Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

Okay, Eric, just what is your problem with Hillary Clinton?

I've had more than a few friends and readers comment lately that my attacks on Hillary Clinton have become more frequent, and appear to be almost personal.  Its true I have been commenting on Hillary  regularly; she's running for president and her supporters should expect more attention.  But I would be disengenuous if I tried to comvince folks that my issues with Hillary Clinton are only related to the 2016 Presidential Election.  You see, I've spent my fair share of time as a Civil Servant.  In 1995 I became first an Inspector and then a Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  In 1999, I was hired by the Central Intelligence Agency.  I have lived in DC, and discovered more about the Federal Government than I thought possible.  As an Immigration Officer, I experienced the immigration issue first-hand; as a CIA officer, I worked with many different branches of the government, including the Department of State, the Justice Department, and the Department of Commerce.  Early on, it became clear to me that many of the problems of government can be dropped at the feet of both major political parties.  Senators and Representatives of both parties are obliged to start campaigning for their next term almost as soon as they arrive in DC.  Lobbyists have infested the Capitol Building on both sides of the aisle, which explains the seemingly insurmountable problem with Entitlements.  Regarding Hillary Clinton, my time as a Civil Servant closely coincided with her time inside The Beltway.  I remember when the Clintons left DC in the year 2000, and I remember her returning as a Senator from the State of New York.  Part of the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, I was working overseas very closely with State Department personnel.

I am very comfortable discussing Hillary Clinton's record as a Senator and her time as Secretary of State, but I've already made that argument on this blog.  Ironically, its not the New Start Treaty, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation that fuels my lack of respect for Hillary Clinton.  My core issue with Hillary is one of trust, or the lack thereof.  Hillary Clinton, unlike her competitor, has chosen to be a representative of the people of the United States, therefore she should expect to be held accountable.  In all the time that Hillary Clinton has been known to me, she has never been accountable to anyone or anything.  During her husband's first-term in the White House, Hillary Clinton drummed-up negative information on the existing White House Travel Office, just so she could replace the former employees with her friends and supporters.  The former staff of the White House Travel Office were summarily fired, and left to their own devices.  In comparison to other scandals, this one probably doesn't rank very high, but it provided the American people with a preview of the kind of elitist, "ends-justify-the-means" kind of personality we have been dealing with.

I don't know what bothers me more, the dishonesty or the lack of accountability.  Take for example the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi: Hillary loudly proclaimed that as Secretary of State, she was accountable for what occurred.  Then she launched into a blame-game, during which she did everything but accept responsibility.  What the American people wanted to hear was:

 "The Benghazi incident was a terrible reminder that our men and women working in warzones are always at risk.  We did not do a good enough job protecting our people, and because we didn't, four brave young heroes made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.  It is my job to investigate what went wrong and to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Instead, we saw blame flung in every direction, with some Hillary supporters going so far as to blame Ambassador Chris Stevens for being in Libya when he should have known the dangers involved.

Now, in the middle of a presidential campaign Hillary is finding it impossible to be honest.  FBI Director Comey did NOT say that he believed Hillary Clinton had been honest in her public statements regarding her email server.  Obviously this mess imvolved reams of classified material, and she knows it.  In a fair world, Hillary Clinton would not be running for president.  If she wins, we will be in the unenviable position of having a president with access to Top Secret and SCI information, who would not successfully pass a routine background investigation!  But Hillary's ego and her obsession with power will keep her in the game, no matter how much damage it causes.

Democrats on Sunday talk shows all seem to be aware of the Justice Dept. decision regarding Hillary Clinton's email server.

This morning watched as one Democrat after another, from California Representative Xavier Becerra to New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, took their turns on the various Sunday talk shows.  Just about every member of Hillary Clinton's Vice Presidential short list was doing their duty, spouting-off Democratic talking points (the only VP candidate missing was Elizabeth Warren) on NBC's "Meet the Press", CNN's "State of the Union", and ABC 's "This Week".  At the top of the list of Talking Points was an announcement that Hillary Clinton would not be censured in any way for the personal email server that she used during her time as the Obama Administration's Secretary of State.  Don't misunderstand; Booker and Becerra did not provide any substantiating evidence to their declarations, but both made it apparent that the Justice Department "review" was coming to a close very soon (this week?) and every reasonable person "knew" that Clinton would not face any punishment for what was obviously just another example of dirty politics on behalf of the GOP.

