Subject: Correct The Record Sunday September 7, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:10:25 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Sunday September 7, 2014 Roundup:*

NOTE FROM CTR RESEARCH, FACTS: Secretary Clinton engaged domestic and
foreign leaders to secure and extract Americans from Benghazi. Secretary
Clinton was fully engaged in locating and extracting Americans from
Benghazi that night. As detailed in her book Hard Choices, Clinton spent
the night coordinating rescue efforts with the White House, the National
Security Council, the American Embassy in Tripoli, and Libyan President
Mohamed Magariaf. Additional accounts of that night note that Secretary
Clinton coordinated efforts with foreign leaders in Egypt, Yemen and
Tunisia.

*Headlines:*

*NPR: “Henry Kissinger's Thoughts On The Islamic State, Ukraine And 'World
Order'”
<http://www.wbur.org/npr/346114326/henry-kissingers-thoughts-on-the-islamic-state-ukraine-and-world-order>*

Henry Kissinger, “I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I
would say yes, she'd be a good president. But she'd put me under a great
conflict of interest if she were a candidate, because I tend to support the
Republicans.”

*Washington Post blog: In The Loop: “Did Kissinger endorse Clinton for
president? Almost.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/09/07/did-kissinger-endorse-clinton-for-president-almost/>*

“Which begs the question, how many friends would it cost Clinton to have
Kissinger, reviled by the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, as an
advocate?”

*The Atlantic: “Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Israel”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hillary-elizabeth-warren-and-israel/379721/>*

“Even if Elizabeth Warren chooses to run (unlikely), she won’t run as a
tough-on-Israel liberal. There's just no percentage in it. Hillary knew
what she was doing.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney: 'No question' I'd be a better
candidate than Hillary Clinton”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/216875-romney-no-question-id-be-a-better-candidate-than-hillary>*

“Mitt Romney said Sunday that he'd make a better president than Hillary
Clinton, although he is not planning on running.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Romney on 2016: ‘I’m Not
Planning on Running’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/07/romney-on-2016-im-not-planning-on-running/>*

“In his Sunday appearance on Fox, Mr. Romney said there was ‘no question’
in his mind that he would make a better president than Mrs. Clinton — or
the person who beat him in 2012, President Barack Obama.”

*ThinkProgress: “Rand Paul Decides To Pick A Fight With Hillary Clinton
Over Climate Change”
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/07/3564148/paul-clinton-climate-change/>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) decided to pick a fight with Hillary Clinton over
climate change on Friday.”

*Boston Herald column: Adriana Cohen: “Benghazi truth emerges”
<http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2014/09/adriana_cohen_benghazi_truth_emerges>*

“They requested air support and military back-up from the State Department
— but Hillary Clinton didn’t answer that 3 a.m. phone call. No help came.
And good American men lost their lives because of it.”

*Articles:*

*NPR: “Henry Kissinger's Thoughts On The Islamic State, Ukraine And 'World
Order'”
<http://www.wbur.org/npr/346114326/henry-kissingers-thoughts-on-the-islamic-state-ukraine-and-world-order>*

Henry Kissinger was a Harvard scholar before he became a mover and shaker
in the world of foreign policy. And in his new book, World Order, the
former secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford gives a
historian's perspective on the idea of order in world affairs.

Nations are always trying to establish systems to make the world a more
orderly place, but they rarely last for long. His book stretches from China
under the emperors, Rome surrounded by barbarians and Islam encircled by
infidels, to the treaties of Europe and the pivotal positions of Russia and
Iran.

On current affairs, Kissinger tells NPR's Scott Simon why a conflict with
the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is more manageable than a
confrontation with Iran, what he would do about the Islamic State, and what
he thinks the best solution is for the crisis in Ukraine.

Interview Highlights

*On why he views Iran as a "bigger problem than ISIS"*

There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad
to Beirut. And this gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient
Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label — in the rebuilding of the
Middle East that will inevitably have to take place when the new
international borders [are] drawn. Because the borders of the settlement of
1919-'20 are essentially collapsing.

