Thomas Friedman, "Blowing a Whistle": The NSA Is Going to Save Us from Another 9/11

Suppose terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb in Manhattan and are threatening to detonate the bomb unless the US releases all of its Guantanamo prisoners. The bomb is timed to go off in another two hours, and there is no time to evacuate the city. Millions are expected to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer unless the bomb is found and defused. Then suddenly, one of the al-Qaeda conspirators is captured, but he refuses to talk. Would you waterboard him, or read him his rights and wait for his lawyer?

Me? Wait for his lawyer? I wouldn't hesitate to go far beyond waterboarding the bastard, and yet I am appalled by the revelations of NSA information gathering, which contribute very little to American security. Even with warnings from Moscow, this data didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. You see, it has nothing to do with the quantity of the data accumulated, and everything to do with theory and focus.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Blowing a Whistle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html), Thomas Friedman plays on our 9/11 paranoia:

"Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.

I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: 'Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.' That is what I fear most.

That is why I’ll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime."

Tom wants to "prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime"? Me, too. But didn't Snowden just tell us that "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)?

Friedman quotes from an essay by David Simon, the creator of HBO’s "The Wire": "this kind of data collection has been a baseline logic of an American anti-terrorism effort that is effectively asked to find the needles before they are planted into haystacks, to prevent even such modest, grass-rooted conspiracies as the Boston Marathon bombing before they occur." Okay, but did it stop the Boston Marathon bombing? Not a chance.

Sure, I want to prevent a future 9/11, which is more likely to arise today as the result of an Iranian cyber attack, but unlike Tom, I'm going to be politically incorrect. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx):

"Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam."

Only 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified," and only 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified"? These numbers are frightening. As I said earlier, everything has to do with theory and focus - here is your focus. Thanks to Pew, there is no additional need for theory.

And where is Obama in the midst of this storm? From the isolation of Rancho Mirage in California, he will soon be traveling to Tanzania. On Tuesday, Politico reporter Glenn Thrush Tuesday asked Jay Carney whether President Obama should "have a fireside chat with the American people" about the NSA’s surveillance program. Carney's answer (see: http://freebeacon.com/carney-refuses-to-answer-why-obama-wont-speak-to-american-people-directly-about-nsa-scandal/):

"I’m not saying — I think I just said, Glenn, although I appreciate yours and the former Attorney General’s specific recommendations about the modalities of presidential communication, the president has and will speak about this subject."

Yup, they're already firing up the teleprompters, but in the meantime, the president is doing what he does best: He likes to watch.

Maureen Dowd, "A Little Birdie Told Me": The Teflon Lady Cometh

Do I tweet? Heck, I don't even have a Facebook page anymore. Would you be willing to be my friend? I doubt it.

More to the point, would you really want to read: "Finally got round to shaving, bleeding profusely, nearly cut off nose, ate oatmeal, wife screaming ('Yes, dear . . .') - & planting tomato seedlings." Is that within the 140-character limit? Please don't bother counting. Who cares? It's all about narcissism.

Hillary is tweeting? She has more than 300,000 followers on Twitter, who need to get lives of their own? Sad. As I just said, it's all about narcissism.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Little Birdie Told Me" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/dowd-a-little-birdie-told-me.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd tells us of Hillary's new Twitter bio:

"Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD . . ."

Hillary lists "wife" first? Yeah, right. I suppose this is the equivalent of telling us that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Dowd continues:

"As with Benghazi, Hillary is distancing herself from the latest kerfuffle roiling her former workplace. CBS News’s John Miller secured a State Department draft memo that he said suggested that several internal investigations were 'manipulated, influenced, or simply called off' by department big shots. The allegations in the memo included a report of a State Department security official in Beirut 'engaged in sexual assaults' on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards, another about members of Hillary’s former diplomatic security detail having an 'endemic' issue with hiring 'prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries,' and a third involving an 'underground drug ring' operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and providing drugs to State Department security contractors.

