You are on page 1of 252

9/11 Anniversar y: Obama Administration Apologizes to Murdering Muslim Mobs

September 12th 2012

On the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 murders of thousands by Muslim terrorists, the terrorists were at it again as two mobs in two Islamic countries attacked two American diplomatic facilities, killing at least one American and wounding another. The Obama Administrations reaction was to send a swift and clear message to the Muslim radicals rampaging through the streets of the newly democratic countries we helped create: We understand why youre upset, and were sorry. The excuse for the murderous attacks was a film by Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American realestate developer who posted clips on YouTube. The film allegedly portrays Islams founder, Mohammed, as a child molester, womanizer and killer. OK, reality check: According to historical sources, Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and he started having sex with her when she was 9. Mohammed had several other wives as well. And he is recorded as having ordered hundreds of beheadings. I havent seen the film yet, but it sounds like Muslims are, yet again, upset at someone telling the truth about Mohammed. Here is the statement issued by the Obama Administration in reaction to the Muslim attacks: The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. One would think this was a horrible, outrageous joke. But it's not. It's the actual statement. It's kind of reminiscent of Obama's response to 9/11 itself. Just a week after the collapse of the Twin Towers, then State Senator Obama published a piece in the Hyde Park Herald where he discussed 1

The more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others, he wrote. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad, he went on. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent." (That rhetoric was, of course, before his expanded use of drones meant more civilian deaths.) Note his big concerns: "understanding" the attackers and the preemptive denunciation of expected "bigotry or discrimination" against Middle Easterners bigotry that really never materialized. It is, however, revealing of his view of average Americans just as his administration's statement today likewise is dismayingly reflective of his concerns and priorities. GOP contender Mitt Romney sounded a whole lot more presidential: Im outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. Its disgraceful that the Obama Administrations first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. The same day that we were being attacked, it was revealed that the administration is negotiating a deal to give the Muslim Brotherhood $1 billion for buying Russian submarines. Officials are wondering if the attacks were coordinated. It seems pretty obvious they were, probably by that same Muslim Brotherhood our illustrious president thinks he has as a reliable ally in the Mideast. If Obama wants to apologize, let him apologize for pretending to be a competent president.

Islamofascists Declare War on America and Obama Administration Apologizes!!!

September 16th 2012

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill Its OK to burn a Bible, thats OK. OK to burn a flag, OK, thats all right. But just, you know, for heavens sake dont say anything that might offend someone of the Islamic religion. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), parodying Obama and his lackeys
On the 11th anniversary of the 9-11 atrocity, more Islamofascists launched a murderous assault on several American embassies in the Middle East. According to centuries of tradition and international law, an embassy from any country is a part of that country. Even worse, the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was brutally raped and murdered, then dragged through the streets by the baying bloodthirsty mob. Ambassadors legally have the full authority to represent the government of their host country, and are formally addressed by a form equivalent to that of the head of state himself, Your Excellency.

Obama administration apologizes to murderers of Americans!

The twin outrages of attacking American soil and the representative of the American head of state should make it clear that they were acts of war against America. But what has the Obama administration done? Why, it apologized for offending the delicate sensibilities of the Muslim darlings. The most infamous came from the US embassy in Egypt, and it was actually before the atrocities: The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslimsas we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. 3

Among other things, it shows that the Islamofascists dont care about apologies. Most Patriots would rather see an apology to the families of the ambassador and the three other murdered staff. And while theyre at it, how about apologizing to Catholics and Evangelicals (like Hobby Lobby) for having their religious consciences trampled by Obamacare, casualties of Obamas war against the Church. Newt Gingrich showed up the Democrats cowardice and self-delusions in his usual brilliant fashion: President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again perpetuated the kind of intellectual dishonesty that cripples the U.S. response to radical Islamists. The president asserted we have to oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence. This concept of senseless violence is at the heart of the lefts refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists. These are not acts of senseless violence. These are acts of war.

Liberals enable Islamofascists

Last year, on the 10th anniversary of the Islamofascist attack on this country, I wrote 911: One Decade On, and Lessons Not Learned. Now, on the 11th anniversary, its obvious that the liberals have still not learned their lesson. This should have been learned by Chamberlain who appeased the Nazis which encouraged them to launch WW2. But Obama on the other hand has been bowing to Islamic leaders while betraying Israel. Even more obscenely, Obama apologized to his Afghan counterpart after an Islamonazi killed two US soldiers, supposedly because the US Army had burned Korans. But these Korans had already been defaced with coded messages by the oh-so-devout Muslim prisoners. No apology of course was given to Christians after the US Army, under Obamas lapdog top brass, burned Bibles or after the last church in Afghanistan was demolished. Even worse, Obama has given taxpayer money and moral support to the Islamofascists who repaid the favor by murdering our people. Obama abetted the takeover of the once-moderate Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, replacing a relative allyand one who kept peace with our real ally Israelwith the Islamofascists who murder Christians and invade our embassy soil. And Obama, without backing from Congress, aided the Islamofascist rebels fighting to remove Gaddafi in Libya. While Gaddafi has lots of blood on his hands, after Reagan bombed his country, Gaddafi had largely behaved himself towards us. He even gave up his weapons of mass destruction in response to Bushs toppling of Saddam Hussein. What a great message to send world despotsdo the right thing, and well help your enemies. Indeed, Obama is proving to be even worse than his fellow leftist anti-Semite Jimmy Carter, who failed to support the Shah of Iran, a strong American ally, and allowed the mad mullahs to take over.

Ambassador fed the crocs who ate him

Its also sad to say that the late Ambassador played a big part in enabling the Islamofascists who repaid him with unspeakable atrocities. He was very eager to get to the center of the uprising, untroubled by the al Qaida members among the rebels. An article in FrontPage magazine, Christopher Stevens: Devoured by a Monster He Helped Create, comments that Stevens thought the Libyan relatives were very grateful to the help the US gave them. But: 4

There is no way to tell whether any of the Libyans expressing their gratitude to Stevens in April 2011 were among those who brutally tortured and murdered him on September 11, 2012, but its entirely within the realm of possibility. Whatever the case, Christopher Stevens has now become the quintessential symbol of what U.S. foreign policy is doing vis--vis the global jihad, and of what ultimately will be the outcome for the U.S. if this continues. His story also demonstrates yet again how the establishment Left creates monsters that then devour their creatorsas well as numerous bystanders. But even though Stevens naivety played a large part in his demise, this in no way justifies the atrocities. He was still the American Representative, and an attack on him was an attack on the country, and any decent Commander-in-Chief would treat it as such. Reagan would have used force to punish not only those responsible for the murders, but also their enablers in government. Come to think of it, the same is true of Obamas hero, FDR. But at the very least, Democrats should stop arming terrorists who attack us!

Attacks were planned

To make it even worse, clearly the silly anti-Islam film, the supposed reason for the attacks, really had nothing to do with the atrocities. These attacks were very well coordinated to coincide all the embassy attacks with the 9-11 anniversary, so they must have been planned for months. But on our side, there are reports that the Obama-lapdog ambassador to Egypt, Ann Patterson, did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition. Way to go! Now we have international proof that gun control costs lives by disarming victims, in this case because she neutered the marines.

Michelle Malkin slams Obamas indifference and appeasement

Its hard to do better than this must-watch clip by the fine conservative author Michelle Malkin on the Hannity Show: What was 911 about? Its not about will we ever forget never forget its: will we ever learn? This attitude of Dhimmitude that is killing Americans aboard. These optics suck, White House! I mean we have 4 Americans who are dead who were butchered and slaughtered because this administration did not have the foresight to fortify these embassies on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. And there he is with all of his fanboys and fangirls in Vegas raising money while they scream I love you! in the middle of an international crisis.

I hope that this will finally wake up Americans to how bad Obama really is, and how we must vote him out in November. I have lost all patience for those quasi-Patriots with their selfrighteous Romney is no better than Obama, vote my conscience, no difference between Republicans and Democrats and no lesser of evils slogans, who would contribute to another term of this Marxist-in-Chief who hates this country. For goodnesss sake, at least see the documentary 2016: Obamas America.

A Word to Rioting Muslims-Pat Condell!

We don't care if you're offended, and we never will. Get used to it!!!

Benghazi Obamas 9/11

October 15th 2012 By Leon Puissegar Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012, 11 years after September 11, 2001, when Al-Qaeda took down the twin towers in New York City drove a plane into the ground in Pennsylvania, and sent one into the Pentagon! Do you remember that? Or have you forgotten already? Sure Osama Bin Laden is dead, but those whom have followed him have risen up in the very country that our President Obama has helped change their leader, Libya! Not to mention groups in Egypt and all over the Middle East. Do you also remember a certain man named Obama that he would NOT spike the ball? Well Obama has Spiked the Ball and it has gotten the Al-Qaeda mad because Obama has also said that Al-Qaeda is on the run! How could they be on the run when they were responsible for the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack? Sorry, it was because of some movie clip made in June and being such slow minded people they did not catch on until September 11, 2012, the anniversary date of 9-11 for the United States! Was this really a terrorist attack? You can rest assured it was. One huge indicator was when the news media ran the crowd chanting and this is directly from the crowd in Egypt, We are Osama, Obama! Yes they did chant that in Egypt, but few if any news media will ever allow that to be aired again. But being the Coward he is, Obama decided that it would be better to once again, lay blame where blame was not due, on a movie that had been on the Internet for some three months prior to these attacks. Now what has Obama done about this? Actually many people former Navy Seals, former Generals under President Bush, and many more are wondering the same thing. Many of these people said that after the Attacks upon our embassies in Africa, within 72 hours plans were being made to find those responsible and aircraft were moved about for their use. But under Obama, it is better to run off to Las Vegas for a Campaign swing and fund raiser than to worry about a terrorist attack upon our nation. This was brought about by Obama spiking the football about Osama Bin Laden! What did President Obama do the very next day following the terrorist attack, that celebrated the 9/11 anniversary, which resulted in the murder of an U.S. ambassador and three other United States citizens? Obama, our very weak and lame President, decided to just go to Las Vegas and enjoy time with others to raise money for his campaign and meet crowds! Just look at what the White House Press Office released: 10:35AM THE PRESIDENT delivers a statement Rose Garden Open Press (Pre-Set 9:30AMFinal Gather 10:15AMNorth Doors of the Palm Room) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 11, 2012 DAILY GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 In the morning, the President will receive the Presidential Daily Briefing in the Oval Office. This meeting is closed press. In the afternoon, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada. The departure from the South Lawn and the arrival at McCarran International Airport are open press. 6

While in Las Vegas, the President will deliver remarks at a campaign event. The Presidents remarks at the Cashman Center are open to pre-credentialed media. In the evening, the President will depart Las Vegas, Nevada en route Aurora, Colorado. The departure from McCarran International Airport and the arrival at Buckley Air Force Base are open press. The President will remain overnight in Denver, Colorado. Now, had President Obama truly been worried about the safety or maybe even concerned about the terrorist attack on the United States consulate at Benghazi, Libya, he would have canceled this campaign event due to the deaths of four United States citizens, one of whom was a top Ambassador. Instead, not only did he just go to sleep the night of the incident, but he also did not make the intelligence meeting on the morning after, feeling it was much more important to get to Las Vegas for the fund raiser and to meet people to help him get re-elected. Is this what we want for a President who by the way did not answer the 3 AM call! We should consider this single incident. It was the White House that, up until, as recent as, last week said this was not a terrorist attack, but a result of anger due to a video that has been out there since June. Once again, the White House blames someone else and does not take responsibility for what they did, or in this case, failed to do. There are so many varied reports out about the Benghazi terrorist attack that it is hard to make sure one is not reading the same thing told differently. What we have to remember is the very real fact that it was Obama that stated the enemy, Al-Qaeda, is on the run. Yet, it now seems that this very group, that is supposed to be on the run, actually has bases here within the borders of the United States. It looks more like the enemy is here at home and we are just watching them to make sure they dont begin to kill United States citizens here at home! This is not acceptable nor is it correct. Al-Qaeda is our enemy and they are not on the run. In a report on Fox News this past Friday it was shown that across the United States they have bases where former criminals are now training at Al-Qaeda bases here in the United States, and the worst part of this is that they are just being watched! Some of these people are convicted felons and are not supposed to associate with other convicted felons nor are they supposed to be close to any sort of weapons much less training with them to use against the citizens of the United States. Obama stated, along with Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and anyone else in the Obama administration, that the attack on Benghazi was due to a short video, which defamed Mohammad. This is, of course, a total distortion of the facts! It was very clear to a huge number of Americans that this attack was one done by terrorists and was coordinated on the anniversary of September 11, 2001. Little doubt could be left that it was nothing more. Yet, Obama would like to lead the people to believe that it was due to a movie that was on the internet for some three months before the attack. Obama just lied to the people of the United States and he also did the same thing before the United Nations, making the false and naked claim that it was a shady video that caused the actions of September 11, 2012. When the attack occurred, the first idea coming to most normal minds was that this was a terrorist attack! But few people in the White House had paid attention to this at all. It is stated that Obama just went to sleep the very night our embassy was under attack! One Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: There is no question that Al-Qaeda Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafis biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. 7

What is unclear is how much of the opposition is Al-Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group 2 percent or 80 percent. Can anyone remember what Obama stated just before the fighting in Libya? Obama said: We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIAs bin Laden unit, said: The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedin from around the world. We are enabling people who may not be formally aligned with AL-Qaeda but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power. How could this be? Why has our nation allowed the very enemy to be so bold and allow them to continue? Obama has stated time and time again that the Al-Qaeda is on the run. We have killed Osama Bin Laden. Yet, now it seems that the vacuum created by the loss of former allies is being filled with the very people our nation was attacked by! Barack Obama has misled this nation into believing otherwise. Obama has told us a lie when he said Al-Qaeda is on the run! The attack on the Benghazi consulate must be forever remembered as Obamas 9-11. We can not allow it to be transformed into something about an anti-Islamic film that no one had ever heard of or anything other than it is. We must make Obama own it, because in reality, he does.

The Anti Muslim Video That Caused The Attacks in Benghazi

TRANSCRIPT: Read President Obamas Remarks on American Deaths in Libya Attack

September 12th 2012

Below are the full remarks from President Barack Obamas statement, made Wednesday morning from the White House Rose Garden, about the U.S. envoy killings in Libya. Plus, watch his full remarks by clicking here. The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. Were working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. Ive also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. 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.

Anatomy Of Obamas Cover-Up

October 19th 2012 9-11 has turned into a nightmare once again. Al Qaida has chosen this day on the calendar for regular attacks on the Great Satan, aka the United States of America. But this year is particularly troublesome because not only did Americans die in the attacks, but this year our own government decided to lie about it. 2012 being an election year, nothing can be allowed to break the campaigning President from his re-election talking point that Al Qaida has been vanquished into the dark recesses of history. Barack Obama has spent much of the year boasting about his success in defeating Al Qaida and killing their leader, Osama Bin Laden. If this vanquished foe can reach from their grave on the anniversary of 9-11 and kill an American Ambassador, then the campaign rhetoric about how he, Barack Obama, has kept us safe is blown to bits. So instead of the truth, we have been spoon-fed a first-class cover-up. The first phase of the cover-up was to mislead America. Rather than call the attack terrorism, we were given a steady stream of official statements intended to make us believe the attack in Benghazi, Libya was merely a demonstration about a YouTube video gone wrong.

Here are some examples of the Obama Administrations cover-up lies.

Starting at the top on September 12th, Barack Obama told us this: Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. 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. Read Obamas statement closely and make up your own mind. We dont think he called the attack terrorism, but we publish the whole paragraph so you can make your own determination. But to put his statement into context, we share some administration comments that came after the September 12th statement. The next day, September 13th,Obamas spokesman Jay Carney said this: I think its important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. It isnt the killing of our Ambassador that Carney is calling reprehensible; it is this YouTube video. Then on September 14th, Hillary Clinton said this: Weve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. Again, the focus is on the video. 10

Later that day, Carney said at a news briefing: I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false. But the most damning evidence of a cover-up is when Susan Rice, Americas Ambassador to the UN, made the rounds of the major Sunday shows saying: Based on the best information we have to date it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. Only the Obama Administration saw it this way. We had more honesty from Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libyas General National Congress. He told us just the opposite on September 16th:The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined. You get the picture. As late as September 25th, Barack Obama was not willing to call the Benghazi attack terrorism, pure and simple. Instead, he was still saying: We are still doing an investigation. Obama definitely doesnt want to be pinned down and is currently trying to re-write history, but we think any dispassionate review of the statements and the timeline shows that Obama and his people are engaged in a cover-up. Why? Obama is desperate to retain power and the presidency.

White House Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story

October 20th 2012 By Stephen Hayes The Obama administration appears to be mounting yet another version of its campaign to push back on claims that it misled on the intelligence related to the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12. But the new offensive by the administration, which contradicts many of its earlier claims and simply disregards intelligence that complicates its case, is raising fresh questions in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill about the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes. The administration's new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that "the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren't supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official." If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defense, they're in trouble. The Times story is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius "scoop" isn't a scoop at all. We'll start there.


David Ignatius, a reporter's columnist with excellent sources in the Obama administration and the intelligence community, reports: "Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept 11 attack on the U.S. consulate as a reaction to the Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently into its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." There are two problems with this. The CIA "talking points" don't say that what Ignatius claims and the supposedly exculpatory documents were first reported three weeks ago. On October 1, Newsweek's Eli Lake reported: "For eight days after the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, government officials said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film. Now that officials have acknowledged they were a premeditated act of terrorism, the question some members of Congress are trying to answer is why it took so long for the truth to come out. Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous." Lake continued, quoting directly from the CIA talking points, in language that may sound familiar to anyone who read the third paragraph above: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the demonstrations." Both the Ignatius and Lake versions of the talking points note that the "assessment may change as additional information is collected" and that the "investigation is on-going." Note that the "talking points" do not claim that the attackers in Benghazi were directly motivated by the film, something the Obama administration claimed for nearly two weeks after 9/11. The talking points only say that the "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired" by Cairo. We now know, of course, that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi. Those inside the compound heard gunfire at 9:40 p.m. local time and within minutes the compound was under siege. Surveillance photos and videos taken in the hours before the attack give no indication of a protest. And one CIA official tells Ignatius that it would have been better to substitute "opportunistic" for "spontaneous" since there was "some pre-coordination but minimal planning." The "spontaneous" talking point came from an intercepted telephone call between jihadists, in which one of the attackers notes that his group had attacked after seeing the demonstrations in Cairo. U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Benghazi tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD there are two schools of thought on what that means. The first view is reflected in the administration's "spontaneous" line. It holds that jihadists in Benghazi saw the demonstration in Egypt and decided, almost on a whim, to assault the compound. But the nature of the attack the weapons, the sequencing, the coordination suggests more planning. 12

The attackers flushed Americans from the compound toward an "annex" two kilometers away. As the Americans fled, they encountered (and avoided) an attempted ambush on the route. The second view is that the demonstrations in Cairo, which followed the release of a video from al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri on September 10, were seen as something of a "go signal." As we first reported on September 12, the film, in this view, was merely the pretext for an al Qaeda "information operation," and the Zawahiri video, which called directly for renewed jihad and for al Qaeda sympathizers to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al Libi, was intended to trigger protests and assaults throughout the region. Many of those with prominent roles in the protests and assaults in Egypt, Tunisia, and perhaps Libya had strong ties to al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Not surprisingly, this view is not popular with an administration that has built its case for reelection in part on the notion that "bin Laden is dead" and "al Qaeda is on its heels." Which leads us to the claims in the Los Angeles Times article that ran under the heading: "No evidence found of al Qaeda role in Libya attack." That story begins: "The assault on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by al Qaeda, according to US officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya." The claim in the headline is not the same as the claim in the article, of course. It's possible for there to have been "an Qaeda role" in the attack without it having been directly ordered by al Qaeda central. And there is, in fact, evidence of some al Qaeda role in the attack. The same phone call that the administration had used to pin its argument that the attack was "spontaneous" also provides evidence of such al Qaeda involvement. Indeed, as Eli Lake reported three weeks ago: "In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, US intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group's north African affiliate." Several of the local jihadists were affiliated Ansar al Sharia, which has its own ties to al Qaeda. An August report from the Pentagon's "Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office," reported that Ansar al Sharia "has increasingly embodied al Qaeda's presence in Libya, as indicated by its active propaganda, extremist discourse, and hatred of the West, especially the United States." One of the leaders of AAS, a former Guantanamo detainee named Sufyan ben Qumu, has ties to senior al Qaeda leaders. As Tom Joscelyn first reported, Qumu's alias was found on the laptop of Mustafa al Hawsawi, an al Qaeda financier who helped fund the original 9/11 attacks. Qumu is described "as an al Qaeda member receiving family support." The other group, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has a more direct relationship with al Qaeda central. As Joscelyn reported last month, AQIM entered into a "formal alliance" with al Qaeda in 2006, according to a United Nations report on the group. The Pentagon's Combating Terrorism study reported: "Al Qaeda affiliates such as AQIM are also benefiting from the situation in Libya. AQIM will likely join hands with the al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya to secure a supply of arms for its areas of operations in northern Mali and Algeria." The report also notes: "Although no information in open sources was found regarding the whereabouts of al Qaeda's leadership in Libya, it is likely that at this point al Qaeda's clandestine network is run directly by al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan."


One thing that has troubled both intelligence officials and those on Capitol Hill as they have evaluated the administration's early response to the attacks is what appears to be an effort to write al Qaeda out of the story. For example, the talking points first reported by Lake, include this sentence: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." But according to several officials familiar with the original assessment from which the talking points were derived, the U.S. intelligence community had reported the fact that these were extremists with ties to al Qaeda. That key part was omitted. Why was that language dropped from the talking points distributed to Congress and Obama administration officials? Did anyone at the White House or on the National Security Council have any role in drafting them? In addition to the intercepts between Ansar al Sharia jihadists and AQIM, the Associated Press reported Friday that "the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within hours of last month's deadly attack on the US consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad." As further evidence of the ever-shifting Obama administration narrative, the AP article, which ran some 24 hours before this latest public relations push, also reported: "The White House now says the attack was probably carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand."

Spinning Benghazi
October 20th 2012 By Thomas

Ahead of what is sure to be a contentious presidential debate focusing on foreign policy on Monday, anonymous intelligence officials have decided to update the Benghazi story. No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack, a Los Angeles Times headline reads. A Washington Post headline declares, US Evidence doesnt show planning in Libyan attack.

There is just one problem: These new accounts dont add up.

The L.A. Times says that US intelligence agencies have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation. That is contradicted by numerous other accounts and by the Posts latest version. The Post reports that intelligence suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda. The Post adds: The violence in Benghazi appears to have involved militants with ties to alQaeda in North Africa, but no evidence indicates that it was organized by al-Qaeda, or timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, officials said. So either the attack did involve terrorists tied to al Qaeda, or it didnt, depending on which report you read. More than one month after Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, intelligence officials cannot even provide the press with a consistent account of what happened. And keep in mind that neither account says that there was a protest before the attack, which was the original story given to the American public. Whether the L.A. Timess sources want to admit it or not, ties between al Qaeda-affiliated parties and the attack are already established in the record. On September 26, during a speech at the U.N. , Secretary of State Hillary Clinton connected the attack to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its allies inside Libya. AQIM and other groups have a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, Clinton warned. This allows them to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And, Clinton added, they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi. On September 28, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaida. Also on September 28, Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reported that the terrorists who led the attack were in contact with members of AQIM. In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Lake reported, U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the groups North African affiliate. Lake continued: In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press. Other journalists would follow up on Lakes reporting, confirming that AQIM members were in contact with the attackers. On October 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Intelligence officials now have evidence that al Qaeda-linked militants were at the scene of the attack, although those militants may not have been its leaders, according to people briefed on the matter.


On October 19, the Associated Press reported that the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last months deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an Americanmade video ridiculing Islams Prophet Muhammad. The AP also reported (emphasis added) Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar alSharia. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said. The push to obfuscate links between an al Qaeda affiliate, and its allies inside Libya, to the attack began earlier in the week. On Wednesday, October 17, the New York Times reported that Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar alSharia, as a commander in the attack. Although the Times argued that Khattalas exact role was not yet clear, the paper was quick to argue that both he and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaedas Puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West. That claim makes no sense on its face. If Abu Khattala and his Ansar al-Sharia brigade are responsible for launching a terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate and killing four Americans, then they certainly are interested in jihad against Western interests. The Times added that Abu Khattalas leadership would not rule out participation or encouragement by militants connected to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an Algerian Islamic insurgency that adopted the name of Bin Ladens group a few years ago to bolster its image, but has so far avoided attacks on Western interests. This is not true. AQIM has not avoided attacks on Western interests. Kidnapping Western tourists has been one of the groups main sources of revenue for years. The official United Nations web page discussing AQIM notes that after the groups formal alliance with al Qaeda in 2006, AQIM expanded its aims and declared its intention to attack Western targets. In late 2006 and early 2007, the U.N.s web page continues, AQIM conducted several attacks against convoys of foreign nationals in Algeria. Then, in December 2007, AQIM attacked the United Nations office in Algiers, killing 17, at the same time as it attacked the Algerian Constitutional Council. In the wake of the attack in Benghazi, AQIM has called for more attacks on American diplomats. AQIM leaders have also said that they intend to target France. And, obviously, if AQIM was involved in the Benghazi attack, as has been widely reported, then it most certainly is interested in attacking American interests.


The New York Timess account of AQIM sounds eerily similar to a storyline that some Obama administration officials and their surrogates have been pushing. They claim that groups such as AQIM are just local jihadist groups that are not really al Qaeda, per se, because they dont want to attack the West. This is nonsense for many reasons, but this argument has mysteriously migrated into the presss reporting on the Benghazi attack. Other press accounts have fingered additional suspects with links to al Qaeda as well. And there is substantial evidence that al Qaeda has built a substantial network inside of Libya. Even though no one disputes that AQIM members were in contact with the attackers, however, it will take time to sort through all of the precise details. But these latest accounts are not intended to comb through the evidence carefully. They are intended to provide political cover ahead of the final presidential debate.



Info on Benghazi

U.S. Drone Watched Libya Attack Unfold But Washington Did Nothing
October 22nd 2012

The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday. They stood, and they watched, and our people died, former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News. The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 obtaining information that should have spurred swift action. But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said. They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen, he fumed. There isnt a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy about an hour flight from Libya but gave no other details. Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network. When the attack began, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies, a White House official told the network. Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. 18

Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities. Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding, he boasted. But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. Im even going to pick up my sisters kids from school soon. Lax security at the consulate was an open secret. Stevens wrote a cable in June that there wasnt enough security at the consulate, and he noted there had been a recent spike in attacks against international organizations and foreign interests, ABC News said. The ambassador wrote another cable in August that read, A series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday. Stevens said that the incidents were organized and that the Libyan security force had not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provided little deterrence. Several requests for additional security in Benghazi were made to the State Department prior to the attack. They were all rejected. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to deflect blame from President Obama last week, saying the decision not to beef up guards was her responsibility. Im in charge of the State Departments 60,000-plus people all over the world at 275 posts, she told CNN. The president and the vice president wouldnt be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. Theyre the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision. The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, with Mitt Romney saying Obamas failure to safeguard the consulate highlights his failure in foreign policy. Romney has also hammered Obama for failing to immediately label it a terror attack and the administration for changing its story about whether the attack was a protest over an antiIslamic movie or a coordinated strike.


McCain, Portman press to see videos & other evidence from Libya Terror Attacks
October 29th 2012

Obama on Benghazi

Top Republican lawmakers stepped up their demand Sunday for the Obama administration to provide more hard evidence about what happened during the fatal attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, including information gathered from drones flying overhead during the terror strikes. In addition to requesting videos from the drones, the lawmakers also are asking the administration to reveal whether the unmanned craft had weapons and to declassify videos recorded inside the U.S. Consulate in Libya where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and State Department Official Sean Smith were killed. The lawmakers hope such evidence will in part finally prove whether a mob indeed assembled before the strike. Hours later, two former Navy SEALs were killed during an attack on a nearby CIA annex. 20

This administration is very good at touting and giving all the details like when they got Bin Laden, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain said on CBS Face the Nation. But now we know that there were tapes, recordings inside the consulate during this fight. McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the FBI got the tapes and has classified them as top secret. The senator said the administration has yet to fulfill his request to see the drone pictures, but what I do know is that those in the surveillance records from inside and around the consulate will show that there was no demonstration. Colorado Sen. Mark Udall declined to discuss on Fox News Sunday whether the drones were armed. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Fox he joined McCain roughly two weeks ago in asking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for additional evidence. We haven't heard anything, he said. We sent another letter yesterday. Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner told Fox, what we ought not be doing is getting into some of these issues about drone assets. He also declined to say whether the drones flying over Benghazi were armed. This member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is not going to make any comments on drones on the record, off the record or anywhere else, he said.

The real reason behind Benghazigate - Obama was gun-walking arms to al-Qaeda jihadists!!!
October 22nd 2012 By Frank J. Gaffney President Obamas once seemingly unstoppable march toward re-election hit what he might call bumps in the road in Benghazi, Libya, late on Sept. 11, 2012. It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander in chief. Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at and Clare Lopez at and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate. The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the opposition in Libya, the Obama administration 21

has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution. One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regimes stocks to the opposition in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Sharia-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj. Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria. What cries out for further investigation and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison. Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the consulate in Benghazi actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a mission. What Mr. Klein describes as a shabby, nondescript building that lacked any major public security presence was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assads regime in Syria. We know that Stevens last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified Turkish diplomat. Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assads regime in Syria. It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called consulate whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed and were known by the local jihadists to house arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens. What we do know is that the New York Times one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country reported in an Oct. 14 article, Most of the arms shipped at the 22

behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster. In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip Americas enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administrations desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

Frank Gaffney: Obama's Middle East Fast & Furious?!

US arms terrorists in Middle East?

Video: Obama Arming Islamic Jihadists Obama has been running guns to Islamic Jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, using Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Turkey as middle men in the nefarious enterprise. White House Covering Up Weapons Pipeline Supplying Arms To Al-Qaeda In Syria

Is this potential scandal a Syrian version of Fast and

Video: Libyan Attack Was A Botched Kidnapping Attempt Ordered By OBAMA!

Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists We all remember Obamas Fast and Furious debacle where he was running guns to Mexican drug cartels and then invoked executive privilege to keep all the documents out of the publics hands. What if Obama was at it again, except this time instead of arming Mexican drug cartels, he was arming Syrian rebels? (Or, more correctly, Islamic jihadists?) That is exactly what he was doing. The night Ambassador Stevens was murdered, Stevens was negotiating with the Turkish consul general for a shipment of thousands of Libyan shoulder-fired missiles to Syria, Turkey being the middle man for the nefarious enterprise. 23

Now we know why Obama literally watched Americans get slaughtered in real time. Now we know why the former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA annex a mile away from the Libyan consulate were ordered to stand down and not provide help an order they eventually ignored to save the lives of twenty people an order that cost them their lives. Now we know why Obama and Hillary Clinton concocted a ridiculous story of a protest turned violent due to some obscure anti-Muslim video. The truth is coming out and is slowly closing around one Barack Hussein Obama.

White House Covering Up Weapons Pipeline Supplying Arms To Al-Qaeda In Syria

Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack With Link to Obama! On September 10, 2012, the amateurish, anti-Muslim YouTube video Innocence of Muslims had been on the Internet for three months with exactly seventeen views. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and an army of Obama surrogates conducted a media blitz blaming this obscure video no one had seen for the entire Middle East exploding on 9/11, including a protest turned violent at the Libyan consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. We later learned that there was no protest. We later learned that intelligence on the ground linked it to a terrorist group within twenty-four hours. We later learned that the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, was behind the attack. We now know it was not initially an attack, but an attempted kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens to use him as a pawn to get their beloved Blind Sheik back.

What is most shocking, however, is that a source within the White House states that it was arranged as an October surprise by Barack Obama. Obama, in order to make the release of the Blind Sheik more palatable to the American people, and to boost his sagging approval ratings, arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap Ambassador Stevens. Then, days before the election, acting the part of the hero, planned to release the Blind Sheik in exchange for Ambassador Stevens.


The plan was for security to be minimal at the consulate, protected by only Libyan security guards who would melt away into the night at the appointed time. The plan fell apart as two former SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, fought the kidnappers, leading to a firefight and subsequent fire, killing Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and also Sean Smith, a communications specialist.

Obama then had to create a cover-up so massive that it will go down in the history books until the end of time.
Following comments by Jack Graff: The real reason behind Benghazigate - Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists? Thanks very much to the superb investigative reporting such as we see at Fox News we are finally getting to the truth of the Obama repeat of operations such as the Obama/Holder secret operations like "Fast and Furious" and Reagan's "Iran Contra." Obama is intentionally arming al Qaeda Jihadists who will eventually turn those very same arms against Americans as they have done in the past remember Afghanistan and our support of Bin laden against the Russians? Ambassador Stevens was screening Jihadists including AQ to be recruits for a Syrian destination that was funded & supported by Saudi Arabia... the catch was that the rebels/Jihadists/AQ militants could not have personally have participated in direct conflict with USA military forces any time in the past the Saudi wanted 'squeaky clean' militants Now the Syrians that are backed or supported by Russia, China, Iran wanted to stop this Saudi sponsored recruitment of the rebels in Libya being processed by Ambassador Stevens to fight against the Syrian regime. So the AQ in the Arabian Peninsula along with Salafists and possibly the Muslim Brotherhood all conspired to assassinate the Ambassador to stop the mercenaries being sent to fight with the Syrian Free Army rebel forces.

CIA operators were denied request for help 3 times during Benghazi attack, sources say
October 26th 2012 By Jennifer Griffin Fox News Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command who also told the CIA operators twice 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 SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under 25

attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." Woods 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 rescue team 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 AC-130 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. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down. "We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades." 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 were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. 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. AC-130 Specter Gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support. According to sources on the ground during the attack, 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." U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over. 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 U.S. 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 was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as 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 U.S., 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.


Obama Watched Them Die We now know that Barack Obama knew within two hours that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an act of terrorism. We now know Barack Obama received live video from a drone during the attack. We now know Barack Obama stood by and did nothing while Americans were murdered. The father of Tyrone Woods (the former SEAL who died along with Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith) asked the question yesterday: Who made the decision not to save my son? Was it Barack Obama? If so, impeachment hearings should begin immediately.

Death And Deceit In Benghazi - Did Obama Try Hide The Truth? America owes it to those who were murdered in Benghazi to vote this current fraudulent P POTUS and his administration out and for congress to call for a full scale investigation on Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obamas Birth Certificate SSC SSN and indictment of all criminal activities of said administration from Fast and Furious to voter intimidation scandal in 08 the list of 4yrs of atrocities are numerous Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obamas should be held accountable for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens Sean Smith Glen Doherty Tyrone Woods. (Following comments by Jack Graff)

Obama Still Lying He Knew Within Minutes

October 27th 2012 By James Lewis American Thinker When did the President know, and what did he know about the Benghazi assault? Lt. Col. Tony Schafer told Fox News that sources were telling him that the President was watching the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time. Schafer told Fox that only the President could have ordered backup for the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. I hate to say this, Schafer said, according to my sources, yes, the President was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling? He and only he could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. Fact 1: According to Special Ops Lt, Colonel "Doug" calling Rush Limbaugh today, there are standing orders for instant flash communication about any attacks on US Ambassadors or four-star generals. As soon as the assault on the Benghazi mission started, local personnel notified the US Embassy in Tripoli, which triggered an instant alarm in Washington, DC. The President's military aide knows within a few minutes and is required to notify POTUS immediately. Two separate "In Extremis" rescue teams were alerted, a AC-130 Spectre 28

Gunship was ready, and F-18 jet bombers. US personnel laser-spotted the Libyan mortar team that killed Americans, pointing the way for bombs that never came. This is an historic video of instant testimony by Rush Limbaugh's military caller. No need to wait for an "investigation" long after the election. Fact 2: Fox News reported today that President Obama denied any knowledge of security requests "before" the attack. If Obama is playing with words like 'before' and "during," he is still trying to deceive the American people. Obama knew within minutes of the start of the attack. Don't let anybody tell you Benghazi isn't important. If it wasn't important it would not be worth lying about for six whole weeks before the election.

Rush militar y caller says that Obama ordered NO response to Benghazi attack

SEAL's father Charles Woods on Hannity: White House officials "Murdered" My Son The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack are murderers of my son.

Obama Fires Top Admiral For Advocating Libyan Rescue?

October 29th 2012 According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East.


Obama Fires Top Admiral as Coup Plot Fears Grow!

CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) is the strike groups current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to Carrier Strike Group Three include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) and USS Antietam (CG-54); and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108), USS Dewey (DDG-105), USS Kidd (DDG-100), and USS Milius (DDG-69). US news reports on Obamas unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouettes removal was for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment that arose during the strike groups deployment to the Middle East. This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouettes firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to assist and provide intelligence for American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders: 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. 30

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 and under arrest.

Benghazigate: Petraeus Implicates Obama

October 27th 2012 Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus's denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist "would have been a presidential decision." Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were "happening." Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex. Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame: So who in the government did tell anybody not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need? Earlier today, Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, called the White House's explanations for events in Benghazi a "pack of lies" and implied that those in the administration who could have helped, but refused, were guilty of "murder." He added: My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life. 31

Also today, the State Department shut down questions from reporters about Libya at a press briefing in Washington. The administration, as a whole, seems to have decided to say nothing further about Benghazi until after election except for Petraeus, who was directly implicated by charges that the CIA failed to help, and who was thereby compelled to provide a response that points, inexorably, to the man in the Oval Office.

Providing Cover For A Feckless Barack Obama

October 27th 2012 Now the finger-pointing begins over who is going to take the blame for the Administrations inaction after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. The six-plus hour attack was being monitored by a UAV gathering intelligence and streaming it back home via live video stream. The line that the military couldnt be dispatched because of the lack of intelligence is no excuse. If not, what was the drone doing? Flying airshow maneuvers? Leaked State Department emails exposed the fact that they knew when the attack began, how many attackers, and by who. In a sporting analogy, somebody dropped the ball.

State Department
The State Department knew that the consulate was under attack; and two hours into the attack, they briefed State Department Officials and the White House on who attacked the facility. They knew that it was the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia. When she accepted this job, Hillary Clinton intended to serve 4 years but no more. Instead of taking the fall for this fiasco, she now plans to stay at State for another four years. Hillary will most likely have the last word with the panel she set up to investigate the Benghazi attack. She and the President will most likely blame the liberals favorite target: the military and intelligence agencies.

To excuse his inaction, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters he couldnt deploy forces into harms way without real-time information. Mr. Panetta, there was a UAV overhead during the assault, maybe a few other assets also; and as a former Army Intelligence officer, he should know that. He pointed out that there was a great deal of confusion in the area; and by the time American Special Forces arrived in the area, the assault was over. That begs the question: when were the orders sent to deploy the troops? Mr. Panetta criticized various Congressional Republicans for armchair quarterbacking. General Martin (Future Wal-Mart greeter) Dempsey urged people to shut-up and wait for the State Department report concerning the incident. Review of the attack is being conducted to develop an understanding of what happened. This is beltway lingo for Dont blame us. 32

Its everyone elses fault. Unlike Democrats of old, the buck never stops at Barack Obamas desk. All of this finger-pointing is an attempt to provide cover for an inept President during an election year. Despite the best spin of talking heads, the historians will associate the Benghazi murders with this Administration.

Will Obamas Benghazi Cover-Up Succeed?

October 27th 2012 By John Hinderbacker Barack Obamas prospects for re-election have been fading for some time now. As Mitt Romney surges, Obama flails, embarrassing himself with silly trivialities that are often summed up as Big Bird, binders and bayonets. Thats what happens when your record is so bad that you cant talk about it; not truthfully, anyway. So it has been clear for a while that Obamas re-election hopes cant absorb another blow. Which the Benghazi story, to the extent the facts get out, surely is. That is why Obama made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obamas main campaign themes, that through his own personal heroism he had al Qaeda on the run. Instead, Obama chose to pretend that Benghazi was an unfortunate but essentially meaningless mob uprising, prompted by a YouTube video. So we got the nauseating spectacle of Hillary Clinton hugging the father of one of the murdered SEALS and assuring him not to worry, the Obama administration would prosecute the guy who made the video to the fullest extent of the law. But, with a little over a week to go until the election, the lid was blown off the administrations cover-up by Foxs story yesterday, alleging that the administration turned down repeated pleas for help over the course of the seven-hour Benghazi battle, and by the white-hot anger of Charles Woods, who has repeatedly called Barack Obama and his White House cowards for failing to come to his sons aid. If the allegations of Foxs story prove to be true still an open question at this point and if voters know about them, Obama has no chance on November 6. So how will the media formerly known as mainstream, which have done their best to try to drag Obamas sorry campaign across the finish line, deal with the Benghazi story? The New York Times, for one, has dealt with it by not mentioning the current allegations. This is what you get if you search the Times site for Benghazi:


The Times is too busy talking up the economy U.S. Growth Rate Up to 2%! Slow But Steady Improvement!and banging away at John Sununu to bother with anything as mundane as national security.

