By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News

The Republicans Either Don’t “Get It,” Or They Are Paralyzed By Political Correctness

The Wrong Issues Are Being Questioned

There were so many blunders related to ‘Obama’s fiasco’ in Benghazi that the Obama regime has had a wide range of issues to obfuscate their foreign affairs-national security incompetence. The blunders that contributed to the fiasco in Benghazi included:

1) the unrealistic ‘Arab Spring’ foreign affairs delusions Obama foisted on the American public,

2) not recognizing and preparing for the increasingly dangerous situation in Benghazi building up to the al-Qaeda affiliates’ terrorist attack,

3) the shameful national security debacle of deserting Americans while they were enduring seven hours of terrorist attack,

4) stonewalling the American people about the Obama national security team’s failures in the attack’s aftermath. Obama’s and his regime’s failures are so numerous as to be overwhelming, and they have enabled Obama and his accomplices to divert public attention from the real issue they are desperately attempting to hide.

That issue? It is the fact that we are in a worldwide war with Islamic terrorists who are carrying out their jihadist mandate as instructed in the Qur’an and Shari’a!

Obama’s ineffective, Arab Spring-Middle East policy, as well as the catastrophic mistakes before, during, and after the Islamic terror attack by ‘Team Obama’ are very important in that they indisputably demonstrate the utter governing incompetence of this regime; however, the over-arching issue is ‘why’ Obama and his minions manufactured the fiction blaming the anti-Muhammad video as the cause of the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other three U.S. government employees? Neither the Republicans nor the media correctly perceive the critical answer to that definitive question.

The red herring issues that have emerged as the media’s obsessions are twofold. First, there is the issue — who changed the original CIA talking points that identified al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists as perpetrators of the planned Benghazi terrorist attack to the false narrative that the anti-Islam Internet video caused a spontaneous, flash mob demonstration that spiraled out of control? Second, there is the issue – why was the ‘talking points change’ made?

The Obama regime and Democrat handmaidens are circulating a preposterous story in response to the ‘why’ question that the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups were removed from the intelligence talking pointswhich were used by U.S. UN Ambassador Susan Rice to mislead the American public in her massive propaganda blitz on Sep. 16. She ostensively presented the falsified information to protect classified information, and that ‘classified information’ was that we knew al-Qaeda was involved! This alibi is ludicrous on its face because the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups identified themselves as the perpetrators on Facebook and Twitter immediately after the attack! Furthermore, after the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden and Abu Yahya al-Libi, a jihadist leader in the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, does Obama want us to believe that, by not mentioning ‘al-Qaeda,’ he was going to fool them into thinking that the U.S. isn’t targeting them?!

But it is at this point in the inquiry that the Republicans and media begin to go astray because they are attributing the ‘talking points change’ to a domestic political motive of not wanting to discredit Obama’s claim at the Democrat National Convention that ‘ al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.’ Since the presidential election was just a month and half away at the time of Susan Rice’s five Sunday morning talk show appearances, the Obama operatives undoubtedly came to the conclusion that admitting al-Qaeda was still very much involved in terrorist attacks could harm Obama’s reelection campaign, which it was a possibility. So, Republicans and the media are not completely wrong in accepting this political logic, but the domestic political motive was just a superficial reason – the outer layer of the onion. It is much more complicated than that.

There is a larger nefarious motivation that has been a constant during the Obama regime’s time in power, and that is, Obama’s desire to completely mislead the American people about the fact that Muslim jihadists allegiant to the Islamic Shari’a are engaged in a full blown war against us. Obama and his national security apparatus refuse to acknowledge that the Islamic Qur’an (“holy book”) and Shari’a (book of immutable religious and secular political laws) clearly state that it is the duty of Muslims to make war (jihad) on non-believers. The Islamic purpose of this jihadist warfare is to impose Islamic Shari’a law on the non-believers. Instead of accepting that the Qur’anic and Shari’a warfare injunctions are universally applicable to all Muslims, the Obama regime has deceivingly cast the residual al-Qaeda organization of bin Laden as our only “terrorist enemy”:

