Terrorist Murders in Libya....Obama Failed again...The Khalidi tape...Operacion Fast & Furious? What?

Obama Failed: The Terrorist Murders of Americans in Libya

by Larry O'Connor 21 Sep 2012 

Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated on September 11th by al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya.  He and three other Americans were brutally and savagely murdered at the hands of America's enemies.  The Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department were warned about the attacks. They should have seen it coming. Ambassador Stevens did.  

The death of these Americans and the projection of weakness and humiliation of the United States to the Middle East is a direct result of President Barack Obama's fecklessness and incompetence.  The attacks happened on his watch and represent the biggest failure of his tenure as Commander-in-Chief.  
It has been ten days since the bloody attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the assassination of Amb. Stevens, and the facts paint a bleak picture of a disengaged and aloof Commander-in-Chief and a Secretary of State more concerned about the United States' image rather than the well-being of the diplomats in her charge.

On September 10th, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a new video was released by al-Qaeda spiritual leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri calling Libyans to rise up against Americans and avenge the death of Al Qaeda #2 Abu-Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed by a US drone attack in June. Contemporaneous accounts of the video make no mention of any reference to the anti-Islam YouTube video that is now being blamed for the recent Middle East violence.

The al-Qaeda video calling for revenge for the death of Abu-Yahya al-Libi is significant to the attacks in Libya because Abu-Yahya was from Libya.  Hence the suffix to his name "al-Libi."  Libyan terrorists and Islamists knew Abu-Yaha well.  He was a hero to the Islamist extremists in that country.  The announcement of his "martyrdom" would surely have a significant resonance on the "Arab Street" of Libya. Add to that the built-in significance of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and even an amateur observer of world events would see a security concern brewing in Libya.  READ MORE

INVEST SAFELY at BANCO SOCIAL... up to $10K at 12 Mos....15% Net return!!!

LA Times: Why We Won't Release The Khalidi Video

by Ben Shapiro 21 Sep 2012 

This week, Breitbart News offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who produced the infamous 2003 tapes of Barack Obama at an event honoring Palestinian anti-Israel radical Rashid Khalidi. And today, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times took to his keyboard today to write a diatribe defending the Times’ refusal to make public those tapes. While Rainey gives several justifications for not releasing the tape itself – guarding the source of the tape being the most prevalent – he offers no justification for why the Times refuses to offer even a complete transcript of that evening’s events.

Rainey rips the “Khalidi video mythology … which [Breitbart News] speculates will lay bare the ugly back story of Obama’s disdain of Israel … and his effusive support of Mideast radicals. Such fantastical thinking is rife not just on Breitbart.com but across the conservative Interwebs.” There is nothing fantastical about suggesting that the reason that the Times didn’t originally report Obama’s words at the event, or the more radical words of the evening, was to protect their beloved presidential candidate. Given the Times’ track record of Obama defense, it’s the only rational conclusion to draw.



But Rainey’s condescension continues. “In what will doubtless be a vain attempt to quell the bleating from the political fringe, I offer here a review of the trust history of the ‘Khalidi tape,’” he writes. What was that history that would shed light on the Times’ non-transparency? Not much. He rehashes the original Peter Wallsten story labeling Obama a quasi-moderate, without evidence to support that view. He then states:

In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?

Wallsten pushed for the release of the video but when the source would not agree, Wallsten agreed to accept more limited access to the recording. He agreed not to reveal his source nor share the video with anyone else.

The net result: The world got a story that showed Obama the political operator, sliding between two opposite and highly contentious worlds. The audience did not get to view the video, but it got far more than it had without The Times’ reporting. That's the nature of some journalistic negotiations; giving up the perfect to obtain the very good.

Well, then, where’s the transcript? Why is it that the source was comfortable divulging the video to the Times, but not to a less Obama-friendly source like Breitbart News for far more money? Asking the Times to hand over a transcript, and asking the source to hand over the tape, is far from “fringe.” It’s an attempt to vet a candidate that the Times clearly had little interest in completely vetting.