I don't know how many of you were able to see the parade of Democratic political hacks this morning, but I can assure you, each one of those men had been informed beforehand that candidate Clinton was in the clear.  This explains the ease in which they announced that for all "reasonable persons" (quotations mine), there was no question that Clinton would avoid accountability once again.  As I commented in yesterday's blog post, the issue of an actual indictment was decided long ago, probably in November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term in office.  Obama and his team arrived in DC with a plan to politicize the federal government in a way that would guarantee his Administration would never have to face accountability.  Let's face it; Bill Clinton, who is beginning to resemble a rodeo clown, needn't have bothered Attorney General Lynch last week.  Lynch's Justice Department never gave serious consideration to indicting Hillary Clinton.  For anyone interested, make no mistake.  Prior to this corrupt Administration, any government employee who flaunted computer security protocol in this manner would have been terminated and possibly prosecuted, depending on the existence of evidence proving that actions taken resulted in a foreign power to hack into a government server.

I'd resigned myself to the fact that Hillary will once again not be held accountable for her actions some time ago.  What caused so much aggravation Sunday morning was the smug, elitist manner in which the Democrat talking-heads referred to the apparent unlikelihood of an indictment.  This Administration has become so drunk on its own image, that it doesn't feel the need for discretion.  The chutzpah of any average citizens out there to think that Hillary Clinton was judged by the same rules that govern our lives!

I saw something on television today; a replay of the outstanding and heartbreaking Fox News special on the 2012 Benghazi tragedy.  This program reminded me of the many young men and women who serve our nation in the Armed Forces, putting their lives in jeopardy every day.  I often think about the four men that died that night, about their families, and what amazing young men they were.  Then I find myself thinking about Hillary Clinton.  This woman has been running for President since the year 2000, when her husband reluctantly surrendered the Oval Office to President-Elect Bush.  I think about the one characteristic that makes Hillary so disagreeable to me.  She is convinced that the United States can't succeed without her in the White House.  The fact that her ego has no limits allows her to justify so much bullshit with a straight face, because she believes her own spin. If Hillary Clinton had defeated Barrack Obama in 2008 and gone on to beat Senator John McCain, she would have made a better President than Obama.  I don't believe that Hillary, with her background in law and experience with the Nixon impeachment, would have been so quick to abuse Executive Action, and I also believe she would have made an effort to reign in the national debt.  But make no mistake, Hillary intend on being President in 2016, and 2008 no longer registers.  Hillary recognizes the changes that Obama has delivered, and as a Democrat, she will toss out her natural inclination to be a moderate and embrace every entitlement program she can find.  I see the polls, and I hear CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, and CNBC bashing Donald Trump from morning until night.  I realize that Trump is the candidate that they wanted, and that everything is proceeding according to their plan.  But I will continue to support Donald Trump, and I encourage every Patriot to wipe the slate clean with Donald, and give him another shot.  The thought of President Hillary Clinton in my lifetime, four years after the ultimate sacrifice made by the four heroes of Benghazi, brings tears to my eyes.

The timing seems right, so let's revisit the Benghazi controversy.