The Washington Post doesnt seem to have written anything original about the latest allegations, either, although it has prominently featured the administrations various defensive efforts, for example by highlighting Geraldo Riveras criticism of his colleagues at Fox and his urging that any discussion of Benghazi wait until after the election. Vintage Fox News stuff, wrote the Posts Erik Wemple. But of the current controversy the Post has reported nothing, unless it has printed the Associated Press article that appears on its web site. 34

Since the AP coverage is what the vast majority of newspaper readers will see about the Benghazi story (if they see anything), it is worthy of study. The article that appeared this morning begins not with the allegations that were made on Fox yesterday, but with the administrations response: Obama administration officials defended their response to the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, amid new claims that the White House failed to send help quickly enough as militants overran the mission. The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in the hours long battle. Fox News reported that security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound. Fox also reported that U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace. So the AP summarizes fairly the key allegations near the top of its story. Thats good. But what is this about violating Libyan air space? I have not seen any administration official claim that it didnt go to the aid of the embattled security men because of a concern about Libyan air space. Is the AP just throwing this in gratuitously, or did an administration spokesman make this argument off the record? The AP continues: In response to the report, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said the CIA reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. She added: Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. As Scott and others have already noted, the CIAs statement is ambiguous, and can be read to suggest that someone other than the CIAi.e., the White House, the State Department or the Department of Defensevetoed sending military relief to Benghazi. The AP presents the CIAs denial without comment, but then, to its credit, calls out President Obamas evasions on the topic: President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would find out what happened and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help. The rest of the AP story reviews some of the history of the Benghazi story and touches on the political significance of the current controversy. All in all, not a bad job by the AP. It will be critical to watch the treatment that the media, especially network television news and widely-read organs like the Associated Press, give to Benghazi over the next week. What we already know about Benghazi is a scandal of the highest order: the ambassador asked for more security after a series of terrorist threats and attacks, but didnt get it, even on the anniversary of September 11. The administration knew that four Americans had been killed in a successful terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, but lied about the event for weeks in hopes of minimizing political fallout. 35

Extraordinarily courageous Americans fought a seven-hour gun battle against well-armed and well-organized terrorists who vastly outnumbered them before finally succumbing, during which time the Obama administration did nothing. And when the bodies of the dead Americans were returned to the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure. If, in addition, there is credible evidence that American soldiers, fighting desperately for their lives against our countrys most bitter enemies, called for help but were cynically left to perish in order to protect Barack Obamas petty re-election campaign, Obama will not only lose the election but will be turned out of office in disgust by a clear majority of voters. Reporters and editors know this. It will be interesting to see how they respond during the coming days: will they do their jobs, or will they assist their candidate with his cover-up? Additional Articles: BENGHAZIGATE LIBYA MEDIA BIAS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS

Benghazi-Gate Enters New Phase: The Cover Up Of The Cover Up

November 24th 2012 By John Nolte


It now looks as though the White Houses excuse for the pre-election Libya cover-up is itself a cover up. Last week, we were told by the Administration (and the compliant media) that during her now-infamous round robin of five Sunday news shows, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was only telling us what she was told by the intelligence community. We were also told that references to al-Qaeda were edited out of the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the attackers that we were on to them. According to a number of CBS News sources, this simply isnt true. As recently as yesterday, though, Rice doubled down on this defense: I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. At first glance, Rices comments might not appear to move the ball, but they do tell us that the Administration has found its defense and intends to stick to it that defense being that Rice was only parroting the false information she was given. But now, thanks to some good reporting from CBS News, we know things werent that simple. Lets back up just a little bit Last week, former CIA Chief Davis Petraeus testified that within a day he knew the assault on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack committed by a Libyan militia with ties to al-Qaeda. As a result, Petraeus authorized the release of this information to the public in talking points to be given to the White House and to lawmakers. CBS News reports that references to al-Qaeda were later removed by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) an agency run by James Clapper, an Obama appointee. The FBI also made substantial edits. But here's where the plot thickens. DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that, as a member of Obama's cabinet, Susan Rice would've known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings. The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false. 37

In reference to the edited talking points, another source told CBS News that "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly." "Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants." This is important because if the talking points were not edited "to minimize the role of extremists," that, then, was a decision Susan Rice made all on her own (with likely prompting from the White House). The same goes for White House spokesman Jay Carney and the President himself, both of whom would spend nearly two weeks spinning this same false narrative. This false White House narrative, which only sharpened over time, was all about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that turned into a deadly riot. But if the edited talking points were not meant to "diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," that was a decision the White House made, and one that conflicts entirely with the excuse that they were simply telling us what they were told by the intelligence community. And it wasn't just the fact that the White House chose to focus on the YouTube video. Time and again, for nearly two weeks, Rice and Carney would go the extra mile in this deception by telling the media that there was absolutely no evidence the assault on our consulate was premeditated. Finally, the primary defense for the editing of al-Qaeda out of the talking points is this ridiculous notion that we didn't want the group responsible for the attack to know we were after them. That never came close to passing the smell test, and now the intelligence community is pushing back against that nonsense: An intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence.

In other words, the removing of the al-Qaeda references wasn't about tipping anyone off; it was about making sure it was this particular al-Qaeda affiliated militia. There was never any doubt the attack was a premeditated terror attack, but amongst all the extremists in Libya, we just weren't sure which one was responsible. So, if what CBS is reporting is true, this is what we know now: 1. At the time, Susan Rice knew the information she repeated five times on five Sunday shows wasn't true. 38

2. The edited talking points were never meant to deceive and conceal the fact that what happened in Libya was a terror attack. And yet, that's exactly what Rice and the White House did for nearly two weeks. 3. Contrary to what the White House and media told us, the talking points were not edited to keep the group responsible for the attack from knowing we were on to them. Therefore 4. We were lied to for reasons that had nothing to do with national security. 5. The media's going to allow the Obama Administration to get away with this. (Why else would CBS play down its own story the way they did this one?) Everything goes back to the motive for this cover up, which, apparently, was to run out the clock to Election Day with a Narrative meant to hide the fact that on Obama's watch there was a successful terror attack that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans. And let's also not forget that, just a few days before the attack, at his nominating convention, Obama bragged before the whole world that "al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat." The American people understand that deception is sometimes necessary in the name of national security. But no one believes that's the case here. This cover up, which the media has happily become a co-conspirator to, was only about winning Obama a second term. And now the cover up of the cover up is in full swing.

White House Tries To Throw The Militar y Under Bus Over Benghazi
October 28th 2012


Hed throw his own kids under the bus if he felt it would help him!!! The Poor Excuse of a Man on the Right in the above Photo NOT Wearing a Uniform is a Lying Piece of Pig Shit!!!
Via Weekly Standard: Yesterday, the CIA insisted thatNo one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. The denial is in reference to the report that the CIA held back forces from helping the Americans who were under attack in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11. And today, the White House is making a similar claim. Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi, an Obama administration spokesman tells Yahoos Olivier Knox. Knox reports: The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th. Fox News Channel reported this week that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked about that report during a press briefing on Thursday, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking" and said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground. And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans. But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense 40

make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision." "He's wrong," said Vietor. So, since the CIA says it wasn't any of their guys, and since the White House is trying to eliminate any blame on themselves, does this mean the order not to help those Americans under siege in Benghazi came from the military? The White House, it would seem, is trying to shift blame in that direction.

Is There a Deeper Plot to Benghazi?

October 27th 2012 By Dennis Marcellino

Maybe Ive watched too many Perry Mason episodes, or movies like Charade (a very entertaining mystery with many twists and turns that are hard to anticipate), or maybe its because of my engineering problem-solving background, where you take a bunch of data and then try to come up with a solution that would be in harmony with the data, but lets take a look at some of the Benghazi data that might reveal something. (1) Why was the Benghazi ambassador meeting with a Turkish diplomat? (2) Why was such a meeting taking place in Libya? (3) Why werent troops sent from Sicily (just 45 minutes away) when the first calls immediately came for help and yet all 4 Americans werent dead until 7 hours later? (4) Why was there a drone in the area? Okay, so now lets put forth a story that could explain these 4 points of data. The U.S. was running arms to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. They had to coordinate it in an obscure place like Benghazi to keep it secret. The reason they wanted to keep it secret is because the administration didnt want another Fast and Furious on their hands especially before a debate on foreign policy and an election. And here is the ugliest, most sinister and evil part of the explanation (which would give a reason for #s 3 and 4), they let the 4 Americans die because dead men tell no tales. 41

I know this story may seem far-fetched and the last part is hard to say, but lets hear your story that explains the 4 peculiarities listed here and includes all 4 of them.

Despite mounting evidence Obama administration in denial about Libya

October 27th 2012 Obama administration officials defended their response to the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, amid new claims that the White House failed to send help quickly enough as terrorists overran the mission. The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in the hours long battle. Fox News reported that security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound. Fox also reported that U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace. In response to the report, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said the CIA "reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi." She added: "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would "find out what happened" and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help. "We're going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn't happen again, but we're also going to make sure we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks," Obama said in an interview with Denver television station KUSA. In the run-up to the presidential election, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of distorting the account of the attack on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Officials first blamed the attack on a mob set into motion by an anti-Islamic film, saying the mob had been infiltrated and overtaken by extremists. Officials later revised their account, describing the attack as a military-style operation that took place without a demonstration beforehand. The new claims come as Republican senators demanded that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during and just after the attacks. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire wrote to the defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video from Sept. 11 and 12 be declassified. Pentagon and CIA officials declined to 42

comment on the senators' request. Justice Department officials did not respond to requests for comment. U.S. intelligence officials this week turned over intelligence reports to Congress showing what officials at the CIA and other agencies knew and when. U.S. officials who have reviewed the material say it shows confusion during and in the days following the attack. Members of Congress have complained that the White House and the intelligence community stuck to the analysis that an angry mob started the attack long after it had become more clear that it was an organized militant operation.

Obama Failed: The Terrorist Murders of Americans in Libya

September 21st 2012

Partners in Crime
Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated on September 11th by al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya. He and three other Americans were brutally and savagely murdered at the hands of America's enemies. The Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department were warned about the attacks. They should have seen it coming. Ambassador Stevens did. The death of these Americans and the projection of weakness and humiliation of the United States to the Middle East is a direct result of President Barack Obama's fecklessness and incompetence. The attacks happened on his watch and represent the biggest failure of his tenure as Commander-in-Chief. It has been ten days since the bloody attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, and the facts paint a bleak picture of a disengaged and aloof Commander-in-Chief and a Secretary of State more concerned about the United States' image rather than the well-being of the diplomats in her charge. On September 10th, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a new video was released by al-Qaeda spiritual leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri calling Libyans to rise up against Americans and avenge the death of Al Qaeda #2 Abu-Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed by a US drone attack in June. Contemporaneous accounts of the video make no mention of any 43

reference to the anti-Islam YouTube video that is now being blamed for the recent Middle East violence. The al-Qaeda video calling for revenge for the death of Abu-Yahya al-Libi is significant to the attacks in Libya because Abu-Yahya was from Libya. Hence the suffix to his name "al-Libi." Libyan terrorists and Islamists knew Abu-Yaha well. He was a hero to the Islamist extremists in that country. The announcement of his "martyrdom" would surely have a significant resonance on the "Arab Street" of Libya. Add to that the built-in significance of the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and even an amateur observer of world events would see a security concern brewing in Libya. According to a source close to Ambassador Stevens, the US diplomat was worried about his personal safety and "never-ending" security threats in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. CNN reports that "Stevens specifically mentioned a rise in Islamic extremism and al Qaeda's growing presence in Libya" to the source close to him. But, rather than respond to the obvious threats in a manner that emphasized the security and well-being of our American citizens serving in the most dangerous region in the world, our State Department's official Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Libya was to "keep a low profile." To that end, rather than use the Marine Embassy Guard in Libya, the Clinton State Department employed a British firm, because they would accept the primary condition of the ROE in Libya which included a "no bullet" policy. In other words, the objective to maintain a "low profile" was so paramount in Libya that the State Department sent un-armed security in despite the clear and present danger to our people and our interests as evidenced by the alQaeda video and Ambassador Stevens' own concerns. It is possible that President Obama was unaware of the threats facing our diplomats in Libya, considering the evidence that suggests he did not attend face-to-face intelligence briefings for the days leading up to the September 11th anniversary. If he did read the briefings as his administration claims, there is no evidence that he did anything about the threats. When the armed terrorists stormed the mission in Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens was left virtually undefended and abandoned by this President on a day when all Americans are instinctively on their guard and prepared for a reprisal of the horrific events from 2001. The unspeakable horror that awaited Stevens and the three other Americans who relied on Obama and Clinton to protect them is now a matter of history, but the Obama White House continues to attempt to re-write that history with distractions and obfuscation. For days after the Libya attacks, the White House continued to conjoin the al-Qaeda inspired siege of our mission with street demonstrations in Cairo and Yemen over a YouTube video. On Sunday the 16th, US Ambassador the UN Dr. Susan Rice continued to claim that the Libya attack began as a demonstration against the video and then got out of hand. Last night on Univision, President Obama continued to link the Libya attacks with the YouTube video by claiming, What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests. However, CBS News reports that eyewitnesses in Benghazi claim there were no protests at the mission, "natural" or otherwise. Facts: Ambassador Stevens was aware and concerned about the growing terrorist threat in Libya. 44

Clinton's State Department chose to use un-armed security from Britain rather than the US Marine Embassy Guard for protection. On September 10th, al-Qaeda called specifically for Libyans to target Americans to avenge the death of an al-Qaeda leader. On September 11th, heavily armed terrorists attacked the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and murdered Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.

President Obama was either unable or unwilling to protect American Citizens who were under threat from Islamist Terrorists. And now, despite all of those facts, he continues to deny they were even under threat, and instead attempts to scapegoat a YouTube video.

It seems clear that killing Osama bin Laden does not a foreign policy make.

Did Obama Stage Benghazi Attack?

October 15th 2012 By C. O. Jones

I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is fairly well-connected politically. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling. She said she had received information from someone high up in White House circles, and wanted my thoughts. No, there is no leaked email, no concrete proof, and this article is based on hearsay. Im not one that usually engages in or repeats hearsay, but if this is true, it could be the biggest story in 50 years. According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an October Surprise, had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador. Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obamas strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero. After all, his supposed killing of Osama Bin Laden bounce had long since faded. Thus, sweeping him to victory in November. Imagine the headlines and talking points. The election would be a lock. The Muslim Brotherhood has every reason to want Obama re-elected in November and have an American President sympathetic to their causes. Not to mention an administration filled with Muslim appeasers. Therefore, they agreed to aid in these theatrics. Unfortunately for Ambassador 45

Stevens and three others, the Brotherhood could not control the hired thugs that were to perform the kidnapping and things escalated and four American lives were lost. Panic set in at the White House and with little time to place blame as far away from Obama as they could, they settled on a ridiculous fairy tale about an irrelevant video posted four months prior on YouTube and ran with it. Barack Obama even ran with it after evidence showed he knew better and ran with it all the way to his speech at the U.N. So now, they are admitting it was a terrorist attack. They are admitting that the State Department had denied requests for more security from Washington, but nobody told them. Blame anyone but Barack Obama. Im betting the White House is smirking and perfectly happy to be accused of having a breakdown in communication as opposed to the alternative. This scenario, if true, more than satisfies my common sense gland. A hard to read, hard to believe, hard to write about communiqu from South Florida Tea Party sources involves the alleged real reasons General David Petraeus was forced out a few days before the Benghazi hearings. Citing the stand down orders, the stupid video, and the pulled security, this memo makes a convincing case that a failed October Surprise kidnap event of the U.S. diplomat had a political backdrop involving the impending election. Various background data mentioned in this bulletin contain a tit for tat exchange of Mission Chief Chris Stevens for the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman who was involved in the 1993 U.S. World Trade Center attack. Also alluded to is trade is a possible $1.2 billion in U.S. aid earmarked for the Muslim Brotherhood, the group expected to have had a primary role in the Stevens-Sheik switch. Now, Americas stellar fighting mans takedown because of titillating sex, lies, and email trails just seems too convenient, too time driven, too slick by half. Election Day loomed, the Benghazi hearings can be delayed no longer, and tight poll numbers needed a deus ex machina. Was a contrived solution to this triangulated difficulty imposed by Democrat operatives hell bent on putting Obama back in the Oval Office? The best laid plans of mice and men often do go far astray, and the stand down order to a tiny group of highly trained ex-Navy Seals/CIA operatives backfired when they managed to employ the full measure of their skills, and took out over 80 attackers in the process, which enraged the attackers, who were led to believe that they would encounter no resistance. Was Ambassador Stevens defiled in horrible ways and dragged through Benghazi streets? Were two drones really flying over the consulate during this horrific fire zone in which our American soldiers and diplomats were left to die? This Tea Party bulletin goes on to say anonymously that our CIA operatives on the ground were painting targets because they knew air cover was available! And was an October Surprise in a political arena far away the real reason the flesh and blood of our dedicated warriors were spilled? And what about Hillary Clinton, who according to this memo, is now openly laying the blame at the feet of our Democrat administration. Stop and think about what really is going on right now. Congress heard closed door secrets about this Benghazi betrayal and murder. They have to know something they are not telling the American people. And dont forget the take-down in the political war against brave Colonel Allen West in South Florida. Our men murdered, our great general humiliated, American knees yet again bowed as politics drives our runaway freight train in Washington, D.C. The Tea Party email concludes with: If this doesnt outrage you, if you are not moved enough to contact your congressman about this, you are not worthy of your citizenship. Indeed, so true. 46

Obama Says American Deaths Not Optimal as He Funnels Weapons to Jihadists, Cuts Deal With Iran!
October 19th 2012 Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive. Sir Walter Scott Its difficult to tell where the lies end and President Obama begins in the murky story of Benghazi. Whats been clear ever since the September 11 attack on our mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans is that King Obama is more concerned about saving his re-election chances than about anything that happened in that far-off land. In an interview with Jon Stewart, Obama said, If four Americans get killed, it is not optimal. And we are going to fix it. Glossing over the weird statement about fixing four deaths, the statement is just cold. Not optimal? But acceptable? Obamas plans for the Muslim world are going forward, dead Americans be damned. And its because of those plans that Ambassador Chris Stevens, two SEALs and a fourth American are dead. World Net Daily has reported on information that the U.S. facility in Benghazi, which has been referred to by the media as a consulate or embassy was in fact nothing of the sort, as it offered no services common to consulates, and there was no consul present. What it appears to have been is some sort of intelligence outpost used to coordinate the delivery of weapons and fighters from Libya to Syria. That Obama has been funding the Syrian rebellion as part of his Arab Spring program, with the help of the Saudi royal family, is widely known, yet it merits almost no mention in the media. Even so public a person as Vladimir Putin has remarked on Obamas undeclared war in Syria, as Russia is Syrias ally. NATO has been on alert in the region for months and U.S. troops are sitting on the border between Syria and Jordan. Turkey has been on a war footing on its border with Syria and has been funneling weapons and fighters to the Syrian rebels. Which is where Benghazi seems to fit in. According to Business Insider, Ambassador Stevens had worked with al-Qaida-linked rebels in Libya to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi, including the top commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Abdelhakim Belhadj. Flash forward to 2012, Belhadj met with representatives of the Free Syria Army in Istanbul and on the Turkish border, according to UKs The Telegraph. 47

Belhadj was also the contact with the Benghazi captain of a Libyan cargo freighter that delivered 400 tons of Gaddafis SA-7 anti-aircraft rockets and launchers and rocket-propelled grenades to Syria, according to the Times of London. The Syrian rebels have been using such rockets to shoot down Syrian government aircraft. Back in Libya, former soldiers of the LIFG had joined the Soldiers for Sharia, a group that participated in the attack on the U.S. mission. What exactly Ambassador Stevens role in the delivery of heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels may have been is unclear. The Administration denies arming the rebels with heavy weapons. However, is it a coincidence that the last meeting Stevens had, that ended 40 minutes before the attack that killed him, was with a Turkish diplomat? As if things were not twisted enough, now Obama has reportedly cut a deal with Iran to suspend some of its uranium enrichment-related activities in exchange for lifting of certain sanctions. According to Irans Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian officials are just awaiting a letter from Obama before announcing that a solution to the nuclear crisis has been reached. French intelligence has verified the deals existence. Iran is a Syrian ally, and has been helping that country fight the U.S.-backed rebels. But now, Obama has set up a deal to solve the Iran nuclear crisis just days before the election. So to sum up, were fighting a War on Terror, that Obama says doesnt exist, against al-Qaida, whose fighters we armed in Libya, through a consulate without a consul that is coordinating delivery of heavy weapons and al-Qaida jihadist fighters to Syria, against our own policies, to continue the Arab Spring program, which was spontaneous, got our ambassador killed by the same people hes been helping and funding, and now were cutting deals with Iran, a country whose soldiers are fighting the rebels we are funding in Syria, during a war that has never been declared. Dont even get me started about Egypt. Its like an Escher painting. Nothing connects logically, and when you think youre looking at one side of an object, you suddenly find youre looking at the other side. And somewhere in the middle of this mess is the Oval Office, where Obama sits like a hungry spider.

I cant help feeling theres a whole lot worse to come.

Benghazi: Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dr y
October 22nd 2012 By Doug Giles 48

This past Friday the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hells corridor in Libya, begged Obamas boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by democracy seekers from the Religion of Peace in the liberated nation of Libya. As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obamas golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosens findings in the newly released damning papers, its crap like 1) On September 11 the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled sensitive, in which he noted growing problems with security in Benghazi and growing frustration on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as too weak to keep the country secure. 2) Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled sensitive, that he entitled The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya. Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months time, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape. The individual incidents have been organized, he added, a function of the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes. 3) Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity, Stevens cabled. What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks. His final comment on the two-page document was: Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable. 4) By September 4, Stevens aides were reporting back to Washington on the strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment in the city. Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a recent increase in violent incidents, including attacks against western interests. Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues, Stevens wrote on June 25, the violence is likely to continue and worsen. 5) After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate. Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya, the ambassador wrote, adding the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities 6) In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan womens rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: For the first time since the revolution, I am scared. From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chriss own laptop about which diddly was done and that being after prior bombings of the 49

Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable. If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I dont know what is. Whats the Religion of Peace got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obamas favorite golf courses? Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these peaceful protestors off. Someone please forward this over to Romneys campaign for talking points for Monday nights debate on National Security.

Obama & His Radical Muslim Buddies

Barack Obamas Dereliction Of Duty

September 22nd 2012 By Jim Emerson

Dereliction Noun.
1. deliberate, conscious, or willful neglect (esp. in the phrase dereliction of duty) 50

2. the act of abandoning or deserting or the state of being abandoned or deserted During the last few weeks, President Barack Obama and his administration have been derelict in their duty to this country. The 9-11 invasion of the Embassy in Cairo, Egypt; the wellplanned attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya; and the protests against other embassies in the Middle East have been blamed on a YouTube video that no one has ever seen. Instead of admitting that these incidents have little to do with an obscure video, they maintain a narrative that will most likely incite more attacks against Americans around the world. This lame excuse is nothing more than covering up the fact that this White House has made a deal with the modern incarnation of the devil known as the Muslim Brotherhood and their underling, al Qaeda.

Libyan President Mohammed believes that al Qaeda attacked the consulate and that the attack was led by Sufyan Ben Qumu. Mr. Qumu was captured in Pakistan and turned over to the United States. He was listed as a probable member of al Qaeda and was sent to Guantnamo Bay prison (GITMO). While held at GITMO, Qumu was considered a high risk to Americans and allies if released. In 2007, he was sent to Libya to be held but was released in 2008 by Muammar el-Qaddafi. During the Arab Spring upraising, he fought with rebels that were praised by this White House as spreading democracy. Current intelligence reports believe that he was the al Qaeda mastermind behind the murder of four Americans, and he didnt need a poorly-made video as inspiration. Unknown is the amount of Intelligence data that was compromised in the attack on the lightly-protected facility. The Obama administrations only recourse so far is to delete the tweets of Americans asking for help before they were killed in Libya. Sticking with the video lie, Obama told the Egyptian President that it was his responsibly to protect the embassy and diplomats. This pretty much verifies that the Marines who are tasked to protect the embassy were armed but without ammunition. The Muslim Brotherhood thugs who stormed the embassy didnt need a YouTube video; they were motivated by the memory of Osama. Obama would have known this if he attended his daily Intelligence briefing before 9-11 2012; but of course, he didnt. He golfed, partied, and fundraised instead. To date, Mr. Obama hasnt addressed the American people about the uprisings and murders; all the campaigner-in-chief can do is to stage events, fundraise, and appear on David Letterman. This man insists that he is the president of all Americans, but he is just reliving his time in the Senate by voting present. It should be obvious to everyone that Obama is willfully dodging his Constitutional duties.

Benghazi: Obamas Shameful Dereliction of Duty

November 1st 2012 By Peter Ferrara 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 51

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 AlQaeda "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 Spectre Gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault." But the order for the 52

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 harm's 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 YouTube 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." 53

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 54

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."

Say, this admission on Benghazi terrorist attack might cause Obama a few problems
September 22nd 2012 By Ed Morrissey 55

Ya think? After a week of hesitation, the White House now says it is self-evident that a terrorist attack, and not just a spontaneous reaction from a furious mob, struck the US Consulate in Benghazi,Libya, last week. Actually, it wasnt hesitation. The White House insisted that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a protest that spun out of control and sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto a number of Sunday talk shows last weekend to insist on it. They rolled out a false story even while the Libyan President said there was no doubt that the attack was premeditated and well organized. Why did the Obama administration stick with the false story until it fell apart? The Christian Science Monitor answers that question in the following paragraphs: The characterization is important, because it opens the door to the conclusion that the attack was a preplanned assault, resulting in the deaths of four US diplomats, including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. The repercussions of declaring that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist assault on the United States would be extensive. For starters, it would raise questions about the Obama administrations precautions in a volatile region and its preparedness for anti-US strikes in an area known to harbor Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist elements. Lets recall the date of this attack. It was the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a date which alQaeda has repeatedly attempted to exploit again in order to make itself feared. Benghazi is in the eastern part of Libya, where AQ has operated for years, recruiting hundreds of low-level jihadis for the war in Iraq, and who have been able to operate even more openly after the fall of Moammar Qaddafi. That prompts the question of why the Obama administration didnt take any extra precautions for the Benghazi consulate, especially now that Libya claims to have warned the US a few days before the attack of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi. Thats not the only problem that arises with this new admission, either: More broadly, it could call into question President Obamas Middle East policy in the wake of the Arab awakening. Some Republican critics are already tarring the policy as too weak and dismissive of the threats that the regions tumult presents. Obama pushed Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt and he bombed Qaddafi out of power in Libya. At the time, Obama hailed the Arab Spring movements as harbingers of democracy and justified his intervention in Libya by claiming that the security of its inhabitants was threatened by Qaddafi (which it certainly was). Have these interventions improved matters? More to the point, have they improved US standing and security, and the standing and security of our allies? Not at all; even Obama suggested that Egypt was no longer an ally of the US under its new leadership, causing NBCs chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel to openly question why we got involved in the Arab Spring at all. The cover story offered by the White House shows just how badly they miscalculated on the Arab Spring, and the inevitable seizure of power by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the 56

rise of AQ in eastern Libya, two utterly predictable consequences of Obamas interventions. It also shows that the Obama administration, from the top down, understood just how bad this story was and either lied to themselves, lied to us, or a bit of both in order to avoid the consequences of it. That might be the most damaging revelation of all.

Bombshell Report: US Knew Benghazi Raid Was a Terrorist Attack Within 24 Hours
September 26th 2012 For a full week following the deadly ambush at the US consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration told the American public that the incident was triggered by a "spontaneous protest" over an anti-Islam video that spun out of hand. They've equivocated over recent days, as the president has begun to hedge finally allowing that other forces may have had a hand in the destruction. Today, national security correspondent Eli Lake has a bombshell exclusive in Newsweek/The Daily Beast that destroys the administration's official story and points to an intentional cover-up: Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaedaaffiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. "We learned more information every single day about what happened, Gibbs said on Fox News. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do. The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they werent authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy, this official said. We believe we had enough to target him. Another U.S. intelligence official said, There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, I cant get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good beat on some individuals involved in the attack.

Here's the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, telling the American people that the administration's "best information" indicated that the attack began as a "spontaneous, not a premeditated" response to a YouTube clip. These statements were made five days after Ambassador Stevens' murder:

LIBYA Susan Rice: Embassy Attack By Extremists Is Spontaneous, Heavy Weapons Accessible
57 Rice recited this version of events on all five Sunday chat shows. Seven days later (and 12 days after the event), former White House Press Secretary and Obama campaign strategist defended Rice, saying that she simply gave the best answers she could, given the intelligence available at the time:

Chris Wallace Grills Robert Gibbs Over Obama Admin.'s Insistence That Libya Attack Was Spontaneous The Newsweek bulletin contradicts both Rice's initial statements and Gibbs' apologia. Meanwhile, the Libyan president appeared on NBC today and stated the obvious that the 9/11 Benghazi attacks had "nothing to do" with any protests or Islam-demeaning internet videos (indeed, various news outlets have reported that no protests even existed in the area prior to the attack). Perhaps Obama could have learned something if he'd bothered to meet with Magarief at the UN earlier this week, rather than grinning and waving for The View's cameras. The lethal raid that led to the murders of four American diplomats, including a sitting ambassador, was a carefully-planned terrorist attack timed to take place on a conspicuously symbolic date. The administration claimed for days that this was not the case, even though they had intelligence to the contrary. Our consulate had comprehensively inadequate security and our safe house was compromised. The administration has not explained why, apart from noting that the diplomatic mission was granted a waiver (!) from minimum security requirements. Our ambassador's private journal, discovered several days after the attack by journalists at the unsecured compound, made clear that he was worried about terrorist threats -- which the administration has said did not exist. Now Mitt Romney wants to know why the White House has been giving American citizens the run-around: "I think they want to do their very best to keep the people of America from understanding exactly what happened. We expect candor, we expect transparency, particularly, as it relates to terrorism," Romney said. "Why is he (Obama) not on the same page with his own administration officials who are saying that this is a terrorist attack? We'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's a cover-up or not," Ryan said. Good luck getting many answers useful from this president. Politico reports he's being deliberately sheltered from difficult questions as part of an explicit campaign strategy: Obamas team has always been wary of the beat reporters who cover him most closely in the West Wing, but seldom has access been so pinched. Hes been less available to the working national press than Romney who has suddenly increased his accessibility to the media. When Obamas team makes him available, its not to the political press but to state and local media more likely to give him unfiltered access to battleground voters. And his few national appearances are tightly controlled. Over the past several weeks, Obama has delivered a series of light-on-news appearances on The Late Show with David Letterman and 60 Minutes. His most serious grilling came at the hands of a Univision anchor a necessary risk to capture the critical Hispanic vote. But most of the time, his staff has safeguarded his reputation, going so far as to request clearance of some quotes from author Michael Lewis, who interviewed Obama for a Vanity Fair profile. If one day exemplified the risk-averse strategy, it was Monday. In New York, Obama decided to skip the usual round 58

of potentially messy one-on-one meetings with world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly but had time for a joint appearance with first lady Michelle Obama on The View with Barbara Walters and the gang. UPDATE - 15 days after the massacre, the White House has at last officially designated it as a terrorist attack

Allen West Blames Barack Jimmy Carter Obama For Encouraging Mideast Violence September 24th 2012 Rep. Allen West rightly blames the Obama Administrations perceived weakness in the Middle East for the massive anti-American violence since the attack on the Libyan embassy, comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter.

Claims of U.S. Intelligence Officials Make Obama a Liar

September 27th 2012 By Chris Graham It is important to read this piece with the knowledge that President Obama, in his first 1,225 days in office, skipped 56 percent of his daily intelligence briefings. And so far, this year alone he has skipped 62 percent of those meetings. The media likes to adoringly point out the unprecedented aspects of this presidency, so Im sure they will draw attention to this fact in no time. Now that you know how neglectful Obama has been of these intelligence briefings, I can proceed. We have been hearing repeatedly from this administration that, against all common sense, the cause of the violence in the Middle East that exploded on September 11 two weeks ago and killed four Americans was merely the manifestation of hurt feelings over a 14-minute antiIslam video posted months and months ago on YouTube. Obama made the claim just three days ago during his taping of The View (part of his busy schedule that prevented him from meeting with Israels Netanyahu). He even repeated it the next day during his United Nations speech: In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Of course the reason for blaming the video has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with finding a scapegoat for Obamas failed Middle East policy of apologizing for America and appeasing Islamists. Now today, in an interview with NBCs Ann Curry, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief has made a fool of President Obama: he stated that the attacks on the US embassy in Libya had nothing to do with the video and that it was a pre-planned act of terror. When pressed by Curry to detail his evidence for this, he said he could not because the investigation was still underway, but he assured Curry that so far, all the evidence discovered shows that it was an attack planned by al-Qaeda. He also gave the common-sense argument that the Obama administration has been hoping would be lost on Americans: because the video is relatively 59

old, Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September. They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message. This makes President Obama a fool. The next bit makes him a liar: The Daily Beast, a left-wing website affiliated with Newsweek Magazine, reported yesterday that, according to three as-yet unnamed US intelligence officials, the Obama administration knew within 24 hours after the attack that the attack was the plot of al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate. And yet the administration has been telling Americans and foreigners alike for the last two weeks that the attack was a spontaneous revolt against some obscure video on the Internet. The White House even went so far as to ask YouTube, a private company, to examine their terms of service to see if they can find justification in having the video removed. That is, Obama sought to silence free speech that he knew to be harmless and irrelevant. Why? Journalists? Reporters? Why?

What Drives Obamas Foreign Policy!

Benghazi-Gate: New Evidence White House Lied About Libya Terror Attack!
September 28th 2012


Yesterday, we learned that within 24 hours of something they would spend nine days describing as a "spontaneous" protest gone bad, the Obama Administration itself designated the attack on our Libyan consulate as a terrorist attack. And yet, days later, Obama would trot U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows to look the media and America in the eye with a wildly false story the White House had known for days just wasn't true: Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The sources said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike. Further, an official said, "No one believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob no one." And it wasn't just Ambassador Rice telling us something our government knew wasn't true. As this timeline proves, it was also White House spokesman Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the President himself. Today, thanks to some great reporting from the Daily Beast's Eli Lake, we're now learning that within hours of the Libyan attack, on monitored communications, U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda militants celebrating their successful attack: In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the groups North African affiliate. In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out last night during Brett Baier's Fox News' roundtable, the explanation for the White House cover up is quite simple: At their convention, Team Obama had just completed three days of spiking the bin Laden football and reassuring America that al-Qaeda had been decimated by smart power. Then it all blew up in their face. The Middle East exploded and al-Qaeda successfully executed a pre-planned assassination of our Libyan ambassador. What to do? What to do? Well, when you have the media completely on your side, you use them as co-conspirators. So as the media distracted from the attack by relentlessly hammering Romney over his criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, the Obama administration fabricated a fairy tale that would avoid game-changing headlines that might read: Al-Qaeda Assassinates Libyan Ambassador; Security Questions Raised. 61

It's obvious now that the Administration and media are hoping to run out the clock. That leaves it up to New Media and a few legitimate reporters in the MSM to drip-drip-drip out the truth surrounding a first class scandal a scandal in three parts: 1) The lack of security at the consulate. 2) The lies about this being the result of a spontaneous demonstration. 3) The cover up of numbers one and two. But if what I'm seeing today is any indication, the media remains as guilty as the Obama Administration in what's now known as 'Benghazi-Gate'. Because the more proof of the White House cover up that's discovered, the more the media disengages from the story. Solely because it might damage Obama's reelection chances, the biggest story in the country right now is not being told.

What Drives Obamas Foreign Policy!

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11

October 23rd 2012 By Sharyl Attkisson 62

(CBS News) It was six weeks ago on Tuesday that terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Now, CBS News has obtained email alerts that were put out by the State Department as the attack unfolded. Four Americans were killed in the attack, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. These emails contain the earliest description so far of what happened at Benghazi the night of the attack. Read the emails (PDF) Ambassador warned Libya was "volatile and violent" Why no one has been right about Libya CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP At 4:05 p.m. Eastern time, on September 11, an alert from the State Department Operations Center was issued to a number government and intelligence agencies. Included were the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI. "US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" "approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven."

Clinton on email: "Not in and of itself evidence" At 4:54 p.m., less than an hour later, another alert: "the firing in Benghazi has stopped. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM (embassy) personnel." 63

Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack"... "on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." The emails are just a few in what are likely a large number traded throughout the night. They are likely to become part of the ongoing political debate over whether the administration attempted to mislead in saying the assault was an outgrowth of a protest, rather than a planned attack by terrorists. Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence. "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said. The White House and State Department declined comment on the email alerts. The House Oversight Committee told CBS News the information in the emails will be part of their ongoing investigation into the Benghazi attack.

Obama Linked to Benghazi Attack! We learned Tuesday that Barack Hussein Obama, along with the FBI, CIA, the State Department, and literally hundreds of intelligence-related entities within the federal government knew the Benghazi consulate had been attacked by terrorists within two hours. We learned that three emails were sent directly to the White House Situation Room describing the incident as a terrorist attack. We learned that Obama watched in real time and did nothing while four Americans were murdered. And while Obama and the mainstream media were playing Pin the tail on the YouTube video for two weeks, Western Journalism had been on top of this story since day one. We knew that a cover-up was occurring from the very beginning. But it was not simply a President who stood by and did nothing while four Americans were murdered. Not simply a President so myopic that he refused to accept that terrorists, under his bridge-building administration, would want to kill us. It was something much more.

Much more sinister.

The White House Disinformation Campaign On Libya
October 8th 2012 64

New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves. From UN Ambassador Susan Rice to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama the Obama Administration lied to the American people about the Libyan consulate attack, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. For two weeks America was told it was due to an anti-Muslim video when intelligence knew within twenty-four hours that it was an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack. When will this Administration stop lying to the America people and when will the mainstream media call them on their lies?

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya!

Obamas Idea of Justice for the Murder of 4 Americans!


Benghazi-Gate: U.S. Security Remained Lax Even As Threats Chased Westerners Out
October 1st 2012 By John Nolte

The Clueless and Criminally Negligent

If you want to look for a motive behind the White House deceiving, and in some instances, outright lying about what really happened in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, look no further than this Washington Post story: Security in eastern Libya deteriorated sharply in recent months. A string of attacks, some linked to fundamentalist groups, made clear that Westerners were no longer safe. The International Committee of the Red Cross suspended operations and evacuated staff in the east after an attack June 12 on its compound in the port city of Misrata. In Benghazi, convoys transporting the U.N. country chief and the British ambassador were attacked in April and June, respectively. The British government shut down its consulate soon afterward. The U.S. outpost had a close call of its own June 6, when a small roadside bomb detonated outside the walls, causing no injuries or significant damage. But the Americans stayed put. The Red Cross left, the British were attacked and left; we were attacked and we not only didnt leave, apparently we didn't even increase our security: U.S. officials appear to have underestimated the threat facing both the ambassador and other Americans. They had not reinforced the U.S. diplomatic outpost there to meet strict safety standards for government buildings overseas. Nor had they posted a U.S. Marine detachment, as at other diplomatic sites in high-threat regions.


