“It is easier to do a job right than to explain why you didn’t” ― Martin Van Buren
“They all have excellent resumes… So what I’m trying to find out is how they will behave under pressure.” ― Hyman G. Rickover
“It’s easier to donate a few thousands to charity and think oneself noble than to base self-respect on personal standards of personal achievement. It’s simple to seek substitutes for competence—such easy substitutes: love, charm, kindness, charity. But there is no substitute for competence.” ― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Hillary and Benghazi
Hillary clearly demonstrated that she was incompetent and lied to Americans while in the Office of Secretary of State during the Benghazi incident on the fateful September 11, 2012. This was the anniversary of 911. Why should the American people believe that she would be competent in the Office of the President? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this article.
An editorial page article in the WSJ by John Bolton led me to thinking about Benghazi in a slightly different light – Hillary’s management and leadership performance in the role of Secretary of State. Everyone knows she is liar. The question that all should ask, “Can she do the job?” The history of Benghazi is clearly defined in my many articles on this topic as seen below:
In reviewing the long list of Hillary scandals, I was surprised to see how much I had written about Benghazi, which is just one of the Scandals. In addition, I have posted other articles on other scandals that you can find on my site www.joehawranek.com.
- 071714_Benghazi Latest Information
- 070714_Benghazi Update – “Operation No Footprint”
- 061814_Another Benghazi Exposure – The Video “Innocence of Muslims”
- 022714_An Analysis of the Benghazi Scandal and Cover Up Leads to Possible Treason
- 111313_The Benghazi Cover Up – A Judicial Watch Update http://www.jpfinancialeducation.com/2013/11/the-benghazi-cover-up-judicial-watch.html
- 110913_This is a Twist – 60 Minutes retracts, apologizes, for Benghazi report, CBS says it was misled by a source. http://www.jpfinancialeducation.com/2013/11/this-is-real-twist-news-for-cbs.html
- 110913_ Benghazi_60 Minutes_ A Question of Treason? http://www.jpfinancialeducation.com/2013/11/benghazi60-minutes-question-of-treason.html
- 101813_ Article 12 – An Analysis of a Scandal: Fast and Furious/Benghazi- Gunrunning- A Question of Treason. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0LQShXlJ1CJMmQ3VTdmNHBvT2M/edit?usp=sharing
- 052813_ An Analysis of 4 Scandals: IRS, Benghazi, Sebelius, Associated Press https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0LQShXlJ1CJNGliZzl1Y25CQTg/edit?usp=sharing
Hillary’s Policy Incompetence
The above provides the complete story as it evolved and information was released. On September 11, 2012, a very organized and armed Al Qaeda band attacked the U.S embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This attack was well planned to wait until the Turkish Representative left the U.S. Embassy where he was talking with Ambassador Stevens. The Turkish Ambassador’s representative was there to discuss the arms shipments being made to the rebels in Syria. He informed Ambassador Stevens that the current shipment was the last that Turkey would support since the rebels were Sunni’s and in conflict with Turkey’s current government of Shias. Heretofore, Ambassador Stevens was collecting arms from the abandoned stockpiles of Quadafi, deposed King of Libya, and shipping them to Syra by Turkish shipping with the end target being the rebels to the Syrian government who were Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S…
These rebels eventually split into ISIS (radical Sunni) and rebels (normal Sunni) remaining in Syria. The ISIS contingent took the weapons and attacked IRAQ. This means that the U.S. was supplying IRAQ Shiites with arms to fight ISIS, a Sunni group, with U.S. arms supplied illegally through arms smuggling controlled by our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. It is quite possible the Chris was a CIA asset and this was all preplanned and orchestrated by the Department of State. Any way you look at it represents an operation showing poor judgment for the Office of the Secretary of State. The U.S. government instigated and sustained two revolutions in the Mideast – Libya and Syria. There was no reason to America being in the region except for the egos of the people in office. Someone benefitted – but who?
Thus far, we have a possible CIA operative in Chris Stevens coordinated by the State Department supplying arms to Syrian rebels via Turkey. This was an illegal gun smuggling operation. We also have the U.S. supplying openly to the rebels because we wanted Assad out of office. Assad is Alawite, a Shia who are enemies of the Sunni Saudi Arabian kingdom kings. We also have the Al Qaeda who is radical Sunni. They are radical because they do not honor the King of Saudi Arabia as their king. They want their own kingship independent of Saudi Arabia. With this mess, we also have two amateurs playing at international intrigue – Hillary Clinton and Obama. If they took advice and had the American people in mind, this analysis might conclude something different. Neither has ever managed anything.
