American policy makers.

Story No. 1: “Admirals, Generals, Intel: Benghazi Inquest Compromised.” Starting with the mystery of the emasculation of the House Select Committee, Corsi asks members of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi whether they believe the investigation led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has been compromised.

“Vallely told WND (World Net Daily) that he believes Gowdy ‘has received much pressure not to get to the truth, and we are now coming to the conclusion that there is no longer any intention in Washington, by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, to get to the truth.”

ghosts-of-benghaziVallely went on to say that “an honest investigation into Benghazi would prove treasonous acts at the very top of the White House and the State Department, and a continuing cover-up in Congress that now involves the Republican leadership and especially House Speaker John Boehner.”

Why exactly such a cover-up would take place is the underlying theme of the three articles by Corsi. In the Citizens Commission’s interim report issued last April, it was alleged that the United States in 2011 had been supplying weapons and military support to al-Qaida-linked rebels in Libya.

Those allegations have been circulated in conservative circles for months, but because of the lack of interest by the mainstream media in this explosive story, most Americans are blissfully unaware of it.

For those of you who are new to the premise, Corsi spells it out this way:

“The purpose of the mission in Benghazi appears to have involved a scheme managed by Stevens, first to supply weapons to al-Qaida-related groups and others who sought to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and later to Syrian rebels. Republican leaders are covering up the White House’s offenses, some commission members believe, because the White House made them aware of the gun-running and they gave assent to it.”

Wow, that’s big news, right? Worthy of a full-scale congressional investigation, right? Deserving of front-page coverage in the New York Times, right?

Nah! “What difference does it make?” as Hillary Clinton said about finding out who really killed Ambassador Stevens, and why.

Story No. 2: “Generals Conclude Obama Backed Al-Qaida.” Further details about the alleged gun-running scheme are provided by former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

“In early 2011, before Gadhafi was deposed, Christopher Stevens came to Benghazi in a cargo ship, and his title at the time was envoy to the Libyan rebels, which basically means Christopher Stevens was America’s first envoy to al-Qaida,” she told Corsi. “At that time, Stevens was facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-related militia in Libya.”

That’s because, as part of President Obama’s strategy of “leading from behind,” the United States was working with extremist Islamic rebels to overthrow the Gadhafi regime in Libya. Another way to think of “leading from behind” is “keeping your hands clean” because obviously the United States didn’t want to take the lead in overthrowing an Arab government at that time.

The United States, remember, was positioning itself as a friend of the Arab Spring rebellions, up to and including supporting the rise to power in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the Islamic equivalent of the worldwide communist party. 

So Stevens was the point man for these back-door operations, which even to this day have not been addressed by any official public investigation, whether in Congress or elsewhere. 

Corsi also spoke to Kevin Shipp, a former CIA counterintelligence expert in the Reagan era, who agreed with Lopez that both the Obama White House and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are desperate to classify the Benghazi attack as an act of random violence in order to “suppress from the public” the true story.

“The shocking part, maybe even a violation of international law that the Obama administration has been terrified to have fully revealed, is that Stevens as part of his duties as a State Department employee was assisting in the shipment of arms first into Libya for the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, with the weapons shipped subsequently out of Libya into Syria for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels fighting Assad,” Shipp said.

“Very possibly, these gun-running activities could be looked at even as treasonable offenses,” he concluded.

Story No. 3: “Admiral: U.S. Could Have Ousted Gadhafi Peacefully.” This article gets to the very heart of the foreign-policy bungling by the Obama administration that eventually led to the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Remember, back in 2011, the United States was trying to curry favor with Islamic extremists who were toppling regime after regime in the Middle East, and thus with the support of not just president Obama but also senior Republican Sen. John McCain and many others in D.C., the United States was providing weapons and logistical support to the Libyan rebels, who were a thinly disguised variation of al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gadhafi, of course, was the former bad boy of the Middle East, who had funded terrorism and sought nuclear weapons up until the time his palace was bombed by the U.S. Air Force under the orders of President Reagan.

That had kept him quiet for many years, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had turned him into an ally of the United States who was set only on maintaining his own power base. By that time, he had destroyed his own weapons of mass destruction and was providing covert assistance to the U.S. in tracking al-Qaida.

In other words, it would have made sense from a policy point of view to keep Gadhafi in power if at all possible, and if not, to at least give him and his family safe passage out of the country. That’s what you do for allies, even dirty ones.

And that’s what Gadhafi thought we were going to do for him.

According to the Citizens Commission’s interim report, Gadhafi had “expressed his willingness to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 Libyan revolt, but the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, which led to extensive loss of life…, chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national security objectives across the region.”

Retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic told reporter Corsi that he was trying to arrange a 72-hour truce that would allow Gadhafi and allied forces to “negotiate a cease-fire” in order to “get Gadhafi’s abdication and his subsequent either internal or external exile.” Although Gadhafi was ready to step down, the Obama administration showed no interest in accepting the offer.

“I found it hard to understand that we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House and President Obama was not willing to give peace a chance in Libya for 72 hours,” Kubic told Corsi.

“I don’t know if the decision came from the White House or from Hillary Clinton at the State Department,” he said, “but the advice for me from AFRICOM (U.S. military headquarters for African operations) was basically just leave everything alone, to simply stand down.”

A week later, on March 29, 2011, “President Obama signed the finding authorizing the United States to arm the rebels,” Kubic said, leading the way to the arms-running operation headed by Chris Stevens, which resulted ultimately in the brutal assassinations of both Gadhafi and Stevens

These are the facts, as they have been rooted out by private citizens — working in opposition to a government-led cover-up that has received de facto support from the media and both major political parties. I encourage you to read the full stories by Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily, and judge them based not on your own political leanings but on your honor as an American citizen.

Then call or write to your representatives in Congress and demand answers, demand accountability, demand public hearings.

I have not forgotten Benghazi. How could you?

Frank Miele is the managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Montana.