A U.S. military team assigned to establish security at the new embassy in Tripoli, in a previously undisclosed detail, was never instructed to fortify the temporary hub in the east. Instead, a small local guard force was hired by a British private security firm as part of a contract worth less than half of what it costs to deploy a single U.S. service member in a war zone for a year. How do you underestimate a threat after you and other Westerners have already been attacked? Instead, we continued to rely on cheap British contractors: The Benghazi compound was an anomaly for U.S. diplomatic posts. It was not a formal consulate and certainly not an embassy. It was a liaison office established before Gaddafis ouster. It was staffed by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, a State Department office that dispatches government officials to hardship posts for short tours. Instead of signing a costly security contract similar to those the government has for facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the State Department this summer awarded a contract to Blue Mountain, a small British security firm, to provide local guards at the Benghazi compound. The year-long contract, which took effect in March, was worth $387,413, a minuscule sum for war-zone contracting. Blue Mountain and the State Department declined to comment for this article. Today's New York Times report only adds to the mystery: An effective response by newly trained Libyan security guards to a small bombing outside the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi in June may have led United States officials to underestimate the security threat to personnel there, according to counterterrorism and State Department officials, even as threat warnings grew in the weeks before the recent attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The guards aggressive action in June came after the missions defenses and training were strengthened at the recommendation of a small team of Special Forces soldiers who augmented the missions security force for several weeks in April while assessing the compounds vulnerabilities, American officials said. That the local security did so well back in June probably gave us a false sense of security, said one American official who has served in Libya, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is investigating the attack. We may have fooled ourselves. How do you fool yourself when you're dealing with al-Qaeda when youre dealing with American lives? It's seems impossible to imagine that no one thought to themselves: Maybe they will return with an even bigger force. Maybe they learned something from this attack and will return at a later date much better prepared. Maybe that date will be 9/11. The first paragraph of the NYTs story also contains this bombshell: even as threat warnings grew in the weeks before the recent attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. But-but-but we've been told by our government that there was no intelligence! 67

Oh, wait, our government refuses to answer that question. In fact, every time our government is asked about intelligence surrounding increased threats in Benghazi, the answer is always moved into the safe arena of "actionable intelligence which we obviously didnt have because. We Didn't Act On Anything. That we're just learning this information about the lax security in Libya 20 days after the attack makes sense. What's appalling is that the media is only starting to ask these questions now. But that's why the White House spent eight full days pushing the false narrative that the murder of four Americans in Libya was the result of a "spontaneous" protest over a YouTube video. This is also why the news media was a co-conspirator in the cover up and spent six days beating Romney senseless over his statement about the Cairo Embassy apology. Essentially, this is how the media and the Obama campaign worked together to keep The Narrative on Romney and off Obama, even as Obama's Middle East policy melted down in over two countries before our very eyes; even as the White House lies about a "spontaneous" protest became laughable within hours. Sure, the story's starting to get some coverage now. Eventually, it had to. But in those crucial early days, the White House's scape-goating of the filmmaker and the media's phony hysteria over the Romney statement kept the story from becoming the kind of feeding frenzy that might damage Obama. Now the story is a controlled explosion instead of an explosive story. It's also worth noting that nearly three weeks after the attack, our government is still telling us that American investigators have not gained access to or sealed the consulate. You know, the same consulate the American media has apparently had no problem crawling all over.

Benghazi-Gate: Obamas Lax Security Led To Four Dead Americans! October 2nd 2012 On June 6, the Libyan consulate was attacked with an IED. Al-Qaeda took responsibility and said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Libyan al Qaeda second-in-command Abu Yahya al Libi. On September 9, al-Qaeda released a video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of al Libi. And September 11 was obviously a date celebrated by our enemies. Normal preparation would have been to have a contingent of Marines on hand on September 11 to protect the Libyan consulate in case any problems occurred. That never occurred, and the result was the murder of four American citizens by Islamic terrorists. Why then was the Libyan consulate so poorly protected? A better question would be, why did the Obama administration spend two weeks denying it was an act of terrorism and try to blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video?


Watergate was mild in relation to this cover-up. Benghazi-Gate should receive the full attention of the American people until we determine who is responsible for the lax security that led to the murder of four American citizens. And if that person is one Barack Hussein Obama, he should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

What Drives Obamas Foreign Policy!

Media Superhero

Bombshell: Obama Administration Deleted State Dept. Memo From Internet After Discovering Al-Qaeda Was Behind Benghazi Attack
Sept 27th 2012 Yesterday there were reports that the Obama Administration found out that Al-Qaeda was behind the Benghazi consulate attacks within 24 hours of the assault that killed four Americans. So what was their first action? Did they secure the compound? No, that took over a week to get FBI agents to the consulate Did they acknowledge it was an Al-Qaeda attack? No, Obama this week blamed the terror attack on a YouTube protest. Heres what they did They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet. On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11. The Overseas Security Advisory Council, who posted the memo, is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State. Here is a screen grab of the memo at the OSAC website:


The OSAC memo said: Terrorism and Important Dates Global 9/6/2012 OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qaida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot. But now its gone. The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.


The damning memo is gone. How convenient. They flushed the damning memo down the internet memory hole.
Related: Libyan Officials Claim US Was Warned 3 DAYS BEFORE Deadly Benghazi Consulate Attack

Obama & Hillar y More Responsible Than Any Video!

September 21st 2012 By Ron Reale

Partners in Crime
No video, no matter how accurate or insulting to the delusional pedophile prophet, was responsible for the recent American Embassy riots. On the anniversary of 9/11, we had no hardening of the protection of our foreign embassies?! Our disgracefully unarmed Marines, men who would willingly give up their lives to keep American territory from being violated (and to keep any foreign flag from flying over America), might as well have been replaced by Boy Scouts? WHY? When Barack Obama and Hillary Clintons bought-and-paid-for assistants realized they could breach the Embassy walls in Cairo without any resistance, the world got to see the results of Obamas foreign policy/love affair with the Muslim brotherhood. When no Islamist bodies piled up as a result of their act of war because the American Embassy in Cairo had been purposely left disarmed by Hillary and Obama, the world got to see the results of Obamas foreign policy/love affair with the Muslim brotherhood. 72

When, hours later, the premeditated attacks on the American Embassy in Benghazi got underway, and the Libyan protection collapsed, leading to the death of our Ambassador, the world got to see the results of Obamas foreign policy/love affair with the Muslim brotherhood. Since then, with the help of a subservient media in full campaign mode for Obama, a video clip or some (accurate) Mitt Romney statements are used to deflect criticism of the Weakness-inChief and feed the attacks throughout the rest of the Muslim world. There is an easy way for Obama to really prove his love affair for the Muslim brotherhood. Now that the Israeli Prime Minister has been rebuffed in his latest attempt to rein in Irans nuclear quest and finds himself with no choice but to go it alone, I believe it will be Obama who attacks Israel to keep them from attacking Iran, claiming their refusal to wait for his (ineffective) policies (and those of the UN), necessitates his action. He will claim that the UN has to attack to keep the Muslim world from reacting. America will not lead where American values are the goal. Not under Obama, ever. Obamas America will do the bidding of the UN. He will supply his Muslim brotherhood governments with all the logistical support needed to defeat Israel. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone but the media and politicians, who never seem to believe our terrorists enemies when they say they are going to do what they are going to do! The Muslim Brotherhood wants to take over the world and destroy America. It is their stated goal, and President Obama gives them billions in our American taxpayer dollars to get it done. Iran wants the same goals, and its mad dog leader states so repeatedly, calling for a Muslim caliphate and Sharia law to rule America and the world. President Obama waits for years as they get stronger and arm for their coming 12th imam to get out of his sewer and engulf the world in fire, from which they think they will emerge victorious. Another powerful madman world leader states he will stand with the Muslims should political winds shift in an ugly direction. It is the one time Barack Hussein Obama spoke the truth.


The Apology Tour Continues: Obama, Clinton Say Sorry to Rioting Pakistanis!!!
September 21st 2012 By Helle Dale The Heritage Foundation (

Partners in Crime
Yesterday, the President and Secretary of State of the United States of America went on Pakistani television to apologize. In a commercial containing clips from their Washington press conferences, subtitled in Urdu, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said sorry to the mad hordes attacking the American embassy in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad and deplored the infamous anti-Muslim14minute YouTube video. We absolutely reject its content and message, said Clinton in the advertisements, which ended with the seal of the American embassy in Pakistan. U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for this high-level official apology to the tune of $70,000.

This is not public diplomacy. This is madness.

First off, Clinton and Obama should actually issue another apology this one to the personnel of the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Their apology statement, posted on the embassys website on September 11 while the embassy was under attack, was denounced the following day by the Secretary of State and the President and subsequently taken down. All these apologies are, however, extensions of the Obama apology tour, the moral underpinning of the Presidents approach to foreign policy, which holds that the U.S. must be at fault whenever international problems arise. It began soon after his inauguration and is still going strong. The President has apologized for Guantanamo; for the CIA and its techniques; for U.S. policies toward the Americas; for slavery, segregation, and the treatment of Native Americans; for the War on Terrorism; for policy toward the Muslim world, etc., etc. 74

At the heart of Obamas display of humility, however, is his belief in his own power to redeem this countrys many sins. To the G-20 summit of world leaders, Obama stated in 2009, I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that weve made, that youre starting to see some restoration of Americas standing in the world. Clearly, the rioting mobs burning the American flag and even the Presidents image dont see it that way. Instead of apologies, the public diplomacy message of the Administration should be a defense of American people, values, and interests. Here is what a worthwhile commercial featuring Clinton and Obama might have said: We have had enough. The United States stands for freedom of expression at home and abroad and will continue to do so in the face of thuggish intimidation. Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We stand with those who share these values, and we demand that all violence against our embassies and personnel cease immediately. Sadly, though, the apology tour continues.

The Film Critic


Christopher Stevens Feeds the Crocodile

September 14th 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

Winston Churchill once said, An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. On September 11, Christopher Stevens, a career diplomat, became one of the first Americans in Libya to feed the crocodile of Ansar Al-Sharia and learned too late that while appeasers may hope to be eaten last, they are often eaten first. Christopher Stevens was a Middle Eastern diplomat who typified the new breed going from the University of Berkeley and the Peace Corps to desks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. He taught English to Moroccan children in the Peace Corps and helped Palestinian Arabs in the East Jerusalem Consulate, which has a firm policy of pretending that Israel does not exist. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Christopher Stevens that he made other peoples hopes his own and that may serve as a fitting eulogy both for Stevens and for the disastrous foreign policy of making other peoples hopes our own that brought on the Arab Spring. Stevens, like Clinton and Obama, made the hopes of Islamists his own and they repaid him for it, just as Afghans repaid America for supporting them against the Soviet Union, as Lebanon and Somalia repaid Americas peacekeeping efforts by killing American troops and on down the litany of gratitude in bombs and bullets that have come Americas way from the Muslim world. He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to build a better Libya, Hillary Clinton said, but if anything his murder exposed the lie that there is a better Libya now than there was before Hillary and he intervened in Libya. Clintons eulogy comes perilously close to conceding Stevens real mission and the degree of American intervention in the overthrow of Gaddafi. Stevens was the connection between the Islamist Benghazi rebels and the Obama administrations illegal war to overthrow Gaddafi. His mission, like the true mission of the war, was secret, and the consulate, marginally fortified and devoid of Marines, reflected that secrecy. Stevens did not think that he had anything to fear from the Islamists because they were his friends. 76

In the Wikileaks cables, Stevens cheerfully described fighters who saw resistance against coalition forces in Iraq as an important act of jihad and local businessmen who took pride in the number of suicide bombers who had come out of the area. For years he had walked safely in their company without understanding that he was just as much of a target as a Marine in Baghdad, but without the training, the weapons or the survival skills. The only reason Christopher Stevens had lasted this long is that the jihadist fighters had known a useful man when they met him. And Stevens proved to be very useful, but his usefulness ended with Gaddafis death. Once the US successfully overthrew Gaddafi and began focusing on stabilizing Libya, Stevens ceased to be a useful idiot and became a useless nuisance. Attacks soon followed on the Benghazi consulate and on other consulates as well, but the Marines were not brought in and Stevens continued relying on local goodwill to secure his offices. It was only a matter of time until the attackers got through. Clinton, her State Department and its media allies appear unnaturally eager to paint Christopher Stevens as an American martyr to the cause of Libyan Islamism, a kinder, gentler Rachel Corrie who willingly died so that the Islamists might have their dream of an Islamic state in Libya. We will of course never know what was going through Christopher Stevens mind on September 11, 2012, as he battled the choking smoke, experiencing what so many New Yorkers had experienced on September 11, 2001. Like them, he was faced with a terrible dilemma, a choice between remaining in the fire and committing suicide by going outside. Many in the World Trade Center chose to jump to their deaths, but Christopher Stevens chose to remain inside and die rather than face the tender mercies of his attackers. Stevens had spent enough time in Libya to have seen what the jihadist fighters did to their captives and must have known what horrors he could expect at their hands. The photos that have been released, along with claims by Libyan jihadists that they sexually assaulted his corpse, suggest that he made the right choice. And perhaps in those final moments, facing that terrible choice, Christopher Stevens finally understood the true horror of the Muslim world that he had fallen in love with as a Peace Corps volunteer. He was an avid student of Islam and the Middle East, and consistently strove to build the proverbial bridge between our two cultures in the face of sometimes overwhelming antagonism and bitter misunderstanding, a friend from the diplomatic service tells us. But though Christopher Stevens may have studied Islam, he had learned very little about it, and so his final lesson was the bloody one that Westerners who never really learn what Islam is about end up receiving. The world needs more Chris Stevenses, Hillary Clinton said, but does it really? Does it need more tall dead blond Americans lying bloodied in the gutters of Muslim cities? Does it need men who give up the hopes and dreams of their country to take on the dreams of their enemies without ever realizing where the fatal road of those dreams leads? Stevens former Peace Corps colleague says of him, Chris devoted his career, and life, to improving relations between the Arabic/Islamic world and the West. That he did and he died doing it, losing whatever career or life he might have had if he had not embarked on a futile errand to make the Muslims who killed him and paraded around his body like him. And like all those who have died over the years in the same cause, the effort was to no avail.


Its especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save, Obama said, repeating the same lie that he used to drag America into his illegal war. Benghazi was not in any need of saving, it was the Americans who came to Benghazi, like Chris Stevens, who needed saving. That is the terrible blind spot in our vision which, like Christopher Stevens, tells us that we need to save the Muslims who hate us, rather than showing us that we need to save ourselves.

Ambassador Stevens Murdered By Terrorists He Helped Bring To Power

September 17th 2012 By Doug Book

The enthusiastic celebration of Arab Spring by the American left has at last been repudiated by the gruesome realities of Islamic Jihad. But dont expect to hear much about this sudden intrusion of brutal fact into the lefts pathetic dabblings in American foreign policy. Politically embarrassing events such as the failure to protect American diplomats being murdered and dragged through the streets before cheering throngs rarely make for lasting headlines, especially not when a Democrat president has ignored advance warning of the threat which he more than anyone else was responsible for bringing about. Once the US successfully overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and began focusing on stabilizing Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens ceased to be a useful idiot and became a useless nuisance. This assessment by Frontpage Magazines Daniel Greenfield goes directly to the heart of the lefts fantastic belief that becoming best buddies with Islamic terrorists renders American dhimmis immune from a murderous payoff when their services are no longer required. Christopher Stevens was an avid student of Islam and the Middle East, and consistently strove to build the proverbial bridge between our two cultures in the face of sometimes overwhelming antagonism and bitter misunderstanding, said a friend of the Ambassador after his murder by the Muslim terrorists Stevens had done so much to bring to power in Libya.


But Greenfield prefers to describe Stevens as a Middle Eastern diplomat who typified the new breed going from the University of Berkeley and the Peace Corps to desks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. Years of self-delusion about Islam being a religion which befriends those who actively appease its most radical practitioners caused Stevens to rush back to Libya in April of 2011 when the efforts of the formerly Muslim President Obama to oust Muammar Gaddafi had begun to gather steam. However, it seems that Stevens succeeded only in offering his diplomatic services to many of the same jihadists who later dragged his corpse through Benghazi streets, all no doubt to the cheers of those members of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to whom Obama himself had so thoroughly apologized for the unforgiveable religious affronts of the Islamophobic American public. Many remember the extraordinarily successful appeasement by Jimmy Carter of yet another beacon of the tender mercies of Islamic refinement as the brilliant Georgia peanut farmer betrayed the Shah of Iran in favor of the merciful Ayatollah Khomeini in the Fall of 1979. Of course the American media refused to blame dhimmi Jimmy for the 444 days Americans spent as kidnap victims of the Iranian government, just as todays mock journalists continue to claim the contents of an obscure 15 minute video to be responsible for Muslim uprisings across the globe. The fact that assaults on the American Embassy in Egypt had been planned before the video was even known to exist apparently just gets in the way of a good story. Liberal, useful idiots like Stevens will continue to exist in sufficient numbers to betray both American interests and lives throughout the increasingly barbaric nations of the Middle East. But as they continue to advance the farcical notion that Islamophobic Americans are somehow responsible for the acts of bestial cruelty practiced for 14 centuries by the subhuman worshippers of a cult of prescribed, religious murder, these fools represent an ever increasing danger to the security of the United States and its citizens. Making foolish gambles with their own lives is one thing. Demanding Americans eventually share their fate by ignoring the evidence of our own eyes is something else. Its time Americans stop following the march of the radical left to Sharia-mandated extermination.

Homosexual behavior punishable by imprisonment & death in Muslim nation

September 17th 2012 By Jeromer R. Corsi

Did Obama Send A 'GAY' Ambassador To Libya?

Did President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton send a gay ambassador to Muslim-majority Libya, where homosexual behavior is a crime punishable by imprisonment and death? Believing the Arab Spring countries would be encouraged to embrace democracy through left-leaning diplomats dedicated to understanding and dialoguing with Muslim communities, did a State Department under Secretary Clinton that refused to establish rules of engagement providing embassy personnel Marine Corp protection take the additional risk of placing a gay ambassador in Muslim countries? The question comes amid claims in the diplomatic community that J. Christopher Stevens the U.S. ambassador to Libya brutally murdered on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was homosexual. 79

The question is worth serious exploration, even if Stevens sexuality cannot be determined with certainty, because U.S. government Foreign Service agencies are actively recruiting from the homosexual community for diplomatic assignments overseas, including in the Middle East. The recruitment derives from a larger policy decision Obama and Clinton have made to confront discrimination against homosexuals globally, even in Muslim countries. Meanwhile, the Obama administration insists on attributing the deadly attack in Libya and the violent protests throughout the Muslim world as solely a reaction to a 14-minute movie trailer posted on the Internet, without acknowledging that the movie, Innocence of Muslims, depicts the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, as a pedophile and a homosexual. Sending Stevens to the Muslim Middle East, where some countries punish homosexual behavior with death, is like sending a dolphin to swim among the sharks. Many on the political left who spend their lives in academia or working for the government live in this utopia. A part of political correctness says, Just because Stevens is gay, why wouldnt we send him there. Its insane not to appreciate the risks we face living in a very hostile world.

LGBT Recruiting
Posted on the State Department website is a career statement answering the questions: Does the Department of State Consider Lesbians and Gays for Employment? What if I have a samesex live-in partner? In answering the question, the State Department website continues: It is the policy of the Department of State to provide equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, political affiliation, marital status, or sexual orientation. There are many new provisions for declared same-sex domestic partners of eligible employees serving overseas: diplomatic passports (for US citizens), inclusion on employee travel orders to and from posts abroad, shipment of household effects, inclusion in family size calculations for the purpose of making household allocations, family member preference for employment at posts abroad, use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, emergency travel for partners to visit gravely ill or injured employees and relatives, inclusion as family members for emergency evacuation from posts abroad, subsistence payments related to emergency evacuation from posts abroad, inclusion in calculation of overseas allowances (e.g., payment for quarters, cost of living, and other allowances, representation expenses, and training at the Foreign Service Institute. A note at the bottom of the listing, which reads almost as an afterthought, says the federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, defines marriage as a heterosexual union and spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife definitions the note says apply for purposes of all federal laws.


Still, the State Department webpage links to remarks Clinton made on Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees. She announced June 18, 2009, that following a memorandum issued by President Obama, the State Department was extending the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad. On Dec. 6, 2011, Obama issued a new LGBT policy via another presidential memorandum directing the secretary of state to fight LGBT discrimination on a global basis. On the same day, Clinton, in a speech at the Palais de Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, in recognition of Internal Human Rights Day, pledged $3 million to the creation of a Global Equality Fund to start an organization dedicated to advocating for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places. Gay and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, known as GLIFFA, is the officially recognized organization representing the LGBT community employed by a variety of U.S. government agencies with foreign diplomacy missions, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. In making these changes, the Obama administration has tasked Clinton with reversing decades of policy directives in the U.S. diplomatic service that considered homosexuality an offense that could lead to termination of employment. The policy was based on the possibility that known homosexuals in the diplomatic ranks would be vulnerable to blackmail. Several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, consider LGBT lifestyles to be criminal, subject to severe punishment, including in some instances the death penalty. A gay pride celebration at a U.S. Embassy party in Islamabad, Pakistan, June 26, 2011, provoked an angry reaction from Muslim groups who reportedly condemned the event as an act of cultural terrorism aimed at the nations Islamic values. A posting still available on the U.S. Embassy website in Islamabad notes 75 people, including mission officers, U.S. military representatives, foreign diplomats and leaders of Pakistani LGBT groups, attended gay pride event hosted June 26, 2011, by Charg dAffaires Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland. This gathering demonstrated continued U.S. Embassy support for human rights, including LGBT rights, in Pakistan at a time when those rights are increasingly under attack from extremist elements throughout Pakistani society, the U.S. Embassy website noted. Addressing the Pakistani LGBT activists, the Charg, while acknowledging that the struggle for LGBT rights in Pakistan is beginning, said I want to be clear: the U.S. Embassy is here to support you and stand by your side every step of the way.

Death of an ambassador
In a briefing Sept. 12, the State Department in Washington indicated it lacked detailed knowledge of how Stevens died in an attack that began around 10 p.m. local time in Libya and lasted several hours.


An unnamed State Department spokesman explained the following: At some point in all of this and frankly, we do not know when we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport. A report published Sept. 12 on the Lebanese news agency website indicated Stevens had been sodomized before being murdered, although the report was later removed from the website after Agence France Presse objected that its source had been falsely quoted by the Lebanese news agency and there was no truth whatsoever to the report. The official State Department account said it was 2 a.m. local time before local security forces were able to regain control of the situation. It was unclear how many hours passed before Stevens body was found at a local hospital. The State Department has not yet indicated whether the results of any autopsy on Stevens body will be made public. The official timeline suggests Stevens was not killed in the gunfire aimed at the mission annex some two hours after the incident began, and its unclear who transported him and how from the scene of the attack to a local hospital. Nor has the U.S. public been informed whether or not Stevens was yet alive when he was taken from the scene of the attack to a local hospital.

Planned attack?
A report published by the Independent of London Sept. 14 indicated Stevens death resulted from a serious and continuing security breach. The U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi that the American mission to Libya had been targeted to be hit in a planned attack. The Independent further reported that Stevens had only recently returned to Libya after a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden. But no warnings were given for him to go on high alert and lockdown restricting movements. On Sunday, Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBSs Face the Nation that the attack on the U.S. Consulate f in Benghazi was preplanned, contradicting directly U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rices insistence on the Sunday morning talk shows that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an Internet-posted video offensive to Islam. CNN also published a report Sunday indicating three days before the fatal attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security. What has been established is that the U.S. State Department under the direction of Hillary Clinton had provided only minimal security for Stevens trip to Benghazi, evidently assuming he was well-loved by the Libyans, given his experience with the region and his dedication to transforming the Arab Spring into genuine democracy for Libya.


Stevens lacked a Marine security detail in Benghazi, in contrast to White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, who appears to have a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week Secret Service detail of five or six agents, including when she vacations on Martha Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell. Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt laid the blame for Stevens murder on Hillary Clinton, noting the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in country. Local nationals hired as security guards in Benghazi were not authorized to load their weapons with bullets. On Sept. 15, the London Daily Telegraph reported al-Qaida meticulously planned the attack in Libya to occur on the anniversary of 9/11. It was ordered by al-Qaida chief Ayman alZawahiri in retaliation for a U.S. drone that killed al-Qaida propaganda chief Sheik Abu Yahya al-Libi in June.

The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers

September 21st 2012 By Mark Tapson

Soon after the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Libya, reports began coming in that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not only murdered by the Muslim mob, but also sodomized both before and after his death, and his corpse dragged through the streets. This grotesque defilement was willfully suppressed by the mainstream media, who were focused like a laser on a much more horrific story: presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking like a conservative at a fundraiser. Thank goodness that in these difficult times we can count on the media to cover the news we really need to know. As FrontPage Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim writes, Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found. Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported freedom-fighter, for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along. 83

Ibrahim finishes by noting that the al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same men who sexually abused and killed Americas ambassador. This revelation about the sexual denigration of the reportedly gay Ambassador Stevens raises several questions. First, when are so-called liberals going to shed the rose-tinted goggles of multiculturalism and get in touch with a righteous anger about a pathologically anti-gay, ragingly misogynist, mob culture that sexually violates and murders innocents? When are American progressives, who whine about a mythical Republican War on Women, going to denounce this perverse sexual pathology in Arab culture? When are leftist academics, up in arms about the Bush administrations enhanced interrogations of hardened terrorists, going to vent their fury against a culture that routinely commits sexual torture and mutilation? Gay rights supporters work themselves into a lather over the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which discriminates against neither gay employees nor gay customers. I suppose theyre unaware that most Arab and African nations walked out of an historic UN Human Rights Council debate on gay rights earlier this year, refusing to legitimize homosexuality. When are the liberals going to break their monastic silence about a theocratic culture that hangs gays from cranes, as in Iran, where President Ahmadinejad famously claimed they dont have the problem of homosexuality there? Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the lefts disgusting hypocrisy, because the answer to all of them is never. Breaking free of the mental bondage of multiculturalist indoctrination would cause the entire world view of leftists to come crashing down. They must cling to their delusion or risk a complete psychological meltdown. Another question: If suspicions of Ambassador Stevens homosexuality are true, why did the administration send a gay man to an unstable hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Did it not realize that the possible discovery of his sexual orientation could have ramped up the danger for Stevens? Kevin Dujan at Hillbuzz reports that a Serbian consulate employee named Dino told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual. Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens corpse was something that Muslims do to show the utmost disrespect to the body and that this is a great insult in Islam reserved for homosexuals. It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life, the Serbian explained to me. Women should find it pretty offensive that this process of degrading a corpse through rape is considered making him a woman in death and a woman after life. Why arent feminists taking to the streets to condemn this misogynist barbarism? Oh, I forgot theyre busy picketing Washington for free birth control, costumed as vaginas. The American left, forever screaming about gay marriage, demanding free birth control, and spewing hate at conservative Christians whom they disparage as the American Taliban, is shamefully silent about real evil in the world, about the most intolerant ideology on the planet and one that stands in stark contrast to the tolerance they claim to revere.


A final question: President Obama proudly announced, almost three and a half years into his tenure, that he had evolved far enough to support gay marriage; when can we expect him to evolve enough to express outrage not just a composed, rote condemnation of violence at a culture that condemns homosexuals to a grisly death? Some might argue that, to avoid igniting the Middle East tinderbox, the President should stay calm and not inflame matters more. Screw that. Islamic fundamentalists have dragged an American ambassadors mutilated body through the streets, killed three more Americans, and stormed our embassies in other countries as well. Its long past time for the President of the United States of America to present a righteous fury to the Islamic enemy, show them not one whit of deference or appeasement, and move to protect American interests and avenge American murders. But that wont happen, because we have a President whose sympathies lie with the Muslim fundamentalists seeking to tear down America and the West. Because of that he will excuse their torture and killing of homosexuals, their insanely hateful oppression of women, their violent disrespect toward our embassies, and their murder of Americans. We have a President who is busy yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View to give a damn about American lives or American interests.

Obama Arranged Benghazi Trip That Resulted In Murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens
October 17th 2012 By Lawrence Sinclair September 11, 2012 U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were murdered on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11. From the very beginning the Obama White House with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Obamas side took to the media claiming that the torture, rape and murder of the first United States Ambassador since 1979 was the result of some obscure YouTube video (that from its uploading on July 2, 2012 to September 10, 2012 had all of 17 views) mocking the prophet Muhammad. Thirty-five days later we are still allowing the media and the Obama Administration to hide the truth and continue in their deliberately reporting information they KNOW to be untrue while refusing to address these facts which come from US State Department and Obama White House sources. Deroy Murdock: Benghazis inconvenient truths Sept. 11: Despite anti-video demonstrations in Cairo, Benghazi is tranquil. According to U.S. diplomats, everything is calm. Theres nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside. No protests all day. At 9:40 p.m. local time, however, gunfire and explosions rock the consulate. Sept. 12: As these homicides become clear, Obama says, We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser. 85

Sept. 13: The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares. We absolutely reject its content and message. Sept. 14: The unrest weve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announces. That day, as the murdered Americans remains reach Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton says: We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. Sept. 16: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice calls the violence a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. Sept. 18: Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam. Obama adds that extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya. Sept. 19: Team Obama abruptly changes tunes. National Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen informs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. Ambassador Chris Stevens was NOT surprised by his killers in Benghazi, Libya as has been portrayed thus far. According to sources in the State Department Chris Stevens was in Benghazi, Libya at the specific instruction of the Obama White House to recover weapons that the U.S. supplied to Libya rebels in the over throw of Gaddafi. These sources who work in the State Department and the Obama White House say that Barack Obama was directly involved in negotiations with Libyan Rebels in an effort to recover weapons that the U.S. supplied them. Sources say that the arrangements were made between Barack Obama direct talks and that the White House directly arranged for Ambassador Stevens to travel to Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and it was by direction of Barack Obama that Stevens was to meet with the very individuals who tortured, raped and murdered him. These same sources state that the YouTube video which was put out by the White House and was reported by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as being responsible for the Benghazi attack; had been taken by the Obama administration even before the September 11, 2012 murders for the specific intent to blame it in the event the Obama arranged weapons recovery went awry. We can continue to play the word games all we want over who denied the request for additional security; or when did Obama or Clinton know that the Benghazi Consulate was attacked, but to do so is not going to bring about the truth. The truth is clear: 1. Barack Obama personally and directly arranged for Ambassador Chris Stevens to travel to Benghazi, Libya for the express purpose of meeting with individuals who Barack Obama directly negotiated with in an effort to recover US Supplied weapons. 2. Ambassador Chris Stevens was not ambushed because of a leak in the Libyan security as is being claimed. Chris Stevens where-a-bouts in Benghazi were determined and relayed by the Obama White House in their arranging this meeting in the first place.


3. Hillary Clinton knows that Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi on the express direction of Barack Obama and she knew the anti-Islam YouTube video had already been picked to be used as a diversion if the weapons recovery failed. 4. With our deepest sympathy and respect to the families of Chris Stevens; Sean Smith; and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods we ask if they are entitled to the truth and if Ambassador Stevens father might have a different position if Hillary Clinton were to tell him the truth about how & why his son was sent to meet with the very individuals who killed him? 5. The fact that Ambassador Stevens was sent to meet with the very people he had warned the Obama administration had him on a hit list is inexcusable and the truth must be told. The continued back and forth as to when one side called it a terrorists attack or blamed some YouTube video (which now thanks to Obama has millions of views) is not going to address the truth of what really happened. Yes it was Islamic terrorists who killed these four Americans, but it was President Barack Obama who arranged to have these four Americans delivered to their very killers. Thats the horrific truth that no one seems to want to acknowledge! Editors Note: Sinclair News has agreed to withhold the names of sources within the US State Dept and the Obama White House who provided us information concerning the Benghazi murders and the Obama arranged weapons recovery meeting which sent these four Americans to be executed.

Why Hillar y Clinton Has Chris Stevens Blood On Her Hands

September 18th 2012 By Kevin Collins

Dumb Ass Worthless Commie Bitch

According to reports, the Islamist animals who murdered J. Christopher Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya, sodomized him before, while, and after he was killed. They followed the same formula they used when they murdered Gadhafi. To these 7th century warriors, doing such things shows the extreme disrespect they have for the male victims. In their half- witted minds, this manly act makes the victim a woman in death and in life after death. They are 87

misogynist skunks who hate women because of their own sick feelings of inadequacy. Hillary Clinton should have known these things but apparently never bothered herself with details. The blood of J. Christopher Stevens, a man who happened to be gay but had a love of America that compelled him to step forward to work for our nation, is absolutely on the hands of Hillary Clinton as the fake she is and Barack Obama for the incompetent he is. Clinton is a woman with no particular qualifications, except that she took one for the team and allowed herself to be publicly humiliated by her sexually depraved husband. Because she put ice on her lip and sung Stand by your man on 60 Minutes, the poster boy for degradation of women was elected and reelected to the presidency. The Democrats who are a Party that rewards degenerates have been thanking Hillary ever since she and her husband sold their last pardon on January 20, 2001. We know her career path. She pushed aside all qualified and loyal New York State Democrats (Nita Lowey comes to mind) so she could run in the deepest Blue State that suited her fancy without a difficult race. She tried to be the president but was out- race-carded as her pervert husband put it. To stay in the publics eye, she accepted the position of Secretary of State and has done an horrifically bad job at it. That happens when being a good Democrat is the only consideration for appointment to a position of high trust and importance. For reasons known only to her, she successfully urged Barack Obama to help the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the American-friendly Mubarack government in Egypt and help the Brotherhood kill Gadhafi in Libya. Then she installed a man she knew to be gay (she said she knew him well) as the Ambassador to a country controlled by vicious gay-hating animals. She did this to win favor with Americas gay community so they would keep contributing to the Democrat Party. Now Chris Stevens has been killed and sodomized by the people Hillary Clinton helped put in power throughout the Middle East. Any questions?

Bombshell: Obama State Dept. Withdrew Security Team From Libya Before Attack
October 8 th 2012 Despite the fact that Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens had repeatedly requested extra security at the consulate in Bengazi, the State Department repeatedly denied the requests. The Obama State Department withdrew a 16 member SEAL security team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks. This was despite the fact that there were 13 attacks in the country in the past several months.


Obamas Foreign Relations Failure

September 17th 2012 By Shawn Paul The presidents recent apologies, projection of blame, and reluctant statements of damage control provide a timely display of his failure to competently lead the United States on the foreign relations and national security fronts and can only hurt his chances for reelection. President Obamas notorious list of achievements last Tuesday, September 11 included the snubbing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he denied the Prime Ministers request for a meeting, then accepting David Lettermans request for an appearance on his TV show, and finally an apology to Islamists who were angry about a low-budget, 14-minute movie trailer that mocks Islam and Mohammed and was posted on YouTube by a private American citizen. Obamas statement was issued as Islamic Egyptian demonstrators removed the American flag from the consulate in Cairo and replaced it with an Islamic flag. The statement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, that absolutely had to have been authorized by the president, was published online and went as follows: The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. It would be interesting to know if the Obama Administration could cite one example of their condemnation of those who wish to offend the religious feelings of Christians or Jews. Considering the administrations faith-infringing healthcare mandates and threats against the tax exempt status of Christian churches who would dare to teach against such things as same-sex marriage and homosexuality, or to voice political concerns about liberal leadership, it seems that Team Obama is in the business of religious offense as much as anyone. The administration contends that the embassy statement was issued before the embassy was breached and before it became clear that the ambassador and other Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Libya had been killed, but this seems to change little about the administrations standing for the objective American onlooker. It does stand as further proof that apologies and appeasement from our government does not effectively curtail violence or murder against our American officials and citizens. In the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four diplomats were killed: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The Obama Administration also contends that the president only learned about and verified the murders in Libya by Wednesday morning, the day after his initial statement. If this point is true, it doesnt speak well of the administrations intelligence gathering abilities and concerns, especially given that Mitt Romney issued a statement specifically about the killings a day earlier on Tuesday, the day they occurred. In his statement, Romney said, Im outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. Its disgraceful that the Obama administrations first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. This is an accurate statement. At the time of Romneys statement, Obama had not yet denounced the attacks on U.S. embassies, and based on the timing and content of his initial statement of 89

apology, he obviously at least had knowledge that the attacks were in progress. The Obama campaigns next response, with the help of his loyal mainstream media journalists, was to criticize Governor Romney, accusing him of bringing politics into a tragedy and launching a political attack. It is true that there rightly are some political implications for the coming presidential election, with respect to Obamas poor response to this tragedy, but Romney was simply expressing the reality of the situation in his statement and stepped up to speak presidentially when our serving president refused to do so. Only late Wednesday morning, after being shamed by Romney, did Obama finally offer stronger language condemning what he referred to as an outrageous attack. So, not only did our president first condemn the free speech of American citizens instead of the murderous actions of terrorists against Americans, but he also criticized his political opponent before condemning the terrorists. In a recent interview with Telemundo, Obama also said of Egypt, I dont think that we would consider them an ally, but we dont consider them an enemy. This guys all over the place and it is not going unnoticed by protestors in Egypt and across the Middle East. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Friday went on to say that This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting that in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. What a way to offer inaccurate information and speak out of both sides of your mouth, Mr. Press Secretary. Obama must have taught you well! The story of Obamas lack of leadership in this situation doesnt end there. U.S. Marines have indicated that the State Department has not authorized them to carry live ammunition as they go, in shockingly small numbers, to attempt to defend U.S. embassies in the Middle East. There is also strong evidence that the State Department had warnings going back to September 4, 2012 from Egypts General Intelligence Service that a jihadi group was planning to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Cairo. This information is based on a report from last Tuesday by Egypt Independent, in which they cite a secret letter obtained by Al Masry Al-Youm. The Media Research Center has also uncovered that Obama skipped an intelligence briefing just one day after our embassies were first attacked, and the mainstream media remains silent. The anti-American protests and violence in the Middle East has now spread to over 20 countries, and most Americans likely understand that a YouTube video might serve as a timely excuse for terrorists, or even for the Obama Administration, but its just insanity to believe that it was the real source of this unrest. Its difficult to believe the administrations stance that the blood-thirsty protestors anger is not directed toward American policy, the American people, or Obama as the demonstrators continue to chant Death to America and Death to Obama. may have said it best in their statement that Im pretty sure that the Islamists burning down consulates and killing Americans do a better job of defaming Islam than a film someone makes about the faith. The violent enemies of our country are rapidly becoming emboldened as they see American weakness from the top office of our leadership. May God once again smile on America as he restores real leadership to our nation that will be recognized throughout the world.


Obamas foreign policy narrative unravels

The failure to tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi is a stain on the President's record
October 9th 2012 NEW YORK DAILY NEWS By James Kirchick

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in flames on Sept. 11, 2012

On Sept. 11, the day he was killed in what we now know was an assassination deliberately planned to coincide with the terrorist attacks 11 years earlier, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens approved a cable to the State Department warning about the deteriorating security situation in the Libyan city of Benghazi. The dispatch noted that the leaders of two militias, some of whose members were tasked with protecting the American consulate, had threatened to quit, in protest of alleged American support for a prime ministerial candidate they did not like. Two things stand out about the cable, obtained exclusively by The Daily Beasts Eli Lake. The first is that there is no mention of the 14-minute online video, Innocence of Muslims, which the administration in league with a global army of apologists for religiously-inspired violence blamed for a tide of anti-American protests that swept Muslim countries last month. The second curiosity is that the U.S. was subcontracting the security of its diplomats and property to Libyan militias. Anyone whos visited an American embassy anywhere in the world will know that much of the basic security is provided by locals employed by the U.S. government. But such practices vary depending upon the danger of the post. The American consulate in Benghazi is not the American embassy in Berlin; Washington can rest assured that the German police will provide dependable security in a way that, say, Libyan tribesmen will not. The failure to protect the Benghazi consulate all the more disconcerting in the wake of revelations that militants bombed it twice in the five months leading up to Stevens murder, warned about further attacks on Facebook, and that Stevens may have been worried that he was on Al Qaedas hit list can partly be blamed on the bureaucratic incompetence thats a 91

feature of any government. But what makes the latest revelations significant is how they are symptomatic of an Obama administration narrative starkly at odds with reality. When riots spread across the Muslim world last month, the administration desperately wanted to believe that the global outpouring of anti-American rage had absolutely nothing to do with the United States or its policies, and was really just a reaction to a crude movie posted on the internet. President Obama, by dint of his personal background and mere face, as pundit Andrew Sullivan once predicted, was supposed to fundamentally change the way Muslims see the U.S. And so, on Sept. 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asserted that the protests were not a response to United States policy or the administration, or the American people, but in response to a video a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. Carney repeated this line all the way up to Sept. 18, insisting that there existed no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. If this story seemed unbelievable at the outset, we now know that it is, thanks to numerous officials who approached Lake and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to say that the administration knew within 24 hours of the attack that its assertions of a random, spontaneous murder of an American ambassador were false. We now know that the assassination was well-planned in advance. A charitable explanation for various administration officials misleading statements is that they were motivated by the CIA talking points delivered to them in the aftermath of the attack. These initial memos reported, for instance, that the protests in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, also allegedly begun in response to the YouTube video. But the possibility of Al Qaeda carrying out the premeditated murder of an ambassador, and mixing in with a spontaneous protest as a disguise, are not mutually exclusive. As one intelligence officer told Lake, the administrations selective use of intelligence information amounted to cherry picking. You might have thought that it was only Bush administration officials who cherry picked intelligence. But what this administrations bungled response to the Benghazi tragedy illustrates is that the triumph of ideology over reality is not limited to one particular party. Time and again, the administration has seen what it has wanted to see. Eliminating suspected terrorists (and, potentially, random innocents around them) with Hellfire missiles rather than sending them to Guantanamo Bay demonstrates fidelity to our values. An Iran that proceeds in its quest for nuclear weapons, in spite of a recent drop in the value of its currency and the resultant street protests, is being held accountable. The world is watching a Syrian regime that has massacred some 30,000 of its citizens. A Russia that remains in the grip of Vladimir Putin is ripe for more flexibility. And because Obama, with American allies, liberated Libya, saving Benghazi from all but certain genocide, there was little reason to be concerned about the safety of American diplomats. Many believed that electing Barack Obama as President would be the tonic America needed after eight unpopular years of the Bush administration. This was always a chimera, and the tragedy of Benghazi is but the latest rude awakening.


