Obama, not Bush, is the War Criminal (Part II)

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush made mistakes and Obama is afraid to make tough decisions and make mistakes. The other stark difference is the media. The media scrutinized every action the Bush administration made while it has given the Obama White House a pass on everything. While Obama and the media has the audacity to say the Bush administration committed civil liberty violations with enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. The Obama administration is much worse, they are the executioner with their drone program – so nobody gets a trial. In fact, innocent civilians are executed under the Obama program and passed off as collateral damage. Yet, the media has nothing to say about this. While Bush was deemed as evil for being forthcoming and transparent about his fight against terror, the Obama administration has changed intelligence and lied to American public. Obama has leaked national security information to the press on stories that paint their image in a good light – the bin Laden killing and the Stuxnet cyber program. But, on the other hand, the Obama administration unlawfully targets journalists who print stories showing how inept the administration was in handling Benghazi, Libya, Syria, and terrorism as a whole. Obama has moved unilaterally to go to war without Congressional approval in Libya (which is in chaos) and Syria (which is in chaos). Now there is a huge humanitarian problem in these countries and they are fleeing by the thousands to take refuge in Europe. Obama takes absolutely no responsibility for his actions or inactions to get boots on the ground.

The true war criminal is not Bush and Cheney, but Obama. He is the only one who has broken the law – 1. Leaking national security information; 2. Violating the freedom of the press; and 3. Changing (altering) intelligence. Yet Obama takes credit for killing bin Laden using intelligence garnered via enhanced interrogation techniques under Bush. Obama took credit for a stable Iraq even though he voted against the Bush surge, and once Iraq became unstable under his watch he blamed Bush for getting us there in the first place. The entire Benghazi terror attack was a crime and cover up by the administration. They lied about it not being a terror attack and then sat idle and did nothing as a few men fought bravely for hours before losing their lives. Obama never sent any help. And to this day nobody has been held responsible for this attack. And worse yet, nobody in the Obama administration has been held responsible for breaking any laws or lying to the American public. And the media can care less about finding the truth.

So let’s summarize, Bush left office with a stable Iraq but was wrong about the weapons of mass destruction based on global faulty intelligence. Remember, the Iraq war was a coalition of countries who went to war based on the same intelligence. On the other hand, Bush left Obama a very unstable situation in Afghanistan. But, to Bush’s credit there was not one single terrorist attack after 9-11 on our home soil.

The situation is much different with Obama. He has lied about intelligence to paint a rosy picture about his fight against ISIS. Iraq is in chaos and mostly under terrorist control. He moved to go to war unilaterally in Libya and Syria and now they are in chaos and under terrorist control. This has lead to the biggest refugee problem around the globe in decades. Obama has tried to cover up terrorist attacks against our homeland by refusing to admit to the fact they were terrorist attacks – Fort Hood, Boston, and Benghazi. Obama and his surge failed in Afghanistan and left the country unstable and in Taliban control. Obama has negotiated with terrorists and what’s worse he has negotiated with state sponsors of terror such as Iran. He wants to give Iran 150 billion dollars of taxpayer money to kill more Americans and Israelis. Obama leaks national security information that makes him look favorable and persecutes journalists who write stories that show his incompetence. Obama takes credit for things that go well on the terrorism front and blames someone else when they do not. Obama criticized the Bush administration for its treatment to enemy combatants, but under Bush they at least get a trial. Obama kills terrorists without a trial and does not care how many innocent civilians die in these drone attacks. And this is the biggest difference between Obama and Bush: Since Obama never captures terrorists, he can no longer collect valuable intelligence to fight them. Bush collected valuable intelligence including the information that led to the killing of bin Laden.

So who is the real war criminal?

The Truth About Benghazi

After Hillary Clinton’s eight plus hour testimony we can learn a few things. Sure, the only thing liberals are concerned about was Clinton’s demeanor and that she seems to be the central focus of the committee’s investigation. They can care less what come out of her mouth. Clinton may have acted well, but that was all it was – an act. There are several things we learned and in turn, more things that do not make any sense.

