Hillary Clinton: “What difference does it make?”
As the cracks continue to appear in the stonewalling by Obama Administration officials, the truth over Benghazi is beginning to rear its ugly head. According to reports from Fox News, several whistleblowers are scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, and present damning evidence against Administration officials.
One account will be given by Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Hicks has argued that military backup could have prevented the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed in the prolonged attack. According to Hicks, even something as simple as a flyover by US jets could have spooked the attackers, and kept them from eventually launching a mortar round attack on the CIA Annex. Since the attack lasted for over seven hours, response teams were available at Sigonella Air Base, (just 480 miles away), as well as Tripoli Air Base.
A military response team in Tripoli scheduled to provide rescue and defense capabilities to the Benghazi Embassy was scrapped at the last minute and told to stand down. This came as a surprise to everyone on the ground in Libya, including CIA military operatives who were stationed at the CIA Annex near the Embassy. They requested backup and permission to provide assistance, and were twice told to stand down. Tyrone Woods and two other operatives ignored the stand down order, and went to help the Embassy. Woods and Navy SEAL Glen Doherty were eventually killed in the mortar attack seven hours after the attack began.
Hicks further suggested that the Libyan government expected a request from the US to use their airspace for a combat or rescue mission, and he claimed the Libyans “were as surprised as we were” that US military did not arrive to back up the mission.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta famously said in an October press briefing that “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on”. If that was truly the US stance, no Black Ops or Special Forces would ever be deployed into a hostile situation – since they would be unaware of the potential harm.
Another person scheduled to testify is Mark Thompson, a counter terrorism official. He claims that Hillary Clinton and a key aide (Patrick Kennedy) cut the State Department’s counter-terrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision making that night. Thompson believes that Clinton and Administration officials were more concerned about how the attack would be characterized, than how to keep the attack from claiming American lives.
While Thompson and Hicks prepare to offer testimony, Administration officials are in damage control mode. State Dept. officials and White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to point to the Accountability Review Board’s investigation, which faulted leadership and management deficiencies in two State Dept. offices that allowed Benghazi to be vulnerable. That report is now under review by the Inspector General, according to Fox News. Glaring omissions in the review process,(including the decision not to interview Hillary Clinton), have made the report look more like a cover-up itself.
As more information is uncovered about what really happened on 9/11, Hillary Clinton’s actions in particular, come into question.. In a fiery exchange with Senator Ron Johnson, Clinton famously argued: “What difference does it make?”
The difference is that Libyan officials, US personnel in Benghazi, and most of America knew this was a terrorist attack with Al Qaida affiliates involved. Initial analyses from US intelligence and counter-terrorism sources classified the event as a terrorist attack, and Administration officials consciously changed it. Obama had just announced that Al Qaida was on the run, and the Benghazi storyline would hurt him politically in the upcoming election.
Political implications were more important that night and dictated how the Administration reacted, and four lives were lost. Adding intrigue, President Obama has refused to say where he was that night, when he left Panetta and Clinton to make his decisions.
And finally, the Administration stonewalling and cover-up begs a certain resemblance to the Nixon Watergate cover-up, except that the media refuses to do its job. While the media sharks did everything they could to get the truth out of the Nixon Administration, they are painfully silent over the Benghazi cover-up (as they are regarding Fast and Furious). Just yesterday, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell proclaimed the upcoming testimony as a Republican attempt to sully the reputation of the “perceived Democratic front runner” for the White House in 2016. We’ll see how Hillary Clinton looks after the truth comes out.
Media Circus Embarrasses Itself
The last two weeks brought shame to the mainstream media, as several high profile stories were either reported without supporting facts, or not reported on at all.
The best example was the absolutely disgraceful performance by media pundits over the Boston Marathon bombing. In the hours after the attack, reporters and anchors were ignoring their need for evidence in order to scoop each other. The New York Post claimed that ten people were killed, and AP sources reported that a Saudi “suspect” was in custody just hours after the bombs exploded. The Boston Globe, CNN, and others ran with the story, even while the Boston Police denied the reports.