Recent Areas of Islamic Hostilities Directed at America Obamas Foreign Policy


The Collapse of the Obama Strategy Against Radical Islamists

September 19th 2012

The real meaning of the violence of the last week across the Muslim world is the bankruptcy and collapse of the Obama strategy which began with his speech in Cairo. President Obama had a deep conviction that pandering to Islamic sympathies, identifying with the virtues of Islam and parroting phrases that sounded good would lead to a deeper acceptance of the United States by Muslims. While reaching out to mainstream Muslims, the Obama strategy would wage selective war against designated enemies. The Obama administration decided to ignore concerns of sovereignty and to kill terrorists with stepped up drone attacks. It apparently did not occur to the Obama team that the enemy could and would react. The killing of the American ambassador to Libya was apparently a direct retaliation for the American killing in Pakistan of a Libyan senior al Qaeda commander. The Obama administration has desperately sought to spin all the violence as caused by one hostile antiMuslim movie. Once again Obama and the elite media blame America for the hostility of others. In their ideology it is much safer for America to be the bad guys. Then we can excuse the violence, the attack on embassies, the burning of the American flag, the destruction of American businesses and American schools. In the Obama-elite media worldview that is all somehow the result of American provocation. If only some American hadnt made a bad movie, everything would be ok, is the view the Obama administration and the elite media has exuded. There are three things profoundly wrong with this analysis. 1. The Libyans reject it as a matter of fact. 2. It confuses excuse with cause. 3. It suggests a solution which would subordinate American civilization to Islamic supremacists. 94

First, al Qaeda has asserted the attack on the American ambassador to Libya was a revenge killing. Senior Libyan officials have rejected the idea that the Benghazi violence was caused by the anti-Muslim film. They see no relationship between the Egyptian riots against the film and the team of killers who tracked down Ambassador Chris Stevens. The Obama administration is desperate to avoid linkage between predator strikes in Pakistan and the deliberate revenge killing in Benghazi. That would undermine all their assertions about the collapse of al Qaeda. It would bring into doubt their claims for an Arab Spring democracy movement. If this is an act of war, as I asserted last week in Politico, then all the Obama and media assertions about senseless violence begin to look as shallow, silly and self-deceiving as they are. Second, the last week of violence stretching from London to Australia is a signal about the depth of anti-American and anti-Western passion among radical Islamists. The silly anti-Muslim film was an excuse for violence not the cause of it. It joins the Danish cartoon incident as another example of the deliberate use of Western freedom as an excuse for violence. The Iranian announcement that they had increased the bounty for killing Salman Rushdie for his novels was one more piece of this violence against any challenge to Islamic supremacy. We have to be clear that the real problem is not the movie but the hatred, the bigotry, the mass hysteria of religious fanatics who see their values threatened by modernity and are in a desperate fight to impose their values on the world. Third, the very dangerous game the Obama administration and the elite media are playing in suggesting that we censor American words and American art in order to appease Muslim religious fanatics has to be directly challenged. As a Christian, these same left wing media elites have lectured peope for years about the authenticity of art involving Christ immersed in urine or Mary smeared with elephant dung. We have been told again and again that we have to put blasphemous speech and obscenely offensive items in taxpayer funded museums. Now these same left wingers are explaining that it is OK to censor in order to appease Muslims. The White House is begging Google to remove the video from YouTube. No American should tolerate this hypocritical double standard. [NOTE: This double standard is right in line with Sharia Law which asserts that Moslems are superior to non-Moslems and should always be treated with respect and deference. Islam, because it considers itself superior, does not permit a single standard.]

Congressman Allen West take on a Moslem propagandist from CAIR This idiot from CAIR tries to put forth the Islam is a Religion of Peace and has never attacked any one. Allen West completely destroys this argument with cited passages in the Koran and documented current events where America was attacked by Muslims citing the Koran and shouting Allah Akbar as these Muslims gladly went to their deaths murdering infidels as instructed in the Koran in numerous passages. And Allen West did ALL this in little more than 3 minutes! 95

Middle East Protester Dies From Smoke Of Burning US Flag

September 17th 2012

This story was just too ironic to pass up. Apparently a Pakistani man died during a protest involving approximately 10,000 people. The anti-American rally involved the burning of an American flag, which reports indicate that smoke from the burning flag killed the man. The Express Tribune reports, Around 10,000 people participated in the main rally organized on The Mall by the Tehreek Hurmat-i-Rasool (THR). The participants marched from Nila Gumbad to Masjid-i-Shuhada on The Mall. Despite a ban on rallies on The Mall, the road remained blocked for vehicular traffic from noon to 6pm. The rally was addressed by Jamatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, THR head Ameer Hamza, JD leader Hafiz Abdul Rehman Makki, Pakistan Muslim League (Zia) head Ijazul Haq, Jamaat Ulema Islam-Sami (JUI-S) leader Asim Makhdoom and Jamaat Ahle Hadith ameer Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar Ropari. One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally. I suppose he should have taken a queue from Bill Clinton and not inhaled. Seriously though, while we continue to hear the rhetoric about a film that supposedly stirred all this up, which seems more and more bizarre with each passing day, Ameer Munawar Hasan said the film had been produced by a Zionist with US support. Well, so far there is nothing to indicate that, nor does it mean that the America is seeking to insult anyone. Hasan asked, If the US claims to be a civilized nation, why does it stoop to insult other religions and civilizations? I suppose I could ask the same thing of his protesters. If they claim to be civilized, why do they riot in the streets, burn effigies and flags of other countries? On top of that, why are they not wise enough not to breathe in the smoke of the burning flags? Forbes reports, 96

The rally is part of protests, organized by Jamaat-Ud-Dawa, the political arm of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Protesters are allegedly insulted by Americas unwillingness to punish the makers of the film Innocence of Muslims. The protesters, demanding respect for and tolerance of Islam, threatened to destroy the U.S. consulate in Pakistan if the United States does not publicly hang the movies producer, director, and all those involved in the production and release of the movie (which would presumably include Google and YouTube employees). The protesters also will not be satisfied until the United States makes a law against blasphemy. When they use the term tolerance, they really mean acceptance. So they wont be satisfied till there is a blasphemy law in place, eh? Well I suggest they hold their collective breaths a very long time then, because I dont see that law forthcoming in the near future.

Administrations Tolerance of Murderers Is Just Cowardice!

September 15th 2012

Murdering Muslim Mob

Theres a quote making the rounds of the Internet thats being attributed to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough: They werent sympathizing. It was a statement of religious tolerance, and damn it, we stand for that in America. And if someone wants to put that out because they think it might keep Americans safe inside that embassy, who the hell has a problem with that? Its a chastisement of Mitt Romney for criticizing the Obama Administrations flaccid response to the killing of our embassy personnel. The administrations line has been consistent since the attacks: All the now-global violence is the result of a little anti-Islam film that no one has ever seen. But the administrations shift-the-blame response and Scarboroughs quote are absurd on several levels. 97

First, the administration did and does sympathize with the murderous mobs. Obama may claim to be Christian, but he was raised Muslim in foreign Muslim communities. He himself has expressed his love for Islam on numerous public occasions, so lets just cut the baloney about the administration not sympathizing with the Muslims, OK? Second, the notion that the administration and its liberal supporters are expressing religious tolerance by condemning the film is so transparent a child can see through it. Theres no element of religious tolerance here. This is plain and simple pandering, trying to get the raving psychotics in the Islamic street to like us. If anything, this smacks of a mugging victim resorting to the old Rodney Dangerfield line, Take my wife, please! Except its not just a one-liner; Obama means it and seriously believes he can win favor by tucking his tail between his legs and playing the submissive dog. Third, anyone who believes that sort of cowardly behavior would keep Americans safe inside that embassy is just beyond clueless. Really, what do Scarborough and the people of this administration think that the Muslim mobs are standing around reading Twitter feeds or care if Americans want to be their friends? Oh, hey Abdullah says here the Americans hate the film too. All right then, everybody go home! Weve made our point! Yeah, thatll happen. And monkeys could fly out of Mohammeds ass. Fourth and last, Scarborough wants to know who has a problem with the Obama administrations lickspittle behavior and ducking of responsibility for their own incompetence?

Americans, Joe. Americans.

Where's Media Outrage Over Black Flags Being Raised?

September 14th 2012

MEGYN KELLY: Kirsten, you wound up having the Obama administration and Mitt Romney agreeing that the embassy statement was not appropriate, and yet the whole media narrative yesterday was how awful Gov. Romney was for pointing it out.


KIRSTEN POWERS: Oh yeah. It's still the media narrative. And the thing is, the outrage that has been expressed over the fact that Mitt Romney put out this statement has even overshadowed any kind of outrage that you would see over the fact that you have Islamic flags being hoisted over American embassies, the fact that an American ambassador is dead. You just are not seeing the same level of outrage over just the process of what time he put the statement out. It is just absolutely, utterly insane the way that they have elevated this. And even if we stipulated, Megyn, let's just stipulate that, for the sake of argument, Romney shouldn't have done it. I don't agree with that. It still would not explain the obsession with Romney's statement over these horrific events that are unfolding. KELLY: When you're detecting media, potential media bias, you look back at what would the media have done if this had happened on George Bush's watch, if we had had these attacks on the embassies and the consulates. POWERS: Yeah. It would have been completely radically different. Like I said, even if you agree that Mitt Romney did something wrong, OK, look at that, but then let's also look at the Obama administration. It was just radio silence. They allowed that statement to stay up on an embassy website, which is taken as the official position of the U.S. government. Someone was tweeting from the official account, and they didn't come out and say a word. So, what's that about? Why didn't they know that these attacks were coming? Was Obama getting his intelligence briefings? These are the issues that should be being asked and would be being asked if this had happened on George Bush's watch.

Middle East Mayhem: Congrats Obama, You Built That

September 16th 2012 By Doug Giles Remember back in the beginning of 2011 when Obama told us about the freedom lovers in Egypt and Libya living under the oppression of dictators and needing our immediate help to establish democracy in their fair lands? You do? So do I. How weird. We should become best friends. Facebook me. Anyway it turns out that the freedom lovers Obama coerced lots of Americans to rally behind (and whom he also pimped out with billions of sawbucks from Americas pitiful piggy bank) were bat shit crazy. Im talking crazy on steroids crazy and not just peaceful crazy like Joe Biden but rather hidesharp-objects-from-them, menopausal wolverine sow crazy. Yep, these yearners for democracy turned out to be radicals of radicals whod like nothing more than to eradicate the U.S. and Israel and establish a global bounce house for all things Muslim. Whoopsie, eh Mr. President? You kind of misjudged that one, seor. At least I hope Obama misjudged their end game because if he had even an inkling that they would quickly blossom into full-blown anti-America/Israel hate machines then that would make some folks think that our president um uh doesnt have our how shall I say our best interests or our allies best interests at heart. Ive got to admit that at the beginning of the Arab Spring I thought these freedom lovers seemed a bubble off level. I mean I didnt want to judge, but I wasnt getting that 99

Jeffersonian vibe from the video feeds coming across the wire; it was stuff like burning the American flag, raping one of our female correspondents, looting their pyramids and decapitating multitudinous mummies that caused me some consternation. But thats just me, and who am I? I could be wrong. Or a racist. Or both. Maybe the Arab Spring like Obamas economic policies just needs a little more time to pan out. Thats probably it. However, the events of this past week in Cairo and Benghazi on September 11th kind of make me feel like this Spring is stuck on stupid, and now, thanks to Obamas backing, we have one violent, jacked-up mess on our hands one that wont be remedied easily and one to which we can point to the president as someone who built that.

Obamas Mideast Incompetence Approaches the Criminal

September 16th 2012 By Tad Cronn

At what point will Americans say Enough? The events of the past week have pointed out, highlighted, circled in red ink and underlined the failure of Obamas foreign policy and the vacuity of the top officials charged with our defense. The violence in the Middle East has proven what a brilliantly apt metaphor Clint Eastwoods empty chair was for a president who has not attended weeks worth of security briefings or one suspects paid much attention to whats going on in the larger world. In fact, rather than attend a security briefing after our ambassador was killed, Obama was running off to Las Vegas to raise money. The only thing surprising in this solipsistic behavior is that he didnt try to raise it by gambling tax funds at the craps table. The sycophantic media are just as clueless. Only three days before the 9/11 anniversary, AP ran the headline, Terror Takes a Back Seat; Americans Safer Now. Whoops.


Our embassies and diplomatic facilities were woefully under-defended. The facility in Libya did not even have any Marines; it was protected by Libyan security. In Egypt, the Marines were not allowed live ammunition. Lord knows what other ridiculous orders hamper our people at other embassies in the Middle East. And now the violence isnt confined to the Middle East. U.S. flags are being burned in London. Universities in America are being evacuated due to bomb threats attributed to al-Qaida. Russias got warships in the Mediterranean near Syria and Israel. China and Russia are both running submarines just miles off our coastlines. Last month, it was acknowledged that a Russian sub had patrolled the Gulf of Mexico for weeks without being detected. Our embassies are being attacked, our people killed, our flags burned throughout the Mideast, a region that was supposed to become our eternal allies because of the force of Obamas winning personality. Yet the best the administration can do is condemn a film no one has seen and that might even be part of a hoax or disinformation campaign to try to blame Israel, evangelical Christians and conservatives in general for a foreign policy in shreds. While the FBI has issued a warning about the possibility of violence in America, the administration seems to be unwilling to do anything but fiddle while Rome burns. What King Obama doesnt realize, perhaps, is that its not just the flag going up in smoke, its his presidency self-destructing. And not a moment too soon.

Obamas Libyan Fashion


UN Ambassador Wont Answer Questions on Lack of Marines, or Free Speech

September 16th 2012

Gutless Worthless Bitch

Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, refused to answer on Sunday questions about the lack of Marines at the U.S. consulate in Libya prior to eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She also punted when asked why the Obama administration initially, in its response to the unrest at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, did not stand up for free speech or make any mention that the Internet video that mocked Mohammed was protected under the Constitution of the United States. On ABCs This Week, host Jake Tapper asked Rice, Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli?" Rice did not answer the question; when pressed again why the United States would not have Marines at the U.S. consulate in Libya, a region where U.S. interests have been attacked in the previous months, Rice became defensive. Rice said there were Marines in some places around the world and there are not Marines in every facility. That depends on the circumstances, that depends on the requirements," Rice said. "Our presence in Tripoli, as in Benghazi, is relatively new as you will recall. We've been back postRevolution only for a matter of months. Rice noted she has visited there myself, both to Tripoli and Benghazi, I was very grateful to have strong security presence with me as part of our embassy detachment there. Even though she received security when she visited Libya and noted we certainly are aware that Libya is a place where there have been increasingly some violent incidents, Rice continued to punt on the question about why there were no Marines at the embassy, responding, the security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place." Tapper later said Rice didnt answer his question about the lack of Marines. On NBCs Meet The Press, host David Gregory asked Rice why U.S. Embassy in Egypt did not stand up for speech in their initial response to the Islamist violence. Gregory noted that this was an example Republicans cited in charging the Obama administration of weakness that invites this kind of chaos. 102

Rice punted on the question, and responded by praising the U.S. diplomats the Obama administration failed and whose lives they put in danger with foreign policy failures. She also said charges that the Obama administration was weak on foreign policy were vacuous and tried to spin for the Obama administration, claiming America is viewed better around the world since Obama came into office because Obama restored relationships around the world. I spend every day up at the United Nations where I have to interact with 192 other countries, Rice said. I know how well the United States is viewed. Remarkably, the Obama administration asked Google and YouTube to censor the Internet video mocking Mohammed (Google stood up for freedom of expression and denied the Obama administration's request) and federal authorities are now investigating the film's producer as the Obama administration continues to try to blame the Middle East violence on the film instead of its foreign policy failures.

The Fuel For The Fire-Obama's Go Juice


Benghazi Bimbo Susan Rice Has Ties To Iran!

Gutless Worthless Bitch

When Obama rails against the 99% with Warren Buffett at his side crying that the wealthy should pay their fair share, oddly the name Susan Rice doesnt come up. Its odd because Rice is the wealthiest staff member in the Executive Department, amassing in the neighborhood of forty million dollars. Where do these millions of dollars pour in from? You should take a look at her financial disclosure form. Its like reading War and Peace. She has an endless number of investments in companies throughout the world. But one of her soft spots is companies that do investments with Iranian companies, especially those that buy Irans billions of barrels in crude oil. So the next time Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to annihilate Israel with a nuclear bomb, you can thank Susan Rice.


Glamour Girl Susan Rice Has Blood On Her Hands!

Gutless Worthless Bitch

This is best illustrated by the life of Glamour Magazines 2009 nominee for woman of the year, Susan Elizabeth Rice. In the late 1990s, Rice was working for Bill Clinton as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. The African continent was hers to rule, and she put her foot down on the necks of her rivals on more than one occasion. One such foot to the neck was in regards to a little-known terrorist by the name of Osama Bin Laden. In the late 1990s, Bin Laden was living in Khartoum, Sudan. Although the Sudanese government was engaged in a long and bloody civil war, their intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, was exemplary and knew all about the terrorist activities of Bin Laden. They wanted to give the information to the United States and at one point wanted to turn him over. Who overruled this? Who plugged her ears and refused to hear about Bin Laden? Susan Elizabeth Rice. How history has repeated itself is that Rice blamed bad CIA intelligence for not listening to the Sudanese. The CIA had wrongly stated that Sudan was sponsoring terrorism, so Rice refused to hear. Again, with the Benghazi attack, Rice has blamed the CIA for feeding bad information to her: that it was the CIA and not her who pointed the finger towards an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video and subsequent protest turned violent. Like her boss, she likes to blame others for her mistakes. Susan Rice is in effect partly responsible for 9/11. She let Osama Bin Laden get away. She truly has blood on her hands.


Obama Admin: Blame Heinous Video, Not Our Impotence

September 16th 2012

The Gutless & Clueless Pure Dumb Asses!!!

The Obama administration this morning sent out Ambassador Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, to flack for the administrations utterly feckless Middle Eastern foreign policy. Her task was difficult: she somehow had to spin the administrations cowardly foreign policy, resulting in a maelstrom of violent Islamist action around the world, as a result of something not Obama-related. And she did. She blamed a YouTube video. On ABCs This Week, Jake Tapper asked Rice: Look at this map, if you would. There have been protests around the world over the last several days. And President Obama pledged to repair America's relationships with the Muslim world. Why does the U.S. seem so impotent? And why is the U.S. even less popular today in some of these Muslim and Arab countries than it was four years ago? Rices answer was astounding: Jake, were not impotent. Were not even less popular, to challenge that assessment. I dont know on what basis you make that judgment. Well, Ambassador, it might be the al Qaeda flag flying over the US embassy in Tunisia. Or maybe its the dead American ambassador in Libya. Or perhaps its the burning of the American flag at the Cairo embassy, or outside our embassy in London. Or it could be the 29 other countries that experienced anti-US violence last week. But Rice continued: Its actually the opposite. First of all, lets be clear what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region, was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the US government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.


This is where the rubber meets the road for the Obama administration. Theyve spent the entirety of the last week playing movie critic to a YouTube video that presents an offensive take on Islam. Now, its not the job of the White House to play Siskel & Ebert; its the White Houses job to defend American freedoms around the world. Imagine if these Islamist assaults had been about Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger going at it in Brokeback Mountain. Would the White House have been so quick to offer its movie review? Well, Jake, while I found the cinematography stunning and the portrayal of the same-sex relationship groundbreaking, I did quibble a bit with Michelle Williams performance and the film was offensive to Muslims. Surely not. Some free speech rights are more equal than others, apparently. And the Obama administration won't stand up for free speech rights. In fact, Rice refused to do so this morning when questioned by David Gregory on Meet the Press she simply wouldn't answer why the Cairo embassy didn't say anything about free speech rights as Muslims rioted. Instead, she continued to blame the YouTube movie. This is the height of absurdity. The attacks last week, especially in Libya, were well-planned and coordinated beginning months ago, as the Libyan President stated this morning. This was never about a YouTube video. New reports suggest that a Libyan security official told American diplomats that the situation in Benghazi was unsafe three days before the ambassador was killed. Last week, reports suggested that America had intelligence on the Libya attacks 48 hours in advance. But the Obama administration must continue to embrace the lie that all this violence and chaos is the fault of one obscure YouTube video. Theres a reason theyre ignoring reality: if they acknowledge that the video wasnt the problem, then the administrations spineless foreign policy is the problem. And make no mistake it is the problem. Late last week, Egyptian President and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi told Obama to put an end to such behavior referring to the exercise of free speech in the United States so long as it offends Islamists. And President Obama quickly complied; the Christian filmmaker behind the YouTube video was taken in for questioning. In America. Local authorities said they were investigating him for financial crimes. But the timing makes a mockery of that contention. So, too, does the Obama administrations support at the United Nations, by Ambassador Rice presumably for a resolution condemning religious intolerance. The resolution was originally crafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC); the State Department hosted a meeting to discuss implementation. And the media, with the notable exception of Tapper, continues to cover for the Obama administration. The facts are simple: Obamas Middle East policy has handed over full countries to Islamists. These are the predictable results. This was never about a YouTube movie, even if Obama and company would prefer that the American people think it was.

Obama Administration Pressed On Failing Foreign Policy And Obama's Flailing Response


The Video Didnt Do It

September 20th 2012 By Lee Smith It was bad enough, two years ago, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates called fringe Florida pastor Terry Jones to ask him not to burn copies of the Koran, or last week, that chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey took his turn to call Jones to ask him to stop publicizing a YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims. But then on Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Benghazi and elsewhere were a response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people, but were in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. Carney repeated the point for emphasis: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims. Carneys comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them as we fear they do are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates and Dempseys phone calls. They all send the message to Americas enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up. Whats next? Where does it go from here? There are more than 300 million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended. Maybe its some other film, maybe its a book or even just a tossed-off phrase that our enemies might seize on to galvanize support for their causes. Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a U.S. embassy or consulate? Its worth noting that virtually every description in our media of the movie that is supposed to have touched off the protests was attended by various aesthetic qualifiers laughable, crude, amateurish as if the mobs and their organizers were motivated by considerations of artistic craft. Lets recall that similar murderous campaigns of terror were waged to protest Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses, at the direction of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Would the editorial boards and newsrooms of our leading media debate the merits of White House officials warning prestige novelists to keep their mouths shut lest they anger extremists? The Constitution was not written on behalf of poets and philosophers and film producers but to enshrine the rights of all citizens. Since 9/11 and our ensuing engagements in the Middle East, there have been appropriate occasions during which the American people have debated how the so-called clash of civilizations might be ameliorated. This is not one of those occasions. To debate the right of an American to criticize religion does not indicate sophisticated sensitivity to the feelings of others but a willingness to turn tail and abandon our principles at the first sign of a fight. And to take seriously the notion that all those riots and attacks are about a video, not about American principles and power and policy, is silly.


What we have seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what distinguishes the regions societies from our own. The protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab political sphere, but mainly against the United States. If the reaction of U.S. officials in the face of such an assault is to condemn efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims (the initial response of the U.S. embassy in Cairo) and to try to silence individual citizens, there is good reason for the terrorists to believe that, with more acts of terror, they will also change American policies. The unpleasant fact is that the Obama administration has encouraged our adversaries to keep at it. President Obama believed that to maintain credibility with the Arab states, as he once told a group of Jewish leaders, he had to put some daylight between ourselves and Israel. His administration sought desperately to engage Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terror that have been killing Americans for decades. The same Joint Chiefs chairman who told journalists in London that he doesnt want to be complicit in any Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities now advises an American citizen to stop alienating Muslim mobs. A president who began his tenure by going to Cairo to say he considered it his responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear should not be surprised that the U.S. embassy in Cairo tweets similar apologetics while it is under siege. It would be nice to have an American administration that stood up for America, for its people and its principles. It would also make the world far less dangerous for Americans and for decent people of all faiths.

What Drives Obamas Foreign Policy


Egypts Muslim Brotherhood President Leads, Obama Follows

September 17th 2012

Clinton & Morsi The Face of Appeasement

Today, UN Ambassador Susan Rice explained to Jake Tapper of ABC News that America wasnt impotent in the Middle East. What was her proof? Let's look at what's happened. It's quite the opposite of being impotent. We have worked with the governments in Egypt. President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Morsi in Egypt. And as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel in our embassies dramatically increased. Tapper rightly pointed out that for two days, Egyptian President Morsi, an anti-Semitic, antiIsrael, anti-American Muslim Brotherhood leader, said nothing. But Rice continued: President Morsi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear that this has to stop. If this is demonstration of American influence and power in the Middle East, were in serious trouble. Far from Morsi taking American cues this week, President Obama took Morsis cues. Morsi was the tip of the spear during the Arab Spring; now hes dictating the politics of the Islamist Uprising. This week, he told Obama to jump; Obama asked how high. It began with the attacks on the Cairo embassy themselves. The Cairo embassy tweeted before the attacks, upon hearing rumors that they were coming, that they condemned the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims. After the attacks commenced, the embassy tweeted, This mornings condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. For two days after this, President Morsi said nothing. President Obama did nothing about it.


Meanwhile, it was revealed that while President Obama would not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of this month in New York, he would be getting together with the tight-lipped Islamist fanatic Egyptian president. When Morsi finally did speak, he informed President Obama that while he condemned the assaults on the US embassy and would up security, he wanted President Obama to to put an end to such behavior. He was referring, of course, to the infamous YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, which supposedly spurred the riots although it is now clear that the videos had virtually nothing to do with the riots, or the attack on our consulate in Libya that ended with the murder of our ambassador. This was Morsi saying jump. And President Obama predictably asked how high. First, he tried to tell YouTube and Google to remove the video from the internet. Then, when YouTube and Google refused, the filmmaker behind Innocence of Muslims found himself being questioned by federal probation officers. We still live in a First Amendment country. But you wouldnt know it to hear Obama and his spokespeople, particularly from the State Department, talk. Today, Rice termed Innocence of Muslims a heinous, offensive, reprehensible, disgusting piece of work that hadnt been endorsed by the US government. As for the attacks on our embassies? Well, she just said there was no excuse for them. From her language, its clear that Rice was more upset about the YouTube video than she was about the attacks. Why? Because the Obama administration must remain focused on the video. The moment they acknowledge that Americans have First Amendment rights, and that the video and its content are utterly irrelevant, they have to face the sad truth that it isnt a video that caused all of this believe it or not, YouTube and anti-Islam sentiment existed before last Tuesday but the Obama administrations gutless and spineless foreign policy. While Obama keeps trotting out spokespeople to claim that the American hand remains at the steering wheel in the Middle East, its clear that we dont. Weve handed over the wheel to Muslim Brotherhood radicals like Mohammed Morsi. And now were taking cues from them.

New Ad Implies Obama Is Cozy With Muslim Brotherhood


Obama Considers Transferring Terrorist to Egypt?

September 20th 2012

Raising Obamas Flag

Fox News has obtained intelligence documents suggesting the US Embassy protest in Cairo was an effort to demand the release of the 1993 World Trade Center bomber. According to the documents from the Department of Homeland Security, the call to action was posted on the Internet two days before the September 11, 2012 attack in Cairo. There were calls on Egyptians to burn down the embassy if they had to, for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called blind sheikh. The sheikh is now serving a life sentence in connection to the bombing of the WTC in 1993 which killed six people and injured more than a thousand others. Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge reported that there are talks of transferring him to Egyptian custody for humanitarian and health reasons. Eight senior Republican lawmakers have sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the State Department responding to the report of transferring Abdel-Rahman. The letter reads in part, Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will 112

be responded to with appeasement rather than strength (it would be seen as) a sign of weakness and lack of resolved by the United States and its President. Within the last hour, a DOJ spokesperson told Fox News that the idea of transferring the blind sheikh was absurd. In addition there was this response from the State Department: Let me say, as clearly as I can, there is no plan to release the blind sheikh. There is no plan. To my knowledge, we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians. Herridge reported that Fox News has also obtained a three-page DHS intelligence report pointing to two days before the demonstration the department had information that there was a call for Egyptians to attack the US Embassy and force the release of Abdel-Rahman. It says, The time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Congressional sources tell Fox News that they believe the demonstrations in Cairo were a response in part to the anti-Islamic film but also for the push to obtain the release of the blind sheikh.

Kirstin Powers UNLOADS on Obama and Media After Mideast Embassy Attacks

Additional News Articles: Ambassador Rice: Film Responsible For Attacks, Not Administration's Policy Chris Wallace, FOX News Sunday: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The White House says it has nothing to do with the president's policies. Let's watch. Jay Carney: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive. Wallace: You don't really believe that? Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN: Chris, absolutely I believe that. Because, in fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab Spring over the last many months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified. But in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. But there is no question what we have seen in the past with things like Satanic Verses and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause. 113

McCain: "How Spontaneous Is A Demonstration If People Bring Rocket-Propelled Grenades?" Mark Steyn: "Every American Should Be Ashamed Of Their President" Mark Steyn on Obama campaigning in Las Vegas after the attacks on American diplomatic stations in the Middle East: I thought that thing last night with the president saying he had a tough day and comparing the dead Americans in Libya to campaign supporters, which he did I thought was one of the most disgraceful, inept and embarrassing performances by a head of state or government that I have ever seen. Every American should be ashamed of their president. Krauthammer: America "Now In Retreat" And "Irrelevant" In The Middle East CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think that's exactly right, but the issue goes way beyond the Libya attack. You know, to hear Jay Carney talking about this as a result of a movie, or result of frustration. Provocations and frustration are a constant in the Middle East. They've been there for 1,000 years. But all of a sudden American interests, American embassies, American schools are aflame in the region. Why? The answer, we heard from General Keene, he's a strategist. The reason is, people have looked in the region, the friends of America and enemies of America and they see the United States, which has dominated the region since 1970, when Kissinger did the strategic shift, Egypt from a pro-Soviet enemy to a pro-American ally. We have dominated the region. We are now in retreat. Obama himself said were doing a pivot out of the Middle East into the Pacific. He's proclaimed the tide of war is over. He took us out of Iraq, leaving no residual force. He announced a withdrawal from Afghanistan on a timetable. When it came to the Arab Spring, he was indecisive. When you had the Green Revolution in Iran he would not support the protesters. Libya, half in and half out. Everybody in the region understands that America, which had been the dominant element, is now in withdrawal, is not interested. The Gulf Arabs are apoplectic about Iran going nuclear, its not just Israel. And now our friends are looking around and saying, Do we really have anybody who'll support us? And the extreme jihaddists and the moderate jihaddists in the region are saying This is our time. That's what's happening. Ill give you one example of the withdrawal of our influence. Syria. Does anybody in the region ask what is the American position? Everybody wants to know what Russia is doing and thinking and what supplies its sending. Whats Iran doing? What's Hezbollah doing? America is irrelevant. In the region, our word, which used to be important, is now null and void.


Recent Areas of Islamic Hostilities Directed at America

Attack On U.S. Ambassador In Libya An Example Of Blowback

September 14th 2012

Ben Swann has investigated and said things that few reporters in the main stream media are willing to touch with a ten foot pole. Swann takes on the issue of the attack on the Libyan consulate and puts it all in perspective regarding what has been referred to by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as blowback.


The CIA has referenced blowback in many documents, such as this one titled Intelligence Officers Bookshelf. The Nation reports on the use of the term and what it entails: Blowback is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US governments international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIAs fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeinis revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided covert operation of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy. Heres Bens report on the attack this week at the Libyan consulate:

Reality Check: Attack On U.S. Ambassador In Libya An Example Of "Blowback"? Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at the attack on a U.S. Ambassador in Libya by Islamists and whether the attack is something U.S. officials should have seen coming.

Revolt Of The Spooks

October 8th 2012 By Bill Gertz

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obamas administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what career officers say is a cover up of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa. 116

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administrations economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Irans nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests, said one official, speaking confidentially. The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international communitys spotlight off Irans support for its Syrian ally. Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials with direct knowledge of events in Libya revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10. Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the intelligence community, as would be expected of the oversight committee. But she noted: At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure. Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administrations apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. Officials say the ODNIs false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism. Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles. A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration cover-up said: Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads. When there isnt definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious, the official said. There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces is part of the intelligence business. Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.


Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama. Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials. The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online. Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad. Rices claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia. After Rices incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack. The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack. What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya, the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government. That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBIs efforts to uncover evidence about the attack. The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them. The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention said the official. The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, an assertion contradicted by the groups rise in the region. The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Egypt was among the locations of Obamas 2009 so-called apology tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was fear and anger that prompted actions 118

contrary to our ideals. He also promised a new beginning for the U.S. and the worlds Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy. The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate. Recent intelligence reports show that Egypts Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities. The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Irans support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria. However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obamas culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaedas terrorist ideology. Intelligence officials said in Egypt currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in March after having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt. In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime. In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Irans Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Irans Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region. The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obamas decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month. Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism. The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others. Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported. A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked 119

diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

Mideast Unrest Made Possible by US Foreign Aid

America Was Warned of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing!!!

The inside story of US envoy's assassination
September 14th 2012 The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

Hillary Ignored Embassy Attack Warnings!!!

The details are so explosive that they will result in a Congressional investigation. In fact, theyre so explosive that they should result in the resignation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The only question now: What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it? Yesterday, we reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible under the law for the security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all US government personnel on official duty abroad. Clinton herself seemed bewildered by the attacks on the Libyan consulate, asking, How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? 120

But according to the Independent, she had no reason to be puzzled. Quoting senior diplomatic sources, the paper reports, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted. Nonetheless, no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and lockdown, under which movement is severely restricted. American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential. The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe". Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts. According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted. Mr. Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely. Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr. Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi has now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya. In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed. A mob of several hundred stormed the US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa yesterday. Other missions which have been put on special alert include almost all those in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi and Zambia. Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, UnderSecretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons. There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qaida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. 121

Senator Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qaida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action." According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defiance put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs." Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet." Mr. Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building. He was discovered lying unconscious by local people and taken to a hospital, the Benghazi Medical Centre, where, according to a doctor, Ziad Abu Ziad, he died from smoke inhalation. An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa." Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr. Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors. Mr. Stevens' mother, Mary Commanday, spoke of her son yesterday. "He did love what he did, and he did a very good job with it. He could have done a lot of other things, but this was his passion. I have a hole in my heart," she said. Global anger: The protests spread Yemen The furor across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said. Egypt


Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr. Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy". Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since. Iraq Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital. Bangladesh Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted antiUS slogans. Others There was a Hamas-organized protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.

House Committee says Requests for More Security for US Diplomats in Libya Were Denied!
October 2nd 2012 WASHINGTON: Despite two explosions and dozens of other security threats, U.S. officials in Washington turned down repeated pleas from American diplomats in Libya to increase security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador was killed, Republican leaders of a House committee asserted Tuesday. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is seeking answers from the State Department about its refusal to increase security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya, following months of repeated attacks in Benghazi. Issa, R-California and Chaffetz, R-Utah said the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months before Sept. 11.


The letter listed 13 security threats and attacks in Libya during the six months leading up to the September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. He was among four Americans killed as part of the terrorist attack. But Chaffetz said in an interview there were more than 50. Two of them involved explosive devices: a June 6 blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter. The explosion was described to the committee as big enough for forty men to go through; and an April 6 incident where two Libyans who were fired by a security contactor threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence. It wasnt the first such incident that threatened the lives of Americans, according to the House committee: On April 6, two Libyans threw a small IED over the Consulate fence. No one was injured and no one was prosecuted for the attack. Then in June, a Facebook page publicized Stevens habit of taking early morning runs around Tripoli. The page is alleged to have posted a picture of the ambassador and directed a threat against [him]. After a week or so, Stevens resumed his morning runs. Also in June, a larger IED destroyed part of the security perimeter on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi. The letter describes the hole in the perimeter as big enough for forty men to go through. In the weeks leading up to the September 11 attack in Benghazi, unarmed Libyan guards working for a British contractor received warnings from family members to quit their jobs guarding Consulate Benghazi because there were rumors in the community of an impending attack.

A number of people felt helpless in pushing back against the decision not to increase security and were pleading with them to reconsider, Chaffetz said. He added that frustrated whistleblowers were so upset with the decision that they were anxious to speak with the committee. Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) asked why this pattern of attacks and threats against the United States was ignored by the State Department, which denied the U.S. missions requests for increased security. The letter specifically asks Clinton if the State Department was aware of the attacks and threats leading up to September 11, and, if not, why? If headquarters was aware of the attacks and threats, the letter asks, what measures did the department take to match the level of threat in Benghazi? Lastly, the letter asks for details about the requests made for additional security and details about the response from the State Department to those requests for increased security. These questions are the latest in the effort to determine the extent of the Administrations knowledge about the attack, its perpetrators, and the conflicting information disseminated in its aftermath. The committee is expected to convene a hearing on the security failure in Libya on October 10. The lawmakers said they plan a hearing on Oct. 10. They asked Clinton whether the State Department was aware of the previous incidents, and whether the level of security that was 124

provided to the U.S. mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more security. The State Department has declined to answer questions about whether extra security was sought by officials in Benghazi ahead of the Sept. 11 attack. Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Tuesday that Clinton has received the letter and will reply Tuesday. Nuland refused to answer questions on whether requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied but insisted that the department intends to cooperate fully with Congress. We share the same goal, Nuland told reporters. We want to get to the bottom of precisely what happened and learn any lessons that we need to learn from it. Were taking this very, very seriously. Referring to the Sept. 11 attack, the letter said, It was clearly never, as administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest. In the days immediately after the attack, the Obama administration said it believed it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video. Since then, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and White House press secretary Jay Carney have called the incident a terrorist attack. President Barack Obama has not used those precise words, though he has referred to the attack in the context of acts of terror. Republicans have lashed out at Obama and senior administration officials over their evolving description of the deadly Sept. 11 attack, a late campaign-season broadside. Republicans sensed a political opportunity in Obamas apparent reluctance to utter the words terrorist attack as well as the varying explanations emerging from the administration about the assault in Benghazi. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Fox News recently: I think its pretty clear that they havent wanted to level with the American people. We expect candor from the president and transparency. Clinton discussed security on Sept. 18, when asked whether measures were appropriate. Let me assure you that our security in Benghazi included a unit of host government security forces, as well as a local guard force of the kind that we rely on in many places around the world, she said. In addition to the security outside the compound, we relied on a wall and a robust security presence inside the compound, she said. And with all of our missions overseas, in advance of September 11th, as is done every year, we did an evaluation on threat streams. Clinton also said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent. She added that diplomats engage in dangerous work, and its the nature of diplomacy in fragile societies and conflict zones to be aware of the necessity for security but to also continue the important diplomatic work that has to go on. There is risk inherent in what we do and what these brave men and women representing the United States are up against every single day, Clinton said, and we do our very best to limit that risk by ensuring that our security protocols reflect the environments in which diplomats work and the threats that they are presented with. 125

Chaffetz said in an interview that if the Benghazi security was typical of the protection in other dangerous places, thats frightening. He said Benghazi is one of the most awful and volatile areas on the planet. A reduction in the security profile doesnt seem consistent with the threat that was on the ground. Thats why we have whistleblowers anxious to speak with us. Among the incidents cited in the Issa-Chaffetz letter to Clinton: Just weeks before the attacks, the unarmed Libyan guards at the consulate, employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group, were warned by family members to quit their jobs because there were rumors of an impending attack. In April, a gun battle erupted about two miles from the consulate between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the transitional government. In June, a posting on a Facebook page mentioned Stevens early morning runs around Tripoli along with members of his security detail. The page contained a threat against Stevens and a stock photo of him. Stevens stopped the runs for about a week, but then resumed.

