| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/22/2013 5:13:11 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Go to 2013 thread |
Posted on 01/01/2012 5:51:39 PM PST by MestaMachine
|
M
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2937238/posts
Live Thread: “The Project: Part II”
GBTV/The Blaze TV/Dish 212 ^ | September 27, 2012 | Glenn Beck and others
Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:44:36 PM by combat_boots
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Part One on YouTube (See post #714 for link to Live thread)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R3BD7yjcEE&feature=plcp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2937358/posts
Security Fears Hobble Inquiry of Libya Attack
New York Times ^ | Sept. 27, 2012 | By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
Posted on Friday, September 28, 2012 2:02:19 AM by Brad from Tennessee
BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.
Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.
“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, as so badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys. . .”
(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/africa/libya-attack-investigation-hobbled-by-security-fears.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2937415/posts
If voters think Obama’s deceiving them about the Benghazi riot, he’ll pay in November
Telegraph - UK ^ | September 27, 2012 | Tim Stanley
Posted on Friday, September 28, 2012 8:03:09 AM by Cincinatus’ Wife
......You be the judge. The Washington Post has cobbled together a timeline of administration statements on the attack, with the following disclaimer: “We will leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions on whether this is merely the result of the fog of war and diplomacy — or a deliberate effort to steer the storyline away from more politically damaging questions. After all, in a competitive election, two weeks is a lifetime.” Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
.....Both liberal critics and the Republicans see a mix of ineptitude and cunning in the White House’s behaviour. After they were brushed off with a “light-on-details” security briefing that implied Obama didn’t want to give too much away, congressional Republicans are on the warpath. Rep Buck McKeon told Fox, “We are getting close to an election, and all I can think of is they’re just trying to keep the facts unknown until after …The way they’re handling this is so incompetent.”
Open debate about tragedies like this might seem unpatriotic and heartless, but how they are handled can change the outcome of an election. In 2004 a terrorist attack in Spain left 191 dead. The conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar instantly blamed the domestic terrorist group ETA. When it turned out that al-Qaeda was responsible, it looked like Aznar had shifted blame in order to dodge accusations that he had made Spain open to attack by backing the Iraq War. The news flipped popular opinion. A country that seemed ready to easily re-elect the conservative government instead gave a landslide victory to the socialists.
Whether it’s the result of incompetence or a genuine lack of intel, voters don’t like to think that they’ve been deceived.
(Excerpt) Read more at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100183041/if-voters-think-obamas-deceiving-them-about-the-benghazi-riot-hell-pay-in-november/
Court Reveals Iranian Operatives In Charge Of Obama’s Iran Policy Since 2009
September 26, 2012 By Doug Book
A ruling handed down on September 13th by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.
In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”
Like too many organizations that claim to represent the best interests of the nation of Iran and Iranian-Americans, the NIAC is tightly connected with and known to be funded at least in part by the George Soros empire. Small wonder NIAC advice on dealing with Iran was replete with claims that Israeli propaganda was responsible for the negative image imposed on otherwise peace-loving, misunderstood Iranian mullahs. Not exactly a friend of Israel is George Soros.
And how did the reputedly “non-partisan” NIAC suggest the Obama Administration proceed with negotiations? Simple. The Council “…opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels “patience” regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program.”
What better way for NIAC representatives to serve their hidden masters in Tehran than by promoting a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the US and Iran. And to the NIAC, peaceful coexistence meant “…acceptance of [the] Iranian government, accepting Iranian hegemony in the Gulf and its place in other parts of the Middle East, removal of sanctions and pressure against Iran, abandon of assistance to the Iranian people’s resistance against the regime and etc.”
For the U.S., the consequences of this game of intrigue played by the Administration’s hand-picked, Iranian representatives are summed up in this statement by Barack Obama: “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.” And indeed, this is the path Barack Obama has followed. Not exactly reassuring words from a president charged with keeping the American public safe from a nuclear-bound administration of religious fanatics dedicated to our demise.
And it is thanks to an ill-advised lawsuit that proof of the NIAC’s wrongdoing has finally been placed before the American public. In 2008, Trita Parsi and his organization filed a defamation suit against perpetual critic Seid Dai. Dai had publicly accused Parsi of secretly working with the ruling Iranian Regime against the interests of the United States and the Iranian people. But when Parsi filed suit hoping to silence-through-intimidation such potentially lethal criticism, it opened the floodgates of legal discovery allowing Dai to demand internal NIAC documents and emails that eventually “… confirmed [Parsi’s] ties to the [Iranian] mullahs…”
Not only did recovered emails reveal that Parsi had held “…numerous secret meetings with top level IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] officials,” “Court documents show the NIAC was guilty of: lying to members of Congress, fraudulent membership numbers, tax law violations and evasions, Lobbying Disclosure Act violation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, foreign bank accounts, defrauding of federal funds, bribing of eye witnesses, etc…”
And so egregious were NIAC attempts to duck its legal responsibilities of discovery that Judge John Bates dismissed the Parsi defamation suit, ordered sanctions against Parsi for his failure to comply with discovery, and ordered Parsi to pay significant percentages of Dai’s costs and fees.
