Thursday, June 18, 2015

No one trusts officials now.

The piece below was yesterday.

In my mind--WHY?

You have Officials committing acts that would send one of us to jail for a couple of years stay. Do they suffer ANY penalty? Not at all... There's probably a promotion in it.

You have persons you elected to vote NO on A B & C, and Yes on D E and F. 
Once you donated to them, and voted for them, they go ahead and vote FOR A B & C, and either note NO or just don't show to vote for D E & F. 

Like our Arizona Governor Ducey.  Yes, he is a Republican, and yes, he promised to 
guard our border with Mexico, eliminate Common Core, and vote to have Arizonans in charge of Federal Lands ( The Legislature passed it--he vetoed it) 

Factor 1. He worked for McCain's Wife's Beer Company all the way through college. He picked up tricks from John McCain

Factor 2. He is a Chamber of Corruption (commerce) Republican--Not a Conservative. His answer "Would you have voted for SB 1062 [would have given protection to business to follow their religion, and was altered by the media and Gays to say it was discriminatory and Hate legislation] His answer was NO--It would have been bad for business. 

Factor 3. I knew this fact from being a Highway Patrol Officer. You have seat belt, under-age drinking, and speed compliance laws--Because the Federal Government (NHTSA) dictates that you WILL pass the law, and you WILL enforce the law to 85% compliance--or you will lose Federal Funds for your highways.
Ducey wants Federal money to keep coming, so he vetoes a bill that takes back federal lands, and essentially does nothing to rid us of Common Core 

You find that House Speaker Boehner has a nickname.. Toll Booth. Translation: You want some legislation passed? You WILL donate to his campaign fund. 

In the next presidential election, I want some one who worked for what they got--not a privileged Bush, Hillary, or Lindsay Grahamnesty.  Scott Walker or Dr Ben Carson would do. I did like Ted Cruz until he sided with Obama on ObamaTrade (Seems his wife works for Goldman-Sachs--who stand to prosper from this deal) 

I want someone who realizes that not doing anything about Illegal Immigration or free flow of foreign workers will kill our standard of living--and DO something about it.

I want someone who appreciates achievement and being COMPETENT.  Seems like the Obama Administration's only screen is are you a minority, female, or Gay. IF so, you get the job. 

I want someone who believes in PENALTIES for incompetence or actual criminal behavior that harms citizens.  From Obama on down,. you have government employees that have harmed Americans by incompetent, and/or criminal acts--
but none them ever get terminated or prosecuted. They get promoted 

I want someone who realized that Islam is all about killing other human beings. 
They have been doing it since 640 AD, and Obama is GIVING them nuclear weapons to be able to kill us by the millions.  I want someone who us not afraid to use the labels Muslims, Killers. Islamic, Radical interchangeably, and not cower before them. 


“The System is Broken”: Americans No Longer Believe In Its Institution

"Americans' confidence in most major U.S. institutions remains below the historical average for each one," a Gallup spokesman said in a news release.
All in all, it's a picture of a nation discouraged about its present and worried about its future, and highly doubtful that its institutions can pull America out of its trough.
There is plenty of good reason, with evidence uncovered daily, weekly and consistently throughout the years of the hypocrisy and failures of government, the failed promises of politicians, the lies and spin of the mainstream media and newspapers, the greed and exploitation of the financial sector and the "just us" mentality of above-the-law enforcers who are supposed to uphold justice.
Just check out how little faith remains in the structure of, well, just about any institution in America, by the numbers:
Only 8 percent have confidence in Congress, down by 16 points from a long-term average of 24 percent - the lowest of all institutions rated.
33 percent have confidence in the presidency, a drop from a historical average of 43 percent.
32 percent have confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 44.
28 percent have confidence in banks, down from 40 percent.
21 percent have confidence in big business, down from 24 percent.
24 percent have confidence in organized labor, down from 26.
24 percent have confidence in newspapers, down from 32 percent.
21 percent have confidence in television news, down from 30 percent.
52 percent of Americans ["¦] are confident in the police [57 percent historically]
What else can be said, but that the system is broken?

Obviously it bears little resemblance to the one envisioned by the founding fathers and their emphasis on separation of powers and limited government.

None of the three branches of government are trusted by even close to a majority of the American populace"¦ maybe that's to be expected, with frequent media criticisms of political figures in a polarizing two party system.

But other pillars of society have lost their backing of the public, too - in astonishing numbers that show not only that the American dream is dead, but that private institutions are widely perceived as being just as corrupt as public ones (or worse).

To top it off - this perception is entirely deserved. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis consolidated the power and wealth of the big banks, and gave the Federal Reserve ultimate power over the economy, while average Americans suffered greatly.

