Reuters first reported that they had obtained emails that clearly showed that the State Department was in fact aware that their embassy in Benghazi was under attack on September 11 of this year. If you have been following this closely (and if you are here you probably have) then you dont need no stinking news commentary; you just want the emails. Well here they are. More will be released tomorrow and Friday. (Clicking link or pic brings you to the emails)
Tag Archives: state department
Update at Bottom!!
Do you really need anymore evidence that government is too close to the media? If so then check out the emails between Brett McGurk, the current nominee for Ambassador of Iraq, and the Wall Street Journal’s Gina Chon.
Check it the exclusive here at Pat Dollard’s site
Talk of hook-ups and blue balls on the State Department Blackberry’s? What gives? All emails available at links on PatDollard.com
6/8 UPDATE: State Department Responds to Brewing Scandal
Note: The media as picked up on this story and numerous sites have published their own versions of it. However, it is important to note that the above link to Pat Dollar’s site was the first published story late on June 6. Since then Gawker, Mediaite, and ABC (to name a few) have done their own versions of the story.
From earlier today at the State Department
QUESTION: On another subject, this nomination of Brett McGurk, is it in trouble? And can you confirm that the State Department is investigating allegations of these emails between him and Ms. Chon of The Wall Street Journal?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, on the subject of the emails, they’re out there for everybody to see. I’m not going to get into emails between Mr. McGurk and the woman who subsequently became his wife. With regard to Mr. McGurk’s nomination, I think you know that he spent the better part of the last decade serving our country in and out of Iraq, working for a Republican administration, a Democratic administration. He is, in our view, uniquely qualified to serve as our ambassador, and we urge the Senate to act quickly on his nomination.
QUESTION: So obviously you’re sticking with him. But can you confirm that – because there are reports – that the State Department actually has looked into these alleged emails, or the allegations that these might have compromised security or sensitive information?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to say on the emails.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Because, I mean, there are rules for Foreign Service officers to not get into situations where you’re blackmailed. There’s sort of a sense that you have to act morally. There are these regulations in your guidebooks. And some people have lost security clearances over having extramarital affairs. So I wonder why it is that this doesn’t seem to be – factor at all into your decision in keeping this – keeping his nomination out there.
MS. NULAND: Again, we consider him uniquely qualified. All of the necessary things were done before his nomination, and we urge the Senate to confirm him.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that those emails actually came from the State Department system, in – within the State Department system?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak about the emails. They’re out there for you to look at. They’re obviously very much available for anybody to read.
QUESTION: Aren’t you investigating how they were leaked? They’re from your own system.
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into our internal issues here.
QUESTION: Well, why not? You talk about WikiLeaks all the time. Those were essentially emails.
MS. NULAND: Goes to your usual point, Matt, that we speak about —
QUESTION: What, the lack of consistency?
MS. NULAND: Yes. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, okay, great. When – you said you did – all the necessary things were done before his nomination. What are those necessary things? Was that like a security clearance and vetting and —
MS. NULAND: All that stuff.
QUESTION: Well, I mean – no, I – what are they? I don’t know. What has to be done, not just in his case but in any nominee’s case?
MS. NULAND: His nomination was managed in the exact – with the exact same processes that we use for everyone.
QUESTION: Well, okay. What does that mean? I mean, does that mean that there’s an FBI check or —
MS. NULAND: I’m going to refer you to the White House for how they do this.
QUESTION: All right. And then —
QUESTION: Just one more on that.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: If you do – if you did do that, are you sharing this with members of Congress who have severe problems with his nomination?
MS. NULAND: We always work with Congress on our nominees, and we’re continuing to do that in this case.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that there has been at least one meeting with – on the specific issues, not on the specific issues that were about the emails, with people on the Hill?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to comment on the specifics of our conversation with Congress, but in all these nomination procedures, we work with the Hill on any —
MS. NULAND: — issues that they have as our —
QUESTION: But are you —
MS. NULAND: — nominees are being reviewed.
QUESTION: But are you aware that this – that people from the State Department have gone to the Hill and/or have spoken to members of the committee who have raised concerns about these specific issues. And by these specific issues, I don’t mean the more specific substantive issues that senator – people like Senator McCain have raised. I’m talking specifically about the emails. Do you know if they have been – if this issue has been discussed with people on the Hill?
MS. NULAND: Beyond saying that we continue to work with appropriate members and staff on his nomination in support of it, as we do with all nominees, I’m not going to get into details.
QUESTION: Can I change topics?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
State Department to Meet with Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt’s Future Fundamentalists to get an Audience of Approval
Today officials at the State Department were asked if they would be meeting with the delegates of the Muslim Brotherhood while the are in Washington. And the State Department offered a resounding and telling affirmation to that question. But that was not the original answer; which is odd. Lets take the answer from Victoria Nulland at today’s press conference:
QUESTION:Members of the Freedom and Justice Party, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brothers, and one of them is a member of the parliament, are in town. It’s the first level – this level visit to Washington that will meet different people. Is there any meeting going on – to take place in this building or not?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know whether we’re meeting this delegation at any level in this building. Let me take that one as well. We’ll get back to you.
And here is how they got back to them. A big strong “yes” of course we are going to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, we put all the tools in place to make this possible…
Question: Will any State Department officials be meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood delegation that is currently in Washington?
