Time for Truth & Consequences on the Benghazi Cover Up -- FrontPage Mag, Joseph Klein

[bsteadman]

Time for Truth & Consequences on the Benghazi Cover Up

FrontPage Mag
Joseph Klein
5/6/2014

Excerpt:

As Hillary Clinton contemplates running for president in 2016, does she have dreams conjuring up the Benghazi tragedy and cover-up and repeating in her sleep, “What difference does it make?” Even Lady Macbeth had her moment of guilt when, imagining a spot of the murdered Scottish king’s blood on her hand, she exclaimed: “Out, damned spot!”

Hillary just cannot get rid of the Benghazi stain on her record. Every time she thinks it is safe to go back into the water and leave Benghazi behind, another bit of the truth is revealed that calls into question the honesty of the Obama administration, including its former Secretary of State, about what happened before, during, and after the September 11, 2012 jihadist attack. And every time, we can count on spinmeisters in President Obama’s camp such as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to say things like Benghazi is old news and that Republicans are engaging in unfounded conspiracy theories. Carney’s line sounds like a re-booting of Hillary’s old lament about vast right-wing conspiracies. We can also count on Democratic partisans like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complaining: “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! Why aren’t we talking about something else?” In another re-booting of a famous Hillary Clinton line, Pelosi is essentially asking – what difference does it make? Isn’t it time that we just moved on?

The answer is that the truth matters. The American people have a right to know how their commander-in-chief and possible future commander-in-chief were handling the Benghazi crisis, which led to the first killing since 1979 of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty. And certainly the families of the fallen Americans have a right to know the full truth in order to reach closure.

Speaker John Boehner announced last week that he will call for a vote to establish a new House select committee to investigate. Speaker Boehner has announced that his choice to lead the committee is former federal prosecutor Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). What prompted this action was news last week that the administration had deliberately withheld from Congress a crucial e-mail written by a senior White House official just two days after the attack, which clearly shows it was the Obama White House that was playing partisan politics rather than telling the truth.

The State Department finally released the e-mail in response to a Freedom of Information request from Judicial Watch. The e-mail was authored by Benjamin J. Rhodes, the White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser at the time. Rhodes laid out the themes that then-U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, should emphasize during her five Sunday news talk program appearances on September 16, 2012. In the e-mail written two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk shows with the subject line, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” Rhodes laid out one of the goals for Rice’s appearances: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

Susan Rice dutifully followed the script, which we now know was not just the product of the much reworked CIA talking points. The White House had its fingerprints all over what Susan Rice was sent out to say to the American people. And let’s not forget that Susan Rice was part of Hillary Clinton’s State Department at the time. Clinton would have been the logical person to appear on at least some of the talk shows to explain what happened to a key ambassador under her command and to the other dead Americans in Benghazi, because she was directly in the loop as the crisis was unfolding. Rice – then serving as UN ambassador with no direct pipeline to Benghazi – was sent out instead. That made no sense unless the purpose was to deflect attention from what Hillary knew and when she knew it.

Indeed, it turns out that President Obama and his Secretary of State had a 10 PM phone call the night of the attack. Only two hours before that phone call, Clinton had been briefed by Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the attack, who sensed that terrorists were carrying out a pre-meditated attack. A spontaneous riot in reaction to a video was not responsible for what was unfolding. Did Hillary accurately and completely convey what she had learned from Hicks to the president during her 10 PM call? Or did she use her long experience in evading the truth to help concoct a cover up that would blame the video?

Seasoned investigator and expert on terrorism Andrew C. McCarthy reported last May about the 10 PM phone call and that “just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton” which referenced the video. As McCarthy explained:

“Fraud flows from the top down… There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the ‘blame the video’ narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.”

Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton were invested in a narrative that deflected from the truth. Obama wanted to preserve the image during the election campaign, and for his legacy, that he had the terrorists on the run. Hillary wanted to make sure nothing would come out that called into question her preparedness for a terrorist attack with adequate security, which was not the case, and her crisis management capabilities. The last thing she wanted was anything that would undermine her own narrative of competence, as she had portrayed herself versus her Democratic primary opponent candidate Barack Obama in her 2008 3 AM White House Ringing Phone ad.

