Tag Archives: libya

The folly of American exceptionalism … and why it presents an election made in hell

“Proudly overthrowing the Cuban government since 1959.”

 

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted. And not much better can be expected on domestic issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for four speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?

The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”

When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that counts is the person’s ideology. Who would you sooner vote for, a person with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight with me.

The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”

Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.

What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.)

The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.” All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Another foreign-policy “success” of Mrs. Clinton, which her swooning followers will ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America. The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to up to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”. (See Mark Weisbrot’s “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras”.)

In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices”, Clinton reveals just how unconcerned she was about restoring Zelaya to his rightful office: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere … We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly, and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Washington, however, quickly resumed normal diplomatic relations with the new right-wing police state, and Honduras has since become a major impetus for the child migrants currently pouring into the United States.

The headline from Time magazine’s report on Honduras at the close of that year (December 3, 2009) summed it up as follows: “Obama’s Latin America Policy Looks Like Bush’s”.

And Hillary Clinton looks like a conservative. And has for many years; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, when she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua.

Then, during the 2007 presidential primary, America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, ran an editorial by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett was a policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.”

During the same primary we also heard from America’s leading magazine for the corporate wealthy,Fortune, with a cover featuring a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”.

And what do we have in 2016? Fully 116 members of the Republican Party’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton! “Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto. Another signer, foreign-policy ultra-conservative author Robert Kagan, declared: “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The only choice? What’s wrong with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? … Oh, I see, not conservative enough.

And Mr. Trump? Much more a critic of US foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be “evenhanded” when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton’s boundless support of Israel). He’s opposed to calling Senator John McCain a “hero”, because he was captured. (What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)

He calls Iraq “a complete disaster”, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” He even questions the idea that “Bush kept us safe”, and adds that “Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists.”

Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?

CIA motto: “Proudly overthrowing the Cuban government since 1959.”

Now what? Did you think that the United States had finally grown up and come to the realization that they could in fact share the same hemisphere as the people of Cuba, accepting Cuban society as unquestioningly as they do that of Canada? The Washington Post (February 18) reported: “In recent weeks, administration officials have made it clear Obama would travel to Cuba only if its government made additional concessions in the areas of human rights, Internet access and market liberalization.”

Imagine if Cuba insisted that the United States make “concessions in the area of human rights”; this could mean the United States pledging to not repeat anything like the following:

Invading Cuba in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs.

Invading Grenada in 1983 and killing 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

Blowing up a passenger plane full of Cubans in 1976. (In 1983, the city of Miami held a day in honor of Orlando Bosch, one of the two masterminds behind this awful act; the other perpetrator, Luis Posada, was given lifetime protection in the same city.)

Giving Cuban exiles, for their use, the virus which causes African swine fever, forcing the Cuban government to slaughter 500,000 pigs.

Infecting Cuban turkeys with a virus which produces the fatal Newcastle disease, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 turkeys.

In 1981 an epidemic of dengue hemorrhagic fever swept the island, the first major epidemic of DHF ever in the Americas. The United States had long been experimenting with using dengue fever as a weapon. Cuba asked the United States for a pesticide to eradicate the mosquito involved but were not given it. Over 300,000 cases were reported in Cuba with 158 fatalities.

These are but three examples of decades-long CIA chemical and biological warfare (CBW) against Cuba. We must keep in mind that food is a human right (although the United States has repeatedly denied this).

Washington maintained a blockade of goods and money entering Cuba that is still going strong, a blockade that President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, in 1997 called “the most pervasive sanctions ever imposed on a nation in the history of mankind”.

Attempted to assassinate Cuban president Fidel Castro on numerous occasions, not only in Cuba, but in Panama, Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

In one scheme after another in recent years, Washington’s Agency for International Development (AID) endeavored to cause dissension in Cuba and/or stir up rebellion, the ultimate goal being regime change.

