The President fired the IRS Commissioner Stephen Miller, the guy due to leave next month anyway. Take that!!! Wait, wait; he’s actually going to hang around awhile to “manage the transition” and to appear before a Congressional hearing on Friday. Will Mr. Miller go quietly? Does Mr. Miller have a ‘deal’? The President did the absolute minimum he could get away with, it buys him a day or two, but that’s all. Not the best crisis management skills we’ve ever seen.

The President, in addressing the IRS, once again, ignited politics by warning people (Republicans) not to be political. The President apparently suffers from some rare form of political Tourettes Syndrome as he simply cannot stop himself from warning others off politics as he engages in it himself. The President signaled the possible point of defense for IRS actions; “ambiguity in the law.” The Bill of Rights is fairly clear, Free Speech, Freedom of Association; ambiguity?

The President, as he so often does, allows himself to be defined by what he will not do. In this case no independent investigations were announced in any of the three scandals now facing the administration. The irony is that we have a government under assault for, at the lowest common denominator, the lack of a moral center, unlawful wielding of political power and exceptionally poor judgment preparing to investigate itself once again. Oh no, we can’t talk about it, it’s an ongoing investigation. A couple more investigations and Mr. Carney will be saved from himself as everything will be under investigation and nothing can be spoken of. If the President, as he says, finds the IRS situation “inexcusable and intolerable” sending anyone other than a special prosecutor to address it lacks the essential credibility that is in question to begin with.

If the President was looking for a Michael Douglass; “I am the American President” moment, he fell a little short!

The President is also hanging on to some of the Benghazi fictions. He continues to repeat aspects of the situation that have already either been disproven or, at the very least, cast in extreme doubt. The President said yesterday that the State Department ARB (Accountability Review Board) looked into “every element” of the Benghazi tragedy. Ambassador Pickering says they did not look into all aspects of Benghazi, including the ‘talking points’.

Ah, yes,the release of the Benghazi talking point e-mails. The most telling aspect of the e-mails is that as the process went on, no one stood up and reminded everyone in the chain that they had wandered so far as to not be in touch with the truth anymore. Friday at 3:00PM from HPSCI; “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” We also have additional proof that the attack on Benghazi was to be dealt with in the context of a crime. An e-mail from the CIA General Counsel warns that they have “express instructions from the National Security Council, the Department of Justice and the FBI not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this, in light of the criminal investigation.”

Most of the President’s energy will, apparently, be directed at blaming others and castigating his political opposition. This is a losing strategy, the ‘blame game’ is getting tired, even to Democrats so says Kristen Powers. Hooray for political opposition, one can only imagine where we would be without it.

The White House Staff, reportedly, lives in fear of Ms. Jarrett being unhappy. She has the unfettered ear of both the President and First Lady. She is a fine demonstration of hard ball Chicago politics.

She was also totally unprepared to assume a role as the Presidents ‘go to’ advisor; no background in foreign affairs, no political experience outside the bounds of Chicago and no demonstrable leadership skills. What she is, is trusted by the President and First Lady.

The current scandals in progress might easily track back to her putting them firmly in the Oval Office. She has made enough people miserable that it is within the realm of possibility to assume that one of them may be prepared to drop a dime on her. The IRS has targeted Conservative groups as has the EPA. It’s starting to smell like a strategy that is either a conspiracy of intent or a gosh darn “I was told to do it” conspiracy.

The isolation of the President, so well orchestrated by Ms. Jarrett, has resulted in very little support from Democrats in Congress. It’s not only the Republicans that have been ‘frozen out’ of the Presidents attention. Many Democrats are now comfortable complaining about the same thing. Democrats have to distance themselves from both the IRS and AP and therefore from the President. The House faces an election in eighteen months as do some Senators, the absence of direct relationships and support from the Oval Office will make it easy for Democrats to put the next election ahead of the desires of a truly lame duck President which is what these scandals will result in. The President’s plan to use the 2014 election to leap back to his agenda with control of both houses of Congress is now DOA.

The Press, now finding themselves in the cross hairs, has finally woken up. Jay Carney has succeeded in making a fool of himself and ruining any credibility he may still have with the White House press corps. Brian Williams of NBC opened his news program with a comparison to Nixon. Maureen Dowd is all over Benghazi, and the EPA story has just started to see the light of day. Scott Pelly is talking about how many times the Press has gotten it wrong lately. Chip Reid took on Mr. Carney over the refusal to admit that the IRS confession represented an actual fact. Trey Hardin of ABC News says he has a ‘strong sense of certainty’ that West Wing staff was involved in IRS targeting. How long before we see the panel of ‘journalists’ on PBS engaging in their periodic self flagellation that knows neither bounds nor lessons learned.

Why the turnover in Chiefs of Staff at the White House? Likely, it’s the well reported Jack Boot style of Ms. Jarrett so intent on protecting the President that the very idea of something outside a hollow narrative is deemed unimportant.

The President doesn’t want to ‘rush to judgment! In a White House where there has been some sense of transparency or consistency we might take him seriously. The President, however, has had something to say about nearly everything, frequently absent facts. We all remember the ‘Beer Summit’. The President has also said during a radio address; “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”.

Last week Greg Hicks told the truth and sent your administration into a serious spin that was badly mishandled. Rumor has it a CIA whistleblower is in line to do the same related to Benghazi.

Mr. President, do yourself a favor, fire Valerie Jarrett and get yourself a new team. Get a team that will be less concerned with protecting you and more concerned with confronting you. Keep in mind that if you choose to sacrifice underlings, they could and will turn on you. Ms. Jarrett is no doubt looking for the appropriate Lambs to sacrifice, if you want to save your bacon, she’s the one who should go.

The President is making it clear that he was very clear about being unclear! This dissembling and lack of clarity is truly worthy of Bill Clinton. You see, there are no facts until ‘the investigation is complete’. But the investigations are never complete; therefore we have no ‘facts’! Ambassador Pickering did not find it necessary to speak with Secretary Clinton because he spoke to the people around her. Quite an investigative technique we’re applying here to get at the facts.