While Hillary surely does not want a new select committee to shine a light on her role in the Benghazi mess and cover up, Hillary has a bevy of loyal supporters who will protect her reputation at all cost. Democrats are already beginning to circle the wagons, charging that the plan for a new select committee is all about partisan politics. Jay Carney accused Republicans of engaging in a “highly partisan effort to politicize” the Benghazi attack and implied that the White House may not cooperate. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, called for a boycott of the select committee. “I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, who is a member of the House intelligence committee. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
..........................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jos...hazi-cover-up/

[bsteadman]

Release Obama’s Benghazi intelligence briefings

The Washington Post / WP Opinions
Marc A. Thiessen
5/5/2014

Excerpt:

President Obama claims he was only repeating what the intelligence community told him when his administration asserted that the attack in Benghazi began with a spontaneous protest inspired by an Internet video. If that’s the case, there is a simple way to prove it: Give the new congressional select committee investigating Benghazi his daily intelligence briefings that show exactly what he was told.

There is precedent for doing so. In 2004, at the request of the 9/11 Commission, President George W. Bush declassified and publicly released the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) delivered to him before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. No sitting president had ever declassified a PDB while still in office. But Bush did it anyway, releasing the report titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” It warned that the FBI had detected “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings” but contained no actionable intelligence that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening.

What’s good enough for Bush should be good enough for Obama. Congress should ask the president to follow precedent and release the PDBs he received in the days after the Benghazi attack.

There is no good reason for Obama to refuse such a request. If Obama is right that the intelligence community told him the attack was the result of a protest over the Internet video, releasing the PDBs will demonstrate that he is telling the truth — and put the Benghazi debate to rest once and for all.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that is what the Benghazi PDBs would show. That’s because when the intelligence community presents judgments to the president, it always does two things: First, it attaches a level of confidence (low, medium or high) to its judgments. And second, it includes dissenting views, if there are any.

The PDBs would reveal what level of confidence the intelligence community put in the judgment that the Benghazi attack was video-related and spontaneous. They would also tell us whether that confidence level declined between the time of the Sept. 12, 2012, attack and when Susan Rice made her now infamous rounds on the Sunday shows on Sept. 16.

The Benghazi PDBs would also reveal what dissenting views in the intelligence community were presented to the president and his top aides. We know that by the time Rice went on the air, acting CIA director Michael Morell had informed the White House that the CIA station chief on the ground in Libya had dissented from the spontaneous-protest narrative. Moreover, Gen. Robert Lovell, who served as deputy director of intelligence for U.S. Africa Command at the time of the attack, testified last week that our military intelligence community determined within hours that “there was no demonstration gone terribly awry” and that this was a terrorist attack. The PDBs would tell us if, when and how those dissenting judgments were shared with the president and his top national security advisers.
..............................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...72c_story.html

[bsteadman]

What Obama Did on September 11, 2012

American Thinker
Jack Cashill
5/5/2014

Excerpt:

Last week, former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor admitted to Fox News’s Bret Baer that President Barack Obama was not in the White House situation room on the night of September 11, 2012. That was the night -- "Dude, this was like two years ago” -- in which Islamic terrorists killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi.

This admission was a long time coming, in part because mainstream media reporters refrained from asking. In fact, it was not until May 19, 2013, eight months after the attack, that a newsman asked a White House spokesman what Obama did that night. The newsman was Chris Wallace of Fox News. “The ambassador goes missing, ends up the first ambassador in more than thirty years is killed. Four Americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of Americans are in jeopardy,” asked Wallace of Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to the president. “Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond?” The crafty Pfeiffer would not even acknowledge whether Obama was in the situation room.

As Wallace knew, Obama and his advisers planned military strategy in the situation room. They planned political strategy upstairs in the family quarters. If Pfeiffer was savvy enough to duck that question, Vietor apparently was not. His answer confirms my own suspicions about where Obama was and what he did that evening. As the evidence attests, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a critical role in this dumb show.

Even had that day not been September 11, there would have been cause for alarm in Washington. The threat to the American consulate in Benghazi had been obvious since at least 6 a.m. Washington time. It was noon in Libya when Sean Smith, the IT professional who accompanied Stevens, posted online: “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Smith’s concerns proved real just after 9 p.m. in Benghazi when a rocket-propelled grenade smashed against the front gate of the makeshift State Department compound. The attack was on. The following timeline tracks the attack and is drawn from two primary sources: Benghazi: The Definitive Report by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb; and the House Armed Service Committee’s (HASC) Majority Interim Report: Benghazi Investigation Update from February 2014.