This is an immensely important story, not surprisingly “missed” in its entirety by the mainstream media.
But why has the Romney campaign not demanded Obama’s rationale for handing the foreign policy decisions of the United States and the security of the American people over to representatives of the Iranian government itself? Could voters be pleased upon finding the president had placed America’s safety from possible nuclear attack in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
***See also comments and links at thread.
*
TM.
Catching up.
Check out # 716 relative to graphic posted on # 722 .
Then read to end of page.
.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2937951/posts?page=2
Benghazi-gate – Obama Knew
Townhall.com ^ | September 29, 2012 | Bob Bauprez
Posted on Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:47:57 AM by Kaslin
In the days following the assassination attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three aides dead it was appalling to watch the Obama Administration’s painstaking efforts to deny any connection to radical Islamic terror. A week later, the White House was forced to admit a connection to al Qaeda after the Director of the National Counterterrrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, testified to a Senate Committee that Benghazi was indeed a “terrorist attack on our embassy” with likely “connections to al Qaeda.”
The week long contortions and denials by the Administration became even more befuddling when Eli Lake at the Daily Beast raised the stakes with this bombshell disclosure on September 26:
“Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.” Read more
Anderson Cooper at CNN disclosed on September 23 that Ambassador Steven’s journal indicated he believed he was targeted by al Qaeda, yet apparently the State Department took no steps to protect his safety. That added to the questions….why?
Instead of coming clean, the State Department attacked CNN calling the disclosure “disgusting” and “not a proud moment in CNN’s history.” Again, raising more questions.
High ranking House and Senate Republicans fired off letters and issued public statements directed to the President demanding more information. What did the President know, and when did he know it?
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) was the first to mention the “c” word - cover up. “There has to be something they’re trying to hide or cover up,” he said. “We just want answers.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gave the growing scandal a name; Benghazi-gate.
Lake’s newest revelation raises the stakes yet again. Jennifer Rubin in her “Right Turn” column in the Washington Post today asks the newest most obvious question – “Did Obama lie?”
“Obviously the report (Eli Lake’s in the Daily Beast), if true, suggests that the White House lied to the American people by insisting for over a week that this was a spontaneous attack. It is one thing for the president to be so benighted as to think a video sets off multiple attacks on Sept. 11. It is quite another to send out his advisers, including his own spokesman, to mislead voters.” Read more
Rubin also raises three other important questions that logically follow:
1.Can Obama squirm out of this scandal unscathed as he has so many others, or
2.Will Mitt Romney effectively make this a campaign changing moment, and
3.Will the media live up to their responsibilities and hold the Administration accountable?
The answers to Rubin’s first and second question are going to be highly dependent on the outcome of the third. Coming days will tell, but Rubin rightfully prods the mainstream media; “…now is the time when we see if reporters and pundits are more than shills for the president.”
However, Rubin doesn’t see much “evidence that an epidemic of fairness is breaking out in the mainstream media.”
And, then the biggest question; will the American people continue to let Obama get away with it? “Certainly, we shouldn’t have a president in office who would lie to the American people about a critical national security issue for the sake of his own reelection, right?” Rubin asks rhetorically. We’ll find out soon enough.
Wow great work here!! Thanks so much.
In “Audacity of Hope”, page 261, (y2006) Barack Hussein Obama writes:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
.
.
At the United Nations, September 25, 2012, Obama says:
.
Thanks for the ping, Lucy.
The highest-ranking illegal alien, 0h0m0llah, is doing the job that Americans won’t do.
Posted on Monday, October 01, 2012 1:13:58 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Most of what the Washington Post reports today we already knew — the security at our consulate in Benghazi obviously didn’t meet even minimal standards, let alone the requirements of a diplomatic mission in an area where radical Islamist terrorist networks operate openly. The results of the terrorist attack attest to that much. The Post confirms, though, that the State Department never took those security concerns seriously, and implies that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens didn’t either:
On the eve of his death, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was ebullient as he returned for the first time in his new role to Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city that embraced him as a savior during last year’s civil war. He moved around the coastal town in an armored vehicle and held a marathon of meetings, his handful of bodyguards trailing discreetly behind.
But as Stevens met with Benghazi civic leaders, U.S. officials appear to have underestimated the threat facing both the ambassador and other Americans. They had not reinforced the U.S. diplomatic outpost there to meet strict safety standards for government buildings overseas. Nor had they posted a U.S. Marine detachment, as at other diplomatic sites in high-threat regions.
A U.S. military team assigned to establish security at the new embassy in Tripoli, in a previously undisclosed detail, was never instructed to fortify the temporary hub in the east. Instead, a small local guard force was hired by a British private security firm as part of a contract worth less than half of what it costs to deploy a single U.S. service member in a war zone for a year.