What the President was clear about, all the way through the return of the bodies and his address at the U.N. was that the damn video was to blame. The State Department ran advertising in Pakistan distancing itself from the video. The President should, at least, have been clear that a significant portion of the pundit class did not buy Susan Rice’s video excuse to begin with and that ongoing insistence on it signaled that ‘something was up’. The repetition of the falsehood simply made it worse.

The President’s staff had the original CIA advisory that it was terrorism and that is was Ansar al Sharia. They had the NSA intercepts from the participants in Benghazi. The Intelligence Community knew the name of the group involved in Benghazi; they knew who the leadership of that group was. The NY Times interviewed a key individual involved in Ansar al Sharia as he sat at a Café in Benghazi sipping a fruit Frappe, completely dismissive of the U.S. and in no apparent fear that he would face consequences. They knew the Libyan President called it terrorism, he as well, knew exactly who was involved. They knew that their ‘local security force’ in Benghazi had ties to terror organizations; the ‘Martyrs Brigade’ part of their name may have been a tip off! The administration had ongoing reports being processed through a variety of command and oversight structures the night of the attacks. Through it all, the President remained, clearly, ‘unclear’.

Perhaps had the President taken a little time to follow up during the evening, given that it was ‘clearly’ a life and death situation, he would have been able to achieve a small degree of clarity.

Fact is no one is buying the President’s spin or its incomprehensible repetition. Add to it the IRS, the Associated Press wiretap and Greg Hick’s testimony last week and the feet of clay are beginning to crumble before our very eyes.

The administration now faces the IRS scandal and the Associated Press wiretaps. The administration is managing to unite both opponents and supporters over these issues. Democrats must be wondering how far down the road they want to travel with the President. Senate Democrats have essentially killed gun legislation. Rep. Elijah Cummings’s opening statement at the Benghazi hearings last week were an embarrassment, not to mention insulting. Leader Pelosi’s statements result in derision on a continual basis. Three scandals and the attempts at cover up could easily impact the 2014 elections negatively for Democrats if they hang in there with President and the President loses all credibility, which he seems intent on doing.

This administration’s political strategy is well reported and focused on the 2014 mid-term elections. Re-taking the house would unleash the President’s Progressive agenda through the end of the President’s second term. One would have to consider that strategy in jeopardy to what has clearly evolved into an arrogance of power that dismisses outside ‘noise’ or criticism in favor of sycophantic support for the President’s every utterance.

Mr. President; are you having any second thoughts about Valerie Jarrett these days??

“What’s the matter Barack can’t sleep?”

“Damn right I can’t sleep, I’m losing my MoJo here!”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, I told the Press that Benghazi was old news, purely political and that those damn Republicans were turning it into a political circus and they didn’t drop the story. I mean, this is simple, I give them their talking points, they run with it and attack the opposition, now those jackasses are still digging.” He yawns, “At least I’ve still got Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews.”

“So what,” she replied, “there’s no there, there; right?

“Well, there might be an issue or two I’d rather they didn’t know about and if they come up with a connection to Syria it’s going to get really nasty.” “To make matters worse Carney completely blew the briefing because…because, well, they just kept asking questions, then more questions, hard ones; I mean, who do they think they are, it’s just not right.”

“Well, Barack they are journalists and really, you have to give them some credit, they’ve been exceptionally well behaved up to now.”

“I know, I know, but you could just see it in their eyes, they weren’t buying the IRS story either.” And Plouffe, damn him, he just couldn’t keep his mouth shut, who does he think he is? Me?” Hell I can’t even count on ultra Liberals anymore. Dennis Kucinich torched me on Benghazi and the IRS, no cover, no excuses, no parsing; that little puissant just came out and said the White House was guilty of playing politics in both situations, on Fox News no less.

“Barack, you’ve got to calm down, the press will circle back to unquestioned adoration: you know they will”.

I don’t know Michelle, everybody hates this IRS thing; both sides, we did attack that Romney donor during the campaign and then hit him with a couple of audits. There’s a change going on out there. To make matters worse that SOB Bill Clinton called and told me I’d better not throw Hillary under the bus for Benghazi or some very bad things were going to find their way into the press.” “Just what I need, a born again hick threatening me! Me! Panetta won’t take my calls and Petraeus is still pissed off at having a dime dropped on him.” “Hell, even Maureen Dowd’s on my ass. Remind me not to invite her to any more parties.”

“Don’t worry darling you’re the President you can fix this stuff; you survived admitted drug use, campaign finance crap, extreme left wing associations, burying your records, citizenship, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayres, my job at the hospital, and the Tony Resko deal. You’ll be fine, this too will pass; the press will come around.”

“Yea, maybe.”

“Now, now, here; smoke a joint it’ll help you sleep.”

Despite all of what we’ve known about Benghazi and could postulate, the main stream media position was to either ignore it or trash the motives of the people who stayed with the story. It is now abundantly clear, even to the MSM, that the CIA, State Department and White House knew the truth of the situation nearly immediately. They’ve know the truth for a very long time. Administration dissembling has been, till now accepted and encouraged. The absence of truth telling by the administration and the media is the height of disrespect for those who died in Benghazi.

Yesterday I opined that Benghazi would only gain traction when and if the MSM was put in a position where they could simply not ignore it anymore. We have, to appearances, now reached that point; thanks, in the main, to Gregory Hicks and the courage of his commitment and convictions. If only his superiors shared his commitments. I would guess Greg Hicks could have been ‘kept under control’ by the State Department if they had just resisted the temptation to punish him. It’s pure Clinton!

What comes next? What comes next has already started. Leaked e-mail proves that the original talking points were revised a dozen times. Ms. Neuland, spokesperson at the State Department appears to have maintained, as her primary concern that Congress would beat up the State Department over security lapses. Rumor has it that more whistleblowers will come forward including from the CIA. We now learn David Petraeus was ‘frustrated’ with the administration ‘washing’ the original report, but said nothing. What of your courage sir?

