‘Leaked’ State Department emails turn up heat on Barack Obama

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

According to specific public statements made by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and Susan Rice, for almost two weeks after the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya–during which our Ambassador, his aide and two former Navy SEALs were ambushed and murdered, the Administration maintained that current intelligence gave no indication that it was more than a protest that got out of hand as a result of an anti-Islamic video, repeatedly declaring:

…we shared intelligence information with the American people as we received it.

Maybe not so much.

Now, ‘whistle-blowers’ from inside the Clinton State Department have made available copies of critical, ‘real time’ email traffic that chronicled the attack on the virtually defenseless consulate, which originated from the State Department Operations Center and then routed to top national security officials at State, the Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to Reuters, CBS, CNN and ABC News articles yesterday.

However, due to the greater depth and detail of reporting, Chad Pergram’s FOXNews article today provides the majority of the information hereunder.

Beginning with the fact that [apparently] only Fox News was told, [or reported], that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures, who work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, received these emails.

Timestamps are [ET] Eastern Time, with the subheading SBU–“Sensitive But Unclassified.”

At 4:05 p.m. ET, September 11, 2012, the State Department Operations Center issued an email alert broadcast to the government and intelligence agencies listed above, particularly including State, the White House Situation Room, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI.

Subject: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.

The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The operations Center will provide updates as available.

At 4:54 p.m. ET, another email alert is broadcast:

Subject: Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)

Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared.

A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

At 6:07 p.m. ET, a third email alert is broadcast:

Subject: Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)

Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

When pressed for comment by the media today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that these emails implicating an Al Qaeda-tied group in the Libya consulate attack were not proof of terrorist involvement–stating claims of responsibility on Facebook and Twitter were not “evidence.”

So, by being unwilling to ‘share’ this immediate information with Americans, it rekindles the question as to why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, was ‘trotted’ out five days later to appear on all five Sunday morning news shows to etch-in-stone Obama administration narrative that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

At the same time, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (NH), sent a letter to the White House, demanding that President Obama “address the American people directly” as to what exactly the administration knew of the attacks and when.

In television interviews nearly a week after the events in Benghazi, you yourself even refused to describe it as a terrorist attack, instead emphasizing the role played by a hateful video. This concerted misrepresentation of the facts of the case — facts that, it appears, you and your administration possessed almost as soon as the attack began — is why so many of our constituents are demanding a fuller explanation of why your administration responded as it did.

Do not hold your breath waiting for an answer to this letter prior to the election.

It also seems that Clinton’s ‘fog of war’ defense, as related to FOXNews Wendell Goler, while traveling to Peru last week, is affecting the recollection [news archives] of another CNN reporter, Elise Labott, who reported in her CNN article today that:

The day after it took place, President Barack Obama labeled the incident an ‘act of terror.’

This misguided statement is a clear attempt to reinforce and extend President Barack Obama’s statement of fiction he ‘floated’ during the second debate, wherein CNN host and debate moderator, Candy Crowley, destroyed any semblance of her integrity, on camera, in front of 66 million TV and Internet viewers around the world.

For the record, the ‘official’ White House definition of Benghazi did not change to a “terrorist attack,” until Press Secretary Jay Carney snarled at reporters, who were traveling on board Air Force One, that it was ‘self-evident,’ on September 21, 2012–even though Barack Obama would continue the video fantasy while speaking from the podium to the annual General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 2012.

It is becoming painfully apparent that Benghazi-gate is becoming a caldron of hot water for President Barack Obama, the four murders and political corruption from which has the potential to eclipse Watergate.


Elizabeth Emken for Senate; Dianne Feinstein for forced retirement

Bookworm Room

A few months ago, I though Elizabeth Emken’s chance of unseating Dianne Feinstein in the Senate was about equal to the Giant’s chance of winning the World Series. I was not optimistic. Today, I believe that both are possible and, indeed, probable. I’ll leave the baseball talk to others, and I’ll focus on Elizabeth Emken. It’s not just that Elizabeth Emken is such a good candidate (which she is); it’s that Dianne Feinstein has refused to be any type of candidate at all (which is unsurprising given her embarrassing record).

Elizabeth Emken is impressive. She graduated from UCLA with dual degrees in Economics and Political Science, and spent time at Cambridge studying China and the Middle East. She worked for years at IBM running numbers and analyzing management in order to increase performance and decrease costs. Elizabeth understands how complex financial systems operate and she understands effective management technique.

