America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Uh oh: CNN says their sources say Obama not truthful about Libya


CNN says they were hearing from their sources that the Benghazi attack was a pre-planned terrorist attack right after it happened. But then the Obama administration started using these talking points about a mob getting out of control, and CNN says their sources couldn’t corroborate that. The fact that the Obama administration left out of the talking points what they already knew, that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group can only mean, according to one former intelligence official, that the administration was trying to cover something up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WOdfJ4AbcI



Can you say WMD children? Very good. I knew that you could.

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary


Jihadists twice set off explosives at the consulate prior to the incident that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, and announced threats on Facebook about escalating attacks on Western targets in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary, according to whistleblowers reaching out to House Republicans.
In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.


Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

The new information disclosed in the letter obtained by The Daily Beast strongly suggests the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens were known by U.S. security personnel to be targets for terrorists. Indeed, the terrorists made their threats openly on Facebook.

For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.

In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that “after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.”

A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff. But this official also acknowledged that the ambassador was “an old-school diplomat” and strongly desired to have as few barriers between himself and the Libyan people.


A picture shows broken furniture outside the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi on September 13, 2012, following an attack on the building late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other US nationals were killed. (Gianluigi Guercia, AFP / Getty Images)

The letter also discloses for the first time a bombing at the U.S. consulate that occurred on April 6, 2012. It says that on that day, two former security guards for the consulate in Benghazi threw homemade improvised explosives over the consulate fence. That incident resulted in no casualties. The Wall Street Journal first reported last month that on June 6 militants detonated an explosive at the perimeter gate of the consulate, blowing a hole through the barrier. The letter to Clinton quotes one source who described the crater as “big enough for forty men to go through.”

Obama administration officials have said there was no specific intelligence predicting the 9/11 anniversary assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. A senior State Department official acknowledged that there were five serious attacks on Western targets since the spring in the lead-up to the attack on the 9/11 anniversary. Speaking of the June 6 attack at the consulate’s perimeter gate, this official said, “The IED attack caused no loss of life and no injury. The wall acted as designed. It absorbed it.” This official said that compared with the 9/11 anniversary assault, the earlier attacks in Benghazi were mild. “We faced a coordinated, military-style assault. We’ve never seen that kind of attack before,” this official added.

Until Sept. 19, eight days after the consulate attack, senior administration officials had said it resulted spontaneously from riots at the U.S. embassy in Cairo against an Internet video denigrating the Muslim prophet. Spokesmen for the State Department and the National Security Council did not return emails late Monday evening.

Rep. Chaffetz told The Daily Beast Monday that the allegations detailed in the letter were based on whistleblowers he described as “people who have firsthand knowledge of the incidents themselves.” Chaffetz declined to provide more details about the whistleblowers other than to say they were U.S. government employees and there were fewer than 10 of them.

A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff.

In some cases the incidents against U.S. personnel or Libyans working to protect U.S. personnel were mild. In April a U.S. foreign-service officer stationed in Benghazi was attending a “trade-related event” at the International Medical University when the security forces of the university got into a fistfight and then a gunfight with the security detail for the trade delegation. Eventually the American officer had to be evacuated by the local Libyan militia that provided security for the consulate, known as the February 17 Brigade.

On May 1 at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the deputy commander of the embassy’s local security force was “carjacked, beaten, and detained by a group of armed youth.” Eventually the man escaped his captors and phoned the embassy. “Libyan security forces fought a gun battle with the assailants in order to recover a number of stolen vehicles and release other detainees,” the letter says.

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.

“This was not a safe country on its way to a normalized situation. It was a very volatile situation,” Chaffetz told The Daily Beast.

The House Oversight Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Oct. 10 on the threats leading up to the attack.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/02/u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html



Well, they're persistent little buggars...gotta give them that...try, try, try again I always say. Speaking of which...look how hard the President is STILL wanting you to believe it's about a YouTube video!!!

what a bitch.....

Damn Bush....

”Excuse me, are you the singing Bush?”

Politics vs. a dead diplomat?

toMAYto, toMAto.

I was going to create a seperate thread for this post.

The gravity of this is pretty monumental. Pay attention to the date when it was posted. Read it twice.

As Americans we have been lied to by every facet of this administration about this terrorist attack. People were killed and treated like trash. Our embassy in Libya is OUR property. It was invaded. This is an out and out act of war by a regime we helped put in power by toppling the last one. Then, at the debate the other night...our President lied again about this issue. He's out of control. He cannot stop lying.


U.S. Drones Never Left Libya; Will Hunt Benghazi Thugs


By Spencer Ackerman - September 12, 2012 3:24 pm

The skies over Libya were clogged with U.S. Predator drones during last year’s war. But just because the war officially ended in October didn’t mean the drones went home.

A Defense Department official tells Danger Room that the U.S. has kept drone flights flying over Libya, despite the conflict that initially brought them to Libyan airspace ending nearly a year ago.

“Yes, we have been flying CAPs since the war ended,” says Army Lt. Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman. (CAPs is a military acronym for “combat air patrols,” a term of art that typically refers to several planes flying at once for a particular mission.) The drone flights, done for surveillance purposes, occur with the consent of the new Libyan government.

The Defense Department did not release further details about the drone flights. But CNN is reporting that drone flights will assist in spotting the perpetrators of Tuesday’s lethal attack on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi.

Last year’s war brought drones to Libya in force, both for surveillance missions and to attack Gadhafi loyalists. Between April 21 and October 21, 2011, Predators launched 145 strikes on ex-regime targets. That was twice the barrage drones unleashed in all of 2011 on tribal Pakistan, the place commonly thought of as the epicenter of U.S. drone strikes.

In fact, the Libya war’s first U.S. casualty was a drone helicopter. And apparently, NATO’s announcement on October 21, 2011 that the war was over had a caveat for flying robots.


The drones won’t be the only tool in Libya to “bring to justice the killers who attacked our people,” to use President Barack Obama’s phrase about the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi. A team of about 50 Marines is en route to Libya, for an as-yet unclear mission that could range from securing U.S. personnel in the country to evacuating them. Defense Department officials have been vague all day about U.S. military assets envisioned to avenge the deaths of four Americans.

It is unknown what exactly motivated a crowd in Benghazi to attack U.S. diplomatic personnel. The attack, which took place in at least two waves and involved small arms fire and rocket attacks, was initially thought to be motivated by a movie mocking the Prophet Muhammad made by a mysterious American filmmaker. But later reports suggest that militant organizations might have planned an assault, instead of a spontaneous protest turning violent. Reuters reported that Libyan officials blamed a militant organization called Ansar al-Sharia. Noman Benotman, a Libyan former Islamic extremist, claims that the attack was a reprisal for the U.S. killing a Libyan al-Qaida leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in Pakistan.

The White House has taken an initially agnostic position. “There is a lot of press speculation for who did this and why but at this stage it would be premature to ascribe any motive to this reprehensible act,” Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, tells Danger Room. “As the President said, make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And one of the tools for that purpose will be robotic.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-drone-war/


Our Tourist In Chief had to get his beauty rest the night ambassador Stevens was killed. He knew the place was under seige and waited till the morning to find out what happened like it was some baseball game or a tv show. See this for what he showing us all. He's unfit to command our military. THE primary task he has and he won't do it when he needs to. He out and out brags about killing OBL though. I guess he went on a vacation there in Pakistan, grabbed a sniper rifle off the shelf and shot a tall muslim with kidney failure and dyes his hair and beard! Yeah. Funny they didn't find a kidney dialysis machine in that "compound"...then dumped the body overboard...after the SEAL team stated that he "looked younger than they imagined". The centerpiece of his Presidency that he heralded is ObamaCare...a dismal failure already and a bailout to Big Pharma and a boon for lawers from sea to shining sea, OBL is dead and GM is alive...well whatever about OBL...GM? Its going down again. Despite all the thuggery the UAW conned this fool and his handlers they haven't fixed a thing there. Cost overruns...products people don't want...all done with taxpayer's money! At the end of the day, despite all the lies this community organizer throws against the wall...Hope & Change sucks.

'If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to Comedy Central question about shifting story after Benghazi attack


President Barack Obama, during an interview shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme that was broadcast last night. Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

But Obama's response sparked outrage among Republican commentators including the website Breitbart and prompted a vicious backlash from the Twitter community.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 - an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

Stewart asked: 'Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? 'Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.

'Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.'

Obama responded: 'Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

He continued: 'We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.


'And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it.

'Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans.

'And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.'

The word 'optimal' was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama's use of it, in a sound bite that could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up conservatives on the internet after it was first reported in a White House pool report by Mike Memoli of the 'Los Angeles Times'.

The website Breitbart criticised the president for playing down the deaths of the four Americans when he used words such as 'crude and disgusting' to describe the anti-Muslim YouTube video that was initially linked to the attacks.

'To reiterate: deaths of Americans are "not optimal," and "bumps in the road." A YouTube video is "bigotry," "blasphemy," "crude and disgusting," an "insult," and inhuman,' commentator Ben Shapiro wrote.

'The left is already saying that the 'not optimal' quote has been taken out of context; they were saying that Stewart used the word 'optimal' first.

'The problem: it's far worse in context. Stewart said that the White House response was 'not the optimal response.' Obama responded not by tackling the White House response, but by calling the murders 'not optimal.'
Shapiro added: '"Not optimal." Now that's disgusting.'

The Twitter backlash was almost instantaneous, with the president's use of Stewart's phrase giving birth to the hashtag #NotOptimal. The dedicated hashtag was trending at around 7:30pm ET.

Obama's slip could help Mitt Romney recover from an awkward moment in the presidential debate in Long Island, New York on Tuesday when he challenged Obama over whether he had initially characterised the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

During a question about security at the Benghazi compound, Obama said he was ultimately responsible as commander-in-chief. Romney then questioned whether or not Obama had called the consulate attack an 'act of terror' in his Rose Garden address the following day.

While Obama cut across Romney - saying 'get the transcript' - the Republican turned to Candy Crowley, the CNN anchor and moderator, and said; 'I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.'

Crowley responded: 'He did in fact, sir.' To clapping in the debate hall, including from Obama's wife Michelle, in breach of the debate rules, Obama said: 'Can you say that a little louder, Candy?'

The Daily Show: Mr Obama, left, was responding to a question from Jon Stewart, right


She continued: 'He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.'

The Romney campaign blasted Crowley and said that Obama had been referring only in general terms to 'acts of terror' rather than talking specifically about Benghazi, which Obama and White House blamed on the anti-Islam video for a fortnight.

Joe Trippi, the veteran Democratic strategist, told Fox News that the exchange was 'going to help the president', adding: 'There’s a ref, and the ref just threw the flag.'

In the Comedy central interview, Stewart referred to 'the perception that State was on a different page than you', noting that Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, falsely tied the attack to a protest over the video on a raft of Sunday talk shows some five days after the murders.

Obama interrupted him, saying: 'Jon, the truth is that information comes in, folks put it out throughout the process, people say it is still incomplete. What I was always clear about was we are going to do an investigation and figure out what happened.'

Asked what caused the confusion about what was behind the attack, he replied: 'Well, we weren't confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed, I wasn't confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened, I wasn't confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed and I wasn't confused about the fact that we were going to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice.

'So, as I said during the debate, nobody is more interested in figuring this out than I am. When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and you try to piece together exactly what happens.

'And what I have always tried to do is just get all the facts figure out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again and we're still in that process now. But every piece of information that we got as we got it we laid it out for the American people, and the picture eventually gets fully filled in and we know how to prevent it in the future.'

Stewart also asked whether Obama - who nearly three years ago ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year - had changed during his four years in office and whether he still believed 'we don't have to trade our values for our security'.

Obama said: 'We don't, there's some things that we haven't gotten done, I still want to close Guantanamo, we haven't been able to get that done. One of the things that we've got to do is put a legal architecture in place and we need congressional help to do that to make sure that not only am I reigned in, but any president's reigned in in terms of some of the decisions that we're making.

'Now there's some tough trade-offs, I mean there are times when there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world and you've got to make a call and it's not optimal.

'When you look at our track record as to say we've ended the war in Iraq, we're winding down the war in Afghanistan we've gone after al-Qaeda and it's leadership, it's true that al-Qaeda is still active at least remnants of it are staging in North Africa and the Middle East and sometimes you've got to make some tough calls, but you can do so that is consistent with international law and American law.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219867/President-Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-If-4-Americans-killed-OPTIMAL.html


Too bad assclowns like Jon Stewart weren't so busy actually vetting a guy for the Presidency BUT it is Comedy Central...the one network that the Kenyan King chose...I mean he wants ALL Americans to understand how clear America comes, wait WTF did he say?...transparent as mud!...this guy was NEVER ready for Primetime. I'm not talking about Stewart...he makes me laugh because his schtick is predicated on how serious he takes himself being a "news" reporter. His halfwitted accomplice Colbert completely embraces the jackassery of it all, Stewart...he's no better than Whoopie Goldberg! He does pull in more viewers though...I think...maybe...I KNOW he gets more than Ratchet Madcow and Tingles Matthews combined!

Gotta give him credit for even daring to utter a question instead of leghumping the Empty Suit!

Because they're not racists DAMNIT!

http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/bengahzi-email-smoking-gun.jpg





Funny...those leaked emails don't mention how pissed off the people were about a YouTube video.

Hmmm...2 hours after it started and 2 hours before the ambassador was killed...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back Wednesday on the suggestion that Sept. 11 emails implicating an Al Qaeda-tied group in the Libya consulate attack were proof of terrorist involvement, saying their claims of responsibility on Facebook and Twitter were not "evidence."

Though social media was vital in driving -- and monitoring -- the so-called Arab Spring that overthrew longtime dictators in Libya and other countries, Clinton dismissed it as an unreliable source after a series of internal emails sent by Clinton's State Department staff surfaced in which officials reported within hours of the attack that militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility in Internet postings.

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence," Clinton said. "And I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."

She suggested those producing the emails were "cherrypicking" documentation, as the White House noted the organization reportedly had denied responsibility in other settings.

"I think within a few hours that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

But the group is a prime suspect. Indeed, one suspect in custody in Tunisia is a member of Ansar al-Sharia, one lawmaker told Fox News.

Three Republican senators, in a letter Wednesday to the White House, said they were "disturbed" by the latest email revelations, claiming it "adds to the confusion" about what the administration knew of the attacks.

"In television interviews nearly a week after the events in Benghazi, you yourself even refused to describe it as a terrorist attack, instead emphasizing the role played by a hateful video. This concerted misrepresentation of the facts of the case -- facts that, it appears, you and your administration possessed almost as soon as the attack began -- is why so many of our constituents are demanding a fuller explanation of why your administration responded as it did," wrote Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. They called on the president to "address the American people directly" on what happened.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/24/clinton-downplays-emails-implicating-al-qaeda-tied-group-within-hours-libya/#ixzz2AFYwWW2i

Film at 11....

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say
By Jennifer Griffin

Published October 26, 2012

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."

Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to US officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the US, finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the Consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources. The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the Ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.



This is sickening......

Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty

Enough facts are in the public record about the Benghazi murders of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others, including two Marines, that a final judgment can be rendered on President Obama’s handling of the affair. Obama’s actions, or inactions, amounted to dereliction of duty, and worse.

The Obama Administration received requests for additional security from the Embassy and the Ambassador himself as early as February. An embassy cable on June 25 expressed fear of rising Islamic extremism in eastern Libya around Benghazi, and noted that the black flag of Al-Qaeda “has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.” On August 2, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable requesting 11 additional body guards, noting “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach,”

But these requests for additional security were repeatedly denied, as security officials testified before Chairman Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Obama and his allies did not want a show of American force in the country that would offend Muslim sensibilities. They wanted to rely instead on the host country’s security that the embassy was telling them was inadequate and could not be depended upon.

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

““The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

The IBD editorial summarized the situation by the next morning as follows:

““When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of September 12, they likely knew [correction: they surely knew] the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists. They knew because they were privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven hour blitz. According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.”

By then everyone knew how the battle of Benghazi had turned out. The United States Ambassador to Libya, the personal representative of President Barack Obama, had been tortured, sodomized, dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi, and murdered. Chris Stevens, along with the two Marines and another who were murdered along with him, had volunteered to serve his country. But under the leadership of Barack Obama, that is how his service ended.

By the evening of that next day, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama was jetting off to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas, followed by parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Chris Stevens was already out of sight, out of mind. Except that Commander Obama could not wash off the stench of dereliction of duty, duty to far more worthy American warriors and servicemen, dereliction in failing to authorize worthy security for those who were sent in harms way under his leadership, and to order a timely rescue when he could. For such failure, any commander serving under the commander-in-chief should be court martialed. But the President expects you to give him four more years of such “leadership.”

The Truth-Challenged President

But the saga did not end there for the American people. The rest of us had to endure the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and UN Ambassador “explaining” to us that what really happened was that those irascible Muslims were all incited out of their minds by a previously unseen, unheard of You Tube video trailer by an unknown American immigrant, a movie that was never made outside the trailer advertising it, in Fool on the Hill style. Their protest had just got out of hand, you see.

Except they all knew when they were saying these very words that they were untrue. They were precisely calculated to deceive and to mislead. Yet there was our President Obama telling this mendacious fairy tale to the entire world at the U.N. And there was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice telling the American people the same concocted fairy tale. Typical Progressives, they were so certain that they could easily buffalo a majority of their countrymen, no smarter than the representative Homer Simpson.

An incredulous IBD editorialized, “How could emails be sent to the White House Situation Room in real time describing a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. territory in which four Americans were killed as it happened, and as a drone flew overhead recording the truth of the carnage, and the President and Secretary of State insist that it was all about a video and there was no evidence to the contrary.”

Or as Glenn Beck (yes Glenn Beck, and you can go read some New York Times lying propaganda if you don’t like it), summarized at his website The Blaze,

““The president of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They have lied to you and said this might be a video; we don’t have all the information; the information is still sketchy; it’s confusing. No. We now have the documents. We now have the documents that came into the situation room saying there’s an attack; they’re watching. Then we have the documents that we have a live video feed in the situation room, so they could see that there was no protest.”

How Clueless Does He Think We Are?

But the lies did not end even there. The President then went into a nationally televised debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, and before the whole country, expected to pull off another lie denying that he had lied, indeed, denying that what the entire country had just seen and heard, from him, from his Secretary of State, from his U.N. Ambassador, had even just happened.

Obama explained at the debate, “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”

An exasperated Mitt Romney, shocked at the brazenness of this Soviet style propaganda, exclaimed, “I think interesting the President just said something which – which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror.” “That’s what I said,” Obama lied in response. Romney leaped at the brazen discrepancy with reality, saying “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama replied, “Get the transcript.”

It was a transparently pre-arranged, Soviet propaganda style, ambush that the supposed moderator Candy Crowley then jumped in to say, “He did in fact sir.” Obama then brazenly demonstrated his mastery over the Democrat Party controlled media, outright ordering right there before the American people, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Crowley stood at attention, saluted, and “reported”: “He did call it an act of terror.”

This was so transparently pre-arranged because the transcript of the next day’s Rose Garden ceremony, in fact, does not report what Obama fantasized and Crowley “reported.” The transcript in plain black and white shows that Obama was not even talking about Benghazi when he mentioned terror, but about terrorism more generally, as displayed on 9/11. Do you see precisely the further “calculated deception?”

Romney alone among the three, ever sharp as a tack, and fully on top of the facts, persisted in recalling the truth: “The Administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction….It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group.”

Obama again interrupted and appealed to his plant for a further bailout, calling out, “Candy?” But Romney maintained his control and his ever classy demeanor, and unruffled by the blatant, Soviet style propaganda he was enduring, cut off this interruption, “Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous…” But Obama interrupted again, appealing further for help, “Candy, I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.” Crowley took the cue again from the Boss, “I know you, absolutely, but I want to move you on….” A relieved Obama responded with obvious joy, “OK. I’m happy to do that too.”

This spectacle of the President lying about his own lies to a national debate audience is unprecedented in American politics. It shows an absurdly haughty attitude, and an arrogant disrespect for the intelligence and awareness of the American people. But an Obama supporter calling into the Glenn Beck radio program indicated that Obama may be on to something after all. When Beck asked her, “Where is Benghazi?” she responded, “He is at Walmart.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amount-to-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/



OBAMA LIED....PEOPLE DIED!

We'll make more diplomats. We got plenty of spares.

Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster


The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at AFRICOM after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18.

Tiger Droppings reported:

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”

Hat Tip Tom

More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

The Stars and Stripes reported:

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/


http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/obama-administration-replaces-top-generals-following-benghazi-disaster/24573/

A general falls on his sword. An honorable soldier that attained a 4 star rank. They don't just pass those out to quartermaster schlubs! The Kenyan King has failed as his main job...Commander In Chief. Now others are taking the dive for his YouTube video!

Bigger than Watergate: Proof that the President is Lying about Benghazi?

Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying:

The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News:

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS! This is far bigger than Watergate.

The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die.

The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.

Update: Even with two Predators on station, one unarmed and filming and one armed, the call to stand down comes from the same sources. Earlier today, Bob Owens at PJ Media posts about the responsibility of the order to call off the mission as well as some good info about the AC130s on station.

Update 2: From Adam Baldwin and many of you, here is an audio interview between Rush Limbaugh and a caller identifying as a retired SF Lieutenant Colonel and Special Operations planner for 15 years.

From The Right Scoop:

Update 3: Jeff Emanuel thinks that we might be jumping to conclusions and that Jennifer Griffin at FoxNews might have misreported a statement about active laser on a target. I highly respect Jeff and Jennifer. And either could be correct right now. Hopefully, we'll get some clarification.

Update 4: From quoted retired Delta operator, "Jeff is correct (about lasing without air asset) but the only reason you would do that is to determine a specific grid for indirect fire which the SEAL did not have available. You are in an active firefight against mortars and MGs; there is only one reason to cease returning fire and paint a target and it ain't because you thought it was a good time to pull a PMCS on your **** GLD."

Update 5: The only way I buy that the former SEAL was lasing the target without an active asset to synch to and destroy the target...maybe, just maybe, it was a last stand move. Maybe he did that to give the inbounds a target if he didn't make it...

Update 6 (updated twice): Another (very very trusted) source is saying that the AC130 Marine resources were in the middle of a rotation and that the new Marine resources weren't ready yet so no help would come from Sigonella. So that confirms Panetta's statement.

Update 7: The retired Delta operator sends some thoughts regarding "The Panetta Doctrine" - aka "The Dumbest **** I Ever Heard Doctrine"


http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/bigger-than-watergate-proof-that-the-president-is-lying-about-benghazi.html


Where's the media????

Sending additional forces into a foreign country always requires the president's approval. He was either absent, or refused "CBA".

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House?

If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: “I think we should not go the military action route,” meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: “We should do what we can to help them … but no military intervention from outside of Libya.” Those words then constitute “standing orders” all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.

When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.

And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on “loose cannons” or “rogue officers” exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “the U.S. military doesn’t do risky things”-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/benghazis-smoking-gun-only-president-can-give-%E2%80%98cross-border-authority%E2%80%99/?singlepage=true


Drip...drip...drip...where is the compliant media in all this?

His fake name put people in danger????


How bout der Leaders use of him as a patsy....

Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II)


Author’s note: This is part two of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. In this part, the insider provides information about the events of the attack and the continuation of the cover-up at the highest levels of our government. (For Part I, please click here).



We’ve heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened?

First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location.

The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner time, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness.



It’s also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don’t know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation.

Now I’ll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. and intermittently throughout the day. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination.

It’s also noteworthy to point out that the Turkish counsel general most likely passed through one or more of these checkpoints, or at least would have noticed that things were not right in the area. You must remember that just as Stevens was previously CIA working under diplomatic cover, the Turkish counsel general was his counterpart. It’s typical spy versus spy stuff.

Also consider this. One of the men stationed at the compound, a British national, left the compound at about 9:20 p.m., reportedly to get more phone cards. That’s right, phone cards, like you would buy at Walmart. Why? Because the men at the compound ran out of minutes. Just who do you think they were talking to that day to burn through the minutes, and why do you think they needed them at that exact time?

They were using the phones as a last and perhaps only line of communications to provide assessments of the strange things going on earlier. They knew that something was being planned and they were conveying that information - their observations to those who could assist them, in Tripoli and DC.

Based on these activities, it is clear that the men at the compound suspected that they were in trouble long before the first shot was ever fired. They were calling anyone who would listen, or who should have listened. We knew trouble was brewing and no one responded in any meaningful way.

Could the man who left to buy more phone cards have known what was about to take place?

Well, it’s possible, but there is no indication of that.

Was the Turkish counsel general in on this, to set Stevens up?

Well, what have we heard from our government? Has anyone even bothered to interview him? What did he say? Don’t forget, this administration decided to handle this attack as a crime and not a terrorist attack. How long did it take for the FBI to be able to access the ‘crime scene’ after the attack? More importantly, what was left at the ‘crime scene’ to examine by the FBI due to this delay? Do you think the delay was accidental?

Do you know what was discussed, or the reason for the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish consul general?

Yes, I know some key points. First, keep in mind what this arms running operation was all about. It was to topple Assad and replace him with a Muslim Brotherhood leader. It was to destabilize Syria to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. They were using U.S. and NATO forces to do exactly that.

However, Assad is no Gaddafi, and there is no comparison between Assad’s army and the Libyan army. It would take much more than rebels inside Syria to topple Assad. There is no way on earth that the Syrian rebels, or Free Syrian Army, has the capability to accomplish this objective alone. It required U.S. assistance, arms and training.

Now, Turkey is a NATO ally. They were assisting the Obama-Clinton-Saudi plan to funnel weapons ultimately to Syria, but the primary staging areas for these weapons were in Turkey near the Syrian border. Visual surveillance by Russia, using satellites and other means amassed photographic documentation of the U.S. assisting the ‘anti-Assad rebels’ inside Turkey. They developed evidence of the U.S. training these rebels and assisting them into Syria to fight against Assad.

Think about this. What if surveillance images observed anti-Assad rebels being trained to handle and mount chemical weapons - gas shells - onto rockets? The process would be apparent and would obviously be detected by a number of visual indicators. Obviously, Syria wanted this to stop. By extension, so did Russia.

One aspect of the weapons plan was to set up a false flag operation to make it appear that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Imagine the outcry from the civilized world to the news that Assad ‘gassed’ his own people. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to openly intervene. Don’t forget about the timing of all of this. Two months before the elections, and time was running out. The job of taking out Assad was not yet complete. Such an event would quickly advance this agenda. By this time, however, being caught and placed in a rather unenviable position between Russia and the U.S., the Turkish consul general was in a ‘CYA, clean-up’ mode, assuring that none of the chemical weapons that might have still been in Libya were headed for Turkey.

It is also important to understand that the covert weapons running operation was just about finished. An estimated 40 million pounds of weapons were already shipped from Libya, and things were winding down.

There was another issue as well, a very important and telling one. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent had been kidnapped or snatched from the streets of Benghazi on or about July 31, 2012. Again you must understand that virtually anyone walking on the streets of Benghazi not indigenous to the area are spies. Covert operatives, operating under various covers. From all nations.

Along with the message that the weapons running operation was compromised, the Iranians had good reason to suspect that the ‘Red Crescent workers’ were snatched by the CIA or with their assistance. Iran wanted them back. They were spies, and countries want their spies back! So part of the meeting was to address this, as there was pressure by Russia against a wavering Turkey to switch sides. Anyway, you’ll see how this ties in to the way the actual attack was executed.

Please continue.

So at 9:30 pm local time, the compound began to take on small arms fire. Based on all reports I’ve reviewed, there were three twelve-man attack teams armed with small arms, RPGs, and other sophisticated military style weapons. These were not run-of-the-mill street weapons, but military issued type weapons. The types of weapons alone scream that this was a preplanned attack.

Eyes on the area [author’s note: satellites, surveillance drones] confirmed that two of these teams surrounded the villa and the annex. The third team was elsewhere, lying in wait. The two teams began their assault on the compound where Stevens was inside about an hour after the Turkish counsel general left. Remember, he had to pass the checkpoints after the meeting. Just keep that in mind.

Anyway, we all know now that there was an intense firefight that lasted nearly nine hours during which four Americans, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were killed. And of course that attack was not over a video and there were no protests before the attack.

Now there are questions that are not being asked. The two well-armed ‘hit teams’ had the capability to reduce the compound and annex to rubble quickly. Why a protracted firefight? There are a couple of reasons.

First, what was the makeup of the ‘hit teams,’ or who were the attackers? We have verified that the attackers were a combination of members of Ansar al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), but they were operating under the flag of Ansar al Sharia. Who is Ansar al Sharia? Iranian terrorists. They are a terrorist group that receives their training by and funding from Iran. Now think about this. Carefully consider the implications here. IRAN. It’s the elephant in the room no one wants to mention or talk about.

The attack on our ambassador and our people - Americans - was an attack by Iran. It was an attack at a nation-state level.

AQIM also assisted. They are indigenous to Africa and are extremely dangerous. AQIM is a very ‘elite’ and extremely well-funded group, and very limited in number. Our last assessment suggests that there are only 400 or so members, but they are very influential across Africa and into South and Central America and Western Europe. Their importance and relevance will become evident shortly.

The reason that they did not just take out the compound and everything and everyone in it is that they were looking for their spies. Remember the Red Crescent workers? The Iranian spies? They suspected that they might be held at the annex. As such, they wanted to free them and did not want to risk killing them.

Oh, and there were others ‘missing’ as well. AQIM members. These were terrorists involved in drug running operations from the Tri-border (TBA) areas of South America through North Africa and into Western Europe. By the way, this is the way they made their money. Drugs sell at higher profits in Western Europe than elsewhere, so there is money to be made. The problem is that some of them got caught—snatched up in Benghazi and northeastern Libya.

Now regarding AQIM, this has a direct connection not only to South America, but also to Mexico and Mexican drug gangs. You think that what’s going on in Libya is just ‘over there,’ and far away from the U.S. and has nothing to do with our safety and security? Think again, but more on this in a bit.

There’s also another reason. The hit teams fully expected rescue teams from the U.S. to be dispatched to the compound. Certainly, calls for help went out. By waiting for the back-up or rescue forces, a surprise assault by the other ‘hit team’ team would have exposed our forces to possible causalities and turned the event into a much bigger event where the actual nature of the operation could be exposed to the world. Instead of being a cover-up for which they have yet to be held accountable, it would have been an international incident that would have exposed the entire affair.

So the Ansar al Sharia attack groups deliberately conducted a protracted assault on the compound. Just imagine, our men and even the bad guys never expected team Obama would leave our people twisting in the wind, fighting for their lives. That alone should speak volumes to every American.

As daylight approached, they had to wrap things up so they could disappear under the cover of darkness. Oh, and the crowds that are often cited by this administration, did form in the area as the attack progressed, much like a growing mob in riot. They provided the fog, or the cover, that permitted the attackers to escape amid the crowd.

You mentioned the missing Iranian Red Crescent workers and members of AQIM. Were they ever released or found?

Yes, and this is an extremely important part of this entire story. This reaches into the highest levels of our government. This is so very important that it must be addressed separately.

So the attack was first and the crowd came later. I noted that the administration said that there were protests going on at the Embassy in Cairo at the same time and they compared it to Benghazi.

Yes, that’s their cover story and they know that there is absolutely no comparison. This is one huge lie that is easily addressed and put out of its misery.

How soon did U.S. intelligence officials know who was responsible for the attack?

Almost immediately, if not concurrent with the attack. Every part of that area is under active aerial surveillance by the U.S. There was SIGINT or communication intercepts at the time of the attack. Then, there was even an admission by the attackers. Obama knew. Hillary knew. Clapper knew. Everyone knew, expect the American people. And you know what? The American media knew as well.

I heard a statement that they did not admit knowledge to avoid alerting the perpetrators.

Yes, it was said that Rice and others did not want to alert the ‘bad guys’ or tip their hand or some such nonsense, but did that mean that Susan Rice, for example, had to appear on national television and lie to every one of us, to the country? In my opinion, Rice took on the temporary job of propaganda minister for a day in exchange for a shot at Secretary of State in the future.

You are painting quite a dire picture.

It gets worse, much worse, and it involves real threats across the globe and even to us here in the United States. But it’s all because of our actions, the covert weapons running from Libya to Syria by way of Turkey at the direction of Barack Obama and his Saudi ‘handlers.’

FORTY THOUSAND men, women and children are dead in Syria as a direct result of this attempt at nation building, or tearing down Assad. There are four dead Americans. We are arming some of the very people who are killing our troops. Not only are we on the wrong side of this, we are actively pushing the world to the precipice of World War III.

We are engaged in a real war here with Iran and Syria and by extension, with Russia and China. And we are being lied to about it every step of the way. And the lies are getting worse, but so are the attempts to stop the truth from getting out.

What do you mean?

What do you think the recent directive issued by Obama, the one you wrote about ‘insider threats,’ is all about? Obama does not want the American people to know the truth about what is going on. He’s doubled down to stop leaks, like this. But you know what? He just might be too late, because we’re not done here. I’m not done talking, and there’s much more that needs to be exposed.

The Kenyan King is a lying POS!


Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)
Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:
QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html


Defend this POS and his lies all you want. Here's 4 dead American's blood clearly on his hands and he wants to play duck and cover to hide the facts his administration was gun running to the rebels.

It was exactly 40 years ago Nixon was blown out of the water for lying and covering stuff up. Wake up America. You've been hoodwinked...bamboozled.

Reagan couldn't even remember what he needed to do.

How do we know she doesn't? Her psychic\astrologer probably told her all about them in the 80s.

Reagan would have sold the Libyans the torches in order to pay fot the insurgency in syria.

As for blood on folks hands, god will sort that out. I'd be nervous if I was the Big O or Cornwallace.