…Obama’s national security policy and strategy documents, directives, and public statements erased every mention of Islam, Qur’an, Shari’a, and jihad! The Obama national security team eliminated all-things-Islamic as causes of jihadist terrorism, and narrowed the focus down to ‘al-Qaeda’ as the sole enemy to be fought! The elimination of Islam as a cause of terrorism and as a national security threat is a cynically transparent political move to define a potential worldwide threat pool of millions of Shari’a-motivated Islamic jihadists down to a few hundred shadowy al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in caves and deserts. According to Obama’s version of the threat facing the U.S., al-Qaeda fanatical terrorists are motivated to kill Americans by some unnamed, undefined, intangible “radicalism,” but not Islamic Shari’a.

Obama’s fundamental motive in denying the existence and threat of Qur’anic and Shari’a warfare injunctions is open to question, but his motivation is not greater vigilance in defense of U.S. national security, that much is obvious.

The Conclusion

Even after the Obama political operative who made the ‘talking points change’ is finally identified (assuming that the Republicans have the internal fortitude), and the ‘why’ question is addressed, that part of the American public still concerned about U.S. national security must not accept the superficial explanation that the deletion of ‘al-Qaeda’ from Ambassador Rice’s talking points was only due the political desire to avoid discrediting Obama’s ‘al-Qaeda is defeated’ campaign bluster.

Now is the time use this opportunity to expose Obama’s inadequate national security policy and posture toward Islamic terrorists who are carrying out their jihadist mandate as instructed in the Qur’an and Shari’a!

The Islamic threat to the U.S. far transcends the few remnants of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda that Obama has misleadingly identified. We are being attacked by a fanatical enemy that is waging a global religious war against us.

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired), was an Intelligence Officer and an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving in seven foreign countries during a thirty-year military career.

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The decline of The Washington Post can be seen in the silly Sunday story about how the lavish amenities afforded to today’s military leaders may have been responsible for David Petraeus cheating on his wife.

The paper said, “The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir. “

All of this may be true and a case can be made that these amenities should be cut back. But what any of this has to do with Petraeus, a former Army general and CIA director, having sex with Paula Broadwell “under a desk,” as one of their e-mails stated, is not explained.

The story by Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe appears to be an attempt to get the paper off the hook for failing to uncover Petraeus’s history of lies and deceptions. Post local editor Vernon Loeb had collaborated with Broadwell on the Petraeus biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Loeb worked with Broadwell on the book for 16 months.

Loeb stayed silent for a few days after the affair came to light, but then wrote a November 13 Post “Style” section story, “Questions that never got asked,” which included this claim, “I always thought that Broadwell’s motives were pure, and I always wondered why Petraeus was granting her the access that he did.” But he didn’t pursue the matter.

The headline over the Internet version of the Post story calls Loeb “clueless,” which is a strange description of somebody in the news business with access to the key players. The term is taken from Loeb’s own account of what he did not know. “My wife says I’m the most clueless person in America.”

“I never thought they were having an affair—and I still have no idea when the affair actually began,” he said. He explained that he had sent Broadwell an e-mail, “letting her know that I was writing this piece and welcoming any comment she chose to make. I have yet to hear back from her.”

This is apparently the end of Loeb’s investigation into the scandal.

Explaining why he was so clueless, he says, “I assumed, given how public their semi-official relationship was, that he would never engage in any risky behavior. He’d always preached to his protégés that character was what you did when no one was watching. And he would always hasten to add, from his most public of perches, that ‘someone is always watching.’”

This, then, is the answer to the question of why Petraeus had the affair: he lacked moral character and was a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with homes, drivers, and security guards. The real issue is why a Post editor ignored the clues in the case and failed to question or confront Broadwell about her close relationship to the general.

In retrospect, one of the favorable reviews about the Broadwell-Loeb book is almost amusing. Thomas E. Ricks wrote, “All In feels at times like we are sitting at his side in Afghanistan, reading his e-mails over his shoulder.”

The Petraeus-Broadwell e-mails were disguised and hidden in a special account, in the form of draft messages that each person could read. It took the resources of the FBI to obtain them and an FBI whistleblower unwilling to countenance the affair or the cover-up who then went to Republican Representatives Eric Cantor and Dave Reichert more than a week before the election with the revelations. They sent the information back to the FBI and stayed silent.

