Pickering
Posted on 10/24/2012 1:53:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The freshly appointed chairman of a federal investigation into the Benghazi massacre is an apologist for Islamic terrorism who has a cozy relationship with Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
And to add insult to injury, at press time Tuesday evening the chairman of this new State Department panel, former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, was poised to participate in a panel discussion at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on “what role the faith community can play in fighting Islamophobia.”
The news comes on the heels of a new report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism that found that “scores” of known radical Islamists met with senior Obama administration officials during hundreds of visits to the White House.
Pickering’s appointment as probe chairman was announced in the Federal Register on October 4. The State Department “Accountability Review Board” headed by Pickering is tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The problem is that Pickering has ties to the pro-Iran Islamist front group known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). NIAC lost an important defamation case in federal court last month in which it unsuccessfully argued the group was not a tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Pickering is a member of the advisory board of NIAC. He was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from May 1997 through the end of 2000, according to a 2009 report titled “Rise of the Iran Lobby,” by Clare M. Lopez of the Center for Security Policy. He’s also vice chairman of international consultancy, Hills & Co., and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (whose executive committee includes George Soros).
“Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran,” Lopez writes. “Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”
“U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests,” she writes. One of these groups, NIAC, is involved in “a de facto partnership” with its better known but more notorious jihadist ally “the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line.”
This network “includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world.” NIAC and its predecessor group, the American-Iranian Council, have long “functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime.”
CAIR is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood and was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials.
The panel discussion featured Pickering, Arab American Institute president James J. Zogby, American Association for Muslim Advancement executive director Daisy Khan, and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative.
Khan and Rauf are prime movers behind the proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.
Khan is known for her over-the-top attacks on those who question the wisdom of building a Muslim holy site so close to the place where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in an Islamist attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Asked in 2010 if America was “Islamophobic,” Khan replied that “It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia — it’s hate of Muslims,” she said.
Of course use of the word “Islamophobia” is a tool of intimidation, calculated to silence the so-called Islamophobe.
If one fears Islamist ideology as an irredentist, imperialist, totalitarian force, one is rational. “Phobia” implies that one who fears or is skeptical of the intentions of Muslims is mentally unbalanced. The term is used the same way American leftists use the word “racist” to shut down debate.
While two George Soros-funded nonprofits, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America, are working overtime to try to convince Americans that this make-believe mental illness of Islamophobia is a threat to American democracy and pluralism, the embattled Obama administration has been in damage control mode for weeks as the president’s foreign policy aimed at appeasing totalitarian Islamic theocrats collapses. The administration has been sucking up to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 57-state (56 sovereign states and the Palestinian Authority) group that considers itself the Caliphate reborn.
Americans’ civil rights and political correctness are weapons of infiltration used by our Islamofascist enemies. Just like our Soviet Communist enemies during the Cold War, Islamists are using Americans’ goodness and their sense of fair play, including an aversion to being accused of racial stereotyping, against America.
Hard data do not support claims that Islamophobia exists in the United States.
As Jonathan S. Tobin wrote in Commentary last year: “the notion of a rising wave of hatred against Muslims is unsupported by any statistical research.”
“When you consider that Muslims claim to have about the same number of adherents in this country as Jews and that anti-Jewish crimes have always far outnumbered those committed against Muslims, the media hysteria about Islamophobia is exposed as a big lie. But even if there are fewer Muslims here than their groups claim, the conclusion is unchanged.”
And there is credible evidence that Obama, who told the UN last month that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” is sympathetic to Islamists’ increasingly vocal demands for Saudi-style anti-blasphemy laws.
So, apparently, is Ambassador Pickering, which makes him unfit to head any probe of what happened last month in Benghazi, Libya.
You can have a look here at your own risk as it’s a bit of a mess>>>
http://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/thomas-pickering-and-hillary-clinton-incestuous-nonprofit-relationships/
Hillary Clinton and Thomas Pickering are old friends!
Follow Pickering and you’ll get to the bottom of who’s who in Global Investment Robbers and why they created the “revolutions” of April Spring. I’ve just started to write about them - there’s a pattern which leads back to the Balkans!
None of the insiders are fit to conduct any so-called “probe” or investigation.
This is interesting given Hillary's involvement with the Uranium One deal with the Russians. I guess Iran does have an advantage over the US in that the labor is cheap, smart enough to handle the enrichment job, and there's no EPA or wackadoodle econuts to deal with.
Notice that almost all the addresses are state.gov, maybe a dni,gov there ... also note that a few of those blacked out email addresses are exceptionally long. Long enough to be more than one address? Wonder if those long ones are hiding a Clinton server?
If Hillary was using her email addy exclusively and not the state dept system, then how come she wasn’t notified? Or was she and it’s just blacked out?
Every Sec’y of State receives sensitive, confidential, classified, and Top Secret information. That’s a fact. If all she used was her own private email addy, then that’s where it went. For her to say that she never received any, is to say that as Sec’y of State, no one ever sent her any and that’s ABSURD.
During her testimony in Oct., they need to state the fact that every Sec’y of State receives that type of email, and then ask her where that type of email was sent to during her years in her position, since she didn’t use a State dept email address?
What’s also unbelievable, is that there isn’t a record of classified email sent from the pentagon to Hillary or from the White House to Hillary. There has to be. Unless we’re to believe that the Pentagon and White House NEVER sent classified email to their Sec’y of State. Which is ABSURD.
The only explanation for her being able to TRUTHFULLY say that she never received any email ‘marked’ Classified, is if she instructed people to send that type of email to another address, like an aid’s address, and the aid forwarded it to her without the Classified heading. That’s a crime committed by the assistant and I think it would be crime for Hillary to give that instruction to her aid.
Pickering
Great minds .......
; )
What also doesn’t make any sense, is that she had 2 Deputies during her tenure. What email address did they use?
Did they never send any classified email to her?
Maybe everything went through Cheryl Mills? If it went instead through Huma, what is the security clearance level for her as Deputy Chief of Staff? Is it exactly the same as for the Sec’y of State? If not, and everything went through her, then Hillary committed a crime allowing all of her sensitive email to go to Huma first.
I don’t hear anyone bringing up these points.
“I guess Iran does have an advantage over the US in that the labor is cheap”
It’s REAL cheap - they use N. Koreans for the grunt work. Helps with secrecy too, because they don’t understand the language and are completely controlled by Iran & N. Korea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.