Answer: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is hosting a conference in Washington titled “Islamists in Power: Views from Within” on April 5. Some of the conference participants will meet with State Department officials while in town. Deputy Secretary Burns will meet with Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Dr. Marwan Muasher and some of the participants in the Carnegie conference on April 4. Some of the Carnegie Endowment conference participants will also meet with Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Robert Hormats and Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.
If you havent been following this blog or my Yahoo News stories on this topic please leave a comment that says “Doug, I am not aware of any of the details of this ongoing story that you broke on nationally syndicated radio and number nationally rated tv shows, please send me the links” and I will. Also I will update this post with the related links for good measure tomorrow morning.
It is not often that the current administration acts and I can applaud. Of course this wasnt a hard decision to make for the White House and the State Department.
Today the State Department added Greece’s “Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei” to its growing list of terrorist groups. [Press Release] With this designation this forbids U.S. citizens from contributing financially or providing any type of material support to the group. So if you live in the US and you helped them out then its time to disappear. Melt your hard drive, steal someone’s identity, and move to my old favorite place to hide; Oaxaca.
Some Background Info:
I’m sure you get the point. But I encourage everyone to read up on these low-life bastards. Nothing will surprise you. Leftists being leftists. If they can not get their demands met they go right to violence. Same shit, different country.
The video you are about to see is unedited and presented in its entirety. This is done so that you may fully understand the context. If you have not been following our State Department’s involvement in the Middle East uprisings links are provided at the bottom of the post.
In the video is Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter, then the Director of Policy Planning for the State Department. This address was made October 2, 2010.(pre-recorded 9/30) By this time the State Department had already been made aware that a revolution was planned for Egypt starting in January 2011; a protest likely to turn the Middle East upside-down. So with a revolution just weeks away, that the State Department was aware of, why would a Director of Policy Planning try to relate to youth groups, by expressing the redemptive qualities of Mohammed Atta as an effective “community organizer”?
12/08 The State Department hosted the Alliance for Youth Movements Conference (info in link below)
12/08 State Department receives cable concerning returning attendee. His confiscated notes show a planned democratic uprising/revolution planned for Egypt in Jan. 2011
10/02/10 This video pep talk comes from the Director of Policy Planning, Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter, in which she tells these community organizers in New Zealand at the US Embassy that they have the same “power with” people as Mohammed Atta (leader of the 9/11 attacks). This begins at 4:30. While she gives the disclaimer that 9/11 was “negative” she still proceeds to tell these youth groups that they are community organizers one in the same as Atta.
In the video Slaughter tries to offer insight into the theory that “power over” people (a dictatorship) is different than the “power with people” that community organizers, like them and Atta, have. Of course it is no different; not even in theory. “Community organizers” use their “power with people” to eventually gain “power over” people. It is just an extra step in the process towards the same ends.
Note on the Video: This is my copy. Too many times this Admin has stripped videos on me. The original video from the State Dept may be found here
Quotes from the address
4:3o “If you think about 9/11 they proved that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attack of 9/11. They found that out because he was the only one who was connected with everyone else. That is the power of leadership. Its the power of mobilizing others. Its who is the most interconnected” Keep listening and you will understand global community organizing.
Atta and the “globalists” (as Dr. Slaughter calls these youth activists) have the same qualities. The “negative” 9/11 disclaimer is bogus at best; it was only made so she could move on. She wanted to illustrate just how much of an impact community organizers can have on the world. Its a pep talk that includes citing one of the worlds greatest tragedies in order to help them fully understand their potential. In weeks she would like like a true seer, or even a prophet, when Egypt exploded. Even though she had already been made aware that the revolution was planned at a State Department sponsored event.
Between the lines-The Unfortunate Reality
Was it telling of Dr. Slaughter’s beliefs that her default comparison was to Mohammed Atta? Was she just trying to find a globally recognized revolutionary character? Or was this address specially catered to fit the upcoming Egyptian revolution with the interest to spark the movement globally? We will never know. What we do know is that Dr. Slaughter had confirmed to me that she had in fact left the State Department. I asked her approximately 30 days ago and verified she has since returned to Princeton. But when I asked her “Lets get down to the gravy, what was up with the Mohammed Atta comment to the New Zealand youth groups” the conversation fell silent. And this is precisely why the issue must be addressed. This borders on sedition. And she is now on my shit list along with Nathan J Brown of the Carnegie Endowment. I hope they are ready. After all, Im just getting started.
The Indispensable Guide to State Dept involvement in the Middle East Uprisings and others around the Globe
State Department Interviews Reveal Potential Egyptian Bombshell – Which was featured on Glenn Beck’s radio show (Video Here) This is what started it all.
Google Egypt: Ghonim not the only tie to protesters. Which was then plagiarized by Glenn Beck which he and his staff made no attempt to correct even after being made aware of it. See this in my part 4 of my Breitbart interview here
Google Egypt 2: Delete Everything – The organizers asked me to delete my articles after the revolution kicked off. I refused, they deleted their own info but not before I screen-capped it
Google Iraq: Breaking Baghdad – Yes, the same revolutionary pencil necks (State Dept, Google, et al) working with the State Dept tried to set Iraq on fire with complete disregard for our troops still in the country.
Clinton Admits funding opposition labor unions in Egyptian uprisings: Shortly after the fall of Mubarak Clinton tells Egyptian activists that they gave grants to opposition labor unions to support organizing on behalf of the opposition. She also said the results in Egypt were “what we hoped for is what happened.”
And now this; another piece in the puzzle.