First, we learned Clinton knew the evening of the attack it was planned and more importantly it was carried out by al-Qaida. She said as much in emails to her family and the Egyptian head of state. She knew the attack did not grow out of a protest over a film, which incidentally happened in Tunisia and Egypt just days earlier. The next day, Clinton issued a very carefully worded statement and the focus was around one sentence which I will paraphrase: Some believe the attack grew out of protest over an anti-Muslim film. The word “some” is what is important here. Usually this type of statement is followed up by a statement such as: “but I believe” or “but others believe”. This did not happen. A week after the attack, it would be easy to conclude that the “some” Clinton was referring to was in fact the White House. They continuously pushed the talking points that the attack occurred because of a film. And this makes some sense, Obama had a motive to do so. The election was just 7 weeks away and Obama campaigned on the fact that al-Qaida was decimated following the killing of bin-Laden. Hence, an al-Qaida attack would prove this narrative false. It was clear Clinton knew the truth, but yet she hid behind the Obama administration narrative and did nothing. So the real question is why didn’t Clinton stand up to the Obama administration and tell the truth? The answer to that is simple, even though she was only going to be the Secretary of State until the end of the year, she had bigger aspirations and was running for President. Besides, the State Department was warned dozens of times by Ambassador Stevens of the deteriorating situation in Libya and that would look bad on her watch. So Clinton came out publicly preaching the film theory to the public. We know this was a lie and cover up.

Secondly, we learned that the State Department decided that it was not going to rebuild the Libya embassy immediately following the attack. On the surface, this makes sense, it would be too dangerous to rebuild an embassy. But think about this one. Just days and weeks earlier the Tunisia and Egyptian embassies were attacked, but those embassies remain. The difference is that the Tunisia and Egyptian attacks developed over protests of that film. So if Clinton really believed the Libya attack was over the film, it is very possible she would have rebuild the embassy. After all, her emails showed how proud she and the Obama administration were over the fall of Qaddafi. So it is a hasty decision to remove the embassy and concede Libya is more unstable after the fall of Qaddafi than before. So it also begs to reason, was Clinton aware of any Ambassador Stevens requests for more security?

Thirdly, maybe Clinton was not aware of the constant requests for more security and the devolving situation in the proximity of the Benghazi embassy. But we know a few things. Stevens was smart and he was experienced – so he knew the squeaky wheel usually gets what it needs. That will explain why he made several hundred requests for more security. It is hard to believe that Stevens would not have access to Clinton’s personal email, but let’s say it is true. Clinton said Stevens had other ways to contact her. So that means he had her personal phone number? This is a logical assumption. So, it would be hard to believe that Stevens did not call Clinton personally when dozens of requests for more security were ignored. As I stated, Stevens was experienced and knew how to play the game. It only begs to reason he followed this algorithm – you keep moving up the leadership ladder until you get what you need. Also, after close calls at the Tunisia and Egypt embassies one would think that Stevens request for more security would be granted since they held more credence. And one would think that help would be moved into close proximity to the Mediterranean region after all the instability. So it makes little sense that the Libya security situation was not on the Secretary State’s radar.

Fourth, not one person was fired or reprimanded over the attack. Obviously someone dropped the ball over security, right? By some accounts there were 600 requests for more security and the one that reached Clinton – she thought was a joke. There were warning signs in Tunisia and Egypt, but still no extra security. This could only mean one thing – there was a cover up happening and firings and reprimands would only attract attention to the issue.

Fifth, and most puzzling, why didn’t the administration or State Department send help? It does not matter if they would get there in time. They could control the crime scene; prevent looting; recover bodies; help the wounded; start tracking the terrorists; and dozens of other things. It makes no sense to not send any help, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This too sounds like a move to cover up the actual events that transpired that evening. How? Well, it let the terrorist get away, it let terrorists loot the embassy of any evidence, and it let the crime scene be cross contaminated. Most importantly, if help got there on time, it would cover up the fact the attack was planned. The military never leaves anyone behind. Several men died going after deserter Private Bergdahl. If we have dangerous missions to save a deserter then why not go and try to protect American sovereignty. This to me is the most conspicuous thing that about the whole Benghazi cover up.

Sixth, Clinton claimed 90 to 95% of her emails are archived on the State Department site. None of this has been corroborated by the State Department which will be taken up by the FBI and her email server.