Liberal commentators faced with facts are consumed not with the existence of cover up but with “why would they cover this up”. There is a short answer that they will have difficulty comprehending. Incompetence and not being able to recognize when politics should take a back seat!

There are key questions for our Journalism community one of which is whether the seek answers to the questions or continue to accept shallow spin. Under the assumption that most of our ‘journalists’ are a bit out of practice I offer some suggestions. Who gets or takes political cover and who does not? Can Hillary’s pending candidacy be protected, should it be? Why did Secretary Clinton and the President lie to the families of the dead and to Congress? What were the President’s directives to Secretary Panetta the night of the attack? Where was the President and what was was he doing during the seven unaccounted for hours, journalists know that there is permanent log of the President’s activities; minute by minute. Why did the President blame the video at the UN two weeks later? Why was Greg Hicks demoted? Will the Clinton brigade, so well experienced in the politics of personal destruction, be sent into battle? Why were the people on the ground not fully consulted in advance of Susan Rice being sent out to be sacrificed, remembering, at the time, criticism of Ms. Rice was racism, sexism or both.

Can the administration prove that doing nothing in support of those under attack was really their best and only option? Will the President set up the State Department to take the fall. Jay Carney has already intimated that might be the case, although it can always rotate back to the Intelligence Community. Will our journalistic cadre realize that there were vast failures related to Benghazi; failures of intellect, failures of judgment; failures of policy and most critically, failures of integrity!

Will the MSM trade their politics for journalism? Will they step up and answer as to why it took them eight months to get serious? Will we finally see the Select Committee that Representative Frank Wolf (R-Va) has been begging for and should be implemented immediately?

Just trying to help!

Let us assume for the sake of argument that forces could have not gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives or reduce the injuries that occurred. They could, however, have gotten there in time to punish the perpetrators; to hunt them down and engage them and bring them to appropriate justice?

Was the potential for conflict with the Islamist mob what generated the ‘stand down’ order? Does that order represent, in sharp relief, the fairy tale that the current administration and a generation of politically correct but naïve journalists doggedly represent in regards to Islamist goals and tactics?

Lt. Col Gibson, in Greg Hick’s telling was livid at the stand down order. His commitment to rush to the sound of gunfire and save lives was unequivocal. His chain of command, however, did not share his commitment. There is little doubt, based on what we know of Special Forces that Col. Gibson and his three men would have taken on hundreds if necessary. They’ve done it before!

Greg Hicks was prepared to put himself and his own staff in jeopardy by sending what scant resources he had available to Benghazi from Tripoli. Col. Gibson and his men were ready to go. The diplomatic staff in Benghazi was in severe jeopardy under an organized attack. When the powers that be opine that they could not clearly identify the conditions on the ground they also could not, by way of logic, determine when that conflict would end. The Consulate and the Annex were under fire as were the vehicles evacuating staff from the Consulate. The battle could have gone on longer, it could have been worse. Did the chain of command need the Jihadists to get tired and go home, therefore clarifying the conditions on the ground. Wait, wait no; we knew the conditions on the ground there was a drone over the Consulate. The drone operator on duty at the time spoke with Sean Hannity on the radio yesterday, there is little doubt the chain of command had a live feed to the happenings in Benghazi.

So, once again we have not responded to a terror attack. No punishment, no retribution, no arrests,no pressure and no price to pay.

You may or may not have noticed that Middle Eastern based terror is seldom if ever directed at Russia or its predecessor the Soviet Union. Once upon a time in the 1970’s there was Middle Eastern terror directed at Russia. The Russian response was so overwhelming that the terror sought new targets of opportunity.

The lesson simply is that terror met with overwhelming force delivers the message that ‘it’s just not worth it’. That message has not been delivered. So long as political correctness, false narratives and restrictive rules of engagement demand that we not see, or address the threats for what they are we can be guaranteed that terror will continue and increase. Every lack of response is met in the Islamic world as another example that the U.S. is weak, decadent and in decline. That narrative strengthens the resolve of those who would do us harm.

Democrats focused on three main themes: attacking Chairman Issa for his comments, continually attempting to refocus the issue on the ARB (Accountability Review Board) and protecting Hillary Clinton.

Republicans, to their credit, avoided the temptation to make speeches and remained focused on asking questions.

Mr. Hicks the Deputy Chief of Mission under Ambassador Stephens made an opening statement that was low key but dramatic and moving nonetheless. He presented himself as a man of conscience; confident and capable. There is no question that Mr. Hicks, after internally expressing his dismay at the now infamous comments made by Susan Rice has suffered at the hands of the State Department bureaucracy. Demoted, castigated, subjected to what I would judge to be unfair evaluations and essentially sent to the State Department basement. Mr. Hicks has been done a severe injustice, the same Mr. Hicks who received calls from the President and Secretary of State immediately following the Benghazi incident, commending his performance. His demise began when he viewed Ms. Rice’s Sunday show performance. He made the horrific mistake of asking Beth Jones, a superior why Ambassador Rice said what she said in direct contradiction to the statements made by the Libyan President. Mr. Hicks was left with the undeniable impression that questions from him were, to be kind, unwelcome.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration knew it was a terror attack as it happened. The embassy in Tripoli did not report the presence of demonstrations nor did Ambassador Stephens. When Mr. Hicks spoke with Ambassador Stephens that night, Ambassador Stephens described it as ‘an attack’.

There is no doubt that the ARB, which terminated responsibility at a middle management level, was wrong. Further investigation will identify Ambassador Kennedy as much more accountable for decision making in advance of 9/11 than the ARB has reported.

There is also no doubt that resources were available and not deployed. The small remaining Special Forces personnel were ordered to stand down. The FEST (Foreign Emergency Support Team) was very quickly taken out of the decision making loop.

There were ongoing reports from Benghazi all of which essentially represented that the facility was ‘under attack’. There is no question that the State Department was being sent continual updates.

Despite the resources available to us and to our NATO partners, the people on the ground in Libya were told that there were no refueling tankers available. Nothing on carriers in the Gulf, nothing in the Med, nothing in Europe; it strains credibility.