The “suspect” story gained so much traction that Special Agent Greg Comcowich blasted the media for reporting rumors and innuendo without supporting evidence. “Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made.” He added: “ these reports cause unintended consequences”, and the media needed to verify information through “official channels”.
The New York Post further embarrassed itself with the front page headline “Bag Men – Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon”. The huge photo emblazoned on the front page showed two spectators with backpacks – who turned out to be Salah Eddin Barhoum and his friend Yassine Zaime. Both are high school track athletes that came to the marathon to run behind the official race, but accidentally ended up at the finish line.
Barhoum was so concerned about the story that he went to a nearby police station to explain why he was there. He received threats and accusations on his social media page from around the country and his father feared for his family’s safety.
Other commentary proved just as inaccurate. CNN’s Peter Bergen discussed the bombing on air with Jake Tapper, and said it reminded him of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said it brought to mind other “right wing” activities, implying that the attack may have conservative origins due to occurring on Tax Day.
All the while this story was being botched, there was little to no reporting on the bugging of Senator Mitch McConnell’s office by a left-wing PAC. The group suspected of the crime – Progressive Kentucky, had been in meetings at the White House back on December 5th, and had since gone into overdrive attacking McConnell. The omission in reporting is all the more appalling when compared to the media frenzy associated with a similar event in Watergate.
Also completely out of the news is the horrific case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and his “house of horrors” abortion clinic in Philadelphia. The details from testimony given at the ongoing trial would be sensational newsmaking, were they not associated with the taboo subject of abortion.
But not to be outdone, Reuters News did publish the premature obituary of George Soros last Thursday. This came as a real shock to Soros, who was apparently alive at the time.
The feeding frenzy in Boston was no different from other major stories that the media botched, in its zeal for a scoop. News outlets were quick to report the wrong suspect in the Sandy Hook shooting, along with the “fact” that the shooter’s mother was a teacher at the school involved when she wasn’t (providing a potential motive). With so much competition in media today, it seems the old axiom of “Trust but Verify” has gone out the window.
Much of today’s media is more concerned with being first, than being right. But the damage done by wrong information affects the general public and their trust in news organizations. Yesterday’s hacking of the AP Twitter account to plant the fake “White House explosion” story did not help either. As the story was sent out, the Stock Market plunged in response. Luckily, it recovered after the truth was learned.
Reporters and anchors need to be more cognizant of their sourcing to avoid the circus of mistakes that is plaguing the industry. They also must remember that omissions in reporting can reveal the bias that they are supposed to set aside. With competition and new media entering the fray daily, I hold little hope that this advice will be taken.
The Sham of Sequestration
On Tuesday, the US Navy announced it was suspending the Blue Angels for the rest of the year, following an earlier elimination of the Air Force’s Thunderbird performances. Both defense agencies cited the Sequester as the reason for the cutbacks. This comes on the heels of the National Park Service cutting hours and services at locations all over the country. And it follows the disgraceful actions of the White House cancelling its public tours right before spring break.
What is becoming obvious to most Americans is that the Federal government does not want to do with less money – and is going to make the sequestration cuts as painful as possible for the public at large. It is the reason the FAA announced it was closing 149 regional traffic control towers over the next few weeks to deal with their mandatory cuts. After all, the FAA needs to cut $600 million from their budget of $16 billion – or a modest 4%. Rather than look at options with less impact, the FAA chose the most public display they could. The intent was to drive public opinion against sequestration as passengers waited in long lines, or flights were cancelled.
The Obama Administration is behind these tactics, and they are publicizing the cuts to a willing accomplice in the mainstream media. The White House website provides a long list of damaging cuts that “threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class”. Included in the potential cuts are:
- 600,000 women and children thrown off the WIC program
- 373,000 mentally ill adults and children going untreated
- 70,000 kids kicked out of Headstart – forcing the layoffs of 14,000 educators
All of these public displays could be replaced with much less noticeable cuts, but that wouldn’t accomplish Obama’s goal. He is a true believer in big government, and his tenure in office has been spent expanding its reach – not contracting it. If he can’t get the public to turn against sequestration, they just might be more open to additional government cuts.