Sixteen years ago, when her son was diagnosed with profound autism, Elizabeth left the private sector to work in Washington to help fund cost-effective, productive programs for those who are unable to care for themselves. I’m going to quote directly from Elizabeth’s website regarding her autism work, because it is a snapshot of her intelligence, her familiarity with Washington politics and procedures, and her no-nonsense approach to budget issues, even when federal funds have a direct impact on her own life:

Elizabeth is a fighter and a problem solver. She was “drafted” into a second career as an advocate for developmentally disabled children after her son, Alex, was diagnosed with autism. She served as Vice President for Government Relations at Autism Speaks, the Nation`s largest science and advocacy organization devoted to the public health emergency of autism.

Elizabeth coordinated advocacy for multiple pieces of federal legislation addressing autism, the Advancement in Pediatric Autism Research Act, the lead title of the Children`s Health Act of 2000, and the Combating Autism Act of 2006 which authorized nearly $1 billion over 5 years to combat autism through research, screening, early detection and early intervention.

A vital element of this accomplishment, Elizabeth led the charge to ensure transparency and accountability on how the NIH would spend autism research dollars. For the first time at the NIH, her efforts produced a portfolio analysis of autism spending that would have to withstand public scrutiny – a policy Elizabeth believes should apply throughout the entire government.

At Autism Speaks, Elizabeth launched a multi-state campaign to secure insurance coverage for autism-related services. 30 states have enacted autism insurance reform laws, saving participating states millions in taxpayer funds that would otherwise have been directed to state health care and special education services. This groundbreaking legislation, aimed at ending marketplace discrimination against individuals with autism, passed into law in California on October 9, 2011.

Elizabeth doesn’t just have intelligence, skills, and a strong record, she also has charisma. I was fortunate enough to hear her speak today at the Marin Republican Women Federated and I was blown away. She is a smooth, but not glib speaker, who engages almost fiercely with her audience. She is not a dilettante. She is a woman who believes passionately in a government that maximizes individual freedom, while efficiently providing necessary services in the most cost-effective way.

I’ve been fortunate enough over the years to see many good conservative candidates come and go in California. Why then do I think Elizabeth has a chance? Because this is a year like no other year. As in 2008, Republicans are fired up and want to vote. As in 2008, even if they cannot affect California’s electoral college votes, California Republicans want to make a difference in local elections. What makes 2012 different from — and better than — 2008 is the fact that Elizabeth is running against Dianne Feinstein, not Barbara Boxer.

I hold no brief for Boxer, but she is an energetic politician. She campaigned hard in 2008, in part because her opponent, Carly Fiorina, was a very visible candidate, with a large pocketbook. Boxer went up and down California, rallying her troops, and it’s the boots on the ground that will ultimately matter at the ballot box.

Dianne Feinstein, doesn’t have boots on the ground . . . or slippers . . . or delicate, expensive sandals. She is the invisible candidate. She has repeatedly refused to debate Emken. Feinstein takes her “no debate” stance so seriously, she won’t even talk to the press about debating Elizabeth.

Feinstein’s sudden shyness isn’t really surprising. Whatever energy Feinstein originally brought to Washington has long since dissipated. Having put in her 20 years, she seems to view serving as a Senator a giant boondoggle. She ignores her constituents, she ignores voters, she even ignores California itself, as she demonstrated when she failed to get any significant part of the $850,000,000 Jobs Bill earmarked for California. (By this, I’m not endorsing the stimulus. I’m only pointing out that, when there was money to be had, and when our state was — and is — hurting badly, Feinstein was supine.) Further, given that Feinstein is already 80, there’s reason to believe that she has no intention of serving out yet another six-year term. Instead, there’s a strong possibility she’ll retire early, letting Jerry Brown have his pick of California Progressives to fill her Senate seat.

In other words, Feinstein is running as the ultimate incumbent: she’s just assuming that her name on the ballot is enough to get her elected, and she’s probably hoping that an unelectable Progressive can hang onto her coattails to hold the same seat.

But this is 2012, and everything is different. Before this election, Feinstein’s name might have been enough to win. But there’s a dirty little secret in 2012, one that the media has kept under wraps: Californians don’t like Feinstein. The rolling California Business Roundtable/Pepperdine School of Public Policy polls have some interesting numbers. First, for months more than 65%, and often more than 70%, of Californians have thought that California is heading in the wrong direction. That attitude is bad for incumbents. Second, specifically with regard to Dianne Feinstein, voters don’t like her: she’s occasionally cracked the 50% mark, but she’s also spent a long time in the mid- to high-40% likability area. As with Obama, it’s bad news for an incumbent who cannot stay above 50%. An even more interesting number is the high percentage of undecideds polled: 20% of California voters are up for grabs.

