Booker grills Pompeo: Is being gay a perversion?

Was Hillary Clinton running her own rogue intel operation?

The truth may be found in her private emails




Illustration on Hillary’s emails and secret intel operations by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times more >


By Monica Crowley - - Wednesday, March 18, 2015


We all know that the only reason you would deliberately and premeditatedly set up a private email address and server is to have total control over your communications — to keep people away from those communications and to retain the ability to edit and delete your content.

In Hillary Clinton’s case, given her long history of concealment and duplicity, total control was the system’s purpose, not to keep track of Chelsea’s bridal gift registry.

A story originally reported in 2013 (and little-noticed at the time) may offer a deeper dimension to the reasons she wanted this control — and it leaves us with many new, unanswered questions.

PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.

First, a step back: In order to understand this Hillary scandal, you must understand her pattern in past scandals. And you must understand the man at the center of so many of them: Sidney Blumenthal.

Mr. Blumenthal is the Clintons’ longtime and fiercely loyal political hit man. He orchestrated many of the sleaziest attacks on Clinton opponents, including smearing Monica Lewinsky as a “stalker” at Mrs. Clinton’s request. His mastery of the dark arts was so notorious that it may have been the reason Mr. Obama pointedly deniedMrs. Clinton’s request to appoint him to a special, official role in her State Department.

But Mrs. Clinton has never been one to take “no” for an answer. It now appears that despite Mr. Obama’s order, Mr. Blumenthal may have still served Mrs. Clinton’s political and policy needs, but in a shadowy, non-official capacity.


• 12/11/12 Latest Benghazi Intel

• 12/18/12 Latest Intel Morsi

• 1/4/13 HIGHLY IMPORTANT: Comprehensive Intel Report On

• 1/15/13 Latest Libya Intel, Government Discussions At High Levels

• 1/19/13 Latest French Intel On Algeria Hostage

• 2/16/13 Algeria/Libya/Terrorism

It appears that Mr. Blumenthal had moved from handling matters of stained dresses to matters of national security. He suggests he is in contact with the highest levels of foreign intelligence, including in Libya, Algeria and France.

What was the Clintons’ hatchet man really doing? How did he cultivate such sensitive intelligence sources, and on whose orders? Why was he apparently hip-deep in intelligence matters while his close friend was secretary of state?

Was the real reason Mrs. Clinton created a private communications system because she planned to run her own intelligence operation via Mr. Blumenthal, away from the prying eyes of the president, his White House, the intelligence and diplomatic communities, Congress, the press and the American people?

Was she essentially freelancing some national security policy, operating outside normal channels?

Did she set up this private system because she didn’t trust the Obama team to provide the intelligence that she needed or wanted?

Further, was it arranged so she could run her own intelligence operations? After Benghazi, it was reported that she had been so obsessed with overthrowing Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi that Mr. Obama simply gave her the Libya portfolio. Her role in the result — Gadhafi’s assassination and the subsequent Islamist-induced chaos, leading to the Benghazi attack — would likely be something she’d want under her control. And if it proves true that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was overseeing a covert gunrunning operation from Benghazi to Syrian rebels on Mrs. Clinton’s watch, wouldn’t she want to keep that under her control, too?

The Russian “reset” was also her portfolio. Was Mr. Blumenthal running secret back channels with Moscow for her? And with Tehran over the nuclear negotiations?

If Mr. Blumenthal were, in fact, overseeing this operation, how was he compensated? By Mrs. Clinton privately, by the Clinton Foundation, or by some other murky source?

Did Mrs. Clinton turn over the Blumenthal emails to the State Department, or were they among the deleted?

Is Mr. Blumenthal on anyone’s subpoena list?

His messages to her secret email account seem to indicate that she was using it for something more than arranging her yoga schedule.

These questions need answers.

If she did not circumvent the president, our intelligence and diplomatic agencies, and the law, then she should be ready, willing and able to reveal all.

But if she did, that might explain why she’s been so dodgy and defensive.

What say you, Mrs. Clinton? What were you and your personal El Sid really up to?

• Monica Crowley is online opinion editor at The Washington Times.

Source

.

.

Adriana Cohen: Benghazi truth emerges

071814clinton.jpg



Photo by:
AP (File)
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Sunday, September 7, 2014


By:
Adriana Cohen



Three CIA military contractors who were in the fight for their lives when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, gave a riveting first-hand account in a bombshell interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier of what really happened that night.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans — including Winchester native Glen Doherty — lost their lives in the brutal attack by Islamist terrorists who launched RPGs, mortars and heavy fire into both the consulate and nearby annex — for 13 hours — while the White House and State Department ignored their cries for help.

When our consulate was attacked, these three CIA first responders wanted to immediately rush over to the compound to rescue Stevens and other personnel but say they were repeatedly told to wait and “stand down” for nearly 30 minutes by their CIA base chief, who was with them that deadly night. Their team leader was a CIA official who got direct orders from Washington to wait multiple times.

This long delay cost Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith their lives.

Baier’s report is based on a book coming out Tuesday, “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” written by Boston University journalism professor Mitchell Zuckoff along with the CIA contractors.

BAIER: If I gave you that 30 minutes back, would Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith be alive today?

KRIS PARONTO (CIA contractor): Yes, they would still be alive.

BAIER: You in on that?

JOHN TIEGEN (CIA contractor): I strongly believe if we would have left immediately, they would still be alive today.

Not only did the delay cost two Americans their lives, but these three CIA security contractors and two others, Tyrone Woods and Doherty, were still fighting for their own lives as the attack continued. They requested air support and military back-up from the State Department — but Hillary Clinton didn’t answer that 3 a.m. phone call. No help came. And good American men lost their lives because of it.

The Obama Administration — of course — denies they told anybody at the CIA annex to “stand down.” It’s no surprise they’ve been playing word games on what “language” they used to order the CIA security team to wait. Former President Bill Clinton — when caught in a sex scandal which led to his impeachment — spliced words during the investigation saying, “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” With an ongoing congressional Benghazi investigation and upcoming midterm elections, the White House and their spokesmen are doing the same.

And America’s not buying it. They know a cover-up when they see one.

Prior to the Sept. 11 attack, Obama was selling the phony narrative that terrorism was “on the run.” So instead of admitting he was wrong when Islamist terrorists attacked our consulate, his administration made up the phony story that protesters upset by a video attacked our consulate and murdered these brave Americans. And then they went into cover-up mode. They put politics first and violated the “leave no man behind” military code.