Scandal after scandal revealed that corruption for what it is.
Media scandals - such as Brian Williams' fabricated war zone stories and George Stephanopoulos' attempt to conceal his conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation - have left a bad taste in the mouth of media consumers already facing fake news indigestion.

The factors are piling up beyond our capacity to excuse them away: fatigue from endless wars and threats of terrorism; cynically-false promises of hope and change; the repeated, brazen trampling of civil rights; a sharp decline of opportunity at the hands of economic recession; trade deals written in secret to enrich corporations; the rise of job-crushing technology and more have all sapped at the American spirit.

Whether most Americans follow these developments or not, they instinctually sense them. No one trustworthy is steering this ship - worse, no one may be at the wheel at all.
Who or what can turn things around?

That remains to be seen, but few will be willing to buy into the system if it remains on course.
The loss of confidence in the system ultimately relates to the loss of confidence in the freedom of the individual.

It is strong-willed and determined people who have always made this country, and any other, strong and vibrant.
The constant detriment of individual rights and the endless calls to transfer power to the collective - whether inside or outside of government - is the real source of the problem that this Gallup poll reflects.

Our best hope at a better world should start there. Is it still possible?
Courtesy of

Thursday, June 11, 2015

IF you are in Law Enforcement, you are not allowed to have or show emotions

This episode in McKinney Texas reminded me of this 2013 writing.

As the Old Indian saying goes:"You have have to walk a mile in a man's moccasins before you criticize him. "

An informative piece about the true weight of a police officer's badge and why law enforcement officers are different.

And how these differences impact on their stress!