Can Clinton be trusted to be truthful, transparent, responsible, and to make good decisions as our commander in chief? Or will she be the same lying, deceitful, and irresponsible leader who will take credit for other’s successes and blame others for her failures? Sound familiar, it should, it is four more years of Obama. For instance, both Obama and Clinton took credit for Qadaffi’s fall in Libya, but once the security situation worsened in Libya, they pointed their fingers at others. That is their pitiful leadership abilities.

Obama, Not Bush, is the War Criminal (Part I)

Believe it or not, there are actually many similarities between Bush and Obama and the fight on terror. First, Obama tried a troop surge strategy in Afghanistan, similar to what Bush used in Iraq to win that war. Obama’s effort failed only because he did not have the backbone to give the strategy a chance to win. Secondly, Obama has expanded Bush’s NSA metadata collection and thirdly, Obama expanded the Bush drone strategy.

The two obviously had some vastly different strategies to fight terror and it mostly evolved around civil liberties and intelligence gathering. Obama and democrats were obviously outraged by the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay. Hence, Obama has been on a mission to close Guantanamo Bay. He has negotiated with terrorists groups to release dozens of dangerous prisoners from Guantanamo. In one instance, he traded five terrorist leaders for an American military deserter – a terrible trade. Obama has increased drone attacks for one simple reason – he wants to kill terrorists and not capture them. He does not want any more enemy combatants in Guantanamo. Unfortunately, this strategy means less intelligence gathering to fight terrorism. Obama, has even given enemy combatants more rights – they are tried in civilian courts and not military tribunals. He has essentially given a terrorist more rights than a military person accused of committing a crime.

Terrorism and chaos in the Middle East has expanded under Obama. He withdrew troops too soon from Iraq, and he has been unwilling to fight expanding terrorist organizations such as ISIS. He called ISIS the “JV Team” and said al-Qaida was “dead” and “on the run” after the killing of Osama bin-Laden. Obama has since given a rosy outlook on the strength and condition of ISIS on several occasions. Well, it seems that the administration not only has less intelligence on terrorism, it also has been changing military intelligence reports to detail they are doing a better job fighting terrorism, specifically ISIS, than what is a reality.

The Bush administration was skewered by Democrats and the media when they went to war with Iraq and did not find any weapons of mass destruction. And let’s not forget that Democrats voted to go to war with Iraq. The problem was there was faulty intelligence. Some say the Bush administration doctored the intelligence. If that is true, then they would have planted some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is a difference between the entire country (and globe for that matter) acting on faulty intelligence and the country being lied to by altered intelligence. Obama is committing a crime and deceiving the American public, whereas Bush was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bush was acting to try to keep America safe whereas Obama just wants to finish his term to pass the problem onto the next President. Bush was truly acting in a responsible fashion whereas Obama is our biggest national security risk. In fact, Obama is acting no different than terrorist who deceive and try to manipulate personal perception through propaganda.

Who is Politicizing Benghazi?

Who is actually politicizing Benghazi? The media and Democrats are saying Republicans are politicizing the Benghazi attack by focusing their investigation on Hillary Clinton. They make it sound as if it is a witch hunt and there is no need to investigate the attack on the U.S. embassy that killed 4 Americans including the Ambassador. The truth of matter is that both the media and Democrats are also politicizing the Benghazi issue by only telling half-truths. It is probably true that Republicans want to destroy Hillary Clinton and that is there focus during this election season. Democrats would do the same to any Republican front runner under investigation for ties to some cover up. Kevin McCarthy’s gaffe is probably partially true, but truth be told, what is really hurting Hillary’s poll numbers is her email scandal and not so much Benghazi. When Clinton left the State Department her favorable ratings were high.

To add fuel to the media and Democrat storyline, a former staffer, Bradley Podliska, working on the Benghazi committee resigned claiming the focus is to destroy Hillary Clinton. Democrats of course moved to kill the committee but that failed.