And with a complicit mainstream media they got away with it, and Obama got re-elected. Politics and personal career ambitions should never trump human life. But in the Obama/Clinton regime, it does.

My heart goes out to the victims’ families.

Adriana Cohen is co-host of “Trending Now” on Boston Herald Radio. Go to adrianacohen.com or follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16.


Source
.

International Religious Freedom Report

Secretary Kerry (July 28): "The release of this report here today is a demonstration of the abiding commitment of the American people and the entire U.S. Government to the advancement of freedom of religion worldwide." Full Text» Briefing» Fact Sheet»

.

.

Source

.

Need a US visa, passport? Prepare for misery: Database crash strands thousands

'It's going to take a little while'

By Neil McAllister, 25 Jul 2014 

RELATED STORIES
Titsup UK Border IT causes CHAOS at air and seaports in BlightySystems meltdown plunges US immigration courts into pen-and-paper stone agePassport PIN tech could have SAVED MH370 ID fraudstersNAO: UK border bods not up to scratch, despite billion-pound facial recog techAirports' passport controls SHUT DOWN by 'malware' - report

An unspecified glitch in a global database used by the US government to issue passports and travel visas has left countless people around the world unable to travel for the last few days, according to State Department officials.

"The Bureau of Consular Affairs has been experiencing technical problems with our passport and visa system," Marie Harf, deputy spokesperson for the State Department, said in a press briefing on Thursday. "The issue is worldwide, not specific to any particular country."

The database in question, known as the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD), is said to be one of the largest Oracle-based data warehouses in the world. It holds over 100 million records of visa cases and 75 million photographs, and it currently processes around 35,000 new visa cases every day.

The system reportedly crashed following scheduled maintenance earlier this week and was out of operation for as much as a few days. Service has since been restored but only in a "limited capacity," and the downtime has resulted in a backlog of visa and passport processing that will take some time to work through.

It wasn't immediately clear whether Oracle or the State Department's IT staff was to blame for the outage, but Harf did say that the crash wasn't the result of any outside attack.

"We do not believe there was any malicious action or anything untoward here," Harf said. "This was a technical issue, and again, we are working to correct it and should be fully operational again soon."

In the meantime, it's not known just how many people have been left stranded while waiting for their US visas and other travel documents, but two US officials told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity that as many as 50,000 applicants had been affected in one unnamed country alone.

Harf could not say how long it would take to clear the visa backlog or when the database would be restored to fully operational status. "It's going to take a little while, so we ask people to be patient," she said.

As of Friday morning, the State Department had yet to respond to The Reg's request for an update. ®

Fuente

.

Blackwater manager reportedly threatened to kill State Department investigator

Published June 30, 2014

FoxNews.com

In this Feb. 20, 2004 file photo, signs welcome visitors to the private North Carolina-based security company Blackwater USA's headquarters near Moyock, N.C. (AP).

A manager with the security contractor formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide reportedly threatened to kill a State Department investigator in 2007 -- shortly before the investigator was pressured to abandon his probe despite finding serious problems with Blackwater's work.

The New York Times reported Sunday that Jean C. Richter wrote in an Aug. 31, 2007 memo to State Department officials that Blackwater contractors "saw themselves as above the law" and described a situation in Baghdad where "the contractors, instead of Department officials, are in command and control."

The investigator reportedly warned his superiors that lax oversight of the firm had created "an environment of liability and negligence," just weeks before a group of guards allegedly opened fire on Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad traffic circle in 2007.

The Times report claims that Richter's inquiry, though, was abandoned after Blackwater's project manager in Iraq, Daniel Carroll, warned Richter that "he could kill me ... and no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq," according to a memo sent by Richter to senior State Department officials. According to the Times, the American Embassy sided with Blackwater and ordered the investigators out of the country.

Before the investigation was halted, the paper reports, Richter found evidence that Blackwater was overcharging the State Department for its work by falsifying staff data, understaffing security details, allowing contractors to carry weapons that they were not authorized to use, and housing non-American workers in squalid conditions.

Sixteen days after the date of Richter's report, Blackwater guards allegedly opened fire in Baghdad's Nisoor Square. Seventeen Iraqi civilians died in the violence, including women and children. The shooting inflamed anti-American sentiment in Iraq in the midst of growing insurgent violence Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq was revoked by the Baghdad government the following day.

Four Blackwater guards are facing trial on manslaughter charges in connection with the Nisoor Square shooting, which prosecutors argue was unprovoked. Attorneys for the men say they had come under attack by insurgents.

In 2009, Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services after founder Erik Prince resigned as CEO. The following year, a group of investors purchased the company and renamed it again, to Academi.

Source

.

Do away with dumb diplomacy

Apr. 29, 2014





A book street vendor passes the time on her smartphone as she waits for customers in Havana, Cuba. The Obama administration secretly financed a social network in Cuba to stir political unrest and undermine the country's communist government, according to an Associated Press investigation. / AP file photo


Written by
Lionel Beehner


I had to laugh when I heard about the U.S. Agency for International Development's botched effort to create a Twitter-like platform for Cuba intended to undermine the communist regime. Even the name -- ZunZuneo -- to the State Department's credit, sounded like something cooked up in Silicon Valley, not Foggy Bottom.

But it sparks the question: Why are we dumping millions of taxpayer dollars on such dumb programs in the first place?

To be sure, there is a need for outside-of-the-box thinking when it comes to diplomacy, which has always involved overt and covert tactics. And, as anybody who has seen the movie Argo knows, not all hare-brained schemes fail.

But our dependence on covert forms of public diplomacy can feel like an admission that our normal diplomacy has failed (see the past five decades of U.S.-Cuban relations).

It also implies we can do diplomacy on the cheap and painless. There is this dogma within the U.S. government that throwing a few million dollars at social media programs can topple nasty regimes -- just look at Tunisia or Egypt.

That the new undersecretary for public diplomacy at the State Department, Richard Stengel, was the managing editor of Time when the magazine declared its 2006 Person of the Year was "You" -- implying the tweeting masses -- does not bode well for reform.
 
Cultural warriors

"The State Department's fascination with social media reflects a view that its job is to speak over the heads of governments, or under their heads, or something," as Laurence Pope, a former ambassador, put it in a recent interview. "That is a dangerous illusion."