It was known that Ansar al Sharia was active in the Benghazi area; it was known that there were ties to al Qaeda. It was known that the Libyan group assigned to provide ‘security’ the February 17th Martyrs Brigade also had ties to extremist elements. Initial reports had the Ambassador taken to a hospital controlled by Ansar al Sharia, Mr. Hicks, rightly was concerned about a trap.

There were a series of security incidents in Libya in addition to threats made by way of social media outlets. Mr. Thompson confirmed that any competent Counter Terror professional would have seen the trend and moved to improve security.

Rep. Chaffetz visited Libya weeks after the attack. The State Department was clearly concerned about his visit. Mr. Hicks was directed not to meet with Rep. Chaffetz absent a State Department legal ‘minder’. Mr. Hick’s direct quote is “I received instructions not to talk to Rep. Chaffetz, I was told not to be alone with Rep. Chaffetz; I was not to be isolated with Chaffetz and not to be personally interviewed. The problem occurred, however, when the legal representative did not have sufficient security clearance to attend some of the meetings with Rep. Chaffetz. Reasonable people can disagree as to what State was afraid of; I believe they were afraid of the truth. Cheryl Miller, Secretary Clinton’s ‘enforcer’ demanded a report on the Chaffetz visit; she was according to Mr. Hicks “very upset”. It became evident that the ‘legal minder’ was unprecedented related to a visit by members of Congress.

The three witnesses all agreed that the ARB was flawed. Either by who they did not speak to, the process they used to interview the folks they did talk to and the unwillingness to take the accountability up the chain of the command at State. Mr. Hicks was asked directly; “did the ARB leave anyone off the hook”, he answered yes, Ambassador Kennedy.
Democrats want more hearings with more witnesses, at least rhetorically. They may wish they did not take that position. There is clearly more here than today’s hearing could possibly have gotten too. Mr. Hicks and his career should be one of those issues as Representatives on both sides of the aisle committed their support for Mr. Hicks.

If today’s testimony is true and it did ring true and occurred absent any histrionics. The administrations narrative on Benghazi has been chock full of falsehood; the President, Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Kennedy and Secretary Clinton have lied based on today’s testimony. It is also true that the good guys are the ones in jeopardy.

Bureaucracy prevailed over common sense and the advice of expertise. Political narratives have become more important than facts and truth. It is also clear that this administration simply does not accept or appreciate the threat represented by Islamic extremism.

Without a doubt, more to come! Hopefully the performance by the witnesses especially Mr. Hicks will provide others with the courage to speak their minds and reveal the truth.

Mr. Panetta, you’re on the other side of the aisle from where I sit but that does not mean you’re not worthy of respect for your competence and service.

I‘m thinking perhaps, in hindsight, you’d like to have Benghazi back. It was likely your last opportunity to do the right thing and enjoy the catharsis of ‘damming the torpedoes’.

This situation will quickly evolve into a ‘save Hillary’ campaign. We’ve all seen the manner in which the Clintons respond when under attack. You’ve seen it from the inside and probably know better than most that nothing is off the table, including you, Mr. Panetta. Petraeus is already gone, the mid level State Department employees have already been hung out and still there is deep concern over what happened on 9/11/12 and why it happened the way it did. But that’s only a part of the story. It’s always the cover up that extends the process and demands ever more aggressive spin. It’s always the politician’s instinct to ‘manage’ the truth to the point of the truth disappearing.

This is about some whether or not accountability even matters any more. I believe you think it does.

Mr. Panetta you’ve no doubt already considered this eventuality, your intellect has never been in question. Don’t let it happen. Serve your country one more time.

The President’s ‘red line’ is a wonderful example of why he should say less, consider carefully and do more. It’s a dramatic and yet all too frequent example of the President not fully considering consequences. In this case, the consequence is credibility, most crucially with Russia, China and Iran assuming we had any left. To make matters worse the New York Times reports that an unnamed Obama aid tells the Grey Lady that; “If he (Assad) drops sarin gas on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?” It’s the credibility stupid! Best to be quiet and keep them guessing than to open one’s mouth and confirm the worst.

Benghazi could begin to blow up on the administration this week, but only if the majority of the media gets on the story; meaning that the evidence and testimony is so overwhelming that they are forced into it. Which news outlet leads with what story on Wednesday night’s network news, and what’s above the fold on Thursday morning will tell the tale; reporting or rationalization? Talking about or talking points.

There can be little doubt that with Benghazi as the current primary piece of evidence, any semblance of the truth or truth telling has become so politicized as to position the people who represent us (with some exceptions) as the greatest threat to our well being and security.

I want the Kardashians off my TV!

The testimony in Dr. Gosnell’s trial is so horrific that both sides of the abortion issue should find some sliver of common ground. That common ground is adoption; promoted and supported by both sides of the argument.

Note to Senator Rubio, if Chuck Schumer is smiling, you’re in trouble.

The perpetual lesson no one in Washington ever seems to absorb is that the cover up is always worse than the failure. This Benghazi cover up has seen quite an evolution. Initially it was the video trailer that motivated the attack. (That filmmaker is still in jail six months later. Hillary promised retribution for the video and the man who produced it, on that, at least, she was correct.)

Move on folks, no terrorism to see here, just a demonstration. Cynicism prevailed over the initial explanation for the attack. As we progressed through ineffectual Congressional hearings to the ‘internal review’ the only thing that grew was prevailing cynicism. ‘Highly respected’ diplomat Thomas Pickering was held up as a bastion of integrity, however, to many his appointment signaled that a whitewash for Ms. Clinton was in full bloom.

A media, who in the pre Obama era was quick to the smell of a cover up yawned and fell asleep with the exception of CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson who, at least publically, contends confusion as to why so few of her colleagues took up the investigation although she does draw the appropriate comparison to their energy level during Republican administrations. Ms. Attkisson has more information than she has currently reported to security clearance issues. Worth note is that information has slowly over the course of the last six months gone from benign to ‘classified’. No, no folks move on, no cover up here!

Folks who were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack are still in no man’s land as the administration refuses to identify them to Congressional committees.