Now look who benefits
- Banks benefit since they supply money to both sides.
- The military industrial complex benefits since they are supplying munitions and arms to both sides. The enemies are fighting with American made arms.
- The Saudi government benefits since the U.S. supplies arms to their army of rebels fighting to displace the Syrian kind, Assad. The Saudis want him displaced so that
- The Saudi Sunni kings could take over a Shiite country and run it as its own just like they do in in Saudi Arabia where the king is Sunni and most of the Saudi people are Shiite.
- The Saudis could take over the Syrian oil fields and seize them with American resources.
- The Saudi’s could ensure that the Iranians (Shiites) would not take over Syria and keep the oil fields.
- Hillary and Obama would benefit
- The Libyan war was brought on by the current administration because it
- Allowed their companies of choice to seize the Libyan oil fields
- Kept Quadafi from
- Charging Euros rather then dollars for his oil;
- Using his rich gold fields to supply a new African Libyan gold backed currency to challenge the dollar in Afrca;
- Using his rich aquifer of water to supply water to make the desert green and fertile;
- Continue to expand Libya as the most progressive and citizen oriented nation in Africa.
- Did what any good marionettes do – obey the orders of the ones controlling the money strings who are:
- The Libyan war was brought on by the current administration because it
- Money backing from Banks for both continues. Goldman Sachs is the principal donor for Hillary.
- Money backing for the Military industrial complex who benefitted materially in this uncalled for War.
- The stated reason of benefitting the population of both Libya and Syria is understood as lies by the people in those countries but it supplies good fodder to the controlled press of the U.S. The propaganda continues to this day.
- If Ambassador Stevens were killed
- Witness and operator of illegal gun smuggling would be covered up.
- All records of the U.S. supplying guns to rebels in a foreign land to overthrow the legal monarchy would be erased.
- Hillary and Obama would be off the “political hook”, the thing that they are most interested in.
- Obama’s reelection would go smoother – this was 2 months before the election.
- Russia benefits
- Iran is Shiite
- Russia and Iran have nuclear deals and other arms deals. You can assume that they work together.
- Syria is Alawite which is a version of Shiite
- Russia has a major navy base in Syria
- Russia wants presence in the Mideast
- Enter Russia with its military
- Against rebels and ISIS (both supported by the U.S.)
- Russia destroys in a few weeks the ISIS strongholds and rebels with its air power
- Keep more Christians and Alawite from dying
- Is perceived as a “hero” by the people of Iran and Syria and Mid-east
- U. S. is exposed as the true aggressor.
- Iran via Russia will acquire control of Syrian oil fields
Who Did Not Benefit?
Let us look at who did not benefit
- The American people did not benefit.
- We paid for a religious tribal war to sustain our politicians in office and the Saudi Kingship
- We lost people in battle for no reason.
- This was not a war endorsed by the Senate per the Constitution but rather a self-declared war by Obama
- The amount spent is in the hundreds of billions. I have seen numbers on the net of $500 billion. Just think what this could have done if spent in America?
- We lost credibility in the eyes of the people of other lands. We are now the aggressors of people not the sustenance supporters
- By sustaining and paying for the radical Sunnis called ISIS, we have declared war on the Christians in that area and are in fact funding the elimination of Christians in the Middle East.
- The Libyan people did not benefit
- They had the most successful economy in Africa. It is now destroyed and in shambles.
- They have large portions of their productive economy destroyed by war
- Millions of people are killed
- Millions of people have been deposed from their homes
- Millions of people are refugees.
- Quadafi was their leader who was moving them forward and he is now dead.
- The Syrian people did not benefit
- The U.S. supported the Saudi backed Sunni rebels
- The radical Sunni rebels are now called ISIS.
- ISIS uses U.S. arms supplied to and taken from the rebels.
- ISIS has created a Sunni Caliphate with a leader who does not believe the king of Saudi Arabia is their king.
- Any Christians there are dead if caught by the ISIS or going back to Assad who protects Christians.
- A mass emigration of a million people consisting of Shiites and Christians has left the country.
- The U.S. supported the Saudi backed Sunni rebels
Return to Benghazi
Hillary considers the removal of Gadhafi, a legitimate king in a foreign land in which we had no interest, one of her greatest achievements. Libya and Benghazi were the principal diplomatic operations of the Obama administration. As Secretary of State, it was her principal responsibility and was center stage in her daily work Let us see how she handled the responsibility.