That gives Iran a very powerful level from a strategic point of view. I
consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers
with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more
territory before they can became a strategic, permanent reality. I think a
conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a
confrontation with Iran.

*On what he would do about ISIS*

They have cut the throat of an American on television. This is an insult to
the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an
act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a
period that is related to the murder of the American.

Then, we have to go into the long-range problem. I think when we are
dealing with a unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they
can lead us by establishing ground forces. But we should set strategic
objectives where we thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be
able to do by superior air power. And then, if we can enlist other
countries, or other more local groups to do the ground fighting, we might
actually destroy them.

*On the "Russian enigma" and what he thinks Putin's Russia wants*

The attitude of the West and of Russia towards a crisis like Ukraine is
diametrically different. The West is trying to establish the legality of
any established border. For Russia, Ukraine is part of the Russian
patrimony.

A Russian state was created around Kiev about 1,200 years ago. Ukraine
itself has been part of Russia for 500 years, and I would say most Russians
consider it of Russian patrimony. The ideal solution would be to have a
Ukraine like Finland or Austria that can be a bridge between these two
rather than an outpost.

*Kissinger's reaction to naysayers because of his role during the war in
Vietnam, especially the bombing of Cambodia and Laos*

They should study what is going on. I think we would find, if you study the
conduct of [the military], that the Obama administration has hit more
targets on a broader scale than the Nixon administration ever did. And, of
course, B-52s have a different bombing pattern.

On the other hand, drones are far more deadly because they are much more
accurate. And I think the principle is essentially the same. You attack
locations where you believe people operate who are killing you. You do it
in the most limited way possible. And I bet if one did an honest account,
there were fewer civilian casualties in Cambodia than there have been from
American drone attacks.

The Vietnam War was a great tragedy for that country. And it is now far
enough away so that one can study [it] without using the slogans to see
what really happened. And I believe you would find — my position was that
of the chief of staff of the president — that the decisions that were taken
would almost certainly have been taken by those of you who are listening,
faced with the same set of problems. And you would have done them with
anguish, as we did them with anguish.

*On whether he thinks Hillary Clinton would be a good president*

I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes,
she'd be a good president. But she'd put me under a great conflict of
interest if she were a candidate, because I tend to support the Republicans.

... Yes, I'd be comfortable with her as the president.

Transcript

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Henry Kissinger was a scholar before he became a mover and shaker. And in a
new book, he traces the idea of order and world affairs - how nations try
to establish systems to make the world a more orderly place. It usually
doesn't work out that way for long. His new book, "World Order," stretches
from China under to the emperors, the treaties of Europe to the pivotal
position of Russia and Iran today. We spoke with the former secretary of
state last week shortly after news that James Foley - the U.S. journalist -
had been beheaded by militants from the Islamic State also known as ISIS.
Mr. Kissinger said that in all the crises roiling the world, the U.S.
shouldn't lose focus on Iran.

HENRY KISSINGER: There have come into being a kind of a Shia-belt from
Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut. And this gives Iran the opportunity to
reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire, this time under a Shia label. From
a geo-strategic point of view, I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS.
ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they
have to conquer more and more territory before they can become a
geo-strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS - important
as it is - is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran.

SIMON: What would you do about ISIS?

KISSINGER: They have cut the throat of an American on television. This is
an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that
this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on
ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American. Then, we
have to go into the long-range problem. I think when we're dealing with a
unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they can lead us by
establishing ground forces. But we should set strategic objectives where we
thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be able to do by
superior air power. And then if we can enlist other countries or other more
local groups to do the ground fighting, we might actually destroy them.

SIMON: Let me ask you about a couple of other areas of the world. You spent
a considerable time in this book writing about what you call the Russian
enigma. What's your reading of what Vladimir Putin's Russia wants?