Republicans in Congress release a combined report by five Committee Chairman pointing out significant failures of the Pickering / Mullen internal review.

Now comes the whistleblower controversy and the cover up deepens as each falsehood demands more of the same in support of what looks more and more like a house of cards as each day goes by. The review by Messrs. Pickering and Mullen ignored individuals who requested to be interviewed for the report. The State Department is now playing bureaucratic ‘tag you’re it’ with lawyers attempting to represent the whistleblowers; State says, ‘no problem just have those folks (the whistleblowers) come on in and fill out the paperwork’. The whistleblowers who contend that they have already been subjected to intimidation know this little game for what it is. The context for the game has been set; Secretary Clinton; “what does it matter now”? Press Secretary Carney; “Benghazi was a long time ago”. Secretary Kerry; “I don’t want to spend the next four years taking about Benghazi.” The vast majority of media allies are attempting to support this narrative; even though that narrative is falling apart, brick by cover up, brick.

A special operator has appeared in a three part Fox interview. He contends that there were in fact resources that could have been brought to the aid of Benghazi. He contends that we know exactly who was involved in the attack and that man walks free.

The FBI, the day after Mr. Carney’s ‘long ago’ comment releases three photos of persons of interest in the Benghazi attack. Is the FBI tired of the game as well?

CNN, late to the game, now reports that known al Qaeda affiliate Mokhtar Belmokhtar, reputedly also involved in the oil facility attack in Mali, was also involved in the Benghazi attack as were three Yemini al Qaeda affiliates. CNN’s history in reporting on terrorism is, to be kind, weak. But the simple fact that they’re reporting it is a change in wind direction.

In a post months ago I contended that, eventually, the veil of silence would be broken by mid level operatives at the State Department who would grow frustrated with the narrative of the cover up and the comprehensive disrespect shown to Ambassador Stevens and those who died. They know, it could be them left to rot in the future.

We’re almost there.

Unexpected has to be put in context, economists projected 150,000 new jobs which are far short of what is needed to grow the economy generally or indicate significant future growth, 118,000 were reported. So ‘unexpected’ is weak as compared to a weak forecast. In simple terms; weaker than weak!

With not a single material macro-economic indicator signaling strong consistent recovery we remain mired in the ‘unexpected’. We get an occasional spike in consumer spending or housing starts but it never lasts over time. For those of us down here on the ground this report was exactly what we expected. Brian Williams may be shocked at the ‘unexpected’ but we’re not!

Sequester is, of course, partially to blame say most Gurus of economic analysis; but I’m confused.

Four years of rampant government spending; the stimulus program, cash for clunkers, massive growth in welfare spending, which leading Democrats tell us is good for the economy, and there is no aggressive recovery and no significant job growth. The Fed has pumped trillions into the economy and still, no significant job growth. All of that money, 40% of it borrowed, and we continue to limp along.

The source of my confusion is that somehow, despite all of the spending, all of the debt, all of the freshly printed money a 2% cut in the rate of growth in spending, most of which has not yet materialized, is compressing job growth??? Really? The sequester cuts did not cut spending in empirical terms, just in terms of the rate of growth as compared to the easily manipulated budget ‘baseline’.

Something has to run out here. We can be reasonably confident that excuses are not going to run out. We can be absolutely sure the President’s commitment to deficit spending will not run out. We can also remain confident that Republican inability to deliver a coherent, in context economic message will not run out.

Ah yes, I know what could run out. Your family’s budget surplus that you commit to saving or your children’s future will run out. Your confidence in maintaining your employment could run out. Your ability to enjoy just a few of the better things in life could run out. Your ability to invest in your home could run out.

Your stress level will not run out!

Over the past 24 hours it has come to light that Benghazi witnesses are being subjected to intimidation and threats. No surprise, the administration’s Benghazi narrative has failed to pass the smell test from the outset and the aura of cover up is pervasive. There have been two letters from Chairman Issa requesting a process whereby the witnesses could discuss classified information. There have been requests to certify a process whereby witnesses can discuss what they know with the legal counsel. Three State Department and one CIA employee have sought legal counsel regarding potential testimony. Additionally, much to the relief of those in search of answers, Victoria Toensing is on the case to both shine a light on the current evolution of Benghazi stonewalling and to challenge the media in general to get on the story.

Additionally, a Special Operator appearing in silhouette on Fox News has specifically identified a potential response capability training in Croatia at the time of the attacks. The Administration has contended that since they could not specifically identify security conditions on the ground at the time they could not mount an effective response. Surely, they know that Special Operators are specifically trained to deal with those circumstances. The Special Operator in question identified the specific unit, C110, and contended that the unit could have been there in advance of the second attack on the Consulate. This unit is specifically trained to deal with situations such as Benghazi. He also identified units in Tripoli that were not deployed. The bottom line is that the State Department report on Benghazi has stretched credulity to the breaking point and is clearly little more than a document intended to provide political cover.

In light of all of this the President remains “unaware”! That’s right sports fans, a White House highly sensitive to criticism, is “unaware” that Benghazi survivors have sought a process whereby they can discuss their experience with their lawyers and Congressional Committees. However, fear not, the President promised that he’s going to “look into it.” If anyone believes that the White House staff has not been running around for the past 14 hours with their hair on fire, they simply don’t understand how these things work. The ‘unaware’ answer is pure deflection and also does not pass the smell test.

Syria is the perfect counter point to ‘unaware’. The President was clearly prepared for the question of U.S. credibility in the context of a red line. The President went through a long list of what his administration has done regarding Syria: a clear statement that Assad must go, organization of the International community, humanitarian aid, sanctions and non- lethal support for the rebels.

On the question of chemical weapons the President defined what a red line really is. He must know to a certainty how they were used, who used them and exactly what happened in terms of their use. The President needs hard evidence and factual surety. He needs to make sure there are no objections from the International Community or regimes in the region. Once again, fear not, the administration is investigating.