A number of times within the past year, I've shared my perspective on the Benghazi controversy.  In the very beginning, I formed an opinion before the most important details regarding the event had been made public.  I was obliged to completely revisit my original beliefs and comments, which I did, using this forum.  That fact does not change the single most concise and unavoidable truth surrounding this sad occurrence.  In the United States, we have a tradition in government service that "The Buck Stops Here".  President Harry S. Truman helped establish this little cliché by placing a notice on his desk containing that simple message.  Truman was announcing loud and clear, that in his role as President of the United States, he alone was accountable for the actions of his government.  Since Truman, countless Generals, Chiefs, Secretaries, Directors and Presidents have expressed the now-famous sentiment, "I take full responsibility.......".  Following the terrible events of September 11, 2012, which included the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three additional young men, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to follow tradition and accept "full responsibility".  Since that time, Clinton and the leftist media have jumped through hoops so that she can avoid doing just that- taking responsibility.  I will not push the envelope so far as to say that Clinton is responsible for the casualties that resulted from the terrorist assault on both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the nearby CIA Annex.  But we must accept some very simple facts: the United States had an accredited U.S. Ambassador on the ground, in an environment that was, to say the least, totally unsecure and dangerous.  Communications examined from that time period make it clear that the Clinton State Department was aware of Benghazi's major security deficiencies.  Who made the decision to send Ambassador Stevens and his necessary support staff into this war zone?  More importantly, once Foggy Bottom became aware of the dangerous environment, why weren't Stevens and his staff evacuated?  At least the level of security at the Consulate and Annex could have been increased.  No matter how much the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Washington Post declare otherwise, those questions need to be answered.  I noticed that the media have once again introduced Ambassador Steven's family into the controversy.  Steven's family have publicly stated on more than one occasion that they do not hold Hillary Clinton responsible. However, the parents of the other three young men who died that night DO hold her responsible.  It is beyond offensive to me that the liberal press and media publicize the opinions of Ambassador Stevens' family, but don't mention the other three men who lost their lives.  They have families as well, even if they aren't from the beltway elite.

Regardless of the issues raised in the preceding paragraph, I would happily agree to put this subject to bed, if I could get the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton camp to address one particular detail.  Immediately following the announcement in the press that Ambassador Stevens, along with three brave young Americans, had died during a night of violence in Benghazi, the Obama Administration identified the catalyst for the violence.  According to the Administration, local Libyans were angry because of an "anti-Islamic" video that had been released in California.  In their anger, they decided to riot and storm the U.S. Consulate and Annex.  According to all reliable eyewitness accounts and follow-up intelligence, the attacks that night were carried out by Islamic Extremist groups intent on committing acts of terror against Americans.  The people who attacked the Consulate that night and later the Annex, were not thinking about some stupid videos made in California.  As I was preparing to write this article and I was googling certain events to confirm certain dates, I came across a recent MediaMatters article claiming that, still to this day, the riots on the night of September 11, 2012 were the result of anger on he part of average, law-abiding Libyans who could not help but express their anguish and pain by attacking the U.S. Consulate.  Hillary Clinton has always believed that the ends justifies the means. Heck, Media Matters is happy to peddle an outright fabrication just to deflect legitimate criticism of their candidate.  It has become obvious to me that the Democrats and the left have adopted Hillary's Modus Operandi with no hesitation. 

Alongside the usual characters, this political season has unleashed a flood of new political operatives from both major parties.  Finding an honest, decent soul amongst the bunch is the real challenge.  True, I have always voted Republican, but people would be wrong to assume that I follow the party platform, hook, line, and stinker.  If someone is curious enough to see where I stood as the primary season unfolded, all of my blog posts from that time period are available for perusal.  As for me, I'm done worrying about what happened in January, February, March and April this year.  I am voting for Donald Trump for president.  As for the rest of you, there are three candidates running from three parties, and you have until November to decide which person will be our next president.  Today's blog post marks the beginning of a series of commentaries I will write detailing Hillary Clinton's foreign policy achievements and initiatives.  Thank you to all who have commented and shared my posts.

Link: CIA Chief disputes movie narrative on Benghazi.

Just in time for political primary season, a new film has been released appropriately titled, "Benghazi".  This film and its supporters make to bones about it; they are convinced that events on the evening of September 11, 2012, show the CIA to be probably culpable in the deaths that occurred that night at the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex.  Its been some time since we've had a good rehashing of this story, and I'd just as soon we didn't.  But this movie is spreading some very seriously allegations, which need to be addressed.  I have no intention of reliving the events of that night in their entirety.  Lets stick to the contentious issues raised by this movie.  On the night of September 11, 2012, both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the CIA Annex Building had come under attack by unknown heavily armed militants.  Aside from a few rank-and-file State Department and CIA personnel, the State Department had Diplomatic Security officers on hand, and the CIA had a group of Global Resource Solutions (GRS) operatives.  The movie in question was developed from a book written by four GRS employees who were at the CIA annex that night.  In fact, when they became aware that the Consulate, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and others were located, was under heavy fire.  These four GRS guys claim to have asked the CIA Chief of Station, who was sitting in the same room, for permission to deploy to the Consulate and assist.  According to "the four", the CIA Chief (named "Bob"), got off the phone, and told them to stand down on any order to relieve the Consulate.    We still have no clue who it was that Bob was allegedly speaking with that night.

