Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Obama is Bursting the Left's Bubbles

Early 2014 will be viewed historically as the period when most of the American left’s bubbles detached themselves completely from reality and wafted off to Unicornland.
Everyone, without exception, lives in a bubble, an area of individual consciousness made up of education, experience, and worldview.  These bubbles naturally differ due to intelligence, lifestyle, and endless other factors. An Einstein’s bubble may be nearly coterminous with the walls of the universe itself; an imbecile’s may consist of little more than regular meals, a warm place to sit, and the occasional kind word.
In the modern era it has become fashionable to create and fully upholster one’s own bubble out of the rag ends of various ideologies, fads, and daydreams. To in effect attempt to establish an individual reality, more often than not at odds with the world as it actually exists. Such efforts quickly come up against individual limitations, both intellectual and emotional, but that doesn’t seem to discourage people.
Nowhere has this impulse been greater than as involves politics, and nowhere has it been more fervent than on the left. Leftism is a hyperbubble in and of itself, consisting of nearly as many sub-bubbles as there are leftists (it has long been understood that leftism is essentially the politicization of petty personal grievances). Living in leftist bubbles -- whether feminist, racial, academic, communist, or what have you -- amounts to a way of life for millions of Americans.
But left-wing intellectual bubbles have been cold, desolate places since the Reagan era. With the catastrophe of the Great Society, the undeniable success of Reaganism, and at last the collapse of the USSR, leftist illusions were shattered, leaving little but blasted dreams and bitterness,  expressed as PC and related programs that amounted to little more than gestures of revenge.
Then came Obama, who brought it all back to life again.
All of it -- the dream of a green economy, the dream of universal pacifism, of a degraded and defeated United States, of a middle class subservient to its intellectual betters, of a universal nanny state, of the conviction that the leftist delusion is intertwined with the basic nature of reality itself. It became once more possible to believe in the coming socialist dawn that had motivated leftists since 1917.
This is the secret of Obama’s appeal, and the explanation of the long-pondered mystery of what he’s really up to, what his actual goal is. The truth is, there is no goal. Or rather, the goal, the plan, involves simply lighting up all those bereft and chilly bubbles abiding in major urban areas, college towns, and fringes along each coast. That is the ultimate goal, and there is nothing coherent or comprehensible beyond it. A fundamentally stupid man, one who time and again has demonstrated complete lack of understanding of the world as it exists, Obama is as enrapt with illusion as his followers. (Oh, I’ll grant him a kind of feral cleverness, but any con artist has that.)  Obama exists in his own bubble, in no way more valid than that of any other American leftist.
To examine a few examples, we’ll start with the military illusion -- namely, that it is U.S. power that causes all wars. This is derived quite simply from Marxist-Leninist theory: wars are a byproduct of “capitalism.” The U.S., as the premier “capitalist” state, is ipso facto, the cause of war. 
This is the primum mobile of the modern American left, the driver of such people as Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Medea Benjamin. There is a list that circulates throughout the left, consisting of the countries “invaded” by the U.S. in the 20th century. The list includes such nations as France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Philippines in 1944. The fact that most leftists have no idea what was going in 1944 is beside the point. Those countries were invaded, and the U.S. done it. End of story. The same is true of Grenada, Kuwait, and Iraq in later years.
So Obama’s debasing of the U.S. military was one of the most welcome elements of his ascension to office (long with the introduction of PC into the military, and enforcing feminist and racist dogma).   Iraq and Afghanistan have been abandoned, deployment of missile defenses in Central Europe was cancelled, Obama has devoted himself to “leading from behind,” with results more disastrous than any since the 60s. The oafish Chuck Hagel was appointed secretary of defense, announcing recently that the Army would be cut to pre-WW II level (in the midst of ongoing hostilities), the Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles -- the most successful guided missiles in the arsenal of any nation in history -- are to cease production, not to mention contemptuous cuts in military benefits that are somehow not matched by any similar cuts for public-sector unions.
The outcome has been exactly the opposite of left-wing expectations. Collapse of public order in Iraq is the most trivial result. Far more important is wholesale descent into chaos along the North African littoral, a revanchist Russia invading Georgia and Ukraine, still-vague threats from China, and an aggressive and defiant Shi’ite Iran completing its quest for nuclear weapons.