Miller said 'the most striking instance' in which State Department agents told the inspector general that they were ordered to stop investigating was the case of a U.S. ambassador who was prone to eluding his protective detail to cavort with prostitutes in a public park.

. . . .

Unlike Obama, who seems whipsawed by the cascade of federal scandals, Hillary 'eats scandals for breakfast,' as Bill Maher put it."

New sex-related scandals involving her State Department? No problem. Hillary "eats scandals for breakfast." There have been not a few, and perhaps this accounts for the size of her derriere.

Don't get me wrong. She may have accomplished absolutely nothing flying around the world for the past four years, but she's infinitely smarter than John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry, who, a month ago, was stupid enough to wait around for three hours until Putin agreed to see him. Kerry apparently was too dumb to realize that in Eastern Europe this is considered an insult.

Me read a Hillary tweet? Maybe if she'd like to tell us a very little about her 10 p.m. conversation with Obama, after it was decided not to lift a finger to save Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who died in Benghazi.

Among the congratulatory tweets she received on Sunday from fellow politicians (see: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/10/hillaryclinton-says-future-tbd/):

Happy to welcome @HillaryClinton to Twitter. Stay tuned for the real #TweetsFromHillary.—
Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 10, 2013


Welcome @HillaryClinton, a great former Senate colleague and distinguished Secretary of State, to Twitter!—
Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 10, 2013


Welcoming another great NYer to twitter, @HillaryClinton!—
Chuck Schumer (@ChuckSchumer) June 10, 2013


.@HillaryClinton's an inspiration. Look forward to reading her Twitter feed.—
D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) June 10, 2013

My fantasy? I'd like to lock Hillary in a closet with these four other narcissists for 24 hours and see who emerges sane.

"TBD"?

I don't want to even consider this nightmare.

David Brooks, "The Solitary Leaker": Data Mining or Strip Mining?

Were you ever a whistleblower? For almost 40 years I have been privy to government, corporate and military secrets, and during this entire period there was indeed one instance - many years ago - when I wrote to a government regulatory authority concerning the "distribution" of corporate assets among management and highly placed friends. The information was passed from the regulatory authority to the board of directions of this august institution. Given its haste to dispose of this time bomb, they promptly created a new rule: If the source of information is "anonymous," we won't discuss it, i.e. we don't care if it's true. On the other hand, serious efforts were undertaken to determine who was responsible for the leak.

Me? I learned that there is much to be said for the pleasure of growing broccoli, sans anxiety, in my garden.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Solitary Leaker" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html?_r=0), David Brooks addresses the leak by Edward Snowden of "data mining procedures of the National Security Agency." Brooks claims that Snowden engaged in a series of betrayals against "honesty and integrity," "friends," "employers," "open government," "the privacy of us all," and "the Consitution." Yup, that's a whole lot of betraying.

But hold your horses, David. NSA "data mining procedures"? Given the enormity of the information being gathered, the limited value of this information, and the resultant damage to the Constitutional rights of the individual, I prefer to label this "strip mining."

Brooks, of course, argues, "If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods." My goodness, federal security agencies will need to go after bad guys with names after first obtaining court orders for wiretaps?  Just think, in the interests of privacy and First Amendment freedom, they might just have to do things the oldfangled, time consuming way. What a disaster!

Brooks isn't concerned about Snowden's claim that "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)? I certainly am worried.

Brooks writes, "The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed." On the other hand, I would argue that the founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could access from his desk the most intimate thoughts of any citizen.

Brooks concludes:

"Judging by his comments reported in the news media so far, Snowden was obsessed with the danger of data mining but completely oblivious to his betrayals and toward the damage he has done to social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together."