The private sector (businesses and employees) have had decades of painful cuts. Pensions were replaced with 401Ks, pay cuts were commonplace, and those businesses that couldn’t compete were tossed aside. It is the way free markets are supposed to work, and it is what makes this country so resilient. Many people lost jobs, adjusted their household budgets lower, and managed their expenses. Since 2008, the average US household has lost 5% of their income. And now they are wondering why the Federal government can’t do the same.
The sequestration process was agreed to by both parties and the Administration because they all felt that it would force them to compromise and find solutions before it came to pass. Frankly, it’s a horrible way to make necessary cuts because it arbitrarily affects every agency (except Social Security and Medicare) rather than going after the departments that deserve the axe. But nobody in Congress has the spine to point out direct cuts, because every program has its built in base of support. And so the Administration is left to whine about a modest cut, and hope it can drive public sentiment against it.
If the President was a true leader, he would have accepted the Republican offer to direct the sequestration cuts where they would be best utilized. But he declined that proposal, because he is a master campaigner and a terrible administrator. He could have eliminated one of the three Calligraphers at the White House, all of whom make $85,000 or more. Or he could have eliminated one of the twelve different federal programs that feed the poor and provide duplicative services.
No, President Obama thinks like Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy – who declared the sequester cuts “simply unsustainable”. Let’s hope the public sees through the Administration’s smoke and mirrors, and demands that the Federal government finally get their house in order.
Who Is Watching Over Homeland Security?
There has been a lot of discussion and a few reports about the massive amount of ammunition being purchased by the Department of Homeland Security. For those not aware, DHS has purchased nearly 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo over the last year. To further stoke curiosity, DHS announced just last Thursday another request for 360,000 .40 cal hollow point ammo, to be delivered to its training center in New Mexico.
DHS encompasses many agencies, (US Border Patrol, INS, FEMA, Customs, TSA, etc), and includes over 100,000 personnel that carry a weapon. So the purchase of ammunition and weapons is certainly within their scope of needs. But the sheer size of the ammo purchases would provide 16,000 shells for each armed DHS employee, and would cover training needs for decades. According to Major General Jerry Curry, the US utilized 70 million rounds of ammo per year during the Iraqi conflict. Therefore, DHS has ordered more ammo than would be necessary for 22 years of armed conflict.
This has alarmed many citizen groups, and caught the attention of Congressional members. Multiple Congressional requests over the apparent arms build-up have gone unanswered by DHS, except to say that they made the purchases in bulk to provide cost savings.
The effects of these purchases are being felt by private citizens and law enforcement agencies nationwide, who are seeing severe shortages of handgun ammo. Law enforcement personnel are resorting to bartering with other agencies for the necessary ammo or “dry firing” their weapons during training (without ammo). 15 House members have written a letter to DHS asking if the purchases are “being conducted in a manner that strategically denies the American people access to ammunition”.
On the heels of this situation, DHS recently publicized the purchase of dozens of MRAP vehicles, which are armored personnel carriers capable of resisting mines and small arms fire. DHS officials proudly declared these vehicles perfect “to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services”. They also recently purchased 7000 new AR-15 assault rifles, along with 30 round magazines.
The frightening thing about these purchases is the lack of oversight, or explanation offered by DHS. Although Congress is tasked with overseeing Department expenditure, DHS has been less than clear about their reasoning for such purchases. Congressman Timothy Huelscamp (R KS) has even threatened to have Congress defund DHS if answers are not forthcoming.