It’s no coincidence that the invasion of Crimea followed only two days after the Hagel’s announcement of deeper military cuts. More recently we have seen the brazen and repeated buzzing of an American warship in international waters. Eastern Ukraine may well have been seized by the time you read this. Such incidents will occur at least once a month or more often from now until Obama leaves office. He can’t do anything about them because he has stripped the country of necessary assets. (e.g., only a single carrier battle group is now on call. The rest are either committed or on “stretched” refitting -- that is, beached to save money.) Furthermore, any attempted ripostes on his part would inevitably fail, because not a single one of his advisors -- Valerie Jarrett, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Hagel, Samantha Power, and go on as long as you like, is capable of any strategic insight or grasp of complex planning. Benghazi revealed as much.
Obama has unleashed the hounds of hell across vast swaths of the globe. And what is the left-wing response? There isn’t one. There isn’t one because none of this is happening. Not a single element of it has penetrated into the bubbles.
Another leftist delusion is that Republicans are constantly out to put in place what is termed a “surveillance state,” with the citizenry under constant observation and the government operating in total secrecy, beyond control by democratic institutions. Recall the squealing about the Bush administration’s very limited attempts to track terrorists though foreign phone calls and financial transactions. The revelations of the Mephistophelian Edward Snowden (“he that wills forever evil, and does forever good”) have exposed precisely such a surveillance state, with not a single Republican on deck. Obama has decreed operations orders of magnitude larger than any yet seen, directed at American citizens, fully in defiance of the 4th Amendment and two centuries of government practice.
Now we have Dianne Feinstein complaining about CIA surveillance of Congress on her way to the shuffleboard court. The IRS harassing individuals and organizations that just happen to oppose the government while challenging Congress to do anything about it. Eric Holder insulting Congressmen to their faces. Even leftists ranging from Glenn Greenwald to Jonathan Turley have expressed serious alarm.
But the left as a whole? It still hasn’t penetrated
ObamaCare speaks for itself, with Kathleen Sebelius let go just as the program achieved “success” by eking out , at the last minute, just over the number required to keep itself going. Now as the system collapses in much the same fashion as an over-massive star transforming itself into a black hole, Kathleen can be blamed for everything -- the failed website, lack of planning, the upcoming spate of deaths, and letting O down. But she’s lucky -- in other times and other nations she would be picked up late at night in an unmarked, unnumbered car and driven off into oblivion. Here she simply has to go back to Kansas.
On to “climate change.” The major impetus behind the warming hoax has been to justify government control more far-reaching than any in history, overseeing every last aspect of life down to how many squares of toilet paper are allowed.  Which is why we have the UN, John Kerry, and Obama himself doubling down on the warming fantasy even as the country emerges from the coldest winter since records were first kept, with temperatures in the 20s persisting even into the third week of April. Much has been made concerning Geoffrey Parker’s Global Crisis, a book detailing the effects of climate change in the 17th century, without any mention that the book deals with global cooling. We appear to be headed into another such epoch. What this means is interesting times as marginal nations go to wall and the current international modus vivendi collapses under the impact of failing crops, less food, and waves of starving refugees stumbling across entire continents. But billions will be spent and prizes handed out for another half-century to maintain the warming illusion, while absolutely nothing is done to prepare for universal cooling.
The best way to undermine leftism is to let it operate for awhile. Expose the country at large to the nightmare realities of life under a Lyndon Johnson, a Jimmy Carter, or an Obama, and you will inoculate the citizenry for a generation to come.
This is occurring. We are seeing the utter collapse of the leftism program as it exists in the U.S., a collapse merely intensified and sped up by the fact that the Messiah has cut every corner and broken every rule of American governance. His abuse of pen and phone have so far produced only chaos. There is no reason to believe the next two years will be any different.
And all those bubbles?  They’ll begin to dim and cool down once again. The inhabitants -- the millions of true-believing Birkenstock wearers across the country -- will attempt to keep their spirits up with tales of betrayal and racism, but it won’t last. Eventually they will reach the same state they were in before Obama ever appeared. There they will remain, because the one thing Obama will have done is reinforce the legend of a leftist rebirth. These people will now never emerge into a real America. Instead they will wait for the appearance of a true messiah, sleeping until Der Tag in the same manner as Charlemagne or Barbarossa.
As for conservatives, this means opportunity -- if they can overcome their own fantasies and delusions, fortunately not as universal and all-consuming as those of the left. But that will wait for another time.