PERHAPS IT WEIGHS only 2 ounces overall. Large ones may run to 4 ounces. But when that badge is pinned on, there is a weight unknown to most law enforcement officers. The true weight of the badge is not overcome by muscle, not found in the gym, not measured on a scale. This weight requires a strength and conditioning for which few officers are trained. The badge is not just pinned on a chest, it is pinned on a lifestyle. The heaviness of the badge makes the law enforcement officer different from other professionals. Over the course of the last ten years, working as psychologists with police officers, we have identified ten areas which make the badge heavy.
  1.  Law enforcement officers are seen as authority figures. People deal with them differently and treat them differently, even when they are not working. When a problem occurs, everyone looks to the officer to "take charge," to "solve the problem." Some say the cop is never off duty. Even when the officer is not working there is a tendency to attack problems and take charge. Sometimes taking charge is not preferable, and can cause particular strains in our world where many people like to linger with problems, never really solving anything. Recognizing the difference between a "problem solving" situation, where action is desirable, and a more passive situation, where action may alienate others, is difficult for the cop.
  2. They are isolated. The wearing of a badge, uniform and gun makes a law officer separate from society. This segregation leads to many psychological effects which research shows can create negative personality traits. For example, psychological research shows the wearing of a uniform will tend to make any person de-humanize people who are without a uniform. Just wearing a badge or a gun can cause people to act more aggressively. These are changes that could happen to anyone wearing a uniform, badge and gun, thus these factors are expected to operate in some way on the police officer. Many officers suggest there is a "role," or "mask" which they put on along with their uniform. Sometimes this role leaks into their personal lives and changes the course of their relationships and leisure time.
  3. Law enforcement officers work in a quasi-military, structured institution. There are mental health concerns associated with working within a "quasi-military structure" and other mental health concerns of working in an "institution." Military organizations require the sacrifice of the individual for the good of society. The "individual" is not a consideration; the "goal" of the group is paramount. In a military organization, the focus is on punishing the individual if he is not up to standards. It is a de-humanizing process to recognize that you are only valued as a part of a machine. The _institution' takes the same attitude, only a step further. In an institution, you are locked in a set process and the process is more important many times than, not only the individual, but also the goal. When an officer does a remarkable job of police work, perhaps even saves a life, he can still be reprimanded if he doesn't file the proper paperwork. The paperwork describing an action in many cases is more important to the institution than the action itself. Both the quasi-military nature of police work and the functioning within an institution combine for a mental health situation that is quite undesirable and very stressful
  4. Shift work is not normal. The "rotating shift" schedule is very taxing on an officer's life. Our bodies are adjusted on what is called "circadian schedules" which is a repetitive daily cycle. Our bodies like to have a regular eating time, sleeping time, waking time, etc. An officer doing shift work never gets a chance to stay on a schedule. This upsets his physical and mental balance in life. The changing work schedule also upsets the routine patterns that are needed in healthy marriage and family development. Strong marital and family development is based on rituals, like dinners together, "inside jokes," repeated activities, etc. The rotating shift worker has less chance to develop these rituals and his relationships suffer. This predisposes the officer's family to potential problems ranging from divorces, to children acting-out.
  5. Camaraderie can be a two edged sword. The law enforcement job nurtures a sense of teamwork and unity with co-workers, what was once called "esprit de corps." The fraternity helps the officer on the job feel secure about getting the needed support in dangerous situations. It also stimulates a sense of belonging that can create an "us and them" view of the world. This makes the law enforcement "clique" harder to leave when retiring and makes officers more protective of each other. It also makes it more difficult to accept someone within the fraternal organization leaving or being killed. This adds to the stress of an officer.
  6. Even the stress is different. Officers have a different kind of stress in their jobs, called "burst stress." Burst stress means there is not always a steady stressor, but at times, there is an immediate "burst" from low stress to a high stress state. In other words, officers go from complete calm, to high activity and pressure in one "burst." The normal stress situation for most of the rest of the work force consists of a stress building process that can be either reduced or adapted to before it gets "out of control." This is not the case for the officer, because "out of control" can happen in seconds (see "A Cop's Story" for a good example of burst stress). The law enforcement job is reactive, not proactive. Officers cannot usually control entrance into most situations they face, unlike most people who get warnings. They have to react, not prevent problems. It is difficult to defend against burst stress.
  7. The need to be in constant emotional control. Law enforcement officers have a job that requires extreme restraint under highly emotional circumstances. They are told when they are extremely excited, they have to act calm. They are told when they are nervous, they have to be in charge. They are taught to be stoic when emotional. They are to interact with the world in a role. The emotional constraint of the role takes tremendous mental energy, much more energy than expressing true emotions. When the energy drain is very strong, it may make the officer more prone to exhaustion outside of work, such as not wanting to participate in social or family life. This energy drain can also create a sense of job and social burnout.
  8. No gray areas. The law enforcement officer works in a fact-based world with everything compared to written law. Right and wrong is determined by a standard. They have a set way of going about gathering the proper evidence for the law and can justify their actions because they represent the "good and right side." In the real world, clear rights and wrongs are not as likely to occur. The newspapers are an opinion-based system, the court system is an opinion-based system and, needless to say, relationship decisions and proper parenting techniques are opinion-based systems. Adjusting from right and wrong, black-and-white systems, to opinion-based systems is very difficult and requires a complete change in mental attitude.
  9. The "at work" world of the officer is very negative. He sees the bad part of society - the criminal, the abuser of the rules. This may skew the officer's opinions on the character of the average human being. It creates a cynicism, a critical view of the world. It is hard to adjust to trusting a fellow human being when so much of the day is spent with people who are not trustworthy. It is hard to believe in positive intentions of people, when the day is spent with people who are intending to hurt each other. This lack of trust can show up in the way the officer deals with people on a personal level, with neighbors, with a spouse. It can even show up in the way children are raised, as police parents may tend to be stricter in discipline and more careful with privilege.
  10. Even the children are effected. The children of law enforcement officers have a more difficult adjustment. As a young child, the police officer parent is seen as holding a prestigious, desirable position. The young child and his friends look up to the police officer as a minor celebrity, a person of great respect. As a teen-ager, their parent is part of the authority of society. Since teens rebel against authority anyway, this can cause a double rebellion against the parent both in their role as caretaker and as a symbol of the authority of society. Frequently, the officer's child is either overly compliant because of the rules imposed, thus causing depressive problems or personality restriction, or the teen becomes overly rebellious of the rule-oriented parent - the best child or the worst.

As you can see, there is more to being a police officer than the training received in an academy or on the job. The work has many effects that need to be overcome so as not to effect their personal and family life. This website is designed to help you understand and overcome the effects of these other parts of the job. It is important for an officer to realize that sometimes that shield on your chest or in your pocket can be "A Heavy Badge

Reprint from website.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

GUEST POST -- Gemma Barlow

"Article from Gemma Barlow  "