One theory gaining ground is President Obama’s dream for a civilian security force that would rival the size and scope of our Armed Forces. During the 2008 campaign, then Senator Obama said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Homeland Security was set up in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attacks, and is specifically tasked with “protecting the United States and its territories from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters”. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism. But since its inception, it has been dogged by allegations of excessive bureaucracy, waste, and a lack of transparency. And the current purchases certainly add to that suspicion and make one wonder just what kind of terrorism they are preparing for.
Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 to prevent the US government from using Federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. It was modified in 1981 to apply only to US Armed Forces, meaning that DHS agencies are not covered by the Act’s restrictions. Only time will tell if the actions of DHS are simply agency personnel buying all the latest toys with an unlimited checkbook – or the preparations of a paranoid government fearful of its citizens.
Mining Bill Finally Gets Approved
Governor Walker signed the long anticipated Mining Bill into law on Monday, at the Oldenberg Group’s mining equipment headquarters in Rhinelander. He also signed a ceremonial bill at Joy Global’s headquarters in Milwaukee. Both locations were high profile symbols of the thousands of jobs that could come with mining operations in Wisconsin.
"Wisconsin's seal and the state flag both depict mining in our great state," Walker said in a statement. "In light of our mining tradition, I'm thrilled to sign legislation into law protecting environmental safeguards, while providing certainty to the mine permitting process. ... I am hopeful today's actions will result in the creation of thousands of private sector jobs in the coming years."
The mining legislation has been in process for years, after Gogebic Taconite Company expressed interest in mining iron ore from the Penokee Hills in Ashland and Iron counties. Gogebic made clear that Wisconsin’s current mining regulations made it nearly impossible for companies to open and operate a mine. Open ended review processes and public challenges allowed opponents of mining to drag out their opposition indefinitely. And, regulations regarding wetlands and uncapped permit fees made potential costs unbearable for mining companies.
The new mining legislation adds certainty to the permitting process and gives state environmental regulators 480 days to approve or deny the permit. It also eliminates public challenges until after the permit decision has been made. In an effort to reduce red tape, the law acknowledges that wetlands may be necessarily affected by mining operations, and provides for alternative remediation. Finally, it limits the application fee to $2 million, and exempts mining companies from the $7 per ton state recycling fee for waste rock.
The bill that Walker signed on Monday differed from the mining legislation that was voted down last year. Republicans listened to opponents by adding multiple amendments that would uphold current environmental laws and provide more definitions for how the law would be applied. Governor Walker made that clear when he said “After making substantial changes to the legislation, aimed at protecting our state's vital natural resources, the bill I signed into law today will preserve our tradition of clean land, water, and air."
That didn’t stop opponents to the bill from claiming that the new law would decimate our state and roll back years of environmental protections that have been in place. Those particular protections were the reason mining companies left Wisconsin and why there currently are no operating mines.
One of the most vocal opponents to the proposed mine is the Bad River Band of Indians, whose reservation sits a few miles from the proposed site. Members fear that runoff from the mine could potentially pollute their waters, and have vowed legal challenges to prevent it from moving forward. Tribal Chairman Michael Wiggins Jr. warned that members would occupy the mine site and the tribe would use its “sovereign nation” status to mount whatever challenges were necessary.
One thing that Wiggins was unwilling to discuss was his tribe’s own history of polluting the Bad River. Media Trackers has been exposing the tribe’s abysmal record of polluting its own waters with a wastewater treatment facility they own (that flows into the Bad River). EPA reports show years of numerous violations and a 2009 New York Times report listed their facility as the worst polluter in Wisconsin.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca was quick to voice his opposition and predict numerous legal challenges to the new legislation. "Now the only mine we can be certain will open will be a gold mine for Republican lawyers who can get rich defending their flawed law. This mining bill again falls short of assuring job creation,"
Legal hurdles aside, the updated mining legislation doesn’t guarantee approval for mining. Mine companies still have to propose operations that meet strict environmental standards at both the state and federal level. All this does is make mining in Wisconsin more feasible than before. And if that brings thousands of jobs to the state and protects the environment, then Wisconsin wins in the end.
More Articles...
Page 1 of 3