I think one of the most destructive acts of the Obama "fundamental change" of America is the complete politicalization of what are supposed to be non political government agencies and bureaucracies. This will take a very long time to reverse. His  and his minions activity in balkanizing the country and setting one group against another is such a fundamental change from the out of many one thoughts of our Founders. 

As the author says, he's a fundamentally stupid man who encourages domestic dissension and anti Americanism abroad. 

Another leftist thug added to the MSM team Obama. Now, will somebody post where he lives.

Posted By Brendan Bordelon 

On Monday, The Washington Post announced it had hired Philip Bump, a journalist currently at Atlantic magazine’s The Wire, to cover politics for their daily blog The Fix.
The move set off a chain of congratulations from across the political press corps.
But lost in the media love fest was Bump’s partisan past — a history left unspoken in either the Post’s official announcement or any of the Twitter applause. Not only does Bump’s archive at The Wire betray a palpable bias in favor of progressivism; his career as a journalist began when he headed a vicious pro-labor blog which published the names and addresses of opponents later targeted by unions.
“We’re excited to announce that Philip Bump ​will be joining The Fix team,” the Post’s public relations team trumpeted Monday afternoon. “Bump has written about politics and the environment at Grist and has contributed to The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Daily and Huffington Post.”
The Post’s announcement added that Bump is a former designer at Adobe Systems, a participant in Americorps and a veteran of several political campaigns in Silicon Valley, California.
But what were these political campaigns? According to the political blog San Jose Inside, in 2009 Bump worked for the South Bay Labor Council (SBLC), a Silicon Valley-based union group with a penchant for making the political personal. Cindy Chavez, the group’s former chief executive, frequently targeted political opponents and local journalists who dared to stray from her preferred storyline.
Bump, for his part, was SBLC’s political director and administrator of “San Jose Revealed,” a pro-union website which published vitriolic hit pieces against the Council’s perceived enemies. Although the website was run anonymously, San Jose Inside discovered Bump’s connection through an examination of electronic evidence and two sources who alleged the SBLC made payments to him.
Under his direction, “San Jose Revealed” published the personal address — obtained under spurious circumstances — of a frequent target of pro-union groups. This individual’s home was later vandalized, with property destroyed and defiled with swastika graffiti.
Bump also reportedly published a map to the house of a deputy district attorney who prosecuted violent Bay Area gangs for a living, shamed a local business owner’s daughter for an unpaid garbage bill and posted the dating profile of an opposing local politician.
While Bump may have moderated his tactics after he began working at more mainstream media outlets, he still wore his liberal politics on his sleeve.
A cursory review of even his most recent articles for The Wire — one mocking former Republican governor Jeb Bush’s bank account, one admittedly “trolling” the conservative Heritage Foundation for “making Obamacare work,” still another suggesting inherent racism in the Republican Party — reveals a talented writer with an unapologetically progressive bent.
Past articles show a proclivity to wax apocalyptic about the scourges of global warming and gun violence, with one piece excoriating Americans who fail to take the “gigantic problem” of climate change seriously and another advocating forced scarcity of bullets as a way to work around Second Amendment protections.
This isn’t necessarily a problem in and of itself; many journalists betray open partisanship, and Bump’s pieces appear to be well-written and logically consistent. But for a paper like the Post, which prides itself in objectivity (particularly in its political reporters), it’s noteworthy how little attention was given to their newest hire’s sharp left-wing bent.
Contrast that with the Post’s hiring of Robert Costa, another recent Post employee poached from the conservative National Review. Despite Costa’s utterly objective reporting on the Republican Party — he never wrote an editorial or column for National Review and took care to express that he’s not on the “conservative team” — his hiring last fall was met with surprise by those who never expected the Post to take on even a perceived conservative journalist.
Newsbusters called it “perhaps the first time in decades that a top-tier ‘mainstream’ news outlet has hired away a reporter from a right-leaning publication.” And on the other end of the spectrum, Esquire Magazine noted that Costa “came up through the various nurseries of the longtime white-supremacist journal, National Review.” Unlike Bump, almost no one ignored the ideological component of Costa’s hiring.
In the same Esquire piece, Charles Pierce writes that although Costa’s reporting on last fall’s government shutdown was impeccable, he still “await[s] the first national political reporter that the Post hires from, say, The Nation.”
With Bump — who once contributed to the ultra-liberal Mother Jones — Pierce’s wait appears to be over.