Emken ended her speech by saying, “I’m a different kind of candidate. I’m a Mom; I work for a living. I understand what families are going through…. If you are mentally or physically unable to care for yourself, you have nothing to fear from me.” Emken, like Romney, is not a monster. Instead, she is an ordinary (albeit very talented) person who recognizes that California and the United States can be saved, and can still provide necessary support for the most helpless. She also understands, though, that this can only be done through greater efficiency, not greater profligacy. The current governmental approach, one the Feinstein embodies, works hard to kill the taxpayer geese who for so long have laid the golden government eggs. Those days are over. We need sound fiscal management, and Emken gets it.

If you’re a California voter, don’t let the fact that your Presidential vote is probably symbolic stop you from going to the polls. There are important issues (“Yes on Prop. 32!”) and candidates out there that need your support. Sending Elizabeth Emken, rather than Dianne Feinstein, to the United States Senate could be the most important thing you do on November 6.


When the end justifies the means you will always have situations like Benghazi.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

(Wikipedia) Modus Operandi is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as “method of operation”. The term is used to describe someone’s habits or manner of working, their method of operating or functioning. In English, it is often shortened to M.O.

“The expression is often used in police work when discussing a crime and addressing the methods employed by the perpetrators. It is also used in criminal profiling, where it can help in finding clues to the offender’s psychology. It largely consists of examining the actions used by the individual(s) to execute the crime, prevent its detection and/or facilitate escape.”

That about sums up everything about Barack Hussein Obama that you need to know and what his Modus Operandi has been. Especially the criminal part. Obama’s one-time Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, added a twist to Barry’s M.O. by telling him to, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Add this to the favorite thought of every Marxist that “The end justifies the means” and you have the makings for a very sinister group of conspirators willing and able to do anything, anywhere to get the results they want. Anything!

So now we know that Hillary Clinton’s State Department knew that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was a terrorist attack within two hours after it happened. Previously, we learned that Ambassador Stevens had asked for additional security for the embassy due to unrest in the area and his request was denied by the State Dept. And we know that instead of placing Americans on guard at the embassy, the State Dept. had contracted out the security to a local gang of Islamic dissidents. And those who are knowledgeable about the laws of Islam know that it is a high crime for any Muslim to kill another Muslim in order to protect a non-Muslim. So how were those Muslim security guards supposed to protect the American staff at the embassy if their religion forbid them from killing another Muslim?

And of course, we know that in the days after the attack both Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (along with the entire leftist horde of journalists in the news media) all were trying to blame the attack on the embassy as a result of a spontaneous demonstration of outraged Muslims who had been gravely insulted by an amateur video posted on YouTube which none of them probably even watched. And now we know that that attempt has failed.

So what was the reason behind the attack and what was the explanation for all of the failures to prevent it? If you consider the logic behind “The end justifies the means” often used by Marxists then maybe someone was trying to accomplish something. Or at least take a crisis and turn it to an advantage to accomplish an insidious deed.

When the initial attempt to blame the attack was being aimed at the anti-Islam video many liberals were chirping in that perhaps we should modify our Freedom of Speech rights so as to not be allowed to insult any religion. This is similar to what liberals do whenever a shooting takes place and people are killed. Calls are made for more Gun Control. The influence of the numerous Muslim organizations in America today is incredibly disproportionate to their population numbers. Yet we recently have learned that since Barack Hussein Obama, famous for saying “We must respect Islam”, has occupied the White House, there has been a growing number of Muslims who have backgrounds connected to extremist organization, visiting the White House. As reported on Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs last Monday, Jihadists enjoy unfettered access to the White House. Steve Emerson and John Rossomando from IPT News released a report on October 21, 2012 that proved this.

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors’ names with lists of known radical Islamists.

One of the primary goals of Islamic extremists is to force or cajole Western governments into adopting Islamic Sharia Law and make all criticism against Islam to become a crime. This is based on Islam’s Blasphemy Law which bans anything that insults Muslims. Any non-Muslim quoting a violent passage from the Qur’an or a text that describes some unpleasant act by the prophet Mohammad mentioned in one of the Hadiths or even writing about nearly 20,000 Islamic-inspired Jihad attacks since 9-11 and Muslims, who love to be called followers of The Religion of Peace, instantly explode into homicidal rage. (at least they do in countries where they comprise more than 10% of the population) But there is something useful in modifying our Freedom of Speech rights that may appeal to anyone prone to totalitarian dictatorship. By blaming criticism as a form of hate speech you can also criminalize any act that tells the truth about what a wanna-be dictator does. You end up banning the opposition. Just as when guns are banned because of some extreme act of violence, which is another favorite rule enacted by every dictator.

So lets call it for what it was, the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was a complete set-up and it was allowed to happen because the powers that be wanted to use the crisis as an excuse to restrict our right to Free Speech. But they failed when the facts were uncovered.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.