The locally hired security fled the compound immediately. This left seven Americans, Stevens, Smith, and five Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents. One DSS agent secured Stevens and Smith in a protected room in the ambassador’s villa, two manned the tactical operations center, and two others barricaded themselves in the DSS villa.

Stevens and the others immediately alerted their chain of command. At 3:40 p.m. Washington time (Unless otherwise specified, all times cited will be EDT) Stevens called his number two man in Tripoli, Greg Hicks, and told him, "Greg, we're under attack." At 4:05 p.m. the State Department Operations Center issued an alert to all relevant agencies, "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack." There was no lack of communication to the outside world.

At the time of the incident, General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, just happened to be visiting the Pentagon. “It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack,” said Ham. The fact that the attackers were using rocket-propelled grenades and well-aimed small arms fire made it clear to him that “this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just -- not something sporadic.” He personally shared the news with General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and both “immediately” briefed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

At 5 p.m. Panetta and Dempsey met with President Obama in the White House for a prescheduled meeting. There they discussed the attack, and the president authorized the pair to take relevant steps, leaving the specifics up to them. They had no further contact with the president that evening and none at all with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

By the time of this meeting, Ty Woods, a twenty-year Navy SEALs veteran stationed at the nearby CIA annex, had already organized a seven-man GRS rescue team. It did not take Woods and his team long to rout the enemy and establish enough temporary security to round up the DSS agents. They also located Smith, unconscious but not yet dead in the building still ablaze.

As the enemy reorganized, Woods’ crew came under withering fire and had to retreat before they could locate Stevens’s body. They headed back to the CIA annex with all the living safe and accounted for. Meanwhile, in Tripoli, Woods’s old Navy SEAL friend Glen Doherty and six colleagues, most of them CIA, commandeered a jet to join the fray.

The Libyan militias now reorganized outside the CIA annex and launched still another attack there around midnight, Benghazi-time. While Woods and company held off the enemy in Benghazi, Obama holed up in the White House. About 7 p.m. he called Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss a perceived snub of the Israel prime minister. This perception, reported Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, presented “a political problem to a president who is wooing the Jewish vote.” The Sun-Times posted Sweet’s story, based obviously on a self-serving White House release, at 9:18 p.m. that evening. Obama obviously found time for politicking, but this was not something one did in the situation room.

About 10 p.m. that evening Obama made another phone call. Five months would pass before anyone admitted he did so. In February 2013, Sen. Lindsay Graham used the confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel to pry some answers out of the president, but he got stonewalled for his efforts. The White House sent a letter to the Senate claiming the president did not make any phone calls the night of September 11. “During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix?” asked a disbelieving Graham.

A week later, Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com followed up on Obama’s September 11 timeline and got an entirely different answer out of spokesman Jay Carney. “He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them,” said Carney before adding the surprise jolt, “and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”

Soon after that 10 p.m. phone call, Secretary Clinton released a memo on the Benghazi attack. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," said Clinton. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. . . . But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” The earliest confirmed posting Lucas could find of the Clinton statement was 10:32 p.m. Washington time.

The timing suggests she and Obama coordinated the blame-the-video misdirection during their call. To this point in the evening, no one in the military or on the ground in Libya had mentioned the video or suggested that the assault on the consulate was anything other than a coordinated attack. By 7 p.m. in Washington, Anshar al-Sharia had claimed credit for the attacks via Twitter. At about 8 p.m. Clinton called Hicks in Tripoli. They spoke mostly about the status of Stevens now reported to be in a hospital controlled by Anshar al-Sharia. There was no talk of a video or a riot.
.................................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...r_11_2012.html

[bsteadman]

The Democrats' Dilemma on Benghazi

American Thinker
Thomas Lifson
5/5/2014

Excerpt:

Though they may publicly deny that there is any scandal in the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, there must be doubts emerging, if only because we now know with certainty that a critical email was withheld in violation of a subpoena from the Issa Committee. Though most Democrats loathe Darrel Issa (and the entire Republican Party, for that matter), the expression “cover-up” is now in play, and the senior Congressional leadership of the party is old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and the articles of impeachment that emerged from that process, authored in part by a young committee staffer named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article 1 cited as part of the justification for impeachment:

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

In Watergate, keep in mind, the underlying crime was a “third-rate burglary,” while in Benghazi, it is a terror attack, the murder of an ambassador and three guards, the desecration of their flag-draped caskets with a lie from the sitting Secretary of State as to the perpetrators, and the continuing failure of the federal government to bring to justice their killers because the Pentagon’s hands have been tied by the failure of the administration to name the perpetrators as members of Al Qaeda. These matters are far more consequential than a misbegotten intelligence-gathering operation.