The stunningly naive west

‘Carloads’ of terrorists turned Oregon ranch into training camp

An Oregon woman says she thought she was opening up her family’s ranch to local Muslims to teach them how to grow and can veggies — and that her husband was even expecting a tax write-off.
But US-born Muslim convert Eva Hatley testified in Manhattan federal court Tuesday that after the “carloads’’ of fellow Muslims she met through her mosque arrived at the 160-acre ranch in Bly in 1999, the couple watched helplessly as their home was turned into an al Qaeda training camp.
“It wasn’t anything like I envisioned for the property,” insisted Hatley, testifying at the trial of one-eyed, hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Hatley, a two-time witness-protection-program flunky who prefers going by her Muslim name, Ayat Hakimah, said other Muslims from London would soon arrive on al-Masri’s orders.
Hatley’s then-husband, Ivan Rule, was temporarily out of town “shepherding” while his longtime ranch was being overrun with terrorists-in-training, she said.
According to al-Masri’s lawyer last week, the camp was similar to being in the “Cub Scouts,’’ with the men riding horses, tending to little lambs and telling campfire stories.
But Hatley said one of the arrivals, militant Oussama Kassir, boasted about previously running training camps in Afghanistan and being a “hit man” for Osama bin Laden.
She said Kassir told her that al-Masri was his “leader” and that al-Masri sent him and others to the Bly ranch to create a “training camp” where men would learn to shoot guns, throw knives and do calisthenics along open, spacious fields abutting a ravine and desolate dirt roads.
“He said he was there to train men for jihad,” she said. “He said that Abu Hamza sent him. He intended to train them to fight.”
The visitors, she claimed, said the ranch resembled Afghanistan.
She added that some had CDs with information on how to make poisons to “kill people” and regularly “talked” about “robbing and killing truck drivers” on nearby roads.
Kassir, she recalled, claimed there were plans to eventually dig a hillside compound at the ranch for al-Masri to hide out in.
“I was shocked,” said Hatley, who claims she fled the ranch in fear in December 1999, four months after moving in.
During cross-examination, al-Masri’s lawyer Jeremy Schneider painted the gun-loving Hatley as paranoid and having a shady track record.
She admitted to him under oath that she agreed to marry her husband after only their first encounter — and had tricked him into thinking she had money.
She claimed she feared that Rule — who was married four previous times and had 18 kids — wanted to kill her and had “suffocated” his previous wife to death.
When asked if Rule, al-Masri, Kassir or others who stayed at the ranch had ever threatened her, she said, “No, but I am still afraid.”
Hatley went into witness protection in 2004 but was kicked out years later for telling one of her new neighbors her secret.
She was given a second chance, but the feds booted her again after she violated multiple rules, including driving with a suspended license.
Besides setting up the training camp, al-Masri, 56, is accused of conspiring in a 1998 kidnapping in Yemen that resulted in the deaths of four tourists and committing other terror crimes. He faces life in prison if convicted.
Kassir, a Lebanese-born Swede, was convicted in 2009 of plotting to help al Qaeda recruit by trying to set up a weapons training post at the ranch and distributing terrorist training manuals over the Internet.

You mean just like the Ukraine's Crimea region? Who in their right mind would take him seriously.

Obama pledges Japan islands support as Asian tour begins

US President Barack Obama has assured Japan that islands at the centre of its territorial dispute with China are covered by a bilateral defence treaty.

If the Islamists could only find a way to blame the Amish. Facts are facts but not to those who reject reality