In 1999 a Cuban lawsuit demanded $181.1 billion in US compensation for death and injury suffered by Cuban citizens in four decades “war” by Washington against Cuba. Cuba asked for $30 million in direct compensation for each of the 3,478 people it said were killed by US actions and $15 million each for the 2,099 injured. It also asked for $10 million each for the people killed, and $5 million each for the injured, to repay Cuban society for the costs it has had to assume on their behalf.

Needless to say, the United States has not paid a penny of this.

One of the most common Yankee criticisms of the state of human rights in Cuba has been the arrest of dissidents (although the great majority are quickly released). But many thousands of anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy Movement, which began in 2011, more than 7,000 people were arrested in about the first year, many were beaten by police and mistreated while in custody, their street displays and libraries smashed to pieces. ; the Occupy movement continued until 2014; thus, the figure of 7,000 is an understatement.)

Moreover, it must be kept in mind that whatever restrictions on civil liberties there may be in Cuba exist within a particular context: The most powerful nation in the history of the world is just 90 miles away and is sworn – vehemently and repeatedly sworn – to overthrowing the Cuban government. If the United States was simply and sincerely concerned with making Cuba a less restrictive society, Washington’s policy would be clear cut:

  • Call off the wolves – the CIA wolves, the AID wolves, the doctor-stealer wolves, the baseball-player-stealer wolves.
  • Publicly and sincerely (if American leaders still remember what this word means) renounce their use of CBW and assassinations. And apologize.
  • Cease the unceasing hypocritical propaganda – about elections, for example. (Yes, it’s true that Cuban elections never feature a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton, nor ten billion dollars, nor 24 hours of campaign ads, but is that any reason to write them off?)
  • Pay compensation – a lot of it.
  • Sine qua non – end the God-awful blockade.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin America has witnessed a terrible parade of human rights violations – systematic, routine torture; legions of “disappeared” people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups. The worst perpetrators of these acts during this period have been the military and associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras. However, not even Cuba’s worst enemies have made serious charges against the Havana government for any of such violations; and if one further considers education and health care, “both of which,” said President Bill Clinton, “work better [in Cuba] than most other countries” , and both of which are guaranteed by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, then it would appear that during the more-than-half century of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the very best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

But never good enough for American leaders to ever touch upon in any way; the Bill Clinton quote being a rare exception indeed. It’s a tough decision to normalize relations with a country whose police force murders its own innocent civilians on almost a daily basis. But Cuba needs to do it. Maybe they can civilize the Americans a bit, or at least remind them that for more than a century they have been the leading torturers of the world.

 

[by William Blum, writing for David Stockman’s Contra Corner]

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Immigrant terrorists in the US, Part 2…

The refugees fleeing the Middle East are mostly (72%, or almost three-quarters) men, not the “widows and orphans” that OHNObama has told us to expect.  We also know that a large percentage of these men have a propensity toward terrorizing people not of the Islamic persuasion.

 

Bleeding-heart leftists are attempting to flood the U.S. with what they describe as “widows and orphans,” but the horrifying things actual refugees (who were already screened and cleared by the U.S. government) were arrested for has liberals scrambling to cover their tracks.

Breitbart reports that at least 12 vetted refugees have been charged with joining terror plots against the U.S., using their refugee status in an attempt to attack American civilians.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has brought before Congress a list of a dozen refugees-turned-jihadist in an effort to halt the U.S.’s import of foreign migrants and refugees into the country.

Although the list doesn’t even include every refugee arrested for terrorist activity, the ones it contains should be evidence enough to cease the flow of migrants over our borders. The list of refugees and their charges are as follows:

Liban Haji Mohamed (Warrant for arrest) — as a Somali native who provided material support to terrorist groups al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda, Mohamed lived in Washington D.C. as a cab driver, but fled to East Africa in 2012 to join al-Shabaab. According to FBI Special Agent Carl Ghattas, Mohamed is an asset to the terrorist group, and could play a key roll in attacks on U.S. soil.

