In January, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got into a heated exchange with Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin during her testimony on Benghazi before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Johnson asked Clinton to ascertain whether the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a response to an anti-Islam YouTube video. A visibly-furious Clinton took exception to Johnson’s inquiry and shot back, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
By Daniel Greenfield
Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.
The left has been denouncing her as an interventionist, the second coming of George W. Bush. They just can’t explain how Hillary is any more of an interventionist than her old boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. Other places he’s bombing include Yemen and Pakistan. And all that is without taking account of his attempt to implement the Arab Spring’s regime changes across the region with tragic and disastrous results.
The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that’s not much of a firewall.
Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the cheap shot and their hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn’t have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.
Underneath the manufactured political reality show drama that happens when a candidate of the same party as a lame duck administration tries to explain why she’s so different than the miserable failure now holding down the job is the sober reality that they’re both reading from the same scripts.
How could they not?
Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.
Hillary isn’t disavowing Obama. She’s disavowing Hillary.
The newly reinvented Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. She is suddenly full of the wisdom that was missing until last year. And she’s somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.
Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.
The non-interventionist, like the pacifist, is a mythical woodland creature who appears in the fables of many cultures. He isn’t however to be found in the vicinity of Washington D.C.
Break down the arguments of the non-interventionist and you will find a set of conspiracy theories explaining why every previous intervention was motivated by bad faith, secret agendas and racism. The non-interventionist doesn’t reject intervention; instead he contends that every previous intervention failed because it was carried out at the behest of the banks, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Jews, American arrogance and the oil industry.
But the non-interventionist who makes it into the White House is free to intervene as much as he likes because his motives are pure. He isn’t trying to secretly build oil pipelines or put money into Haliburton. He won’t be a unilateral cowboy launching new crusades for no good reason. And so he becomes the non-interventionist interventionist, the multilateral unilateralist, the good invader.
A true non-interventionist would reject intervention wholesale. Our fake non-interventionists turn up their noses at it when their political opponents do it. But once they have the power, they intervene out of entirely pure motives such as helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over entire countries.
Obama is a non-interventionist because he spends a lot of time hesitating and apologizing for each intervention. He doesn’t however bother getting permission from Congress or even UN approval.
Why should he? His motives are pure. Process is a way of slowing down men with impure motives such as George W. Bush. But pacifist saints can bomb as many countries as they want without the requirements of process getting in the way.
Hillary’s crime is that she currently sounds somewhat less apologetic and uncertain about intervention, but that’s not policy, that’s pose. Hillary’s husband boasted on the day before September 11 that he passed on killing Bin Laden because of the collateral damage. And Bill Clinton is, if anything, more of a hawk than his wife.
Anyone who thinks that Hillary is a hawk has forgotten how American personnel in Benghazi were left in a precarious security situation on her watch. It’s quite possible that Hillary might decide to bomb Syria. But don’t expect her to bomb in defense of American national interests.
She’s not that kind of interventionist.
Hillary knows that many voters are unhappy about American weakness. They don’t actually want war, but they want someone in the White House whom Putin will take seriously. And they know that isn’t Obama.
Hillary is temporarily talking tough to win them over encouraging them to forget her Reset Button pandering to the Russians and instead convince them that she’s the woman to make Vladimir respect America again. And to do that she has to sound more assertive in foreign affairs than Obama.
That doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton can stand up to Putin any better than Obama. Or that she will. But she needs uncertain Democrats to believe that the new boss will be different than the old boss, when the new boss is really the old boss in a pantsuit and with worse posters.
Unfortunately Democrats and Republicans don’t currently differ very much on foreign policy. Where they differ is orientation. And that’s more significant than it sounds. Both Obama and McCain would have backed the Arab Spring, but McCain would have done it out of a misguided sense that it was in America’s national interest, while Obama did it to undermine American national interests.
The significance of the difference is not so much in the outcome as in attitude and in the tools that they use.
Obama and McCain would have both bombed Libya, but Obama holds the military in contempt and treats it that way. Obama and McCain would have both endorsed the Arab Spring, but Obama did it in a way that signaled American weakness. That is why Obama’s approach has weakened America even more than the actual outcome of his policies.
A country can survive bad policy. We’ve had bad foreign policy for much of the 20th century. But a leader who communicates that the bad policy is a symptom of national weakness is a disaster on a whole other scale. Both Carter and Reagan made mistakes, but Carter and Reagan sent two very different messages about American power even while they made their mistakes.
Leadership isn’t always about what you do. It’s about how you communicate your priorities and values.
Hillary Clinton is trying to package her old Obama policies with a new attitude, but underneath the attitude is the same old lefty radical who smooched Arafat’s wife, brought a Reset Button to Russia and apologized to Pakistan for a YouTube video.
We’ve already seen Hillary’s foreign policy on display in Pakistan, Russia and Benghazi. All the cheap shots at Obama won’t change the fact that Hillary’s foreign policy is another Obama rerun.
Explosive information previously available is being incorporated into our case that the Obama administration was indeed involved in the production and promotion of the video that has become known as “Innocence of Muslims” blamed for the attacks in Benghazi. This information also breathes new life into the argument that the attacks included a kidnapping operation gone wrong.
Hani Nour Eldin on Al-Jazeera after visit to U.S.
On the week of June 18, 2012, a confirmed member of Gamaa Islamiya – an officially designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – Hani Nour Eldin traveled to Washington as part of a delegation and met with senior Obama administration officials. One of those officials was then Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.