Intel Source Conflicts with Obama Account of Deadly Consulate Attack

September 17th 2012

US Embassy in Libya During the Attack


Not that we are surprised here, but it appears that intelligence sources on the ground in Libya are challenging the Obama administrations account the attack was spontaneous which took place in Benghazi. According to Fox News, There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous, the source said, adding the attack was planned and had nothing to do with the movie. The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPGs and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves. The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack. There wasnt a single ant outside, the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice maintains that the Benghazi incident was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons. Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told CBS News Face the Nation on Sunday that the government in Tripoli, where the U.S. embassy is located, believes the attacks were preplanned and predetermined. Though the attacks coincided on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks that took place in America, Rice maintains that it was a coincidence. It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the Intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, Oh, its September 11th, we must avenge She claims it is a consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point and that she was not out there volunteering her own opinions. There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware, Rice said. There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies Intel and State but the idea that there was no response from State is false. The problem is that the Obama administration has difficulty in being forthcoming and being truthful and they have demonstrated that. When someone on the ground there conflicts with their story, they claim consensus of the intelligence community agrees with them. Seeing that the State Department didnt even have adequate protection for the ambassador there, Id lend more weight to the unnamed source than I would Barack Obama, Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton in this matter.

Fox News Extensive Report On The Benghazi Cover-Up By The Obama Administration
September 21st 2012


FNC Special Report on what many are calling a scandal and a cover-up of the events on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya. They not only report on the cover-up, but also what actually transpired on the night our Ambassador was killed.

Minister: Libyan Security Showed Radicals Where to Attack Ambassador

September 14th 2012 Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, screaming "God is great!" as they scaled its outer walls and descended on the main building, a witness and a senior Libyan security official said Thursday. The account, the most detailed yet of the rampage that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, came as the Libyan government said four people suspected in the attacks had been arrested and more were being sought. The attacks were suspected to have been timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the United States, a Libyan security official said, with the militants using the film protest by Libyan civilians to mask their action. Meanwhile, senior diplomatic sources told The Independent that the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert or "lockdown, under which movement is severely restricted. It is also suspected that the killings of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, private security guard Glen Doherty and one other American may have resulted from a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent reports. Stevens had been back in the country only a short while, and the details of his visit to Benghazi were meant to be confidential, The Independent reports. Sensitive documents are now missing from the consulate in Benghazi some of which are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts. As for the raid on the consulate, it was a two-pronged attack, said the eastern Libyan security official, Deputy Interior Minister Wanis el-Sharef. He said that hours after the crowd stormed the consulate Tuesday night, the militants raided the safe house. That raid occurred just as U.S. and Libyan security arrived to evacuate the staff, suggesting infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off the militants to the site of the safe house, about a mile from the consulate. Its a villa inside the grounds of the city's equestrian club. The location of the safe house was supposedly secret, The Independent reports. As for those who were arrested, El-Sharef said they were apprehended in their homes on Thursday but would give no further details. He said it was too early to say if they belonged 128

to a particular group or what their motive was. Libya's new prime minister, Mustafa AbuShakour, said authorities were looking for more suspects. One of five private security guards at the consulate said the surprise attack began around 9:30 p.m. when several grenades that were lobbed over the outer wall exploded in the compound and bullets rained down. The guard was wounded in the left leg from shrapnel. He said he was lying on the ground, bleeding and in excruciating pain when a bearded gunman came down the wall and shot him twice in the right leg, screaming: "You infidel, you are defending infidels!" "Later, someone asked me who I was. I said I was the gardener and then I passed out. I woke up in hospital," said the guard, who spoke to The Associated Press from his bed at a Benghazi hospital. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals and reprimands from his employers. The witness account came as protests of the obscure film, "Innocence of Muslims," continued in the Middle East. An angry throng broke into the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, and clashes between security forces and demonstrators near the fortress-like embassy compound in the heart of Cairo left nearly 200 people injured and two police trucks burned. Speaking at his Benghazi office, el-Sharef, who was running the Interior Ministry's operations room commanding security forces in the city during the attack, gave the most detailed account to date to come out of Libya of what happened the night of the attack. His version, however, leaves some questions unanswered and does not provide a definitive explanation on the motives behind the attack and the identity of the perpetrators. No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks. Some Libyan officials have pointed the finger at a hardline Islamist militia, the Ansar al-Shariah Brigades, one of multiple Libyan militias operating in the city. A spokesman for the group lavishly praised the assault for "protecting the faith and fighting for the victory of God Almighty." But he said the Brigades "did not participate as an organization. This was a popular uprising." Adding to the confusion surrounding the attack is that it targeted the United States, a nation that played a key role in ridding the oil-rich, mostly desert nation of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Washington also took the lead in launching the months-long NATO air campaign that crippled the late leader's forces. Stevens was credited by most Libyans with organizing a political front made up of opposition groups to unite the uprising against Gadhafi's 41-year rule, mediating tribal and regional disputes. The Benghazi attack also underlined the precarious conditions in Libya nearly a year after Gadhafi's fall, with a weak central government, militias operating as local governments, a destabilizing proliferation of weapons, and militant groups some inspired by al-Qaida that are active under the government's radar. 129

The crowd built at the consulate in several stages, El-Sharef said. First, a small group of gunmen arrived, then civilians angry over the film. Later, heavily armed men with armored vehicles, some with rocket-propelled grenades, joined and the numbers swelled to more than 200. The gunmen fired into the air outside the consulate. Libyan security guarding the site pulled out because they were so outmanned. "We thought there was no way for the protesters to storm the compound, which had fortified walls," he said. Libyan security advised the Americans to evacuate at that point, but the advice was ignored, he said. There was shooting in the air from inside the consulate compound, he said. At this point, el-Sharef continued, the crowd stormed the compound. The consulate was looted and burned, while plainclothes security men were sent to evacuate the personnel. Stevens probably died of asphyxiation following a grenade explosion that started a fire, elSharef said, echoing what the Libyan doctor to whom Stevens' body was taken told the AP on Wednesday. His account was corroborated by local journalist Ibrahim Hadya, who was at the scene. He told the AP that the consulate was stormed just as the evacuation was under way, with staff members smuggled out a side door that opens to a street other than the one where the militants and protesters gathered. U.S. officials have said attackers broke into the main consulate building around 10:15 p.m. and set the compound on fire. Amid the evacuation, Stevens became separated from others, and staffers and security who tried to find him were forced to flee by flames, smoke and gunfire. After an hour, according to U.S. officials, U.S. and Libyan officials drove the attackers from the consulate.

The next attack came hours later. Around 30 American staffers along with Libyans had been evacuated to the safe house while a plane arrived from Tripoli with a joint U.S.-Libyan security group that was to fly them back to the capital, el-Sharef said. El-Sharef said the original plan was for a separate Libyan security unit to escort the evacuees to the airport. Instead, the joint unit went from the airport to the safe house, possibly because they were under the impression they were dealing with a hostage situation, he said. The militant attack coincided with the joint team's arrival at the safe house, he said. That the attackers knew the safe house's location suggests a "spy" inside the security forces tipped off the militants, el-Sharef said. U.S. officials have not confirmed the account. They have spoken of an attack on the consulate's annex that killed two Americans, but said their report on the incident was still preliminary. In Yemen's capital of Sanaa, hundreds of protesters chanting "death to America" and 130

"death to Israel" stormed the U.S. Embassy compound and burned the American flag on Thursday. Yemen's president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, quickly apologized to the U.S. and vowed to track down the culprits, just as Libya's president did. Egypt's Islamist President Mohammad Morsi, who had been slow to speak out on Tuesday's assault on the embassy in Cairo, promised Thursday that his government would not allow attacks on diplomatic missions. The crowd in Sanaa swarmed over embassy's entrance gate. Men with iron bars smashed the thick, bullet-proof glass windows of the entrance building while others clambered up the wall. Some ripped the embassy's sign off the outer wall. Inside the compound grounds, they brought down the American flag in the courtyard and replaced it with a black banner bearing Islam's declaration of faith "There is no God but Allah." They did not enter the main building housing the embassy's offices, some distance away from the entry reception. Demonstrators set tires ablaze and pelted the compound with rocks. A thick column of black smoke rose out from inside the embassy compound. Witnesses said the protesters set ablaze a room housing security guards and torched several parked cars. Yemeni security forces who rushed to the scene fired in the air and used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, driving them out of the compound after about 45 minutes and sealing off the surrounding streets. The embassy said nobody was harmed. "All embassy personnel are safe and accounted for," spokesman Lou Fintor said. Yemen is home to al-Qaida's most active branch and the United States is the main foreign supporter of the Yemeni government's counterterrorism campaign. The government on Tuesday announced that al-Qaida's No. 2 leader in Yemen was killed in an apparent U.S. airstrike, a major blow to the terror network. In Cairo, protesters clashed Thursday with police near the U.S. Embassy. Police used tear gas to disperse he protesters and the two sides pelted each other with rocks. But unlike Tuesday, when protesters climbed the embassy's walls and several of them breached its grounds, police kept the protesters away from the compound. The Health Ministry said 224 people, including policemen, were wounded, but they mostly suffered light injuries. Twelve protesters have been arrested. The clashes continued well into the night. The spreading violence comes as outrage grows over a movie called "Innocence of Muslims" produced by anti-Islam campaigners in the U.S. that mocked Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The amateurish video was produced in the U.S. and excerpted on YouTube. It depicts Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.


Source: This is how Islamists knew of secret U.S. safehouse

Official warns of large scale al-Qaida infiltration
September 14th 2012 By Aaron Klein WND.Com An Egyptian security official speaking to WND today said there is information about largescale infiltration by al-Qaida and its affiliated Jihadia Salafiya groups within the Libyan security apparatus. The claim comes amid speculation about how Islamists who targeted the U.S. mission in Libya seemed to have inside information about the movement of the American diplomats in the country as well as the location of a supposedly secret U.S. safehouse in Libya. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya came in two phases. The first phase saw a mob arrive at the one-story villa that serves as the consulate, with heavily armed men later coming to the scene with armored vehicles and rocket-propelled grenades. Ambassador Chris Stevens and another American were killed in the initial attack. Libyan security forces then evacuated the consulate staff to a supposedly secret safehouse located about a mile away. Hours later, a second assault targeted the safe house, killing two Americans and wounding a number of Libyans and Americans.

U.S. backing Islamic groups behind Libya, Egypt attacks?

The claim of al-Qaida infiltration of Libyan security forces comes after WND documented earlier this week how the U.S. supported Libyan rebels amid widespread reports that al-Qaida groups were incorporated in the rebel ranks. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya is being widely blamed on al-Qaida-linked groups. One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents alQaida in Yemen and Libya. The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed the attack in Libya on a small and savage group, not the government or people of Libya. In Egypt, demonstrators earlier this week tore down the American flag outside Cairos U.S. embassy and burned it reportedly in protest of a film that depicts the Islamic figure Muhammad in a negative way. According to reports, the crowd of around 2,000 protesters outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo consisted of a mixture of Islamists and teenage soccer fans known for fighting police. The protesters reportedly played a part in the U.S.-supported revolt that toppled Hosni Mubaraks regime last year. 132

The revolt was successful largely after President Obama called for Mubarak, a longtime U.S. ally in the region, to step down. However, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Moammar Gadhafis regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels. Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assads regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. During the revolution against Gadhafis regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups. At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He insisted his fighters are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists, but added that the members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libyas rebel force may include al-Qaida: We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah. Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: There is no question that al-Qaidas Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafis biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group 2 percent or 80 percent. In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assads regime. Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at least 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, have been killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month. Also last month, WND reported that Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks. There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times. WND reported in May there is growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and alQaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.

Michael Scheuer: Mrs. Clinton Has Blood on her Hands Everywhere! 133

Former CIA Operative Michael Scheuer on the motives behind the recent protests in the Middle East. The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya: Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese; Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya; Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Democrats Should Stop Arming Terrorists Who Attack Us

September 15th 2012

Islamic Muslim Terrorist It now seems quite obvious to many that the riot that burned down our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and killed our envoy, J. Christopher Stevens, along with three others, was not a really a riot at all. Instead, it was an orchestrated assault by terrorists, probably Al Qaeda. So we get this kind of analysis from the Shadow Government website: The death of Ambassador Stevens is a wake-up call to the U.S. The Arab Spring is in the process of being hijacked by al Qaeda and we ignore the spread of violence and of al Qaedas pernicious vision in the Middle East at our own peril.

In the process?
I agree that Al Qaeda probably orchestrated this attack; because Al Qaeda was always involved in the Libyan regime change.


At the very least, we were warned this was going to happen. The Algerian government said that Al Qaeda would get weapons during the conflict, and several reports mentioned the possibility that they would acquire rocket-propelled grenades. It is ironic that we now know the attack on the consulate was from Al Qaeda precisely because they got those RPGs. As Shadow Government said, AQIM openly boasted of benefiting from Qaddafis weapons cache. This was completely predictable. Gaddafi himself claimed that the rebellion was Al Qaeda and/or other Jihadists that opposed his secular dictatorship. The Western media largely dismissed his claims (while at the same time admitting there was a basis for them). But the overthrow did not just attract Al Qaeda after the regime was overthrown. As Qaddafi seemed less vulnerable than NATO had claimed, it became necessary to arm rebels and hire mercenaries. So we got this kind of delusional naivet from the Administration: Washington policy makers have reservations about arming rebels amid credible reports that some have allegiances to Al-Qaeda. But the extent of such influence was down-played by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The future government of Libya is going to be worked out among the principle tribes. And they are the ones that even Gaddafi has had to balance and work with. So I think for some outside group, or some element of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to be able to hijack this thing at this point looks very unlikely to me, said Gates. This was nonsense. The area where the revolt against Gaddafi began was a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. It was easy for the media to find Al-Qaeda connections when they looked: Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists, but added that the members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. For whatever reason, the Administration and NATO decided that regime change in Libya was worth the price of arming and energizing Al Qaeda, but they never openly made a case for that calculus. Since the President has little to do with national security, we need to ask Hillary why she supports this sort of sleeping with the devil. She gave a moving speech about how our diplomats risk their lives, but empowering terrorists is putting them at unnecessary risk. Working with terrorists is now Democrat policy. Rather than making excuses for the administration funneling arms through the Muslim Brotherhood and a bunch of other uglies, we should call them out for the blood on their hands and oppose them.

Responding To Americas Number One Threat

Sept 14th 2012 By Charlie Daniels


One thing I have never understood is why anybody with a brain in their head would ever expect anything to come out of the Arab Spring except that which has happened and is happening. It should have been obvious from the start that the radical faction of Islam would step into the power vacuum and rile up and mobilize the abundant anti-western feelings in the area. And what we're seeing is just the beginning of the disintegration of any western influence in the Middle East. The sorry fact that a band of thugs has murdered four Americans, one of them our ambassador, should remind anybody who has forgotten 9/11 of the caliber of hate-filled animals we are dealing with and that the only response they will respond to is show of power and if our president presents a face of weakness in the wake of these atrocities the violence will only escalate costing more lives and emboldening the terrorists. The trashing of our embassy in Cairo was not done without the foreknowledge of the Egyptian government, nor was the attack on our consulate done without some knowledge of factions of the Libyan government. And if you believe the Pakistani government didn't know Osama Bin Laden was living in their midst, you'd best think again. We have done our best to buy friends in the Middle East and in the process we have supported some of the most repressive and cruel regimes in history. And it has backfired. The truth can no longer be denied: the only friend America has in the Middle East is Israel and it seems our president is too busy campaigning to even take a meeting with its leader. The fact that Barack Obama cannot even bring himself to say the two words Terrorist and Islamic in the same sentence, I think represents a dangerous blind spot in this president's thinking exposing a soft spot for his Islamic heritage. This president refuses to even identify the number one enemy our nation faces, which is not a sovereign nation or geographical area but an ideology that spans the globe and hates us simply for what we are, for being free and refusing to accept their religion. The Terrorists use any excuse no matter how insignificant, to attack America, the latest being some film that nobody that I know has even heard the name of. It supposedly disrespects the prophet Mohammed and our embassy in Cairo spent nine and a half hours tweeting apologies to Islam at large for some obscure movie that nobody ever heard of. 136

When Obama did his famous tour a few years ago where he apologized for America's greatness and said that it was no longer a Christian nation, bowed to a Saudi king and talked about all the things that America and Islam had in common, he set the tone for his policy of appeasement to the Islamic nations and his lack of regard for the security of Israel. The violence that is beginning to sweep the Middle East, if unanswered and unabated, will spill out of the now-affected areas and eventually reach the shores of our beloved nation. I wish it were different, but I honestly believe that America cannot afford to ignore or simply try to put Band-Aids on the threat its facing.

Unreal: On Day Following Libya Assassinations, Obama Skips Another Intel Briefing!
Is anyone surprised by this revelation? Our Commander Campaigner-in-Chief has made his priorities crystal clear: How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack. On Monday the same Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, reported that the president has missed 62 percent of his daily in-person intel briefings in 2011 and 2012. President Bush almost never missed a briefing after 9/11. I recognize that a president's schedule is extremely demanding, especially in the teeth of a campaign, so passing on these meetings occasionally would be understandable. I cannot, however, fathom how the president could justify canceling and not re-scheduling his intelligence briefing the day after an active US Ambassador was murdered in the line of duty, and as an international crisis continues to spread. The White House offers a two-fold defense on this: First, make snide remarks about President Bush, then insist that Obama is so sophisticated that he doesn't need experts to brief him: When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. As Ive told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day, Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obamas predecessor, George W. Bush: Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him. (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he decided he would prefer to read less.) Vietors reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obamas PDB is not briefed to him. In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the 137

president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietors words, among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet. Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence dont see it as a sign of weakness to be briefed by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 deep dives in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need ... Obama has more important things to do such as attend Las Vegas fundraisers. Let's play along with Mr. Vietor and assume for a moment that Obama really is an unprecedented intelligence savant. Given his frenetic schedule of crucial appointments, might one be forgiven for wondering if Obama truly reads his full intelligence packet each morning? Perhaps he just missed a handful of unimportant items, like the fact that the US did not beef up security at our Benghazi consulate after an IED attack in June. Our State Department merely asked the Libyan security forces (elements of which now appear to have been colluding with the enemy) to step up their game. And check out this exchange from a press briefing after the initial failed attack: QUESTION: But do you have any concern that this may be may bode very ill for the future security of Libya? I mean, there seems to be a breakdown in security on all levels. MR. TONER: On the contrary. As I said, our local guard force acted in exemplary fashion. We believe they were very vigilant in seeing this attack as it was taking place and sounding a warning for our mission staff to seek cover. And as I said, weve requested additional security. As to whether this bodes ill or well for on a larger scale, clearly Libya is in transition. Its grappling with many different issues, important issues right now. Security is a concern, but one were addressing, working productively with the Libyan Government. Was the president also aware that the Marines who unlike in Benghazi are protecting our embassy in Cairo were reportedly forbidden from carrying live ammunition by our Ambassador there? U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy. U.S. officials have yet to confirm or comment on the reports. Time magazines Battleland blog reported Thursday Senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming. Oh, I'm confident The One was up to speed on all of this stuff. Aren't you? He is, after all, "among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet." Who needs expert briefers?


As The World Burns Obama MIA (Empty Chair)

UPDATE - As Carol notes, the White House has walked back and cleaned up Obama's "ally" remarks about Egypt. Who "shoots first and aims later," again? Over to you, Mitt Romney: "The world needs American leadership." UPDATE II - Here's something you don't see every day: The State Department in damage control mode, contradicting the president:

Obama State Dept: Egypt Is an Ally Despite What Obama Says

What do the New Attacks on U.S. Embassies Mean?

September 14th 2012 Protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Yemen today and set fire to a building. Like the mob in Egypt on Tuesday, they tore down the American flag. Reports are also circulating of a separate protest in Tehran today with about 500 Iranians chanting Death to America. Meanwhile, a onetime mentor of Osama bin Laden called on his followers to replicate what happened in Libya and Egypt. Following the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff, it is realistic to fear other attacks on U.S. diplomats. Our men and women in and out of uniform are out there every day, protecting us and our interests. And that will always make them a tempting target, Heritage expert Jim Carafano reminds us, commenting on the attacks in Libya and Egypt. Heritages Jim Phillips wrote in June about a larger Iranian campaign to assassinate foreign diplomats, including Israeli and Saudi diplomats, in at least seven countries over 13 months. At this time, Americas first priority is the security of our personnel, and President Obama has ordered heightened security at Americas posts around the world. 139

We cannot allow terrorists and rioters to dictate U.S. missions and policy, and Washington must avoid knee-jerk reactions, such as yanking foreign aid, before we know the facts on the ground. As Phillips explained, the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt reflects the internal divisions in that country. At the same time, while there are dangerous anti-American factions in Libya, there are also many that appreciate the U.S. assistance and, and according to some reports, fought to help protect the U.S. compound before it was overrun. There are still too many questions to be answered about the origins of the attacks, the state of security at the U.S. facilities, and the responses of the host governments. We should get the facts before we draw too many conclusions about what happened and why, much less what this should mean for the future of U.S. policy. That said, this is no cause for declaring a moratorium on debate about U.S. policy in the region. There is plenty worth debating. President Obama has consistently shown more enthusiasm in engaging hostile regimes in the Middle East than in protecting the interests of allies such as Israel. He has shown more concern about restraining Israel from acting than stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In fact, this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. is not setting deadlines for Iran and still considers negotiations by far the best approach to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus public response was that Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran dont have a moral right to place a red light before Israel. President Obama made matters worse by declining an offer from Netanyahu to meet when Netanyahu visit the U.S. later this month despite the fact that Obama found time in his schedule for an appearance on David Lettermans late-night comedy show and an interview with Miami rapper and radio personality DJ Laz. The United States dysfunctional engagement with Israel and Iran is not the only problem. From North Africa through sub-Saharan Africa, al-Qaeda and its affiliates seem determined to plant the flag for new Afghanistans. Across the Middle East, the Arab Spring is far from unfinished business. Current U.S. policies clearly arent working. It is time to change course.

White House Refuses To Cut Off Aid To Muslim Brotherhood-Run Egypt

September 14th 2012 140

Will sanity ever prevail? Despite calls for ending foreign aid to Egypt in the wake of an attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, the White House is standing by funding commitments. Asked on Air Force One Thursday if the United States would withhold aid, White House press secretary Jay Carney said simply: No. Carney also told reporters that the partnership with Egypt continues as the country transitions into democracy in the wake of President Obamas comments Wednesday that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy

"The Terrorist Won! Were NOT Free Anymore!" Jesse Ventura part 1

"The Terrorist Won! Were NOT Free Anymore!" Jesse Ventura part 1 Following comments by Jack Graff: I love how openly Jesse speaks, no wonder he is black listed on most shows. Jesse is amazing. I would love to see him sit down in a 4 way talk with Obama, Bush, and Clinton... It would be awesome. Smell the agenda in the first moments Joy Behar refers to Jesse as a "conspiracy theorist" thus planting the seeds of dismissal right off of the bat. Marginalizing truth and it's the new black. Joy Behar is an ignorant liberal Bitch tool, but she hasn't realized it yet. She is afraid of the broader truth that is. The real reality is that weve been sold out.

And I do wish, Jesse would actually get involved in politics or some other movement instead 141

of just complaining and informing (not that Im doing much different, but I do not have the reputation, age or popularity he does).

Obama Change we Can Believe In

The Benghazi Story


FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador
September 14th 2012 By Gary DeMar

The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Lets rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In addition to protecting the free exercise of religion, even if its one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press. Every day in America people attack worldviews they dont agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed. King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible. Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance. Just because youre able to shut someone up doesnt mean that youve convinced that person that your position is correct. There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States. Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment, have also gotten into the act. For example, 143

ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred. Crying fire in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No ones going to shoot up the place if someone shouts fire. Its the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false. Neal Boortz writes, Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech. Its possible that theres more to this story than meets the eye. Ive posted the article Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians? on the Political Outcast site.

Obamas Idea of Justice for the Murder of 4 Americans!


AMERICA? Filmmaker taken in for interview

September 17th 2012

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a scarf over his face. He kept his hands in the pockets of a winter coat. Sheriffs officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told KNBC News that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriffs substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

Obamas Idea of Justice for the Murder of 4 Americans!


Terrorists Attack American Embassies Obama Goes After First Amendment

September 17th 2012 We were told after September 11, 2001 that those who wished us harm did so because of our freedoms. We then had freedoms taken from us via the implementation of the Patriot Act, the federalization of the TSA and other power grabs by the federal government. Now fast forward eleven years to the day. As a result of Islamic protests across the Middle East, freedom is once again under attack. The same president that signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with its section on indefinite detention, has now blamed a man that created a film for getting all those Muslims riled up, ending in the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador. It is highly questionable now that the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims is the real reason behind the protests, seeing as how organized they were, not to mention the date they took place on. However, now we see that the First Amendment is under attack. While Muslims are apologized to by Barack Obama and our own State Department, a man is woken in the early hours of the morning and carted away to be questioned by authorities for making a film! The Washington Post reported, A southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriffs station but was not arrested or detained, authorities said early Saturday. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was interviewed at the departments Los Cerritos station near his home, Sheriffs Deputy Don said. Walker said Nakoula traveled voluntarily in a squad car with deputies. The issue is not that Nakoula went with the authorities. The issue is that they even came to his house to question him. He did nothing wrong. Yet they still showed up and wanted to question him. Not only is it an issue of a violation of the First Amendment, but should make us wary of where we are headed in this country when officers come to question someone about a film in which no crime was committed. To make matters worse, the State Department is now referring questions concerning the attack on the U.S. consulate to the Justice Department. Thats right, the questioning of Nakoula, since it is assumed to be a part of this, will no doubt wind up behind the stonewall of the Obama DOJ. This is the same DOJ that has been stonewalling Congress for 20 months in regards to Operation Fast and Furious. Im sure we wont hear any real and legitimate details of any of this.


Obama Took $1 Million From Liberal Anti-Islam Filmmaker

September 15th 2012 Liberal hypocrisy is sometimes so great, we really need a new word to describe it. Maybe Obamacrite. With the Islamic violence spreading globally this past week, the Obama Administration has hammered on one point it desperately wants everyone to believe, that its all caused by a cheap, homemade anti-Islamic video. Thats a transparent ruse, but lets play along for a moment. The killings, rampages, bombings and violence are NOT the fault of the psychotic Muslims running through the worlds streets with guns and bombs, and they certainly are NOT the fault of the moronic, slipshod management of foreign affairs by the Obama Administration that ignored prior warnings and even refused to take common sense security measures (like loading Marines guns with ammo). All of the violence, including the reported raping and killing of our ambassador, is actually caused by a little, green-screen video that was made in someones garage. Never mind all the mystery surrounding the films creators, just focus on the one point: Its all the fault of an antiIslam film that nobody has seen. Logically, then, ANY anti-Islam film that has been seen by a lot of people would be even more culpable by magnitudes of order. And if the people allegedly involved in the making of The Innocence of Muslims are essentially accessories to murder, rape and rioting, then the makers of a successful anti-Islam film would be even MORE criminally responsible for Mideast violence. And in our current guilt-by-association climate, anyone who took money from such an Islamophobic filmmaker would be equally guilty of insulting Islam. Well, if you go back a few years, there was a successful documentary called Religulous (supposed to rhyme with ridiculous) that criticized Christianity and Islam. DVDs of the film can be bought on Amazon, which is much more than can be said for the White Houses current scapegoat. The maker of the film is a prominent liberal and critic of conservatives, who donated $1 million to a certain big-mouthed liberal politician. The filmmaker is Bill Maher, and the politician is none other than King Obama. So the president who is currently pushing the theory that a little film insulting Islam drives the terrorists who are rising up around the world is in fact benefiting from a huge donation from the maker of a popular film that mocks Islam. Wonder when Obama will return that donation and start a federal manhunt for Bill Maher?


Google Defies Government & Refuses to Remove Controversial Anti-Islam Video on YouTube
September 15th 2012 By Rick Moran American Thinker The intense pressure coming from the Obama administration to curtail free speech and intimidate citizens into keeping quiet isn't affecting Google, owner of YouTube. Politico: Google will leave a controversial video clip about the Islamic prophet Muhammad on YouTube despite a White House request that the company review it under its own policies, the company said Friday. The White House confirmed Friday that it asked Google to review whether the clip violated its policies and should be taken down. Google decided that the video does not violate its policies. "We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video - which is widely available on the Web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube." "However, we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situations in these two countries," the spokeswoman said. The video, deemed offensive by many Muslims is believed to have spurred violence in Libya this week where four Americans were killed. What are the feds doing investigating the alleged film maker? What is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doing calling an insignificant Florida pastor pressuring him not to support the film? With the president preferring to justify the attacks against our embassies rather than unapologetically stand up for free speech in the face of these challenges to American values, it shouldn't surprise us that he wants the government to curtail the First Amendment as a sop to the barbarians who demand that we abandon our most cherished beliefs. Kudos to Google for standing up to these bullies and for standing up for free speech.


How Obama Ignored Congress, and Misled America, on War in Libya

September 12th 2012

An inside look at his pre-war decision making reveals how the public was misled and the constitution ignored.
The feature story that Michael Lewis just published about President Obama's decision making prior to the war in Libya includes a lot of details that inspire confidence in his leadership. By all accounts he's intelligent, sober-minded, and inclined to seek out an array of perspectives. And he's frequently forced to make extraordinarily difficult tradeoffs with imperfect information. I don't envy his job. But the article also raises serious questions about his honesty and regard for the constitution. Let's take them in turn.

On March 28, 2011, Obama gave a televised address about Libya. It included this passage about his actions: Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No-Fly Zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. In his telling, (a) America led the effort to establish the No-Fly Zone; and (b) the No-Fly Zone would stop the Libyan regime's attacks from the air. Compare these assertions to the inside account reported by Lewis (which was vetted by the White House prior to publication): If you were president just then and you turned your television to some cable news channel you would have seen many Republican senators screaming at you to invade Libya and many Democratic congressmen hollering at you that you had no business putting American lives at risk in Libya. If you flipped over to the networks on March 7 you might have caught ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper saying to your press secretary, Jay Carney, "More than a thousand people have died, according to the United Nations. How many more people have to die before the United States decides, O.K., we're going to take this one step of a no-fly zone?" By March 13, Qaddafi appeared to be roughly two weeks from getting to Benghazi. On that day the French announced they were planning to introduce a resolution in the United Nations to use U.N. forces to secure the skies over Libya in order to prevent Libyan planes from flying. A "no-fly zone" this was called and it forced Obama's hand.


The president had to decide whether to support the no-fly-zone resolution or not. At 4:10 p.m. on March 15 the White House held a meeting to discuss the issue. "Here is what we knew," recalls Obama, by which he means here is what I knew. "We knew that Qaddafi was moving on Benghazi, and that his history was such that he could carry out a threat to kill tens of thousands of people. We knew we didn't have a lot of time somewhere between two days and two weeks. We knew they were moving faster than we originally anticipated. We knew that Europe was proposing a no-fly zone." That much had been in the news. One crucial piece of information had not. "We knew that a no-fly zone would not save the people of Benghazi," says Obama. "The no-fly zone was an expression of concern that didn't really do anything." European leaders wanted to create a nofly zone to stop Qaddafi, but Qaddafi wasn't flying. His army was racing across the North African desert in jeeps and tanks. Obama had to have wondered just how aware of this were these foreign leaders supposedly interested in the fate of these Libyan civilians. He didn't know if they knew that a no-fly zone was pointless, but if they'd talked to any military leader for five minutes they would have. And that was not all. "The last thing we knew," he adds, "is that if you announced a no-fly zone and if it appeared feckless, there would be additional pressure for us to go further. As enthusiastic as France and Britain were about the no-fly zone, there was a danger that if we participated the U.S. would own the operation. Because we had the capacity." To summarize, (a) America did not lead the effort to establish a no-fly zone it reluctantly signed on to the idea after its hand was forced by the French; (b) the no-fly zone wouldn't stop the regime's attacks because they weren't coming from the air. It was, rather, a preamble to escalation. Due to the nature of the Libya conflict, these misrepresentations weren't nearly as consequential as, say, the way George W. Bush spoke out about weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war. It is nevertheless an example of the president deliberately misleading the American people in order to facilitate false impressions about foreign military actions that he finds convenient.


It's long been established that Obama failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, as the constitution and Senator Obama's understanding of it dictated; and that he violated the War Powers Resolution. It is nevertheless worth revisiting the subject given these new details about his thought process: Obama insists that he still had not made up his mind what to do when he returned to the Situation Room that he was still considering doing nothing at all. A million people in Benghazi were waiting to find out whether they would live or die, and he honestly did not know. There were things the Pentagon might have said to deter him, for instance. "If somebody had said to me that we could not take out their air defense without putting our fliers at risk in a significant way; if the level of risk for our military personnel had been ratcheted up that might have changed my decision," says Obama. "Or if I did not feel Sarkozy or Cameron were far enough out there to follow through. Or if I did not think we could get a U.N resolution passed." Once again he polled the people in the room for their views. Of the principals only Susan Rice (enthusiastically) and Hillary Clinton (who would have settled for a no-fly zone) had the view that any sort of intervention made sense. "How are we going to explain to the American people why we're in Libya," asked William Daley, according to one of those present. "And Daley had a point: who gives a shit about Libya?" 150

From the president's point of view there was a certain benefit in the indifference of the American public to whatever was happening in Libya. It enabled him to do, at least for a moment, pretty much whatever he wanted to do. Libya was the hole in the White House lawn. Obama made his decision: push for the U.N resolution and effectively invade another Arab country. Of the choice not to intervene he says, "That's not who we are," by which he means that's not who I am. The decision was extraordinarily personal. "No one in the Cabinet was for it," says one witness. "There was no constituency for doing what he did." Then Obama went upstairs to the Oval Office to call European heads of state and, as he puts it, "call their bluff." Cameron first, then Sarkozy. It was three a.m. in Paris when he reached the French president, but Sarkozy insisted he was still awake. ("I'm a young man!") In formal and stilted tones the European leaders committed to taking over after the initial bombing. The next morning Obama called Medvedev to make sure that the Russians would not block his U.N. resolution. There was no obvious reason why Russia should want to see Qaddafi murder a city of Libyans, but in the president's foreign dealings the Russians play the role that Republicans currently more or less play in his domestic affairs. The Russians' view of the world tends to be zero-sum: if an American president is for it, they are, by definition, against it. Obama thought that he had made more progress with the Russians than he had with the Republicans; Medvedev had come to trust him, he felt, and believed him when he said the United States had no intention of moving into Libya for the long term. A senior American official at the United Nations thought that perhaps the Russians let Obama have his resolution only because they thought it would end in disaster for the United States. And it could have. All that exists for any president are the odds. On March 17 the U.N. gave Obama his resolution. The next day he flew to Brazil and was there on the 19th, when the bombing began. A group of Democrats in Congress issued a statement demanding Obama withdraw from Libya; Ohio Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich asked if Obama had just committed an impeachable offense. All sorts of people who had been hounding the president for his inaction now flipped and questioned the wisdom of action. A few days earlier Newt Gingrich, busy running for president, had said, "We don't need the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening." Four days after the bombing began, Gingrich went on the Today show to say he wouldn't have intervened and was quoted on Politico as saying, "It is impossible to make sense of the standard of intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity." The tone of the news coverage shifted dramatically, too. One day it was "Why aren't you doing anything?" The next it was "What have you gotten us into?" As one White House staffer puts it, "All the people who had been demanding intervention went nuts after we intervened and said it was outrageous. That's because the controversy machine is bigger than the reality machine." Put more succinctly, going to war in Libya was a close call; there are things various folks could have said to deter him; he ran the decision through executive branch and international channels; most people told him not to do it; but if Congress came into the picture at all, it wasn't enough to merit mention in the retelling, and certainly not enough to follow the constitution and put the prospective war to a vote. The people's representatives were excluded.

The imperial presidency is so well entrenched that a journalist like Michael Lewis needn't really question circumventing Congress to feel as though he's including all the crucial parts of the story about going to war.

That remains a scandal. And it is telling that Michael Lewis, one of America's finest journalists, didn't even ask Obama about failing to put the decision about Libya before Congress. He didn't ask despite the plain language of the Constitution, Obama's prior statements indicating he fully understood his legal obligations, and the fact that various members of Congress complained about his unilateral action. The imperial presidency is so well entrenched that a journalist like Lewis needn't really question those things to feel as though he's including all the crucial parts of the story about going to war. That is quite a precedent Obama has set. And Mitt Romney is ready to exploit it if he wins. As he put it: "I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now."

Obama Attacks First Libya Then Congress


Dont Buy the Narrative! Muslim Mob Violence Was Not Caused by a Movie
September 15th 2012 By Rush Limbaugh

So far, folks, the entire narrative of the reason for the mob activity in the Middle East has been false. Its a false narrative. A so-called fundamentalist pastor who never even saw this YouTube video that nobody else has seen, thats supposedly produced by an Israeli Jew who turns out to be a Coptic Christian. A film that, in fact, may not actually exist. But if it does, nobody has seen the entire thing, as best we can tell. And we, nevertheless, are to believe that hundreds of thousands of Arabs in the Middle East are driven to march, riot, maim, and kill, based on this? Sorry, folks. Im not buying this. Im not joining this media bubble, this movie, whatever this is. If anything, it could even be a hoax. But it has nothing to do with this, other than being used to incite the rabble. But it is the reason this is happening. It just happens to occur on 9/11, by the way, and thereafter. I guess thats just a coincidence! Meanwhile, 9/11 comes around, but our embassies and consulates are not fortified. Apparently there were no additional security measures. The Marines didn't have bullets in Egypt. The president doesn't bother with intel briefings since the 6th of September. That's the last one he had. A British paper reports, citing senior American diplomats, that 48 hours prior to the attacks on our consulate and embassy, the government was aware of credible threats and didn't do anything.


And we're told by the media that Mitt Romney spoke too soon the other day. We're told that Romney has no foreign policy experience. Yet it was Romney who issued the most responsible and presidential statement of anybody. We're told that Obama now has foreign policy experience, while the Middle East is crumbling. The Red Chinese, the ChiComs, are on the move. The Russians are on the move. Iran is close to having nukes, Israel is on its own on what appears to be the eve of war. And where is Obama? He's in Vegas, Colorado, fundraising, campaigning, and cracking jokes at his rallies. It's just another day, as though nothing serious is going on. At the morning press briefing (we've got the audio now) a reporter said, "As you know, the unrest in the Middle East is spreading to other embassies. The president's critics are saying it's an indictment of his handling of the Arab Spring." That's not what we're saying. Ugh. Anyway, "And that this is given rise to further inflamed sentiment among Islamists. What's his response to that, Jay?" CARNEY: I would note that many observers, commentaries, foreign policy experts, as well as elected officials -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have... have pointed out that..." Where have they pointed it out? Where have all of these experts, these straw men, done it? Where have they all agreed that it is the YouTube video? Everywhere I look, people are trying to denounce that. It's secondary. This is much bigger than that, and here you have the regime not willing to face up to it. Okay, here's the whole answer again. I promise to let it all go by. CARNEY: I would note that many observers, commentators, foreign policy experts, as well as elected officials both Democrats and Republicans have, uh, pointed out that the criticism in particular from Governor Romney and his team in what seems to be an attempt to score a political point has been, uh, both factually wrong and poorly timed. Now is a time when Americans should be coming together. And then Jake Tapper, ABC News: "Wouldn't it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have some extra security around diplomats and military posts?" 154

CARNEY: Let's be clear. This... These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. TAPPER: At Benghazi? CARNEY: We certainly don't know. TAPPER: (unintelligible) CARNEY: We don't know otherwise. Uh, the you know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned, uhhhh, attack. CARNEY: Uh, the unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims many Muslims find offensive. Nobody's seen it! Ten people have seen it. In June. A snippet here, a snippet there on YouTube. These people haven't seen it. This insults my intelligence. This the kind of stuff that makes you want these people to get smoked on Election Day. We're so much better than this. "What about Benghazi?" "Well, certainly there's no information to suggest it was preplanned." What do you mean, "No information to suggest that it was preplanned"? It's all over the place that it was preplanned! Reaction to a video? You know, these are children. They cannot accept responsibility for anything. They're never going do the right thing. This is not about Obama. It's about the United States' national security. We're a big nation at risk in a dangerous world. This is not about these guys, and they want to turn everything into being about these guys, about reelection, about his perception, about his image. Here's another bite. Let's see. Dan Lothian of CNN said to Carney, "Well, you mentioned a number of times now that this is in response to a video or film. Would you not agree, Jay that it's moved beyond that now? I mean, some are stirring violence by focusing on US policy or targeting the US in general. It's no longer just about the film." CARNEY: The reason why there is unrest, uh, is because of the film. This is in response to the film. LOTHIAN: (unintelligible) CARNEY: We obviously are not polling protesters to find out what their motivations are. This is not a film that the United States government had anything to do with. We reject its message and its contents. We find it both disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs. CARNEY: And that history goes back our nation's founding. Try being the Catholic Church with you guys in office. Anyway, it's obvious that Little Jay had been sent out there to say, "It's the movie, it's the movie, it's the movie!" Whatever the question is, he says, "It's the movie!" Whatever the question is, the answer is, "It's the movie. It's the film. This is in response to the film." Whatever the question, that is the answer. 155

And here's Jay Carney out there saying, "Eh, it's a movie. It's not about American policy. That Benghazi attack? We don't know that it was preplanned. It's not a case of protest directed at the US." If that's right, how come they're screaming, "Death to America! Death to America!" Why are they burning the American flag? I don't see them burning videocassettes or DVDs. Why are they killing an American ambassador? Why are they attacking American interests? Well, it's not a coordinated attack. It's just the movie, just the movie. What could be more factually wrong than saying these protests were not aimed at the United States of America? Does this White House think we're idiots? Listen to this, from the UK Independent. This cleared last night. "Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons." There were 400 people, and yet here's the president's spokesperson saying it wasn't planned. So Carney's contradicting the undersecretary of state. He's contradicting the UK Independent and other sources quoted. "It wasn't planned. It's the movie." Clearly this guy's been told to go out there, "Jay, we don't care how bad it tastes, you tell them it's the movie. We don't care what you have to swallow, Jay, it's the film. That's the answer to every question." So he dutifully walks out there, and that's his answer. This would be like blaming Abu Ghraib riots on Polaroid, or Kodak. It's exactly what this is.