Marijuana Legalization – Law And Order Implications
The legalization or decriminalizing of marijuana in the USA is a hot topic right now. States like Washington and Colorado have already taken the plunge, California looks set to follow suit, and the movement to legalize marijuana all across the United States is gaining in strength. This may or may not have health implications – both positive and negative – for those who take advantage of any new legal status. Discussion, indeed, has tended to focus on the personal health issues which may be faced by marijuana users. Surprisingly little has been said about the implications for law and order of wide-scale marijuana legalization. Interestingly, many police officers are actually in favor of legalizing the drug – although a substantial portion of the nation’s forces disagree.
Speaking Out
Whatever your opinions on the legalization of marijuana, it seems that you can expect to have difficulty if you try to voice them while being a police officer. Officers have lost their jobs before for expressing positive sympathies towards marijuana legalization. However, the situation appears to be different in Colorado, where police officers have happily spoken to newspapers about the lack of marijuana-related crime since the drug was legalized. Of course, one must always remember that media outlets invariably have an agenda to push, and are likely to prioritize a viewpoint which suits their purposes over any other. Whether we can infer that nationwide marijuana legalization would be a good idea simply from what a newspaper says is doubtful. Many police officers have spent too much time fighting against marijuana to welcome its legalization, and these officers are equally vocal in opposition.
The Alcohol Comparison
It has been frequently pointed out that marijuana nowadays is a lot stronger than that doing the rounds thirty years ago. Plenty of police officers harbor concerns that legalizing the stuff will therefore lead to reckless behavior which will tie up police time and resources. It is not uncommon for marijuana to be a mitigating factor in road accidents, and the potential for dope-induced mishaps is likely to rise exponentially in the case of legalization. Many people draw comparisons between marijuana and alcohol, and claim that marijuana could be regulated and controlled in much the same manner as alcohol. Unfortunately, as anyone who’s ever worn a police badge knows, alcohol is not the harmless substance we like to think of it as when it comes to preserving the peace. Alcohol is a behavioral catalyst which causes an awful lot of trouble for the cops. It is rare to find an alcohol abuse discussion which does not at some point reference brushes with the law like arrests, jail time and so on. Comparing marijuana to alcohol does not render it any less dangerous in the eyes of the average cop – quite the opposite.
Prohibition VS Control
Then, of course, there is the Prohibition VS Control conundrum. Back in the 1920s, the Prohibition of alcohol was intended, among other things, to reduce alcohol-related crime. In fact, it caused an enormous increase in criminal behavior as organized crime gangs seized the opportunity to take the alcohol industry into their own hands and make a mint. On a per-capita level, alcohol consumption did slightly decrease – but not nearly as much as was intended. Instead, people proved themselves willing to flout the law in order to get liquored up, and the amount of drunk and disorderly crimes reported barely decreased at all. The police workload was not, therefore, reduced in that respect. It was, however, substantially increased by the brazen activities of the alcohol smugglers – not just to keep a handle on their alcohol smuggling, but to try and tackle the violence, the infighting, the vendettas and the criminal sidelines which went along with them. Halting Prohibition and bringing the booze industry back under legal controls proved by far the most effective way of stopping this violence. Currently, an awful lot of police time and resources is spent in battling illegal marijuana producers, sellers, and smugglers. The smuggling route through Mexico is wreaking havoc within that nation, and gives a pretty poor time to the USA as well. It is argued that legalizing the product would eradicate the drug cartels’ market in one fell swoop, thus significantly reducing if not halting altogether the marijuana front of the ‘War On Drugs’. The question is, would the cartels simply switch their operation to something else? And would any potential reduction in organized crime outweigh a potential increase in marijuana-related misbehavior? It’s a tricky question, and one which is unlikely to be solved without experience.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

The crumbling of quality, efficiency, and service.

As I grew up, there were several jobs in several organizations that had standards.
The military and police agencies had qualities that you had to have to be accepted--even for training.

Once you had presented yourself, and passed all those requirements, you had to pass the training, then more field training, then there were procedures that you could work toward a better place in your status.

Let's compare: To become a a Highway Patrol Officer, I had to be between 5'8" and 6'4". I had to pass an interview, a written exam, an agility test, a physical, and an extensive background check. Anything other than a traffic ticket would disqualify me.

The Academy starts. We had a black guy, three Hispanics, and most men (No women yet) were either just back from Vietnam or a prior police agency

Tests were pass mandatory . Fail one--on probation. Fail two--gone .

Do something that embarrassed the Patrol, you were gone

Driving was up to the Instructors. If one decided you could not cut it--you were gone.

Fast forward to around 1990

First, this article could have been written, I think, about almost any large agency in the US.

In the LAPD, the Cream Rarely Rises to the Top

To Deflect and to Swerve: Inside the not-so-elite ranks of the LAPD's Officers Club.

When I first went on the CHP, 85% or more of the agency was former Marines. 
Our first blow was Affirmative Action. One Chief who just retired started his ascent as a Cadet, when he went in to the Captain's Office (Head at the Academy) and complained that the instructors at the Range had just told a Hispanic joke, and he was offended. The Instructors were sent back to the field with no hope of ever getting a promotion. 

Next, Jerry Brown in his first time as Governor made Gays a protected species, just like Minorities.  Piss off a Gay, or get a EEOC complaint, and you will never get an Office Job or a promotion. 