Sure, spending millions on programs aimed at winning hearts and minds is better than, say, invading a country. And there is obvious value in squashing news stories -- say, an American pastor burning Qurans -- before they spread virally.

ut we can do better when it comes to selling our values and promoting democracy abroad.

During the Cold War, such information campaigns were an embedded part of our national security apparatus. Voice of America reached more than 94 million people during its heyday. We sent jazz impresarios like Duke Ellington to Eastern bloc countries to showcase American culture.

But such kinds of diplomacy got downgraded after the Berlin Wall fell. When democracy promotion came back into vogue after 9/11, we saw a string of failed propaganda efforts to win over the Arab world.

My first freelance job out of graduate school in 2002 was to write copy for Hi!! magazine, a U.S. government-funded glossy magazine in Arabic meant to portray us in a positive light to the Muslim world. The trouble is I was told not to write about religion, sex or politics, which left me writing puff pieces. No wonder the magazine folded a few years later.

We also set up Alhurra, a pro-U.S. network alternative to Al Jazeera. But the channel's legitimacy took a hit after refusing to interview anyone, including members of Hezbollah, whose views Washington found offensive.

Hip-hop diplomacy
Or consider our use of "hip-hop diplomacy," whereby Washington dispatches hip-hop artists to talk up American inclusiveness to disaffected Muslim youths as a way to prevent future 9/11s. But our cultural diplomacy only ticked off our European allies, who felt we were downplaying the musical genre's role in stoking radical Islam, and sparked a backlash within the hip-hop community itself, according to Columbia University's Hisham Aidi.

With a new kind of Cold War with Russia, there are renewed calls for revitalizing public diplomacy. One ambassador, Brian Carlson, proposed grants for Ukrainians to study politics here and call them "Putin Scholarships." Instead the U.S. government has busied itself with online trolling and tweeting Buzzfeed-like listicles such as "President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine."

It's not that we should do away with public diplomacy or even that we should do away with covert public diplomacy, but rather we should do away with dumb public diplomacy, especially one enraptured by the magic of tweeting ambassadors and other quick technological fixes.

If we couldn't dislodge the Castro regime after 50 years, how will we dislodge it in 140 characters or less?

Lionel Beehner, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.


Source
.

Special envoy says Obama admin. moving aggressively to transfer Gitmo detainees

Transcript

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Pentagon announced a significant milestone was reached this week in the long saga to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. The last three ethnic Uighurs from China were released and sent to Slovakia. A total of 22 Uighurs were captured after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

They were found not to be a threat, and a judge ordered them freed in 2008, but the U.S. struggled to find a place to send them. All told, nine detainees were transferred in the month of December.

So, just who has been released and under what conditions? And what will happen to the remaining 155 prisoners?

For that, we turn to the State Department's special envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan.

Cliff Sloan, welcome to the NewsHour.

CLIFF SLOAN, U.S. State Department Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure: Thank you. Happy to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So there was a slump in the release of prisoners for a period of about two years, until you came in this summer. Just in the last month, as we have said, several released.

What's changed since you have been there?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, Judy, as you know, in May, the president gave a speech at the National Defense University.

And he strongly reiterated and renewed his commitment to close Guantanamo. And he's been very committed to closing it from the beginning. And in this speech, he said, we were going to move forward on transfers, we were going to move forward on closing the facility.

He announced the appointment of special envoys at the State Department and the Defense Department who would be focused and moving forward on closure. I started the beginning of July. Paul Lewis, my counterpart at the Defense Department, started in November. And so we are moving full-speed ahead.

And I'm also pleased that we are able to work with Congress in the last few months to change the law in a way that removes some of the obstacles and restrictions that had led to that slump that you referred to. And I think that's also going to be very helpful to us in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, is that what made the difference? And how did you prioritize who was going to be released first among these prisoners?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, in terms of changing the law -- and the law will be different in 2014 -- I think that is going to help us very much in moving forward with the transfers.

In terms of prioritizing the transfers, let's step back for a second and have an overview of the facility; 155 detainees are there right now; 76 now are approved for transfer; 79 are not approved for transfer. And when I say approved for transfer, there's a very important point that I think people don't realize, which is that the executive branch in 2009 and 2010 undertook a very rigorous review by the national security agencies and departments.

And those who are approved for transfer were unanimously determined that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security arrangements and humane treatment arrangements.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That they were no longer a threat, or...

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, that they should be -- that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security and humane treatment, assurances and agreements with other countries, that there was no need to continue to hold them.

And so those are the priority. And we have been moving forward as aggressively and quickly as we can on those approved for transfer. Now, let me just say...

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Can I just say, is the hold -- has the holdup then been finding the countries, the places that will take them?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, it's a -- it's a complicated process, which includes, as I said, there were the congressional restrictions which we think were far more burdensome than necessary and helpful.

There's the question of the countries they're going to. And in some cases, it's to their home countries. And in some cases, if that's not possible for security or humane treatment reasons, it would be to third countries. And that takes negotiations. And it is a -- it is a complicated process.

But one thing that I think is very important, Judy, and that I have tried to emphasize and Paul Lewis at the Defense Department has tried to emphasize, we don't want to relitigate the old battles. We don't be looking backward. We want to be looking ahead.

And we feel very strongly there is a new air of possibility on moving forward on closing the Guantanamo detention facility. That is what we are focused on. We don't want to go over what happened in the -- during the last several months and the years when there was that slump. We feel very good about moving ahead now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, of the 155 left, you said 70-some are cleared for -- how long is it going to take to get those detainees out of the country to a new location?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't give you an exact time frame, but what I can tell you is, we are working just as hard as we can. We are moving forward as aggressively as we can.

As you mentioned, nine were transferred in the month of December alone, 11 in the last couple of months. We are working very hard on all those approved for transfer. But the other point that I want to make which is also very important is, the 79 who are not approved for transfer, we have also started a new administrative process for them, a new hearing, where they have the opportunity to show that they now should be approved for transfer. They get a fresh look.

And that's important as well in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So it's -- so they may not necessarily stay at Guantanamo, because right now it looks as if you have got several dozen of them who are -- who will be there indefinitely?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, they -- as I said, we have 79 who are not approved for transfer. Eight of those are facing criminal charges. So, of the remaining 71, they now will have this new administrative hearing.