After twenty minutes or so, the four GRS officers took it upon themselves to disobey a direct order and rush to assist at the Consulate.  Sadly, they arrived too late for Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith.  Later that night, the United States would lose two more heroes, but this movie seems to be mainly focused on what happened in the annex which delayed the GRS deployment.  First, let me remind everyone, that I wasn't on scene that night.  My comments and perceptions are derived exclusively from my experiences and training.  I am very familiar with GRS.  I have worked closely with GRS officers in the past.  You can't find a better-trained, more weapons-knowledgeable group of security personnel.  But I am concerned with their story.  Before we can really take a look at what happened in the annex, we must remind ourselves that CIA or no CIA, the Department of State has primacy on all decisions on U.S. diplomatic facilities, including military and security-related concerns.  I can't imagine why the CIA Chief would have cause to tell the GRS guys to "stand down".  If indeed that was the case, then he was passing on his instructions from a higher authority, and if things work as they are supposed to, at the end of that chain should have been Hillary Clinton.  But Bob claims that he said no such thing, and that his mind was on trying to round up enough local firepower to assist with returning to the Consulate.  I wonder if possibly there was a misunderstanding, given that one person was on the phone and the other four were anxious to go and help their friends. 

In the book, the Agency played its usual role of easy punching bag (its not like the CIA spends much time defending itself, although many of us wish it would).  I've chosen only to address the main allegation because three paragraphs is more than enough for this blog.  I do not believe that Bob (who I do not know) gave the GRS guys any "stand down" order that night, and if he did, I want to know why they chose this particular time to disobey a direct order from a superior.  Do GRS personnel normally ignore the instructions of CIA management?  What if Bob did say "stand down", because someone on the phone had informed him that U.S. personnel had been rescued and that the Consulate was overrun by militiamen.  Then the four GRS guys would be walking into serious shit. You don't disobey a Chief of Station, especially not in that situation.  I don't believe they did.  Because I don't believe Bob ever gave the order to "stand down".  

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Investigation.

Link: Email controversy and Benghazi continue to haunt Hillary Clinton.

It is beginning to seem as if the House of Representatives Committee investigating the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were murdered will never end.  The House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi was initially proposed by then-House Majority Leader John Boehner.  The first hearing held by the committee was in September 2014, which, when I make use of my superior math skills, means we have been subsidizing this investigation for over one year.  One year doesn't seem to be that long in my mind, compared to some of the other committees we have watched evolve on Capitol Hill, but I am curious what goal this particular committee is trying to reach.  It would seem to me that we know the pertinent details regarding the events of the Benghazi terrorist attack, including what occurred in the hours beforehand.  For many months, various different and often false versions of what occurred that night in Benghazi have been disseminated by the mainstream press both in the United States and abroad.  Unfortunately, even today, most people don't know even the basic facts regarding what transpired that evening.  Here are those facts, at least the ones that I'm comfortable saying are accurate.

The 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack involved two separate locations.  The initial attack was directed at the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, and the second attack occurred at an Annex that was utilized by the CIA, who had the largest contingent of U.S. personnel in the city.  The attack began just after U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had concluded a meeting with a Turkish diplomat.  Just prior to the assault on the compound, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland noted to himself that the streets outside the Consulate seemed very quiet and empty.   Unexpectedly, the Consulate compound was quickly assaulted by armed groups, and the complete lack of a sufficient number of State Department Security personnel became obvious.  At the time of the assault, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland directed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an Information Management Specialist, to utilize the main Consulate building's "Safe Haven".  Safe Havens are areas particularly designated for shelter and safety in just such a situation.  S/A Strickland stayed with Stevens and Smith in the Safe Haven, while a few other security personnel left the main building to retrieve their M4 rifles and other equipment.  The attackers entered the main building, and after unsuccessfully attempting to break into the Safe Haven, began to pour petrol on the floor and set fires.  Strickland decided it was best to leave the building, and instructing Stevens and Smith to follow, climbed out a bathroom window.  As the smoke intensified, Strickland waited for both Stevens and Smith, neither of whom followed.  Strickland proceeded to the roof of the Consulate and attempted to radio other State Department security officers.  Later Smith's body was discovered, as he had apparently succumbed to smoke inhalation.  Stevens was discovered by friendly locals, who transported him to the hospital in the hope of saving his life.  Although the locals claim that Stevens was alive when he was discovered, the Hospital staff declared the Ambassador deceased as a result of smoke inhalation, after ninety minutes of attempted resuscitation.  As for the various rumors that persist regarding the possibility that Stevens was physically assaulted before his death, I have no comment.