Abdinassir Mohamud Ibrahim (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — This Somali refugee was sentenced to 15 years in a federal prison for providing al-Shabaab with material support. Ibrahim’s family is made up of prominent Somali terrorists, but after falsifying his refugee application, he was able to assist the terror group while remaining int he U.S.

Abdullah Ramo Pazara (Indictment) — This Bosinian entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2013, fled to join ISIS (Daesh) just 11 days after gaining American citizenship. He claims to have participated in a jihad mission in which he slaughtered individuals and took a hostage. He is believed to be dead.

Ramiz Zijad Hodzic (Indictment) — Another Bosnian native, Hodzic entered the U.S. as a refugee and war hero. However, he was soon charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS militants. His purchases included U.S. military uniforms, tactical gear, firearm accessories, and other military equipment.

Sedina Unkic Hodzic (Indictment) — The wife of Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, this Bosnian refugee conspired with her husband to privde ISIS resources and support from the comfort of her new American home. She spent much of her time shipping boxes of material to terrorists abroad, and collecting money from jihadists.

Armin Harcevic (Indictment) — Harcevic gained entrance to the U.S. as a Bosian refugee, only to use his status to aid Islamic terrorists abroad. Harcevic collected money and wired it straight to jihadists’ accounts overseas.

Refugees to the US need to be carefully screened...

Nihad Rosic (Indictment) — Another Bosnian refugee, Rosic gained U.S. citizenship, but this didn’t slow his aid to terrorist groups. As a truck driver, Rosic not only punched a woman in the face as she held her child, he also sent funds abroad to jihadists, attempted to join ISIS, and severely beat his then-girlfriend.

Mediha Medy Salkicevic (Indictment) — This Bosnian refugee privded support and resources to overseas terrorists, using her job at a cargo company to deal with items going in and out of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Salkicevic also raised funds from third parties and wired them to the accounts of Islamic jihadists.

Jasminka Ramic (Indictment) — Ramic is another Bosnian refugee-turned-jihadist who shamelessly received citizenship before using her new status to send money and resources to Muslim terrorists abroad.

Abdurahman Yasin Daud (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — This Kenyan refugee came to the U.S. as a child, but that didn’t deter him from attempting to provide support to ISIS. After gaining citizenship, Daud tried to get passports, cross into Mexico, and fly to Syria to join the Islamic terrorist group.

Guled Ali Omar (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — Also born in a Kenyan refugee camp and entering the U.S. as a child, Omar turned on his U.S. host, providing material support to ISIS. Omar left the U.S. in 2007 to fight for al-Shabaab, not long before one of his brothers, Mohamed Ali Omar, was convicted of threatening federal agents.

Fazliddin Kurbanov (Indictment and Superseding Indictment) — A native of Uzbekistan, Kurbanov was found guilty of attempting to provide support to a terrorist organization, and possession of an unregistered destructive device. Kurbanov is said to have converted to Christianity, but converted back to Islam after entering the U.S., spurring his motivation for terror.

The Tsarnaev brothers, who killed 3 and injured another 264 in the Boston Marathon bombing, were refugees to the U.S. from the Chechen conflict. Two of the Paris shooters used the Syrian refugee crisis to make their way into France, killing at least 130 and injuring 352. Waad Ramadan Alwan, a refugee to the U.S. from Iraq, was found guilty of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens with explosives, distributing information on the manufacture and use of IEDs, and trying to give material support to al-Qaeda. There are still countless other refugees and migrants who have used their access to the U.S. to breed terror.

Does anyone really think that a change in address somehow magically means a change in ideology?  If terrorists at home come to the US, they will be terrorists here. Does that not make sense to SOMEONE in Washington, DC?

 

[published by MAD WORLD NEWS]

 

…………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Hillary Clinton’s name may well NOT appear on any 2016 ballot”…

Will the real Hillary please stand up?

In much the same manner as we hoped would happen in 2012 concerning Obama’s name not being on a ballot due to multiple court cases involving his fraudulent identification, now a judge has spoken out and says that the current political and legal issues that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been embroiled in will ultimately see her name not on the ballot in 2016.