That's already started. That's going to accelerate on a rolling basis, and that is going to be very important in moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe that Guantanamo will close within the foreseeable future, and that all detainees will be taken care of one way or another?

CLIFF SLOAN: Absolutely.

We are going to close the Guantanamo detention facility. I have no doubt about that. And President Obama is very strongly committed to that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: By when?

CLIFF SLOAN: I'm not going to give you a time frame on it, but I am absolutely convinced that we going to close the Guantanamo facility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why are you convinced, if you don't -- if you can't say how long it's going to take?

CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't say how long it's going to take because there are variables, and I don't want to give an artificial timeline. I don't want to just pluck a date out of the air and say it.

But those who have been approved for transfer, we will do everything we can to transfer those. Those who are not approved for transfer will have the new administrative hearing. Now, there is more work to be done with Congress, because there currently is a ban on bringing any detainees to the United States, including for prosecution in our courts.

And we think that is unwise. And we think that restriction should be lifted. But we are going...

(CROSSTALK)

JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you think you can be successful changing that?

(CROSSTALK)

CLIFF SLOAN: I think so. And I think you are seeing a new recognition across the spectrum that it's time to move on, it is time to put this problem before us.

When you look at the facts and when you just take a sort of reasoned view of it, there is a much better solution out there than just -- just keeping them at Guantanamo. And we can and we will close the Guantanamo detention facility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Cliff Sloan, who is the special envoy for Guantanamo closure, we thank you.

CLIFF SLOAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.


Source
.

U.S. intelligence: Al Qaeda plot tied to embassy closings on Sunday

By

Jake Miller /

CBS News/ August 1, 2013, 8:23 PM


Updated 8:22 PM ET






An al Qaeda plot is linked to an announcement by the State Department that it was closing several consulates and embassies around the world on Sunday due to a security threat, CBS News has learned.

CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that U.S. intelligence has picked up signs of an al Qaeda plot against American diplomatic posts in the Middle East and other Muslim countries. The intelligence does not mention a specific location, which is why all embassies that would normally be open on Sunday have been ordered to close. That includes embassies and consulates in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, where Sunday is the start of the work week.

Martin further reported that officials say this appears to be a real plot in the making and not just the normal chatter among terrorists talking about attacks they'd like to carry out. But these same officials add they are missing key pieces of information.

As of 7:35 PM ET Thursday, at least 14 embassies have announced that they will close on Sunday in accordance with the State Department's guidance, including the U.S. embassies in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. A statement on the website of the embassy in Kuwait explained, "The Department of State has instructed certain U.S. Embassies and Consulates to remain closed or to suspend operations on Sunday, August 4...Accordingly, the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait will be closed on Sunday, August 4."

In the meantime, the statement continued, "All U.S. citizen services appointments and visa appointments have been cancelled and have been rescheduled on an individual basis."





Play Video
State Dept: Some embassies to close Sunday due to "security considerations"

Earlier, Marie Harf, the deputy spokeswoman for the State Department, told reporters that the step was taken as a "precautionary" measure. She did not provide further specifics on the nature of the threat or which embassies would be forced to shutter for the day.

"The Department of State has instructed certain U.S. embassies and consulates to remain closed or to suspend operations on Sunday, August 4th," she said, explaining that the decision was made "out of an abundance of caution."

She said that is is "possible" some facilities would remain closed for more than a day, depending on the results of a security analysis.

A senior State Department official told CBS News: "For those who asked about which embassies and consulates we have instructed to suspend operations on August 4th, the answer is that we have instructed all U.S. Embassies and Consulates that would have normally been open on Sunday to suspend operations, specifically on August 4th. It is possible we may have additional days of closing as well." The official added: "The Department, when conditions warrant, takes steps like this to balance our continued operations with security and safety."




A map showing the embassies that normally open on Sundays that would be closing following an announcement by the State Department on Aug. 1, 2013. / CBS News

Harf declined to say from which region of the world the threat had emanated, saying only that "security considerations have led us to take this precautionary step, as we do from time to time."


The State Department will provide further details soon, Harf said.
Kerry sets 9-month goal for Mideast peace talks
Congress interviewing "dozens" of Benghazi witnesses


The security of American embassies and other diplomatic facilities has recently emerged as a political flashpoint in the wake of the September 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of four Americans, including then-ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

In the wake of that attack, Republicans accused the State Department of providing insufficient security for diplomatic personnel in Libya.


Source
.

Secretary Kerry Remarks at the 2013 U.S. Department of State's Iftar Dinner

1. From [U.S. Embassy to the Holy See (Vatican)] Facebook page: 

U.S. Embassy to the Holy See (Vatican) shared a link.

6 hours ago
“Our freedom to worship is a powerful reminder of traditions we share. From many faiths, we stand together in one shared country.” --Secretary Kerry at the U.S. Department of State's Iftar dinner.


https://www.facebook.com/holysee.usembassy



2. Remarks at the Ramadan Iftar Dinner


Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Ben Franklin Room

Washington, DC


July 24, 2013



http://bcove.me/aq7o0eq4



Thank you very much. Assalamu alaikum. It’s wonderful to be here with everybody. And Farah, thank you for an extraordinarily gracious introduction. And most importantly, thank you for an absolutely extraordinary job, I think you will all agree, as our Special Representative to the Muslim Community. We are really pleased with what you’re doing. Thank you. (Applause.)



She said in her introduction that when I was a senator, she never dreamed that she could call me boss, but I want you to know, since I was an elected official, there were lots of things she could call me – (laughter) – and probably did. But I’m honored to, quote, “be her boss” today. I don’t think of myself that way. We’re a great team here at the State Department, an extraordinary group of people, all of whom – I see our Under Secretary Pat Kennedy here, and Under Secretary Wendy Sherman, and I haven’t looked around the whole room, but many other members of our team are here, and we all join together in welcoming you here to this break of the fast.

It is a privilege to do this. I know that Washington being sort of a little bit further north – try this in Boston or even further north, you wait till later. But I know the sun sets late, so we figured it would be a heck of a lot better to have an Iftar here at the State Department than to have a Suhoor. (Laughter.) And one thing I know as a former elected official, never keep people from their meal, and believe me, after a day of fasting, even more so. So eat. Everybody has to eat while I say a few words here if I can.

