Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Buck McKeon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buck McKeon. Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Government Sleaze. Benghazi Could Be The Door Where We Find Billions Siphoned Off To Our "Leaders."

The Benghazi Bonanza: A Bi-Partisan Scandal

JUNE 09, 2015
The Benghazi affair is beginning to shape up as a bi-partisan scandal — making Trey Gowdy’s life doubly difficult, of course. But the former prosecutor has been doing a bang-up job with his select committee, demolishing the mantra that there is “nothing new” to be learned about Benghazi and building a sober, far-reaching inquiry. Without Gowdy, recall, there would be no Clinton secret server, no Sidney Blumenthal trail, no new emails, and no upcoming testimony from Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle .
On the latter, Gowdy is holding firm, saying he will not schedule testimony until all relevant emails and documents have been turned over. This week, the House turned up the pressure on the State Department by threatening to withhold funding until the material is produced. Later, the full House could move to subpoena Mrs. Clinton’s server. Game on.
Gowdy correctly notes that the first Clinton email release is “self-selected” and self-serving — but still, quite revealing. Mr. Blumenthal — a man actually barred from a State Department position by the Obama team — is revealed as a key Clinton advisor, up to his neck in murky and dubious Libyan schemes. Mrs. Clinton herself is shown to be contemptuous of the president — Obama be damned, she’ll take Sid — and deeply involved in Libya policy. Key aides closely follow the media and political fallout over the Benghazi attack. Gems are buried, but you need to know the map and where to dig.
Perhaps most intriguing in the recent email batch is a one-line note to Mrs. Clinton from a top advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan. The subject of the September 10, 2011 email is simply “Rogers.” The note in its entirety reads: “Apparently wants to see you to talk Libya/weapons.”
  “Rogers” is then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican. The email was unearthed at the deep end of the document dump and first noted in a piece by Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne of Fox News.
Chairman Rogers and other GOP House committee chairman spent a good deal of time opposing the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee. As Eli Lakereported last year, Rogers “warned his colleagues” about the committee. Lake reported that “the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees — Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively — all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi.”
Rogers abruptly resigned from the House in 2014 and embarked on a career as a radio and TV talking head. Around the same time, his wife, Kristi Rogers, quietly departed from a top position at the private defense contractor Aegis Defense Services, which had interests in Libya. Last year in the DC, Judicial Watchreported on Mike and Kristi Rogers and the Aegis connection.
“Both Rep. Rogers’ committee and Ms. Rogers’ company were focused on the Libyan security and intelligence environment in the months surrounding the Benghazi attack,” the story noted. “Both Rep. Rogers and Aegis pursued Libyan border security issues. And both Rep. Rogers and Ambassador Stevens were linked to efforts to secure Gadhafi’s arsenals … a high-stakes venture that involved both the State Department and the CIA.”
The new emails flash a few signals from Benghazi darkness. We can now add Mr. Blumenthal to the list of those focused on the Libyan security and intelligence environment. And as Herridge and Browne note, the emails also reveal Mrs. Clinton’s interest in arming the Libyan rebels using private security contractors.
The “issue remains so sensitive that the emails recently released by the State Department redacted a key line on the matter,” Herridge and Browne write. “But the unredacted version of the same email, released to the congressional Benghazi Select Committee and first posted by The New York Times … showed Clinton appearing to endorse the idea of using private contractors.”
The Clinton email, sent to Deputy Chief of Staff Sullivan, includes a Libya report from Mr. Blumenthal discussing “clandestine military support to the [Libyan] rebels” and noting that Libyan factions “are considering the possibility of hiring private security firms to help train and organize their forces.”
Mrs. Clinton sends the Blumenthal report on to Mr. Sullivan, noting: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
The timeline here is intriguing. Mrs. Clinton’s email was sent in April 2011, as it was becoming clear that Gadhafi could not hang on to power. Christopher Stevens had been named special envoy to the Libyan opposition — the same people Mr. Blumenthal was talking to — and NATO airstrikes had begun. The long knives were out and there were profits to be made in oil-rich Libya.
By August, according to the AP, “State Department and CIA officials” were working “closely” on locating Gadhafi’s weapons of mass destruction and shoulder-fired missiles known as MANPADS — particularly prized by terrorists and insurgents. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, the AP reported, “said the State Department’s envoy to the Libyan opposition, Chris Stevens, was working with officials in Benghazi on how to take control over the yellowcake and chemical facilities and on destroying MANPADS as they are discovered.”
A month later, Chairman Rogers was reaching out to Secretary Clinton “to talk Libya/weapons.”
Mr. Rogers was at the time a central player in global intelligence activities. As a member of the so-called “Gang of Eight” — the eight leaders of Congress and the House and Senate intelligence committees — he would have had a hand in all highly sensitive covert actions. Did Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Clinton eventually meet to talk about Libya and weapons? Was “the idea of using private security experts” in Libya, as Mrs. Clinton wrote to her deputy, discussed? Was Aegis Defense Services — the private security company led by Mr. Rogers’ wife — involved? Was Mr. Blumenthal?
The Clintons, of course, have been much in the news lately for their apparent conviction that the public good and private profit often go hand in hand, usually through the Clinton Foundation and its various satellites. Mr. Blumenthal — a longtime Clinton insider — was on the payrolls of the foundation and associated entities at the time of his Libyan adventures.
As author Peter Schweizer noted in his groundbreaking study, Clinton Cash, the Clintons frequently “operated at the fringes of the developed world, often appearing to assist in facilitating huge resource-extraction deals that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The era of globalization has opened up a Wild West bonanza where profits can be made on a scale not seen since the height of nineteenth-century colonialism. The Clintons’ most lucrative transactions originate not in places like Germany or Great Britain, where business and politics are kept separate by stringent ethical rules and procedures, but in despotic areas on the world where the rules are very different.”
Mr. Gowdy has said he will interview Mr. Blumenthal, among others. He also should interview everyone associated with Mr. Blumenthal’s activities in Libya and scoop up the financial paper trail. As a former prosecutor, he knows the key question in any inquiry often is, cui bono? Who profits?
Mr. Gowdy also should interview Mr. Rogers. He needs to know what the Gang of Eight — Republicans as well as Democrats — knew about Libya operations and when they knew it. He needs to find out what the CIA was up to with the State Department in Libya and if Aegis Defense Services or other private contractors were involved. Critically, he needs to learn what Mr. Blumenthal was doing in Libya and if his employers at the Clinton Foundation were involved.
According to the spin from Mr. Blumenthal’s side of the story, he was in Libya on some sort of business/humanitarian mission, looking to build floating hospitals and schools. How Clintonian. And what a ridiculous lie.
Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial WatchFirst published at the Daily Caller, June 4, 2015