The mainstream media has been acting as a cofferdam around the story, limiting its impact to the Fox News and conservative blogosphere ghetto. But with a Select Committee about to be created, professional prosecutorial staff to be hired and deployed, depositions of officials, including Mrs. Clinton, to be taken for however many hours or days are required, and more emails and other documents known to exist and eventually to be released, more news will be created.

At this point, the competitive instincts of the journalism pack may be released, at least among some who have not completely signed on to the proposition that The First Black President must be protected at all costs. Last week saw an Alphabet Network White House Correspondent, Jonathan Karl of ABC News, pursue Jay Carney with a zeal that would do Fox News, The Washington Times, or The American Thinker proud. Always lurking in the back of the minds of many professional journalists is the fear of getting scooped on The Big One, even if they wish the story didn’t exist.

Sharyl Attkisson may have left CBS News, which has its own dilemma to deal with on the Benghazi story, but she is far from silenced, with a book in process and a keen sense of righteous concern.

That media cofferdam may be springing more leaks, which in turn means that this story could build in an accelerating crescendo toward an election that is half a year away. Quietly, in many cases subconsciously, Congressional Democrats have got to be wondering if the SS Obama is a sinking ship, and if so, whether they want to be on it.

The immediate question is: do they follow the suggestion of California Democrat Adam Schiff and boycott the Select Committee, hoping that they can thus tar it as a completely partisan operation. There is considerable danger for such a hardline approach. First of all, the committee will go on with them or without them, so whatever evidence is produced through its investigation will be aired. With even Speaker Boehner, an accommodationist of the first order, on board, Democrats can be certain that Republicans are not about to abandon ship.

The greater risk is that boycotting the hearings, Democrats could be seen as implicating themselves in the cover-up. As much as they publicly affirm their love and support for President Obama, many Congressional Democrats are highly cognizant of two facts:

His signature legislation has put many of them at risk in the 2014 election. Without ObamaCare, incumbents like Mary Landrieu could have sailed to re-election. But now their base is disheartened and the opposition energized.

President Obama is no longer trusted by the electorate to tell the truth. As the laureate of the Politifact Lie of Year award, skepticism over his forthcoming defenses for whatever the Select Committee will be legitimate. “Trust me” is an inadequate argument.

For the moment, these doubts, suspicions, and worries will remain silent, operating privately and often subconsciously. The first sign we will get will be the reaction to Schiff’s boycott call.

But it is time for self-preservation instincts to come to the fore. Almost nobody who doesn’t call Delaware home wants to see a President Biden, and impeachment of The First Black President remains virtually unthinkable. But cautious distancing may be in order for Democrats.
.................................................. ......

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/..._benghazi.html

[bsteadman]

Trey Gowdy can do an end run on Benghazi Liars with video maker on the stand

Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod
5/6/2014

Excerpt:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C) who heads the select committee leading the probe into the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack is in a position to end run the lying Democrats heading for hide-y-holes by subpoenaing the man who likely knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That man is Mark Basseley Youssef, the elusive writer, producer and promoter of Innocence of Muslims.

Since his release from a halfway house on Sept. 26, 2013, Youssef, whose YouTube video was blamed by Obama administration officials for the Benghazi attack, has faded into obscurity.

Why?

What if Youssef, who served several months in prison for an unrelated 2010 bank fraud before being imprisoned for a year for Innocence of Muslims, was paid to disappear?

It wouldn’t be the first time a corrupt government administration brokered a deal with a straw man to spend time in the slammer before being retired to a life of quiet luxury in an island paradise.

From the Hollywood Reporter:

“Youssef, who was released from a halfway house last week after serving several months in prison for an unrelated 2010 bank fraud conviction, says he holds no grudge against public officials—including President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—for initially blaming him for the attack in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. After widespread news coverage of the video in the Middle East, deadly riots broke out in several countries.

