Oversight Hearing: Why Does The Obama Regime Want To “Normalize” Relations With Libya, Overturning 30 Years of Precedent (Video)

What the hell is the Regime even thinking?

It’s well known that Libya has become a haven for terrorists in the wake of  the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi. As Bill Gertz reported in Washington Free Beacon, “Ansar al Sharia, the Islamist terror group linked to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, continues to operate freely in that Libyan city, according to U.S. military officials.”

In spite of this, the Obama administration thinks it’s a good idea to overturn the 30 year old ban on “Libyans coming to the U.S. to attend flight school, to work in aviation maintenance or flight operations, or to study or seek training in nuclear science” ?!  Does this make any sense at all?

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security held a joint hearing today entitled, “Overturning 30 Years of Precedent: Is the Administration Ignoring the Dangers of Training Libyan Pilots and Nuclear Scientists?” 

Witnesses for the hearing:

• Mr. Alan Bersin, Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and Chief Diplomatic Officer for the Department of Homeland Security;
• Ms. Janice Kephart, CEO, Secure Identity and Biometrics Association, and former counsel to the 9/11 Commission;
• Mr. James M. Chaparro, Executive Vice President for Strategy, Strategic Enterprise Solutions (SE Solutions); and
• Mr. Frederic Wehrey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Senior Associate, Middle East Program.

Last fall, the House Judiciary Committee obtained an internal draft final regulation from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) source that outlines the Obama Administration’s misguided and dangerous plan to lift a longstanding prohibition on Libyans coming to the U.S. to attend flight school, to work in aviation maintenance or flight operations, or to study or seek training in nuclear science. This prohibition was originally put in place in the 1980s after the wave of terrorist incidents involving Libyans.  The Administration justifies lifting this ban by claiming the United States’ relationship with Libya has since improved.  However, the terror threat continues and numerous news reports document recent terror-related stories coming from Libya. And just over a year ago the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Although the House Judiciary Committee has sought information on this proposed policy shift twice, on November 25, 2013 and again on March 19, 2014 with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Department has failed to adequately respond and has moved forward without disclosing information about it to Congress. On March 21, 2014, two days after the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent the follow up letter to DHS, the Department sent an incomplete response that did not completely answer the substantive questions posed in the letter nor provide an adequate update on the regulation.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) issued the statements below on Thursday’s hearing.

Chairman Goodlatte: “It’s outrageous that the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye to real terrorist threats that exist in Libya today.  Just over a year ago, four Americans were killed in the pre-planned terrorist attacks on the American Consulate in Benghazi.  We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of the Benghazi terrorist attacks and continue to face additional terrorist threats from Libya, yet the Administration is preparing to lift a longstanding ban that protects Americans and our interests without adequately disclosing information about this proposal to Congress after multiple requests.  At the hearing this week, we hope to get to the bottom of why the Administration thinks we should change our longstanding policy towards Libya at this time.  With ongoing threats coming from Libya, the Obama Administration should abandon this misguided policy shift.”

Chairman Issa: “It is simply unacceptable that Congress’ repeated inquiries and concerns about this ill-advised shift in policy remain unaddressed.  It is clear that the proposed rule would do nothing to prevent terror-related activity or improve Americans’ safety.”

Subcommittee Chairman Gowdy: “The Administration’s policy reversal makes little sense based on recent events and has dangerous implications for our national security.  Is post-revolutionary Libya secure enough to change the rules? Why now? What evidence does the Administration have to assert the relationship between Libya and the US has indeed normalized?

“Thus far, the Administration has not been forthcoming with Congress about the rule change, even moving forward with the policy reversal while ignoring concerns from Members. The American public deserves to hear from DHS about why they believe pursuing this change now is in the best interest of our national security.”

Subcommittee Chairman Chaffetz: “The Administration’s move to reverse a decades old security ban is turning a blind eye to the reality on the ground. The current situation in Libya is far from normal and remains vulnerable to unchecked terrorist activity. After ignoring repeated requests for information, I fully expect the Department of Homeland Security to engage in an open conversation – providing direct and honest answers to the Congress.”

In his opening statement, Congressman Trey Gowdy ran through a number of recent terrorist attacks that have taken place throughout the country and said, “unfortunately, these new reports indicate the militias are getting stronger not weaker, so why is the administration proposing to lift a 30 year ban on Libyans coming to the US to train as nuclear scientists, now? The administration’s draft regulation justifies the change because the US relationship with Libya has been (gestures quote unquote) NORMALIZED.”

He went on to ask, “how is this relationship normalized when our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi 18 months ago and not one single solitary person has been arrested, prosecuted, or brought to justice?

Video: Ukranian Vacation

The latest Ben Howe video creation for Revealing politics pokes fun at the president’s “hands off” approach to the crisis in Ukraine as he vacations and mugs for TV cameras.

Revealing Politics says, “maybe a few less vacations and a little more diplomacy?”