KISSINGER: The attitude of the West and of Russia towards a crisis like
Ukraine is diametrically different. The West is trying to establish the
legality of any established border. For Russia, Ukraine is part of the
Russian patrimony. A Russian state was created around Kiev about 1,200
years ago. Ukraine itself has been part of Russia for 500 years, and I
would say most Russians consider it of Russian patrimony. The ideal
solution would be to have a Ukraine like Finland or Austria that can be a
bridge between these two rather than an outpost.

SIMON: Mr. Kissinger, every time we interview you, we hear from people who
object, who say they have no interest in your opinion because of your role
during the war in Vietnam, especially the bombing of Cambodia and Laos. How
do you answer that?

KISSINGER: They should study what is going on. I think we would find, if
you study the conduct of guerilla-type wars, that the Obama Administration
has hit more targets on a broader scale than the Nixon Administration ever
did.

SIMON: Is there not, though, a difference between a drone attack and carpet
bombing?

KISSINGER: Of course. When you - B-52s have a different bombing pattern. On
the other hand, drones are far more deadly because they're much more
accurate. And I think the principle is essentially the same. You attack
locations where you believe people operate who are killing you. You do it
in the most limited way possible. And I bet if one did an honest account,
there are fewer civilian casualties in Cambodia than there have been from
American drone attacks. The Vietnam War was a great tragedy for our
country. And it is now far enough away so that one can study without using
the slogans to see what's really happened. And I believe you would find -
my position was that of the chief of staff of the president - that the
decisions that were taken would almost certainly have been taken by those
of you who are listening, faced with the same set of problems. And you
would have done them with anguish, as we did them with anguish.

SIMON: Mr. Kissinger, a future question - do you think Hillary Clinton
would be a good president?

KISSINGER: I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would
say yes, she'd be a good president. But she'd put me under a great conflict
of interest if she were a candidate because I intend to support the
Republicans.

SIMON: Well, I didn't ask it in a partisan way, just if she were to run and
be elected, would you be comfortable with her as president of United States?

KISSINGER: Yes, I'd be comfortable with that president.

SIMON: Henry Kissinger. His new book - "World Order." Thanks so much for
being with us.

KISSINGER: You've just lost me. I don't know how many friends.

*Washington Post blog: In The Loop: “Did Kissinger endorse Clinton for
president? Almost.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/09/07/did-kissinger-endorse-clinton-for-president-almost/>*

By Colby Itkowitz

September 7, 2014, 12:48 p.m. EDT

It’s been a bit of a love fest between former secretaries of state Henry
Kissinger and Hillary Clinton the past week. They shared a stage at the
groundbreaking of the State Department’s new Diplomacy Center, Clinton
wrote a glowing review of Kissinger’s new book, and then President Richard
Nixon’s foreign policy adviser on Saturday offered an (almost) endorsement
for a Clinton presidency.

Kissinger, a controversial figure in American diplomatic history, was asked
during an NPR interview whether Clinton would make a good president.

“I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes,
she’d be a good president,” Kissinger said. “But she’d put me under a great
conflict of interest if she were a candidate because I intend to support
the Republicans.”

NPR reporter Scott Simon asked whether, putting partisan politics aside,
Kissinger would be comfortable with a Clinton White House.

“Yes, I’d be comfortable with that president,” Kissinger said. But then he
added, “You’ve just lost me I don’t know how many friends.”

Which begs the question, how many friends would it cost Clinton to have
Kissinger, reviled by the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, as an
advocate?

This isn’t the first time that Kissinger has heaped praise on Clinton. In
2008, when it was rumored that Barack Obama would pick her as his secretary
of state, Kissinger was all in. “She is a lady of great intelligence,
demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding
appointment,” he said during a speech in India.

But liberals, who worry that Clinton is too hawkish on foreign policy, have
raised an eyebrow at the presumptive Democratic front-runner’s cuddly
relationship with Kissinger. David Corn at Mother Jones described Clinton’s
embrace of Kissinger as evidence of “how low she can go” to win the White
House.

And the former diplomats’ friendship adds fuel to the other end of the
political spectrum occupied by libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul is
largely anti-intervention and is eager to run for president against
Clinton, whom he has dismissed as a “war hawk.”

