The Congressional Hearings this week


The terrorist attack at Benghazi, Libya is back in the news. The difference this time is that there is less attempts to cover up the facts concerning the fact that the attack was planned and carried out by Al Qaeda operatives.

I have been reading a number of different reports but I am not linking to some of them because I no longer have the link available (in other words I did not save the link). One of those mentioned the fact that a likely reason that the US could not get access to the compound immediately after the attack was due to the unprofessional behaviour of Susan Rice. To be more specific on this matter, the Libyan President had stated that it was an Al Qaeda attack. He took the matter very seriously. Immediately after he had made that statement Susan Rice started making her talking points that contradicted the Libyan President. This was very unprofessional, and if it had been someone like Condi Rice making those talking points there would have been an uproar about that happening. At the time Susan Rice got away with her lies, that is the claim that some really poor grade video was somehow to blame for the attack.

There was no protest outside of the embassy that night. If there had been, then Ambasador Chris Stevens would have told Mr. Hicks that there was a protest. He did not do that even though he was in touch with Mr. Hicks shortly before his death.

The other issue relates to another officer from the Counterterrorism branch and direcly relates to Hillary Clinton (please note that I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton and that as a foreigner I personally thought that she was a terrible Secretary of State… and I most definitely think that she is one of the most unsuitable people to be considered for the role of POTUS).  This story has been covered by FOX NEWS and you can read about it here.

I find it deeply disturbing that Clinton could have attempted to cut the counterterrorism branch out of the loop on that night. Again, I think that such behaviour by Clinton and Kennedy is totally unprofessional.

I do think that such attitudes that have been displayed from the top (White House) down to lower officials has led to a situation that continues to endanger the USA and make it more vulnerable to further terrorist attacks. From my POV the fact that Obama refuses to call the Fort Hood massacre a terrorist attack is something that is leading to paralysis with the Pentagon. On top of that General Dempsey needs to be removed from his post.

This prevailing attitude that does not allow for the confronting of the truth about Islam is an absolute mistake, to the point that it is almost nihilist in nature. By not confronting the truth, the Pentagon has placed their collective heads in the sand, meaning that the intelligence sources of Islamist activities are often ignored.

There is other proof of that paralysis, and it is not just within the Pentagon, but in the Oval Office where that paralysis is on display for the whole world to see. The failure to confront Syria about the use of chemical weapons is a part of that paralysis that has the effect of making the USA a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Yes, I know some of what I have written sounds harsh, and that is because I happen to love the USA, especially because I am connected via family.  There is a real need to be harsh because so many refuse to face reality, especially the reality of the real threats that confront the world today – it is not climate change (which changes every season anyway) that is the threat, but the threat of Islam is the real threat facing our world. We all need to wake up and face the fact that there is a threat and if we keep ignoring that threat because we continue to not take the real Islam seriously, then there is no hope at all.

Advertisements

3 responses to “The Congressional Hearings this week

  1. Lynn Atkinson

    I have to say in reading your various posts you are really quite brilliant. It is refeshing to see someone of your intellect analyzing things. The politically correct thought police don’t like people questioning them here and they will do what is “needed” to reform those that question. I don’t think it will be to long before martial law will be declared. And that concerns me greatly.

    Like

  2. At a minimum, Susan Rice needs to be PUNISHED to the maximum extent possible. Regardless of the origin of the Internet Movie BS – she had to know exactly what was going on and still went on TV on five definitive news shows and unblinkingly spouted this nonsense.

    The proof that it was a “political” posture is in the fact that it was not required to say anything. She could have easily and credibly said “The situation is complex and we are still sorting out the details”. There was NO NEED to push the bogus story.

    Like

    • Carlyle I am with you 100%. I have seen it posited that John Brennan had something to do with the production of that terrible documentary. If that is true then the man who was taken into custody was used by some other persons to create something and then someone else did a voiceover. It sounds too planned to me to believe that scenario.

      However, at the back of my mind is that I keep seeing where it was stated by Obamaphiles that they needed a crisis of some sort of the magnitude of the original 9/11 attack. I have these nagging doubts regarding what might have happened.

      On the other hand, I take issue with Susan Rice because what she did caused the USA a lot of embarrassment when she contradicted the Libyan President. As you are aware, I do give people the benefit of doubt as necessary and I do consider the Libyan President to be on the level. Hicks has indicated that Susan Rice, by going on the TV and telling that story caused harm to any hope of starting an investigation almost immediately. Then again sending the FBI to investigate was definitely a real joke. It should have been left to the CIA and the counter-terrorism people to investigate.

      Like