I was in the car driving this past weekend and heard several different accounts of this news story by NPR, CBS, and NBC radio. They made it sound as if the sole purpose of the committee is to destroy Hillary Clinton and that there was no need for any investigation. Wow, really? The American public has yet to be told the true story of what happened on that day and there are dozens of important questions that need to be answered. What the media and Democrats do not tell you is that Podliska believes the families of those killed in the attack deserve answers, but he believes the focus should not just be on Clinton, but expanded to include other departments. Podliska never said the committee was on witch hunt and believes the committee is necessary. It just needs a wider focus to answer some questions such as:

Why where talking points changed to lie to the American public to cover up that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? Who changed the talking points and why? Why did Democrats politicize this event, cover up the truth, and blame a man (Nakaula) who made a film called “the Innocence of Muslims”? Why weren’t reinforcements sent to help those under attack at the embassy? Who gave the stand down order, which was essentially a death sentence for those under attack? Where was Obama when all this went down? Why didn’t the state department improve security as the situation deteriorated over time? Why is the Hillary response to the attack – “What does it matter”?

Actually, if the Democrats did not politicize the Benghazi attack and were truthful and transparent from the beginning then we would not be in the situation we are in today. If the media covered the story and really tried to get answers then we would not be in the situation we are in today. In other words, if the Democrats and media had not tried to cover up the story and protect Hillary Clinton, then there would be no need for a committee trying to find out the truth. Democrats and the media only have themselves to blame that Republicans are politicizing Benghazi and focusing on their darling Hillary Clinton. If Clinton did not feel she is the next President waiting then there would not be a need for the committee to focus on Clinton. The bottom line is that everyone is responsible for politicizing Benghazi – Clinton, Democrats, the Media, and now Republicans.

Pope Preaches Morality, Not Politics

The Pope was not being political when he was in the U.S. In fact, he was preaching the morals that most religions practice and preach around the globe. Liberals have mistaken many of Pope Francis’s viewpoints and therefore believe he is a Democrat and follows liberal political philosophies. This is not true, just as it is not true that more liberals will convert to Catholism based on the Pope’s beliefs.

The Pope preaches the sanctity of life and is anti-abortion. This is certainly not a view held by many feminists, liberals, or Democrats alike.

The Pope defended marriage between a man and women. Sure, Pope Francis said “if someone is gay and searches for the lord, and has good will, who am I to judge”. But when the Pope was in the U.S. he secretly met with Kim Davis, the disgruntled county clerk in Kentucky, defending her actions of not handing out marriage licenses to gays. Once again, this is hardly a liberal point of view based on their outrage over Davis’s actions.

Pope Francis talked about caring for the less fortunate. All religions talk about caring for the poor or others who struggle. Liberals feel they have a monopoly on this issue – They care for the poor and Republicans and conservatives do not. They believe the Pope is agreeing with their socialistic plans of spreading the wealth from the rich to the poor. They believe the Pope is agreeing with their views that owning a home is a right and healthcare and education should be free for all. However, the Pope never endorsed any such plans or theocracy. Pope Francis may not have that much faith in capitalism from his upbringing in Argentina, but if he saw how it generates jobs then he would become a believer. If he saw how lower taxes and strong economic growth create jobs and lift people from poverty, he would not argue with that result. In other words, the Pope would not disagree with any approach that solved the poverty issue on this planet – conservative or liberal.

Democrats think that Pope Francis sides with them on immigration. Once again, this is not entirely true. If immigrants coming to the U.S. are poor and needy and our economy and poverty programs are unable to pull them out of poverty then what is the point. The Pope may want America to take in more immigrants and grant amnesty to those who are here illegally, but the Pope already understands that the U.S. is already the most generous nation on the planet and is doing more than most countries around the globe.

Pope Francis talked about caring for our environment and leaving the world a better a place than when we entered. Once again, all religions preach this moral code. This does not mean climate change is manmade or is even occurring. It means curbing pollution and doing what is right. The Pope understands among the most needy people in the world, climate change is their least popular issue. After all, if you want to care for the needy it really does not make sense to pour billions of dollars into climate change philosophies.

The Pope understands that the Catholic religion, if it were company, would be the most profitable company on the planet. Yet, with all those profits, the Catholic religion can only do so much to thwart poverty, ease the flow of immigration and refugees, protect the environment for later generations, and stop abortions. You can have lots of manpower and money and still merely make a small dent in these issues. In fact, the Church and Pope realize it is important to prioritize what issues are most important. And that is not easy to do.

Pope Francis is not a liberal or conservative, but merely a person preaching moral behavior that is no different than the philosophy of any other religion.