Visitors outside the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum, which includes a documentary that discusses the subject of Islam and Muslims.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
This story is included with an NYT Now subscription.
Learn More »
Past the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.
The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed with his voice are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, rendered in foreign-accented English translations.
The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has suddenly become over the last few weeks a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.
With the museum opening on May 21, it has shown the film to several groups, including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film and requested changes. But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.
Sitting in his mosque, Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, answered questions about why he found a film about Al Qaeda at the museum deeply offensive. CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”
Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say they vetted past several scholars.
“From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group,” said Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and museum.
But the disagreement has been ricocheting through scholarly circles in recent weeks. At issue is whether it is appropriate or inflammatory for the museum to use religious terminology like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attacks, without also making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.
The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are frequently used in public discourse to describe extremist Muslim ideologies. But the problem with using such language in a museum designed to instruct people for generations is that most visitors are “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims,” said Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University.
“The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,” Dr. Ahmed said. “But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”
The question of how to represent Islam in the museum has long been fraught. It was among the first issues that came up when the museum began asking for advice in about 2005 from a panel of mostly Lower Manhattan clergy members who had been involved in recovery work after the attacks.
Peter B. Gudaitis, who brought the group together as the chief executive of an interfaith organization, said the museum rejected certain Islam-related suggestions from the panel, such as telling the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a Muslim cadet with the New York Police Department who died in the attacks and was initially suspected as a perpetrator.
There was wide agreement, however, that the exhibit space should make clear that Muslims were not just perpetrators, but also among the attack’s victims, mourners and recovery workers — an integral part of the fabric of American life.
A year ago, concerns about how the film might be viewed by Muslim visitors were raised at a screening by a select group of Sept. 11 family members, law enforcement and others. As a result, several months ago, museum officials invited the interfaith group to view the film and tour the still unfinished exhibits.
The panel was pleased to see photographs of Muslims mourning included in photo montages. The museum also includes stories of Muslim victims and the reflections of Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, on the impact of the attacks on America, the museum said.
“In general, everybody was very moved and impressed,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
Peter B. Gudaitis with the Rev. Chloe Breyer, left, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, and the Rev. Ruth Yoder Wenger. They are members of an interfaith panel that has raised objections to the film.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
But then the group screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what they felt was its inflammatory tone and use of the words “jihad” and “Islamist” without, they felt, sufficient explanation.
“As soon as it was over, everyone was just like, wow, you guys have got to be kidding me,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
He and another member of the panel, the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, began to organize a response. On Monday, they sent the museum’s directors a formal letter on behalf of the 11 members of the interfaith group who had seen the film, asking for edits. Their concern was heightened by the personal experience many on them have had with anti-Muslim sentiment, including the national uproar over the construction of a mosque and Muslim community center a few blocks from ground zero.
The response from the museum was immediate, though accidental: Clifford Chanin, the education director, inadvertently sent the group an email intended solely for the museum’s senior directors, indicating he was not overly concerned.
“I don’t see this as difficult to respond to, if any response is even needed,” he wrote.
The museum did remove the term “Islamic terrorism” from its website earlier this month, after another activist, Todd Fine, collected about 100 signatures of academics and scholars supporting its deletion.
In interviews, several leading scholars of Islam said that the term “Islamic terrorist” was broadly rejected as unfairly conflating Islam and terrorism, but the terms Islamist and jihadist can be used, in the proper context, to refer to Al Qaeda, preferably with additional qualifiers, like “radical,” or “militant.”
But for Mr. Elazabawy, and many other practicing Muslims, the words “Islamic” and “Islamist” are equally inappropriate to apply to Al Qaeda, and the word “jihad” refers to a positive struggle against evil, the opposite of how they view the terror attacks.
“When you use the word ‘Islam,’ that means they are a part of us,” he said in an interview. “We reject that.”
For his part, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, defended the film, whose script he vetted.
“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al Qaeda comes from,” Dr. Haykel said.
The museum declined to make the film available for viewing by The New York Times.
Michael Frazier, a museum spokesman, said the film would be shown in a gallery that also had two large interpretive panels illustrating how Al Qaeda was portrayed as “a far fringe of Islam.” Museum officials emphasized that Mr. Chanin and the rest of the museum took the concerns about the film very seriously.
“What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11,” said Mr. Daniels, the president of the museum foundation. “We have gone out of the way to tell the truth.”

Must do what's important first.