The worst aspect of whatever it is the Obama administration is doing to ease tensions in Eastern Europe – is the bad optics on constant display as the crisis has unfolded. The man looks like an unserious, vacuous celebrity in love with the camera and the sound of his own voice. Most Americans do not want to hear about his brackets, vacations, star studded galas, guest appearances on Funny or Die, or his latest selfies. They don’t want to see him continue on with his fundraisers when there’s a possible terrorist event going on. They don’t want to hear him trash-talking Republicans in puerile terms, or giving obscenely partisan spike-the-football-speeches about his unpopular, fraudulant  health care law that was shoved down an unwilling nation’s throat,  promoted with advertising costing taxpayers nearly $700 million, and  forced on people under penalty of law. Is it too much to ask for a little humility and contrition in the wake of defrauding the entire nation? They have nothing to be proud of.

People have had it with the non-stop lies and corrupt community organizing bullsh*t.

Americans keep waiting for Obama to behave with the dignity and statesmanship of a President of the United States who loves his country. But apparently that’s asking too much.

And that is why we’re seeing opeds in the nation’s newspapers asking questions like this: Is Obama a Manchurian?

“The Manchurian Candidate” was a 2004 movie about a U.S. politician who was secretly a “sleeper agent” working to overthrow American democracy. (Manchuria is the region of Russia and China where the agent had been brainwashed into working for the other side.)

Here’s why I wonder:

When Obama came into office, he announced that he was “resetting” America’s relationship with Russia. Sure enough, he then canceled the planned defensive missiles in Poland aimed at deterring a Russian invasion. That infuriated our Polish allies and pleased the Russians. He got nothing from the Russians in return that we know of.

Vladimir Putin was then the Russian prime minister, and Dmitri Medvedev was the Russian president. Putin was the boss, and Medvedev was his handpicked puppet.

Later, Obama spoke at a seminar with Medvedev, who speaks English. Putin was not there.

During a break, Obama approached Medvedev on the stage. Thinking his microphone was off, he said privately, just one on one, “This is my last election. After my election, I’ll have more flexibility.” The context was a discussion on defense. Good puppet that he was, Medvedev promised, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

But the microphone was not off. The exchange was captured and recorded. And the pair also were captured by a distant video camera showing Obama warmly shaking the hand of Medvedev and patting Medvedev’s knee as they completed the exchange.

Ask yourself this: Why did Obama choose an awkward in-person exchange on a stage at a seminar for delivery of this important message? Why didn’t he simply pick up the phone in the Oval Office and call Putin directly? Could it be because he didn’t want any Americans to hear it — even White House aides and interpreters?

 

 

Krauthammer on Morell Testimony: ‘It’s Passing Strange That CIA Analysts’ Account on Benghazi Was Precisely The Cover Story Obama WH Needed’ (Video)

Former CIA Acting Director Michael J. Morell testified Wednesday morning before the House Intelligence Committee on his role in the shaping of the administration’s widely discredited talking points on Benghazi. Republicans have been saying that Morell’s past accounts of his role on Benghazi were “often misleading and sometimes deliberately false.”

Republicans got few answers at the hearing, but a lot denials of wrongdoing. “I never allowed politics to influence what I said or did. Never,” the 33 year veteran of the agency who has served both Republican and Democrat presidents insisted.

Morell testified that he was deeply troubled by allegations “that I inappropriately altered and influenced CIA’s classified analysis and its unclassified talking points about what happened in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 and that I covered up those actions.”

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

When Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL) asked Morell if he complained to the White House following Susan Rice’s appearances on the five Sunday talk shows, he said that he did not complain to anybody.

Morell affirmed that he read the email the CIA Station Chief in Libya had sent him on September 15, informing him that the attack was “not an escalation of protests.”

The Special Report Panel discussed Morell’s testimony, Wednesday evening. Steven Hayes made note of the different stories that the former Deputy CIA Director has told. He said he expected more contrition from Morell about lying (by omission) to Congress when they questioned him about the talking points. There were two substantive pieces of information that came out at the hearing, Hayes said – that the video narrative came from the White House, and the other thing was that he said that the agency had taken the word of CIA analysts over eye witnesses on the ground. No matter how hard he spinned that at the hearing, he was unable to not make it seem absurd.

The Hill’s AB Stoddard said, “I was really surprised how completely confused, beyond inconsistant he was. It’s really beyond disconcerting. He couldn’t get to contrition because he really countered himself so many times it’s unbelievable.”

Krauthammer said, “It’s a curious coincidence that when he decides to ignore what he’s hearing from the people on the ground who are right there, who can actually see what’s going on – who are communicating on the ground live while it’s happening to other people, he decides that evidence is going to be ignored and he goes with an analyst in Langley whom he said — was not aware of eyewitness accounts… It is passing strange that the account of the analysts in Langley is precisely the cover story that will get the White House off the hook.”