 The sequence now goes like this:
Minorities (Black, Hispanic, Female, Gay) are passed through the Academy. The only way you get ejected is poor driving skills (Liability is larger than Affirmative Action) 
You get assigned to an office. Your FTO will not want to flunk you, because your FTO probably wants to climb that ladder and his promotion ladder will be busted if you complain that he/she failed you for prejudicial reasons.

You get "On the Road". Reports about you are verbally passed, and Sergeant MUST ride with you once per quarter for an 8 hour shift.

Not too long before the verdict is in: This person is incompetent. He/she will get someone killed or get us sued. 
You get moved into an office job to protect the community and yourself.
In the Office, you get to hob-nob with the Brass. 

In two years, you are eligible to take the promotion test. Your office brass urges you to promote.  The test is now a written multiple choice test like Jack Dunphy (Above) writes about, with questions just as inconsequential, and an Oral Board.  A Review of you is sent to the Oral Board by your office Brass. 
An Oral Board, from my personal experience, wants you to verbally, and maybe with a few exhibits, PROVE that you no longer want to be a "road cop", but would be happier as an "Office Drone" .
In not too long a time, you are a new Sergeant, on your way up the career ladder, with maybe 2 months on the road. 

People now--especially ones who work the road, and are competent--can retire at 3% pay after 20 years. Most reach 90% at about 26 or 27 years, and they are gone. 

In my time, most officers were like me. You retired only when you reached 60, because the CHP makes you retire at age 60.

SO, you made it to the Field. You were given the least desirable car, days off , beat, and  shift. If you questioned or complained, you were told., get some seniority, and you can choose your shift, beat and days off. 

So, I get to 25 years. Do I get those things? No. 

Why? Women come on, half of them have kids and declare they need to work afternoons/nights to take care of kids. 

I gave up taking vacations in summertime, and took the last two weeks of December, because, one, it was Christmas coming up--lots of decorating top do and parties invited to, and two, nasty violators that asked "Where's your Christmas Spirit?" .

Younger, newer guys and gals then started demanded taking days off around that time--even though they had taken two weeks vacation in summer-- "To be with their kids at Christmas". 


My conclusions are that many jobs in government--and in some private enterprises, because the government FORCES you to--are given not by proven knowledge, skills, and abilities 
They are given to people because of skin color, sexual preference or urinary plumbing to "Give them a chance". Take a look at almost ALL of our higher government offices.
Secondly, evaluate how our governments are being run by these same people

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The hypocrisy of our public

Recently, it was all over the media that an ESPN reporter had verbally abused a
clerk at a towing company.

The reporter's car had been towed while she was eating dinner.


This is ESPN reporter Britt McHenry reportedly going crazy on a parking lot attendant.  Unfortunately, there’s little context to the video as it was uploaded on the Live Leak website.  We do know that McHenry had her car towed after dinner in Arlington, Virginia, but we don’t know if the video is related to that incident.  It’s very unflattering for McHenry to say the least as she pretty much checks all the boxes for how someone on national television should not act around everyday people.