I’ve always appreciate much of what Judge Andrew Napolitano has written and said with a few exceptions. Even in what I’m about to write, I agree with his legal opinion, but am skeptical that the people will even bat an eyebrow, considering they have not done so yet even with knowing all they know about Hillary Clinton. Yet, I do find his observations worthy of print.

Napolitano pointed out in a recent column that Hillary’s political problem is one of “credibility.”

“We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida,” he wrote. “We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.”

Though her own embassy staff in Tripoli said the video was not an issue, Hillary marched right out, alongside Hussein Obama and Susan Rice to declare that the video was the reason for the Benghazi attacks. Her State Department even spent $70,000 of your tax dollars America to apologize for it!

Even after receiving the bodies of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others who died attempting to fight off Islamic jihadists, Clinton, along with Rice and Obama, continued to promote the lie that Benghazi was about a video.

However, Napolitano doesn’t point to that as the reason that Clinton’s name will not be on the ballot in 2016.

“That’s because each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse,” Napolitano continues. “We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government) and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).”

“Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee,” the Judge added. “In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put “boots” on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.”

He then concludes, “So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.”

“After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Gadhafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya,” added the judge. “When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the “off with his head” hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.”

While many have come to the same conclusion, Napolitano adds that both Catherin Herridge and Pamela Browne scrutinized Clinton’s testimony and point out that Obama vetoed Sidney Blumentahl‘s hiring at the State Department, so she then had the Clinton Foundation pay him a larger salary to work at the State Department to be her, in the words of Napolitano, “silent de facto adviser.”

Though Clinton called Blumenthal just a “friend” during testimony, nothing could be further from the truth. Both engaged in emails back and forth over intelligence issues, some of which she acted on, including a Libyan no-fly zone.

Napolitano then concludes, “It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.”

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  While we agree with the judge’s assessments, we wonder if he has taken into consideration the amount of corruption in our government…since it has allowed a known usurper and proven liar, Barack Hussein Obama, to stay in office for seven years, with NO congressional action at all toward impeachment even in the face of mountains of evidence showing impeachment is called for. And even with Hillary’s repeated lies and her well demonstrated lack of caring for American citizens at large, there are still many Democrats, both voters and sympathizers, who continue to overlook all that and support her.

 

[by Tim Brown, writing for FREEDOM OUTPOST]

 

…………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The truth about Benghazi…and why Democrats are determined to hide it

Liars lineup...If you’re an American, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH about everything your government does (unless knowing that truth compromises national security). Mr. O came into office promising “the most transparent administration in history” but soon gave us the most inept, unprepared, and dishonest administration in history…and the most NON-transparent. Mr. O thinks you deserve to know NOTHING unless he is forced to disclose it to you.

Unless it threatens national security, Americans deserve to know the truth. So it is with Benghazi. Therefore, the rapidly approaching testimony by Secretary Clinton has the potential of finally providing some of the answers we ought to have had years ago. Why was security was so lax, why was no military help sent in a timely manner, and why did the Obama Administration attempt to blame an internet video for the attack even though they knew this wasn’t true?

The answers to all three questions are actually pretty obvious, but without definitive proof, getting the major media motivated enough to report the facts won’t happen. This is why the Democrats are so determined, even desperate, to hide what really happened and why. Consider how the Democrats are seizing on the recent statement by Rep. McCarthy to bolster their claim that the Benghazi hearings are nothing but a political witch hunt by Republicans. That, along with the claims that the matter has already been investigated and that we shouldn’t be wasting taxpayer’s money, are all pretty pathetic if you stop to examine each assertion.

