Sunday, December 29, 2013

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report


Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.
But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.
The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.
Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.
"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.
"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."
The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.
Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.
Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim. They insist that while Khattallah was found responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night, he is also clearly tied to Ansar al-Sharia and to the broader terrorist network.
“There is direct evidence linking him before the attack and after the attack to terrorist groups. An opportunity came, and Khattallah conducted an assault on the consulate. To say that it wasn’t tied to Al Qaeda is completely false. There is literal evidence in many forms and shapes, directly linking him,” one source said.
Khattallah is also a member of the militia group the Libyan Shield, which was formed to protect Benghazi and is operating separate from Tripoli.
Other militias are not inclined to turn Khattallah in, because they are also tied to Ansar al-Sharia. Commanders from some of these militias thought to be friendly to the United States and who have worked with American special forces, the CIA and State Department personnel have flipped sides and affiliated with Ansar al-Sharia. Sources say the terrorist group is saturating the whole region of eastern Libya with money, training and personnel. "They are now the biggest organization in town,” one said.
Sources also tell Fox News that while Khattallah is responsible for the ground actions that night, he also reports to other commanders in Ansar al-Sharia. He is seen as a relatively small piece of the terror puzzle in the region, which includes Al Qaeda ambassadors. Some in the intelligence community call these terrorist ambassadors “Amirs,” and there has been one stationed in Libya for some time, as they are the liaison for intelligence and direction for operations.  Libyan Shield, which has different offshoots in different locations, also has members directly affiliated with terrorist organizations and Al Qaeda. Bomb-making materials have been found with some of these groups as well.
Fox News has also learned there was a week of briefings by the head of counterintelligence in the entire region that identified Al Qaeda as the largest and most significant element infiltrating Libya, with the final briefing on Sept. 10.
Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based correspondent.

H.Res.36 - Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.113th Congress (2013-2014)

H.Res.36 - Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.113th Congress (2013-2014)

Resolution

Sponsor: Rep. Wolf, Frank R. [R-VA-10] (Introduced 01/18/2013)
Cosponsors:179
Latest Action:01/23/2013 Sponsor introductory remarks on measure.
Major Recorded Votes:There are no Roll Call votes for this bill.

Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
  1. Introduced
  2. Passed House

Primary Subject:

Text: H.Res.36 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the bill.

Bill text available as:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/18/2013)

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Res. 36 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 36

Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack 
           on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2013

   Mr. Wolf (for himself, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Franks of 
  Arizona, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Posey, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Griffin of 
Arkansas, Mr. Schock, Mr. Meehan, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Duncan of South 
Carolina, Mr. Olson, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
 Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. McKinley, 
 Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Flores) submitted the following resolution; which 
                 was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack 
           on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    Resolved, That

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

    There is hereby established a select Committee to investigate and 
report on the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``select committee'').

SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.

    (a) The select committee shall be composed of 19 members as 
follows:
            (1) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
        Services (or a designee from among the members of that 
        committee).
            (2) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs (or a designee from among the members of that 
        committee).
            (3) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on 
        Homeland Security (or a designee from among the members of that 
        committee).
            (4) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on 
        Intelligence (or a designee from among the members of that 
        committee).
            (5) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary (or a designee from among the members of that 
        committee).
            (6) The chair and ranking member of the Committee on 
        Oversight and Government Reform (or a designee from among the 
        members of that committee).
            (7) Five members appointed by the Speaker.
            (8) Two members appointed by the Speaker after consultation 
        with the minority leader.
If the chair or ranking member of any such committee declines to serve 
on the select committee, then the Speaker in the case of a chair, or 
the Speaker after consultation with the minority leader in the case of 
a ranking member, shall designate the member or members from that 
committee to serve on the select committee.
    (b) The Speaker shall designate one member as chairman and the 
minority leader shall designate one member as the ranking minority 
member of the select committee.

SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION AND REPORT ON THE ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES 
              CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA.

    Not later than 90 days after the initial meeting of the select 
committee, the select committee shall conduct an investigation of and 
submit to the House a report on--
            (1) any intelligence known to the United States relating to 
        the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, 
        on September 11, 2012;
            (2) any requests for additional security, or actions taken 
        by Federal agencies to improve security at the consulate before 
        the attack;
            (3) a definitive timeline of the attack;
            (4) how the relevant agencies and the executive branch 
        responded to the attack and whether appropriate congressional 
        notifications were made;
            (5) any improper conduct by officials relating to the 
        attack;
            (6) recommendations on what steps Congress and the 
        President should take to prevent future attack; and
            (7) any other relevant issues relating to the attack or the 
        response to the attack.

SEC. 4. PROCEDURES OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

    Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, including 
clause 2(j)(1) (guaranteeing the minority additional witnesses) and 
clause 2(m)(3) (providing for the authority to subpoena witnesses and 
documents), shall apply to the select committee.

SEC. 5. JOINT OPERATIONS.

    The chair of the select committee, in conducting the investigation 
described in section 3, may consult with the chair of any Senate 
committee conducting a parallel investigation regarding meeting jointly 
to receive testimony, the scheduling of hearings or issuance of 
subpoenas, and joint staff interviews of key witnesses.

SEC. 6. STAFF; FUNDING.

    (a)(1) To the extent practicable, the select committee shall 
utilize the services of staff of employing entities of the House. At 
the request of the chair in consultation with the ranking minority 
member, staff of employing entities of the House may be detailed to the 
select committee to carry out this resolution and shall be deemed to be 
staff of the select committee.
    (2) The chair, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, 
may employ and fix the compensation of such staff as the chair 
considers necessary to carry out this resolution.
    (b) There are authorized to be appropriated from the applicable 
accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
resolution. Payments for the expenses of the select committee shall be 
made on vouchers signed by the chairman and approved in the manner 
directed by the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made 
available under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 7. DISSOLUTION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.

    (a) The select committee shall cease to exist 30 days after filing 
the report required under section 3.
    (b) Upon dissolution of the select committee, the records of the 
select committee shall become the records of any committee designated 
by the Speaker.
                                 




NY Times scrubs Benghazi narrative for the White House

NY Times scrubs Benghazi narrative for the White House

Rick Moran
The New York Times picked the week between Christmas and New Years to help the White House scrub up the narrative on the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012.

It wasn't exactly a spontaneous attack - but it sort of was. The anti-Muslim video played no role - except when it did. And there wasn't much planning involved in the attack - except when there was.

Yes. That should just about cover it.

The New York Times ties itself in knots in order to validate part of the administration's narrative.

Are they serious?

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi's most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could "flatten" the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

Perspective is vital in this case, and the obvious perspective of the Times is to totally trash the GOP version of the narrative while carefully upholding some parts of the administration's story. Somewhere in that mess of illogic and confusion is a germ of truth.
I have problems with parts of the GOP narrative but it's a darn sight more accurate than what the White House or New York Times have come up with. The resurrection of the video as motivation for some of the attackers is outrageous. Who cares if a bunch of fanatics were demonstrating in front of the mission? They certainly werent' the ones who killed Ambassador Stevens or were firing .50 cal machine guns and other automatic weapons at our diplmomats. It may also seem a little strange that none of the demonstrators were apparently hit by fire from the attackers. I don't care how fanatical you are, you don't stand in front of a building and scream "Death to America" in the middle of a firefight. How "spontaneous" were the demonstrators if they didn't feel it necessary to take cover during the attack?
The White House owes a debt of gratitude to the Times for trying to rescue their original narrative about the attack in Benghazi.

Fifty seven and a half percent of Americans are terrorists

 
Picture
So here we meet again, thank you for that. Before I begin please look left <<< You see I claim not to have all the answers, in fact none of my points may be valid at all. I am only one man, with one set of circumstances, simple education and very few years of being awake and active, you may find me offensive an ignorant at times.
    OK now that I have negated the need to take any responsibility for my statements, lets prove the headline. We could debate the official date of the start of this nation, some see July 4, 1776 as the start of the nation although this was only our "Declaration of Independence" Some will argue that the beginning was the end of the "Revolutionary war" in 1783. I could care less actually! The first date that I want you to remember and the "First Strike" in my thesis, is 1873. The "Panic of 1873" was a financial crisis that triggered a depression in Europe and the United States that lasted from 1873 until 1879. This is the first collapse of 3 during the system that currently exists. Hopefully your following me, the "Second Strike" should not confuse any of you, some may remember it well. My, and your second strike is "The Great Depression" of the 1930's. Same system, second failure. Now here we are, ,just one strike away from out. Our third strike is now, current day, yesterday as well! Again same system, same complete failure. I say its a failure knowing that they haven't said it on the television so you have not considered it as fact, let me show that is. As I am writing this post, according to the U.S. Debt Clock , every citizen owes $189,714, that my friend is undeniably a failed system and our final strike.
                     And so here we are to connect what you just learned to the title of this post. The system has clearly failed three times, we will never vote our way out of this, the system needs to be replaced. The amount of death that occurs because of this failed system is equal to terrorism. Taking part in another election is to take part in terrorism. According to Wikipedia the voter turn out in U.S. elections for 2012 was 57 1/2% now you see my point I hope.

      Well OK Mr. Statistics whats your answer

Picture
These are my 3 sons who I raise solo. I work close to full time and spend 60 hours or more per week in my activism. If you can help support/expand my efforts just click the photo.


Before I tell you what I think please refer back to the beginning of the post..........OK your back and you know that I don't claim to know crap. My thesis is simple, we are individual states with diverse needs and opinions, as well as equal rights to govern ourselves. I believe we must, as states come together on issues that effect us all, my question is how would one man ever be able to fathom the needs of all? I firmly believe that the governors should run this country as well as their own states. My reasoning is that if anything needed be ruled on that would effect all of us, the governors should be the deciding vote.
This would, in my opinion, do 3 things: FIRST power would be restored to the people who would vote for their governor and have power to impeach if the elected governor were voting against the will of the home state on federal issues. SECOND: to ever pass a law that effected a whole nation you would need 50 people to agree,. Getting 50 people to agree would always take awhile allowing time for action if foul play were suspected. THIRD: Because of each governors need to be in his or her home state and because of the internet, we would not need Washington DC. I know a lot of revenue would be generated if DC were a museum and I also know the savings by not paying the terrorist there now.
         I very much hope you will consider what i have presented and be bold in the coming days. I encourage all to petition their governors if you agree with my thesis. If you would like to network on this issue please CONTACT ME

Picture In closing I want you to consider one more very important but hidden issue, our standing among the nations. We have become a bloodthirsty, glutinous whore of a nation and many despise us for the actions of our leaders. With the information age we know of the atrocities here and abroad, if we do nothing, we are guilty of many crimes. We as a nation of people from all nations must make a clear statement to the world that we will manage our country and not tolerate terrorist regimes to kill our brothers and sisters for the resources they have. I love you all, please help me make a change by sharing this post.

Was NY Times Benghazi Report Meant To ‘Clear The Deck’ For Hillary?


Was NY Times Benghazi Report Meant To ‘Clear The Deck’ For Hillary?


On 'Fox News Sunday', Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee denounced today’s report in the New York Times arguing that there is no evidence of Al Qaeda involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Rogers: “There was some level of preplanning, we know that." “There was aspiration to conduct an attack by al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya, we know that. The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical improvement on the compound. All of that would directly contradict what the New York Times says was an exhaustive investigation. That tells me they didn’t talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting and intelligence gathering. When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.”
Wallace asked if Rogers thought the report was a politically-motivated attempt to “clear the deck” for Hillary Clinton.
Rogers: “I find the timing odd.  I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it.”

(Full transcript of Chris Wallace's interview with Congressmen Rogers and Schiff)
Joining me now are two key members of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff of California, and here in D.C., committee chair, Mike Rogers of Michigan.
Congressmen, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
ROGERS: Thanks, Mr. Wallace.
SCHIFF: Thanks so much.
WALLACE: Before we get to the NSA, "The New York Times" has an extensive investigation this morning into the Benghazi attack on its front page. It reports, quote, "No evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault." It goes on, "And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at, yes, an American made video denigrating Islam."
Congressman Rogers, I think it's fair to say that "The Times" report directly contradicts what you've been saying.
ROGERS: Yes, I don't know it was an exhaustive investigation. We have gone through some 4,000 different classified cables leading up to the event, talk to people on the ground during the event, done the postmortem on the event through the committee investigation.
WALLACE: What did they get wrong?
ROGERS: That al Qaeda was not involved. There was some level of preplanning, we know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya. We know that.
The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound even -- this is the compound before they went to the annex. All of that would directly contradict what the "New York Times" definitively says was an exhaustive investigation, tells me they didn't talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting, the shooting and the intelligence gathering.
When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you one specific thing. There was one group that everybody says was involved, Ansar al-Sharia. They say it's really an independent radical Islamic group, but it doesn't have links to al Qaeda.
ROGERS: I dispute that, and I think the intelligence to a large volume disputes that al-Sharia.
Now, did they have differences of opinion with al Qaeda core? Yes. Do they have affiliations with al Qaeda core? Definitely.
WALLACE: Do you think there is a political motivation to this "Times" report? Some people have suggested, well, this is trying to clear the deck for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
ROGERS: Yes. I don't know, but I found it was interesting that there's this rollout of stories, including Susan Rice, would go on TV and have a direct discussion, when we still have ongoing investigation in the House Intelligence Committee.
WALLACE: But, again, do you think that's a different tactic?
ROGERS: I find the timing odd. I don't want to speculate on why they might do it. But I can tell you that the information that's being presented in a way that we've heard before and through the investigation have been able to determine is not accurate in its portrayal.
WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, does "The Times" report in your opinion exonerate the Obama administration from the president, to Susan Rice, to Hillary Clinton?
SCHIFF: Well, I don't think "The New York Times" report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable. I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved, but there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al Qaeda that were involved.
I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some came to murder, some people came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos. So it is a complex picture. There was some planning, as Mike points out, but it was not extensive. I don't think it's either accurate to characterize this as a long-term preplanned core al Qaeda operation or something completely unaffiliated.
And I think, Chris, where the New York Times report both adds value and also is deficient is they didn't have the same access to people who were not aware that they were being listened to. They were heavily reliant, obviously, on people that they interviewed who had a reason to provide the story that they did.
Sometimes, though, the intelligence which has the advantage of hearing what people say when they don't know they are being listened to, that could be misleading as well when people make claims, they boast of things that they were not involved in for various purposes.
So I think it adds some insights, but I don't think it's complete. And I don't think either paradigm is really accurate here.
WALLACE: All right.
Let's move to the NSA, because leaker Edward Snowden has been on something of a big public relations offensive this past week. He gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he said this, "for me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission is already accomplished. I already won. And he had a Christmas message, yes, a Christmas message for the people of Britain."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDWARD SNOWDEN, NSA LEAKER: Together, we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance, and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, are you moved by the Edward Snowden Christmas message? And has he performed a public service as he seems to think?
SCHIFF: I'm not moved by the message at all. And I think there is a real irony here that he is giving this message from one of the foremost Big Brother states in the world where he is living without any privacy because there is no right or expectation of privacy in Russia whatsoever. So I'm not moved by this at all.
You know, he has kindled an important public debate, but frankly I think it came from a mixture of motivations on his part. And I think he should have stayed in the United States and been willing to stand up for his beliefs if that's what motivated him. I think that would have demonstrated the courage of his convictions. So, I don't find his message particularly moving or appealing.
WALLACE: Congressman Rogers, in The Washington Post interview, Snowden he asks and answers the question who elected him to reveal all of these government secrets. And his answer is that he says that it was the overseers of those programs let's put up specifically what he says.
"Dianne Feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions in committee hearings," he said. "Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs secret." He says he is doing the job that you failed to do.
ROGERS: Yeah, well, you have to remember this is somebody who had a troubled employment history, who ran to China and Russia. He stole American classified documents, that because of their release jeopardizes our troops in the field in places like Afghanistan and has allowed nation states, Russia, China and others to have valuable insight in the way our intelligence services operate to collect information to keep America safe.
That's who the messenger is, number one.
Number two, the most recent court case, this happened just a few days ago by Judge Pauley, laid out very succinctly the oversight of the NSA program. And I think there's a big confusion about that this is Obama's program that he instituted when he was in office, this is a program that was initiated after 9/11, because we missed a big piece of information.
So both of the chairs of these committees, all of them members of these committees, are fully briefed on all of these actions. It is our job to make sure that they comport with the law. We do that. We take that very seriously.
I think all of that happened. And I think this most recent judicial ruling is important for one reason: it reinstituted faith in the institution of judicial oversight, congressional oversight and the checks and balances within the executive branch.
WALLACE: I want to talk to you about this, because you can -- depending on your opinion, you can just wait for a judicial ruling and you can find some back and forth. Because let's talk about the mass NSA collection, metadata collection, of billions of American phone records, who they called, and how long the call lasted, not the content. We want to emphasize that.
Now, in terms of rulings, in just 11 days we have one federal judge who called that practice of metadata collection almost Orwellian and likely unconstitutional. And then on Friday we had another federal judge call it lawful and the government's counterpunch to al Qaeda.
Congressman Schiff, do you agree with the congressional panel, because they came out with their 46 recommendations along with the two judges who say rather than have the government hold on these billions of records of metadata, that it would be better for a phone companies or some another private entity hold on to that information?
SCHIFF: Chris, I do. I strongly agree with that conclusion. And, you know, some have diminished the report by saying it's just the work of a bunch of professors. We have to remember, you know, Mike Morell was the acting director of the CIA. Richard Clarke, long experienced in counterterrorism, transcending administrations of both parties.
Interesting that the two judges that you mentioned both appointed by presidents of different parties, and contrary to what people might expect, the Clinton appointee upheld the program, and the bush appointee said it was unconstitutional. I actually find confidence that in those rulings in the sense that those judges didn't feel bound by the party of the presidents who appointed them...
WALLACE: Let me, if -- congressman, if I can bring in Congressman Rogers, though, on the specific issue of who should hold on to these records, because there seems to be a general agreement that they need to be held on to by somebody. The haystack -- real quickly.
SCHIFF: If I could just address that very quickly. The reason I think the program ought to be restructured is that we can get the same national security information that we need without the government obtaining millions and millions of records it doesn't need to hold. The phone companies already hold these records for a period of time. We can go to them as necessary as the task force found. We can have an exigent circumstances exception where we can get those records immediately, otherwise we can go to the FISA court in advance.
So we can both protect the country and protect the expectation of privacy. And that's the course that we ought to take. And that's how we ought to restructure the program.
WALLACE: We're running out of time, sir. So let me bring in Congressman Rogers, the interesting thing is since that recommendation came out, both the intel community and some privacy advocates say, we're not crazy about the government holding it, but we think the idea of some private entity holding it would be even worse.
ROGERS: Yeah, it opens it up to privacy concerns across the board. And so there are -- there is no such oversight.
And, again, the reason that Pauley decision was important, it went beyond -- it looked at all of the oversight issues in ruling and in the judge's opinion. Very important.
WALLACE: Another ruling that directly disagrees.
ROGERS: If you ruling, it wasn't based -- it was not a substantive ruling is why he staid his own ruling. He said this is probably going to get overturned -- why? 15 judges, 36 rulings, all of them upheld that this program is lawful and meets the Fourth Amendment test.
And then you have hundreds of appellate decisions over -- since Maryland v. Smith that uphold the underpinnings that these are business records, non-content, no names, no addresses. That, I think, is an important distinction.
So, I think the foundation of the legal argument is there. And what we have here is you're going to take away the safety of what is well overseen, locked away in a vault, very, very strict oversight on who gets access to even check a foreign number coming into the United States.
And this is what's important, after 9/11, we missed a foreign call coming into the United States. They said how do we fix that? This is the way they decided to fix it. And you have all the levels of oversight to make sure it's safe.
It goes to the private companies, you are going to have a government mandated scheme, no such oversight the way we have it at the federal government.
WALLACE: Well, this is going to be continued, as we should point out, the president on his Hawaiian vacation is studying I'm sure the court decisions, the varying court decisions as well as his independent panel's rulings -- or recommendations. And he is going to come out in January with a new set of guidelines.
Congressman Rogers, Congress Schiff, thank you both so much for joining us. And we'll stay on top of this surveillance debate. Thank you, gentleman.

Cruz: It Was A Mistake For Obama And Reid To Force A Government Shutdown

Cruz: It Was A Mistake For Obama And Reid To Force A Government Shutdown

JON KARL: But the year also ended with Ted Cruz as the most high- profile Tea Party consecutive in congress. Again at Tortilla Coast, Cruz reflected on all of that.

When you think about the tradition of first-year senators, they tend to be seen but not heard, you have had, you said, a whirlwind for a first year as a U.S. senator, does that surprise you? I mean, you're on TIME magazine's list as the runner-up to the pope for person of the year.

SEN. TED CRUZ: That was a very strange thing.

This is a city where it's all politics all the time. And I'm trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics, to focus on fixing the problems.

KARL: Really?

CRUZ: I know that's hard to believe, but because no one in this town does that. This is a time for people to step up and do the right thing and that's what I'm trying to do.

KARL: You have had a couple of months to think about this whole government shutdown strategy. Now that it's over in hindsight, are you prepared to say that it was a mistake, it wasn't the right tactic?

CRUZ: I think it was absolutely a mistake for President Obama and Harry Reid to force a government shutdown.

KARL: Now you know even John Boehner has said this was a Republican shutdown.

CRUZ: Look, I can't help what other people say.

And Jon, I understand that in the media, every day the media reported the Republicans shut the government down...

KARL: No, I mean, but come on. I mean we're a couple months away from this, the only reason why this happened is because you insisted, Republicans insisted that Obamacare be defunded as a condition of funding the government. If you didn't -- if you took away that insistence, there would be no shutdown. I mean, really.

CRUZ: You've got conservatives who stood strong and said let's stop the train wreck that is Obamacare, and you've got Democrats in the middle of the shutdown, President Obama called every Senate Republican to the White House, sat us in a room and said I called you to tell you, we're not going to negotiate, we're not going to compromise on anything.

Repeatedly Republicans were compromising, trying to find a middle ground. And repeatedly Democrats said, no compromise, shut it down.
Posted By Ian Schwartz Email Comments

Franklin Graham: Pope Francis ‘Is Not the Judge’ on Homosexuality

Franklin Graham: Pope Francis ‘Is Not the Judge’ on Homosexuality

VIDEO
On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Franklin Graham, son and heir apparent of longtime evangelical preacher Billy Graham, clearly differentiated his views on homosexuality from those of Pope Francis, who made headlines this summer when he presented a more accepting view of gays.
“If a person is gay and seeks god and has goodwill, who am I to judge them?” the Pontiff said earlier this year.
“I want to warn people: I think the Pope is right when he says he’s not the judge,” Graham said. “He’s not the judge. God is the judge.”
RELATED: Pope Francis Tells Church to Stop ‘Obsessing’ Over Gay Marriage, Abortion
When asked if his views on homosexuality would ever shift, Graham replied, “God would have to shift, and god doesn’t. God’s word is the same yesterday, today, and a million years from now. It’s a sin. To wink at sin, to tell somebody that it’s okay? I know the consequences of what will happen one day when they have to stand before god.”
Watch the full clip below, via NBC News:
[h/t POLITICO]
[Image via screengrab]
——
>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter

Turkish Official Says Officers Could Be Retried


Turkish Official Says Officers Could Be Retried

A senior ruling party official says Turkey's government could change laws to allow the re-trial of hundreds of military officers who were convicted of plotting to overthrow the government.
Mustafa Elitas' comments, published in Hurriyet newspaper Sunday, came after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's political adviser suggested this week that the convicted officers had been framed by groups within the judiciary who are now allegedly orchestrating a widespread corruption probe against Erdogan's allies.
Many believe the groups in the judiciary are followers of Pennsylvania-based spiritual leader Fethullah Gulen, a moderate preacher whose Muslim believers command a global empire of business, media and education interests.
The convicted officers have long claimed the evidence against them was fabricated, and the corruption probe could create an uneasy alliance between the government and military.

Saudi to give Lebanon $3B to strengthen army

Saudi to give Lebanon $3B to strengthen army

(AP) Saudi to give Lebanon $3B to strengthen army
By RYAN LUCAS
Associated Press
BEIRUT
Saudi Arabia has pledged $3 billion to Lebanon to help strengthen the country's armed forces and purchase weapons from France, Lebanon's president said Sunday, calling it the biggest grant ever for the nation's military.

Michel Sleiman, who made the surprise announcement in a televised national address, did not provide any further details, but said French President Francois Hollande was to discuss the matter during his visit Sunday to Saudi Arabia. The Lebanese army has struggled to contain a rising tide of violence linked to the civil war in neighboring Syria, a conflict that has deepened the sectarian divide in Lebanon and threatened the country's stability.

"The Saudi king decided to give a generous, well-appreciated grant to Lebanon amounting to $3 billion for the Lebanese army, which will allow it to buy new and modern weapons," Sleiman said. "The king pointed out that the weapons will be bought from France quickly, considering the historical relations that tie it to Lebanon and the military cooperation between the two countries."

He said that he hopes Paris will quickly meet the initiative, and help the Lebanese army with arms, training and maintenance.

Fabrice Hermel, a spokesman for the French president, said he did not yet have details.

Fragile in the best of times, Lebanon is struggling to cope with the fallout from Syria's civil war. That conflict has deeply divided Lebanon along confessional lines, and paralyzed the country's ramshackle political system to the point that it has been stuck with a weak and ineffectual caretaker government since April.

It has also seen a wave of deadly bombings and shootings that have fueled fears that Lebanon, which suffered a brutal 15-year civil war of its own that only ended in 1990, could be slowly slipping back toward full-blown sectarian conflict.

In a nod to those concerns, Sleiman said in his address that "Lebanon is threatened by sectarian conflict and extremism," and said that strengthening the army is a popular demand.

The Lebanese army is generally seen as a unifying force in the country, and draws its ranks from all of Lebanon's sects. But it has struggled to contain the escalating violence in the country since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict. It is also widely considered much weaker than the Shiite Hezbollah militant group, which is armed and funded by regional Shiite-power and Saudi-rival Iran.

The Saudi pledge appeared aimed, at least in part, at countering Hezbollah's superior firepower.

Historically, the Lebanese army has been equipped by the United States and France.

Washington has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid in recent years to Lebanon that has included armored vehicles, heavy weapons and training for the Lebanese army. The U.S. says the program aims to strengthen Lebanese government institutions.

Lebanon's tenuous grip on stability was made clear Friday, when a car bomb killed senior Sunni politician Mohammed Chatah, who had been critical of Syria and Hezbollah.

On Sunday, hundreds of mourners packed into a landmark mosque in downtown Beirut to bid farewell to Chatah, a former finance minister and top aide to ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

Chatah, a Sunni, was affiliated with Hariri's Western-backed coalition, which has been locked in a bitter feud with a rival camp led Hezbollah. Hariri, whose own father was killed by a massive car bomb in 2005, has indirectly blamed Hezbollah for Chatah's assassination.

After a somber funeral service inside Beirut's blue-domed Mohammed al-Amin Mosque, pallbearers carried Chatah's casket to the adjacent funeral tent where he was buried next to Hariri's father, Rafik. At several points during the ceremony, some in the crowd broke into chants of "a terrorist, a terrorist, Hezbollah is a terrorist!"

Speaking later, Fouad Siniora, an ally of Chatah, praised his late colleague as a voice of moderation, and promised those in the crowd that such political killings will not knock the Lebanese off their course.

"We will not surrender. We will not back down. We are not afraid of terrorists and murderers. It is they who should be afraid. They kill to govern. While we reiterate our commitment to Lebanon of coexistence and civil peace," he said.

Siniora, who is a former prime minister, also took a swipe at Hezbollah, saying "we have decided to liberate Lebanon from the occupation of illegitimate weapons." Hezbollah's critics accuse the group of being a veritable state-within-a-state because it has maintained its own militia.

The car bombing that killed Chatah was reminiscent of a string of assassinations of around a dozen members of the anti-Syrian Hariri camp between 2004 and 2008, the biggest of which was the powerful blast that killed Hariri's father, Rafik, who also was a former prime minister.

___

Associated Press writers Sarah Di Lorenzo in Paris and Yasmine Saker contributed to this report.

Was Mysterious Attack on Calif. Power Station a ‘Dress Rehearsal’ for Much Larger Assault on U.S. Electrical Grid?

Was Mysterious Attack on Calif. Power Station a ‘Dress Rehearsal’ for Much Larger Assault on U.S. Electrical Grid?

Although the fact that the still-unsolved attack on a power station near San Jose occurred just a handful of hours after the Boston Marathon bombing — and apparently raised a few eyebrows initially — its ride in the public eye has been decidedly under the radar to date.
But that may be changing.
Now that the ranking member of the House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee is decrying the incident as possibly indicative of a wider security issue, the brazen attack is getting a bit more attention, noted Foreign Policy.
“It is clear that the electric grid is not adequately protected from physical or cyber attacks,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) at a hearing on regulatory issues earlier this month, Foreign Policy noted.
Is Mysterious Attack on San Jose, Calif. Power Station a Dress Rehearsal for Taking Out Electrical Grid?
Image source: Surveillance video of substation attack
Here’s what went down: Around 1 a.m. on April 16, two manholes were entered and fiber cables cut around the PG&E Metcalf substation, which killed some local 911 services, landline service to the substation, and cell phone service in the area, a senior U.S. intelligence official told Foreign Policy.
More from Foreign Policy:
The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility. Ten transformers were damaged in one area of the facility, and three transformer banks — or groups of transformers — were hit in another, according to a PG&E spokesman.
Cooling oil then leaked from a transformer bank, causing the transformers to overheat and shut down. State regulators urged customers in the area to conserve energy over the following days, but there was no long-term damage reported at the facility and there were no major power outages. There were no injuries reported.
Waxman called the incident “an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons” and that “under slightly different conditions, there could have been serious power outages or worse.”
“Initially, the attack was being treated as vandalism and handled by local law enforcement,” the senior intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “However, investigators have been quoted in the press expressing opinions that there are indications that the timing of the attacks and target selection indicate a higher level of planning and sophistication.”
The FBI is on the case but has no evidence that the attack was related to terrorism and seems to believe at this point that it’s an isolated incident, Peter Lee, a spokesman for the FBI field office in San Francisco, which is leading the investigation, told Foreign Policy. The intel official added that there’s also no known motive, and no one has claimed credit; the FBI said there have been no tips from the public.
“These were not amateurs taking potshots,” Mark Johnson, a former vice president for transmission operations at PG&E, said last month at a conference on grid security held in Philadelphia, Foreign Policy noted. “My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal” for future attacks.
More from Foreign Policy:
At least one senior official thinks the government is focusing too heavily on cyber attacks. Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said last month that an attack by intruders with guns and rifles could be just as devastating as a cyber attack.
A shooter “could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out,” Wellinghoff said last month at a conference sponsored by Bloomberg. His proposed defense: A metal sheet that would block the transformer from view. “If you can’t see through the fence, you can’t figure out where to shoot anymore,” Wellinghoff said. Price tag? A “couple hundred bucks.” A lot cheaper than the billions the administration has spent in the past four years beefing up cyber security of critical infrastructure in the United States and on government computer networks.
“There are ways that a very few number of actors with very rudimentary equipment could take down large portions of our grid,” Wellinghoff told Foreign Policy. “I don’t think we have the level of physical security we need.”
Here’s the surveillance video:

Other Must-Read Stories:

OBAMA IS A FAKE HE IS NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH

DONT YOU THINK IF OBAMA WAS A CHRISTIAN HE WOULD STOP ALL HIS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LOVERS FROM KILLING CHRISTIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD
DONT YOU THINK IF OBAMA WAS THE MESSIAH HE WOULD STOP THE KILLING OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
HE IS NOT JESUS
HE IS NOT THE NEXT JESUS
HE IS EVIL
WAKE UP
THEY LIED TO YOU TO GET YOUR UNKNOWING ASS TO VOTE FOR THE DEMON IN THE WHITE HOUSE
IF OBAMA WAS THE NEXT MESSIAH WHY IS HE FUNDING TERRORIST
JESUS IS LOVE HE TOLD US TO LOVE EACH OTHER NOT KILL EACH OTHER
TIME FOR YOU ALL TO WAKE UP AND SEE OBAMA FOOLED YOU ALL
BECAUSE OF YOUR HATE HE USED THAT SO YOU WOULD LIE KILL CHEAT STEAL
WHEN ARE YOU DUMB ASS PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP
THE REAL JESUS IS COME IN SOON AND ALL OF YOU WILL WAKE UP ONCE YOU SEE THE HELL HERE ON EARTH YOU MADE FOR YOUR SELFS


Arab Discrimination against Christians Must Stop

Arab Discrimination against Christians Must Stop

By Michael Curtis
Now is the winter of Christian discontent in Arab Middle Eastern countries. In all those countries, Christians have been suffering a sad fate: killings; torture; rape; abduction; forced conversion to Islam; seizure of homes and property; and bombings of churches, Christian institutions, and schools, and Christian businesses. All too many well-meaning individuals and group have swallowed the fallacious Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood in the contemporary Middle East and fail to recognize that the Christians living there are the real victims.
It was fitting that Pope Francis on December 26, 2013 urged people to speak out about the discrimination and violence that Christians were suffering; "injustice must be denounced and eliminated." For some time the puzzling question has been why human rights groups, non-governmental organizations, and mainstream Western churches have been so completely or relatively silent on the issue of the persecution of Christians, individuals, and groups rooted in their societies and loyal to them.
On December 10, 1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." In the Arab countries today, this worthy principle does not apply to Christians or to Jews. The world is aware that since 1948 Jews have almost completely departed from those countries and only a small number remain. It is less aware that Christian communities, many living in fear, have also been leaving or fleeing or forced to leave their countries. With 12.8 million (3.8% of the total population) estimated in the whole Middle East region, those communities now constitute less than 1% of the world's Christian population.
Even the figures reported in the mainstream Western media of Christians in Arab countries are wildly overstated. The Pew Research Center report of December 2011, corrected February 2013, on Global Christianity provides what appears to be an objective statistical summary of present reality. Taking just three of the countries in the report, the estimates are as follows. Egypt has a Christian population of 4.2 million (5.3% of the population) ; Syria has 1.0 million (5.2%); and Iraq 270,000 (0.9%). Of these 43.5% are Catholics, 43% are Orthodox, and 13.5% are Protestant.
These figures have to be put into the context of the history of the Middle East. The Christians suffering today are the descendants of the oldest Christian communities in the world. In the early years of Islamic rule, Christian scholars and doctors played a considerable role in the life of Middle East countries. Monks translated medical, scientific, and philosophical texts into Arabic. But for four centuries, until the early 16th century, Christians were persecuted and massacred. Under the Ottoman Empire from that point on Christians, as well as Jews, were treated as second-class citizens.
Persecution of Christians in the Islamic Middle East has intensified in recent years, and the fear now is that Christianity may be becoming extinct in the area where it has existed for two millennia. They are criticized, absurdly, as Crusaders, or as colonialists associated with the West, or as infidels. The exception, and the only country in the area where Christians possess full religious rights and can exercise them, and have increased both in absolute number and proportion of the population, is Israel. There they have grown from 34,000 to 158,000. In contrast, the number of church buildings in Iraq, once 300, is now 57. The 1987 census in Iraq, the last one taken officially, counted 1.4 million Christians; it is now about one-fifth that number.
It is a poignant commentary that this Christmas period should have witnessed attacks and outbreaks of hostility against Christians. These were particularly violent in Iraq where the Assyrians, whose descendants are now part of the Assyrian Church of the East, are said to have adopted Christianity in the first century, and where the Chaldean Catholic Church dates back to the 16th century. Most of the Christians today are Chaldeans, some of whom still speak the old language of Aramaic; they are Eastern rite Catholics who recognize the Pope's authority but remain autonomous from Rome.
Iraq already has been the scene of killing of the Archbishop of Mosul in 2008, the kidnappings of clerics in 2005 and 2006, and attack on a Catholic Church in Baghdad in 2010 and an outdoor market that killed 58 people. An Islamist group affiliated with al-Qaeda termed the 2010 attack as involving a "legitimate target." In Christmas 2013 there were further senseless terrorists actions, especially against Christians. These included three bombings in Christian areas, including a car bombing in the Dora section of Baghdad as worshippers were leaving the Christian service; 38 were reported killed.
Egypt is embroiled in its internal hostilities between the military group now in control and the forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and armed jihadists and supporters of the deposed President Mohamed Morsi, that have killed hundreds of people and led to the imprisonment of thousands. Though Egyptian Coptic Christians are not central to this conflict, they have been persecuted. It is true that Copts were largely sympathetic to the overthrow of Morsi. It was perhaps also impolitic for the Coptic Pope Tawadros II to appear on television with General Abdel Sisi, who removed Morsi from office. Yet these did not justify the savage attacks by Islamists against the Orthodox Christian Copts.
Since the 2011 ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, more than a hundred Christians have been kidnapped. So far in 2013, the Islamist violence in Egypt resulted in more than 200 churches attacked and 43 totally destroyed. In addition, discrimination and violence has been frequently exercised against homes and businesses of Christians who feel imperiled. One Coptic Church in Minya province that had stood for a hundred years was burned. The Church of the Archangel Michael, outside of Cairo, was burned in August 2013.
Resolutions and calls for action in Middle East affairs are now frequent. Perhaps the call that is most urgent today is for the protection of Christians who should be accorded equality in law and culture in Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East. The mainstream churches and the groups purportedly interested in human rights ought to heed the plea of Pope Francis.
Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

Underpublicized threat deep in White House FBI: Penetration by radical agents worse than thought

Underpublicized threat deep in White House

FBI: Penetration by radical agents worse than thought

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

John Guandolo
Infiltration of the federal government by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood is worse than some have warned recently, says a former FBI special agent in Washington.
The agent confirmed that at least three operatives of the Egypt-based Brotherhood – whose credo is “Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream” – have penetrated the Obama administration.
The shocking charge was first leveled by Muslim reformer Tarek Fatah during a recent speech in Toronto.
“When someone says that there is penetration of jihadi Islamists within society, do not dismiss it as some right-wing, xenophobic, racist rant,” warned Fatah, a Canadian journalist.
Fight back against CAIR’s attack on First Amendment by making a contribution to WND’s “Legal Defense Fund.” Donations of $25 or more entitle you to free copy of “Muslim Mafia” – the book so devastating to CAIR the group is trying to ban it.
“Today in the White House, there are three members of the Muslim Brotherhood that influence Obama’s policy,” he told the audience gathered for an IdeaCity conference. “One is Rashad Hassan, who is the American ambassador to the 52-nation Organization of Islamic (Conference).”
Fatah also named “Dalia Mogahed, who writes (Obama’s) speeches, who comes from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; and another woman, an academic, (who) was appointed in that circle.”
Former FBI special agent John Guandolo says Obama’s ties to agents for the Muslim Brotherhood are even more extensive.
“The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” he said. “For this president, it even goes back to his campaign with Muslim Brotherhood folks working with him then.”
Equally alarming, the Brotherhood also has placed several operatives and sympathizers within key positions in Homeland Security and the U.S.
military, notes Guandolo, a former Marine Corps officer.
The veteran federal agent says such infiltration threatens national security, because the U.S. leadership of the international Brotherhood has outlined a secret plan to “destroy” the U.S. and other Western governments “from within.”
After the 9/11 attacks, he says the FBI discovered the plan written in Arabic among documents seized from the basement of a prominent Brotherhood leader living in a Washington suburb.
Guandolo says the stated Muslim Brotherhood strategy for change “from within” includes the installation of loyal Brothers into political office.
Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” autographed, from WND’s Superstore
President Obama’s top Muslim ambassador, Rashad Hussain, has raised suspicions. He is U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a powerful international group headquartered in Saudi Arabia and closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Before first joining the White House as a lawyer, Hussain regularly spoke to Brotherhood front groups and defended Brotherhood leaders like Sami al-Arian. Hussain at first denied defending the convicted terrorist, claiming he was misquoted, but then recanted after Politico.com produced a tape-recording of his remarks.
Recently, he has been overseas encouraging devotion to Islam, including in terror hotspots like Afghanistan.
In fact, Hussain has told Afghans the antidote to Islamic violence “is Islam itself.”
“I am of the opinion that one of the strongest tools that you can use to counter radicalization and violent extremism is Islam itself, because Islam rejects violent extremism,” he said during a recent speech in Kabul.
Hussain, a devout Muslim, says promotion of the Muslim faith is “key” to the administration’s strategy to turn Muslims away from violence.
“We see that as one of the key elements of a strategy to address this type of violence,” he said.
The strategy is at odds with what the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission recently recommended in their follow-up report on homegrown terror, “Assessing the Terrorist Threat: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group.”
The study found that Islam was motivating terrorists not just abroad, but inside America’s Muslim community. And it scolded U.S. leaders for pretending religion is not a factor in growing violence.
Still, Hussain insists: “When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem.”
Hussain helped draft Obama’s conciliatory Cairo speech to Muslims. Also helping with the president’s speeches and policies toward Muslims is Mogahed, whose pro-Islamist statements have been posted on the Muslim Brotherhood’s website, ikhwanweb.com.
Obama appointed the hijab-wearing Mogahed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On a British television program, Islam Channel, Mogahed defended Shariah law, the barbaric Islamic legal code that treats women as second-class citizens.
Muslim women actually “associate gender justice or justice for women with Shariah compliance,” she argued. “It is ‘only a small fraction’ that associate Shariah with ‘oppression of women.’”
She added that Muslims should work to integrate Islamic law into public law.
Another Brotherhood-tied figure influencing the White House is Azizah al-Hibri.
Obama this June appointed her to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. A Muslim professor, al-Hibri is also the granddaughter of a sheik, who claims the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.
Al-Hibri herself has proclaimed: “Islamic fiqh (law) is deeper and better than Western codes of law.”
She served on the advisory board of the American Muslim Council and made joint appearances with its leader Abdurahman Alamoudi. Now defunct, the AMC was a front group for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and Alamoudi was the Brotherhood’s top leader in America. He is now behind bars as one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America.
Al-Hibri has also made appearances at Islamic Society of North America conferences. The Justice Department says ISNA is a Brotherhood front and recently named the group an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to provide material support to Hamas terrorists.
Guandolo identified several other Brotherhood-connected agents of influence – all of whom are just as politically savvy and moderate sounding – who have worked their way into government positions, including:
  • Arif Alikhan, who was assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy development and is now a distinguished visiting professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the National Defense University.
  • Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s senior policy adviser.
  • Navy Cmdr. Youssef Aboul-Enein and Jocelyne Cesari, a Muslim convert who previously worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, both of whom teach at colleges within the National Defense University.
Guandolo blames the advances Brotherhood figures on political correctness and lax vetting at government agencies.
Even at the FBI, he notes, an Iranian-born Muslim has taken over the agency’s weapons of mass destruction program.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008
Stung by workplace discrimination lawsuits by Arab and Muslim employees, the FBI has come under pressure to hire more Arab and Muslim agents and language specialists and promote existing ones, while clearing them for higher security levels, according the best-selling book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to
Islamize America.”

The book cites internal FBI records showing the agency has been sued by no fewer than 14 Arab and Muslim employees since 9/11. Some of the lawsuits have been solicited or aided by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, another Muslim Brotherhood front group. The FBI in 2008 cut off formal outreach with CAIR and its branch offices.
“This is happening as we remain silent. And I say that as a liberal Democrat who worked and campaigned for Barack Obama,” said Fatah, a Pakistan-born journalist and activist who founded the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress to fight the spread of “Islamofascism.”
“Muslim Mafia” also has prompted a lawsuit from CAIR over the acquisition by the authors of CAIR documents.
In the lawsuit, CAIR, a self-described Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book’s claims, and the FBI has seized the CAIR material from the Washington law office of one of the attorneys for the authors. A previous filing in the case revealed a federal grand jury is investigating CAIR for possible violation of laws that ban financial dealings with terrorist groups or countries under U.S. sanctions.
As WND reported, CAIR’s complaint seeks to expunge all copies of “Muslim Mafia” in an attempt, according to defense lawyers, to eliminate evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The CAIR legal attack on WND’s author is far from over. WND needs your help in supporting the defense of “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR’s lawsuit. The book’s revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can’t do it without your help. Please donate to WND’s Legal Defense Fund now.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.

Related offer:

Benghazi Security Questions; Flash Point Iran

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Benghazi Security Questions; Flash Point Iran
Aired September 26, 2012 - 20:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Erin, thanks very much. Good evening, everyone.

We begin tonight with breaking news that you will only see right here on 360. And frankly, some of the details are pretty astonishing. On a day that Secretary of State Clinton says she is still waiting for answers while the FBI investigates the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, our sources reveal that not one single FBI investigators has set foot at the crime scene. Fifteen days after the terror attack, not one.

Those same sources also saying that the crime scene still has not been secured. And those are just two headlines, just two new pieces of information tonight, but that is not all we're learning.

CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend once again has the scoop on all that. She's going to -- she joins now. As we often mention, Fran is the former White House homeland security adviser. She's currently a member of the CIA's External Advisory Committee and was recently in Libya with her employer, MacAndrews & Forbes. Also with us, CNN contributor and former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Also, Eli Lake is the senior national security correspondent for "Newsweek" and for the "Daily Beast."

So you've got reporting now on the status of the FBI investigation. What can you tell us?

FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Anderson, it's pretty extraordinary and astonishing to me who's worked these investigations internationally with the FBI over more than a decade. So you understand that when you -- when this happens and the FBI opens an investigation one of the first things they do is go to the State Department and, say, please request permission for us to enter this country, Libya, get to the crime scene, Benghazi, please request that we will have the security and the ability to do that, that we will have access to the crime scene, that we will have access to any individuals that the Libyans take into custody.

None of that is -- well, the FBI has made that request to the State Department, what we found out today from senior law enforcement officials is that while the FBI has finally made it to Tripoli, they've never made it Benghazi. They --

COOPER: They haven't been on the ground in Benghazi. TOWNSEND: They have not. In fact it was taking so long to get permission to get into Tripoli the FBI deployed their personnel to a location in the region so they'd be closer. They had conducted interviews of the State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack. But they've not been able to get -- they've gotten as far as Tripoli now but they've never gotten to Benghazi. They made a request that the crime scene be secured.

As we know from Arwa Damon's reporting and other public reporting -- the State Department -- we don't know whether or not the State Department out that request to the Libyans and whether it was denied or what happened to it. What we know for sure is the crime scene was never secured and in fact, a senior law enforcement official I spoke to said if we get there now it's not clear that it will be of any use to us.

And then the third and really critical and astonishing point to me was -- that they made was, look, one of the things we have to do is question the individuals that the Libyans have in custody to get to the bottom of this.

COOPER: Sure.

TOWNSEND: To understand what they're learning and in fact they made that request through the State Department. That was denied by Libya. And in -- so the FBI has to pass any questions they have through the State Department to the Libyan government. They put the questions then you wait for sort of like a child's game of telephone that information to come back before you can follow up. Not at all the ideal way to run an investigation.

COOPER: This is really amazing information that you're hearing from your sources. Now I want to play something for our viewers from last Thursday. Secretary Clinton said this about the investigation. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: And we are at the very early stages of an FBI investigation. The team from the FBI reached Libya earlier this week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So she said -- reached Libya earlier this week. No mention obviously of being on the ground in Libya. You're saying they haven't been on the ground in Benghazi based on your sources. Is she splitting hairs here?

TOWNSEND: Well, I --

COOPER: Or --

(CROSSTALK)

TOWNSEND: Look, in fairness to the secretary, it may be that she wanted to be coy about where in Libya they were. For security concerns. That would be understandable. But the fact is, it's not clear that they've been even inside Libya for very long. They had difficulty and there is -- we understand some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand and the State Department on the other. And so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into the country. They've now gotten there but they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi.

COOPER: Bob Baer, you've been involved in a number of aftermath investigations. Have you ever heard of anything like this whether it is bureaucratic infighting where the FBI is not allowed access to a crime scene or -- I guess not approval from the home country? I mean have you heard of anything like this?

ROBERT BAER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I have never heard of it, Anderson. This is -- this is just outrageous. I mean in a sense that Libya is obviously on the edge. But I've always seen the FBI after an attack like this right on the scene, it was either secured by State Department security officers or U.S. military, the FBI got right in, checked what was missing, checked the weapons, everything else, that was used in the attack.

Again I've never seen this since the takeover of our embassy in Tehran in 1979. It tells me again that Libya is a precarious situation. The State Department realizes that the FBI cannot fight its way into a crime scene. The FBI has got to be secured when it arrives on ground. And there's obviously none. The Libyan are not cooperating. If they're not letting an FBI talk to the people they've arrested, and frankly I think those people are probably, you know, the types that -- the usual suspects.

They have nothing to do with the attack. But that's just my opinion. This is an investigation that cannot possibly at this point turn up very much useful.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, for Libyans not allowing any access directly to the suspects, I mean, what does that say to you? It doesn't portend well at all.

BAER: And not at all. I mean it's -- Anderson, it's the Libyans, they can't decide which side they're on. I mean this is an attack on U.S. soil. It was an act of aggression. And if they can't tell us who did it and why, and where these people are and in fact be arrested, the Libyan government is on the wrong side.

COOPER: And Mr. Lake, you broke the story today in the "Daily Beast" that administration officials knew almost immediately that this was a terror attack. You say they new within 24 hours.

ELI LAKE, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: It was largely the intelligence community that collected a lot of information that clearly not only pointed to al Qaeda but they were able to pin point the location of one of the attackers in part because this person use social media. But there are a number of clues, if you will, that were outside of the intelligence community. Ayman Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda right now, congratulated the attackers in Benghazi for getting vengeance against one of the key jihadists who he asked them to get vengeance on. The date of the attack is another kind of thing. And in addition to that there was intelligence coming in and four of the attackers were identified within 24 hours.

COOPER: And Eli, intelligence sources you've been talking to say they located one attacker using social media, as you mentioned. So did they know his exact location?

LAKE: Yes, but I'm -- I deliberately withheld some details on that.

COOPER: OK.

LAKE: Because the person as I understand is still at large.

COOPER: OK. Fair enough. Do we know if anyone has actually targeted or been targeted or arrested, can you say?

LAKE: At this point I have mixed signals. There's a difference. There were 50 people or so arrested by Libyan authorities. It's unclear whether those people were innocent or guilty or kind of rounding up the usual suspects. But in terms of any kind of U.S. actions, nothing has been done at this point.

COOPER: And you talked to a number of sources, yes, on this?

LAKE: Yes. In fact I'd say, you know, as the story was coming out in the -- you know, in the aftermath of the attacks people actually approached me and began kind of telling me what I would call the unauthorized version of events.

COOPER: So, Fran, you also talked to a senior law enforcement source who has corroborated Eli Lake's reporting about the intelligence community knowing in a 24-hour period, a very short order, that this was --

(CROSSTALK)

TOWNSEND: That's right. The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack. And said it to me in a way, Anderson, to suggest we're mystified by why the sort of seniors in the administration have not been cleared about that. You know, the other thing is when you look at why hasn't this crime scene been secured, after all we know that the militias and Libyan government are in Benghazi. They were perfectly capable of doing it, and so again, it underscores why has this investigation been handles -- mishandled and so differently from every other group --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So let me just think about. Let me play devil's advocate here to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. Just as a point of argument. If -- people in the intelligence community knew or felt within 24 hours it was a terror attack, is it possible administration officials did not want to publicly say that for some security reasons, some investigative reasons, or they just wanted to make sure that, you know, in the fog of battle, often intelligence is wrong in the first -- in the first few hours?

TOWNSEND: And that -- and that may -- I think the last explanation, Anderson, that you offer is the most likely. Look, this is an administration that had been burned by putting early information out there, where had then investigators and intelligence sort of stepped back from it. And they looked foolish.

And so it may be that they didn't want to say that. The part that -- the problem even with that explanation, though is, when Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, comes out and says it's a terrorist attack, the administration is very slow, including up to yesterday where the president's address to the U.N. General Assembly, very slow to -- to embrace this notion that it is in fact a terror attack despite the fact -- I mean you can't keep pointing to this film and this protest when this -- when they show up with RPGs and mortars.

COOPER: That is the thing, Eli, though, because it -- I mean arguing against what my devil's advocate question was, they were publicly giving a narrative. They were publicly linking this to that video as opposed to just saying we are investigating.

LAKE: I think there are two different things going on right now. One is what happened in Cairo and that clearly stemmed in part from a broadcaster who had jihadist sympathies talking about this Internet video that was out in June.

The second is what happened in Libya. And that has nothing to do as I can tell at this point from the outrage over the video that started from a broadcaster in Cairo. And I think that those two narratives kind of merged at least in the telling of senior White House officials and other administration officials.

COOPER: Bob, what do you make -- I mean to you, what is the significance of all of this? And I should point out, as Secretary Clinton made the strongest statement yet today from the administration making a link between the Benghazi attack to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. But you've been saying this really since shortly after the attack.

What do you think is the significance of this information we're hearing tonight?

BAER: I think it's political. I think the White House is reluctant to admit that Libya has been lost or potentially lost. No administration wants to admit that. And I think frankly we can't blame losing Libya on this administration. You know, it was in the works for a long time. There wasn't much it could do. But nonetheless we have an election coming up and no one wants to take blame for messing up the Arab Spring. Not that they have but this is the politics in Washington. Even when you get a smoking gun, a White House wants to cover it up or explain it away.

COOPER: Bob, is it too early to say, though, that Libya has been lost?

BAER: I -- you know, you look at the -- just the academic stuff about eastern Libya. And you know, there's -- I've heard today there are multiple assassinations around Benghazi, different parts of Libya, where people are settling scores of all sorts of stripes. It's chaotic.

And going back to the FBI getting into Benghazi, you can't really blame them because there is nobody in control of a very large city and a very part -- big part of Libya. So they are -- you know, that's the problem. At the root of it. All the facts point to that is that nobody is in control.

COOPER: Fran, you know, a lot of people about the Arab Spring will say, well look, you have -- you have societies who have been repressed for generations. Been in a pressure cooker. The box has been opened, a lot of weird things come out of the box. But maybe long term there is -- you know, things will move in the right direction as the U.S. sees it. Do you buy that or how do you see it?

TOWNSEND: Well, look, the Arab Spring is in fact I think a long- term gain. But what you have to understand from -- look, if it's terrorism that we're seeing and I feel confident based on everything we know that it is, it races the question for the administration, why didn't you see this coming? If there was intelligence about the growing presence of al Qaeda in eastern Libya. If there was an increasing threat and presence of al Qaeda --

COOPER: On the anniversary of 9/11 of all days.

TOWNSEND: Right. So why didn't you do more? And I think we have to be -- we can't underestimate until you have that answer you're going to be reluctant to call it a terrorist attack. I do think that there's real problems with how this was handled on the front end before it happened and I think that's part of what's driving the handling of it.

COOPER: Well, amazing report, Fran. Appreciate it. Eli Lake, as well. Thank you. And Bob Baer, as well. Thanks for being with us.

Much more on this after the break. We're going to get reaction to our exclusive reporting from two key lawmakers. Let us know what you think. Obviously we're Facebook. You can follow me on Twitter, @Andersoncooper. I'll be tweeting tonight.

Later, this is just remarkable. How one man survived when an avalanche, a mountain of snow came roaring down on top of him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Having some gusty winds throughout the night so that was kind of keeping you up also, and then sure enough a gust of wind came that was beyond what we had felt. I told my partner Greg that was in the tent with me, gosh, this is a really strong gust. Greg said this isn't a gust, it's an avalanche.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Welcome back. If you're just joining us, our breaking news tonight only here on 360 sources telling us that not one single FBI agent has made it to Benghazi, to the scene where four Americans were killed on 9/11. Also those same sources telling our Fran Townsend that FBI request through the State Department to get to Libyans, to secure the scenes, have gone unfulfilled.

Additionally, according to sources, suspects from the Libyans having custody have not been made available for direct FBI questioning. And from the get-go, our sources say, this looks like a terror attack.

Back with us national security contributor, Fran Townsend, who broke this remarkable story just moments ago. Also on the phone, Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson and Congressman Michael Turner, Republican from Ohio.

So, Senator Isakson, first of all, your reaction to this information.

SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R), GEORGIA: Well, this entire thing mystifies me. We have an administration apparently without a policy or looking the other way. Referring to the tragic death of an ambassador as a bump on the road. I do not understand the continuance of the president to look the other way and not admit the fact that this was obviously a terrorist attack. And I cannot believe that the FBI is not on the ground yet and there's not enough cooperation to get them there.

COOPER: Congressman Turner, if the FBI investigators have yet to set foot in Benghazi, how is their investigation is supposed to be credible?

REP. MIKE TURNER (R), OHIO: No, obviously it can't be. And this goes right to the failure of this administration's policies in Libya. You know, we have to put this in context. Just a year ago the president spent nearly $1 billion U.S. with warships right off the coast of Libya attacking the Moammar Gadhafi regime for the purposes of transitioning Libya without a stated policy or defined policy of who we were supporting, what we hope to gain, the geopolitical view of those who might come to power.

And now the president continues to operate in an area where he has no articulated policy and now four Americans are dead. Our ambassador is dead. And the president still has yet to be able to describe what has occurred and really what is the president's policy? Why is it that the president is operating a year after having attacked Libya without a policy?

COOPER: Well, Congressman, I mean to be fair, though, in support of the president and the policy, we'll point out, time was of the essence given Moammar Gadhafi's stated intention to basically invade Benghazi and go house to house and pull people out and kill them, I think, like rats or to -- words to those effect.

But, Senator, you and Senator Jim DeMint have written to Secretary Clinton requesting any diplomatic cables that might have come from Ambassador Chris Stevens. What motivated you to make such a request? What are you hoping to learn, Senator, from those cables?

ISAKSON: Well, first of all, it was myself and Senator Corker --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Sorry. Senator -- the question was to you since you requested the cables.

ISAKSON: Right. And, well, first of all, CNN uncovered the diary of Craig (sic) Stevens at the scene. CNN reported that the diaries said, that Craig Stevens wrote, that he thought he was in danger and was out on the al Qaeda's hit list. I can't believe a U.S. ambassador who would write it down in a diary would not have sent cables to inform the State Department of his danger. And I think that is probably what happened.

I think the State Department should be forthright. We should know what communications they had leading up to September 11th. And if in fact the United States State Department and this country knew in advance to the attack that its ambassador felt like he was in danger of his death or imminent the demise from al Qaeda and we didn't take any action to secure him, that sends appalling message to ambassadors around the world representing the United States of America.

COOPER: And, Senator, if you don't get these cables, I mean is there anything really you can do? You requested them, can the committee subpoena the items?

ISAKSON: Well, the committee can move forward and we've talked with members of the committee and some of the leadership of the committee. In fact, if the administration claims executive privilege or looks the other way and denies it, Senator Corker and I will continue to pursue it because we think the American people, the Congress of the United States and certain the family of Craig Stevens deserve an answer and they deserve it now.

COOPER: Congressman, you've been in briefings about this, does it -- what do you make of the kind of the narrative that we've heard from administration officials about, well, it was linked to this video and it's still being investigated, we're not sure, and now this reporting tonight and today that -- at least within the intelligence community in the first 24 hours, they felt confident this was a terror attack?

TURNER: Well, and, Anderson, I don't think we can give administration the benefit of the doubt. I think the fact that they are trying to blame it on not a terrorist attack comes right to the heart of the fact that this is a president that took NATO and the United States into an offensive action into Libya without a clear stated policy, spent nearly a billion dollars, continues to have -- not a clear stated policy of what our relationship is. To those who are in charge, the geopolitical, you know, evolution that's occurring there.

And at the same time is not providing clearly the type of securing that's necessary in the environment that we're in. You know I don't think there's anybody who -- in Congress or the Senate -- can articulate what this president's policy is post-Gadhafi in Libya. He certainly didn't articulate it when he began the military action against them and he certainly isn't now, leaving I think Americans at risk.

COOPER: Congressman Turner, I appreciate your time. Senator Isakson, as well.

Fran, it is -- you know, to be fair to the administration and those are obviously two Republican members of Congress, I mean it's not clear how much the U.S. was in control of events. I mean there were -- events happen around the world. And events were happening on the ground in Libya, in the streets of Egypt, without the U.S. being in the forefront of it.

And in many cases the U.S. was reacting as often happens in foreign policy. I mean the Arab Spring is not something the U.S. necessarily has control of.

TOWNSEND: No, that's exactly right, Anderson. And we do have to understand that. That said, our experience tells us, whether it's the East African embassy or the USS Cole, right, in places around the world which are either ungoverned -- the Mali-Mauritania border -- or poorly governed -- Yemen, Libya -- because of a weak central government, nature pours a vacuum, we know al Qaeda has the wherewithal to take advantage of that.

We know al Qaeda looks for those safe havens around the world. And it seems, it appears now, that's exactly what al Qaeda was doing with Libya, trying to insert themselves where it was a weaker or ungoverned space and take advantage of it to our great detriment in the tragic.

COOPER: Fran Townsend, again, I appreciate your reporting with your sources. Thank you very much.

Other news tonight, in what was likely his last speech at the U.N. General Assembly, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for a new world order not dominated by Western powers. As he was speaking, former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, was blasting President Obama for not taking stronger action against Iran. Former Rudy Giuliani joins me ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again called for a new world order today at the U.N. General Assembly one not dominated by Western powers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (Through Translator): The current abysmal situation of the world and the abysmal incidence of history are due mainly to the wronged management of the world and itself proclaims centers of power. Who have entrusted themselves to the devil. The order that is rooted in the anti-human thoughts of slavery and the old and new colonialism are responsible for poverty, corruption, ignorance and oppression and discrimination in every corner of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Ahmadinejad's remarks came a day after President Obama said he would do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms. Today at an anti-Iranian protest near the U.N. former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said President Obama has betrayed the people of Iran by not doing more to support their freedom.

Strong words. I spoke with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: You've been very critical of the U.S. policy toward Iran, saying the Obama administration has a cavalier attitude. How do they have a cavalier attitude?

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: Well, I mean, the idea that you are going to stop them from becoming nuclear by just saying things like all options are on the table or --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But isn't that what Mitt Romney has said, all options are on the table?

GIULIANI: Well, I mean Mitt Romney is not the president. The president of the United States should be communicating with the -- what the president of the United States should be communicating is that he will take military action --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But no president ever says we're going to bomb you. George W. Bush said all options are on the table.

GIULIANI: That was Ronald Reagan. He was pretty successful. I mean Ronald Reagan made it pretty clear when he was going to take military action, he pointed missiles at the Soviet Union and made it clear that he would take military action. COOPER: So was Bush wrong when he didn't say we're going to bomb you but when he said all options are on the table? I mean Reagan said all options are on the table plenty of time.

GIULIANI: First of all, this was a long time ago when Bush was dealing with Iran. Iran was five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years away from becoming nuclear. Iran now could be months away, could be a year away, could be two years away.

Under President Obama Iran has by three times increased the uranium and made it much more enriched than it was originally. That's such a massive change in a very short period of time. And of course Obama hasn't had that history of, you know, begging to negotiate -- wrote a letter to the ayatollah six months ago wanting to talk to him.

COOPER: But what would Mitt Romney do differently?

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Because Romney, when he was talking to George Stephanopoulos said he had the same red line as President Obama?

GIULIANI: Well, we don't know -- we don't know what President Obama's red line is since he won't share it with us? He won't share it with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He doesn't want to have a red line. He wants to keep it as fuzzy as possible. Now if he wants to do that, and communicate that private to Netanyahu, if he wants to communicate that privately to the ayatollah, I'm OK with that.

But the reality is that he wants to keep it very fuzzy and my fear is Iran will pass the point of no return without knowing it passes the point of no return.

COOPER: We don't know what the president has said privately to an Israeli leader, but also he has said publicly acquiring a weapon is the red line.

GIULIANI: Anderson, we know he hasn't told Netanyahu that unless that not you're the big liar. I mean, Netanyahu's begging to meet with him about the red line. Netanyahu was criticizing him for not setting the red line. He is leaving Netanyahu in the dark, which is a terrible mistake.

COOPER: But just yesterday at the U.N., he said we do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Now, some are saying, we should stop them from having the capability and there's a difference. But Mitt Romney when asked by Stephanopoulos used the same term about acquiring a weapon.

GIULIANI: The reality is that is very, very fuzzy language, a very fuzzy language can lead to war. Very fuzzy language and confusion lead to the First World War. There is no point about being fuzzy about it now.

COOPER: Iran has the capability of a weapon then --

GIULIANI: I'm worried about that because I think we are not concentrating on the real key problem here. I don't think the key problem is Iran using missiles. I think their key problem is having nuclear material that they can hand off to the terrorists that they are presently --

COOPER: But we don't have a good track record, look at Iraq, of figuring out what capabilities people have. Isn't actually having a weapon really the kind of only thing we can actually positively say?

GIULIANI: I'm not sure that is right and I don't know that we don't have a pretty good capability -- an awful a lot of the Iranian scientists have been killed in Iran. Somebody had pretty good information about who they were and where they were living.

COOPER: But you just said, I mean, you're saying that we've been fuzzy and weak in our diplomacy. But in fact, beside sanctions, I mean, there has been an assassination campaign against Iranian scientists and online virus --

GIULIANI: The assassination campaign was from Assad not us. And so let's be clear about that.

COOPER: But we don't know for sure who it was and we don't know what involvement or approval --

GIULIANI: It wasn't us. I mean, the reality is that this whole approach to Iran has been a very, very conciliatory one. Even the sanctions, which are stronger than they used to be, there are 20 exemptions from the sanctions.

COOPER: Do you see a big difference between what Mitt Romney would do?

GIULIANI: I see a very big difference. I think Mitt Romney would deliver a very clear message. First of all, he would meet with -- how about a big difference like this.

He would meet with Netanyahu and sit down face to face with the man and discuss with him what the options are. This is highly irresponsible. Netanyahu has to make a very critical decision.

He has to decide whether for the sake of his nation he should attack Iran. He is entitled with a face to face, eye to eye discussion with the president about this so they can get it straight.

The president has a problem with this. Bob Woodward's book is all about how President Obama doesn't seem to know how to deal with people or act with people or meet with them.

This is a critical moment when the president of the United States has to put aside whatever personal feelings he has about Netanyahu, sit down with the man for an hour or two and they've got to discuss it. More important they discuss as you and I discuss it.

COOPER: We have to leave it there. Mayor Giuliani, appreciate your time.

GIULIANI: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Coming up, the avalanche that killed at least eight people in Nepal. Now a survivor speaks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm like -- no, this isn't going to hit us. This is going to go by. We picked a good spot. We are in a safe zone and the next thing you know we felt a slap almost.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: A survivor takes us inside the avalanche that killed at least eight people in Nepal speaks out. Experienced skier, Glen Plake describes what happened on that mountain and how he made it out alive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Tonight, a survivor of the avalanche in Nepal that killed at least eight people speaks out. His name is Glen Plake, one of the most famous accomplished and wildest extreme skiers in the world.

Throughout his career there have been many extreme moments. That is some of him doing what he does best, but nothing could have prepared him for what happened on Sunday, when he was camped out on the world's eighth highest peak and other climbers and the avalanche hit.

Three of those climbers are still missing, feared dead and Plake knows he is lucky to be alive.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Glen, first of all, how are you doing?

GLEN PLAKE, SURVIVED AVALANCHE: I hate to say it, but I'm doing very, very well. I have a great climb manager that didn't let me get on to a rescue helicopter and fly to some hospital or something.

And said if you are in good shape why don't you walk down to base camp and taper off this mountain on your own terms and it really helped me psychologically. Physically, I'm beat up, been in a car wreck if you know what I mean.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, an avalanche, can you walk me through what happened the day of the avalanche? You were in your tent when it happened, right?

PLAKE: We had bedded down at camp three and was actually -- was preparing for a rest day the next day we would have just stayed at camp three. There had been some avalanche awareness in the area. So believe it or not we did in fact sleep with our avalanche beacons on.

I literally had my head lamp on, reading my daily devotions at 4:30 in the morning. We've been having some gusty winds throughout the night so that was kind of keeping you up also.

And then sure enough a gust of wind came that was beyond what we had felt. I told my partner, Greg, that was in the tent with me. Gosh, it was a strong gust. Greg said this isn't a gust, it's an avalanche and about a second later, we were off to parts unknown.

COOPER: So what is that moment like? I mean, one moment you are conscious and you are seeing things and then to get hit by an avalanche, what is it like?

PLAKE: It just -- unfortunately, I've been in one before and I felt it. The wind was coming. It was coming, and you know the avalanche, the winds in front of an avalanche could be up over 200 miles-an-hour.

I'm like -- no, this isn't going to hit us. This is going to go by we picked a good spot. We were in a safe zone. And the next thing you know, we felt a slap almost. I was airborne for quite a while I did go through some big ice clips.

And then I started feeling the actual rumble tumble of an avalanche like you had been knocked over by a wave, you know, in the ocean before. And I was thinking to myself, my gosh, this is it.

This is it. I said this is it. And then, I don't know a couple of seconds who knows what later. All of a sudden, I felt it come to a stop and I immediately, basically, just completely started freaking out and trying to -- you only have a few seconds before the snow starts getting hard like cement.

COOPER: So you are actually conscious when it hits and you are actually tumbling over and over, and you remain conscious.

PLAKE: Yes, I was conscious throughout the whole thing. What's interesting is the sun was not up yet. When I came to a stop I started thrashing about to try to make an air pocket or something and I realized I'm on top of something, but I'm still in the tent.

I can't rip the tent open and I realized, wait a minute. I'll unzip the door. What was really surreal is that I had been reading before and my head lamp was still on my head and was still producing light.

So even though it was very dark, everything was really like and would took me a few minutes to actually comprehend what was happening and then I realized my head lamp is on.

Anyway, as soon as I got myself out, I immediately started screaming and yelling and went into rescue mode for my friends. Unfortunately, Remi -- no sign of Remi whatsoever, he has literally disappeared. There was nothing that was anywhere near or associated with his tent visually, and Greg even though he was sleeping right next to me, everything that we had in thank tent I found except his sleeping bag.

COOPER: So they are both still missing?

PLAKE: And they are both missing and for sure they are -- I came to rest at about 6,300 meters or so. More than 20,000 feet so your time is very limited there. Again, it was our first day at that altitude with a rest day planned I myself was basically just standing in my skivvies with no shoes on.

And the process of thrashing about I had thrown Greg's backpack and his sleeping bag were the same color as I threw it I realized there was a radio in that and I was able to contact our climb manager and say I have been hit by an avalanche.

Greg and Remi are missing. I can't talk I have a rescue to attend to and called them back 5 minutes later. I still can't talk to you. I appear to be OK and I'm still in rescue mode.

This went on for about 20 minutes or so before I realized I'm not in rescue mode anymore. I'm in my own survival mode and I realized I better start putting some clothes on and getting some shoes on because things were starting to get pretty cold.

COOPER: How do you -- I mean, it is so recent I don't know if you have had time to even process it. How do you go on from something like this? Your two friends are missing. Will you climb again? Where is your head right now?

PLAKE: Again, personally I was advised by an old veteran not to jump on a rescue helicopter, took his advice and I can honestly say, in the seven hours that it did take me to walk back to base camp. I was able to taper of the situation.

And I wasn't plucked out of an emergency situation and sitting in a hospital somewhere. We had some dirty work to do. I had to call Remi's wife. I had to call Greg's father and I also had you know there are nine other people involved in this thing too.

So the scene around base camp was kind of interesting. But I kind of stayed there and as far as my head is concerned, I was able to leave the mountain -- I guess, well on my own terms.

COOPER: I don't want to ask you anything personal, I mean, how do you make those calls to your friend's loved ones?

PLAKE: It is a pretty intense roller coaster for sure. Right now I'm still not completely stable, but I'm there. They are hard. Of course, they are hard. Gosh. And then the thing about this whole thing is Remi and Greg are missing.

COOPER: What do you want people to know about them?

PLAKE: Remi's greatest flaw was he was too enthusiastic, isn't that great to have? He was always like come on let's do this. Come on let's go isn't this great?

We had been trekking and we got to put our skis on the first day, to slide a little bit. Like the first day after Christmas and you got a new pair of skis. I was like mellow out man.

And Greg, I never really knew Greg. This was the first expedition together. Again, he was a great guy to travel with. You go on expedition with somebody you don't know and you share a tent with somebody for a month and he really enjoyed where he was and the culture.

He was in the cook tent hanging up making jokes in his spare time. He really enjoyed, the summit is the summit. You go on a six- month trip and you make one ski run. And that is not actually what it is all about.

And Greg really enjoyed every minute and every moment of the trip other than the summit. You know, it was great. Cruised around cat man due and he really enjoyed the local setting and the travel aspect of adventures.

That is what these things are. They are adventures whether it is sailing trip or a climbing trip or something.

COOPER: A young journalist I knew in Somalia was killed and wrote in his journal wrote the journey is the destination. I think that is a lot of what you are saying.

PLAKE: Absolutely. I could say it is an adventure and he really enjoyed that. He was a wonderful person to travel with and a wonderful skier. He was a French ski instructor. He had great stories of pretty highfalutin people.

It was very nice getting to know him. And it breaks my heart I thought for sure he was going to be right there. I'm not a cynical laugh, but going, my gosh, we're alive, dude.

COOPER: Glen, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I'm sorry for your friends who are missing and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families right now. I appreciate you talking to us, Glen.

PLAKE: I appreciate you caring. This is not an ordinary event. This is catastrophic this thing. You know, 30-year Himalayan veterans going I can't believe what I'm looking at. This is a disaster is what it is. This isn't an avalanche.

COOPER: Glen, thank you again. Stay strong.

PLAKE: Thank you guys, God bless, he did me today.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Certainly did. Remarkable story. Coming up, the video went viral, students being pepper sprayed. You probably seen the video. Some sued. Today, they found out just how much money they could collect. Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Let's get the latest and some of the other stories we're following tonight. Isha's here with the "360 Bulletin" -- Isha.

ISHA SESAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, an opposition group says 343 people were killed in Syria today, the deadliest day since the conflict began. Four were killed and 14 wounded in an attack on the military facility in Damascus. The Free Syrian Army and opposition force is claiming responsibility.

In Greece, thousands marched in Athens to protest new austerity measures. It's the first general strike since Greece's new coalition government was formed in June.

A preliminary settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed after this video went viral on YouTube last year. The University of California is offering $30,000 for each of the 21 plaintiffs who were pepper sprayed as an occupy encampment on its Davis campus.

Acting on a new tip, police plan to take soil samples at a home in Roseville, Michigan to see if Jimmy Hoffa is buried there. The team vanished in 1975, one of the biggest mysteries of the 20th Century.

Anderson, sad news tonight, the legendary singer, Andy Williams has died. "Moon River" was one of his signature songs. Williams was known for his mellow crooning and he helped define easy listening in the '60s. He was 84, one of my favorite songs there and it is just very sad news.

COOPER: Yes, a remarkable career he had.

SESAY: Yes.

COOPER: Isha, thanks. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Time now for "The Ridiculist." Tonight, there is a whole new way to go totally overboard with your kid's birthday party. Because let's face it, the usual birthday party fare it's pretty played out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have had the Chuck E. Cheese party. You have had the clown party. You've had the jump -- bounce house party?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, hang on, I'm familiar with clowns. I've heard of Chuck E. Cheese, of course, that's the Vegas for kids, right? But what on earth is a jumperoo or bouncy house party and more importantly how can I go about getting invited to one? Who wants to go to a pool party? Yawn.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, when you say, you're going to have a party. That's nice we're going to have a pool party. We're going to have a pool party with a gator. Everybody comes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Wait. That guy doesn't really take alligators to people's pool parties, does he? That can't actually be happening. That can't actually be good for gators. We need to get to the bottom of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you put him on the guest list, he is guaranteed to show up. This gator makes house calls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I stand corrected. The guy takes alligators to pool parties. And when you think about it, what better way is there to spice up a pool party than throwing a live gator in with the kids. Happy birthday, Suzy, go play with the carnivorous reptile.

Why stop at alligators, throw some rabbit squirrels in there too and pissed off snapping turtles, maybe a great white shark with the mood disorder. They can all play Marco Polo with the youngsters.

It will be fine. It will be fine. Don't worry and it's good for the gators. I'm sure the aquarium is good. Of course, the most important part of throwing an alligator pool party is being the first one on your block to throw an alligator pool party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Both of my daughters have had their parties this way and been the first one of their friends to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Look, I get it. I have something different. I guess, it's kind of cool. The kids can learn about alligators up close while secretly hoping to tape off the gators or maybe they are hoping that does happen.

But whatever happens to good old days, you blew up a few balloons. You got a cake and maybe you played pin a tail in the donkey. I don't know. Do kids actually use maybe real donkeys now? I don't know.

Look, at the end of the day, I want kids to have fun, but is this really a good idea, is it even healthy for the animals? I'd say hire a clown. If you really want something new, throw the clown in the pool and watch the kids laugh and laugh and laugh. That does it for us. We'll see you again one hour from now, another edition of "360" at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts now.