ESPN was totally wrong to suspend Britt McHenry

So we’ve all gotten a warm feeling of self-righteousness out of mocking ESPN reporter Britt McHenry, who was suspended for a week for saying rude things to a towing-yard employee.
It sure is fun to see pretty, successful blondes taken down a notch. And to do so while expressing solidarity with the beleaguered working class? Perfect.
Except ESPN is supposed to be a journalistic outfit. Maybe it should get both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions. Because there’s another side to this story — and it’s a lot more interesting than “pretty woman yells at maybe-not-so-pretty woman.”
Modal Trigger
Photo: Twitter/Britt McHenry
McHenry, a DC-based reporter, was apparently towed by a company called Advanced Towing, a private contractor hired by various entities around the Arlington, Va., area to make sure people don’t illegally park.
Towing cars that are where they aren’t supposed to be is a necessary thing, an act of urban hygiene.
Still, let’s look at the Better Business Bureau rating for this outfit: It’s an F. Out of 40 complaints lodged against the company in the last three years, Advanced Towing has simply ignored 37.
Over to the Yelp reviews. Interesting.
Yelper Mary El P. said in January she paid with a credit card, was told it didn’t work, then presented another credit card. When the statement came, she claims she was billed twice. She says she called up an employee, who was rude and insulting and informed her that disputing a charge on a credit card was a felony.
Yelper Eric T. alleges that a tow trucker apparently spying on him zipped around the corner while he was letting his dog out to pee — and that when he protested, the Advanced Towing driver yelled out, “Don’t park here you f - - king f - - - - t,” using an anti-gay slur.
In early April, a man who ducked into an Arlington CVS for medicine for his sick child says he came back to find his car being jacked up by an Advanced Towing truck — with his two kids inside.
But here’s what’s worse than any of that.
Modal Trigger
Yelper KJ B. recounts their experience with Advanced Towing, claiming that the company steals cars.Photo: Yelp/Screengrab
Several reviewers have complained that Advanced Towing brings in legally parked cars — and then, when you complain, simply insults you and holds the car hostage.
Said Yelper KJ B., “Towing serves a purpose, but this company just steals cars! The first time I was towed was from my very own parking spot at my apartment complex. They claimed they didn’t see my parking sticker (despite its obvious placement on the back where it is on EVERY CAR.)”
Modal Trigger
Photo: Twitter
We don’t even know what was said to McHenry, since the Advanced Towing employee’s remarks have been edited out of the video that went viral.
And how do you feel about private companies with which you did not choose to do business making videos of you, then leaking them to the media for the purpose of humiliating you?
McHenry’s private conversation wasn’t actually any of ESPN’s business and should not even have been captured or distributed without her consent — but ESPN was terrified of the online mob and panicked.
ESPN should do the right thing and reinstate McHenry until it learns the whole story — or simply concede that sometimes people lose their tempers. The way McHenry talks on her worst, most frustrating day is probably how Keith Olbermann talked to his mom.
And to the journalists working in Arlington, Va. — a much more interesting and important story than “Citizen yells at another citizen” just fell into your laps. You’re welcome.

O K.......

But, citizens feel it is perfectly acceptable to launch a verbal volley of profanities and obscenities onto police officers.

Published on 28 Mar 2015
This is how Eli Grossman treats officers of the Law from the Laguna Beach Police Department and Parking Enforcement - men serving and protecting our community - just trying to do their jobs.

These poor men have to deal with verbal abuse like this on a daily basis. And we as neighbors have to deal with this foul language and loud yelling, unable to enjoy the peace and quiet of our homes.

Close your children's ears!
God forbid you have a newborn who is trying to take a nap!
God forbid you work from home and are on a conference call during all this!

Does this man seem mentally stable to YOU? Do you feel safe having someone like this live in your neighborhood?

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Anyone see any parallels ?


Lindsey Graham blasts Benghazi report that cleared Obama officials and CIA of wrongdoing as 'full of crap'

  • South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham savaged report in TV interview
  • Document, released by House Intelligence Committee, was released Friday
  • Cleared the government, military and CIA of any wrongdoing
  • Graham said that all the report proves is the committee is 'doing a lousy job'
PUBLISHED: 14:24 EST, 23 November 2014 UPDATED: 07:29 EST, 24 November 2014

A furious and sceptical senator has blasted a report by the House Intelligence Committee to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, saying it is 'full of crap'.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina) said the results of the investigation, which clears the government of wrongdoing in its response to the crisis in Libya, are evidence of a 'lousy job'.
The document, released Friday, said the CIA, military, and the White House did their jobs right in the wake of a militant attack on the facility which killed a U.S. ambassador.
'Full of crap': Republican Senator Lindsey Graham lashed out at the report, which he said shows the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee is doing a 'lousy' job
'Full of crap': Republican Senator Lindsey Graham lashed out at the report, which he said shows the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee is doing a 'lousy' job
Under attack: A vehicle and the surrounding area are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi late on September 11, 2012
Under attack: A vehicle and the surrounding area are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi late on September 11, 2012
But its analysis, especially the notion that nobody lied or covered anything up, struck the senator as 'complete garbage'.
Graham gave his forthright response in an interview on  CNN Sunday, and implied the report was untrustworthy because some of those involved in writing it had misled congressmen in a hearing on the attacks.

The fact that the House Intelligence Committee is dominated by Republicans did nothing to dampen his criticism.

When asked why the GOP chair of the committee, Michigan Representative Mike Rogers, would accept the report, he answered 'good question'.
According to Graham all the report proves is that the group 'is doing a lousy job policing its own'.
The two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team and no missed opportunity for a military rescue.