For starters, the McCarthy comment, while ill-advised, is like a homeowner chortling about finding a stash of gold coins while remodeling his house. The Benghazi committee wasn’t looking to find that Sec. Clinton had a private email server any more than the homeowner was looking for the gold when tearing down a wall. However, by claiming that motive, the Democrats hope to discredit the Benghazi committee’s potential findings. It also keeps the narrative away from the truth. As for the claim that all this has already been investigated and no misconduct was proven, that goes against common sense. We now know that many emails and other evidence and testimony were deliberately withheld by the Obama Administration before those earlier hearings. Finally, the contention that the Democrats don’t want to “waste” taxpayer money is ludicrous considering how much taxpayer money Democrats routinely squander on things like the Cowboy Poetry Festival, Star Trek training videos, and studies of shrimp on treadmills.

The reality that the Democrats want concealed is that this is an incompetent administration. Ignoring the facts on the ground regarding security in Libya was just one of many examples of ineptitude by the Obama Administration. From little things like misspelling the Russian reset button to major problems like the pathetic Obamacare website rollout, too many people President Obama has put in important positions of authority have performed poorly. Responsibility rolls downhill like snowballs and other stuff. Admitting that the State Department dropped the ball on Libyan security wouldn’t just have made Hillary look bad, it would have reflected poorly on the president who put her in charge. That would hurt the Democrat Party and so they wanted to hide the truth.

The same thing accounts for the lack of a quick response to an attack that went on for hours. That Hillary Clinton was right about Obama not being up to responding to a 3:00 a.m. phone call was ironic since she wasn’t ready either. Neither Obama nor Clinton was able to make a quick and decisive response. Their excuse was that help wouldn’t have gotten there in time. That couldn’t have possibly been known in advance, and at the very least should have tried. Whether there was a “stand down” order given, or whether a “go” order was withhold while they dithered, either would have made them look bad. So, again, Democrats wanted to hide the facts.

Finally, remember at the time this happened the election was in doubt. The Obama narrative was that Bin Laden was dead and that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat. Further, they claimed that the “Arab Spring” was going to bring peace and democracy to the area. Admitting that organized terrorists were able to attack and kill an American ambassador would have made that assertion look as foolish as it has turned out to be. Therefore, blaming a video, which the Administration absolutely tried to do, would prevent embarrassing facts from affecting the election.

The problem is that only definitive confirmation of these truths will motivate the major media to cover this. I have high hopes, but low expectations, that Sec. Clinton’s testimony will finally provide enough evidence to force the mainstream media to report the truth. However, we have no idea how much evidence is still hidden or destroyed, so this may not happen.
Whether Clinton or Biden is the ultimate nominee, the Democrat Party and their media allies will continue to deny, delay, and hope the public never becomes aware of the truth.

[by Nicholas Wishek, writing for EAGLE RISING]
NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  The Democrats want to “conceal that this is an incompetent administration”? Of course they do…but it’s MUCH TOO LATE for that. Americans have realized for years now that they voted into office the most incompetent president ever to occupy the Oval Office. We can only hope the lesson has been well learned that the office demands a man of principles and experience. Mr. O had neither…and still does not have the first of those two qualities.
………………………………………….
As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by
NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton-Obama Benghazi story refuted by detailed Defense Department report

At the same time Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top leaders were blaming spontaneous protests for the deadly Benghazi attack, the Defense Department broadly circulated a detailed intelligence report that said an al Qaeda-linked group planned the assault 10 days beforehand.

Its goal was to kill as many Americans as possible.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report is contained in a trove of previously classified documents that the government watchdog group Judicial Watch forced the Obama administration to release under court order.

On another terrorism development that has wide implications today, one DIA report in August 2012 predicted the rise of the Islamic State, which was then emerging in Syria. It now controls wide sections of eastern Syria and northern and western Iraq, and is committing mass slaughter of Christians, Kurds and Muslims of rival sects or clans.

Mr. Obama downplayed the Islamic State as the “JV” in January 2014 when the terrorist army made its first incursions into western Iraq.

Judicial Watch said in a statement that the Benghazi documents are clear evidence that Mr. Obama and his aides lied to the American public two months before the November elections. Amid poor security, the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an aide. Terrorists later attacked a nearby CIA base, killing two former Navy SEALs serving as a security detail.