Well, in case Brooks hasn't noticed, we have just begun to learn to what extent "social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together" have unraveled without connection to Snowden. A US ambassador can be sacrificed without his government so much as lifting a finger to protect him in order to perpetuate a pre-election myth that the president had brought al-Qaeda to heel. The IRS can engage in flagrant discrimination against conservative organizations (I am not a conservative), while making "Star Trek" movies and spending millions of dollars on lavish conferences. The EPA can similarly engage in discrimination against conservative organizations (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/10/now-the-environmental-protection-agency/#more-826874).  The Department of Energy can engage in nepotistic hiring practices (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/10/report-nepotism-open-and-widely-accepted-at-energy-department/?hpid=z3).

"Social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together"? As W.C. Fields once said, "Sounds like a bubble in a bathtub."

Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with the manner in which Snowden leaked this information, and he should be extradited and prosecuted. However, I also believe that NSA outsourcing and "strip mining procedures" need to be urgently reviewed and radically revised.

And then there is also that "small" matter of how James Clapper lied to the Senate. As observed by Dana Milbank in an opinion piece entitled "Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks are backlash of too much secrecy" in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-edward-snowdens-nsa-leaks-are-the-backlash-of-too-much-secrecy/2013/06/10/eddb4462-d215-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper at a Senate hearing in March, 'Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?'

'No, sir,' Clapper testified.

'It does not?' Wyden pressed.

'Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.'

We now know that Clapper was not telling the truth."

Query for Brooks: When America's Director of National Intelligence is prepared to tell falsehoods to Congress, what does this say of his precious "social arrangements and the invisible bonds that hold them together"?

Paul Krugman, "The Big Shrug": Where Is Tanzania?

Later this month, Obama will be traveling to Tanzania. Now I know that many of those who read this blog are professors, doctors, psychologists and law makers, but honestly, if I were to give you a map of Africa this very moment, how many of you would be able to pinpoint Tanzania? Frankly, if you wanted to get lost for a week or so, as scandals swirl around you, it sounds like a pretty good place to disappear, and this is where Obama will be traveling at the end of the month. Moreover, were it not for the fact that Tanzania, as noted by Dana Milbank in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s ill-advised visit to Tanzania" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obamas-ill-advised-visit-to-tanzania/2013/06/07/397b00fa-cf88-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z2), "has been in a multiyear diplomatic dispute with the United States over human trafficking," Tanzania might be a wonderful place to weather out the PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, AP/Rosen and the IRS storms.

But let us not forget that in addition to PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, AP/Rosen and the IRS, there is also the "small" matter of America's stagnant economy and an unacceptable level of unemployment.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big Shrug" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/opinion/krugman-the-big-shrug.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman asks:

"So how, in those long-ago days, would we have reacted to Friday’s news that the number of Americans with jobs is still down two million from six years ago, that 7.6 percent of the work force is unemployed (with many more underemployed or forced to take low-paying jobs), and that more than four million of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months?"

Me? I would say that Obama has done an awful job of managing the economy since becoming president - yeah, I know, he inherited it from Bush. But heck, it's been more than four years since Bush departed, and Obama's name isn't even mentioned once in Krugman's op-ed.

Krugman concludes:

"The tragedy is that it’s all unnecessary. Yes, you hear talk about a 'new normal' of much higher unemployment, but all the reasons given for this alleged new normal, such as the supposed mismatch between workers’ skills and the demands of the modern economy, fall apart when subjected to careful scrutiny. If Washington would reverse its destructive budget cuts, if the Fed would show the 'Rooseveltian resolve' that Ben Bernanke demanded of Japanese officials back when he was an independent economist, we would quickly discover that there’s nothing normal or necessary about mass long-term unemployment.

So here’s my message to policy makers: Where we are is not O.K. Stop shrugging, and do your jobs."

"Policy makers" should do their jobs? Is Obama a policy maker? Or is he simply someone who is told by his closest senior advisers of disasters after the fact, so that he can claim that he read about them like the rest of us in the newspapers?