The second incident occurred at an Annex roughly a mile from the Consulate compound, which was being used by the CIA.  Just after midnight, the Annex came under attack.  Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, CIA contractors hired as security personnel, were at the Annex.  They defended their position for hours from the roof, before a mortar round hit in close proximity and killed Woods.  As Doherty attempted to take cover, another round, part of the same barrage, killed Doherty instantly.  For many months I lived under the incorrect assumption that the four heroes who died in Benghazi had perished together, in the same location.  Actually, the incidents that took the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty, occurred at two separate locations and at different times.

Immediately following the tragedy, the Obama Administration was heavily criticized for blaming the attacks on a "spontaneous demonstration of anger as a result of the U.S. distribution of a film which some Muslims believe to be sacrilegious".  Allegedly, regular citizens of Benghazi, angered by the release of this film (assuming, of course, that the Muslim population of Benghazi is pious), spontaneously retrieved automatic weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers, and rushed out to attack the U.S. Consulate, and later the Consulate Annex.  The obvious question the morning after the attack, is why didn't the State Department have more security personnel in place, and second, why weren't additional military resources brought in?  The Administration, by blaming the attack on the unexpected release of this film and the "spontaneous" expression of anger on the part of Benghazi Muslims, wanted to avoid blame for not having adequate security measures in place.  In other words, "people died because this movie really pissed off the Muslims, who unexpectedly sacked the Consulate; it had nothing to do with not having a valid security plan."  Actually, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on that particular day to review plans for a new cultural center and to modernize a hospital; he was also tasked with preparing a report on security issues related to the transition of the Consulate from a temporary facility to a permanent one. 

The reason why Hillary Clinton has been her own worst enemy throughout this Benghazi crisis is her apparent inability to accept blame for anything.  It will eventually be her political undoing.  Most Americans, myself included, waited to hear the Secretary of State hold a news conference to discuss Benghazi.  The American people wanted to hear Hillary comment that a terrible tragedy had occurred which resulted in the painful loss of four American heroes.  Hillary needed to assure the American people that no stone would go unturned to locate and bring to justice the persons responsible and that a full investigation would take place to make sure this terrible event would never happen again.  She needed to say, "but regardless of the particular details, I am Secretary of State, and the responsibility for those people who lost their lives rests with me."  Instead, we got distraction, diversion, and pointed fingers.  The American people wanted to know why an American Ambassador was running around in a warzone without adequate security.  They want to know why U.S. Consulate employees (Sean Smith) were working in a hostile warzone without the necessary protection.  We've heard a few attempts at answers, and not surprisingly one of the excuses laid the blame at the feet of President George W. Bush.  As for the committee itself, there can be no doubt that the GOP is using this investigation to drill as many holes into Hillary's presidential ambitions as possible.  The real damage may not come from Benghazi, but from a tangential issue that popped up during the committee's investigation: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business, and, at times, pass confidential information.  I think we can expect to see the Benghazi investigation begin to fade, as the "emailgate" springs to life.

Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.

Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration.  As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control.  What was so wrong with regime control, anyway?  Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change?  Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life?  Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing.  Libya didn't descend into hell overnight.  The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists.  As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all.  Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya.  Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end?  Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder?  The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances.  To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans.  What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya.  We are supposed to support the good guys, remember?  The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution?  I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists.  I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States.  Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya.  I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.

Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander.  What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata.  More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern.  As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief.  Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya?  Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers.  Nothing useful can be accomplished without force.  In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy.  But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers.  But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe.  Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers.  By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis.  We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?

Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya.  The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans.  May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted.  How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development?  Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself. 

Benghazi and Operation Eagle Claw

Link: Operation Eagle Claw

Last night I watched the Fox News special on the Benghazi scandal.  A group of Special Ops guys announced that on the night of the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other

Americans at the CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, a CIA official named "Bob" ordered the Ops unit to "stand down".  After 30 minutes, the Ops team moved to the Annex on their own volition, but were too late to affect a rescue.  I haven't read the book these gentlemen have written (I will), but the revelations from the Fox News program do not conflict with the hypothesis I offered in yesterday's blog.

I am not attempting to assign blame to anyone.  Instead, I am simply providing an educational service.  A very delicate relationship exists between the CIA and the Department of State.  On occasion CIA officers are obliged to function within State Department facilities. I cannot and will not elaborate further on that particular statement.  I am comfortable pointing out, though, that one fact which is drilled into the skulls of all CIA operations personnel is that within State Department facilities, the prevailing authority is the Ambassador or Chief of Mission (in 2001 Kosovo, no U.S. embassy existed because Kosovo was still Kosovo-Metohija, a province of Serbia, therefore the highest authority was the Chief of Mission Christopher Dell).  Under normal functions, CIA personnel who are obliged to work within State Department confines will follow the instructions of their Ops Chief, Deputy Chief or Chief of Station.  But at the end of the day, big decisions that have diplomatic fallout potential, are left to the highest Department of State authority.

The decision to conduct either a rescue or an exfil operation in a foreign country is left to the diplomats, with the responsibility falling on the Administration and the President.  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter made the decision to attempt a rescue of 52 captive American diplomats held in Teheran, Iran (Operation Eagle Claw).  The operation failed and Jimmy Carter went on national television and bravely took responsibility (the good old days of "the buck stops here").  The CIA were undoubtedly heavily involved in the planning and operational aspects of Eagle Claw, but at the end of the day, the decision to move was made by Jimmy Carter.  This is the point I was attempting to make in last night's blog.  No CIA officer has the authority to give "thumbs up" or "stand down" to an operation that includes the rescue of an American Ambassador.  Although Bob gave the order, I can safely assume that he was only repeating his instructions.

Since this is a blog, it should be understood that unless I provide a source, anything I say is an opinion backed up by my years of experience.  From my institutional knowledge of the relationship between the CIA and the Department of State, I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the decision to leave those four men to die was made in Langley or in the mind of some mid-level CIA Ops Chief (or Branch Chief, as Bob has become in some of today's news sources).  Without certain bits of information that very few people seem to have access to, I cannot say with certainty who gave what order that night.  I can only say that normally the decision would have been made by the Secretary of State or by the President, in consultation with his/her security team.  When a U.S. Ambassador is trapped and under fire, they usually inform the President, don't they?  Or have things changed that much in the four years I have been away from DC?

Obama vs. ISIS and Benghazi

Links: Obama Vows to Attack ISIS

Benghazi: Did CIA Order Rescue Team to Stand Down?


Per the first link, President Obama made a public declaration today that the United States would be waging war on ISIS/ISIL.  And then he announced that he would provide more details to the American people (and ISIS/ISIL, we assume) on Wednesday.  Personally, an announcement that we were going to drop Agent Orange on these ISIS/ISIL Assholes would have been just fine with me.  I don't need the details "on Wednesday".  When did we start providing military strategy in public forums?  But at least the President showed some resolve.  Since I'm no longer in the loop, its okay for me to hypothesize what this Administration intends to do.  Lets review this post Wednesday afternoon and see how many I got correct: we will work with a coalition of our Arab (and European?) partners to develop a strategy that will surely work to erode ISIS/ISIL's ability to conduct terror activities.  And we will enact sanctions on any nations who we determine to be providing ISIS/ISIL with weapons and supplies.  Most importantly, we will continue and in some instances intensify the bombing campaign.  Because bombing the enemy is safe.  You don't put any troops in harm's way, which would be a terrible blow to the base just before November mid-term elections.  And millions of dollars in humanitarian aid is on its way to the people suffering from ISIS aggression.