We are joined this evening by a really remarkable group of people. And I want to welcome my former colleagues from the United States Congress who are here, members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, some of whom I saw just last night as we received many of them here. But I also especially want to recognize our Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, and Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We’re delighted to have them here. (Applause.)

Most importantly – and I say this without any artifice – every single one of you were invited here because you are all doers. You are all active. You’re all engaged. You’re all involved in trying to make the world a better place, and you’re all involved in reaching out to other people and practicing, if not your faith, certainly practicing the best tenets of how human beings can live together.

And we are celebrating the holiest month of the Muslim calendar year, Ramadan. It is a time for peaceful reflection and for prayer. It is a time for acts of compassion and charity. So to all of you tonight, and to the millions of American Muslims across our land, and to the many more around the world, Ramadan Kareem.

I want to – (applause) – thank you. You can clap for Ramadan Kareem. (Applause.)

I want you to know that the tradition of sharing respect for this particularly holy month actually reaches back to the earliest days of our Republic. This is the Benjamin Franklin Room, and it’s a fitting venue for this occasion because Ben Franklin was really our first formal diplomat. And he was also among the earliest proponents of religious freedom in our country. He wrote in his autobiography, “Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

To find a pulpit at one’s service, to profess one’s faith openly and freely, that is really a core American value. And I’m proud to say, as all of us are who are American here, that it is enshrined in our Constitution, and hard fought for. And it has been at the center of our story, our national story, since the 1600s, when a fellow by the name of John Winthrop, who happened to have been my great grandfather eight times removed, led a ship full of religious dissidents across the Atlantic to America in order to seek the freedom of worship.

Throughout its history, America didn’t always get it right. In my home state of Massachusetts, John Winthrop and Puritans overreached, and people ran away from Salem and from other places to found New Haven, Connecticut, and found Providence, Rhode Island, named Providence after wandering a year through the woods in the winter in order to escape from persecution. So we didn’t always get it right.

But throughout our history, we have struggled with the divisiveness of religious differences. I can proudly say today that no place has ever welcomed so many different communities, so many people, to worship so freely. The diversity and the patriotism of America’s religious communities today are sources of strength for all of us. And our freedom to worship is a powerful reminder of the traditions that we share. E pluribus unum: from many, one. And from many faiths, we do stand together in one shared country. Now ultimately, our sense of kinship is grounded in our shared sense of humanity, a moral truth that emerges based on the dignity of all human beings.

So tonight, I just pose a question to you: Can our great faith traditions – the Abrahamic faiths that Farah referred to – can they forge a common effort for human dignity? My faith and the faith that I have seen in the lives of so many Americans tells me that the answer to that is resoundingly yes. Our faiths and our fates – our fates are inextricably linked. It’s not enough just to talk about greater understanding. Our partnerships, the way we work every day in life, the way we reach out country to country, people to people, they have to foster a mutual respect and underscore the freedoms that we seek.
I think it’s safe to say – I hope it is safe to say that may there are four partnerships that will be critical if we’re going to live up to our obligations to one another: partnerships for peace, for prosperity, for our people, and for the future of our planet. Let me begin just quickly with the fourth.

For many of us, respect for God’s creation in almost every scripture really demands and translates into a duty to protect and sustain God’s first creation. Our response to climate change ought to be rooted in a fundamental sense of shared stewardship of the earth that emerges from that tradition. We must also obviously strive to forge a partnership for peace, and there is no religion, no philosophy of life – whether Hinduism, Confucianism, Native American tenets – nothing that doesn’t talk about peace and the responsibilities of each human being to another.

I’ve just returned, as many of you know, from the Middle East, and I can tell you the need for lasting peace and security between Israelis and Palestinians, between Sunni and Shia, between so many different minorities and so many different people has never been greater than it is today. Our partnership for peace obviously extends far and wide, from the Syrian people to people on every continent on this planet, all of whom seek to achieve the freedom and the dignity that they so richly deserve.

We also can find a common ground in the partnership for prosperity. Tahrir Square, a fruit vendor in Tunisia – these weren’t religiously motivated revolutions, not at all. They were demands for respect and opportunity by individual human beings frustrated by the inability of governments to address their needs. And when youth see no hope for escaping from poverty or improving their lives, then problems can become truly insurmountable.

And to meet the demands of these populations for dignity and for opportunity requires new and creative partnerships. We need to reach beyond governmental and beyond government itself in order to include business, civil society, and of course, people of all walks of life working together in order to invest in the future through collaborations like the Partnerships for a New Beginning.

This brings me to the fourth partnership quickly, and then I will close. That is the partnership between our peoples. Earlier this evening, I met very briefly in the Monroe Room there with a group of outstanding representatives of the State Department who are part of programs we sponsor working with Muslim communities around the world. I’m very proud of the work that they are doing, and as Secretary of State, I not only find it inspiring, I think it is something we need to export and grow. All of these initiatives, in the end, add up to the way you find a different way of doing things, a different way of bringing people together to work for these common goals.

I’m pleased to tell you tonight that we’re in the process of expanding our capacity to do just that here in the State Department. We’ve created the first faith-based office, which will reach out in a major way across continents and oceans in order to try to increase our engagement with faith communities, and you’ll be hearing a great deal more about this effort in the days ahead.

Before I close, let me share – just share a couple things with you. I was impressed when I first visited Saudi Arabia, and I met King Abdullah, and I listened to him talk about his sense of urgency about bringing faiths together and his own initiative to try to reach out across the divide and bring Muslim and all other religions together. That has grown. There are Jordanians – Prince Ghazi and others – who are working similarly in efforts to try to reach across the divide and prove that radical, political Islam does not represent the true heart and faith.

I’ll share a story with you. It’s a story of bringing people together and of what makes a difference. It involves a rabbi, a Greek Orthodox bishop, and an imam. Now I know that sounds like the beginning of a really bad joke – (laughter) – but I want to tell you right up front, it’s not, it’s a true story. And I think Congressman Keating from my home state is here, and you can ask him, because he lived this story as I did. It embodies the kind of partnership and the way in which all of us need to think and ways in which we can be inspired.

Back in the early 1990s in Massachusetts, the Muslim community in Quincy, Massachusetts, home, I might add, of former President John Adams and John Quincy Adams, this – the Muslim community was looking for more land on which they could build an Islamic center – not a mosque, an Islamic center. And they found a large parcel in a nearby town. But when the residents heard about the plans, not unlike what happened in New York and elsewhere, they tried to keep the mosque from being built.