Whom in Washington would Krugman have shower additional federal stimulus upon the economy? The EPA? It can of course bankroll more Solyndras, but also note newly surfacing allegations of EPA discrimination against conservative organizations as described by John Steele Gordon in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/10/now-the-environmental-protection-agency/#more-826874). The IRS? They can make more "Star Trek" movies and continue hosting lavish conferences costing millions of dollars. Or perhaps, the NSA, which is doing its part to heal the economy by building a new $2 billion facility in Utah, where it will store and process details concerning your telephone and Internet activity.

US unemployment remains at a disastrous level, but who is ultimately responsible for championing a recovery? At the moment Obama can be found with China's Xi Jinping in a desert retreat named Rancho Mirage (see: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-xi-latest-leaders-escape-california-desert-retreat-070547701.html). Later this month, after reemerging from this mirage, Obama can be "found" in Tanzania.

Good luck to the unemployed and underemployed among us.

Maureen Dowd, "Peeping Barry": Dead-on-Balls Accurate

About a month ago, I watched as "someone" downloaded every blog entry that I had ever written. I didn't have a problem with this. However, I did have a problem when Obama declared on Friday:

"Trust me. We're doing the right thing. We know who the bad guys are."

Sorry, Mr. President, but I don't trust you. Why should I? Listen to what you told us in 2007 regarding your plans to fight global terrorism.

Moreover, Mr. President, I am personally of the belief that when you engage in surveillance of ordinary American citizens without reason or cause, you yourself become one of the "bad guys."

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Peeping Barry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeping-president-obama.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd has joined Gail Collins (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/gail-collins-intelligence-for-dummies.html) in lambasting the Obama administration's assault upon freedom from government eavesdropping. God bless Maureen, she even elicited a giggle from me when she wrote:

"The president insists that his trellis of surveillance programs is 'under very strict supervision by all three branches of government.' That is not particularly comforting given that the federal government so rarely does anything properly."

"Under very strict supervision by all three branches of government"? Yeah, right. And just a few weeks ago, we were told how Obama's chief counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, had sought to insulate the president from knowledge of IRS wrongdoing. Excuse me, but how can there be strict supervision from the executive branch of the government if the president learns of executive branch foul play from the newspapers in the same way as other Americans?

Supervision from the legislative branch? As reported by Breitbart (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/Obama-lie-members-congress-briefed):

"[Senator Jeff] Merkely [(D-OR)] summed up: 'when the president says all members of Congress were briefed … well, I think a very small number of Senators in Congress had full details on these programs.'

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he only knew about the program after asking for a briefing under 'classified circumstances.' The 'average member,' he said, had no access to this information. 'They don’t receive this kind of briefing.'

Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said they had not been briefed on the phone surveillance program, either. 'Not quite!' Rep. Billy Long (R-LA) tweeted after hearing about Obama’s claim."

What is the value of all of this information being collected by the government? As poignantly observed by Dowd in her opinion piece:

"So much technological overreach, yet counterterrorism officials still couldn’t do basic police work and catch the Boston bombers before the marathon by following up on warnings from the Russians."

As I have often observed in the past in an entirely different context, the collection of immense quantities of raw data without the knowledge of how to sift through it is of no value whatsoever.

Maureen tells us:

"Americans want to be protected, but not at the cost of vitiating the values that make us Americans."

This time, Dowd is dead-on-balls accurate.

Gail Collins, "Intelligence for Dummies": A Bronx Cheer for Obama from The New York Times

When was the last time Gail Collins wrote a serious op-ed? When was the last time Collins wrote an op-ed critical of the Obama administration? When was the last time I agreed with anything that Collins said? Well, it's happened. The New York Times, under the stewardship of Jill Abramson, is in open revolt against Obama.

In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Intelligence for Dummies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/collins-intelligence-for-dummies.html?_r=0), Collins writes:

"'Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,' President Obama assured the American people on Friday. Well, probably nobody. And, if they are, it’s under an entirely different part of the program."

Collins is correct. Nobody is listening to your calls unless you say one of the "magic" words . . .

Collins continues:

"'Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?' [Senator Ron Wyden] asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, at a public hearing.

'No sir,' said Clapper."