We also now know what ‘game changer’ means in regards to Syria; the President clarified, it means “rethinking our options”. The President, unlike any number of prior situations, now needs hard and fast facts this time around. OK, fair enough. There is, however, a counterpoint; that being, that none of the long list of actions the President takes such pride in have had any impact on the situation at all. His initial reluctance to involve himself in any meaningful way has, in essence, supported the chaos we now see in Syria.

The President’s answer to the question regarding Syria was not intended to actually provide an answer as he avoided the issue of U.S. credibility which was at the heart of the question. The President did, however, provide supporters with their talking points to justify the President’s initial red line bluff. Predictably, Iraqi WMD will be the foil for discussing what a wonderful job the President is doing, how measured and careful he’s being. The talking points will ignore the fact that 23 other countries believed Iraq possessed WMD. The re-litigation of Iraqi WMD will wear us out; that’s part of the strategy.

To consider boots on the ground in Syria is, at this point in time, madness outside of Special Operations capabilities. To provide weapons is madness as well. The administration will, in short order, also point out that arms length attacks on WMD stockpiles could produce civilian casualties and collateral damage. All true. What this administration fails to comprehend is the potential cost in the future. Were we to fail to attack WMD stockpiles, collateral damage notwithstanding and insure that they do not get into the hands of groups that have embraced terror; what are the potential, predictable future consequences?

Does anyone question that Hiz’bAllah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or al Qaeda would use WMD. We already know that al Qaeda had their own chemical and biological weapons program, albeit it failed. We know they pursued nuclear materials. We know that there are Fatwa’s justifying the use of WMD.

If the administration’s answer is yes, we have considered the consequences of WMD in the ‘wrong hands’ then the failure to destroy them will guarantee their use.

We can thank whatever God we may pray to that Israel suffers no such paralysis as they have experienced the consequences associated with the evolution of Islamic terror groups with ever more sophisticated weapons. The Israelis will do what is necessary; by doing so they will protect America, Europe and Infidels the world over.

Senator McCain continues to suggest we get more involved in Syria; the time to get involved in Syria has long passed as have our options there. Procrastination, uncertainty or the non interventionist bent of the administration has eliminated any number of feasible options that may have once existed. Senator McCain may have been right a year and a half ago but the situation has changed.

Senator McCain should recognize that repetition of his points regarding the situation in Syria has evolved into the foreign policy equivalent of elevator music; it’s always there but no one is listening.

The Syrian resistance is quickly becoming dominated by radical Salafists looking to add Syria to the growing number of Jihadist controlled states reeling into the government by Sharia column. Targeted support may have been a good idea two years ago; that is no longer the case. What moderates may have been in a position to effect the eventual outcomes in Syria are now, by necessity, making common cause with the Jihadists.

Should America become further involved at this point in time no good will come of it. We’ve already lost our credibility with Syrian moderates. More radicalized elements will take lessons from other American involvements in the Middle East and North Africa; “tell them what they want to hear, get the guns and then firmly place a knife in the back of American foreign policy!”

Taqiyya is a long standing tenant of Islam; in essence it says”its fine to lie to further the goals of Islam; Syria is clearly a current goal of Islam.” The very idea, as Senator McCain suggests, that we can identify moderates and those friendly to the United States is willful blindness created by the supposition that Taqiyya is less important in the Middle East than American wishes. We can no longer put a finger in this particular leaking dike and to do so will simply arm radical elements as they set their sights on the next victim; Jordan.

The President’s reluctance to observe his own Red Line on chemical weapons is not only a message to Assad but to Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Words are just words absent the commitment or courage to back them up.

Syria will fall to the Islamists; it already has in many regions, areas controlled by Islamist forces are being subjected to localized Sharia governments, replete with the oppression that comes with it.

In the bad old days of Communism and the Cold War the Domino Theory held that if you let one country fall to Communism others would follow in succession. Is that not what we’re seeing in the Middle East; Egypt, Libya, Tunisia? Syria is next and Jordan is on the target list.

If we’re going to make a statement, if we’re going to draw an actual red line it must be in Jordan. It must be in the form of refugee support as tens of thousands of Syrians cross the border for safe haven it must also be in the form of military support in advance of the need to use it.

Senator McCain, you cannot play ‘catch up’ in the Middle East!! An opportunity lost, is just that; lost! So, please sit down and shut up and get up to speed on the new realities.

As Assistant Attorney General it was Mr. Holder who managed the pardon of FALN thugs, The FALN carried out more than 130 terror bombings in the United States.

During the Bush Administration Mr. Holder’s law firm was front and center in terms of pro-bono representation of Gitmo detainees often absent a request from the detainees for legal representation.

Mr. Holder was at the vanguard of the push to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a New York civil courtroom.

Mr. Holder, as Attorney General, approved the release of Binyam Mohammed the would-be accomplice of would-be “dirty bomber” (and now convicted terrorist) José Padilla. Mohammed planned to carry out mass-murder attacks in American cities.

That right wing rag, the New York Times reported that top current and former intelligence officials are energetically lobbying to keep secret tactics, methods and information that the intelligence communities require to insure that their effectiveness in not diminished. The Times reported that they are being beaten back by Holder and his staffers.

Mr. Holder released the ‘Torture memos’ produced during the Bush Administration with the intent to bring to trial the individuals involved in the enhanced interrogation program.

Then there was this enlightening exchange during a Congressional Hearing.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.): Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . . .
Smith: Okay, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people —
Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.

The Mother of the Boston Bombers says it was a ‘set up’. She may be right on the set up and wrong on who did it!

Since December of 2012 Reza Kahlili a former CIA operative within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp has reported, based on his Iranian sources that Iran has placed and intended to unleash terror cells in the U.S. and Europe under a variety of contingencies: ongoing sanctions, increased sanctions or military action against Iranian territory.

Secretary of Defense Hagel is in Israel, offering ongoing support for the Israeli Defense establishment that could be taken by Iran as a signal that the Red Light on action against Iran just turned Yellow.