Dr. Ashraf, the President of the Islamic Center of New England, was about to give up hope, literally about to quit. He called everybody and talked to people. Then, out of the blue, unsolicited, he received a phone call from a man in another town, who just said simply, “Dr. Ashraf, I heard you need some land on which you want to build a mosque and a school, a center. And we would love for you to come and build your center here. We welcome you.”

My friends, when they finally broke ground, there stood three men holding shovels, breaking ground together: a rabbi, a Greek Orthodox bishop, and the imam. Today, that center stands tall and proud, and tonight, Dr. Ashraf’s niece stands right here. This is Farah Pandith’s uncle. (Applause.)

This is what our shared humanity asks of us, even demands of us. And when we speak of our faith, it can’t be just about our personal relationship with God, it has to also be about our personal relationship one to the other, each to everybody else.

I think you will agree with me. I have never met a child in my life – two years old, two and a half years old, three years old – who hates anybody. They may hate their broccoli or something else they’re forced to eat, but they don’t hate other people or kids. They learn that. It is taught. It is passed down.

And what we need to do is care for our fellow men and women, whatever the differences. If we are doing God’s work, we can do that. So let us act in faith – act in faith – even as we preach it. Let us treat each other with respect. Let us lift up humanity and live our faiths fully and freely and draw inspiration from this day of fasting and every day of fasting in Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak. Thank you. (Applause.)



PRN: 2013/0922



Source

.

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTzjvyi4cRg

.

More:

: .

State Department Iftar



William Amos



Published on Jul 24, 2013
.

Obama slated to name five openly homosexual foreign ambassadors

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN

Wed Jun 12, 2013 16:51 EST




WASHINGTON, D.C., June 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – The Obama Administration’s ongoing celebration of homosexual “Pride Month” has seemingly carried over into its ambassadorial nominations.

On monday, the president announced the nomination of Daniel Baer as ambassador to the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). If confirmed, Baer would be the first open homosexual to serve as ambassador to a multilateral institution.

Next on the list is HBO executive James Costos, who together with his boyfriend, decorator Michael Smith, fundraised over $1 million for President Obama’s re-election. He is expected to be named ambassador to Spain as early as this week.

After that, at least three more homosexuals are slated to be announced as ambassadorial picks, including former Office of Personnel Management director John Berry (Australia), former Democratic National Committee finance chairman and Obama fundraising director Rufus Gifford (Denmark), and hedge fund manager James “Wally” Brewster, a high-dollar Obama fundraiser whose assignment is as yet unknown.

If they are confirmed, the five openly gay ambassadors will join the three already appointed, bringing the total to eight.
Emily Heil of the Washington Post speculated that the rash of homosexual appointments is repayment for the massive role gay activists had in the president’s fundraising efforts, as well as on Election Day. Heil reported that a dozen members of Obama’s national finance team are openly homosexual, and said an argument could be made that gay Americans “handed Obama the election” by voting for him by a three-to-one margin.

While the Administration has yet to send an openly gay ambassador to a country that opposes homosexuality, in the wake of the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11 of last year, it was widelyspeculated that murdered Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens may have been targeted by Muslim extremists because of suspicions he was gay.

In 2011, Ambassador Richard Hoagland outraged Pakistanis by hosting a gay pride celebration at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, provoking protests in the conservative Muslim nation. At the time, a coalition of religious and political leaders, including Pakistan’s largest Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, released a statement condemning the U.S. government’s homosexual advocacy, calling it the “worst social and cultural terrorism against Pakistan.”

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry released a recorded message to all State Department employees celebrating the month of June as homosexual “Pride Month” and highlighting the department’s role in spreading homosexual acceptance throughout the globe, describing gay advocacy as “central” to the Obama Administration’s efforts overseas.

Source

.

State Department accused of covering up sex and prostitution investigation

Published June 11, 2013

FoxNews.com

FILE: Jan. 18, 2013: Then-Secretary of State HillaryClinton talks at the State Department, in Washington, D.C. (AP)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department’s ability to investigate wrongdoing by its staff is under question after a report that the agency tried to cover up several crimes committed has surfaced.

Some of the allegations are against then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail who allegedly hired prostitutes, a U.S. ambassador accused of trolling public parks for paid sex and a security official in Beirut committing sexual assaults on foreign nationals.

An internal memo from the State Department’s inspector general listed eight examples of wrongdoing by agency staff or contractors.

The memo also seems to indicate that the government agency tried to use its authority to stop the investigation and instead, opting to have the official, whose name has not been released, meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy in Washington. The official was then allowed to return to his job overseas.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters during Monday’s daily briefing that the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has requested a “review by outside, experienced law enforcement officers” who are working with the IG’s office to make “expert assessments about our current procedures.”

Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the allegations of misconduct appalling and said he would ask congressional staff members to start an investigation into all of the accusations.

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stonewalled reporters Tuesday when asked about the alleged misconduct and possible cover up.

"I don't know what you're talking about," the Nevada Democrat said. "What are you talking about? ... I don't know what you're talking about."

According to the memo first obtained by CBS News, four members of Clinton’s security detail received one-day suspensions.

Allegations of misconduct are not new and have plagued the Obama administration for awhile.

In April 2012, members of the president’s Secret Service detail were caught in a prostitution scandal involving 12 women they picked up during an official trip to Colombia. The Secret Service was slow to disclose any information and issued only limited public statements in the weeks following the incident in Cartagena.

In the end, a dozen agents, officers, supervisors and 12 other U.S. military personnel were implicated in a night of heavy drinking and misconduct.

The Secret Service forced eight employees from their jobs. The military canceled the security clearances of all 12 enlisted personnel.

Fox News' James Rosen contributed to this report.


Source

.

Eric Holder on hot seat as he juggles twin scandals

Holder called the original AP story that sparked the probe 'a very, very serious leak.' | AP PhotoClose
By REID J. EPSTEIN and JOSH GERSTEIN | 5/14/13 11:22 PM EDT


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he’d recused himself from the national security leak investigation in which prosecutors obtained the phone records of Associated Press journalists — but that he’s already started a fresh inquiry into the IRS scrutiny of conservative political groups.