Okay, Obama lied. Clapper lied. Eric Holder lied. Lois Lerner took the Fifth. Almost everyone in government is busy lying, but why should that prevent the Obama administration from enhancing the omnipresence of an abusive federal government which the president has failed to oversee?

Collins concludes

"I wouldn’t rely on Congress to keep things under control. It’s really up to the president. As a candidate, Obama looked as if he would be great at riding herd on the N.S.A.’s excesses. But if he has ever seriously pushed back on the spy set, it’s been kept a secret. Meanwhile, the administration scarfs up reporters’ e-mails and phone records in its obsessive war against leaks.

And without the leaks to reporters, we would never be having discussions about whether it’s a good idea for the government to collect piles of records about our telephone calls every day.

'I welcome this debate,' Obama said Friday. 'I think it’s healthy for our democracy.' Under further questioning, he said that he definitely didn’t welcome the leaks. Without which, of course, there would be no debate.

Do you remember how enthusiastic people were about having a president who once taught constitutional law? I guess we’ve learned a lesson."

More to the point, Obama also said (see video at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/Obama-press-conference-problems-here):

"Trust me. We're doing the right thing. We know who the bad guys are. And the reason that's not how it works is because we got Congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here. But my observation is that the people who are involved in America's national security, they take this work very seriously. They cherish our Constitution. The last thing they'd be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody's phone calls."

Where to even begin?

Given his friendships with the likes of Erdogan and Putin, I don't think Obama knows who the bad guys are.

As observed by Collins, relatively few in Congress have known what his administration has done, thus preventing Congressional oversight.

And as far as people involved in America's national security "cherishing" the Constitution, many do, yet there are others who would be hard pressed to describe the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Not unlike the IRS, the NSA is an enormous organization, and not everyone there thinks alike. The IRS ran amok under the Obama administration, and the NSA is capable of the same.

Trust you, Mr. President? I don't.

David Brooks, "The Power Inversion": David Brooks Has Now Lost All Credibility . . . on This Issue

As I suggested yesterday, Jill Abramson of The New York Times has lost her patience with Obama (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/new-york-times-us-is-secretly.html). Alluding to a lead online Times article entitled "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?_r=0) by Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt, I observed:

"What has happened to The Times? After refusing to participate in Eric Holder's off-the-record discussion, they are now investigating violations of Americans' basic First Amendment rights? Is Jill Abramson finally getting wise to Obama's 'Little Shop of Horrors'?"

But who would have thought that The New York Times would then write an editorial entitled "President Obama’s Dragnet" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&) and declare:

"The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

But not so fast! Needless to say, the language of this editorial was subsequently edited to read (italics added):

"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue."

Was there a certain livid West Wing staffer who called The Times to demand this amendment? Easy enough to find out: Simply check the phone records collected by the NSA.

And of course, the redaction was necessary given how credible the Obama administration remains vis-à-vis the IRS scandal, the Benghazi travesty, the AP/Rosen horror, and its spurious overseas "red lines." Yeah, right.

Given all of the above, David Brooks today decides to wade into the fray (. . . not) with a Times op-ed entitled "The Power Inversion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/brooks-the-power-inversion.html) in which he contends (yawn) that "city governments are likely to be more dynamic than the federal government." Brooks writes:

"There’s a weird calm around Washington these days. The Obama administration only has a year before the lame-duck status sets in. Yet you don’t get a sense of urgency. White House officials seem busy running the government, but they are not filling the public space with a transformational second-term agenda."

"A weird calm"? Sorry, David, this is not "sclerosis" but rather paralysis. The West Wing no longer knows where from where the next scandal is going to arise, and there is no place for a "transformational second-term agenda" when White House staff are worrying who will be forced to testify before Congress.

Write about PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, the IRS, AP/Rosen, Syria, Iran? No way! David Brooks appears intent upon avoiding these topics like the plague, except to the extent that Benghazi tarnished the reputation of his friend Victoria Nuland (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html).

Time to wake up, David. Time to take a stand.