I am old enough to remember the day when an enemy like this was identified, and every resource at our disposal was used to destroy it.  I have this theory, and I would like to know if you agree with me.  War is the most disgraceful insult that we can deliver to our Creator.  It involves every kind of evil behavior known to our species. But history has shown that war can be unavoidable in the defense of liberty and human rights.  I believe that if war is forced upon us, then we must do everything in our power to win quickly and decisively.  It doesn't take Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or Machiavelli to teach us that a short victory is the best kind of victory. Fewer people die when the conflict is resolved decisively and quickly.  If your army has more resources, more weapons, more allies and more initiative, then throw the book at the bad guys, and make a statement to the next bunch of cowards who like to engage in random beheadings.  I believe that once ISIS/ISIL was declared an enemy of the state (actually, for me it was the beheading of Thomas Foley), then we should have instructed our respective military commanders to develop a plan for a rapid annihilation of this group.  And if someone doesn't want to come along for the ride (read: our Arab friends), then they had better look for cover.

Regarding the recent revelations by Fox News (timed to perfection with the release of the book by these Special Ops guys), I am going out on a limb by writing these comments before the evening broadcast of the Fox News Special on Benghazi.  I'm confident I won't step on my tongue, though, because I think I already know the basics of the "new developments".  A trio (or was it five?) of Special Ops guys were prepared to make their way to the CIA Annex and assist Amb. Stevens and his three companions. A CIA officer with some level of authority (they listened to him at first, right?) allegedly told these soldiers to "stand down".  I believe their version of events, and I think I am personally familiar with the ubiquitous "CIA Bob" (no love lost, believe me).  The Fox News link I have provided repeatedly refers to Bob as the "Top CIA Officer In Benghazi".  What exactly does that mean?  Was Bob the Benghazi Station Chief?  Not to quibble, but I doubt seriously that the top ranking Agency official in Benghazi was sitting with these guys that evening.  But Bob obviously did carry some bona fides.  It would not surprise me if Bob instructed these soldiers to "stand down" because that seems to be the order of the evening.  Folks, Bob did not make that decision unilaterally, regardless of the comment that Bob "was trying to rally local support".

I hope everyone keeps one fact steady: just like everyone else, Bob had orders.  Someone was instructing Bob throughout the evening's events.  Having been present in a few similar events in my career, I have learned that at the end of the day, any military action involving embassies and annexes must be approved by the Secretary of State.  Agency presence in diplomatic quarters is a controversial subject.  At the end of the day, Agency personnel working in a State Department facility fall under the authority of the Ambassador and, higher up, the Secretary of State.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, I believe the decision that night to "stand down" on military action was made by the Secretary of State.  I believe that she made the decision after weighing the negative diplomatic repercussions of offending the new Libyan government, who I am convinced would not have given their approval for an exfiltration (extraction) operation.  All of this is supposition on my part, and its very possible that I'm wrong.  We may never know who made the binding decision that cost Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods their lives.  What tremendously brave men they were, and we won't see their like again.  God Bless Them and their families.

11 missing planes from Tripoli Airport in Libya

Link: Planes missing from Tripoli Airport

Initially I had planned to blog about another subject this evening, but a friend brought this

story to my attention and I decided to share my perspective.  Unfortunately we are missing a few vital pieces of information, including the type of aircraft and the condition.  Certain media folks have already raised the alarm that the missing planes could be used in "9/11 copycat" operations.  At this stage, with so little information to process, anything is possible.  For the sake of discussion, lets assume that the planes were commercial aircraft (along the lines of Airbus, Boeing, and McDonald-Douglas), and that they have been flown to other as yet unknown airfields.  Although the planes have been identified as "commercial airliners", there is the possibility that some or all could be cargo carriers.  As of early 2013, Afriqiyah Airways and Libyan Airlines both utilized Tripoli Airport as their main hub, and both companies basically flew Airbus-built planes (no Boeing or McDonald-Douglas in their inventory), and nothing larger than a 320.  This is important because the larger the plane, the larger the runway.  Unfortunately, you can land an Airbus 320 in the bed of an El Camino (they are relatively small planes, similar in size to the 737).  Back to our assumption: at this point we have no way to determine if the planes were flown to one location or broken up into groups and spread out.  It is possible; I'm sure Libya is full of airfields that were left over from the last World War, not to mention temporary airfields constructed to accommodate the petroleum industry.  The planes are missing, and there are plenty of places in the near vicinity to hide them (but only for so long...the Drones are out there looking as we speak).