The comments were the first from Holder or the Justice Department on the twin Obama administration scandals that have burst through in recent days. And they come as the Justice Department, and Holder himself, find themselves under increasing pressure.  Continue Reading



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/eric-holder-scandals-91377.html#ixzz2TKXiigi8

.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

US News | Syria News | More ABC News Videos

White House Benghazi Attack Talking Points Edited

By Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Follow on Twitter
May 10, 2013 6:33am

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.




AFP/Getty Images

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:


“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

.

Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department

Posted: 05/10/2013 12:49 pm EDT | Updated: 05/11/2013 1:50 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points_n_3253638.html?ir=Politics 


By DONNA CASSATA, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi.

An interim report by Republicans on five House committees last month had detailed how the talking points were changed, days after the Sept. 11 attack and in the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign. New details about the political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

The White House has insisted that it made only stylistic changes to the intelligence agency talking points in which Rice suggested that protests over an anti-Islamic video set off the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Before the presidential election, the administration said Rice's talking points were based on the best intelligence assessments available in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But the report and the new details Friday suggest a greater degree of White House and State Department involvement.

The latest developments are certain to add fuel to the politically charged debate over Benghazi. Republicans have suggested that the Obama administration sought to play down the possibility of terrorism during the campaign and has misled the country. A senior administration official reiterated Friday that the talking points were based on intelligence assessments and developed during an interagency process, which included the CIA, officials from the Director of National Intelligence, State Department, FBI and the Justice Department.

The official commented only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation

Last Sept. 14, two days before Rice's appearance, the CIA's initial draft of the talking points referred to Islamic extremists taking part in the attack in Benghazi, possible links to Islamic extremist group Ansar al-Sharia, a CIA assessment of threats from extremists linked to al-Qaida and a mention of five previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

A congressional official who reviewed 100 pages of emails and the 12 pages of talking points said former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about the talking points, writing that they "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill."

The reference to al-Sharia was deleted, but Nuland wrote later that night, "these don't resolve all my issues and those of my building leadership, they are consulting with NSS," a reference to the National Security staff within the White House.

A meeting of senior officials was convened on Saturday morning after the attack to work on the talking points and they included officials from the White House, State Department and CIA.

Deleted from the final talking points were mention of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya and Islamic extremists, according to the congressional official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the emails that have not been released.


Source
.

What Did Hillary Accomplish as Secretary of State?

January 29, 2013


HILLARY WAS A GREAT AMBASSADOR, NOT A GREAT SECRETARY OF STATE

Posted by John Cassidy




Having stopped off in a hundred and twelve countries during her four years as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in her last week in office, seems intent on visiting almost as many televisions studios. At the weekend, she did “60 Minutes” on CBS. Today, she will be on ABC, NBC, CNN, and Fox. Tomorrow, it’s the BBC. If you are a news producer at CNBC, Bloomberg, New York 1, or the Weather Channel, give the State Department a call. As far as I know, Thursday and Friday are still open.

O.K., O.K., all you Hillary fans. I’m just being flippant. We all know that once she decides to do something, she gives it her all, and this is probably just another case of the Wellesley-Yale standout overdoing things. And, perhaps, after playing the role of the dancing monkey to President Obama’s organ grinder during the interview with Steve Kroft, she is eager to speak for herself about her record, without the boss looking over her shoulder.

That would be understandable. Still, in view of all the publicity she is receiving, and her elevated approval rating—sixty nine per cent in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll—a nagging question remains: What has she really achieved?

During the joint “60 Minutes” interview, Obama said, “I think she will go down as one of the finest Secretary of States we’ve had.”  But while he praised Hillary’s stamina, her professionalism, and her teamwork, the President was a bit short on specific achievements that could be put down to her efforts. Asked by Steve Kroft about the biggest foreign-policy successes of his first term, he mentioned ending the war in Iraq, drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and dismantling the leadership of Al Qaeda, adding, “That’s all a consequence of the great work that Hillary did and her team did, and the State Department did, in conjunction with our national-security team.”

Fair enough. But it’s no secret that the Administration’s policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, and counterterrorism were conceived and managed in the White House. In foreign-policy circles, the knock on Hillary is that, unlike some of her storied predecessors—John Quincy Adams, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger—she failed to carve out a historically significant role for herself. “There’s no question that Clinton has been terrifically energetic, as well as a loyal team player,” Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, wrote last July, shortly after a profile in the Times Magazine referred to Hillary as a “rock star diplomat.” “The problem, however, is that she’s hardly racked up any major achievements… She played little role in extricating us from Iraq, and it is hard to see her fingerprints on the U.S. approach to Afghanistan. She has done her best to smooth the troubled relationship with Pakistan, but anti-Americanism remains endemic in that country and it hardly looks like a success story at this point… She certainly helped get tougher sanctions on Iran, but the danger of war still looms and there’s been no breakthrough there either.”

Other experts agree. “She’s coming away with a stellar reputation that seems to have put her almost above criticism,” Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat peace negotiator, said to Paul Richter, of the Los Angeles Times. “But you can’t say that she’s really led on any of the big issues for this administration or made a major mark on high strategy.” A former diplomat who served in the Obama Administration told Richter, “If you go down the line, it’s tough to see what’s happened in world politics over the last four years that wouldn’t have happened without her. So, it’s tough to see how she gets into that category of truly great, transformational secretaries, like Acheson and Marshall.”

It’s hard to quibble with that assessment. Marshall gave his name to an economic-recovery plan for war-torn Europe. Acheson laid down the Cold War policy of containment and helped create NATO. Adams helped conceive the Monroe Doctrine, which defined Central and South America as part of the U.S. sphere of influence. Kissinger pioneered détente with the Soviets, instigated a rapprochement with the Chinese, and did much else besides (by no means all of it estimable). By contrast, Hillary’s signature achievements look like small beer. She was the public face of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, which involved persuading Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President, to step aside peaceably, winning international support for U.S. military intervention in Libya, and resisting international pressure for similar action in Syria. How these policies will ultimately play out, it is too early to say.