Judicial Watch previously forced the administration to release a chain of emails that revealed the tortured process by which White House and State Department political appointees took the CIA’s draft report on the attack and changed it to say the carnage was caused by spontaneous demonstrations over an American-made anti-Islam video.

On Sept. 16, the same date as the DIA report, Susan E. Rice, who then was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now is national security adviser, went on Sunday political talk shows and blamed the attack on protesters angered by the video.

The administration could argue this point: The final CIA “talking points” paper was approved Sept. 15. The DIA report saying an al Qaeda-linked group carried out the attack was dated Sept. 16.

But Judicial Watch argues that the information contained in the DIA report was obtained as of Sept. 12, the day after the attack.

The president and Mrs. Clinton took days more to concede that the attack was terrorism and not a protest gone violent. Mr. Obama cited the video later that month in a speech to the U.N.

Matt Olsen, who was serving as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first administration official to publicly call the attacks terrorism, on Sept. 19.  Mrs. Clinton followed suit the next day. But Obama, on that same day, was asked at a town hall meeting about the attack and declined to label it terrorism.

The White House on Tuesday did not respond to a query about the Judicial Watch findings.

Subsequent congressional hearings showed the Benghazi post was on a hit list compiled by terrorists who wanted to rid the city of all Western organizations. The hearings showed that Mr. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security but was rebuffed by Washington.

The Washington Times first reported in October 2012 that a defense intelligence report existed and that it blamed al Qaeda for the Benghazi attack shortly afterward.

The DIA papers obtained by Judicial Watch say the al Qaeda-linked group, Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, claimed responsibility. Rahman is known as the “blind sheikh,” and was convicted and imprisoned for his role in the first World Trade Center attack. The organization is linked to Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan terrorist group that also took part in the attack on the diplomatic outpost.

“The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012,” the defense report said. “The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the U.S. killing of [an al Qaeda commander] in Pakistan and in memorial of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”

Even more revealing is that the DIA concluded that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri was involved. He sent Abdul Baset Azuz, the brigades leader, to Libya to set up an al Qaeda terrorist cell.

“It was stated that Azuz was not a charismatic leader but rather just a violent radical,” the DIA said.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, called the DIA documents “jaw dropping.” His group sued the administration under the Freedom of Information Act.

“No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them,” he said. “If the American people had known the truth — that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go — and yet lied and covered this fact up — Mitt Romney might very well be president.”

Mr. Fitton said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

The DIA report said Azuz quickly established an al Qaeda headquarters in eastern Libya and obtained Russian-designed shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Another document states that the Muslim Brotherhood was allied with al Qaeda in trying to bring down the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. At the time, Mr. Obama supported the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, which was later deposed by the military.

“Why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?” Mr. Fitton said.

The Judicial Watch documents also show that the administration was aware of a major arms trafficking network in Libya that took government missiles and guns and shipped them to Islamists in Syria.

There is no indication that the CIA was involved, as some observers asserted.

On the Islamic State, the DIA said in August 2012 that the terrorist army “could also declare an Islamic State throughout its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

[by Rowan Scarborough, writing for The Washington Times]

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  As all of America knows by now, the only “JV team” that really is one is the team in the White House. Biggest bunch of bunglers ever to assume they could lead the USA.

………………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We’ve heard it all now, folks. Obama says his appearance of incompetence, of wavering and uncertainty in the face of international threats, is really just “strategic patience.” Well, gosh…so sorry we misunderstood, Mr. O…

Putin got Crimea and wants lots more. Iran is still working on the bomb. And ISIS is expanding its territory as fast as it can. But fear not, our illustrious Man On Fire in the White House has everything under control.

Mr. ObummerOur fearless leader knows what he’s doing. First he golfs incessantly to make them think he’s a lightweight. He bows and appeases in person. And then at the last possible second, when they least expect it, he…attacks? No, he falls back to his totally-thought-out plan of Patient Strategy. Or Strategic Patience. It’s also been called Leading From Behind.