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

The Paul Family Dinners Suddenly Won't Be As Boring. Son And Father Disagree On ISIS.

Sen. Rand Paul, Dad Ron Paul Disagree on How to Handle ISIS

Wednesday, 03 Sep 2014 12:32 PM
By Drew MacKenzie
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
Libertarian Ron Paul and his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, are at odds over how to handle the crisis in the Middle East, according to BuzzFeed.

On Friday, during a summit thrown by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, the Republican senator ripped into President Barack Obama’s statement that he doesn’t "have a strategy" on stopping the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq and Syria.

"If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president," said Rand Paul, who later expanded on his comments in an email to the Associated Press.

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily," wrote the senator, even though he has similar libertarian views to his dad.

On Sunday, in his column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, his fatherwrote that the United States should stay out of Syria at all costs.

Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman who was a two-time GOP presidential candidate and also the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988, pointed out that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon has made it clear that a war with ISIS would cost the United States a fortune.

"What does this mean in practice?" he wrote. "The Federal Reserve will ‘print’ more money to finance another massive U.S. intervention in the Middle East. In reality this means further devaluation of the U.S. dollar, which is a tax on all Americans that will hit the poorest hardest.

"A new U.S. military incursion will not end ISIS. It will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the U.S. treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted."

He concluded by saying, "A lack of strategy is a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the president will finally stop listening to the neocons and interventionists whose recommendations have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Here’s a strategy: Just come home."

Related Stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

White House Plays "I Got A Secret" With Bergdahl Deal. Congress Upset. Unites Dems And GOP.

White House: 90 in Administration Knew of Bergdahl Deal, But Not Congress

Tuesday, 10 Jun 2014 07:16 AM
By Greg Richter
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
Between 80 and 90 administration staffers  knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.



House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news "disturbing," partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn't inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl's life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

McKeon, a California Republican, told CNN he wants to get an exact number of those who knew and their names.

"My question to them was, if you don't know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?" McKeon said.

"It strikes me as unfortunate that they could have 80 to 90 people in the administration aware of what was happening and not be able to trust a single Republican or Democrat in the House or the Senate," Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, a member of the House of Representatives Republican leadership, told reporters after leaving a briefing on the exchange.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will testify on Wednesday before the Armed Services Committee. McKeon said additional hearings and briefings are planned as part of the panel's investigation.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said President Barack Obama is "not going to get away with this one," and described it as an "arrogant thumbing of his nose by the president of the United States at the Congress of the United States. ... This is going to cost American lives."

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, declined to offer a defense of the administration when offered the chance by CNN's Ashleigh Banfield.

"It didn't sit very well with those of us who were listening at the briefing," Schiff said of the news that so many administration staffers knew of the decision ahead of time.



A law passed by Congress last year and signed by Obama requires a 30-day notice before any prisoners associated with terrorist attacks against the United States are released from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But Schiff said Obama had constitutional authority under Article 2 to make the decision.