But Rainey’s condescension doesn’t end. He writes:

The ultimate irony of the Khalidi video furor: The world would not even know about the video and would certainly know much less about Obama’s political maneuvering without the dogged reporting of Peter Wallsten. The paper put the story on Page One, hiding right in plain sight, this dark, dark political secret.

Obviously, we at Breitbart News are glad for Wallsten’s original report. All we ask is for full information, free of the filter of Times reporting. Rainey’s story gives us all we need to know about where the Times stands – he says that Breitbart News released its offer to act as a “counterpunch to the devastating video, released this week, showing Mitt Romney talking disdainfully of the 47%.” Well, no. We released our offer this week largely because President Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, including his anti-Israel leanings, must be explained, and fast. The Khalidi tape will go a long way toward doing that.


But that’s the last thing that the Times wants. So they’ll continue to stand on their supposed journalistic integrity while cashing their figurative paycheck from the Obama administration.

NECESITA ASISTENCIA TEMPORAL?...Hasta $500 a 2 meses...BANCO SOCIAL

Operación Rápido y Furioso: 5 maneras en las que mancha al Departamento de Justicia de Eric Holder

Lachlan Markay

El inspector general del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) hizo público esta semana el esperado informe sobre el escándalo del transporte de armas de la Operación Rápido y Furioso. Este señaló la culminación de los 19 meses de investigación sobre la operación, que permitió que nada menos que 2,000 armas de fuego “viajasen” a México, donde se distribuyeron a los cárteles de la droga.La operación, supervisada por la Oficina de Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de Fuego y Explosivos (ATF), saltó al primer plano de la atención pública cuando se encontraron algunas de esas armas cerca del cuerpo del agente de la Patrulla de Fronteras de Estados Unidos Brian Terry, muerto en acto de servicio junto a la frontera de Arizona con México.

Tanto los congresistas republicanos, que de forma obstinada han llevado a cabo acusaciones de mala práctica contra los más altos niveles del Departamento de Justicia, como los responsables de la administración han afirmado que esto confirma sus distintos relatos del escándalo.
Aunque el procurador general Eric Holder ha sido casi totalmente exonerado de responsabilidad en el escándalo (el informe respalda su afirmación de que no conoció la operación hasta que había acabado), su aparente falta de conocimiento es problemática en sí misma, como observa en un nuevo informe el analista de la Fundación Heritage John Malcolm, antiguo alto cargo de la división de delitos del DOJ:

Es impactante concebir que el procurador general de Estados Unidos no fuera consciente de las tácticas empleadas en una operación que duró meses y que tuvo como resultado las muertes de un agente federal y de…aproximadamente 300 mexicanos. Como mínimo, asumiendo que eso es verdad, el procurador general estuvo mal asesorado por algunos de sus más cercanos consejeros, así como por algunos miembros de la fiscalía de Phoenix. El informe…urge a que Holder “decida si una sanción u otra medida administrativa…es necesaria”. Algunas de estas personas deberían ser sancionadas, por no decir despedidas.

El informe del inspector general tiene una longitud de cerca de 500 páginas, por lo que hemos extraído las cinco revelaciones principales que Ud. necesita saber:

1. El informe señala a los principales cargo del Departamento de Justicia por un caso de mala práctica.

“Concluimos que el subjefe de gabinete del procurador general, el subjefe interino del jefe de gabinete y los responsables de la División de Delitos no alertaron al procurador general de una información significativa o de fallas en esas investigaciones”, establece el informe.
El informe culpa a 14 altos cargos de varias infracciones, la mayoría por no investigar adecuadamente la posibilidad de que se estuvieran utilizando tácticas inapropiadas. Desde la publicación del informe, Kenneth Melson, director en funciones de la ATF y el ayudante interino del procurador general Jason Weinstein han dimitido. LEER ARTICULO COMPLETO