Which leads to another question: If Paul is the GOP nominee against
Clinton, will Kissinger still vote Republican?

*The Atlantic: “Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Israel”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hillary-elizabeth-warren-and-israel/379721/>*

By Jeffery Goldberg

September 7, 2014, 9:05 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Why Hillary Clinton's hawkish pro-Israel stance won't hurt her,
even with the Democratic Party base

Shortly after I posted my interview with Hillary Clinton last month, I
began hearing from liberal Democrats who were worried that her hawkish
comments—on Syria, but especially on the Gaza war—would somehow provoke a
primary challenge from her left (these conversations proceeded from the
assumption that Clinton is running for president, which is a reasonable
assumption). The Democratic Party base, the theory went, would be so
offended by Clinton’s vociferous pro-Netanyahu positioning that it would
agitate on behalf of a primary challenge. Elizabeth Warren, the populist
Massachusetts senator, was the most likely candidate for the role.

As a reminder, here is some of what Clinton said about Israel and Gaza:

“Israel was attacked by rockets from Gaza. Israel has a right to defend
itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control
facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by
Israel difficult. Of course Israel, just like the United States, or any
other democratic country, should do everything they can possibly do to
limit civilian casualties.”

And this:

“If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect
to have control over security [on the West Bank], because even if I’m
dealing with Abbas, who is 79 years old, and other members of Fatah, who
are enjoying a better lifestyle and making money on all kinds of things,
that does not protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border
attacks from anywhere else. With Syria and Iraq, it is all one big threat.
So Netanyahu could not do this in good conscience.”

Tough stuff, and not the sort of thing you would have heard from her
publicly when she was yelling at Benjamin Netanyahu on behalf of President
Obama for the past several years. After the interview, I came to a few
conclusions about these statements:

1.       They were made on purpose, as was every statement she made in the
interview, including the line that got the most attention: “Great nations
need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an
organizing principle.”

2.       They were made with the knowledge that she faces no serious
foreign policy-focused challenge from her left. She does face a more
serious and sustained critique from the left on domestic issues, but she
felt that going hawkish on foreign policy would be low-risk.

3.       They were made with knowledge that there are segments of the
pro-Israel community that still mistrust her for kissing Mrs. Arafat a
million years ago.

4.       She believes what she said. She is just naturally more hawkish
than the president she served as secretary of state.

I’m now glad to report—only because I’d rather be right than wrong, all
things being equal—that Elizabeth Warren has confirmed for us that, on
questions related to Israel, Clinton has nothing to fear from her, at least.

At a town-hall meeting on Cape Cod last month, Warren answered critics of
her vote in favor of a Senate measure to send an additional $225 million in
military funding to Israel during the war. Here is a report on the
town-hall meeting from the Cape Cod Times:

“‘I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was
right,’ [Warren] said. ‘America has a very special relationship with
Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of
the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that
are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that
part of the world.’

“Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel ‘indiscriminately,’ but with the
Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have ‘not had the terrorist effect
Hamas hoped for.’ When pressed by another member of the crowd about
civilian casualties from Israel's attacks, Warren said she believes those
casualties are the ‘last thing Israel wants.’

“‘But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to
schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military
assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,’
Warren said, drawing applause.”

Even if Elizabeth Warren chooses to run (unlikely), she won’t run as a
tough-on-Israel liberal. There's just no percentage in it. Hillary knew
what she was doing.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Romney: 'No question' I'd be a better
candidate than Hillary Clinton”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/216875-romney-no-question-id-be-a-better-candidate-than-hillary>*

By Kevin Cirilli

September 7, 2014, 9:54 a.m. EDT

Mitt Romney said Sunday that he'd make a better president than Hillary
Clinton, although he is not planning on running.

Romney, the former 2012 Republican presidential candidate, insisted that
he's not running for president in 2016. But that didn't stop him from
comparing himself to Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner.

"Would you make a better president than Hillary Clinton?" Fox's Chris
Wallace asked Romney in an interview with "Fox News Sunday."