Just be strategically patient.

Critics of Obama’s foreign policy have for years assailed his administration for responding too slowly to crises ranging from Syria to Russia. In a far-reaching blueprint released Friday that outlines the administration’s worldview, the White House insisted the United States is leading the global effort to confront challenges in a deliberate manner described as “strategic patience.” (“Leading the global effort” from behind.)

Instead of taking that 3 AM phone call, Barry sleeps in and gets back to it at 3 PM.  Strategic patience.

Instead of rescuing Americans under fire in Benghazi, he lets them die and blames a video. Patient strategy.

A White House summary of the strategy, released in tandem with the overall plan, repeatedly highlights the administration’s intent to lead — in partnerships, with military power, and “with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.”

This is the sort of thing a new business  with no business plan puts out to explain why they need money. “We’re, uh, influencing major shifts, working toward synergy in order to secure marketplace share as part of our long-term perspective. You know, shifts. And synergy. Long-term stuff. We just need some short-term money now so we can get to the long-term stuff.”

Friday’s strategy essentially is the written product of what the White House has all along argued is in America’s best interests: Carefully constructed security plans that consider all options before getting ensnared in risky and potentially open-ended conflicts.

Like Libya? You know, the illegal war Obama launched by lying to the UN, that ended with Al Qaeda taking over.

How about Afghanistan? Syria? Iraq? Where are those carefully constructed security plans that consider all options before getting ensnared in risky conflicts?

Maybe we need to be more strategically patient until the carefully constructed plans are revealed.

“The United States should not “attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world,” Obama wrote. “As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite.”

Says the man who keeps trying and failing to influence other countries as he squanders most of our resources and all our influence. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mr. O.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice is set to publicly roll out the strategy in a speech Friday afternoon at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

And if you don’t like her speech, she’ll blame a YouTube video.

Additionally, the White House calls climate change and energy security as key to US national security. Not opposing the man-burning barbarians who are trying to figure out how to get to Washington as soon as possible. Climate change is the key to our security.

Also gay rights. And ObamaCare. And golfing.

Even Obama’s own top advisers have criticized his administration’s national security decisions. Late last month, former Defense Intelligence Agency head Mike Flynn, a retired Army three-star general, said many in the administration were “paralyzed” by the complexity of fighting the Islamic State, leading them to “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”

But wait, General. That’s not passivity. That’s Strategic Patience in action.

Although a 1986 U.S. law requires US presidents to issue an annual national security strategy, Obama’s last policy was issued in May 2010, and made the case for ending the war in Iraq and adding more troops to the fight in Afghanistan.

Well, gosh…big mistake. We’re sorry. Those plans worked out pretty well, didn’t they?

[by Daniel Greenfield, writing for Front Page Magazine]
……………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

US foreign policy is failing dramatically. Why?

WHEN AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ITS REACTION WAS TO DECLARE WAR ON TERROR. For the next 13 years the US fought to defeat tyranny, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and promote democracy and Western ideals. It was hoped that American firepower would make the world a better place.

The opposite happened.

On the Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields alone, some 2.5 MILLION American military men and women put their lives on the line. Yet an Iraqi civil war and an indefatigable Taliban are destroying everything America built to date. In Somalia and Yemen, American drones rain fire on enemies below, yet America’s allies are on the run. In Egypt, US pressure helped topple a dictator ally and replace him with a democratically elected terrorist who hated the US. Another coup soon followed, along with a new dictator. In Libya, America bombed Muammar Qadhafi. In his wake came warring militias with terrorist links, a murdered US ambassador plus three staff, and an ongoing deadly civil war that has killed tens of thousands.

America has great political and military power, but in locations all over the globe our foreign policy is failing dramatically. Why? The truth is that God is no longer on our side. The Bible says very clearly, “I will break the pride of your power…and your strength shall be spent in vain.” (Leviticus 26: 19-20). America continues to tell God over and over again, in many different ways, that we do not need Him or want Him. We have a president who tells us he is quoting from the Bible but has no clue that his quoted passage does not appear anywhere in Scripture.  We have a Supreme Court which upholds abortion and same-sex marriage, and our churches think nothing of installing gay pastors in their pulpits.