Obama Regime Engaged in Libya Cover-Up Because They Wanted You to Think Al-Qaeda Died with Bin Laden
October 3rd 212 By Rush Limbaugh


Im really thinking of changing obscene profit time-out to the holy prophet time-out, just to be safe. I mean, these are very tense times out there, folks. So if you hear me say, Weve got another holy prophet time-out, youll understand. Its just to avoid causing myself problems. I dont want to end up in jail with the filmmaker. By the way, do you know what the regime is doing to try to explain this? Look, they lied for eight days after Benghazi. They lied through their teeth. CNN Get this! CNN is saying the only conclusion is the White House tried to cover something up. CNN said that. And, of course, theyre right.

There was a cover-up.

What were they covering up? They were covering up the fact that Obama. See, heres the thing, folks. If you want to boil this down, if you really want to understand this, Obama and the Democrats, what do you think the point was of their convention? Osamas dead and GMs alive! The point of that is, We have vanquished Al-Qaeda. If you go back to when Bush was president, we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got the War on Terror being waged. The Democrats are running around saying, The only way that well let you get away with defining victory in the War on Terror is killing Osama. Well, they set that bar pretty high so that they would, along with their media buddies, be able to say that Bush could never win as long as Osama was still alive. Okay, so here comes Obama and they pull him off the golf course after three times to say, "Look, we've got the guy in our sites. You got to come here. We got to do this!" They finally drag Obama in off the golf course, and have him put on a presidential military jacket to hide the golf shirt. They set him down to the Situation Room and they say, "Just look at that TV screen while we take your picture." (Obama impression) "What's going to be on that screen?" "That's where we're going to kill bin Laden." "Oh. Okay. And you want me to look at that monitor?" "Yes. You just look at that." They took that picture and they put it out. They made it look like Obama was in on this, and in fact gave the kill order himself, and that was the story. Along with that, folks, was the idea that Al-Qaeda was vanquished as well. Not only did our courageous young leader wipe out and assassinate Osama Bin Laden, but he took Al-Qaeda with him! What a victory. (Obama impression) "Bush didn't do that. Clinton didn't do that. I did it. I did it all by myself. Nobody else made that happen!" So he wipes out bin Laden, and then Al-Qaeda and then here comes Benghazi, and who did Benghazi? Al-Qaeda! Uh-oh got a problem. Because as far as the White House is concerned, there is no more Al-Qaeda. Obama took them out when they killed Osama. So they have to start an immediate cover-up. Then we find out there was no security. The Marines were not armed; they weren't allowed to carry live ammo. We learn that there was advance knowledge of it.

Of course, it's the 9/11 anniversary.

We know that for eight days the White House lied through their teeth about this being the responsibility of a video, that it was a spontaneous attack. For eight days the media carried 157

the water and covered that up, and they've broken from it now at least on CNN, and to a certain extent the Washington Post. So now the regime is trying to lay the blame off on the CIA. A guy named Eli Lake writing for the Daily Beast which is Newsweek, which is Tina Brown, which is big-time social liberal territory. Eli Lake has written two pieces that rip the cover off of this story that it was the CIA. That's the latest talking points. The regime first found out about this from the CIA, and CIA is who got it wrong. "We were simply following the CIA." So this president has no compunction whatsoever blaming anybody else, including in his own administration, for his own errors. But the big problem was, there wasn't supposed to be an Al-Qaeda anymore, and it was Al-Qaeda who killed our ambassador. We're in the middle of an incompetent mess like I've never seen. Now, back to Libya for just a second. The Obama Regime is trying to blame the CIA. The CIA put some talking points out that this whole thing in Benghazi was spontaneous at first and it was only later we figured out that it had nothing to do with the videotape and that it was AlQaeda. But this was all known by Obama. Well, there's a question of when Obama knew. There's even really a question of when he was told by people. I don't know what to believe in that regard. There's a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that basically says Benghazi was Obama's three a.m. phone call that he got at five o'clock in the afternoon and he hung up. A couple pull quotes from the Wall Street Journal piece.

"No doubt the administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper." The national security guy, Clapper, they're always going need a fall guy. "But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence." And this next is key. "It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season. Let's review: The US ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success." Just as Egypt. Just as the Arab Spring. "When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan 'sovereignty' and the need for 'permission.' After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush." And this is what has to be covered up. You have to 158

cover up that Al-Qaeda is still alive and thriving and growing and that this country is still as unpopular there as it was under Bush. Got to cover that up. "Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins," over at the CIA, which they're now doing, "and move on. It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it." And now there are reports that we supplied the weapons to the Libyan rebels, but we didn't vet them to see if terrorists were among them, because Obama had vanquished the terrorists, and the terrorists liked us now because Obama was president. That's the flawed worldview, and it is the flawed liberal worldview. The flawed liberal worldview. The liberal worldview starts out with an overriding truth in their mind: America is to blame, America is unjust and immoral as founded. We never deserved superpower status because we didn't do it on our own. We actually stole resources and other things from people around the world. We're the reason that there are poor people in the world because we essentially took their stuff. We waltzed in under the pretense of doing good, but we took their stuff. We take their oil, we take their diamonds, whatever we do, and we make ourselves rich well, 1% of us get rich. And we don't deserve the superpower status. And it's time, by the way, in Obama's worldview that the US finds out what it's like to live in the rest of the world. So there is no such thing as American exceptionalism. There's no desire to keep America number one in economic output, in education, or any of that stuff. Number 34 is fine. We're no better than anybody else. You start talking about American exceptionalism, Obama will say, (imitating Obama) "Well, I'm pretty sure that they think they're exceptional in Sweden, too. What right do we have to say we're exceptional?" Of course it's our Constitution and our history and our freedom and our liberty and all of that. So you have the Benghazi situation, the Libyan situation, the Arab Spring. Do you realize 20 months ago what we were going through? If you look back, 20 months ago, Tahrir Square in Cairo, we are being told it is an outbreak of freedom, and it is directly tied to Obama's presidency, that the election of Obama and the world's love and respect for this man has caused an outbreak of democracy and freedom all over the world, including the Middle East. Oh, hallelujah. And so CNN sent reporters over to talk to people in Tahrir Square who were protesting again Mubarak. There was no democratic uprising. It was the Muslim Brotherhood uprising. It was an Islamic supremacist uprising. There was nothing democratic about it. There was no democracy. There was no liberty and freedom as we understand it. But Obama and the media nevertheless building that false narrative and they send reporters over to interview the people in Tahrir Square to find out how much they love Obama, how much they appreciate Obama. So the worldview is, "The Americans are loved again! The United States is loved and adored and respected again 'cause Bush is gone and Obama's president." Then we kill bin Laden, and that takes out Al-Qaeda, and therefore there can't be any more terrorism against us because we've wiped them out. "Besides, they don't dislike us anymore. We supported the Arab Spring. "Yeah, we took out Osama, but he wasn't really anything more than a figurehead anyway. We supported the rebels in Libya. We supported the rebels in Egypt. We made it clear that we're not that crazy about Israel ourselves anymore," from the administration's viewpoint, anyway, "and so we're loved and adored." Then this happens, our ambassador gets killed, our embassy in Cairo gets trashed, and the leftists in the White House are scratching their heads. 159

"Oh, my God, how can this happen? I thought they loved us. We've gone out of our way to make them love us." So they have to immediately start a cover-up, a new narrative. "It's that filmmaker! You know, it's that video." Again, America's to blame. America's responsible. "Some extremist, right-wing Christian made a movie that insults Mohammed," and that justifies, by the way, what happened. It's totally understandable! And then Obama begins another world apology tour culminating at the UN. Apologizing for our First Amendment. Apologizing for the concept of free speech. He actually says at the United Nations, or makes some reference to the fact that the days of being able to control speech are long gone. As though that's something he would be interested in being able to do: Controlling speech, controlling thought, what have you. So our ambassador gets killed and we find out that the Marines were not armed. We find out that we were in no way prepared, even though the ambassador in his own diary discovered by CNN had expressed fears for his life and for his security. It's the anniversary of 9/11. On that day, our embassy in Egypt puts out a pre-apology for the video, and they still riot at our embassy. They still kill the ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi. And for eight days, the regime has to engage in a cover-up because their worldview makes the policy. The policy is: "America is at fault." That's the first place you look to assign blame. "You got to protect Obama." That's Phase II. Whatever happens, it can't be because of Obama's incompetence or a mistake in policy or what have you. So you blame the video. You get the media to go along and you blame the video. And maybe if that doesn't fly after a while, you blame the CIA. Everybody hates the CIA. If that doesn't work? "Well, we'll get rid of our national security guy named after a toilet: Clapper. Who could oppose that?" The whole point, though and the Wall Street Journal piece is right on the money is all of this happens because of liberalism. It is flawed. It is corrupt. It is not an ideology that celebrates America, it blames America, and that's where we are. Fast and Furious, same thing: Death and destruction made possible by virtue of American policy. The plan there was to get Americanmade assault weapons in the hands of drug cartels knowing full well what they would do with those weapons. They'd pull the trigger. People would die. A compliant news media was then supposed to report with outrage this senseless death brought on by drug cartels in Mexico easily obtaining American weapons. "We've got to do something about guns, finally once and for all," and the media, of course picks that up. And all the social liberals at their dinner parties start talking about guns, wringing their hands. "We've got to get rid of guns," and then we find out that the only reason the drug cartel guys had the guns is that it was an administration policy that put them there! But the US media covers that up, doesn't talk about that. "Nothing to see here!" That would hurt Obama. Can't have that. 160

Univision can take it no more. It finally does an expose in late September and October of this year on the eve of an election, with details that not even we knew of the death and destruction. I mean, the full scope of this scandalous and that's exactly what it is program. And still no mention of it in the mainstream American media. But the Hispanic vote (said to be a deadlock for Obama) is hearing all about this, and others are hearing about the failure in Libya in the proper context for the first time. A quick question, folks: Are they holding back the medical examiner's report on the death of the ambassador, Chris Stevens? Are they holding that back? You know, the media is so curious about Romney's 1994 tax returns. The media's so curious about what Romney did in prep school in 1965. But are they curious about the medical report on the death of our ambassador? No! No curiosity whatsoever.

Muhammad Movie by Sam Bacile This is the Muhammad Movie by Sam Becile that caused a bunch of savage Muslims to kill United States ambassador, J Christopher Stevens. The film claims Islam is a lie and Muhammad was a pedophile.

How to Kill a Terrorists!!!



What Drives Obamas Foreign Policy!


Post scrip:
Something here does not add up From all that I have been able to discover, up to this point... Despite rumors to the contrary, General Carter Ham (USA) is still head of the US Africa Command. His second in command was and is Vice Admiral Leidig (USN) - not another general, as claimed in the earlier story. If it is true that Vice Admiral Leidig "arrested" General Ham, it would have been on the direct order of the President - and I doubt that the general would still remain in command almost 7 weeks later. Note that nothing has changed here: AFRICOM Banner I find this piece, written in American Thinker, relevant too: Has General Ham Been Fired?

General in Benghazi Scandal Suddenly Retires

October 30th 2012 Is it payback or just shame? General Carter Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command and a key figure in the Benghazi scandal, is retiring from the Army years short of the mandatory retirement age, according to the Washington Times. Hams name came up in relation to Benghazi last week when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was trying to explain why no military backup was sent into the battle at the U.S. mission despite repeated requests from those under siege: The basic principle is that you dont deploy forces into harms way without knowing whats going on; without having some real-time information about whats taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation. This despite having a live video feed of the events in Benghazi in the situation room, where information from other sources has placed President Obama as well. With Panetta trying to implicate him, Ham must have had a target on his back since the September 11 attacks. Panetta had announced on October 18 that Ham would be replaced as head of AFRICOM. On Monday, an Army spokesperson insisted the decision to retire was made by Ham and was not fallout from Benghazi. But as with every other aspect of the Benghazi story, sources within the Administration are telling a different story. The Washington Times over the weekend reported on an Internet posting, allegedly based on an inside source at the Pentagon, that Ham had wanted to send in troops to rescue the personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but he was ordered to stand down. According to the story being circulated, Ham defied his orders and tried to send in his team, but within a minute of giving the order to his troops to rescue the Americans at the U.S. mission, his second in command relieved Ham of duty and arrested him.


So far, there is no corroboration of the story, but it would fit Hams sudden departure from AFRICOM and his unexpected retirement. The Pentagon has denied the story. Also, from the Washington Times, these two "update" quotes On Sunday October 28 I received the following communiqu from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little: "The insinuations in your story are flat wrong. General Ham is an outstanding leader of AFRICOM. Future leadership changes at this important command have absolutely nothing to do with the attack on American personnel in Benghazi. The leadership changes have been long planned." On Monday October 29 General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, released the following statement: "The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence."

Rogue U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Benghazi Stand-Down Order
October 29th 2012 The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya which left four Americans dead has now officially fallen apart. After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S. military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to stand down. Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Qaeda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area. According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty. The basic principle is that you dont deploy forces into harms way without knowing whats going on; without having some real-time information about whats taking place, Panetta told Pentagon reporters. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander 165

who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation. The information I heard today was that General 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 question now is whether the American people will hold to account the chain of command responsible for leaving our people behind, fabricating a politically expedient story, and continuing to sell the now defunct lie(s) even after all of their variations of the story were found to be false and misleading. A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future. In some circles the actions of those at the very top of the command structure during the Benghazi attacks would be considered traitorous. Read more: TRR: Is a General losing his job over Benghazi? - Washington Times

Is a General losing his job over Benghazi?

October 29th 2012 By James Robbins (Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation. On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force." News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, "Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command. This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half.


The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. "Kip" Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, "the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years." Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons. However on October 26, "Ambassador" posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft): I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below. Quote: "The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same emails 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 Rodriguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africom. This version of events contradicts Mr. Panettas October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply said the wrong thing to the wrong people. Perhaps he gave whomever he was talking to up the chain a piece of his mind about leaving Americans to die when there was a chance of saving them. At the very least U.S. forces might have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene. The Obama White House is famously vindictive against perceived disloyalty the administration would not let Ham get away with scolding them for failing to show the leadership necessary to save American lives. The Army's ethos is to leave no man behind, but that is not shared by a president accustomed to leading from that location. The question remains why the repeated requests which is to say desperate pleas to send a relief force were refused. Perhaps Mr. Obama and his national security brain trust thought the terrorist assault would be a minor skirmish and quickly blow over. When it became clear that the attack was something more serious, they may have had visions of the rescue team getting involved in a Mogadishu-like firefight, a Blackhawk Down 2. This would have been too much for the risk-averse Mr. Obama, particularly in a Muslim country, and less than two months before the election. Instead they simply watched the live video hoped for the best. If there 167

were American fatalities, they felt they could shift blame for the circumstance to the supposed Youtube video which they had already blamed for the riot at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier. In fact the Embassy had sent out its apology tweets even before the Cairo riot commenced. Hillary Clintons freakishly bizarre statement on September 14 is also worth noting. At a memorial service to the fallen she told Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." In that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed Tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened. But since when does the Secretary of State feel it is her duty to promise to have an American filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? For all the bowing and scraping to Islam that has gone on in the last four years, blasphemy against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. The First Amendment still exists. It is strange that Mrs. Clinton believed that the parents of the slain Americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing. But as Mr. Woods said, he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth." Indeed the truth has been the fifth casualty in this entire tragic affair. UPDATE: On Sunday October 28 I received the following communiqu from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little: "The insinuations in your story are flat wrong. General Ham is an outstanding leader of AFRICOM. Future leadership changes at this important command have absolutely nothing to do with the attack on American personnel in Benghazi. The leadership changes have been long planned." Of course I never suggested that General Ham was anything other than an outstanding leader of AFRICOM and in fact said as much. But why is an outstanding leader of this important command leaving after less than two years when all other combatant commanders have longer tenures? General Ham's predecessor stayed in the job much longer and was generally less well regarded. Further discussion of these issues may help begin to restore the administration's credibility on the Benghazi issue. UPDATE 2: On Monday October 29 General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, released the following statement: "The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence."


Primary Source and VIDEO of same: "Were not dealing with anonymous sources here. This comes from an interview with Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz who sits on two Homeland Security subcommittees relaying the responses from General Carter Ham heading up the United States Africa Comma ..." So, while it is true that Obama has since nominated Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed General Ham as the new commander of USAFRICOM, that nomination awaits Senate confirmation and Lt. Gen. Rodriguez remains in his current position at the head of US Army Forces Command at Ft. Bragg. General Ham remains in command of USAFRICOM in Stuttgart. Also, this story appears reliable and verifiable: General Ham No Order to Protect Benghazi Consulate, Congressman Jason Chaffetz interview, Ham over AFRICOM, Forces available but no order to use them given - General Ham No Order to Protect Benghazi Consulate Now, running parallel to this fiasco ... THIS story from the Saudi Gazette could be significant: Eastern Libyas deputy interior minister fired And this: Senator John McCain says that the Benghazi surveillance tapes have been classified "top secret." He has sent a letter asking that they be declassified: Senators McCain, Ayotte and Graham request immediate declassification of Benghazi surveillance video:


Obama Met With Sec. Def. Panetta and Biden at White House As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded
October 30th 2012 By Terrence P. Jeffrey

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Barack Obama ( - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack. The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi. Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates, Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told on Tuesday. However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure. The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized in the Washington Daybook--a planning service to which news organizations subscribe and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself. The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack. The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony submitted Oct. 10.


About 25 minutes after the attack started at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon. The subject line on this email said: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack. The text of the email said: 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 our COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. It went on to say: The Operations Center will provide updates as available. In her testimony to the Oversight Committee, Charlene Lamb indicated that soon after the attack started, she was able to monitor it from Washington, D.C., in almost real time. When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA, Lamb testified. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time. According to Lamb, three U.S. agents used an armored car to approach the safe haven at the U.S. consulate to rescue a U.S. security agent on the roof of the facility and also to try to retrieve Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran and State Department communications specialist. Despite thick smoke, the agents entered the building multiple times trying to locate the Ambassador and Mr. Smith, Lamb testified. After numerous attempts, they found Sean Smith and, with the assistance of members of the U.S. quick reaction team, removed him from the building. Unfortunately, he was already deceased. They still could not find the Ambassador. It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time or just as Obamas 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there. At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site, Lamb testified. The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle." But the battle was far from over. Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof, Lamb testified. Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time. The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the early morning that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded. In the early morning, an additional security team arrived from Tripoli and proceeded to the annex, Lamb testified. Shortly after they arrived, the annex started taking mortar fire, with as many as three direct hits on the compound. It was during this mortar attack that Tyrone 171

Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and a Diplomatic Security agent and an annex quick reaction security team member were critically wounded. Doherty and Woods were both former Navy Seals who served in both the Iraq and Afghan wars. They were working as U.S. security personnel in Libya. When exactly did Obama learn that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and whom did he order to do something about it? The White House is not saying. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives, Obama told KUSA TV in Denver on Friday. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Fred Lucas of asked the White House on both Monday and Tuesday to reveal exactly when Obama learned the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and who exactly Obama directed to "make sure that we are securing our personnel" there. The White House did not respond. At an Oct. 25 Pentagon press briefing, a reporter noted that there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex in Benghazi and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex. He then asked Panetta: Why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or dropping more special forces in? There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here, Panetta said. We quickly responded, as General Martin Dempsey chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, in terms of deploying forces to the region, Panetta continued. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But the basic principle here basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place, said Panetta. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation. A reporter followed up: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying. This happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening, Panetta said. The above comment from Panetta is total BS. They had real time video from a drone overhead, communications from personnel inside the annex and the actual battle lasted over 7 hours.


New Bombshells Rock Benghazi Scandal

November 2nd 2012 By Guy Benson Damning details about this national scandal continue to emerge, even as the administration hunkers down and tries to wait it out on a political timetable. ABC News' Jake Tapper describes the succession of appalling revelations as a slow drip, but the stream is picking up. Let's pick through what we've learned over the last 48 hours alone (if you're short on time, skip down to item number five, which is the biggest story of the bunch): (1) As Katie reported yesterday, secret cables sent from US personnel in Libya to the State Department offered dire and specific warnings that our diplomatic mission in Benghazi was extremely susceptible to a coordinated attack. Such a raid was a significant cause for concern, the document said, because the US team had identified no fewer than ten Islamist militias operating in the city (some of which had already launched attacks against Western targets). And yet numerous subsequent requests for additional security measures were denied and the American security presence was actually scaled back. Watch Fox News' national security correspondent Catherine Herridge explain why she views the newlyunearthed documents (authored by Ambassador Stevens and sent to Hillary Clinton's office prior to the attack) amount to a "smoking gun:"

Catherine Herridge reporting on classified Benghazi cable (10-31-12) The warning that came from Benghazi was very specific. It said 'we cannot sustain an attack. The militias are everywhere, Al Qaeda was here.' This was known to the US intelligence community as well...this comes three and half weeks before the attack." (2) Six weeks after the assault, and after the FBI had finally picked through the wreckage, journalists were still discovering sensitive State Department items in the burned-out compound. In a stunning expose, Foreign Policy reports that several of these documents indicated that on September 11th itself, members of our diplomatic core were deeply concerned about their own personal safety and distressed over the lack of security. Someone even drafted an ominous letter expressing suspicions about apparent potentially problematic surveillance of the compound being undertaken by at least one of the local Libyans charged with protecting it: When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially 173

requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided. One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads: "Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322." How inadequate was the security provided by the locals? Read on: We were given assurances from the highest authorities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that all due support would be provided for Ambassador Stevens visit to Benghazi. However, we are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all. This would have been less of a problem if our own government had provided resources to adhere to its own bare minimum security standards, but as we know, that never happened. Watch Fox News' national security correspondent Catherine Herridge explain why she thinks the newly-unearthed cables. (3) According to Newsweek's Eli Lake, the State Department made the decision not to request military back up during the hours-long, ongoing raid. The CIA has already disclaimed responsibility for that egregious call, and now Defense officials are pointing the finger at the Obama State Department: Military backup may have made a difference at around five the following morning, when a second wave of attackers assaulted the CIA annex where embassy personnel had taken refuge. It was during this second wave of attacks that two ex-SEALs working for the CIAs security teams Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in a mortar strike. Normally it would be the job of the U.S. ambassador on location to request a military response. But Stevens likely died in the first two hours of the attack. The responsibility for requesting military backup would then have fallen to the deputy chief of mission at Benghazi or officials at the State Department in Washington. The State Department is responsible for assessing security at its diplomatic installations and for requesting support from other government agencies if they need it, a senior U.S. Defense official said. There was no request from the Department of State to intervene militarily on the night of the attack. The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. And where was the president as all of this happened? Back to the aforementioned report from Jake Tapper: As he left his Marine One helicopter Wednesday evening and walked to the residence of the White House, President Obama did not respond to a question shouted out by ABC Newss Mary Bruce about when he would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up about what exactly what went wrong in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The president smiled and continued walking. As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 174

General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies. But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the presidents involvement in decision-making. In addition, theyre preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senates Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15. In other words, the White House is stonewalling at least through the election, and possibly beyond. Someone made the ultimate call not to use force to save those Americans' lives. It might have been the president, despite his casual claims to the contrary. It might have been Secretary Clinton. We don't know because the administration continues to hide behind its "ongoing investigation." If there were bad decisions made by people at the highest level, no such inquiry is necessary. Top officials know exactly who made these decisions they just don't want the American people to share that knowledge, at least not yet. (4) The president keeps telling interviewers that he's keenly interested in the results of this very, very important investigation. But then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made an accidental admission yesterday: Today, the White House press secretary let it slip during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One that President Obamas inaction on the Benghazi situation now extends to inaction on the supposed investigation taking place. The administration has still not made clear what exactly is being investigated, or the extent of the investigation. And President Obama doesnt much care. Said Carney: "He has not participated in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened and who is responsible and what lessons we can learn from it and ensure it never happens again. He expects the investigation to be rigorous." The president is taking a hands-off approach to this sham of an investigation. What a surprise. I guess he's got his hands full with more important things these days, just as he evidently did before and during the 9/11 terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including a sitting Ambassador. (5) The motherload, from CBS News: CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG). "The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon." Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack ... Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds. "The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring 175

to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

"The process was isolated at the most senior level." These "senior level" officials are the ones clinging to the investigation excuse. It's now completely obvious why. An absolute disgrace!

Obama & Michelle-Fist Bump for Muslim Terrorists



TWIN TIMELINE: What was happening in Benghazi and Washington



CIA Timeline Confirms: Woods and Doherty Killed in Benghazi 7Hrs After White House Told of Attack
November 4th 2012 By Terrence P. Jeffrey ( - What David Ignatius of The Washington Post describes as a detailed CIA timeline of the events that unfolded in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 (and in the early hours of Sept. 12), confirms that former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were not killed until seven hours after the State Department informed the White House in writing that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi where the attack was taking place. The attack started at 3:40 pm Washington, D.C. time. The State Department sent the White House an email at 4:05 pm with this subject line: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack. The email said Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi. According to the CIA timeline provided to the Washington Post and other news organizations, Woods and Doherty were killed by mortar fire while on the roof of a CIA facility in Benghazi between 11:15 p.m. and 11:26 p.m. Washington time or between 5:15 a.m. and 5:26 a.m. Sept. 12 Benghazi time. Between 4:05 p.m. Washington time, when the State Department emailed the White House that the U.S diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack, and 11:15 p.m., when Wood and Doherty were killed, more than seven hours passed. On, British Airways is currently advertizing a non-stop flight from London to Libya on Nov. 15 via an Airbus A320 that is expected to have a duration of 3 hours and 30 minutes. That means that in the seven hours that elapsed between when the State Department informed the White House that the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and when Woods and Doherty were killed, a common commercial airliner not a military jet could have flown from England to Libya and back. White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, according to reporting by CBS News, personally informed President Obama of the ongoing attack in Benghazi before Obama went into a pre-scheduled 5:00 p.m. meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Vice President Joe Biden. On Tuesday, asked the Defense Department whether this previously scheduled meeting between Obama and Panetta had in fact taken place, whether Panetta was aware at that time of the ongoing attack in Benghazi that the State Department had reported to both the Pentagon and the White House at 4:05 p.m., and whether the president had used that meeting to discuss with Panetta what should be done to defend the Americans in Benghazi. Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a department spokesman, told at that time: Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates. However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisers are appropriate for disclosure. CBS reported that after National Security Adviser Donilon initially notified Obama of the Benghazi attack just before the 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta the president was subsequently updated several times throughout the evening. 180

The CIA timeline was provided to some news organizations on Thursday to demonstrate that the administration was getting a bum rap from those who said it reacted too slowly to the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Libya. According to the timeline, as published by the Associated Press, a security team left the CIA annex in Benghazi to go to the aid of the nearby consulate less than 25 minutes after the attack started at 9:40 p.m Benghazi time (3:40 p.m. Washington time). This team included former Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, Ignatius reported in the Washington Post. It rescued some people at the consulate, sending them back to the CIA annex. By 11:30 p.m. this security team itself left the consulate to return while being attacked--to the CIA annex. In the meantime, as the Los Angeles Times reported of the timeline, another security team came from Tripoli to Benghazi aboard a chartered airplane. The CIA also sent a second six-member team from Tripoli on a chartered plane to help repel the attack," reported the Times. "This team included Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, who was later killed when attackers fired mortar rounds at the CIA Annex." After making the short flight from Tripoli to Benghazi, however, the CIA security team had a very difficult time trying to get from the Benghazi airport to the CIA annex to which their colleagues had retreated when they left the consulate. The AP story on the timeline says that the CIA security team from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 1:00 a.m., but then could not find a ride into town." Around 1 a.m., a team of additional security personnel from Tripoli lands at the Benghazi airport and attempts to find a ride into town. Upon learning that Stevens is missing and that the situation at the CIA annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating Stevens and obtaining information about the security situation at the hospital, reported the AP. Before dawn, the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort, said the AP. At 1:00 a.m. Benghazi time, when the AP says these security reinforcements arrived at the Benghazi airport, it was 7:00 p.m. Washington, D.C. time or about three hours after the White House had first learned of the attack David Ignatius at the Washington Post reported that the security reinforcements from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 1:15 a.m., but did not leave the airport until 4:30 a.m. "1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane theyve hastily chartered," Ignatius wrote. "The Tripoli team includes four GRS) Global Response Staff) security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They dont leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar alSharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."


Between when these CIA security reinforcements landed in Benghazi at about 1:00 a.m. or 1:15 a.m. and when they arrived at the CIA annex, about four hours elapsed, according to the reports. That alone is more than the three and a half hours it takes British Airways to fly an Airbus from London to Libya. 5:15 a.m. The team arrives at the CIA annex, with Libyan support, just before mortar rounds begin to hit the facility, says the AP report on the timeline. Two CIA security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed when they take direct mortar fire while engaging the attackers. The attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating. Doherty had come with the security team from Tripoli. At 5:15 a.m. Benghazi time it was 11:15 pm Washington time seven hours and 10 minutes after the State Department sent its email notifying the White House that the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack. In an interview with KUSA TV in Denver a week ago, President Obama said of the Benghazi attack: The minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

President Barack Obama speaking at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25, where he talked at length about a "disgusting video" that had been posted on YouTube and that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice had earlier pointed to as the root cause of the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.


Fox News Confirms CIA Operators Had Laser Designators On Targets During Benghazi Attack, Waited For Air Cover That Never Came
November 4th 2012

These Americans were left to die, heads need to roll

Sources who have debriefed the team that was at the CIA annex the night of the attack in Benghazi say that the CIA operators from the Global Response Staff, or GRS, were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a passive as well as a visible laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers. The presence of laser capability on the roof of the CIA annex confirms what Fox News sources that night in Benghazi originally said, which is that they had laser capability and for 5 hours and 15 minutes were wondering where the usual overhead air support was, especially since, according to this source, they radioed from the annex beginning as early as midnight asking for it. The presence of lasers raises more questions about why air support was not sent to Benghazi even protectively once it became clear that the fighting had followed the CIA rescue team back to the annex. U.S. military officials say they "thought the fighting was over" after the team left the consulate and that there was a lull in the fighting. Fox News has learned the guns were fitted with PEQ-15 lasers. The passive laser is not visible to the naked eye but can help team members identify hostile forces when the shooter is wearing NODS, or Night Observation Device attached to their helmet. The visible laser system places a red dot on the attacker and warns the attacker not to shoot, encouraging them to flee the scene. U.S. troops often use the visible laser to scare children or other civilians who find themselves in the middle of combat activity. When civilians see the laser they often back off in order not to be shot. The GRS team that was present at the CIA annex provided security for the CIA station, as they do around the world. They are highly trained in countersurveillance, close target reconnaissance and in depth reconnaissance. Enemy fighters have learned in Afghanistan 183

and Iraq to use their cell phones to follow or intercept these passive lasers without having night vision or NODS. The Annex team also had Ground Laser Designators, or GLD. This kind of laser equipment emits code and signal when there is overhead air support, unmanned aerial surveillance, drones or AC-130 Spectre Gunships, for instance. A source present the night of the attack says that the GRS team that was defending the annex asked where the air support was at midnight. Former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed 5 hours and 15 minutes later. The military is preparing a timeline from the night of the Benghazi attack and plans to outline what assets were available to commanders in the region, including AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham, who was visiting Washington, D.C., on September 11 and was in the Pentagon overseeing the operation that night. Pentagon spokesman George Little says, On the night of the attack on American personnel and facilities in Benghazi, there were no armed unmanned aerial vehicles over Libya, and there were no AC-130s anywhere close. On Thursday, the CIA excluded Fox News from a briefing for a small group of reporters in which they provided a timeline from the night of the attack in which they explain that at 5:15 a.m. (7 hrs and 28 minutes after the attack on the consulate began) five mortars are fired at the annex, three of them striking the roof and killing Woods and Doherty. The CIA told the Washington Posts David Ignatius that the rooftop defenders never laser the mortars as has been reported, a reference to an earlier Fox News report. The CIA added the defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. The U.S. military says that two unarmed Predators were overhead Benghazi that night and providing one stream of video back to Washington beginning at 11:11 p.m. (1 hr and 24 minutes) after the attack began. U.S. military sources say that the second Predator was not armed even though it took off from Sigonella Air Base in Sicily after the attack began to provide back up to the first Predator which was at the end of its orbit and running low on fuel. US commanders say that in reference to the drones positioned at Sigonella: Not all aircraft are armed. Ours are not. According to military sources, Libyan authorities have not given the U.S. military permission to fly armed drones over populated areas like Benghazi. However, for some time the unmanned aerial drones that have been watching Libyas chemical weapons sites did have permission to be armed.

CBS Caught Protecting Obama by Withholding Politically Damaging Benghazi Tape

November 5th 2012 Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 60 Minutes interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.


In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror. That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning. The town hall questioner asked, Who was it that denied enhanced security and why? Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for whats taking place there, because these are my folks, and Im the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.

What President Obama really said in that '60 Minutes' interview about Benghazi
Fox News ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline. In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror. That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning. The town hall questioner asked, "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?" Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: "When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say." Romney pounced, saying, "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people." On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. "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 the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief." 185

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration. OBAMA: Please proceed. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying? OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor. ROMNEY: 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: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) -OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.) CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take 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. ROMNEY: This administration the administration (applause) indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. CROWLEY: They did. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and to suggest am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday your secretary or Obama who had clearly won the moment (largely thanks to Candy Crowley) clearly wanted to move on from that victorious moment and quickly. OBAMA: Candy -ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and -- and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction. OBAMA: Candy, I'm -- I'm happy to -CROWLEY: President, let me -- I -OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy. CROWLEY: I know you -- absolutely. But I want -- I want to move you on. OBAMA: OK, I'm happy to do that too. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and -OBAMA: I just want to make sure that -CROWLEY: -- figure out what was said and when. OBAMA: You know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some their questions answered. Now, we may know why. Soon after that debate exchange, CBS released a previously unseen clip of an interview "60 Minutes'" Steve Kroft did with Obama on Sept. 12 the day after the Benghazi attack. The clip added to the previous sound that had been released and seemed to back up the president's claim that he was referring to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Here's what CBS put out Oct. 19, five weeks after the attack. KROFT: But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesnt sound like your normal demonstration. OBAMA: As I said, were still investigating exactly what happened, I dont want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to 186

target Americans from the start. So were gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out." After the second debate back and forth, this seemed to back up the president's stance. The only problem? Kroft started his question with "but." I always thought, it seems that he's following up on a question I wonder if there was a question before that question? This week, we got the CIA timeline of events in which they detail all of the response of the CIA and what they put up the chain of command in the minutes and hours after the attack began. Of all the details of the specific times the CIA contractors respond to the fight, I found this one most interesting: "1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack." So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can't get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the "militia that mounted the consulate attack." This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12. The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that's behind this. It's the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded. About 12 hours later -- before heading to Las Vegas for a campaign event -- Obama sits down for that "60 Minutes" interview with Steve Kroft. And Sunday night, 54 days after the attack and almost two weeks after putting out the first additional clip that appeared to back up the president after the second debate, CBS without fanfare posted the rest of the Benghazi question online -- the question before the question. Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part underlined in bold. Click here to see the "60 Minutes" interview. 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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack? OBAMA: Well its too early to tell 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. KROFT: Its been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesnt sound like your normal demonstration. 187

OBAMA: As I said, were still investigating exactly what happened, I dont want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So were gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out. KROFT: There have been reports, obviously this isnt the first timethere have been attacks on the consulate before. There was an attack against the British ambassador. Do youthis occurred on Sept. 11. Can you tell me why the ambassador was in Benghazi yesterday? Was it to evaluate security at the consulate? OBAMA: Well keep in mind Chris Stevens is somebody that was one of the first Americans on the ground when we were in the process of saving Benghazi and providing the opportunity for Libyans to create their own democracy. So this is somebody who had been courageous, had been on the ground, had helped to advise me and Secretary Clinton when we were taking our actions against Muammar Qaddafi. And is somebody who is very familiar with the train. He was doing the work that he does as a diplomat helping to shape our policies in the region at a time when things are still fairly fragile. But I think its important to note that we have a Libyan government in place that is fully cooperative, that sees the United States as a friend that recognizes we played an important role in liberating Libya and providing the Libyan people an opportunity to forge their own destiny. And in fact we had Libyans who helped protect our diplomats when they were under attack. But this is a country that is still rebuilding in the aftermath of Qaddafi. They dont necessarily always have the same capabilities that countries with more established governments might have in helping to provide protection to our folks. But beyond that, what I want to do is make sure that we know exactly what happened, how it happened, who perpetrated this action, and then well act accordingly." These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back. Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden. How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi? There are many questions, and here are a few more. Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning? Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12? Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously? 188

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up. That's what reporters should live for, but this time they're not.

Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama

November 6th 2012!

On Sunday November 4, late in the day, an odd video appeared (or rather was buried) on CBSs website, entitled Obama Suspects Libya Attack Targeted Americans. It was odd in that for several weeks, the Obama administration had finally dropped the idiotic narrative that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was caused by a mob turned violent over an obscure anti-Muslim video that no one had seen. A closer look at the video shows that it was in fact taped on September 12, a few hours after Obama made vague remarks about the attack in the Rose Garden. That it was part of a 60 Minutes interview that CBS had clearly suppressed. Why was the video suppressed? It didnt fit the narrative. Even though we later found out that Obama watched the attack on the Benghazi consulate in real time. Even though we later found out Obama had received an email that went directly to the White House Situation Room blaming the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia, Obama in this suppressed video refused to call it terrorism. That Obama, in the suppressed video, oddly at the same time, thought the mob turned violent over an antiMuslim video was equally ridiculous. It was obvious what Obama was trying to do in the interview. He wasnt sure what lie he was going to tell the American people about the attack and wanted to be as vague as possible. But it wasnt vague enough. It didnt fit the narrative. So it had to be suppressed. What we now know is that Barack Hussein Obama was shipping weapons from Libya to Syria arming the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Syrian rebels yes, our enemies with Ambassador Chris Stevens as the point man and needed a cover story to keep it out of the publics eyes. Arming of our enemies? Thats treason in my book. And if I remember correctly, thats grounds for impeachment.


Hillary Clinton Turns Down Request To Testify In Front Of Congress On Benghazi Next Week
November 9th 2012 By Bridget Johnson

Of Course this Lying Muslim Loving Commie Bitch has Nothing to Hide!
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has turned down an invitation to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Thursday on the Benghazi attack. A committee update this evening indicated that Michael Courts, acting director of International Affairs and Trade for the Government Accountability Office, will be testifying followed by a RAND Corp. analyst. The committee indicated further witnesses could be added, but the State Department confirmed that Clinton wont be one of them. She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that shell be on travel next week, said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal. The Committee plans to hold the second segment of this hearing the week of November 26, 2012 and will request Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before the Committee at that time, the Foreign Affairs Committee said in an advisory.


Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) wrote Clinton on Tuesday to demand that the State Department respond to the panels requests for information on Benghazi. It is disappointing that we have yet to receive any response from your Department and that we are receiving more information from the press than from the Administration, Ros-Lehtinen wrote. On Sept. 12 and Sept. 14, the chairwoman requested State Department witnesses for both an open hearing and closed-door members briefing. On Sept. 25, committee members requested information on intelligence leading up to the attack and the role former Guantanamo detainees may have played. On Oct. 15, fresh requests were sent from Ros-Lehtinen directly to Clinton. No responses have been received. While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Departments own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter, Ros-Lehtinen wrote. Accordingly, I respectfully request access, in accordance with standard procedures for classification information, to all cables regarding embassy security in Benghazi before, during, and after the September 11th attack and all memoranda establishing security protocols, including agreements with other agencies. Moreover, I continue to have concerns more broadly about embassy post security in frontline countries and I request an expeditious response to the questions raised in my October 15th letter, the chairwoman added. Finally, please be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.

Petraeus, Clinton, Ham Benghazi Witnesses Going Away

November 10th 2012 By Tad Cronn CIA Director David Petraeus, who surely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, was suddenly discovered after the election to have had an extramarital affair, and he resigned abruptly Friday. His resignation is right before his expected testimony to Congress, which he will now skip. (Petraeus apparently had been carrying on with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, whose name and book title, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, suddenly have a salacious, almost James Bond-ian ring to them.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who surely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, took the hit for President Obama pre-election by accepting responsibility for the total lack of security without ever saying what happened, and now shes out of her job at State. AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who surely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, abruptly resigned, years ahead of his scheduled retirement date, before the election, amid rumors that he defied orders to stand down and attempted to send a rescue group to Benghazi during the attacks. 191

Carrier Strike Group Three Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who surely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, is outright fired by President Obama for inappropriate leadership judgment, amid rumors he advocated sending a rescue group during the Benghazi attacks.

A suspect in the Benghazi attack, Ali Ani al Harzi, who likely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, is arrested in Turkey, a NATO ally, but oddly transferred to Tunisia, where U.S. investigators cannot get access to him for questioning until after the presidential election. The mainstream media, who surely have by now some knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, lie about Obama calling Benghazi a terrorist attack, say nothing about any other aspect of the incident and watch their boy sail to victory. President Obama, who surely has intimate knowledge of what really went down on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya, and is said by some anonymous sources to have been watching the events via live video feed, lies like crazy repeatedly and is rewarded with four more years in office.

Nope, no story here. Move along.

Petraeus, Benghazi, and the Naked CoverUp

November 10th 2012 By Mark Horne David Petraeus was scheduled to testify today about the Benghazi massacre and Administration cover-up. But now he is not going to. Allegedly he got naked with someone other than his wife. He confessed to this affair in a letter of resignation he submitted to President Obama on Thursday (the same day Fox News reported Congress would call on him to testify), asking to resign for personal reasons. Yesterday, President Obama accepted his resignation. He is suddenly no longer director of the CIA. But if he was the director at the time of the Benghazi incident, and if he has been briefed up until now, why shouldnt he be the one to testify? Does Congress summons not apply to him if his job title changes? An added factor is that, at this stage in the reporting, we are told that Petraeus volunteered the information about his affair, but we are also told that it was uncovered by others: CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting to an extramarital affair an affair with his biographer that was revealed over the course of an FBI investigation, Fox News has learned. The FBI had been investigating an unrelated and much broader case before stumbling on the affair. Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her. The FBI for some time was concerned that perhaps Petraeus 192

was some sort of victim, but there has been no evidence discovered to back up such concerns. On its face, this is a naked cover-up. Why would the FBI expose Petraeus? I realize that there are good security reasons (as well as moral ones) to forbid people involved in national security to have affairs. But does anyone think those rules are actually applied to people with real power? I have a hard time believing that. And would Obama think this was a reason Petraeus would have to resign? Supposedly, Petraeus has a deep sense of honor that makes him do this. But if that sense of honor didnt keep him from the affair, why would it make him resign afterward? The timing of this is just too perfect. Nothing is discovered until after the election but before testimony is given to Congress. One theory is that the Obama Administration is behind the revelation that Petraeus was having an extra-marital affair because they were angered that he said things about Benghazi that cast doubt on their story. But if that is the case, why wouldnt Congress still want to hear Petraeus testimony? What is to keep them from calling him to testify even if he is no longer the Director of Central Intelligence? I have to wonder if the Obama Administration is telling Petraeus that he had better keep his story in line with theirs or else his lover is going to be charged with espionage. Thus: Meanwhile, law enforcement sources told NBC News that the FBI is currently investigating Petraeus biographer, who had extensive access to the general, for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information. The sources emphasized that Petraeus was not under investigation and added that they did not believe the investigation into author Paula Broadwell would result in criminal charges. Of course, the other possibility is that Petraeus doesnt really want to testify. Maybe he has some involvement he doesnt want to come to light. There is no way of knowing yet what is true, but all this strongly indicates that what happened in Benghazi is extremely important and that the White House is vulnerable. It is very hard to believe this resignation is a naked coincidence.

Militar y timeline from night of Benghazi attack begs more questions?

November 10th 2012

HYPERLINK " ary-timeline-from-night-benghazi-attack-begsmore-questions/" \l "#" INCLUDEPICTURE "


2/video/110412_an_libya_640.jpg" \*

After more than nine weeks of trying to reconcile their story line with that of the State Department and the CIA, the Pentagon finally released its timeline of the Libya terror attack during a Friday afternoon, off-camera briefing with an official who could only be quoted anonymously. The news was overtaken almost immediately by the announcement that Gen. David Petraeus had resigned, due to an extramarital affair. He was slated to testify in closed-door hearings on Capitol Hill this coming week before the Senate and House intelligence committees. Petraeus no longer plans to testify. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told "Fox News Sunday" that she "absolutely" thinks Petraeus' resignation has no connection to the Libya matter but he could be called to testify before Congress at a later date. "We may well ask," the California senator told Fox. However, while the Petraeus resignation has since dominated attention in Washington, an examination of the militarys version of events reveals a number of discrepancies and gaps worth closer scrutiny. THE FIRST DISCREPANCY The Defense Department timeline on the night of Sept. 11 begins at 9:42 p.m. local time and states, The incident starts at the facility in Benghazi. Right from the start, the Pentagon and the CIA timelines do not match. (The CIA timeline, which was released on Nov. 1, states that at 9:40 p.m., A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA annex and requested assistance.) A source at the CIA annex that night told Fox News that when they first asked to go and help, they were told to wait. Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi. PANETTA AND DEMPSEY ARE ALERTED 50 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK 194

At 10:32 p.m. (4:32 p.m. in Washington), 50 minutes after the incident began, the National Military Command Center, which is the operations center at the Pentagon where Ham is overseeing the operation, notifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. That means for nearly an hour, no one told the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman that a U.S. ambassador is in peril and his personal security officer has pressed his personal distress button which sends an SMS signal back to the command authority in the U.S. and a U.S. embassy has been overrun by attackers. A CIA team left for the consulate at 10:04 p.m. 28 minutes before the Pentagon says Panetta and Dempsey were told the attack had occurred. Sources at the CIA annex in Benghazi told Fox News in an interview on Oct. 25 that they asked permission to leave for the consulate immediately and twice were told to wait. The CIA says the base chief was trying to arrange Libyan help.

PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT: 78 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK At 5 p.m. in Washington, D.C. (11 p.m. in Libya), nearly an hour and a half after the attack began, according to the Pentagons timeline, Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey attend a previously scheduled meeting with the President at the White House. The attack has already been under way for 78 minutes, but no rescue forces from outside Libya have yet been mobilized. By 5:30 p.m. (11:30 p.m. in Libya), all surviving American personnel are rescued by the CIA annex team and leave the consulate for the CIA annex. From 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Pentagon, Panetta, Dempsey and Ham meet to discuss additional response options. MORE CALLS FOR HELP Upon returning to the annex, the CIA team and those that were rescued immediately begin taking fire and at midnight, according to sources on the ground that night, begin making radio calls for help and air support. Almost immediately, they begin taking fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. According to a senior U.S. defense official, This was not one long continuous fight, but two separate incidents at two separate facilities with some separation of time. However, British sources who were near the consulate and annex that night tell a different story, saying there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate. Sometime over the next two hours, according to the official Pentagon timeline, Panetta gives the go code for two Marine FAST (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security) teams to prepare to leave Rota, Spain. A Special Operations force which is training in Central Europe is told to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe (Sigonella, Sicily), and a Special Operations team in the U.S. is told to prepare to deploy to Sigonella as well. 195

It isnt until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave. TEAM LANDS AT SIGONELLA 20 HOURS LATER The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane. Fox News has learned more details about the European rescue team. More than 30 Special Operations Forces, part of a Commanders In Extremis Force, or CIF, which is normally on a short tether, are deployed in the event of a terror attack. They are a counterterror SWAT team. The group ordered toward Libya was from the Charlie 110 Company, based in Stuttgart, Germany, but had been training in Croatia on an exercise known as Jackal Stone. The training involved counterterrorism exercises.

NO PERMISSION TO LAND Military sources familiar with the orders given to the CIF team tell Fox News the CIF plane headed to Libya not to first stage at Sigonella as the Pentagon timeline suggests. The Pentagon denies this, saying simply that they were ordered to an intermediate staging base. What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon wont say when they took off from Croatia. Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department. FEET DRY OVER LIBYA Survivors of the attack at the annex say that they heard over the radio net that night that U.S. military assets were, feet dry over Libya," which would refer to assets crossing from sea to land and hovering. The Pentagon denies this. The original story board that shows the CIF movement that night is difficult to find, according to those who saw the original timeline. The official brief, according to those familiar with it, simply says that the plane landed at Sigonella at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12 -- 20 hours after the start of the attack, even though they were just a few hours away in Croatia. This raises the question: what time did they get their orders and how long did it take the CIF to scramble? The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami. Furthermore, the modified C-130 plane used by Special Operations teams can be refueled in flight, allowing them to extend their range and hover time, if an air refueling plane is available. It can fly for nine hours without being refueled. Its not like you dial up the U.S. military and service members go down a fire pole, hop on a 196

fire engine and go. Thats not how our forces work, especially from a cold start, according to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed the Pentagon timeline. We are an excellent military, finest in the world, always prepared, but we are neither omniscient nor omnipresent. The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help. In the days following the attack in Benghazi, the CIF team was sent by Ham to Tunisia to remain on standby in case they were needed for other contingencies, such as a retaliatory strike, according to senior U.S. military commanders with knowledge of the operation. We were posturing forces to be ready for possible responses, according to a senior U.S. defense official. We were looking at the possibility of a potential hostage rescue. To date no retaliatory strikes have taken place, and questions remain about what could have been done to help those who were in peril on the ground. According to the Pentagon timeline, the first conference call to AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, TRANSCOM, SOCOM and the four military branches occurred nearly five hours after the attack began. THE CIA RESCUE TEAM FROM TRIPOLI Meanwhile in Libya, two hours and 48 minutes after the attack on the consulate began, a sixman rescue team organized by the CIA in Tripoli that included two Tier One Army Special Operators already in Tripoli on another assignment leave the capital to help. However, they do not have a plane and end up chartering one too small to rescue the entire group in Benghazi and are required to make a round trip. They do not depart Benghazi with the last survivors and Ambassador Chris Stevens body until 10 a.m. the next day. The CIA says that the Tripoli rescue team landed in Benghazi at 1:15 a.m. on Sept 12. The Pentagon says it landed at 1:30 a.m. Another official discrepancy. More than four hours later, just before 5:26 a.m., former SEAL Glen Doherty, who arrived from Tripoli with the rescue team, and former SEAL Tyrone Woods are killed on the CIA annex roof by a mortar. THE AMBASSADOR IS STILL MISSING Security personnel at Blue Mountain Group receive a photograph of the ambassadors body in a morgue at 7:15 a.m. At that point, Stevens body had still not been recovered from the hospital where Ansar Al Sharia, the presumed attackers, had surrounded it. By 8:30 a.m., all KIA are accounted for, including the ambassador. The Pentagons critics say the president and defense secretary could have ordered more assets into Libya to help sooner. Even by Wednesday morning, several challenges remained. Thirty Americans did not have a plane big enough to get them out of Benghazi; the U.S. consulate and CIA annex needed to be secured because sensitive documents remained at the consulate and annex; and an FBI team would eventually be held up in Tripoli and not be given access to the Benghazi sites for 24 days. 197

The two Marine FAST teams were not ordered to Libya until five hours after the attack was underway. The first FAST team didnt arrive in Tripoli to secure the embassy until 8:56 p.m. on Sept. 12, nearly two hours after the rescued Americans had left Libya on a C-17 sent from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The second FAST team of Marines slated to go to Benghazi was never sent to Libya. Libyan looters and journalists spent the next 24 days rifling through papers and potential evidence at the compounds. According to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed reporters on the timeline, There has been a great deal of speculation about the use of or desirability of military responses. Some have indicated manned and unmanned aircraft options would have changed the course of events. Unfortunately, no aircraft options were available to be used or effective. According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.

Scandalous: Security Force In Benghazi Was Unarmed

December 11th 2012 By Tim Brown

Reports are coming out from those with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi indicating that Senators, who have been in meetings behind closed doors listening to testimony, were shocked to learn that security personnel agents, supplied by the State Department, were not armed. Instead they had to be separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens in order to retrieve their M4 weapons, which were in a separate building. Kerry Picket of Breitbart News writes that her source told her: From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle. The other two went back to where the barracks were located. And two stayed in that same building where there were radios and other weapons and they were safe and other stuff was there. 198

There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador nothing. While the representatives on the panel were inquisitive and demanded to know what took place on the night the Ambassador Stevens and three others were murdered, the source described, Part of the problem was they never really wanted to fully staff it (consulate), and so the numbers were really low. He then added, At one point in time they only had one State Department security personnel there in Benghazi. That was in April. Picket went on to add: State Department Security personnel at the Benghazi embassy were each armed with M4 long guns and side-arm pistols. In October, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb testified on Capitol Hill to the House Oversight Committee that during the attack, security agents raced to a separate building to get their weapons and tactical gear but only one of the agents could return to the Ambassador, thereafter. Gunfire was heard from multiple locations on the compound. One agent secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the information management officer, in the safe haven, she said. The other agents retrieved their M4 submachine guns and other tactical gear from Building B. When they attempted to return to the main building, they encountered armed attackers and doubled back to Building B, Lamb added. According to the Breitbart News source, the State Department security agents are six week temporary duty assignments. This should be of grave concern. In fact, would anyone put it past our State Department that they gave orders not to fire? After all that is what the Department of Homeland Security was telling Border Patrol Agents to do. Are we to assume that Barack Obama authorized weapons to go to Libya from Qatar and were possibly used in this attack and these guys didnt fire any shots? However, we knew the security task force was nothing more than a band of night watchmen, and bad ones at that. Newsmax reported back in October: Security practices at the diplomatic compound, where Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns, have come under U.S. government scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Federal contract data shows that the Benghazi security contract, worth up to $783,284, was listed as a miscellaneous award, not as part of the large master State Department contract that covers protection for overseas embassies. Blue Mountain hired about 20 Libyan men including some who say they had minimal training to screen visitors and help patrol the mission at Benghazi, according to Reuters interviews. Some of the guards sustained injuries and said they were ill-prepared to protect themselves or others when heavily armed militants last month stormed the rented villa that was serving as the mission. 199

They also described being hired by Blue Mountain after a casual recruiting and screening process. If this was done in Benghazi under this administration, where else is such lax security taking place in the world?

Benghazi Terrorists Armed By Obama December 12th 2012 By Kris Zane

When two weapons linked to Fast and Furious were discovered at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, the Obama Administration went into cover-up mode. They didnt want America to know that they had been sending thousands of AK-47s to violent Mexican drug cartels in order to trace the weapons to the cartel kingpins. Of course, it was all a scam to blame gun dealers on the border for feeding drug cartel violence and restricting Americans Second Amendment rights. In spite of the threat of American weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups, President Barack Obama secretly approved an arms transfer to Libyan rebels through Qatar at the height of the rebellion against Moammar Khadafy, a knowledgeable source noted on Friday.


However, American counterterrorists are discovering that some of those U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of radical Islamists including associates of al-Qaeda, according to a law enforcement source who trained police in the Middle East. Some Americans who are retired from the military, as well as intelligence and law enforcement agencies, believe there should be an investigation into possible connections between the weapons provided by the Qataris back then and the attack that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012. During the months leading up to the terrorist attacks, the Obama administration worried about its part in helping to arm the Libyan rebels who were members of terrorist organizations especially so close to Election Day. Experts believe that Obamas experience with arming Libyan rebels is why his administration is nervous about arming the rebels in Syria, where money and weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries. Its widely believed that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups are active in the Syrian rebellion. One can just visualize the scenario now. A group of the brightest minds in the Obama administration sitting together, discussing what could possibly go wrong if they were to ship arms to another country. Official: What can we do to aid the Libyan rebels in overthrowing Qaddafi? Another Official: What if we shipped American weapons to the rebels in Qatar? President: Sounds foolproof. But... Could they possibly end up in enemy hands? Has it ever happened before where weapons cross borders and end up somewhere other than we intended? Holder: Don't worry sir, we can keep track of them. But what if this time it wasnt thousands of AK-47s, but tens of thousands of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-fired missiles? What if the Obama administration wasnt supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels, but Islamic extremists? And what if four Americans were murdered using these weapons? History has repeated itself, as it always seems to do in the case of Barack Obama. It has been reported that the arms used to murder the Americans at the Benghazi consulate and CIA safe house were supplied by Barack Hussein Obama. That the group responsible for the attack Ansar al-Sharia got the weapons from their sister organization, al-Qaeda, which received the weapons directly from Barack Obama as part of his democratic moment in toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. If Obama would have let on that he knew the Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia was responsible for the attack of the Benghazi consulate, he would have risked America finding out he supplied the weapons. If he would have sent help to protect our brave men, some low-grade soldier might have picked up an RPG left behind and found Barack Obamas fingerprints all over it; and the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down. That is why there was the idiotic story of a protest turned violent from an obscure antiMuslim YouTube video. That is why Obama refused to send help. That is why Obama had to 201

blame bad intelligence for the story. That is why David Petraeus had to be purged from the CIA for refusing to play pin the tail on the YouTube video. And that is why the so-called investigation that Obama is conducting on the Benghazi attack will never be completed. In legalese, wed call this accessory before the fact. Barack Obama supplied the weapons that were used to kill Americans. Most people would call such an act by a sitting President treason. All Congressional members should talk about impeachment. All Americans should demand it.

Three Months Later: No Justice, Unanswered Questions on Benghazi

December 12th 2012 By Guy Benson

Obama Lied People Died!!!

Three months ago today, President Obama woke up to the news that US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been murdered during a terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. The president had been informed that an active attack was underway the night before -- but how actively he followed the developing raid, and what (if any) orders he issued, remains a mystery. On September 12, the president skipped his daily intelligence briefing and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign rally. This much we know. The Obama campaign eventually accused Republicans of "politicizing" the massacre by asking questions about it, asserting that the "entire reason" it was a major national story was due to rank exploitation of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Even with the president's re-election safely tucked away, the White House has continued to defend its UN Ambassador (and possible Secretary of State in waiting) against charges that she disseminated false information to mislead the public about the true nature of the deadly attack. The president and his top 202

lieutenants have repeatedly dodged difficult questions, changed their stories, and hidden behind the dubious fig leaf of "ongoing investigations." Obama has vowed to track down those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice. He has also stated his desire to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi that night. The federal investigation into the attacks got off to a stupefyingly dreadful start, and three months later, justice and accountability remain in short supply: Three months after Ambassador Christopher Stevens, a diplomat and two CIA contractors were murdered in Benghazi, there is no sign of the killers being brought to justice by the United States. The investigation into the attacks has been hampered by the reluctance of the Libyan authorities to move against the Islamist terrorists identified by the FBI as responsible for the killing, according to American officials briefing the 'New York Times'. None of the suspects has been arrested or killed and some have fled Libya. Last month, the FBI issued a global appeal asking anyone with information about the killers to send information in an email, text message or via Facebook. Stevens, the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979, diplomat Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11. The following day, President Barack Obama vowed: 'Make no mistake, justice will be done.' But that promise may remain unfulfilled if there is not more cooperation from the Libyan authorities. The White House and its allies now insist that most questions on Benghazi have already been asked and answered -- a claim that even some members of the mainstream media are finding hard to swallow. Here's a question: Is this report accurate? A source with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi told Breitbart News that Senators who listened to closed door testimony about the Benghazi attack were shocked to learn State Department security personnel agents were not immediately armed. Additionally, agents separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens left to retrieve their M4 weapons in a separate building. Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed. From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle. There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador nothing. We already knew that the security situation at the consulate was woefully inadequate, but this is the first we've heard about zero shots being fired in the ambassador's defense (which is not to be confused with the subsequent, prolonged firefight at the CIA safehouse). Jay Carney may not be able to think of a single question on Benghazi that hasn't been sufficiently addressed, but I certainly can. Here are a dozen relevant and important inquiries, just off the top of my head: (1) Who, specifically, denied repeated requests for increased security resources and personnel from American officials on the ground in Libya? Why were these requests shot down? (2) A senior State Department official testified that the US had the "correct" number of security assets in Benghazi. Ambassador Susan Rice stated that our security presence at the Benghazi 203

mission was "substantial." Does the president stand by those assessments? If not, why were they made in the first place? (3) Why was US security personnel pulled out of Libya, even as Ambassador Stevens warned of heightened risks? (4) Why was the Benghazi consulate operating below the bare minimum standards for a US diplomatic compound, especially after our government learned that at least ten known Islamist militias were operating in the city? (5) Why wasn't security beefed up after a series of attacks on western targets in Benghazi, including previous attempted bombings at the American consulate itself? (6) Where was the president during the raid itself? How closely did he follow what was happening, and for how long? (7) Was the president made aware of the numerous desperate pleas for help from two former SEALs, who battled the terrorists for seven hours before being killed? If not, why not? If so, what was his response? (8) Which government officials, specifically, watched the attack unfold in real time hour after excruciating hour via footage from an American drone? Was that drone armed? (9) Why were American forces and resources not deployed to help defeat the enemy, particularly while several Americans were alive and urgently seeking reinforcements? Why was a key counterterrorism task force not convened during the attack? (10) Who, specifically, changed Susan Rice's public talking points by excising references to Al Qaeda, and why? If there was a national security concern, what was it? Where did the inaccurate "spontaneous protest" narrative originate? Why was that story deemed more fit for publication than the accurate terrorism evidence? And if Rice had little direct knowledge of the facts on the ground in Benghazi, why was she selected as the administration's spokesperson on the subject? (11) Why was the president still publicly hedging on the terrorism question several weeks after the attack, especially if a terrorist link had been established "almost immediately." (12) Why did it take the FBI weeks to arrive at the unsecured, bombed-out consulate after the attack? Why were sensitive documents left in the rubble, even after they'd left? Without jeopardizing any leads, what if any progress has been made in identifying, capturing, or killing those responsible for the assault? Three months later, the American people and the families of the fallen still deserve answers.

White House: Benghazi Attack Drone Footage Went To DOD Not Us

December 14th 2012 204

There has been no doubt that live video footage was being streamed from drones overhead in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 when the U.S. Consulate was attacked and led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. The question has arisen and has yet to be answered, Who was watching the video feed? The White House is maintaining that the video was not made available to them. First, The Washington Time reports, The Obama administration has declined to respond to media requests for details about who was watching the live video, but a senior defense official told The Washington Times that the surveillance aircraft captured footage of events on the ground and it wasnt available that night at the White House. The officials said the overhead footage was available at a DOD location, and they declined to comment further. Questions about the drone video have largely gotten lost amid the raucous political theater that has arisen in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and State Department officer Sean Smith were slain. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland of the The State Departments Accountability Review Board, which was conducting the investigation into Benghazi, said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked them to try to meet a 60- to 65-day timeline. Obviously, since this happened in September, that time frame would have fallen well past the 2012 election. A State Department official claimed that there was clearly video available from the closedcircuit security cameras on the outer walls of the consulate. In fact, the official said that the main gate showed a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound at approximately 9:40pm on the night of the attack. According to the Defense Department, the drone footage began about two hours after the assault began. While the White House and State Department have both tried to push the knowledge of the attack over to the Department of Defense and not claim they had immediate knowledge of it is 205

highly suspicious. We do know the White House had emails informing them of the attack. We know that they were aware of Special Forces Operations on the ground and yet they did absolutely nothing and in the aftermath peddled a known lie about the whole reason the attacks occurred in the first place.

New Report Details Benghazi Security Failures

December 19th 2012 By Bill Gertz HYPERLINK "" INCLUDEPICTURE "" \*

MERGEFORMAT A State Department review board investigating the Sept. 11 attacks on American facilities in Benghazi found leadership and management failures in the department for not providing adequate security prior to the attack. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was 206

inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place, an unclassified version of the report made public Tuesday night stated. The report produced by a State Department Accountability Review Board also said, contrary to initial claims by President Barack Obama and his top advisers, that there was never a protest at the diplomatic compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. The others were Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. Two other United States personnel were seriously wounded, the compound was destroyed, and it and a nearby CIA annex were abandoned.

Burnt out Compound in Benghazi The board was headed by former State Department official Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The report also contradicted claims by Obama shortly before the attack that the al Qaeda terrorist group was declining and noted that the threat is growing. The Benghazi attacks also took place in a context in which the global terrorism threat as most often represented by al Qaeda (AQ) is fragmenting and increasingly devolving to local affiliates and other actors who share many of AQs aims, including violent anti-Americanism, without necessarily being organized or operated under direct AQ command and control, the report said. This growing, diffuse range of terrorist and hostile actors poses an additional challenge to American security officers, diplomats, development professionals and decision-makers seeking to mitigate risk and remain active in high threat environments without resorting to an unacceptable total fortress and stay-at-home approach to U.S. diplomacy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton avoided testifying before Congress last month, claiming a trip to Australia precluded the appearance. She was supposed to testify this week but a State Department spokesman said she fell and suffered a minor concussion at her home, although she was not hospitalized. Senior State Department officials will testify in closed-door hearings set for Wednesday. U.S. officials have identified an al Qaeda-linked militia called Ansar al Sharia as the group behind the deadly attack that involved dozens of attackers who set fire to the compound. 207

Less than two weeks before the attack, Obama said in his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat. The report made no mention of the controversy over the administrations misleading statements shortly after the attack when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday television news shows and asserted that the murders were the result of a spontaneous demonstration by Muslims protesting an online video. CIA-drafted talking points prepared for Rice were altered to remove references to al Qaeda and al Qaeda-linked terrorists in what critics say was a politicization of intelligence aimed at fitting the White House line prior to the Nov. 6 election that al Qaeda was nearly defeated as a terrorist group. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity, the report said. Also, the attacks were carried out with no intelligence warning. (More State Department BS the attacks were carried out on the Anniversary of 9/11 with credible intelligence warnings that were either down played or outright IGNORED) The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of rocket-propelled grenades, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities the (Special Mission-Benghazi Compound) SMC and the Annex and en route between them, the report said. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. (Washington double speak for the Obama Administration & State Department are NOT responsible for allowing the Murder of four American citizens!) Security was lacking in Benghazi and officials in both Washington and Libya failed to recognize the dangers in the country. According to the report, security forces at the compound were identified as a militia group called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade that the report said included Islamist elements. Unarmed security contractors from a company called Blue Mountain Libya also proved inadequate against the Sept. 11 attacks. Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing, the report said, adding that investigators found a pervasive realization by U.S. personnel that security of the mission was not a high priority for Washington. Regarding intelligence, the report said there was no immediate, specific tactical warning. However, a local police officer was spotted by compound security on the morning of the attack taking photos of the compound villas with a cell phone from the second floor of a building across the street, apparently casing the facility. The individual was reportedly stopped by BML guards, denied any wrongdoing, and departed in a police car with two others, the report said. The report also said that in the weeks and months prior to the attack there was a deteriorating security situation in Libya that was reliant on an armed but poorly skilled militia and unarmed contractors. 208

Additionally, the report said the militia in charge of security showed troubling indicators that the group was not protecting diplomatic vehicles due to protests over salary and working hours. The report said communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi was constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations, the report said. The board praised the remarkable heroism shown by U.S. personnel who tried to defend against the attack but who fell short after dozens of attackers broke into the compound, possibly through a gate that was left open by a security contractor. According to the report, there was little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC, or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously. The central government in Tripoli had little influence or control of Benghazi, a known redoubt of Islamist militia groups since the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last year. Two unarmed drone aircraft were dispatched to the attack to provide video intelligence. However, while the report claimed the U.S. government response was timely and appropriate there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. (State Department/DOD white-wash BS) A Marine Corps Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team was dispatched to the country a day after the attack. A series of relatively minor attacks involving militias in Benghazi began in March and included armed robberies, shootings, and several small-scale bombings, including an improvised explosive device attack in June that blew a hole in the compound wall. Attacks escalated in the summer with several rocket propelled grenade attacks and grenade bombings. Those attacks took place against a general backdrop of political violence, assassinations targeting former regime officials, lawlessness, and an overarching absence of central government authority in eastern Libya, the report said. A timeline in the report provided dramatic details of the efforts taken by several security officials to defend Stevens and themselves during the attack on the compound and a subsequent attack on the CIA annex, about a mile from the compound. The report made a series of recommendations for improving security at high-threat posts like the ones in Benghazi.

The Benghazi Report: How Smoothly Washington Washes Away its Scandals

Heres the time-line, the ploys and (some unanswered questions): Read More:

Benghazi Monkeys

Benghazi Report: The Buck Stops Nowhere

December 19th 2012 By Tim Brown

The Accountability Review Board issued its report earlier this week and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on it. Now the unclassified sections of the review are being looked through and it seems that no one will be fired over the incident and no one will face any sort of disciplinary action. This is a travesty, considering the lives of four Americans were taken and no aid was given by a government that knew they were under attack. The Washington Post reports,


The review by the Accountability Review Board said the temporary, lightly defended compound where Stevens died lacked disciplined oversight of its security operations. The diplomatic posts ad hoc nature, with inexperienced staff members working there for short periods, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity, the report said. Finally, the report said State Department officials in Washington ignored requests from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, for additional guards and better security for the Benghazi compound, which served as a temporary U.S. consulate for eastern Libya. It also said that there had been worrisome incidents in the weeks before the attack that should have led to increased security, but the report did not identify any specific threats to the compound on Sept. 11. The report said State Department security personnel on the scene and CIA officers at a nearby annex used as an operations base had responded in a timely and appropriate manner, and it absolved the U.S. military of any blame, saying there was not enough time for a military response that would have made any difference. Despite the broad security failures, the report did not single out any individual officials as violating procedures and did not recommend any disciplinary action. The report went on to confirm that the story the Obama administration put out about there being protests over a YouTube video critical of Islam was baseless and that the attack was carried out by terrorists. Surprise! But again, no disciplinary action was recommended. The Washington Times points out that while there was no disciplinary action recommended now, the report says that should be the case in the future. Thats quite convenient for the Secretary of State isnt it? Shaun Waterman writes, The board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns in Benghazi. But the report notes that poor management is ordinarily addressed through the performance management system rather than through discipline. Waterman continues, However, the board adds that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to security should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations in the future, and recommends changes to department regulations that would make that possible. The report does not name any of the officials concerned, Waterman points out, but an investigation by House Republicans found that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, responsible for diplomatic security in the region, denied repeated requests for additional security in Libya from security officials on the ground. CNS News also points out the special Accountability Review Board that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed to investigate the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, says that a local militia the State Department hired to protect that mission was refusing to protect the movement of State Department vehicles in Benghazi on Sept. 11 in order to protest its wages and working hours.


While security is most definitely faulted in the report, no one is specifically targeted as being responsible. So it appears that not one person is going to lose their job over Benghazi and not one person will face disciplinary action. Every American should be outraged, but alas it seems that Obama and his administration are coated in Teflon.

Obama's 'Benghazi Accountability Report' A Sham! Analysis of Obamas sham report, the Benghazi Accountability Report issued on December 17 that exposes his treasonous actions.

Does Benghazi probe drop unintentional bombshell?

December 20th 2012 By Aaron Klein

Report contains clues hinting at undiplomatic activities

The results of an independent investigation released this week probing the Benghazi attack contains information indicating the U.S. mission in Libya was involved in activities outside the diplomatic realm. The 39-page document uses phraseology and descriptions not previously utilized to describe the facility and the role it may have played in Benghazi. The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a Special U.S. Mission. Until now, government descriptions routinely referred to the facility as a mission, while the news media largely wrongly labeled the building a consulate. The report divulges how the missions special non-status made providing security to the facility difficult.


Special Mission Benghazis uncertain future after 2012 and its non-status as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, it said. The report contains information that clearly contradicts any claim that the special mission was to serve as a liaison office to the local government, it documents how the local government was not even informed of the existence of the mission. Noted the report: Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). The report related how U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens first arrived in Libya secretly in a cargo ship to serve as a liaison to the rebels fighting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. It also confirmed that Stevens last official meeting was with a Turkish diplomat. Turkey is the main force behind Arab support for the opposition currently targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. WND has published a series of investigations showing the Benghazi mission was highly involved in the rebel-led Mideast revolutions to which Pickering is tied. WND was first to report the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials. In September, WND also broke the story that the slain ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assads regime, according to Egyptian security officials. Last month, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida. Most news media outlets covering the results of Pickerings investigation did not note the possible non-diplomatic nature and status of the Benghazi mission. The group reportedly concluded that systematic management and leadership failures at the State Department led to grossly inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi. Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place, the panel said. The report pointed a finger at States Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs, charging a lack of coordination and confusion over protecting the Benghazi mission. 213

WNDs reporting showed how the distinction of the special status of the mission may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a consulate. Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for sensitive purposes such as coordinating aid to the opposition. The security officials divulged the building was routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assads regime in Syria. Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assads regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials. Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assads forces, said the security officials. The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials. Questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Gadhafis regime in Libya consisted of alQaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels. Similarly, the Obama administration has aided the rebels fighting Assads regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. During the revolution against Gadhafis regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups. At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He insisted his fighters are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists, but he added that the members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libyas rebel force may include al-Qaida: We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah. Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: There is no question that al-Qaidas Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafis biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group 2 percent or 80 percent.


Did Benghazi Mission Violate International Law?

December 22nd 2012 By Aaron Klein Was the U.S. mission in Benghazi established in violation of international law? According to the 39-page report released this week by independent investigators probing the Sept. 11 attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government. Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility, the report states. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a Special U.S. Mission. Until now, government descriptions routinely referred to the facility as a mission, while news media largely wrongly labeled the building a consulate.

While the report documents how the U.S. missions special non-status exempted the facility from State Department security standards, it is not immediately clear whether the mission was also exempt from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions. Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention. Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent. According to Pickerings report, there was a decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary. However, the same sentence in Pickerings report note the host government was not notified about the Benghazi mission even though it was also a full-time office facility. Articles 12 of the Vienna Convention dictates, The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established. If the Benghazi mission was a full-time office facility, it may violate Article 12 in that the mission most likely was considered an arm of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, which served as the main U.S. mission to Libya. 215

The Tripoli embassy was led by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who reportedly used the Benghazi mission as an office meeting space, meaning it may have been an extension of the U.S. Embassy and thus its establishment may have required prior express consent of the Libyan government. It was clear the Tripoli embassy was the main U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. The facility also served as a consulate. On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy. Im happy to announce that starting on Monday, August 27, we are ready to offer a full range of consular services to Libyans, stated Stevens at the ceremony in Tripoli. This means nonimmigrant visas, as well as assistance to Americans residing in, or visiting, Libya. The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation. Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state. While the Benghazi investigative report did not focus on international law, it concluded that systematic management and leadership failures at the State Department led to grossly inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi. Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place, the panel said. The report pointed a finger at States Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs, charging a lack of coordination and confusion over protecting the Benghazi mission.

Senate committee report on Benghazi terrorist attack faults State Department

December 30th 2012


A scathing Senate committee report on the Benghazi terrorist attack faults the State Department for failing to adequately respond to mounting security threats in the lead-up to the assault. The report says the facility was woefully under-protected at a time when the region, according to a top department official, was "flashing red" yet security was not improved, and nobody recommended the compound be shut down. The report, produced by the Senate homeland security committee and obtained by Fox News, follows the release of a State Department-commissioned review earlier in the month. Both are highly critical of the department. "It is so clear that (the Benghazi compound) is dangerous and what happened was due to extremely poor security, Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said Monday. The Senate report noted the "large amount of evidence" in the months preceding the attack that Benghazi was "increasingly dangerous and unstable," with an attack on Americans becoming "much more likely." "While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented," the report said. Click to read the Senate report on the Benghazi attack The report said it was "widely understood" that the Libyan government could not adequately protect U.S. personnel, yet the State Department did not move to fill the "security gap." The Senate committee said "no security standards" applied to the Benghazi post there were "few meaningful physical barriers," according to the report. Despite the increasing threat in the region and the apparent vulnerability of the compound, the Senate committee said it appears nobody recommended closing the facility or even temporarily shutting it down. "That was a grievous mistake," Lieberman said. The investigation turned up details that show "a shocking irresponsibility to protect American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi," Lieberman added. The report also cites past internal State Department reports recommending security measures dating back years that were not widely implemented. State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy told lawmakers that Libya and Benghazi were "flashing red" by the time of the attack, Lieberman said.

The Latest Twist In The Benghazi Saga: Did Libyan Officials Prevent Help From Reaching Americans Under Siege?
January 4th 2013 217

By Tim Brown Yesterday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was released from the hospital following a bout with the flu, a concussion and a blood clot. She is reported to be preparing to testify on the attacks that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. While the media has done all it can to help Americans forget Benghazi, many of us are still out to keep the story front and center every week. Now there seems to be a new twist that is coming out with regards to what took place in Benghazi and this was in the Senate Homeland Security Committee report titled Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi, which has been largely overshadowed, perhaps even orchestrated by the entire fiscal cliff debacle. The Daily Beast reports, The biggest recent development which was overshadowed by the fiscal cliff negotiations came on New Years Eve, when the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released a report that raised the question of whether Libyan officials assisted the Benghazi terrorists. The report found that a team of CIA contractors dispatched from Tripoli to Benghazi on the night of the attacks waited at least three hours after arriving at the Benghazi airport before departing to the scene because of negotiations with Libyan government officials. According to the report, members of Congress still dont know the exact reason for the delay. Was it simply the result of a difficult Libyan bureaucracy and a chaotic environment or was it part of a plot to keep American help from reaching the Americans under siege in Benghazi? the report asks. To be sure, the night of the attack was indeed chaotic. Its important to remember that the team from Tripoli faced a chaotic and difficult situation on the ground when it arrived in middle of the night, one U.S. official tells The Daily Beast. (Both the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. and the State Department declined to comment.) Moreover, Libyas government was a mess at the time: while it had conducted successful elections earlier that summer, the national assembly in Tripoli had yet to appoint a prime minister or the chiefs of government ministries. Nevertheless, a Senate committee asking this troubling question about the Libyan government is, at the very least, noteworthy. Meanwhile, the Libyan government was not the only Libyan entity to come under scrutiny in the report. Also singled out was the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, the militia deputized by the Libyan government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi which largely failed to do its job on the night of the attacks. The Senate report relays doubts U.S. security personnel had regarding the militia before the attack. For example, diplomatic security personnel believed the brigade was responsible for the extrajudicial detention of people in the area, including one incident involving a U.S. diplomatic employee. And on Aug. 29, the chief diplomatic security officer for Benghazi acknowledged concerns that the contract between the Feb. 17 Brigade and the U.S. embassy had expired. The officer wrote, We also have the usual concerns re: their ultimate loyalties. But they are competent, and give us an added measure of security. For the time being, I dont think we have a viable alternative. Other countries seem to be carrying out arrests by their respective authorities of those believed to have been involved in the attacks, such as Turkish authorities arresting Ali Ani alHarzi, who was caught after he was boasting of the attack on social media and even the arrest of Muhammad Jamil Abu Ahmad, who was arrested by Egyptian authorities, whom U.S. Intelligence officials say participated in the attacks.