"No question about that in my mind," Romney answered. "Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama are two peas in the same pod."

Romney also said he'd have made a better president than Barack Obama, too.

Romney criticized Clinton and Obama for their foreign policy decisions,
particularly their response to the Sept. 12, 2012, attack at a U.S. post in
Benghazi, Libya.

"This doesn't just land at the feet of the president, it lands at Hillary
Clinton as well," Romney said.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Romney on 2016: ‘I’m Not
Planning on Running’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/07/romney-on-2016-im-not-planning-on-running/>*

By Patrick O’Connor

September 7, 2014, 12:16 p.m. EDT

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, threw a little
cold water Sunday on the brewing speculation that he will mount a third
White House bid in 2016.

“I’m not running, I’m not planning on running,” Mr. Romney said in an
interview on “Fox News Sunday,” in response to a question about his future
ambitions.

Mr. Romney’s name continues to surface in speculation about which
candidates will throw their hat in the ring in 2016 for the Republican
presidential nomination. Some polls show him leading the potential field.

Top donors are searching for a polished pick with the stature to run
against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the odds-on favorite in
the prospective Democratic field. Many of these Republicans view Mr. Romney
as something of a fallback choice, if former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush opts not
to run.

In his Sunday appearance on Fox, Mr. Romney said there was “no question” in
his mind that he would make a better president than Mrs. Clinton — or the
person who beat him in 2012, President Barack Obama.

The 2012 Republican nominee also sought to cast doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s
foreign-policy bona fides, linking the potential candidate to Mr. Obama,
whose support is sagging in most public-opinion polls, particularly for his
handling for foreign policy.

In his appearance Sunday, Mr. Romney didn’t entirely rule out a bid, but he
didn’t leave the door open very wide either.

“My time has come and gone,” he said. “I had the opportunity. I ran and
didn’t win.”

*Politico: “Luis Gutiérrez: Martin O’Malley ‘champion’ of immigration”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/luis-gutierrez-martin-omalley-immigration-110666.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

September 6, 2014, 4:37 p.m. EDT

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), the loudest congressional voice on
immigration reform and critic of the White House over deportations, on
Saturday held up likely 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful Martin
O’Malley as a reliable ally and champion on the issue.

Speaking at a campaign rally for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Gutiérrez
referenced Obama’s decision to delay executive action on immigration, which
was revealed just a few hours earlier.

Describing Durbin as a “champion” of Hispanics at the rally in Chicago for
the Senator’s re-election campaign, Gutiérrez added, “There’s another
wonderful, wonderful champion of our community, and he’s with us. And I
have the distinct honor and pleasure of introducing him. It’s Governor
O’Malley.”

O’Malley, the governor of Maryland, recently criticized the White House for
deportations of children who’ve illegally crossed the border escaping
violence in their own countries, saying they would meet “certain death.”

“He wasn’t afraid to challenge the president to implement a more humane
approach to the refugee crisis,” said Gutiérrez, who has said he would
support Hillary Clinton if she runs for president.

“He doesn’t just talk, he walks the walk. His state of Maryland has cared
for more unaccompanied children per capita than any other state in the
United States of America.”

He also singled out O’Malley’s work on drivers licenses for immigrants and
the state version of the DREAM Act, which has stalled in Congress. An
O’Malley aide provided audio of the event.

Gutiérrez is a crucial validator with Hispanic voters, a fast-growing
voting bloc and a critical one in a national campaign.

*ThinkProgress: “Rand Paul Decides To Pick A Fight With Hillary Clinton
Over Climate Change”
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/07/3564148/paul-clinton-climate-change/>*

By Jeff Spross

September 7, 2014, 1:24 p.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) decided to pick a fight with Hillary Clinton over
climate change on Friday.

The sticking point was a speech the former Secretary of State gave on
Thursday to the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas. Her remarks
covered a wide range of issues, in particular foreign policy. But she also
zeroed in on the need for the U.S. to tackle climate change, calling it
“the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.”