“You think, sir, that I am worthy of criticizing the commander in chief? I can’t,” Youssef says. “He’s the commander in chief. Maybe he saw something I didn’t know. Maybe he has intelligence I didn’t know. What can I do? I’m an American citizen. I have to obey the commander in chief. I cannot judge him.”

“Youssef, also known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Sam Bacile and other aliases, was arrested shortly after the attack on Benghazi and pled guilty to charges that he violated his parole, stemming from a check-kiting scheme a few years earlier.

The last time anyone heard from the 57-year-old Youssef, he was reportedly searching for partners to make a new movie and a TV show about the roots of Islamic terrorism and said that the full two-hour version of his film Innocence of Muslims remains safe as a church, locked in a safe deposit box.

The history that followed the Benghazi attack already proved that the riots cited by Obama officials never happened:

“CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

“The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell.” (Washington Times, March 31, 2014)
Since Gowdy’s new Benghazi investigation was revealed, the politicians of the day are diving for cover.

Former top Obama adviser David Plouffe calls Benghazi critics a “delusional minority”. (Weasel Zippers)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) said “Dems should not participate in a “colossal waste of time” (Real Clear Politics)

Former Rep. Jane Harman said it’s “time to move on.” (CNS)

The truth about Benghazi, including the whereabouts of Barack Obama for 10 consecutive hours, will never come from self-serving politicians, who learned all about pleading the fifth from former Internal Revenue Service director Lois Lerner before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
................................................


View the complete article at:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62886

[bsteadman]

Why Benghazi Matters

PJ Media
Michael Walsh
5/5/2014

Excerpt:

One year ago today, I wrote the following here at PJ Media:

No matter what happens with Darrell Issa’s congressional committee meetings this week, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Obama administration, and the cause is Benghazi. It’s impossible to overestimate the blowback that has been gathering steam for the past seven months, now about to erupt with full force. Few reputations will emerge unscathed, Obama’s presidency will be crippled, Hillary Clinton‘s 2016 candidacy will be destroyed — and perhaps some new heroes will be born…

That’s because, right from the jump, the administration has been lying through its teeth about what happened on the night of Sept. 11, 2012 — the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, as it happens. It transparently lied about the Mohammad video, threw the scapegoated filmmaker in jail (where, last time I looked, he still is), and convened a bogus “accountability” board to whitewash the whole damn thing so as not to disrupt the precious Narrative that Osama was dead and al-Qaeda was on the run.

It was all a lie, of course, and some of us knew it at the time. I wrote about it repeatedly on the Post’s Op-Ed page: you can find examples here, here and here. In this case, however, what happened in Benghazi, Foggy Bottom, the White House, and the Obama re-election campaign headquarters in Chicago was (as the saying goes) worse than a crime: it was a blunder. And that blunder may now bring down the man who never should have been president in the first place, for grotesque dereliction of his duty as commander-in-chief….

In the year since, we’ve learned a lot about Benghazi, including the extreme heroism of the brave men who put up the fight of their lives against hordes of savages armed with modern weapons. We’ve learned as well that the subject makes the Left profoundly uncomfortable, and that requests for more information by folks we used to quaintly call “decent Americans” have been met with the usual leftist mockery, eye-rolling, sarcasm, sneering and dismissal. We’ve even learned a little more about where the president might have been that night, before grabbing some winks and jetting off to Las Vegas the next day for the only part of the job he takes seriously, a campaign fund-raiser.

You can read further thoughts on Benghazi and the latest developments by people I admire, including my friend and PJ colleague Andy McCarthy –

Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal — it involves an act of war in which our ambassador, the representative of the United States in Libya, was murdered (along with three other Americans) under circumstances where security was appallingly inadequate for political reasons, and where the administration did not just lie about what happened but actually trumped up a prosecution that violated the First Amendment in order to bolster the lie. Only in the Manhattan-Beltway corridor do people think Benghazi is a GOP concern driven by 2016 political considerations.

– and the editors of National Review, who write: “The White House misled the American public about a critical matter of national interest, and it continues to practice deceit as the facts of the case are sorted out. That, to answer Hillary Clinton’s callous question, is what difference it makes.”

But, before we get further bogged in lawyerly detail about who said what to whom about what when during the upcoming congressional investigation, let me cut to the chase:

Benghazi matters because it was and is a matter of national honor. And the men and women currently in charge in Washington have no honor.
..............................................

View the complete article, including videos, at:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2014...ghazi-matters/