Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
The Obama administration concluded in 2012 that al Qaeda posed no direct threat to the U.S. - and has sought to scale back the fight ever since, over intel officials' rising objections.
In 2012, the Obama administration produced a draft National Intelligence Estimate that reached a surprising conclusion: al Qaeda was no longer a direct threat to America. That classified assessment, which has never before been publicly disclosed, was in keeping with the message coming from the White House. President Obama rode to re-election in 2012 partly on the success of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.At rallies and in press conferences, the president and top officials publicly said al Qaeda was on the run.
But some senior U.S. intelligence officials, like Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Flynn, fought hard against that assessment, which amounted to an official pronouncement of the American intelligence community's collected wisdom. Flynn and his faction won a partial victory, striking the judgment that the terrorist group no longer posed a threat to the homeland. "Flynn and others at the time made it clear they would not go along with that kind of assessment," one U.S. intelligence officer who worked on the al Qaeda file told The Daily Beast. "It was basically: 'Over my dead body.'"
The rise in prominence of Nasir al Wuhayshi, the Yemeni head of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, underscores the transformation of al Qaida from a relatively small group led by one charismatic man into a diffuse global organization with many branches that pursue local objectives but follow a single ideology, according to counterterrorism analysts and officials.
The change has undermined the Obama administration's boast that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have "decimated" what's been called core al Qaida, according to veteran al Qaida watchers. Instead, the organization, no longer dependent on the leadership of a single personality, is growing, with authority now spread among leaders not just in Yemen but also in Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Egypt's Sinai. The branches that operate in those regions aren't affiliates, the experts say, they ARE al Qaida.
And the new face of al Qaida is Wuhayshi. As a teenager he left his native Yemen and went to Afghanistan to train in an al Qaida camp. He eventually became a close aide and confidante of Osama bin Laden.
Wuhayshi was arrested by the Iranians in 2001 and handed over to Yemeni authorities, who dumped him into a maximum-security prison in Sanaa. In 2006, he and 22 other prisoners tunneled to freedom in a headline-grabbing jailbreak. Three years later, he reappeared as the head of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the result of a merger between jihadists in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
He is said to enjoy the deep respect of his foot soldiers, drawing legitimacy from his successful jailbreak from Yemen's toughest prison, his many narrow escapes from U.S. drone strikes as well as his status as a protege of bin Laden.
So Osama bin Laden is dead? That's so 2011. Al Qaida is very much alive and getting stronger. Meanwhile, Obama doesn't know what to do...except to keep lying about it.
The big story on the eve of the second debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doing some sort of mea culpa in an interview with CNN while on a trip to Peru. It was all very sudden and the immediate reaction was that she had "fallen on her sword" on behalf of her boss, the President. But...did she?
I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State
Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts. The
president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about
specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the
ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs.
In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war,
there's always going to be confusion. And I think it is absolutely fair
to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried
to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, that
information has changed. We've gotten more detail, but that's not
surprising. That always happens.
What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game.
The statement started outas a rather generic "the buck stops here" admission that smacked of a head coach publicly taking the blame for not preparing his team while saving the tongue-lashing for the locker room and the practice field. A nice gesture, but not particularly illuminating. Also, note that she did not apologize for whatever it was she was "taking responsibility for" nor did she say anything that could possibly be interpreted as an apology. Nothing. What's the point of "taking responsibility for" something as serious as the death of four Americans if you're not willing to apologize?
Furthermore, her tone and mannerisms were remarkably upbeat for someone claiming to "take responsibility for" the death of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. This was pure Clintonian political theater. This wasa CYA moment designed to salvage her reputation, not Obama's. Given the deadly results of her apparent failure, one could easily conclude that a resignation would be in order. But that's not the way Clintons handle their messes.
That's all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all the
lying and covering up that followed? Yes, I used the unvarnished "L-word" because that’s what it was. How else to characterize UN
Ambassador Susan Rice running around telling everyone in earshot that
the Benghazi events were caused by an idiotic and unwatched YouTube
trailer when Occam's Razor — not to mention rocket-propelled grenades,
an ambassador dragged through the streets, and a safe house mysteriously
under fire — pointed to a terror attack commemorating September 11?
And then the president, acting like an errant husband unwilling to
confess his adultery (who do you believe – me or your lying eyes?),
repeated the same swill on The View nearly a week later. Unconscionable.
So while Hillary stepped forward and made a pretense of acceptingat least some of the blame, there are still plenty of questions that have yet to be officially answered. Her statementdidlittle to change the narrative, which for Barack Obama beganon Sept. 12, 2012, the day after the attack.The following indepth timeline is damning, to say the least.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post has come up with a list of questions that Hillary did not address but that need to be answered before this case can be satisfactorily settled. Guy Benson at Townhall.com pointed out on Monday that FNC's Chris Wallace asked David Axelrod a direct question to which Axelrod could not give a direct answer.
Without knowing what is inside Hillary Clinton's mind, it's clear that Team Obama was hoping that Hillary's fake mea culpa would be sufficient todefuse the political issue and bring the controversy to a close. This would allow the Obama administration and their allies in the media to claim that any attempt at further discussion about Benghazi on Romney's part would be nothing more than"playing politics" with the tragedy.
Indeed, Obama wants desperately to make the American people believe that it's Romney who has been politicizing the Benghazi debacle from the beginning.The media was working hard to do exactly that as early as Romney's presser the day after the attack. The media became a story in and of itself when they were heard on an open mic colluding with each other to manipulate Romney.
The reality is that it's Obama who was politicizing the issue of national security even before the attack occurred. He's the one who has spent the last year making the killing of Osama Bin Laden a political issue. He's the one who has been leaking classified intelligence to movie directors and his media lapdogs as political propaganda. He has always thought that administering justice on Bin Laden would make him invulnerable on the issue of national security. He thought wrong. But because of the non-stop bragging, including the pathetic pep rally the DNC held in Charlotte, he invited retaliation from Al-Qaeda.
Obama used the death of Bin Laden to highlight his claim that Al-Qaeda has been decimated, forced onto the defensive and is no longer a serious threat to American security. Al-Qaeda's brutal response was delivered on September 11, 2012. Obama's been lying about it ever since.
It's easy to imagine the outrage and humiliation that Obama felt when he found out that Al-Qaeda had struck back and killed four Americans, including the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the Carter administration. Obsessed with winning re-election, Obama apparently couldn't handle the idea that his great national security achievement and the false claims of "victory" over Al-Qaeda could be damaged. So he orchestrated a coverup that continues to this day.