It also debunked allegations that the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
The final report: A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya
The final report: A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya
Damage: A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound  following the overnight attack.  It was initially believed the attack was carried out by an angry mob responding to a video but was later determined to have been a terrorist attack
Damage: A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound following the overnight attack.  It was initially believed the attack was carried out by an angry mob responding to a video but was later determined to have been a terrorist attack
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found.
It was that, the report said, which led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest which did not exist.
But the flaws, the report said, came from intelligence analysts who made mistakes, rather than politicians or an intent to mislead.
Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.
The attacks in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.
A Libyan extremist, Ahmed Abu Khatalla, is facing trial on murder charges after he was captured in Libya and taken to the U.S.
In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama administration Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state.
People in and out of government have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to 'stand down' after the State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of al-Qaeda figures in the attack.
None of those allegations is true, according to the report.
The report did find, however, that the State Department facility where Stevens and Smith were killed was not well-protected, and that State Department security agents knew they could not defend it from a well-armed attack.
Previous reports have found that requests for security improvements were not acted upon in Washington.
'We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents, reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a total of 20 committee events and hearings,' said Rep. Rogers, along with his Democratic counterpart, Maryland Rep.  C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
'We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night.
They said: 'Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their actions saved lives.'
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who serves on the intelligence panel and the Benghazi select committee, said, 'It's my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again, and that the Benghazi Select Committee will accept these findings and instead focus its attention on the State Department's progress in securing our facilities around the world and standing up our fast response capabilities.'
Senator Graham, however, has promised a 'hard review' of the report. 

A defining battle
By Mark Bowden
November 16, 1997

   LATE IN THE AFTERNOON of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1993, attack helicopters dropped about 120 elite American soldiers into a busy neighborhood in the heart of Mogadishu, Somalia. Their mission was to abduct several top lieutenants of Somalian warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid and return to base. It was supposed to take about an hour. 
Pentagon video of the raid 
   Instead, two of their high-tech UH-60 Blackhawk attack helicopters were shot down. The men were pinned down through a long and terrible night in a hostile city, fighting for their lives. When they emerged the following morning, 18 Americans were dead and 73 were wounded. One, helicopter pilot Michael Durant, had been carried off by an angry mob. He was still alive, held captive somewhere in the city. 
Radio transmission about helicopter crash (5 seconds; 8 K) 
   The Somalian toll was far worse. Reliable witnesses in the U.S. military and in Mogadishu now place the count at nearly 500 dead - scores more than was estimated at the time - among more than a thousand casualties. Many were women and children. This was hardly what U.S. and United Nations officials envisioned when they intervened in Somalia in December 1992 to help avert widespread starvation.