Obama Skipped Aunt's Funeral; Went Golfing Instead

Now even the Burning Man anarchists are an arm of the telling

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat

Burning Man organizer plans ‘Bundyfest’ — 30 days of anarchy next to standoff site

Obama armed the radical Islamists. Let's see the media blame this on Bush. Another example of the incurious US media

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

  • Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
  • Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
  • The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
  • The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
  • US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot
'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
'The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.'
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
Scroll down for video
The Citizens Committee on Benghazi released its interim findings on April 22, 2014 in Washington. Pictured are (L-R) Clare Lopez, Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic, Admiral (Ret.) James 'Ace' Lyons, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons and civil rights attorney John Clarke
The Citizens Committee on Benghazi released its interim findings on April 22, 2014 in Washington. Pictured are (L-R) Clare Lopez, Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic, Admiral (Ret.) James 'Ace' Lyons, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons and civil rights attorney John Clarke
On September 11, 2012 armed terror-linked militias attacked U.S. diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and driving the United States out of that part of the country
On September 11, 2012 armed terror-linked militias attacked U.S. diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and driving the United States out of that part of the country
'The White House and senior Congressional members,' the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, 'deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.'
'Some look at it as treason,' said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission's research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now 'all in Syria.'
'Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, but he was being marginalized,' Kubic recalled. 'Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate' shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
'But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,' the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,' Kubic said, 'but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.'
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by 'verifiably ... pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.'
Christopher Stevens served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 11, 2012 when he was killed in the attack
Christopher Stevens served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 11, 2012 when he was killed in the attack
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 23 that it mattered little why the Benghazi diplomatic compound was attacked: 'What difference, at this point, does it make?'
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 23 that it mattered little why the Benghazi diplomatic compound was attacked: 'What difference, at this point, does it make?'
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration's unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, 'led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)' when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,' the commission told reporters.
The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group's findings.
'We don't claim to have all the answers here,' said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
'We hope you will, please, pursue this,' he told reporters. 'Check it out. Challenge us.'
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: 'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours'
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: 'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours'
The commission and AIM filed 85 document requests under the Freedom Of Information Act, hitting the Department of Defense, State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency with demand after demand.
But most of its information has come from insiders with deep knowledge of the flow of weapons in Libya and elsewhere in the African Maghreb.
Admiral James 'Ace' Lyons told the group that he believes the raid on the Benghazi compound was intended as a kidnapping exercise, aimed at snatching U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and demanding a prisoner swap for the 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman.
Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in federal prison for planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center garage in New York City. He also masterminded a plan, later foiled, to blow up the United Nations, both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building where the FBI had a base of operations.
A senior FBI source, Lyons said Tuesday, 'told me that was the plan.'
The attack, history shows, grew in intensity and resulted in the deaths of Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.
Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.
'I'm going to tell you that's not true,' he said. 'We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.'
'The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.'
Killed: An image captured by a cellular phone camera shows the arrest of strongman Muammar Gaddafi in Sirte, Libya on October 20, 2011
Killed: An image captured by a cellular phone camera shows the arrest of strongman Muammar Gaddafi in Sirte, Libya on October 20, 2011
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez accused the U.S. government of allowing arms to flow to al-Qaeda militants who opposed Gaddafi in 2011, 'switching sides in the war on terror'
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez accused the U.S. government of allowing arms to flow to al-Qaeda militants who opposed Gaddafi in 2011, 'switching sides in the war on terror'
Some of the group's claims strain credibility, including the assertion that the Obama administration's early effort to blame the Benghazi attack on a protest against a crude anti-Muslim YouTube video 'appears to have been well-coordinated with U.S.Muslim Brotherhood organizations as well as Islamic state members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).'
Those groups, the commission noted, 'all joined in condemnation of the video, and, even more troubling, issued calls for restrictions on Americans’ free speech rights.'
But Simmons, the former CIA officer, criticized the Obama administration on the familiar refrain of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaiming in a Senate hearing that it mattered little why the Benghazi facilities were struck.
'They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren't,' Simmons said of the four Americans who died.
'I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, "What difference does it make?" – should be an alarm bell for all Americans.
'It haunts me,' Simmons said. 'I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.'
The group has called for a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the Benghazi episode. A total of 189 House members have signed on to a bill that would create the committee, which would be bipartisan and have sweeping powers to subpoena the executive branch.
House Speaker John Boehner, Lopez said Tuesday, 'he blocked it. One has to wonder if he and Congress have had some sort of briefing on what happened.'
Kubic insisted that Congress is unable to break logjams in the Obama administration and find out what happened in the days leading up to and following the Benghazi attack without a new committee.
'If they don't have strong subpoena power, if they don't have the ability to do long-term cross examination, it won't work,' he said.

New Information about the Benghazi Attack

Washington Times reporter Guy Taylor gives an update on Benghazi.