Even though the affair was disclosed, after the election, questions persist about whether Petraeus has been telling the truth about important military and intelligence matters. As the Post and other media acknowledge, Petraeus has now contradicted himself about the growing controversy over what the Obama Administration knew and said about the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11.

The scandal has been dubbed Benghazigate.

Last Friday, Petraeus testified in closed session before members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and said that the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, was terrorism. “That appeared to conflict with testimony he gave them three days after the attack, when he said it appeared to have begun as a ‘spontaneous’ assault that was overtaken by ‘extremists,’” the Post noted.

Rep. Peter King confirmed that Petraeus changed his testimony. Referring to his version of his testimony on September 13, King said, “He was saying there are many strings of intelligence but he also stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. And that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14th.” (emphasis added)

It should be noted that most of the media, and even Rep. King, keep wrongly saying that Petraeus’s previous testimony on Libya was on September 14. But in fact it was on September 13. On that day, on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was even clearer about what she had just heard, and not heard, from Petraeus. She started out telling Blitzer, “What I can tell you is that our entire committee, all 15 of us, eight Democrats, seven Republicans, were present for a briefing by Director Petraeus that lasted a couple of hours. And it was a very good briefing.”

Blitzer then asked her, “Does it look like this was a carefully planned operation that was in the works for a while? What’s the latest assessment on that?”

Sen. Feinstein replied, “I can say that I’ve seen no evidence or no assessment that indicates it was. I can certainly say that. There was a protest. And it could well be that quickly some two dozen people took that as an opportunity to attack.”

The problem is that Petraeus, a man with obvious character flaws and a deceptive nature, was not put under oath this time or last time.

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren was astonished by this failure. “It is routine that witnesses take an oath,” she pointed out. Fox News had previously reported that the testimony was supposed to be provided under oath.

The bottom line is that Petraeus lied about Benghazigate at some point during the process of giving his testimony.

Radio host John Batchelor reports that he was told that Petraeus “did not want to return to the Hill under oath” because he would be forced to “confront the inconsistencies in his remarks about the CIA’s part in the fiasco” over what really happened on September 11 and what the Obama Administration said publicly about it.

It appears that the Congress wants to remain clueless but The Washington Post should not accept the lies. It can redeem itself by pursuing Benghazigate.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].

From: English Defence League

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

Martin Luther King Jnr

An Update From Tommy The Political Prisoner

Tommy has put pen to paper again to give us further updates on his situation whilst being incarcerated for his politically incorrect views on Islam and certain sections of the Muslim community, views that are too “troublesome” for British authorities to admit to and deal with. So troublesome are these politically incorrect issues the powers that be have only just started to take the subject of Muslim rape gangs seriously, which will no doubt be due to the pressures that we as a movement have placed upon them.

We are over the target as they say!

Perhaps it’s better they try to silence and intimidate us rather than deal with the real and genuine issues we face on a daily basis?

That’s just the cowardly way out, either that or the powers that be are too scared of the Islamist menace? We certainly do not pose the same threat to national security as the backward 7th century mindset of certain sections of the Muslim community (in fact we pose no threat to national security at all), but then again we are living within a two tier system that places the rights of muslim rapists and jihadis above their victims!

What an absolutely disgraceful, diabolical and disgusting world we live in, it’s time for change, that time is now!

Tommy touches on our so called religious leaders and their inherent cowardice to stand up to the backward and violent ways of Islam, his ever increasing passion and determination for our cause, and the need to face adversity head on no matter what obstacles our spineless authorities try to deter us with. He is resolute, he will not be deterred and neither should we!

So on the 24th get out to Wandsworth prison, make your voices and your numbers count, make sure you do your bit to save our democratic rights, it’s the duty of all likeminded patriots to fight for our worthy, legitimate cause.

Do not surrender to the left, do not surrender to the Islamists who are in bed with the left, and do not surrender your rights or your children’s futures!

We have so much more to do, so many more battles to fight, we have so much to lose if we do nothing!

So Again without further ado…..

Hat Tip: BB