to senior al qaeda leadership in pakistan. so there were clearly al qaeda ties. it is a stretch to inaccurate to make a sweeping and kata gore cal claim that al qaeda had nothing to do with this. and you make the focus that pointing all of this on al qaeda is focusing on the wrong thing. it is a strong man argument if you remember what the outcry was about after susan rice went on the shows, nobody knew who did it but it was a good belief that it was a terrorist attack and they took time until they did come out and say that. so it wasn t that it was al qaeda per se, even though i think there is evidence to show there were al qaeda affiliated groups, maybe they are affiliated but maybe not core al qaeda. but the description that the administration was giving wasn t accurate. these people were out and upset about a video and haphazardly attacked in benghazi, which
absolutely going to have to look into and take care of. with all the tension in the middle east, you have an administration eager to say this war is over and when they retreat, caus ensues. that s what we re seeing. no troops potentially left after 2014, in their mind, what is the benefit of having proper oversight of afghanistan because we re just going to be leaving anyway. here s another sort of deeply disturbing part of a deeply disturbing story. 43 cases of this, according to the inspector general s report. 43 cases where we have contracts with al qaeda-affiliated groups but the u.s. army suspension office declines to act to end these contracts, although we now are aware of it because they do not want to deny due process to the people with whom we have contracts, which, first of all, i don t know where we get due process. that s in the constitution and has to do with, you know, when you get, when you get arrested or something. but the whole idea that what kind of due process whe
what was a little bit different was the obama campaign also raised the criminal prosecution and claimed that the activity was criminal. kind of a stretch when you deal with first amendment speech to deal with that it could be criminal. in hindsight when you combine this with what happened since whether it is the president criticizing the united speech state of the union address and massive call for additional disclosure requirements and pushed by the senate democratic leadership calls on other agencies to do thing about these so-called shadowy groups. it starts to look pretty bad when one tried to raise the criminal specter on what s otherwise protected political speech. prior to 2001, i think it was, that llois lerner was head of the fec. she was head of the division for a little bit at the fec and
campaign against us, full disclosure, but bob bauer contacted the fec about the conservative group and the fec takes that water and carries it over to the irs to lois lerner. sort of. there s two groups at issue. one is the american future fund which i mentioned and the american issues project. the one bob bauer was asking about? the presidential campaigns filed a group against them as did a reform group from washington, d.c. they were pretty hot and heavy about an ad that ran at the time of the democratic national convention and claimed the ad was illegal because it was banned political speech and as we know since the citizens united decision struck that ban, much of that complaint went away. anything that bob bauer did, i m going back to obama, anything that bob bauer did that was peculiar as he s making this question q to the fec? i don t think there s anything peculiar at the time that he filed a complaint. campaigns file complaints all the time against people they don
that s happening. when we re funding the enemy to kill us, why do we suddenly have to worry about due process? i don t think we do, and that s why this is a shame and that s why when the 43 i guess contracts were discovered they should be shut down and terminated immediately and new procedures need to be put in place to make sure we re properly vetting locals to are taking contracts, albeit smaller at billions of dollars spent but the contracts and tax money nonetheless. we ought to ensure we re vetting the folks to assure there s no ties to al qaeda or the taliban and that not one dollar of american money is going to fund weapons against our troops. maybe we should start naming who authorized these contracts. maybe we should start doing that. sounds good to me. who made these contracts with the al qaeda affiliated groups? that s a good question. congress doesn t award the contracts. it s up to the administration and pentagon, but when we find out about this we can be on top of