- When violence erupted in Benghazi, according to Bolton, she went home and did not return to the next day. To me this appears that she abandoned her post on the “bridge”. She left the field of battle, which was her principal responsibility.
- Before the attack, there was warning that the embassy was not secure. In mid-August, the embassy asked for more security. The State Department was “unresponsive”. She was not on top of things and did not supply more security.
- She worked from home and used her server to email. None of these emails has been released. I believe that Russia and China knew what was happening because any good intelligence organization would have attacked her server and read what was on it. However, the American people do not. This is an abandonment of duty and a violation of trust that the American people had in this office and in her. It is misfeasance.
- At 10:00 PM, she had a short conversation with President Obama and gave the silly and nonsensical fantasy about the Muslim outrage over a video that my articles above reveal came from a CIA asset organization. That nonsense story was released to the American public.
- John Bolton in his article reveals
- She had only one conversation with the President to get agreement that the video of Muslim blasphemy is the reason for the attack.
- There was NO conversations with Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense according to his testimony
- There was NO conversation with General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs according to his testimony
- She used a private server to run official State Department business for Top Secret business – this is a felony under security laws.
- After the attacks, there was no American response. One low level “terrorist” is in jail – Ahmed Abu Khattela – Libyan military leader was interviewed and put into jail
It is clear now that Hillary did not do her duty and fulfill her role as a Secretary of State. She should have gotten involved and protected Chris Stevens, as an Ambassador and sent support. She should not have retreated to the non-secure compound of her home during the worst crises of her administration. She should have actively involved immediately the Secretary of Defense, Leo Panetta and the General Dempsey as Chief of Staff of the military – – both of whom could have gotten resources to support and protect the embassy and its personnel. This was actively avoided on her part and she was in charge. Four men are dead because of her inaction and dereliction of duty.
What Difference Does it Make?
Hillary when asked about the 4 deaths at Benghazi in testimony before the Congress, infamously exclaimed, “What Difference Does it Make?”, because these men are now dead. This article is about her
- Performance as Secretary of State
- Performance when she was on the Bridge and in charge of the American response to the Benghazi attack
- Her retreat under pressure to her home rather than staying in charge in her office. Her staff and those below them were left “dangling”.
- Her lies about calling the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff when in fact she did not inform them, as was her job when under attack.
- Her use of her server in her home to manage top-secret correspondence during the worst crises of her time in office. This server was not secure (and yes, I am a security expert) had top-secret email correspondence that she should have declared as secret or top secret as was her responsibility.
Based on this analysis,
- Hillary demonstrated incompetence in her job as Secretary of State by abandoning her office during crises and thereby could not give directions other than from an insecure location and communications correspondence.
- Hillary demonstrated wanton disregard to security regulations and laws while in this position.
- Hillary demonstrated through her actions that she almost wanted no action to protect, secure Chris Stevens, the embassy and its staff.
- Hillary demonstrated incompetency in setting policy in Libya and Syria
Now Hillary is running for President and is highly likely to be nominated by the Democratic Party. She is not qualified. She has never managed anything in her life. When given the opportunity to manage as in her Socialized medicine fiasco during the Clinton administration or as Secretary of State during the Obama administration, she screws it up. This is not because she is dumb. No, she is bright, arrogant, stubborn and self-directed. She does not know how to manage. She is a klutz in that arena.
Given the above analysis, she should not even be in the presidential race. However, it is likely that she will be nominated and if she wins, she will continue to do her incompetent self-directed, out of touch with the stakeholders’ job. She has demonstrated that she is only interested in herself getting the powerful office. This person will do anything, say anything and promise anything for the positional power that she craves. I do not believe that she is interested in the American people, the Constitution, the bill of rights nor the true principles of freedom that require less government not more. So yes – her running for office – – — IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Some Questions for the Dowdy Committee
Some Questions for the Congress in the Hillary House Committee on Benghazi
Q1 – What was Mrs. Clinton’s role in formulating the U. S. responses to the Benghazi attack?
Q2 – Did she ever advocate retaliation for the cold-blooded attack killing four Americans?
Q3 – What was the true role of Chris Stevens in Benghazi?
Q4 – Was Chris Stevens in charge of running armaments to the Syrian revels?
Q4- Given the danger of being in Benghazi at that time, when all embassies had left and the Red Cross had left, why didn’t she remove Chris Stevens or supply him security support?
 Bolton, John “Why Benghazi Still Makes a Difference, Wall Street Journal, p.A13.