Yesterday Canada stopped what could have been a horrific terror plot; imagining a high speed train attempting to cross a bridge over the Niagara River that wasn’t there anymore. Canada has connected the plot to al Qaeda operatives operating out of Iran. Despite some ‘expert’ commentary (BBC), al Qaeda has long been in Iran under close Iranian supervision including ‘house arrest’. Al Qaeda Sunnis and Iranian Shia have reached uncomfortable detente in areas where their common interests are served. Reports have Bin Laden family members and Ayman al-Zawahiri present in Iran at one time or another.

Since 2007 that I’m aware of, reports of ‘OTM’s’, Other Than Mexicans have been filed by Immigration officers on the Mexican border. These OTM’s we’re typically Middle Eastern.

Ciudad del Este is the epicenter of The Tri-Border area where Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina come together. The area has long been recognized as a haven for drug cartels and Islamist terror infrastructure. Reports have been ongoing for years that Hiz’bAllah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are well entrenched in the Tri-Border area. This is the likely spot where common cause is made between potential terror cells and the Mexican Cartels. Iran has supported all three groups over the years. The Taliban as well as other terror organizations have utilized the drug trade to support operations for decades.

Chechnya, Dagestan and Iran all border the Caspian Sea. There is no question that Radicalized Islam is present in Chechnya as evidenced by the terror attacks on the school in Beslan ending in the deaths of 380 people and the attack on a theater in Moscow resulting in another 170 deaths including the 40 terrorists.

Islamist terror cells are, typically, good at compartmentalizing their structure and maintaining cautions operational security. Their use of ‘useful idiots’ in terror operations is well documented.

The Boston Bombers could have gotten the ‘recipe’ for the pressure cooker and pipe bombs from a number of sources; one of those sources could have been direct support by a ‘controller’; the person who directly manages the individuals who are intended to plant the bombs.

The Mother, based on first person reports, had become gradually radicalized over a two to three year period and became more vocal about it as time went on. She left the country as did the boy’s father. It is unclear whether she radicalized her son, the other way around or they fed off each other.

The Boston Bombers, after the explosions, evidenced absolutely no tradecraft in terms of exiting the area and evading authorities. While thankful that they let the owner of the carjacked Mercedes SUV go because he was not American it’s bad tradecraft as is confessing to the person you’re about to let go.

They may have intended to hit more targets, which is certainly one possibility evidenced by the additional explosive devices they deployed during the Watertown shoot out. But why stay in the area? They could have easily hung on to the Mercedes hostage and driven anywhere they wanted. Why leave him in the car at the 7-11? Some of this simply does not make sense; stop for snacks when the entire city in hunting for you?

The other possibility is that Mom was right, “they were set up”! The complete absence of tradecraft in making an escape might support that possibility. In that scenario the cell they were attached to set them up. If their controller told them to be in a certain place at a certain time, the controller does not show up and communications suddenly go dark, they are cut off. If the controller convinced them that exfiltration plans would not be revealed until after the operation based on operational security it would explain the odd post explosion behavior. In this scenario they would not have know the true identity of the controller nor would they have any way of contacting him after the explosions. This possibility would be attractive if a well known organization or state sponsor was in the picture but needed to dissociate themselves from the actual event in fear of retaliation.

For now, the answer is yes!

When the Fort Hood shooting is officially categorized as workplace violence, yes we have to live with it. When the official report about Fort Hood contains not a single reference to terrorism or radical Islam despite the shouts of Allahu Akbar by the shooter, yes! When Major Hassan’s formal presentations within the structure of the Army represent radical Islamic ideology and no one does or says anything, yes we have to live with it.

When the FBI is constrained by political correctness during interviews with suspected perpetrators, yes we have to live with it. When the President rushes to the podium after the Boston suspect has been brought into custody to warn us we can’t “rush to judgment about these individuals of groups of people”, yes we have to live with it. When easily identifiable Islamists are brought into the key departments responsible for American security to ‘sensitize’ law enforcement and security resources to the long list of Islamic complaints and manufactured sensitivities; we have to live with it. When Stephen Coughlin, the singular expert on Islam and Islamic radicalism within the Pentagon is fired for representing the truth of the situation under pressure from Islamist apologists, you’re damn right we have to live with it. When senior military officers tell us that Global Warming is our most significant threat; duck!

When public expressions of radical ideology, anti Americanism and calls to Jihad are tolerated and protected we can count on more of what we saw in Boston.

Expertise armed with facts is dismissed as xenophobic. The President cares more for warning us off making judgments than he does protecting us or altering his politically correct view of the world, the message goes forth to those who intend terror that the law enforcement environment will continue to protect and preserve them until they actually perform the act.

This is not to say that there are not committed, competent people in the counter terrorism business, without question there are. They, however, must function within the political leadership context that is defined for them. Or, should I say, lack of political leadership context?

Our current leadership simply refuses to call the threat what it is; workplace violence? The absence of the ability to identify a threat for what it is guarantees our inability to deal with it. We have, as well, suffered confusions, willing to kill Anwar Al-Awlaki with a drone strike but not to have a look at the infrastructure that supported his teachings while in America, nor to do anything about him when clear connections to the 9/11 terrorists were demonstrated.

Yes, you have to live with it!

In the Muslim world, however, the message will be completely different. The message will be; “See my Brothers what just two of us can do; what are you waiting for?” “See what just two brothers committed to Jihad can do. Thousands of police searching and unable to find our brother; it is proof of their weakness.” “They and their evil will fall to the benevolent hand of Allah’s will!”

The Marathon bombing brothers will be elevated to iconic status. They will be used in a massive PR campaign by al Qaeda and its affiliates to motivate others to engage in ‘lone wolf’ Jihad if, in fact, that is what happened in Boston. The non al Qaeda Jihadist infrastructure, most accurately represented by the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, will pale at this action. Years ago, they came to the opinion that terrorism in the U.S. was counterproductive; that they were making sufficient progress in terms of political impact and cultural deconstruction that terrorism was unnecessary, except as a foil to allow them to make the case that since they are not actively participating in terrorism, they must be ‘moderates’. It’s a false argument but it plays inside the Beltway and in Universities.

The predictable justifications from the American left began yesterday. Despite the massive weight of evidence we should not connect Islam to terrorism. Despite more than 20,000 documented Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 we are xenophobic if we make that connection.