The Benghazi killings and their aftermath, for which she has taken responsibility while insisting that more lowly officials made the key decisions, or pieces of indecision, were the most controversial incident of her tenure. The most serious gap in her record, and the record of the Administration, is any serious attempt to tackle the Arab-Israeli conflict—but there, too, the White House held sway. The fact that Hillary didn’t bring peace to Palestine, or redefine the relationship between the United States and China, doesn’t mean she was a failure. Far from it. In carrying out the task she was allotted, she was a big success. It’s just that the nature of her job was very different from the ones that Acheson and Kissinger held. In reality, she wasn’t directing American foreign policy, or anything close. At times, she wasn’t even the Administration’s chief troubleshooter—a niche occupied by a series of special envoys: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, and Dennis Ross. The post she really had was that of U.S. Ambassador to the world, and she made a pretty good fist of it.

In the “60 Minutes” interview, President Obama was surprisingly explicit about how he conceived of Hillary’s role. Referring back to late 2008, he said, “She also was already a world figure. And I thought that somebody stepping into that position of Secretary of State at a time when, keep in mind, we were still in Iraq. Afghanistan was still an enormous challenge. There was great uncertainty in terms of how we would reset our relations around the world. To have somebody who could serve as that effective ambassador in her own right without having to earn her stripes, so to speak, on the international stage, I thought would be hugely important.”

As a globe-trotting representative for the United States, Hillary has had few equals. According to the Travels With the Secretary page on the State Department’s Web site, she has logged 2081.21 hours on the road—not 2081.20, mind you—and clocked up 956,733 miles on the federal frequent-flyer program. In total, she was traveling for four hundred and one days—more than thirteen months—enduring hundreds of long flights and sitting through countless boring meetings. How far this crazy schedule contributed to her recent illness can only be speculated upon—after contracting a stomach virus in Europe, she fell and suffered a concussion that led to a blood clot—but nobody can ever fault her work ethic.

As well as adhering to Woody Allen’s motto that ninety per cent of life is showing up, she also delivered a distinctive message. While it hardly added up to a full-blown “Clinton Doctrine,” it did present a different and more inclusive image of America than the one conveyed by G.I. fatigues and drone missile attacks. Throughout her tenure, she was a vocal proponent of female empowerment, gay rights, and equitable economic development in poor countries. She also defended freedom of expression. Perhaps her most memorable moment was helping to secure the freedom of Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese dissident, who is now a scholar in residence at N.Y.U.

Doubtless, these actions by themselves, were insufficient to drastically change how the world sees the United States. According to polling data from the Pew Foundation, since 2009, shortly after Obama’s election, the number of people holding favorable views of the United States has fallen modestly in China, Europe, and Muslim countries. Even now, though, the Pew survey shows, America is more popular in Europe and Asia than it was at the end of the Bush Administration. (In Pakistan and parts of the Middle East it is less popular.)

Hillary didn’t create these trends, but she did her part for Team U.S.A. As a “rock star diplomat,” she toured tirelessly and put on good shows. Since that’s what she was hired to do, it seems a bit unfair to judge her too harshly.

Photograph: Theron Kirkman-Pool/Getty

Source

.

4 State Department officials quit after report on Benghazi attack

The four officials resign after a high-level panel held them responsible for failing to act on requests for greater security for the U.S. mission in Libya.




A man looks at documents at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, a day after it was attacked by militants, who killed four Americans. (Ibrahim Alaguri / Associated Press / September 12, 2012)

Panel faults security failures in Benghazi attacks

Clinton accused of faking illness to avoid Benghazi testimony

Susan Rice withdraws name from running for secretary of State

By Paul Richter and Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

December 19, 2012, 7:39 p.m.



WASHINGTON — Four senior State Department officials resigned under pressure Wednesday after an independent review board determined that they had operational responsibility for "grossly inadequate" security when Islamic militants killed four Americans at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

At a news conference, retired Adm. Michael G. Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leader of the independent panel, said "senior officials in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of leadership and management ability."

The Sept. 11 assault, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has forced a wholesale reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its diplomatic facilities and employees, especially in dangerous areas.

It has also set off a bitter struggle between the White House and Republican critics who contend the Obama administration failed to provide adequate security and sought to conceal its lapses during the presidential campaign.

The senior State Department staffers who resigned included Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; and another unnamed person in the diplomatic security bureau, officials said. Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who oversaw Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, was identified by the Associated Press as the fourth official to resign.

They were held responsible for failing to act on requests for more guards and better fortifications for the U.S. compound in Benghazi, a city overrun by armed militiamen.

The resignations were a rare step for the State Department and an indication of how seriously top officials consider the lapses, veteran U.S. diplomats said.

No senior officials were forced out, for example, after the August 1998 bombings by Al Qaeda of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, which killed more than 200 people and injured several thousand.

Nor was anyone disciplined in the CIA after an independent review board found "systemic breakdowns" of security when an Al Qaeda suicide bomber killed seven CIA officers on their base in Khowst, Afghanistan, in December 2009.

Yet some Republican lawmakers who have focused on the Benghazi attacks insisted the resignations and corrective steps recommended by the panel were inadequate and demanded more sweeping reform.

"This shouldn't be about just asking a few department heads politely to resign," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "You better be reaching down for fundamental change."

In its report released late Tuesday, the Accountability Review Board concluded that the State Department's Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs bureaus failed to coordinate security activities and relied on undependable Libyan militia and local security contractors to protect the facility.

Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-leaders of the five-member panel, briefed closed sessions of the Senate and House foreign affairs committees Wednesday. The committees will meet in open session Thursday to hear from Deputy Secretaries of State William J. Burns and Thomas Nides.

Pickering said the board decided that direct responsibility reached the level of assistant secretary of State and no higher. That was "where the decision making in fact takes place — where, if you like, the rubber meets the road," he said.

Still, the issue could affect the legacy of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to step down next month. She is widely viewed as a leading presidential candidate in 2016.

The unclassified portion of the report — a separate classified section was given to lawmakers — does not mention the CIA. Only a handful of U.S. diplomats worked in Benghazi, compared with more than two dozen intelligence officers. Two of the four Americans killed in the attacks died at the CIA base, called the Annex.

Despite the intelligence operation, the report concludes there was "little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests." That included the Feb. 17 militia, which was hired to help protect the U.S. facilities but apparently fled during the attack.

"That's in part an intelligence failure," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "We did not know how unreliable the militias were and how compromised they may be."

"There's plenty of responsibility to go around, and I think the resignations are an indication that people are taking it seriously," Schiff said.

paul.richter@latimes.com

ken.dilanian@latimes.com

Source

.