The discovery of Stevens’ journal by CNN in the burnt-out consulate — which the FBI still has yet to visit — indicated that Stevens had become increasingly in fear of his life, and wrote that he’d been put on an al-Qaeda hit list. However, earlier incidents should have made clear that State needed to provide better security, and that the need was increasing:
The U.S. outpost had a close call of its own June 6, when a small roadside bomb detonated outside the walls, causing no injuries or significant damage. But the Americans stayed put.
Geoff Porter, a risk and security analyst who specializes in North Africa, said the sudden and stark shift from “predictable violence to terrorism” in the east over the summer was unmistakable.
“The U.S. intelligence apparatus must have had a sense the environment was shifting,” he said.
Ernesto Londono and Abigail Hauslohner report that his friends didn’t hear any complaints from Stevens, and that he was excited to be back in Benghazi. However, their Libyan contacts tried to dissuade the Americans from any kind of public appearance, warning that security was deteriorating:
But if Stevens was deeply worried about deteriorating security, as CNN has reported he wrote in an entry in his journal, he kept quiet, said the Libyan friend who was with him the day before the attack.
“We didn’t talk about attacks,” the friend said. “He would have never come on the anniversary of September 11th if he had had any concerns.”
Three days before the attack, a U.S. official in Benghazi met with security leaders to ask them about the threat level, a senior Libyan official in the east said on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
The American did not disclose the ambassador’s visit.
“They told him, ‘Look, if there’s going to be any foreign presence [in the city], it better be discreet,’ ” the Libyan official said.
In other words, the State Department had plenty of indicators that the consulate in Benghazi was at high risk. The British had pulled out of the city entirely due to the deteriorating conditions in eastern Libya. Instead of bolstering security or moving diplomatic personnel back to the embassy in Tripoli, State did nothing — and sent Stevens into the city for a very public tour. Ironically, the US now won’t send FBI investigators within 400 miles of Benghazi now for the investigation into the terrorist attack because of security concerns in the Benghazi region.
Most of this has already been known or assumed, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t note the confirmation of the incompetence that left four Americans dead and a diplomatic installation an open target for radical Islamist terrorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2938743/posts
Obama waives sanctions on (Muslim) countries that use child soldiers
Foreign Policy ^ | 10/1/2012 | Josh Rogin
Posted on Monday, October 01, 2012 3:47:25 PM by mojito
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new executive order last week to fight human trafficking, touting his administration’s handling of the issue.
“When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed — that’s slavery,” Obama said in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. “It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we’ve long rejected such cruelty.”
But for the third year in a row, Obama has waived almost all U.S. sanctions that would punish certain countries that use child soldiers, upsetting many in the human rights community.
Late Friday afternoon, Obama issued a presidential memorandum waiving penalties under the Child Soldiers Protection Act of 2008 for Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen, penalties that Congress put in place to prevent U.S. arms sales to countries determined by the State Department to be the worst abusers of child soldiers in their militaries. The president also partially waived sanctions against the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow some military training and arms sales to that country.
[....]
Bush signed the child-soldiers law in 2008. It prohibits U.S. military education and training, foreign military financing, and other defense-related assistance to countries that actively recruit troops under the age of 18. Countries are designated as violators if the State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report identifies them as recruiting child soldiers. The original bill was sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Obama first waived the sanctions in 2010, the first year they were to go into effect. At that time, the White House failed to inform Congress or the NGO community of its decision in advance, setting off a fierce backlash.
(Excerpt) Read more at http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/01/obama_waives_sanctions_on_countries_that_use_child_soldiers
Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, October 1, 2012
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new executive order last week to fight human trafficking, touting his administration's handling of the issue.
"When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed -- that's slavery," Obama said in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. "It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we've long rejected such cruelty."
But for the third year in a row, Obama has waived almost all U.S. sanctions that would punish certain countries that use child soldiers, upsetting many in the human rights community.
MUCH more at link.
Is THAT in your face, or what?
We have to get tis up on Junipersec too. As much as we have screamed about the islamic child-soldiering and crimes against humanity.
This is Obama flying in the face of international law. I’m also going to drop his little gem into iCare..
You betcha!
.
Jordan on the Brink; MB mobilize for King Abdulla Overthrow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2939128/posts
Issa to Hillary: Why did State refuse requests to bolster Benghazi security?
Hotair ^
Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:48:08 PM by chessplayer
The Right Scoop calls this a “bombshell,” which may underestimate the impact of the question posed by House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Despite the CNN discovery of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens’ journal in which Stevens outlined his fears of terrorist attacks, the Obama administration has told the media that Stevens didn’t push those security issues with the State Department. According to the letter Issa sent today to Clinton, that may be yet another untruth pushed by the White House:
Also:
Benghazi: Multiple Requests for Increased Security Denied by Washington
Rush just said the the family of Christopher Stevens is posting on "social media" to question why no investigation has begun and why no one seems to care why or how their son died.
Don't know where Rush got this info. Haven't seen any news of this.
Tragic; stupefyingly callous. Reminds me of....Brian Terry and his family.
All personnel have been pulled out of Benghazi.
The US government can't possibly send anyone into Benghazi now. It's simply tooooo dangerous. Who knows when it will be safe to send in an investigative team. Maybe not til December or February even.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.