Many commentators have wondered aloud how ‘we’ will handle this manner of ‘new’ threat despite the fact that there is nothing new here. The non politically correct answer is in Muslim Mosques. The trail of terror invariably leads back to Mosques; they are the critical point of motivation and material support. So long as political correctness precludes observation and surveillance of Mosques to determine what manner of Islam is being taught we will continue to hold the knife to our own throat.

The perpetrator or perpetrators are likely relative amateurs; self radicalized or arriving here in a radicalized state of mind. The bombs while devastating to those in the area were not empirically strong explosive devices as the range of impact seemed to be limited to 20 – 30 yards. It is likely that these bombs were ‘kitchen chemical’ explosives and it is further likely that there was not a significant cell involved in the attack as a significant cell would have generated stronger explosions with a high probability of suicide attacks as a part of the planning. Nearly anyone can make a bomb, however, to make a devastating one requires specific training and experience. The timing of the two explosions also points to amateurs. If the first bomb was intended to drive people toward the second the second would have exploded more than the 12 – 15 seconds we see on film, the second bomb was, considering the location of the finish line, in the wrong spot to create maximum carnage. Multiple devices is a standard al Qaeda technique but in the past, more effectively applied and timed.

Having lived in and around Boston for many years there was not a significant, radicalized Right Wing presence in the area. That does not exclude the potential for domestic terrorism as a variety of anniversaries of prior domestic incidents surround this date and it is ‘tax day’, but the probabilities are low. The Pakistani Taliban has already distanced themselves from the bombing, making one wonder what they know and why they would feel the need to separate themselves from the event?

Al Qaeda has long called for lone wolf attacks as the degree of difficulty associated with 9/11 style attacks increases. The first edition of Inspire Magazine, an English language Jihadist publication out of Yemen had, as a lead article; “How to make a bomb in your Mom’s kitchen”. Reza Kahlili a former CIA informant in Iran has reported, since December, that Iranian based operatives have been dispatched to the U.S.

The unfortunate reality, as we saw in Mumbai, is that to fully protect soft targets is nearly impossible. What we can do is aggressively reject those who by word, deed and dollars support radicalized ideologies. There are many domestic organizations that have been proven to be involved in material support for terrorism. Many have access to our political leaders, including the White House. They reject the very idea of cooperation with law enforcement officials and maintain an ideology foreign to mainstream American values and history.

We can reject those who reject our values, we can do it aggressively! We can deny them the political correctness they depend on for cover! We can demand that word and deed agree! We can focus on the incredible body of factual information we have related to terror and terror support as opposed to ‘feel good’ standards of moral equivalency!!!

The enemy has no such problems with moral equivalency!!!

I have argued amongst friends that if Republicans want to re-establish the brand they must stop speaking to each other and speak to those that oppose them; specifically Black and Hispanic voters. The war that should be waged is the war of ideas, not the war of class and race. The war of ideas takes time, commitment and clear headed thinking. The war of ideas begins with some percentage of the folks your talking to coming to a; “I didn’t think of it that way before” moment.

Enter Rand Paul, speaking at Howard University a traditionally Black university. He engaged the Conservative view to an audience that has been overwhelmed by the Progressive point of view. He took his lumps, endured the predictable, mindless protests and made the case for Conservative history and values. He fairly represented a Conservative point of view. The smattering of occasional applause was a beginning.

The message to the RNC and the current Republican consultant class is that it’s time for a fundamental change. If you’re going to fight the war of ideas, and we must, you cannot have impact absent respect. Many in that audience will continue to disagree with Senator Paul’s point of view but he likely garnered a degree of respect for showing up, engaging, and attempting to make the case. He did not pander!!!!

Senator Paul was willing to take the first step on the thousand mile journey. Hopefully his example will result not only in Howard University students having a second thought, but the entire Republican Party as well. Republicans in general talk the talk, Rand Paul walked the walk.

Today’s jobs report might best be viewed both in the context of numbers large and small. 88,000 new jobs in March, represents an average of 28 new jobs in each county in the U.S., 28! On the other hand the number of people who have exited the work force is reported at 663,000; 211 per county; a net loss of 183 jobs per county. Oh no, wait good news; the ‘revisions for January and February represent another 18 jobs per county.

For every new job created 7.5 people gave up. Financial guru Jim Cramer opines that this new employment condition is the nature of our economy for the foreseeable future; the ‘new normal’, if you will.

Despite the fact that 89,967,000 are not represented in the labor force unemployment according to the Department of Labor dropped slightly. Gallop’s un/underemployed number is increasing, now approaching 18%.

Estimates called for 200,000 new jobs in March; just a small margin of error, 227%.

The administration will, no doubt, blame the jobs numbers on the Sequester and Republican intransigence. Democrats facing 2014 reelection bids may support the administration’s spin in public but they won’t buy it in private. These numbers will scare them, and they should. Blaming Bush is going to be very hard to do six years into the current administration.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to get their messaging straight and apply it consistently and at every turn. Deficits and debt, deficits and debt! Entitlement reform and pro growth tax policy. Entitlement reform and pro growth tax policy. Cut wasteful and unproductive spending, cut wasteful and unproductive spending.

The President is getting ready to feed this beast with a budget proposal that will, as have his other budgets, promote deficit spending and tax increases for as far as the eye can see. There will no doubt be just enough cuts here and there in his budget to provide the President with talking points. The Republican response should be to point out that that’s all they are; talking points. They need to point out that the President is more concerned with fodder for speechifying than he is in doing what needs to be done to promote economic growth and the jobs that occur only when economic growth is the case.

To minority communities Republicans need to speak to how they are always hurt the worst and that the President, despite rhetoric to the contrary, has done nothing for them. To the young, they need to get used to living in their parent’s basement. To the Middle Class get ready for more job losses because that is the only thing that can happen under these economic policies; or, more accurately the absence of economic policy as we normally understand it.

By the time 2014 gets here, absent a significant change in the President’s policies it could be essentially a single issue campaign; the economy. Begin the campaign now! The President has!