   In the five years since that humanitarian mission dissolved into combat, Somalia has had a profound cautionary influence on American foreign policy. When Washington policymakers consider sending soldiers into foreign crisis zones, there is invariably a caveat: Remember Somalia. America's refusal to intervene in Rwanda in 1995 and in the former Zaire this year; its long delay in acting to stop Serbian aggression in Bosnia; its hesitation before sending troops into Haiti; and its present reluctance to arrest indicted war criminals in Bosnia stem, in some measure, from the futile attempts to arrest Aidid.
   With the exception of the Persian Gulf war, modern American warfare no longer pits great national armies in sweeping conflicts. Instead, it is marked by isolated, usually brief, encounters between specially trained U.S. forces and Third World irregulars as America seeks to alter the political equation in some tumultuous location - Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia.
   The American public is rarely exposed to the realities of warfare. The Pentagon does not allow reporters to accompany soldiers directly into battle, a journalistic tradition that ended after Vietnam. What results is a sanitized picture of combat. The public knows only what the military chooses to portray, or what cameras are able to see from afar. Americans have little understanding of what awaits frightened young soldiers, or of their heroic and sometimes savage attempts to save themselves and their fellow soldiers.
   Americans recoiled at the images of soldiers' corpses being dragged through the streets, but they had no inkling of the searing 15-hour battle that produced their deaths. There has never been a detailed public accounting. Most of the Pentagon records documenting the firefight remain classified, and most of the soldiers who fought are in special forces, generally off-limits to reporters.
   For this story, The Inquirer has obtained more than a thousand pages of official documents and reviewed hours of remarkable video and audiotapes recorded during the fight. It has interviewed in detail more than 50 of the American soldiers who fought. Also interviewed in depth, in Mogadishu, were dozens of Somalis who fought the Americans or were caught in the crossfire.
   The Battle of Mogadishu is known today in Somalia as Ma-alinti Rangers, or the Day of the Rangers. It pitted the world's most sophisticated military power against a mob of civilians and Somalian irregulars. It was the biggest single firefight involving American soldiers since the Vietnam War.
   The battle was photographed and videotaped by sophisticated cameras aboard satellites, a P-3 Orion spy plane, and UH-58 surveillance helicopters hovering directly over the action. Many of the soldiers were debriefed by U.S. Army historians in the days after the battle. Top commanders were later subjected to a Senate inquiry.
   The secret official documentation of the battle obtained by The Inquirer has been fleshed out with the powerful eyewitness accounts. The result is an unprecedented minute-by-minute record of what happened that Sunday in Mogadishu.
   Most of those interviewed have never before told the complete story of their experience, including pilot Durant, whose 11-day captivity was briefly at the center of world attention. Many soldiers are still unaware of certain battle episodes that did not involve them. Several are members of the Army's Delta Force, a unit so secret the Army does not officially acknowledge it exists.
   Theirs is a story of well-laid plans gone awry, of tragic blunders, of skillful soldiering, heroism, and occasional cowardice. The portrait reveals a military force that underestimated its enemy. The assault was launched into the most dangerous part of Mogadishu in daylight, even though the Ranger and Delta forces were trained and equipped primarily to work in darkness - where their night-vision devices can afford a decisive advantage. Commanders who thought it unlikely that Somalis could shoot down helicopters saw five shot down (three limped back to base before crash-landing). Ground rescue convoys were blocked for hours by barricades and ambushes - leaving at least five U.S. soldiers to die awaiting rescue, including two Delta sergeants who were posthumously awarded Medals of Honor.
   The American soldiers were so confident of a quick victory that they neglected to take night-vision devices and water, both sorely needed later. Carefully defined rules of engagement, calling for soldiers to fire only on Somalis who aimed weapons at them, were quickly discarded in the heat of the fight. Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw.
   Animosity between the elite Delta units and the Ranger infantry forces effectively created two separate ground-force commanders, who for at least part of the battle were no longer speaking to each other. Delta commandos took accidental fire on several occasions from the younger Rangers. Poor coordination between commanders in the air and a ground convoy sent vehicles meandering through a maelstrom of fire, resulting in the deaths of five soldiers and one Somalian prisoner.
   Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate. The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city ``we would have sunk it.''
   America went to war in Mogadishu in an effort to remove warlord Aidid from the political equation. The United Nations was attempting to form a coalition government out of the nation's warring clans, but encountered stiff and bloody resistance from Aidid. Jonathan Howe, who managed the United Nations effort, sought and obtained the intervention of special U.S. forces for the purpose of arresting Aidid and other top leaders of his clan.
   The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the U. N.) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. Interviewed for this story, Howe said he believes the number of Somalis killed in the surprise attack was closer to 20, and included only Aidid's military leadership.
   After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America - a fact many Americans never realized. By Oct. 3, images of dead soldiers being dragged through the streets shocked the American public, most of whom believed their soldiers were in Somalia to help feed the starving. How could a charitable mission provoke such savagery?
   But Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting.
   On its first mission, the force inadvertently arrested nine Somalian United Nations employees. A later mission arrested a friendly Somalian general who was being groomed by the United Nations to take over a Mogadishu police force. But by late September, the task force had begun to hit its stride with the capture of Osman Atto, Aidid's banker. The deadly Oct. 3 raid was the sixth and last.
   Most of the Rangers who fought were only a few years out of high school. These young men were shocked to find themselves bleeding on the dirt streets of an obscure African capital for a cause so unessential that President Clinton called off their mission the day after the fight.
   In strictly military terms, Mogadishu was a success. The targets of that day's raid - two obscure clan leaders named Omar Salad and Mohamed Hassan Awale - were apprehended. But the awful price of those arrests came as a shock to a young president, who felt as misled as John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. It led to the resignation of Defense Secretary Les Aspin and destroyed the career of Gen. Garrison, who in a handwritten letter to Clinton accepted full responsibility. It aborted a hopeful and unprecedented United Nations effort to salvage an impoverished and hungry nation lost in anarchy and civil war.
   Every battle is a drama played out apart from broader political issues. Soldiers cannot concern themselves with the decisions that bring them to a fight. They trust their leaders not to risk their lives for too little. Once the battle is joined, they fight to survive, to kill before they are killed. The story of a battle is timeless. It is about the same things whether in Troy or Gettysburg, Normandy or the Ia Drang. It is about soldiers, most of them young, trapped in a fight to the death. The extreme and terrible nature of war touches something essential about being human, and soldiers do not always like what they learn.

   For those who survive, the battle lives on in their memories and nightmares and in the dull ache of old wounds long after the reasons for it have been forgotten. Yet what happened to these men in Mogadishu comes alive every time the United States considers sending young soldiers to serve American policy in remote and dangerous corners of the world.


Dave's Conclusions:

--  Mogidishu was Bill  "Bubba"  Clinton's     Benghazi was Hillary Clinton's

-- Bubba put elite troops in there without having adequate numbers or equipment.
    Hillary had an ambassador in a location with out adequate security measures or

-- You DO NOT want to be in the military under a Democrat President. To them, you are disposable.