One thing the continent of Africa does not need is more planes.  I like to joke that Africa is truly the place old planes go to die.  The next time you are looking to kill a few hours on the computer, cruise over to Google Earth and have a look at the various airports that serve the cities of Africa.  Start off with Khartoum, then maybe Ouagadougou or Bangui, and notice all the rusting hulks of abandoned planes that litter the periphery of the runway.  When a manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus (or Vickers just to be fair to our British friends) ceases production of a particular model, you can count the years before it starts appearing in Africa in significant numbers.  It happened with the Boeing 707, various Lockheed models, and the Airbus 300.  Not surprisingly Africa is littered with Russian junk, some of still flying.  The point is, once an airliner is too old to be useful, or is no longer able to meet safety or EPA (or the EU version of the EPA) standards, it has a good chance of ending up in the third world, where safety regulations are usually seen as "suggestions".  In my soon-to-be-released book I made a point to tell a few "flying in Africa" stories, some of which will leave you in stitches.  I could personally take you to acquaintances in at least 10 African countries who would be able to sell you a Boeing or an Airbus or a McDonald Douglas jet and hand you the keys before the sun goes down (provided you have the cash up-front).  The point is, the bad guys do not have trouble finding planes to buy.  For a legitimate terrorist group, it would not be necessary to steal planes from the runway in Tripoli.  Let's have a look at the group that seems to be responsible for the missing planes. 

The Masked Men Brigade (MMB) is a small terrorist group that split from "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM) in 2012 and formed it own group, lead by a particularly nasty character named Mokhtar Belmokhtar.  If in fact MMB is in possession of the missing planes, then we must assume they found persons who were able to fly and navigate the jets to pre-designated locations (its a bit trickier than flying a carpet, I'm told).  Its possible that MMB just happened to be the last Jihadi group standing after the battle for the airport, and got lucky enough to round up enough pilots.  But why take 11 planes?  Why not just 2 or 3? Its very possible that the intention was to sell the planes on the black market (there's a black market for everything, and Africa is the place) in order to raise operational funds, since Al-Qaeda is no longer paying the Cable Bill.

I fear the sensationalist approach to this story has everyday folks wondering if one of these planes is going to be used to crash into big buildings somewhere.  Its certainly possible, but highly unlikely.  Whether its one plane or 11, a suicidal pilot is needed, and probably a suicidal co-pilot/navigator as well, and a decent amount of aviation fuel (assuming the plane would be flying from inside Libya and out over the Mediterranean).  Then the bad guys have to deal with post -9/11 enhanced radar capabilities.  Regardless of the approach or the altitude, I can't imagine an unidentified plane even getting close to a European population center.  And its not only the voice identification issue.  Planes communicate recognition signals without involvement from the cabin crew, not to mention the GPS in each engine.  I cannot hypothesize a situation in which an unidentified commercial-sized jet can get past both NATO and whichever respective European Air Force.  On the other hand, it might be possible to pull something off if the target is an African city.  But what would be the motivation or the purpose?

Watching Libya as it descends back into chaos is depressing.  Its nearly impossible to separate some of the groups that are fighting each other, and the names seem to change on a weekly basis.  A day doesn't go by that I don't think of Libya.  I lost a friend in Benghazi and I can only hope that I will eventually reconcile myself to those events.  One lesson I learned about myself: I can't outrun nightmares.  The Libyan people are stuck in what seems like an open-ended nightmare, and its sad that it takes the death of 4 heroes to get people talking about events in Benghazi, or Tripoli, or Surt.  As for the missing planes, I pray that the story ends with the location and neutralization of each one of those potential weapons.  

God Bless James Foley and Steven Sotloff.