The following examples show further the truth of the above Leviticus prophecy.

 

LIBYA

In 1967 Co. Muammar Qadhafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. By the time he was assinated, Libya was Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest live expectancy and highest gross domestic product per capita on the entire continent. Fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libya was sometimes referred to as the Switzerland of Africa. Wealth was being generated; schools hospitals were running and were free. In 2011 the US led an air campaign supporting the “Arab Spring” and Qadhafi was ousted from leadership. The result was catastrophic. Oil production was cut in half to 810,000 barrels per day. Since 2011, 32,000 people have been killed. The nation is locked in war. It is a terrorist haven, and some 250 militias now control what once was the wealthiest country in Africa.

 

IRAQ

In 2003 Iraq was invaded by a US-led coalition to remove dictator Saddam Hussein, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and create a democracy. Eight years later, 7,888 US soldiers and contractors were dead, along with 190,000 Iraqi civilians. Total cost including reconstruction: $2.2 TRILLION.  Less than two years after America said “mission complete,” the US-built Iraqi army had virtually collapsed, the radical Islamic State had proclaimed itself to be in charge, Iraq was engulfed in a Sunnis vs. Shiites civil war, and over 24,000 more people were dead. Today, Iraq is essentially split into three warring regions: the area controlled by the Islamic State in the middle, a Kurdish autonomous region in the north, and a Shiite-controlled south. On November 7th, the US president was forced to send 1500 additional US troops back to Iraq to support the 1500 who had previously returned. Obviously, our exit from Iraq could be called nothing if not premature.

 

SOMALIA

Washington is trying to help the Somali government to (1) retake control of vast parts of its country lost to the Iran-sponsored terror group called Al-Shabaab, and (2) maintain a foothold on the strategic Gulf of Aden waterway. In October of 2013 Mr. Obama approved the sending of US military to act as advisers.  So far about 220 terrorist operatives have been killed by US drone strikes, while at least $700 million has been spent propping up the Somali National Army and training African Union forces to combat Al-Shabaab. So far, this terror group appears to be completely unfazed and undeterred.

 

EGYPT

In early 2011 America helped push long-standing ally Hosni Mubarak from the presidency. This ushered in an era of instability and violence. Three leaders later, GDP growth has been cut in half from 4 percent to less than 2 percent; unemployment has jumped from 9 percent to 12 percent; and external debt has climbed from $34.7 billion to $45.3 billion. At the same time vehicle thefts have quadrupled; homicides have tripled; and armed robberies have risen from 233 the year before Mubarak’s resignation, to 2807 in the year 2012. Politically this one-time US ally now views America with skepticism and suspicion.

 

YEMEN

In 2009 Obama approved a drone-bombing campaign to help the Yemeni government combat Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the north. America’s involvement turned the local citizenry against the ruling government. By 2011, the Yemeni army and US drones were also fighting Al Qaeda in the south. Today the country is deep in civil war, its capital city is controlled by the Houthi, and the US-backed government faces collapse.

 

AFGHANISTAN

After more than 13 years of war and the death of Osama bin Laden, America is bringing its troops home. The war cost $710 billion and the lives of 2349 American military. After spending $56 billion to equip the Afghan army, it is unclear whether that army will continue to fight the Taliban, or switch sides and join it. At the start of this war the Taliban consisted of approximately 2000 terrorist radicals; that number has now swelled to 60,000. The US has failed in other ways, too. We invested nearly $8 billion in trying to dismantle opium production, but the opium crop is at least twice as large as when we first entered the country. Because we acted as we did in Iraq and announced ahead of time our planned Afghan departure date, Afghan leaders now appear to be cutting deals with the Taliban in preparation for our impending exit.

 

[From a recent article in The Philadelphia Trumpet]

 

………………………………….

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized