Government, a Bureaucracy of Zero Consequence

Posted on May 7, 2014May 7, 2014 by Denise Simon

It is gratifying that more American citizens are paying attention to government, but the fight of fraud, waste, abuse and collusion is never over. In recent years we have endured scandals of epic proportions yet NO one has been fired or jailed. Wrong-doing is often rewarded with financial bonuses and others are just re-assigned all under the protections of obscure laws and selective investigations and prosecutions. We have seen the publications of Senator Coburn’s Waste Book, we have seen the Citizens Against Government Waste Pig Book, we have seen government investment in failed start-up companies and those that lie including Barack Obama on Obamacare.

Well then we have the TSA abuse, we have endured the NSA, Fast and Furious, the IRS and heck the list is long. But one particular agency that seems to have left the flashing margquee and the headlines is Customs and Border Patrol. Shhhh, but there is huge abuse and lawlessness going on within the ranks and yet one would have to dig deep to find it unless you ask those that live along the Southern border or ranchers that have had ranches in the Southwest for decades.

Somehow sexual abuse and physical abuse by the Border Patrol is being ignored such that almost 1000 cases in only a handful of years go unpunished. In fact the situation is so bad that residents and ranchers don’t want more Border Patrol hired at all. Where is the Inspector General’s report and where is Eric Holder?

This is an outrage….

McClatchy

A new report by an immigration watchdog finds that the United States’ largest federal law enforcement agency rarely punishes its agents for their mistreatment of immigrants and American citizens.

The report by the American Immigration Council found that 97 percent of abuse complaints lodged against Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers resulted in no disciplinary action once an investigation had been completed. Those included a complaint from a pregnant woman in El Paso, Texas, that she had miscarried after a Border Patrol agent kicked her in the stomach, and several complaints from women that they had been forced to bare their breasts while in custody.

The survey also found that many complaints against U.S. border agents take years to resolve. The council reviewed 809 complaints filed in the three years from January 2009 to January 2012. But of those, only 485 had been investigated and resolved. The remainder are still under investigation, including a nearly 5-year-old allegation of forced sexual intercourse lodged July 30, 2009, against a Border Patrol agent in El Centro, Calif.

Among the cases that were still “pending investigation, the average number of days between the date the complaint was filed and the last record date provided in the data set was 389 days,” the report said.

“This absolutely confirms the experiences of our border families and communities,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Regional Center for Border Rights in New Mexico. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now the largest law enforcement agency in the nation, and yet this massive buildup of border enforcement resources has not been matched with adequate accountability and oversight.”

The report provides a detailed look inside the government response to abuse complaints that have grown as U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol have more than doubled in size in the last seven years. Its results closely track McClatchy reports into questionable actions by border agents.

Federal officials said Wednesday morning that they take every complaint seriously and do not tolerate abuse in their ranks. They said the number of complaints is a small amount considering border officials apprehended more than 1 million people during the reported time period.

“The men and women of CBP strive to treat each of the over 1 million people we come into contact with each day with the respect they deserve,” Border Patrol public affairs officer Douglas Mosier said in a statement Wednesday. “All allegations of misconduct are taken seriously, and if warranted, refer for appropriate investigative and/or disciplinary action to be taken.”

According to the complaints, which the immigration council received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, physical abuse was the most common complaint, followed by “excessive use of force.” Other allegations include inadequate conditions and racial profiling.

There were seven allegations of sexual abuse, including three allegations of forced sexual intercourse and four of inappropriate touching or forcing female aliens to bare their breasts.

But 11 other instances that weren’t classified as sexual abuse seemed similar in nature to others that were, including two in which women said they were forced to bare their breasts, four allegations of inappropriate strip searches and four claims of inappropriate touching during a search. In one case, the case description referred only to sexual abuse, without specifics.

Of the 485 cases where a decision was made, six complaints led to counseling, two led to court proceedings, two led to oral reprimands and two led to what the report called “written reports.” Only one resulted in a suspension, the report said.

One of the report’s authors, Daniel Martinez, an assistant professor of sociology at George Washington University in Washington, said the findings are only a small subsample of the abuse that’s likely taking place. He said that of the hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens returned to their countries each year, 10 percent claim they were abused while in U.S. custody.

“This is just really scratching the surface of the true population,” Martinez said.

The report also doesn’t include some of the most egregious cases of alleged abuse reported in recent years because they happened after the months for which the data were collected. Not included, for example, is a September 2012 incident in which a Chula Vista, Calif., Border Patrol agent allegedly jumped on the hood of unarmed woman’s car, then opened fire on the vehicle, killing her. An autopsy showed she’d been shot nine times.

The report also doesn’t cover the October 2012 incident in which Border Patrol agents shot and killed a 16-year-old boy as he walked on the Mexico side of the border to his Nogales home or the December 2012 detention and forced medical examination of a 54-year-old woman and U.S. citizen who was pulled from line as she waited to cross back into El Paso, Texas. She was taken to a hospital where she was subjected to six hours of invasive body searching, including probes of her anus and vagina, before being allowed to go.

McClatchy and other news organizations have chronicled the deaths of at least 21 people, 10 of whom were shot for throwing stones at Border Patrol agents, amid criticism that the Border Patrol has expanded too quickly to ensure proper training of new agents.

Until Tuesday, however, that had been no comprehensive accounting of abuse complaints against the agency. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection, does not release statistics on complaints and how they are resolved.

Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Republican Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico introduced legislation in March that would impose more levels of oversight and accountability on U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/06/226724/border-patrol-rarely-punishes.html#emlnl=Crime_%26_Justice_Newsletter#storylink=cpy

Benghazi, It is the Lawyers Stupid…

Posted on May 6, 2014May 6, 2014 by Denise Simon

Every government agency has more lawyers than common sense, meaning they are called upon to drum up legal advise to either not do something or to do it and in the case of a military response to the attacks in Benghazi, a boat load of various lawyers were called upon. Let’s go deeper.

For some background, directly after the 9-11 attacks on the United States, President Bush acquired a bi-cameral (joint) resolution to use military force in response to the attacks on the Taliban, al Qaeda and all associated affiliates wherever they were located at the time and in the future. This is called the AUMF. This is a standing authorization that has never expired.

Now in the case of Benghazi, Libya, NATO as a collective of member nations sought and gained a United Nation Resolution for a ‘no-fly’ zone in Libya which eventually led to the capture of Qaddafi but this resolution also included striking all of Qaddafi’s military weapons and any other cache of military grade arms including residual yellowcake inventories. The Libya operation did perform rather well at in fact striking what was known at the time Qaddafi’s arsenal. Upon the expiration of the UN Resolution which was October 31, it was determined that much of the weaponry was not destroyed or seized and this included the most deadly manpads of which there were an estimated 12-15,000.

The Senate voted for a mandate to the State Department under Hillary Clinton that an operation be deployed to capture these manpads due to the known threat of jihadists and al Qaeda factions working in Libya to steal these weapons bound for Algeria, Tunisia and most of all Mali. Hillary assigned $50 million to this operation and hence the Benghazi operation was underway. Working in close collaboration with the CIA, an annex was earlier established in Benghazi for this purpose and more meaning al Qaeda had several footprints in Northern Africa.

Now, lets move on to the fact that General Dempsey has said he and Leon Panetta did not have authorization to respond to the Benghazi attacks. Enter the lawyers. It is here that it must be known, the AUMF is a standing and enduring authorization which continues to be included in all annual NDAA law approved by the total Congress.

Additionally, the AUMF is a military mandate both in a proactive measure and in a defensive posture when it comes to al Qaeda and or any affiliates. We cannot overlook the fact that Barack Obama continues to give the Air Force and the CIA authorization for drone strikes wherever they may be located from Afghanistan to Pakistan, to Yemen and beyond. Barack Obama has said that drone strikes are used only as a last offensive measure when all other options are not viable, meaning boots on the ground to capture and detention, after all, we cannot put anyone in a prison detention least of which is Guantanamo. So we have drone strike de jour. Every drone strike by the way requires legal approval, meaning a lawyer sits beside the drone operator to process the Barack Obama kill list.

This brings us to Hillary Clinton and her radio silence of approval to dispatch to the Department of Defense a military response to the Benghazi attacks. We clearly know between the first attack and the second attack in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton drafted a communique stating the matter in Benghazi was a demonstration regarding a YouTube video. An email was issued by the State Department at 5:55 pm, on September 11, while the attacks were underway that Ansar al Sharia has taken credit for the attacks. This email also asked that the Libyan President and Libyan Prime Minister to please pursue Ansar al Sharia. A few hours later, Beth J0nes, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs working directly for Hillary Clinton wrote an email to the Libyan Minister, time-stamped September 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm that the attack was at the hands of Ansar al Sharia. This email included the recipients of Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, William Burns and Wendy Sherman.

Back to the lawyers, it appears that Hillary conferred with lawyers and interagency personnel to call the attacks only a demonstration as the AUMF/military response would NOT be authorize in the case of a demonstration but would only if an attack. Huge distinction and major sticking point when in fact, they knew it was an attack and who the murderers were at the very moment the attacks commenced.

The decision was made by the interagency personnel which included the DoJ, the NSC, the WH advisors, the Pentagon and the DoD to take a pass on responding to Benghazi as the live/realtime chats, critics and video feeds via the drone and the live video of the compounds security cameras spoke to the notion that Benghazi was a lost cause regardless of how long the attacks and looting went on. The alternate decision was made instead to protect the Tripoli embassy as it where all documents and robust State Department footprint is located.

In summary, the word demonstration vs. attack is the difference between authorizing a military response to save all American personnel and Libyan personnel hired by State working on behalf of the United States.

The operation in Benghazi was NOT to move weapons to Syria much to the opposition of many theories, it was to capture the weapons before they ended up in Algeria, Tunisia and most of al Mali. For reference, go to page 2 second to the last paragraph here.

Now we understand the blame of the video, it is the cover the Barack Obama regime and Hillary Clinton have embraced to keep a light and hidden and obscure presence in Libya while the remainder of Qaddafi weapons caused huge collateral damage in Mali.

The lawyers parsed the authority and go orders and gave deadly advise.

North Korea Nuclear Program is Real

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

No one really wants to admit the effectiveness and reality of the North Korea nuclear program but it is real. The real objective of the global leaders is to determine what is next. Global Hawks, eyes in the sky along with Geo-Spatial systems are taking pictures for sure, but analyzing the scope of the North Korean objectives continues to pose future estimates and targets as well as timelines.

U.S. researchers detect increased activity at North Korea’s nuclear test site but remain unsure when an underground explosion might happen.

South Korea said last week, as President Barack Obama toured East Asia, that the North appeared ready to conduct its fourth nuclear test since 2006 at Punggye-ri (PUNG-gare-ree).

The North Korea-watching website 38 North says commercial satellite images taken Tuesday show vehicles and equipment outside a tunnel entrance. It says past practice suggests those would all be withdrawn immediately before any blast.

The imagery also shows possible signs of digging at another part of Punggye-ri, further sign a test isn’t imminent.

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said VIPs may have recently visited the site and a test could happen soon, but it’s difficult to determine when.

It is time to question the assessments and the abilities and then the truth of what is being reported by the U.S. government officials and the United Nations.

Abstract

A recent unclassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment stated: “DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North [Korea] currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles.” This conclusion is highly credible and not really new. North Korea was assessed to have nuclear weapons long before the actual (or at least detected) first test of these weapons in 2006. Building a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried by the relatively large payloads of North Korea’s ballistic missiles is not a very difficult task today. In light of what is now known about the proliferation of a nuclear missile warhead from China to Pakistan and from Pakistan to North Korea, the North Korea defector reports about nuclear weapons development and the North Korean nuclear tests, the DIA conclusion may be an understatement. The North Korean nuclear stockpile may be significantly greater than what is usually assessed. This is of concern because the North Korean regime is the most brutal Stalinist dictatorship in the world. Moreover, while North Korea has long made occasional nuclear attack threats against the U.S. in the past, the scope, magnitude, and frequency of these threats vastly increased in 2013. Current U.S. policy, which downgrades the importance of nuclear deterrence and cuts missile defense, is not well suited to handle this threat.

Read more on a related study here.

Overview Last updated: February, 2014

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has an active nuclear weapons program and tested nuclear explosive devices in 2006, 2009, and 2013. It is also capable of enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea deploys short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and successfully launched a long-range rocket in 2012. Pyongyang unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in January 2003 and is not a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) or a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The DPRK is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and is believed to possess a large chemical weapons program. North Korea is a party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), but is suspected of maintaining an offensive biological weapons program in defiance of that treaty.

Nuclear North Korea’s interest in a nuclear weapons program reaches back to the end of World War II. Since then, Pyongyang developed a nuclear fuel cycle capability and has both plutonium and enriched uranium programs capable of producing fissile material. North Korea declared that it had roughly 38.5kg of weapons-grade plutonium extracted from spent fuel rods in May 2008, however external estimates have varied.[1] In November 2010, North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment program ostensibly intended to produce low enriched uranium for power reactors, though it is possible for Pyongyang to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes.[2] North Korea conducted three nuclear weapons tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013.[3]

The Six-Party Talks between North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States began in 2003 with the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. However, these talks have been suspended since April 2009. Initial uncertainties about North Korea’s nuclear program after the death of Kim Jong Il were tempered when Pyongyang agreed to suspend nuclear tests, uranium enrichment, and long-range missile tests in exchange for food aid from the U.S. on 29 February 2012.[4] After a dispute with the United States over the launch of a rocket in April 2012, North Korea declared the agreement void, and later conducted a nuclear test in February 2013.[5] In April 2013, North Korean state media announced that Pyongyang would restart all nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, including its 5MW graphite-moderated reactor, and uranium enrichment plant.[6] By August 2013, satellite imagery confirmed steam venting from the 5MW reactor’s turbine and generator building.[7]

Biological

Although the DPRK acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 1987, it is suspected of maintaining an ongoing biological weapons program. Defectors from the DPRK and the defense agencies of the United States and South Korea generally agree that the country began to acquire a biological weapons capability in the early 1960s.[8] However, open source information on the DPRK’s biological weapons program varies considerably. The 2010 Defense White Paper by South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense, estimates that the DPRK possesses the causative agents of anthrax, smallpox, and cholera, among others.[9]

Chemical

The DPRK’s pursuit of chemical weapons dates back to 1954. It most likely obtained indigenous offensive CW production capabilities in the early 1980s.[10] The DPRK’s CW agent production capability is estimated to be up to 5,000 metric tons per year. Pyongyang has concentrated on acquiring mustard, phosgene, sarin, and V-type chemical agents.[11] Reports indicate that the DPRK has approximately 12 facilities where raw chemicals, precursors, and actual agents are produced and/or stored, as well as six major storage depots for chemical weapons.[12] Pyongyang also has placed thousands of artillery systems — including multiple launch rocket systems that would be particularly effective for chemical weapons delivery — within reach of the Demilitarized Zone and Seoul.[13] North Korea has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Missile

North Korea began its missile development program in the 1970s and tested a Scud-B ballistic missile by April 1984. North Korea is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

In its short-range arsenal, Pyongyang has produced the 500km-range Scud-C, the 700km-range Scud-D, and the solid-fueled KN-02, which is an upgraded version of the Russian SS-21 “Scarab” with a slightly longer range of about 120km. In its medium and intermediate-range arsenal, North Korea has the 1,300km-range missile known as the Nodong (Rodong), which it initially tested in 1993 (500km), and again in 2006. North Korea has deployed between 175 and 200 Nodong missiles.[14] Pyongyang has also displayed its Musudan IRBM in parades, although it has never flight tested it. A yet-unnamed Nodong-variant was also displayed in October 2010, which possesses visible similarities to Iran’s Ghadr-1.[15] North Korea’s Taepodong-1 (Paektusan-1), an 1800km-range space launch vehicle has also been flight-tested. North Korea’s three-stage Taepodong/ Unha SLV has been tested with varied success.[16]

North Korea agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile tests in exchange for food aid from the U.S. on 29 February 2012.[17] However, on 12 April, it attempted to launch the Kwangmyong-3 satellite into orbit using an Unha-3 launch vehicle. The launch failed after approximately 80 seconds, and the debris landed off the western coast of South Korea. The U.S. government withdrew its offer of food aid because it considered the space launch, which relied on missile technology, a violation of the bilateral agreement as well as UN Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874.[18] On 15 April, North Korea displayed six never before seen missiles in a parade in honor of its founder Kim Il Sung. These missiles, known externally as KN-08s, are likely only mock-ups.[19] The missiles were displayed on six trucks of Chinese-origin that were converted to transporter-erector-launchers (TELs).[20] On 12 December 2012, North Korea reattempted its Unha-3 launch, successfully putting a Kwangmyong-3 satellite into orbit.[21] This test proves a significant advancement in North Korean missile technology. With only slight modifications for re-entry the rocket could deliver a very small payload, though without great accuracy.

Pyongyang has also tested anti-ship cruise missiles numerous times since 1994. The North Korean missile identified as the AG-1 is based on the Chinese CSSC-3 ‘Seersucker’. Anti-ship cruise missile tests on 25 May and 7 June 2007 are believed to have been either the KN-01 or the Chinese-made CSSC-3 ‘Seersucker’.[22]

Citations on the above are here.

Iran, the Pivot Away

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

Nothing has changed in Iran, except Rouhani is now wealthier given the suspension by the United States of key sanctions. Iran is as strong today globally as it ever was. Europe is considering stronger sanctions and Iran is working diligently to get more sanctions lifted to buy at least 400 aircraft.

Just keep in mind that the Obama White House has been negotiating with Iran and using several mediators, but even more disturbing is what is below. We are earnestly working with a state sponsor of terror.

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah. It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary. In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria. Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role. There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations. In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.

Beyond terrorism, there is still the matter of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA.

The Iranian regime’s Atomic Energy Organization spokesman, Behrouz Kamalvandi, stated that “legally, they have no right to visit Parchin since we are not implementing the Additional Protocol (to the NPT) and even if we did, access needs to be managed” (State-run Fars news agency, May 3).

Iran and China are now strategic defense partners which the State Department seems to dismiss. Then there is Sudan.

Two Iranian warships docked for refuelling on Monday in Port Sudan, across the Red Sea from Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia.

Sudan’s army spokesman Sawarmi Khaled Saad said the warships, one of them a navy supply ship, had arrived in Port Sudan, where civilians could tour the vessels during their port call.

Naval vessels from Iran have periodically stopped in Port Sudan for what Khartoum describes as normal port calls.

The coastal city lies about 250 kilometres (155 miles) across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia, which has long been wary of Iran’s regional ambitions.

In March, a Western diplomat said strained political relations between Riyadh and Khartoum over Iran could have been a factor in a decision by Saudi banks to stop dealing with Sudan.

Khartoum also has close ties with Qatar, which is perceived as supporting the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, towards which Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have long been hostile.

Relations between Sudan and Saudi Arabia are “zero”, a senior Sudanese opposition politician told AFP last month.

But Ibrahim Ghandour, an aide to President Omar al-Bashir, said in a March interview that there is “nothing peculiar” in Sudan’s relations with Iran, insisting they had not affected ties with other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which remains a leading investor.

On Monday Sudan’s foreign ministry described relations with the Gulf as “stable” and said ties with Saudi Arabia are based on “mutual respect,” in a report to parliament, the official SUNA news agency said.

There are CIA political hacks and then the Others

Posted on May 5, 2014May 5, 2014 by Denise Simon

I have nothing to add to this one except to say, there once was a time when the oath and sense of duty meant something.

The CIA that saved Dick Holm

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, May 2, 2014 – Benghazi showed us a difficult truth. Once upon a time, the CIA left no man behind. The Agency took care of its own, even in the face of disapproval from the public or from other government organizations. Right or wrong, the Agency did everything it could to protect its employees.

And the leaders in the United States Government backed those decisions, anxious to protect Americans overseas.

That was the CIA that saved Dick Holm; that went into the Congo not once but twice to rescue him.

In 1964, Dick Holm was a young CIA officer. After a two-year tour in Laos and Thailand, Holm was assigned to the Congo, to collect intelligence and support Belgian operations in the country.

One day in 1965, the chief of the air unit directed Holm to conduct an air survey of the area to determine whether arms and ammunition were coming across the border with Sudan. Holm was to ride with pilot Juan Peron in his T-28, a two-seater plane where the passenger sits behind the pilot. The mission was to gather intelligence but, even more importantly, to attack military targets

Holm tells how he and Peron spotted some trucks and a power plant, and Peron attacked both targets.

After the attacks, the weather turned threatening, blowing the plane off course. Lost and low on fuel, Peron decided to take the plane down before dark while he still had the ability to land in a clearing. They crash-landed into the jungle.

During the landing, Holm was splashed with flaming jet fuel on his face, his hands and his legs. Juan was unhurt. The plane was on fire. Holm’s eyes were seared shut from the fire and he had little use of his hands. He could smell fire and hear Juan yelling at him to get out of the plane. He used his elbows to release the harness and then crawled out of the plane, and Juan helped him get away from the plane minutes before it exploded.

Holm was weak and barely able to move, and he and Juan were in enemy territory with no support. Holm says he knew burns meant dehydration and infection, and the jungle was an inhospitable place for someone hurt as badly as he was. Holm says in his book, “Juan used his knife to cut charred skin hanging from several of my fingers. There were already bugs on some of my burns.”

Holm and Juan were also in enemy territory. Simba rebels, the force the Belgians and Americans opposed, were in the jungle and would not hesitate to kill Holm and Juan if they found them. They were known to eat their enemies after killing them, believing they gained strength from eating their vital organs.

The next morning, Juan found a village. Village Chief Faustino agreed to help Holm and Juan to safety, and to take care of Holm while Juan went for help. When Juan and the villagers came back to Holm, he was covered in bees and barely conscious.

The villagers made a litter and carried Holm back to the village. They cared for his burns and dug out the worm-like bugs that had burrowed into his wounds. They applied a salve that hardened and created a type of coating, which Holm credits with saving his life. Juan and two villagers left Holm in the village to go for help.

Eight days later, Juan and the villagers arrived at an air station in Paulis. Within two hours, the Agency officers at Paulis received permission to use one of the Belgian helicopters at the field to rescue Holm. They also sent a T-28, piloted by Juan, and the air operations chief in Paulis had ordered a C130 to be at Paulis to transport Holm as soon as he arrived.

When the helicopter crashed on landing to rescue Holm, the air operation authorized a second helicopter to take its place.

That second helicopter saved Holm, and returned him to Paulis. He then immediately was transferred to the C130 and sent to a hospital in what was then Leopoldville, now Kinshasa.

Holm also reports that when CIA headquarters heard Holm was in Paulis, Dick Helms, the Deputy Director for Plans, now the Directorate of Operations, immediately went to Director of Central Intelligence John McCone and said the only way to save Holm’s life was to get him to the National Burn Center in San Antonio, Texas. The DCI called Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who authorized the US Air force to deploy a 707 to carry a burn team to care for Holm.

Holm survived, and after years of painful rehabilitation, returned to have an extraordinary 35-year career at the CIA.

The U.S. government went in to rescue Holm, one man, and spared no expense to give him the best care possible.

Where was that CIA on September 11, 2012?

On September 11, 2012, CIA-affiliated officers stood on a roof in Benghazi for seven hours waiting for help from the U.S. government. None came. Eventually, they could no longer hold back the terrorists, and they lost their lives.

Charles Woods and Glen Doherty, part of a Global Response Staff that provides security for CIA officers overseas held off hostile attackers at the US Consulate in Benghazi for seven hours on September 11. For seven hours after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith were attacked, they manned machine guns on the roof of the CIA annex and defended US territory and personnel. They called for help but were ignored.

While the public still does not know exactly what happened in Benghazi, we do know that US government leaders did not deploy forces to rescue Americans stranded on a rooftop taking enemy fire. We know that for seven hours, those men called for assistance were ignored.

We don’t know where leaders were on September 11. We do know they were not on a rooftop in Benghazi and they did not send help, despite seven hours of requests.

We know they left those men behind.

Lisa M. Ruth

Lisa M. Ruth started her career at the CIA, where she won several distinguished awards for her service and analysis. After leaving the government, she joined a private intelligence firm in South Florida as President, where she oversaw all research, analysis and reporting. Lisa joined CDN as a journalist in 2009 and writes extensively on intelligence, world affairs, and breaking news. She also provides CDN with investigative reporting and news analysis. Lisa continues to write both for her own columns and as a guest writer on a wide variety of subjects, and is now Executive Editor for CDN. She is also a regular contributor to Newsmax and other publications.