Still, he told CNN, it would have been "far wiser" to have at least notified the leadership of Congress to preserve comity with the co-equal branch of government.

"And the fact that there were so many people within the know in the administration doesn't help their case," Schiff added.

He also pointed out that more leaks have come from the administration than from Congress.

Schiff echoed a growing number of Democrats unhappy with Obama. The National Journal's Ron Fournier says he has been receiving a number of emails from Democrats saying they don't like the way Obama is handling things. The controversial Bergdahl release is just the latest issue to set them off.

House Republicans said they planned an investigation of the exchange deal.

Lawmakers and human rights activists said they expected the furor would make it more difficult to win Congress' backing for Obama's avowed intention to close the detention camp, long criticized by human rights groups and others.

"Congress does not like to be left out of the loop," Texas Representative Gene Green, a Democrat, told Reuters. If the White House had called at least the leaders of national security committees, "that would have been much better and maybe we would not have had this controversy," he said.

To reinforce its case, administration officials showed the 90-second "proof of life" video from December that showed a debilitated Bergdahl.Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Bergdahl looked bad in the video. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Bergdahl looked "unhealthy but didn't appear to be on his deathbed."

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said in a Senate speech on Monday he would introduce a bill this week that would bar any federal funding for Guantanamo transfers for six months.

Congressional aides told Reuters that similar legislation is expected to be introduced as soon as this week in the Republican-led House, where opposition to closing the Guantanamo prison is far stronger than in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

A classified Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the matter is planned for Tuesday with senior defense and intelligence officials.

CNN also reported that the hearing disclosed something previously unknown outside the White House: that it was Hagel and not President Barack Obama who gave the final order to make the trade.

McKeon said that surprised him because when he saw the president in the Rose Garden with Bergdahl's parents on Saturday it "sounded like he was taking full credit for the operation."

McKeon speculated that blowback on the decision from both parties in Congress may have something to do with the new information that Hagel OK'd the deal.

"I don't know who's in charge or who's making the decisions," McKeon said.

Schiff did offer some defense of the White House, saying that it isn't possible for the 535 members of Congress to make such a decision, and that it was right for Obama, as commander-in-chief, to allow his administration to make the tough call.

Still, he admitted, it isn't possible to guarantee the five Taliban commanders will not return to the battle.

"There's no way to eliminate the risk," he said.



The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Stories




© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Thursday, May 1, 2014

The Benghazi Lies Start Being Exposed. When Will They Finally Come Clean? Probably Never!

General: We Never Thought Benghazi Was Because Of A Video

 8 11
 
 2 39

WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) — Military and intelligence officials in Africa during the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya said they quickly ruled out that the attack had been sparked by a controversial YouTube video, a general who was in Africa at the time of the attack said Thursday.
Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, testifying before the House Oversight Committee’s fourth hearing on the attack, said he and others at U.S. Armed Forces headquarters in Africa quickly came to the conclusion the attack was unrelated to the video, which had sparked a protest in Cairo earlier that day.
“As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above,” Lovell said.
New documents released by court order Wednesday provided an opening for renewed criticism of the White House from Republicans, who repeatedly asked whether the State Department had shirked its responsibility to protect Americans abroad.
“The military could have made a response,” said Representative John Mica (R-Fla.), “See, I believe we had the capability” to save at least the two Navy SEALs who died several hours after the beginning of the attack.
But Lovell said he agreed with the conclusion of Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who said last month he believed “that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did.”
And yet, Lovell said, he felt the military could still have tried.
“We should have continued to move forward with whatever forces we had to move forward with,” he testified.
Lovell’s testimony comes in direct contradiction to that of then-Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell, who last month testified his analysts considered for several days the possibility of the attack having been brought on by extremists who took advantage of a protest over the video.
Thursday’s hearing comes just hours after the release of 41 documents of State Department communications, declassified by court order Wednesday. Included among them was an email from then-White House aide Ben Rhodes, now a deputy national security advisor, outlining a communication strategy for then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s television appearances for the Sunday after the attack.
The goals, Rhodes wrote, were “to convey that the United States is doing everything we can do to protect our people and facilities abroad; to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy; to show that we will be resolute in brining people who harm Americans to Justice, and stand steadfast through these protests; to reenforce the president and administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Republicans pounced on the documents, calling them proof that the White House “orchestrated an effort to deflect attention away from their failed Libya policy and the resurgence of al Qaeda another other terrorists.”
“The emails provide additional evidence that senior officials knew the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a complex attack and not a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement Wednesday.
But the White House denied the emails were the smoking gun Republicans have been looking for, saying that Rhodes’ email was actually addressing the larger situation of unrest, including the protests in Cairo and fears others might break out.
“In the e-mail, Ben Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”