Hillary (L) and Denis McDonough (R)
As a member of an FTO, Eldin never should have been granted a visa, let alone meetings with senior Obama administration officials. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) sent a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano demanding an explanation. In an interview cited by the Daily Beast, Eldin said he spoke to McDonough about releasing Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheikh):
…Eldin says, he asked Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough about transferring Abdel-Rahman to an Egyptian prison. He said his request was declined. “When I raised this issue in the White House I was told it was not in their authority and all judicial issues relating to sentences must be discussed with the Department of Justice,” he says. Transferring Abdel-Rahman, says Eldin, “would be a gift to the revolution.” McDonough didn’t reply to requests for comment made Thursday afternoon.
Beginning at the 1:09 mark in a video interview with Arabic media a few days after he returned to Egypt from Washington, Eldin said he spoke to the U.S. Justice Department to proclaim the innocence of the Blind Sheikh and asked if he could visit with him. According to Eldin, that request was denied.
In Arabic, Eldin even admitted on video that he was a member of a designated terrorist group saying that he was indeed “a member of Gamaa Islamiya.” (3:47).
So a terrorist – according to the U.S. State Department – is allowed entry into the U.S. as long as his terrorist organization is legitimized by the Egyptian Parliament; that makes it also legitimate in the White House.
When Eldin was asked how he was allowed to enter the U.S. as a member of the terrorist organization, he responded that as a member of the Egyptian Parliament, the process was made easier and that the U.S. wanted to learn about the different factions within the Parliament.
Under the guise of the U.S. government wanting to learn about the different Islamic factions within Parliament, it was clear the agenda from Eldin’s perspective was the Blind Sheikh which Eldin discusses on the tape (1:09):
The Obama administration knew that Eldin was a terrorist member of Gamaa Islamiya; he made that clear in the interview. Yet, according to the Daily Beast article a State Department spokesman said:
“We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group (Gamaa Islamiya).”
While this is false, something else occurred on June 18th that year and it all has to do with a big plan titled The Istanbul Process which was initiated by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) with the U.S. State Department headed by Hilary Clinton.
The Istanbul Process’s plans, effects and implementation were all set in motion when the YouTube channel of NewsPoliticsNow3 (NPN3) was created. Less than three months later on September 11th, NPN3 would upload a 1:32 excerpt of the video the Obama administration would blame for the Benghazi attacks. As Shoebat.com has reported, it was NPN3 (not Sam Bacile aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) that would use the name “Innocence of Muslims” to identify the video (h/t Montagraph):
NPN3 YouTube Channel on 9/12/12. First to name video “Innocence of Muslims”
As Shoebat.com has reported, NPN3 has been connected – through its avatar – to a company named Stanley Associates, which was purchased by CGI in 2010. CGI is the company that built the Obamacare website.
Just as the week of Eldin’s visit to Washington coincided with the creation of the NPN3 YouTube channel, so too did the date Bacile’s YouTube channel was created coincide with two interesting visits, an Egyptian delegation to the U.S. and a Hillary Clinton visit to Istanbul, Turkey.
On Sunday April 1, 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Istanbul and met with Medea Daghestani. As Shoebat.com reported, Daghestani is believed to operate from Turkey and has engaged in suspicious activities with Syrian rebel commanders, to include Skype sex.
Medea Daghestani meets with Hillary Clinton in Istanbul on April 1, 2012.
The stated purpose for Hillary’s meeting with Daghestani was to discuss the plight of the Syrian people and the progress of the Syrian National Council. As we learned with Eldin’s visit to the White House, the stated purpose of meetings isn’t always the real purpose.
A couple of days later, another Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood delegation visited the White House. It included Muslim Sisterhood daughter Sondos Asem and Abdul Mawgoud Dardery. As Shoebat.com reported, the delegation met with two prominent figures in the Obama administration – Samantha Power and Steve Simon.
As the delegation was meeting with these officials, the Sam Bacile YouTube channel was created, on April 4th. Again, note that the name “Innocence of Muslims” was not used by Bacile. It was only used by NPN3 when the 1:32 excerpt was uploaded on September 11, 2012:
Nakoula did not use “Innocence of Muslims” and joined YouTube on April 4, 2012.
It is worth revisiting that Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula) became an informant / FBI operative in 2010 and presumably so remained until he was arrested for violating parole shortly after the Benghazi attacks.
As Shoebat.com has maintained, a strong case can be made that the video blamed for the Benghazi attacks fits almost perfectly into the agenda of the “Istanbul Process”, a series of annual meetings designed to figure out ways to eliminate criticism of Islam in western countries. Hillary Clinton co-chaired the first of these meetings, which took place on July 15, 2011. One day earlier, casting for the video officially began.
Statements from U.S. Embassy in Cairo
Further strengthening the case of Obama administration involvement in the video’s production is the matter of Larry Schwartz, the senior public affairs officer at the U.S. embassy in Cairo at the time of the Benghazi attacks. He issued the following statement at 6:18am ET / 12:18pm Cairo time, nearly four hours prior to the protests outside his embassy over the video began, via the New York Times:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Long after the Cairo protests began and after the Benghazi Compound had been attacked, Hillary Clinton issued a statement that sounded eerily similar to the one issued by Schwartz prior to the protest. Clinton’s statement said in part:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
According to Josh Rogin in an article one day after the attacks, Schwartz’s obviously premature statement led to controversy in the media and greatly angered Hillary.
Robert K. Butler contributed to this report
 Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/21/member-of-egyptian-terror-group-goes-to-washington.html
 Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/inside_the_public_relations_disaster_at_the_cairo_embassy