That was the part Paul pounced on. “For her to be out there saying that the
biggest threat to our safety and to our well-being is climate change, I
think, goes to the heart of the matter or whether or not she has the wisdom
to lead the country, which I think it’s obvious that she doesn’t,” Paul
said in a Friday appearance on Fox News, while discussing ISIS — the
Islamic terrorist that’s seized territory in parts of Iraq and Syria.

“I don’t think we really want a commander-in-chief who’s battling climate
change instead of terrorism,” Paul continued.

Hillary Clinton is widely considered the Democrats’ main contender for the
presidency in 2016, while Paul is one of several Republican front-runners.
In particular, the Kentucky Senator has distinguished himself as a voice of
skepticism regarding American military intervention abroad, a position that
has both won him accolades and put him in the uncomfortable position of
embodying one side in a growing rift within the GOP over foreign policy.

That side also appears to be losing, as polling of Republicans across the
country suggests a convergence is happening in favor of foreign policy
hawkishness . Recently, Paul himself has taken the rise of ISIS as an
opportunity to push back at his reputation as an isolationist.

The trouble for Paul is that, by all accounts, Clinton’s characterization
of climate change is perfectly sound. Multiple environmental groups —
including the League of Conservation Voters and NextGen Climate — shot back
at Paul, many of them pointing out that the Defense Department’s own
Quadrennial Defense Review in 2014 pointed to climate change as a
“significant challenge for the United States.”

“The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition
while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance
institutions around the world,” the report explained. “These effects are
threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty,
environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions —
conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”

A 2014 study by a panel of 16 retired three- and four-star American
generals and admirals also looked into the national security threats posed
by climate change and concluded it is “a catalyst for conflict.” And
Rebecca Leber noted in The New Republic that the Pentagon’s deputy
assistant secretary of Defense for strategy and force development even
explained the situation to the Senate panel Paul himself sits on.

“The effects of the changing climate affect the full range of Department
activities, including plans, operations, training, infrastructure,
acquisition, and longer-term investments,” Daniel Chiu told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in July. “By taking a proactive, flexible
approach to assessment, analysis, and adaptation, the Department can keep
pace with the impacts of changing climate patterns, minimize effects on the
Department, and continue to protect our national security interests.”

Beyond national security threats, the threats posed by climate change to
Americans’ well-being and economic security are also striking. A recent
national report entitled “Risky Business” — arguably the most comprehensive
analysis done yet on the economic risks of climate change — noted that by
2100 there is a one-in-twenty chance climate change will reduce national
labor productivity by three percent. “A decline of three percent in labor
productivity nationally is like losing all of Connecticut’s labor force,”
Kate Gordon, the study’s executive director, told ThinkProgress. A big part
of that reduction would come from heat: within the same time frame, the
eastern half of the country could begin seeing a few days a year where heat
and humidity combine to such a degree that it literally becomes
life-threatening for people to be outside for an extended period.

The latest National Climate Assessment, meanwhile, projects rising heat
waves, more droughts, more floods, and even more insidious effects like
ocean acidification for every region of the U.S. — all of which in turn
threaten the stability of industries and infrastructure around the country.
If current projections for sea level rise pan out, it could wipe much of
South Florida, including the city of Miami, right off the map by 2100.

In short, if climate change is not “the most consequential” challenge
facing America, it’s hard to imagine what issue could possibly qualify. And
polling also indicates most Americans are aware of the problem, with
majorities of voters consistently labeling climate change a serious threat
and saying government should move decisively to deal with it.

That stance is not uniformly distributed, however: Democrats, along with
Latinos, and other minorities, tend to register the most concern with
global warming. But Republicans and Tea Party voters tend to be the most
skeptical. They’ll also be the voters Rand Paul will need to court in 2016.

NOTE FROM CTR RESEARCH, FACTS: Secretary Clinton engaged domestic and
foreign leaders to secure and extract Americans from Benghazi. Secretary
Clinton was fully engaged in locating and extracting Americans from
Benghazi that night. As detailed in her book Hard Choices, Clinton spent
the night coordinating rescue efforts with the White House, the National
Security Council, the American Embassy in Tripoli, and Libyan President
Mohamed Magariaf. Additional accounts of that night note that Secretary
Clinton coordinated efforts with foreign leaders in Egypt, Yemen and
Tunisia.

*Boston Herald column: Adriana Cohen: “Benghazi truth emerges”
<http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/adriana_cohen/2014/09/adriana_cohen_benghazi_truth_emerges>*

By Adriana Cohen

September 7, 2014

Three CIA military contractors who were in the fight for their lives when
our consulate in Benghazi was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, gave a riveting
first-hand account in a bombshell interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier
of what really happened that night.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans —
including Winchester native Glen Doherty — lost their lives in the brutal
attack by Islamist terrorists who launched RPGs, mortars and heavy fire
into both the consulate and nearby annex — for 13 hours — while the White
House and State Department ignored their cries for help.

When our consulate was attacked, these three CIA first responders wanted to
immediately rush over to the compound to rescue Stevens and other personnel
but say they were repeatedly told to wait and “stand down” for nearly 30
minutes by their CIA base chief, who was with them that deadly night. Their
team leader was a CIA official who got direct orders from Washington to
wait multiple times.

This long delay cost Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith their lives.

Baier’s report is based on a book coming out Tuesday, “13 Hours: The Inside
Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” written by Boston University
journalism professor Mitchell Zuckoff along with the CIA contractors.

BAIER: If I gave you that 30 minutes back, would Ambassador Stevens and
Sean Smith be alive today?

KRIS PARONTO (CIA contractor): Yes, they would still be alive.

BAIER: You in on that?

JOHN TIEGEN (CIA contractor): I strongly believe if we would have left
immediately, they would still be alive today.

Not only did the delay cost two Americans their lives, but these three CIA
security contractors and two others, Tyrone Woods and Doherty, were still
fighting for their own lives as the attack continued. They requested air
support and military back-up from the State Department — but Hillary
Clinton didn’t answer that 3 a.m. phone call. No help came. And good
American men lost their lives because of it.

The Obama Administration — of course — denies they told anybody at the CIA
annex to “stand down.” It’s no surprise they’ve been playing word games on
what “language” they used to order the CIA security team to wait. Former
President Bill Clinton — when caught in a sex scandal which led to his
impeachment — spliced words during the investigation saying, “It depends
what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” With an ongoing congressional Benghazi
investigation and upcoming midterm elections, the White House and their
spokesmen are doing the same.

And America’s not buying it. They know a cover-up when they see one.

Prior to the Sept. 11 attack, Obama was selling the phony narrative that
terrorism was “on the run.” So instead of admitting he was wrong when
Islamist terrorists attacked our consulate, his administration made up the
phony story that protesters upset by a video attacked our consulate and
murdered these brave Americans. And then they went into cover-up mode. They
put politics first and violated the “leave no man behind” military code.

And with a complicit mainstream media they got away with it, and Obama got
re-elected. Politics and personal career ambitions should never trump human
life. But in the Obama/Clinton regime, it does.

My heart goes out to the victims’ families.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at
her Washington home (DSCC
<https://d1ly3598e1hx6r.cloudfront.net/sites/dscc/files/uploads/9.9.14%20HRC%20Dinner.pdf>
)

·  September 12 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a DGA fundraiser (
Twitter <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/507209428274143234>)

·  September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak
Fry (LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html>
)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Transcatheter
Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference (CRF
<http://www.crf.org/tct/agenda/keynote-address>)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at Legal Services
Corp. 40th Anniversary (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas/status/507549332846178304>)

·  September 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a 9/11 Health Watch
fundraiser (NY Daily News
<http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/hillary-clinton-mark-9-11-anniversary-nyc-fundraiser-responders-kin-blog-entry-1.1926372>
)

·  September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with
Pres. Obama (CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa
Citizen
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>)

·  October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>
)

 ·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)