According to one U.S. Intelligence officer, who is working on the investigation, We will usually follow a money trail and a data trail, one U.S. intelligence officer who is working on the investigation said. In this case its looking like this was more improvised and spur of the moment. Apparently the attacks did not follow in the same path as previous attacks, such as the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. One wonders if we will hear from Hillary Clinton and if we do will we get any real answers from her. Among some of the most serious questions that demand answers are those that Guy Benson, from Townhall, puts forth: Why were US security personnel pulled out of Libya, even as Ambassador Stevens warned of heightened risks? Why was the Benghazi consulate operating below the bare minimum standards for a US diplomatic compound, especially after our government learned that at least ten known Islamist militias were operating in the city? Was the president made aware of the numerous desperate pleas for help from two former SEALs, who battled the terrorists for seven hours before being killed? If not, why not? If so, what was his response? Which government officials, specifically, watched the attack unfold in real time hour after excruciating hour via footage from an American drone? Was that drone armed? Why were American forces and resources not deployed to help defeat the enemy, particularly while several Americans were alive and urgently seeking reinforcements? Why was a key counterterrorism task force not convened during the attack?

The Fix is in: Hillarys Benghazi cover-up like Vince Foster death investigation
January 5th 2012

During the Foster death investigations, like Benghazi, investigators were also thwarted, stonewalled, and unable to perform their jobs


If past is prologue expect the Benghazi investigations to be covered up whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies. According to Foreign Policy Magazine that despite the House and Senate foreign relations committees having announced she would testify on Benghazi this week, the State Department said last Thursday thats not a done deal. On Saturday, the deal was undone when it was announced that Hillary would not testify due to health issues but would be able to continue to work from home. Recall how it was Clinton who was one of the first top Obama administration officials to mislead the public by falsely blaming a YouTube video for the deadly attack. President Barack Obama, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary James Carney towedthe-line and repeated the same falsehood knowing it would be reported as the truth by the media. Since then it has been revealed that the Obama-Clinton regime watched the terrorist attack take place via live feeds, knew within two hours that the Islamist militia group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for it, and declined life-saving requests for help. On September 11, 2012, a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert. What you witnessed from the Obama-Clinton regime is called cohesive strategy. We have seen that cover-up tactic before. It was successfully used by the Clinton White House during the investigations of the Clinton era as documented in The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage. Additionally, it notably appears in my latest book, Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer. Cohesive strategy is a smoke and mirrors public relations trick where the White House tells Americans and investigators what they want them to know as opposed to what really happened, and how their scripted version becomes the socalled truth, the talking points, the narrative picked up by the media. It was on July 20, 1993 when Vince Foster, President Bill Clintons childhood friend and Hillary Clintons closest White House confidante, was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in the head in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. Before a preliminary investigation began, Americans were told by White House officials and President Clinton that Vince Foster committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park, nobody saw it coming, and it would remain a mystery the cohesive strategy crafted in Hillarys White House counsels office. Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers even stated: the Park Service Police is the only agency thats investigating Vince Fosters death, and that the objective of their search is simply to determine that it was a suicide. The fix was in. The objective of the investigation into Vince Fosters death, the highest ranking government officials death since President John Kennedy was assassinated, was simply to determine that it was a suicide. The conclusion was predetermined. The cohesive strategy stuck as truth and they got away with it. Homicide, foul play, the possibility of blackmail, a potential risk to Americas national security, was never investigated. No need for the Clinton White House to cooperate with investigators or the media. They didnt. Case closed. Move on. And now Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House are following the same cover-up playbook in Benghazi. 220

As any seasoned investigator or investigative journalist will confirm, evidence gathering at the time of the incident is critical to finding out the truth. Anything less can lead investigators to an incorrect, rationalized, and skewed conclusion that covers-up the truth. The fact that it took the Obama-Clinton regime nearly a month before the FBI was permitted to gather evidence in Benghazi is the proof. According to the Associated Press, FBI agents arrived in Benghazi before dawn. and departed after sunset, after weeks of waiting for access to the crime scene to investigate the Sept. 11 attack. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear know that means the crime scene was already contaminated and compromised all the evidence that was gathered (whatever remained) is suspect. If the Obama-Clinton regime were serious about finding out the truth, the U.S. military with FBI agents would have been at the Benghazi CIA outpost immediately after the attack. Anything short of that tells us the administration does want Americans to know what happened that deadly day. Remember Ambassador Christopher Stevens was following their orders. During the Foster death investigations, like Benghazi, investigators were also thwarted, stonewalled, and unable to perform their jobs. Hillary denied them unfettered access to Fosters office, and some evidence was contaminated or outright withheld (despite being subpoenaed). The initial investigation was at best shoddy. From Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer, source: Kenneth W. Starr, Independent Counsel, Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, October 10, 1997, p. 14, Lee Report at 485. A perfect reconstruction of Vince Fosters death was not possible. The reasons include the lack of complete documentation of the original shooting scene; the lack of subsequent records and photographs of each item of physical evidence prior to examinations; the lack of documentation of the amount of blood, tissue, and bone fragments in the areas at the scene under and around Fosters head; the lack of close-up photographs of any definite patterns and quantity of the blood stains on Fosters clothing and body at the scene; and the unknown location of the fatal bullet, which makes complete reconstruction of the bullet trajectory difficult. Therefore the investigators had no choice but to draw a conclusion in the Foster case based on the available evidence. Available evidence does not always mean an accurate conclusion. The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack? To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster and what really happened to him click here. To get the inside scope in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmanns exclusive intelligence insider reporting. Marinka Peschmann, is a freelance journalist. She has collaborated, ghostwritten, and contributed to books and stories from showbiz and celebrities to true crime, politics, and the United Nations. After freelancing behind the scenes in both the mainstream press and the new media, it was time to step forward. 221

Hillarys Benghazi cover-up diplomatic illness and Travelgate

Yesterday, John Bolton, President George W. Bushs former U.N. ambassador, alleged that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concocted a diplomatic illness to avoid testifying this week on the September 11 anniversary attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert. Over the weekend Clinton reportedly fainted and suffered a concussion. She continues to work from home (where she could also testify by a live feed). While it might sound callous to some people, there is very good reason for Ambassador Boltons skepticism considering the last time Hillary avoided testifying it was due to scheduling conflicts which included a wine tasting in Australia. But it goes much deeper than that. Hillary turned dodging indictments and perjury charges into an art form during the Clinton era. The question is will lawmakers on both sides of the aisle finally hold her accountable or allow Hillary to continue making a mockery out of the rule of law? Rewind to the first Clinton scandal, Travelgate. Excerpted in part from The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage (One Rock Ink Publishing). It was May 1993 when the Clinton administration fired the White House travel office staffers to ostensibly give the travel office business to the Clintons friends. As Linda Tripp, of President Bill Clinton impeachment fame, who served in Hillarys White House counsels office at the time, recounted to me, Travel Director Billy Dale was escorted out of the White House by the FBI, put into a paneled van with no seats and told to sit on the floor the day the Clintons removed him. And I watched Hillary orchestrate that whole thing; siccing the FBI on them, getting them out. Careerists, while theyre not political, do serve at the pleasure of the president. All President Clinton had to say was, Were replacing you. It wouldve been unheard of, but was within his legal purview to do. Instead the Clintons did what Linda said they always did: Destroy their enemy and ruin them. In December 1994, Billy Dale was indicted on two counts of embezzlement. Hillary described Travelgate with cool indifference in her memoir, Living History, as, perhaps worthy of a two-or-three-week life span, instead, in a partisan political climate, it became the first manifestation of an obsession for investigation that persisted into the millennium. But for Billy Dale, it wasnt a partisan manifestation. It was the termination of a thirty-plus-year career, and a fight for his freedom. If convicted, he faced a maximum of twenty years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines. After fighting his criminal charges for almost three years, Dale was exonerated after a jury deliberated for one hour. Meanwhile Hillary repeatedly denied having any involvement in the firings, in public and under oath. Three years after the firings, a staffers memo (the Clinton White House had previously withheld) revealed, that Hillary had insisted that the travel office staff be replaced. The memo read in part: Once this made it onto the First Ladys agenda, Vince Foster became involved, and he and Harry Thomason friend who wanted White House travel business regularly informed me of her attention as well as her insistence that the situation be resolved immediately by replacing the travel office staff. Hillary conveyed her desire for swift and clear action. 222

Seven years after the firings Special Prosecutor Robert Ray (who succeeded Ken Starr in the Office of the Independent Counsel), concluded in his final report that Hillarys sworn testimony was factually inaccurate. The overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees. Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath was factually false. Seven years later, the public had tuned out. Ten years later, the Clintons re-wrote the facts about Travelgate in their respective memoirs absolving Hillary of any wrongdoing or of telling falsehoods to investigatorsa prosecutable offense. After Rays report on Travelgate was released, Dale said, Everyone, especially Robert Ray, knows Hillary Clinton lied under oath about her role. It is disappointing that the Office of Independent Counsel would not prosecute her simply because of a fear of what a Washington, D.C., jury might do. Billy Dale was absolutely right. Indeed it was. When perjury and law breaking are not held to account it is emboldened and grows more lethal. Hillary, (with President Obama, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and David Petraeus) already misled the public when they falsely blamed a YouTube video for the deadly attack in Benghazi. No wonder Ambassador Bolton believes that it is possible that Hillary has come down with diplomatic illness to avoid testifying.

To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster and what really happened to him click here. To get the inside scope in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmanns exclusive intelligence insider reporting. Watch Linda Tripp describing Hillarys role in Travelgate in The Whistleblowers Audio Accompaniment #1.

Hillarys Benghazi Report (ARB) Blames Ambassador Christopher Stevens

When government officials like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton self- investigate themselves in internal independent reviews the truth is always covered up and buried. While you were sleeping on Tuesday night the Obama-Clinton regime did just that when they released a 39page, unclassified report, an Accountability Review Board (ARB), on the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert. Straight out of the Clinton era cover-up playbook, everyone except Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, disgraced, philandering ex-CIA director David Petraeus (the mastermind of the failed, deadly COIN policy in Afghanistan), and Defense Chief Leon Panetta, are blamed including the deceased. In this case Ambassador Christopher Stevens.


On page 6 and 34 of ARB, Hillarys handpicked ARB Board, chaired by Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering with Admiral Michael Mullen as Vice Chairman determined: The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassadors trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassys country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments. So it is Ambassador Stevens fault? No, he was following the Obama-Clinton regime orders. Moreover, in the weeks before his death he sent numerous cables to the State Department warning of the deteriorating conditions in Libya while seeking increased security. Hillarys ARB is not only a whitewash but riddled with falsehoods. According to Sharyl Attkisson at CBC News regarding Stevens final cables and memos: On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel. That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them thru mid-September. On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested protective detail bodyguard potions, saying the added guards will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced. He called the security condition in Libya unpredictable, volatile and violent. Its not known what happened to that request. On August 8, as the special security teams left Libya, another cable from Stevens says a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape and calls them targeted and discriminate attacks. Then on September 11 the day the Ambassador lost his life he sent this Benghazi weekly report. It expressed Libyans growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure. On the day he was murdered, Ambassador Stevens sent out his weekly report. We have seen this disgusting cover-up tactic used before. Most recently during the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation into Mexico where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and countless Mexicans were murdered by weapons the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under a Justice Department operation, knowingly allowed to walk. Eric Holders Justice Department (ex-Clinton Deputy Attorney General) assigned the Office of Inspector General to conduct an internal investigation into the affair. Thus far no one has been held to account. But the roots of this self-investigation, blame-everyone-else cover-up tactic (including those who cannot defend themselves from the grave) can be found in the Clinton era. As reported in The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage, during Travelgate, where Hillary was 224

found to have been behind the Travel office firings and was factually incorrect with investigators, the Clinton White House internal review, admitted it erred and would never again short-circuit proper legal channels by bypassing the Justice Department in seeking an FBI investigation. Hillary was not charged with perjury; a couple underlings, David Watkins, the assistant to the president in management and administration and Counsel Bill Kennedy, Hillarys former law partner at the Rose Law firm, took the fall, and were reprimanded. As reported In Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer: The Senate Whitewater Committee investigations conclusion revealed that there was a concerted effort by senior Clinton White House officials to block career law enforcement investigators from conducting a thorough investigation into Vince Fosters death, and recommended that steps be taken to insure that such misuse of the White House counsels office does not recur in this, or any future, administration. No one including Hillary in her White House counsel office was charged with obstructing justice. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, another Hillary underling who worked with her to impeach President Richard Nixon, took the fall and resigned in disgrace, humiliated, and forever tarnished. And now in Benghazi, two more of Hillarys underlings have taken the fall. Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security Hillary, who claimed Chris Stevens was a personal friend after his death, during the Clinton era blamed her best friend, and closest White House confidante, Vince Foster for some of her Whitewater troubles under oath, after he was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in Fort Marcy Park, and could not defend himself from the grave. The Stevens, Doherty, Woods and Smith families deserve to know the truth about the death of their loved ones. They will not get it from the Obama-Clinton regime. What you will witness today during the Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack, spearheaded by Hillary Clintons expected replacement, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), will be nothing more than a dog and pony show. Sen. Kerry will tow-the-line. This is the same John Kerry, who after he left Vietnam, accused his military brothers of war crimes without evidence, wants Hillarys job, and to keep his future boss President Obama very happy. We were warned these times would come: when men called evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Take heed. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear are mourning America today. To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster and what really happened to him click here. To get the inside scope in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmanns exclusive intelligence insider reporting.


Benghazi Cover-up: The Hand Shake Accountability Review Board report (ARB), a whitewash, that conveniently ignored important details
The best part of political theater, otherwise known as the ah ha moment for truth seekers, can often be found when the show ends. In this epic tragedy, called the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing: Benghazi: The Attack and the Lesson Learned, held on December 20, 2012, starring Senator John Kerry (D-Mass), as the Chairman, it happened right after Kerrys dramatic closing statement concluded. The lights dimmed, the press started packing up their gear, the stars/senators, in crisp suits, with their shine-free faces courtesy of heavy pancake make-up, exited stage left. It was a quick moment but a telling one. Did you catch it? Think back, if you will, or were you too busy shopping for the holidays to notice? Perhaps you were under the illusion that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee serious and important hearing to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi where four Americans were murdered: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert, was really serious and important because as the New York Times reported: the Benghazi Hearing, State Dept. Conceded Errors, and Hillary Clinton had already taken full responsibility. Case closed. Or have you been paying attention? Are you disturbed by the lies coming from the ObamaClinton regime beginning with President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, philandering ex-CIA chief David Petraeus, and White House Press Secretary James Carney, when they falsely blamed a Youtube video for the deadly attack? Especially since we know the Obama-Clinton regime knew within two hours that the Islamist militia group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for it, and declined life-saving requests for help. Did it make you sick and cringe in appalled horror when you heard Charles Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, during an interview with Glenn Beck on TheBlazeTV, recount how on the day his sons body was brought home from Libya, how Hillary Clinton told him that the U.S. would make sure that the person who made that film the Youtube video is arrested and prosecuted. When she said that, I could tell that she was not telling me the truth, Woods said while he wondered why the Obama-Clinton regime did not do something to protect his son and the others. Indeed, we all wonder why they didnt send help, and what was Ambassador Stevens really doing in Benghazi in the first place those of us who are paying attention that is. We did not get those questions answered during the serious and important Senate committees Benghazi hearings, nor will we find out from President Obama, who nonchalantly, callously, chalked up the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi on some sloppiness last week on NBCs Meet the Press. Instead what we got were two shows. The first one was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing dog and pony show for the American people, to falsely assure them that their elected leaders were doing their jobs. As Chairman Kerry stated in his authoritative, stage-craft, opening statement, From the very beginning of the Benghazi events, every 226

member of this Committee has shared with the President and Secretary Clinton our determination to get all the facts about what happened and why in Benghazi. But it is the second story-line that you should be following if you seek the truth, and its called the Benghazi cover-up because the fix is in, and as Ive been reporting, it has been all along. Did you see how after the Benghazi Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Hillarys stand-in witness (because she was ill and couldnt testify) Thomas R. Nides, the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, rush up to his soon- to-be-new-boss, at the State Department, Chairman Kerry, and shake his hand? If you didnt catch that, go back and look. Thats the show you want to watch. Although Nides and Kerrys brief exchange was inaudible, it was visually affirmative. One can imagine it went something like this: Good job, or Well done. Id say so, because thanks to Hillarys independent 39-page, declassified Benghazi Accountability Review Board report (ARB), a whitewash, that conveniently ignored important details such as why Sean Smith would send information out via a gaming website, and who ordered the military to stand down(the same report the Senate Committee hearings were based upon), it looks like $2.2 billion (over ten-years) will be headed for the State Department very soon. A department Chairman Kerry expects to lead, as President Obamas nominated Secretary of State and no one will be held accountable for the deaths in Benghazi. In a just and God fearing America, Senator Kerry would have recuse himself from any involvement in the Senate Foreign Relations hearing. It is a conflict to investigate ones friends, or a department you hope to lead with a boss to impress. But alas, we are not living in a just or God fearing America and have not for a long time now. History is repeating itself. We saw the cover-up play out in Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer -where no one was held accountable there either. Now some of the same people with the same the ends justify the means Saul Alinskyideology are using the same playbook to cover-up Benghazi. The only question is will Washingtons elite get away with it again? For too long people have looked the other way and remained silent at the blatant corruption and abuse of power occurring within their own government. Now the government is emboldened and the corruption has metastasized like a cancer. Pray for protection for those serving in harms way. They cannot count on the Obama-Clinton regime to provide it. America you are being deceived. To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster and what really happened to him click here. To find out how the Obama-Clinton regime thwarts the rule of law and gets away with it click here. To get the inside scoop in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmanns exclusive intelligence insider reporting.

Hillarys Benghazi Cover-up 101 for Dummies

There were two shows to watch during the Benghazi Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, held on December 20, 2012, to supposedly get to the bottom of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were murdered: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert. 227

The first show was a dog and pony show for the American people, to falsely assure them that their elected leaders were doing their jobs. As Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass) stated in his scripted authoritative opening statement, From the very beginning of the Benghazi events, every member of this Committee has shared with the President and Secretary Clinton our determination to get all the facts about what happened and why in Benghazi. Dont believe one word of that, as reported the Obama-Clinton regime do not want you to know the truth it is the second story-line that you should be following, and its called the cover-up. Let me take you behind the smoke and mirrors and show you how it is done. Cover-up Step 1: Like what happened during the official Vince Foster death investigations as documented in Following Orders: The Death of Vince Foster, Clinton White House Lawyer, first draw your conclusions by using an incomplete, compromised, and contaminated investigation Hillarys independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board Report (ARB). Be sure to tell the public the report pulls no punches, is very frank, comprehensive, thorough, and praise the overall high quality of it. Notice how both the Republican and Democrat committee members relied (instead of doing their own investigation or calling for a special prosecutor) on Hillarys ARB, a gravely flawed, intellectually insulting, self-investigation that for starters couldnt be bothered to name, let alone interview the Turkish diplomatic Ambassador Stevens had just met with shortly before he was murdered or find out who in the Obama-Clinton regime had ordered the military to stand down, instead of helping Americans in peril that deadly September 11 day. Cover-up Step 2: Rewrite and roll out the new cohesive strategy because the first one fell apart. In doing so, you shift the blame and accountably away from the Obama-Clinton regime. New villains are created and the real culprits are minimized or ignored. During the Senate hearings, and in Hillarys ARB, for instance, there are no references to Ansar al-Shariah the terrorist group that took credit for the slaughter. Notice how the first fake villain, the Youtube video that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and celebrated, philandering David Petraeus initially blamed for the terrorist attack in Benghazi was completely omitted from both Hillarys ARB and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Cover-up Step 3: Now that the old villain has been removed, introduce new villains (repeat several times so the public will remember only this soundbite). In the Benghazi case it is now Congress, and the lack of funding who is to blame. As Chairman Kerry stated regarding the new villains of Benghazi, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Congress also bears some responsibility here. Congress has the power of the purse. And for years we have asked our State Department to operate with increasingly lesser resources to conduct essential missions ... Meet the new villains in Hillarys ARB on p. 3: For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work. The solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs. One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives. Repeat. Senate Foreign Relations committee member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), echoed the revised cohesive strategy starring the new villains when the first question she asked was if 228

the State Department would seek additional funding from Congress to secure Americas diplomats and so forth. Remember how successful this Saul Alinsky tactic was during Clinton-Lewinsky scandal where the fake villain was the vast right-wing conspiracy and in the death of Vince Foster where the fake villain was the Wall Street Journal? Cover-up Step 4: Introduce a new hero and ignore the real ones, like General Carter Hamm, the Combatant Commander of Africas Command (AFRICOM) who, reportedly tried to send in military back-up to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi but was ordered to stand down. He has since retired and been replaced. Both Republican and Democrat committee members, in sync with Hillarys ridiculous ARB, ignored the stand down orders and General Hamm altogether. Instead in preparation for the grand finale when/if Hillary testifies (it doesnt matter the fix is in) there is a new hero in this Benghazi story and that is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As Chairman Kerry rolled out: The report makes 29 recommendations in total, five of which are classified. Secretary Clinton has embraced every single one of them. In fact shes gone above and beyond the Boards recommendation by taking immediate steps to strengthen security at high-threat posts and request from Congress the authority to reprogram funds to increase diplomatic security spending by $1.3 billion. In Washington, where too often we see the recommendations of blue ribbon panels ignored, delayed or deferred as they were for a long time on even the 9/11 Commission, I think the Secretarys swift action underscores how determined she is to apply the lessons of Benghazi. Cover-up Step 5: Distractions, waste time, and/or dont even bother to ask questions. Chairman Kerrys opening statement, followed by Sen. Lugars statement was dedicated in large part to Benghazis new villain lack of State Department funding and Congress. Together they took up nearly 27 minutes in a 1:45 minute shortened session in this supposedly serious and important Benghazi Senate hearing. Americans, who were paying attention, did not see a serious investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi but rather a tacky, self-aggrandizing love fest where the senators praised one another, including outgoing Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Naturally, Hillary Clinton, cast as the new hero, was obviously also revered and praised. As Chairman Kerry made very, very clear: As everyone is aware, Secretary Clinton is recovering from a serious virus, and concussion, and given her condition, it was simply not possible for her to appear here today. We all wish her a speedy recovery and in her place we have both deputies from the State Department and I want to thank them for coming in on short notice. Let me emphasize this, please, to everybody. All of you who know Hillary know she would rather be here today. I know how deeply she feels the importance of the discussion that were having today and I assure you it is not her choice that she is not here today and she looks forward to appearing before the committee in January and I want to make that clear. Included in the lovefest and false idol worshipping masquerading as a serious and important Benghazi Senate hearing were Hillarys stand-in witnesses, Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Thomas R. Nides. As Chairman Kerry said, Were very pleased that Secretary Burns and Secretary Nides have come here today. Secretary Burns recently established the Christopher Stevens Youth Network to honor Chris memory by building bridges of understanding and compassion between American youth and their Middle Eastern peers. We look forward to continuing that work with them. 229

Indeed, the serious and important Benghazi Senate Foreign Relations hearing was shortened so senators could attend Sen. Daniel Inouyes (D-Hawaii) funeral (instead of starting the hearing earlier). Even more valuable time was eaten up when other members of the committee (you know the ones who pledged to get to the bottom of the terrorist attack in Benghazi) joined in to pay homage to outgoing Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) when it was their turn to ask questions. Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), like Sen. Lugar, did not even bother to ask questions but rather offered some rambling observations that sounded important. Cover-up Step 6: Pretend there is accountability by blaming a fall guy. Like Clinton counsel Bernie Nussbaum resigned in disgrace for his obstructionist role in the Vince Foster death investigations (instead of facing obstruction charges), Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, who along with three others reportedly resigned because of Benghazi but not really. That was just a publicity stunt disguised as news. Wink, wink, according to the New York Post, Bowell is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back. Cant you see now how the Obama-Clinton regime is laughing in your face? Wake up. Do not continue to be deceived. You will not get the truth about Benghazi and the murder of four Americans from the Obama-Clinton regime or from the Senate Foreign Relations Congressional hearing because Americans cannot know what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi for the Obama-Clinton regime. The fix is in.

To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster click here. To find out how the Obama-Clinton regime thwarts the rule of law click here. To get the inside scoop in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmanns exclusive intelligence insider reporting. Click here to watch the Benghazi lovefest/important hearings on CSPAN. Watch to see why NOT questioning Hillary Clintons honesty is nothing short of media malpractice.

MUST SEE: Why NOT Questioning Hillary Clinton's Illness is Media Malpractice v=kqmwN5Pe2m8&feature=player_embedded&list=UUI7ouCVOhXh5Sq-IJrpBh7w

Benghazi Blood On Obamas Hands

January 9th 2013 By Kris Kane

230 There were two investigative reports published regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate and CIA annex on September 11. One was entitled the Benghazi Accountability Report and was produced by the Obama administration; the other was titled Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi and was produced by the Senate. Obamas report, as was expected, was a sham that didnt find anyone accountable; didnt explain why Obama blamed a protest turned violent on an anti-Muslim YouTube video that no one actually saw; didnt explain why Obama failed to send any real help to protect the four Americans who were murdered by terrorists; didnt explain why it took the eight man security team (who were actually CIA operatives to keep a lid on whatever Obama was hiding in Benghazi) eight hours to travel from Tripoli to Benghazi, a flight that takes about an hour; and didnt reveal what exactly Barack Hussein Obama was hiding in Benghazi. The Senates Flashing Red report blows apart Barack Obamas whole charade of a protest turned violent because of an anti-Muslim video and shows that he left four Americans flapping in the wind with an American flag covered in blood. We will discuss this in our next video.

A Benghazi-Algeria Connection To Free The Blind Sheik?

January 21st 2013 By Ron Reale


What if there was a plan afoot to return the Blind Sheik to his terrorist Islamist brethren? A plan so outrageous might exist that no one would believe it, unless it was said to come from this administration. What if the Benghazi offices had no security because it was part of a plan to trade the captured American attach Chris Stevens for the convicted, unrepentant terrorist, (no, not Bill Ayers, the OTHER American hating terrorist). What if that was why the military was told to stand down during the initial attacks? Suppose the only reason everyone was killed is because of the unexpected heroic efforts of two real American heroes, whose resistance was thought by the attackers to be a breach of the deal which was supposed to allow for the easy capture of the American diplomatic officials! The idea was to trade the terrorist sheik for the American Diplomats safe return to their families. Now suppose Algeria is the second stage of this attempt by the terrorists to recover their brother terrorist. Except this time, the Islamists are acting unilaterally. After Benghazi, they feel they cannot trust any deal their Muslim connections in the American administration offer. The Blind Sheik is going home. Sooner or later. Obama and his Islamist handlers did not have the stones to make the case for his release directly to the American people. Instead, we will watch him struggle with this terrible decision to negotiate with the Islamists. In the end, Obama will release the Blind Sheik. There are only two things wrong with this theory: 1) While there is no evidence to prove or disprove it, any logical theory must be considered, and this is what I believe: 2) No one would be surprised if it came from this administration. Unfortunately, I dont believe there will be any concessions towards the Americans in this crisis. I believe Obama will lead from behind while Americans die under the protection of his Islamist handlers. I pray I am wrong.

Was Benghazi An Obama Administration International Fast and Furious?

January 21st 2013 232

By Tim Brown

Appearing on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New Yorks WABC, Senator Rand Paul (RKY) brought up questions surrounding whether or not the Obama administration was smuggling guns to jihadist rebels and that this was the reason for the cover up. If that is true, then this would be the second time the administration would be involved in knowingly trafficking firearms into the hands of criminals, only this time it would not be just across our border, but on the other side of the world, with the same consequences, dead Americans. Sen. Paul will be serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the new Senate. The Kentucky Senator said, There is also some concern about whether or not Libyan arms are being ferried through Turkey into Syrian rebels and whether or not that had something to do with the cover-up that came out of the administration when the administration was saying that, Oh, this attack in Benghazi had something to do with a film. Maybe that was to cover up that there was some kind of gun smuggling going on over there, some kind of international fast and furious was going on in Libya and that this was a coverup, he continued. These are some of the questions that we are going to have for Hillary Clinton when she comes before our committee. I am very concerned about the president giving arms to Syrian rebels, Paul told Klein. Paul went on to point out that there is great concern that if Syrian rebels, who have ties to AlQaeda just like the Libyan rebels, get their hands on weapons from the U.S. will wipe out Syrian Christians. There are about a million Christians in Syria, one of the largest populations of Christians are in Syria, Paul said. They are not necessarily siding with the rebels because many of the rebels are extremist radical Islamists such as Al-Nusra elements of al-Qaida. And there is concern that the Christians will not be tolerated, will be wiped out if the rebels win. Many of these rebel fighters are openly tied to terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. This should be more than enough reasons for the U.S. to not provide any support at all. In fact, we should be getting our nose out of the business of foreign nations. The Accountability Review Board issued a report on Benghazi last month that was then approved by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The report determined that inexperienced staff members, who had worked for only a short period of time, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity. 233

The board also reported, findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to security should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations. However, the report did not single out one individual official for discipline. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify on Tuesday on Benghazi, the same day the Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduces her assault weapons ban bill to the Senate.

Media ignore Hillarys bombshell Benghazi claim

January 24th 2013 By Aaron Klein Secretary insists she did not know about gun-running at U.S. mission During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running. The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks. Yet Clintons answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media. The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Paul asked Clinton: Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya? To Turkey? Clinton asked. I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me. Continued Paul: Its been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what Id like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included? Clinton replied, Well, senator, youll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available. Youre saying you dont know? asked Paul. I do not know, Clinton said. I dont have any information on that. That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senators earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post. WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East. 234

In September, WND also broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assads regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials. In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida. Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters including jihadists to target Assads regime, the security officials said. According to the 39-page report released last month by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported. Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility, the report states. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a Special U.S. Mission. During the Libyan revolution against Moammar Gadhafis regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups. At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi acknowledged in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He insisted his fighters are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists, but he added that the members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. Media cover up? From the beginning, U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading. The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a consulate, even though the government itself has been careful to call it a mission. A consulate typically refers to the building that houses a consul, who is the official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli. Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information. On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy. The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation. 235

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state. However, according to the State Department investigation, the building was a U.S. Special Mission set up without the knowledge of the Libyan government.

Withholding, misleading
Two days before the November presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 60 Minutes interview in which Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims about the attack. In the released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden on the day of the attack, he had declared it an act of terror. Reuters was also implicated by WND for possibly false reporting. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters quoted a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building. Immediately following the attack, President Obama and other White House officials claimed anti-American sentiment fueled by the obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube sparked civilian protests outside the U.S. mission that devolved into a jihadist onslaught. However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, officials said.

Clinton takes on critics over Benghazi at tense Hill hearings

January 24th 2013 236

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began her long-awaited testimony Wednesday on the Benghazi terror attack by taking "responsibility" but she used the full day of hearings to repeatedly deny involvement in key controversies and pointedly reject the allegations of Republican lawmakers. The at times heated testimony before House and Senate committees, likely to be the outgoing secretary's last, elicited praise from Democrats and frustration from Republicans. Far from putting the issue to rest, the testimony further fueled a debate that has raged on Capitol Hill for four months. Though she said officials are following some "very promising leads" on the terrorists, Clinton herself acknowledged there are still several open questions about what prompted the attack that night. The secretary battled tough criticism from lawmakers throughout the day. In one of the final jabs of the session, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., told her, "Madame Secretary, you let the consulate become a death trap." The biggest flash point Wednesday came during morning testimony. Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson claimed the department could have "easily" determined what happened that night by interviewing staffers who were evacuated. He was referring to the administration's initial claim that the attack sprung out of a protest. It was later determined there was no protest on the ground in Benghazi. Diplomatic security agents said as much to the FBI during interviews on Sept. 14, despite administration claims to the contrary two days later. "We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that," Johnson said. "The American people could have known that (there was no protest) within days, and they didn't know that." At that point, Clinton began to raise her voice. "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said. "I understand," Johnson said. Clinton continued to speak, raising her voice and gesturing: "Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans? "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Hillary Clinton Erupts at Senator During Libya Testimony


Clinton, lowering her voice, then said it is the administration's job to "figure out what happened" and prevent it from happening again. Later in the testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton acknowledged the administration did not have a "clear picture" of what happened in the immediate aftermath. She said perhaps officials didn't do a good enough job explaining that they "didn't have a clear picture." But Clinton still said the motivations of the attackers, to this day, are not clear. "Even today there are questions being raised," she said, referring to findings in the classified version of a recent report that she could not describe in detail. Clinton, throughout the hearing, walked a fine line between taking responsibility generally for what went wrong and challenging specific allegations against her department and the administration. During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure." "As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned. Clinton went on to deny having ever seen the requests for more security from the Libya team that were denied by officials within the State Department. "I didn't see those requests, they didn't come to me," Clinton said, adding those kinds of requests wouldn't normally come to the secretary. 238

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., later suggested lives could have been saved if Clinton were more involved in reviewing security requests. He said that if he were president, "I would have relieved you from your post." Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona after the exchange with Johnson, said he was not satisfied with the secretary's answers, complaining that the public still doesn't have answers on what happened. Clinton, while pushing back against Johnson, also said she was not involved in crafting the controversial statements that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice made on Sept. 16 in which she asserted the attack was "spontaneous" and linked to a protest. "I wasn't involved in the talking points process," Clinton said, though she said she wasn't aware of anything that would have "contradicted" the information Rice had at the time. She noted that "going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing," a possible reference to claims that she declined to go on television Sept. 16. Clinton also defended the administration's actions on the night of Sept. 11, when the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi came under fire and four Americans died. "I directed our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government," she said. "No delays in decisionmaking. No denials of support from Washington or from our military." Citing the findings of a review panel, she said: "The board said the response saved American lives in real time and it did." Several accounts relayed to Fox News, though, suggest possible delays in the response. Fox News has learned from senior U.S. defense officials that a FAST team of Marines out of Spain was asked by State Department officials to change out of their Marine uniforms after being asked to leave for Libya to help this required them to deplane and delayed them by about 90 minutes, according to Pentagon officials. Then there is the decision by Clinton and State Department Undersecretary of Management Patrick Kennedy not to mobilize the Counterterrorism Security Group, which is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and makes recommendations on the response to crises involving terrorism. Further, there are questions about the perceived delays CIA officials stationed in Benghazi encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi. It wasn't. During the hearing on the House side Wednesday afternoon, Clinton was also pressed on why she was never interviewed by the State Department-sponsored board that investigated the incident. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, said that was "outrageous." Clinton said the board thought she was not "relevant" to their investigation because they were focusing on security officials. She said she "gladly" would have spoken with them.


She also addressed concerns about the four State Department officials who were removed from their jobs in the fallout from the attack - but were not removed from the department. She suggested federal law restricts what disciplinary measures could be taken against them. The hearing Wednesday comes amid a broadening threat to U.S. interests across North Africa. There are reports that some of the attackers who took hostages in the deadly raid on an Algeria gas plant may have also participated in the Libya attack. "Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum," Clinton said Wednesday, while saying later she could not verify that specific claim. She said instability has created an "expanding safe haven for terrorists" who plot into Algeria and other countries. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., top Republican on the Senate committee, lamented "the spiking of the ball and the thinking that when Usama bin Laden was gone that was the end of Al Qaeda." "We know nothing could be further from the truth," he said. Clinton appeared to agree that the terrorist threat is far from diminished, saying Al Qaeda "wannabes" and "affiliates" continue to pose a challenge.

EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus was brought down after betrayal by vengeful CIA agents and his own bodyguards who made sure his affair was exposed, claims new book.

Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' Petraeus was humiliated after a 'palace coup' by high-level intelligence officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA, authors say The book also claims that Petraeus and Ambassador Chris Stevens were caught off guard by Benghazi consulate attack because they weren't briefed about on-going U.S. military operations in Libya Webb and Murphy say Benghazi attack was a retaliation for secret raids authorized by Obama security adviser John Brennan 240

American Valor Benghazi:

This part you dont know, but should The stunning part of this story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction. The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya. However, theres a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story. So what actually happened at the U.S. embassy in Libya? We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi. Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair. Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation. Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable. A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix. And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he was quite concerned for his personal safety and the welfare of his people. It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a hit list. A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy Seals. When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound. Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two Seals set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction. 241

As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. Im fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them! Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code: 1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nations Enemies, and... 7) Earn your Trident every day ( Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death. And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others. Dr. Charles R. Roots Senior Pastor Former Staff Sergeant, USMC Captain, U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret.)


Benghazi: White House Changes Story On Phone Calls Again

February 20th 2013 By Tim Brown

Last Friday I wrote about how the White House had sent a letter to Congress that said that Barack Obama didnt make one single phone call on the night of September 11, 2012 as the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were taking place. Well just how the narrative on Benghazi has changed over and over with this administration, they have changed their story again. Now, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Obama Called then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10pm EST on the night of the Benghazi attacks. CNS News reports, That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to inflammatory material posted on the Internet, a reference to an antiMuslim video on YouTube. Like every president before him, he has a national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, Carney told on Tuesday. He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation. Carney was responding to questions from about who Obama communicated with on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting. The Washington Times made clear that, The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.


It was on that night the Secretary Clinton released a statement on the attack in Benghazi in which she linked an anti-Muslim video as the cause of it. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet, Clinton said. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. CNS confirmed with several news outlets, including the Associated Press, Reuters, and, about the timing of their stories about Clintons statement. The stories hit the wire within the hour of Clintons statement being made public around 10pm. Im wondering how much longer the Senate Armed Services Committee is going to put up with the blatant lying of this White House and its administration before they have had enough. In fact, Im wondering when the American people are going to seriously burn up the White House phone lines demanding an end to this nonsense and real accountability, responsibility and punishment for all involved in what is becoming more clearly understood to be a cover-up in which American citizens died.

Have the Stall Tactics Worked? Has the Public Moved On from Benghazi?
February 23rd 2013 By Alan Caruba

I have been puzzling over what I perceive as the growing loss of public interest in the Benghazi debacle in which an American ambassador and three others lost their lives and the former Secretary of State in a pique of anger over questions about the event said, What difference does it make? It makes a difference if the State Department was derelict or indifferent to the ambassadors cables that spelled out the security threats that he and his staffed faced or, for that matter, the attacks on other diplomats and humanitarian organizations operating in what was a war zone. African migrant workers had earlier been attacked creating an evacuation crisis, but the September 11, 2012 a noteworthy anniversary attack simply accelerated the flight from a lawless region controlled by al Qaeda. 244

It makes a difference if, as we have since learned, the President was entirely detached from the crisis of the attack in Benghazi after initially been informed of it. No one, it seemed, took any action despite the six hours of the attack though it was reportedly seen in real time via satellite drone surveillance. It makes a difference if the White House, in concert with the State Department, concocted a story that made no mention of al Qaeda, said the attack on the anniversary of 9/11 was spontaneous, and was the result of a video that no one had seen. Now, six months later, with the exception of Fox News, there is little notice taken of what is arguably a major scandal, one of incompetence followed by deception, and which, like Fast and Furious, the gun-running scandal to Mexican drug cartels dreamed up and covered up in the Department of Justice, is fading not just from the news, but from the memories of Americans. My theory is that the cabal in the White House, led by the President, knows well that all they have to do is stall long enough and the initial outrage will go away, if it hasnt already. Even the Congressional committees and their inquiries will lose momentum. The public is asking What next? instead of What happened? Complicating this are the hearings on the Presidents choices for cabinet posts. Former Senator John Kerry sailed through to his appointment as the new Secretary of State, but others like former Senator Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense and John Brennan as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency are foundering briefly over concerns that the former is an incompetent, bigoted fool and the latter may be an Islamic mole. The public, meanwhile, is distracted over the prospect of sequestration, blames the Republicans when in fact it was a proposal made by the President to force Congress to address the growing national debt and annual deficit. As he said during a 2008 election debate, he was sure it would be derailed by some kind of agreement. 245

His failure or refusal to come to any agreement regarding spending cuts, however, ensures that sequestration will become the law of the land. His outlandish lies about the shutdown of vast elements of the government are ludicrous. They are a part of the way the Obama administration rules from crisis to crisis, spreading widespread fear among Americans. There are plenty of other distractions as the 24/7 news cycle provides coverage of every new crisis somewhere in the world and here at home of dramatic weather events, fires, murders, sports, and the usual celebrity blather. I often include references to history when I write, but I have begun to conclude that only the older portion of my readers have any real grasp of those events to which I refer. I am inclined to believe that many under age fifty and many more under thirty have no real grasp of U.S. or world history. Even Vietnam and Watergate are ancient history to most as is the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It is already twelve years since 9/11 in 2001. In that time, our military has been bogged down in Afghanistan and fought a war in Iraq to no effect other than deposing its former dictator, Saddam Hussein. That war, however, may have encouraged the citizens in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt to force out their dictators, but lacking any experience with democracy, they have only exchanged the former dictators for new ones, often allied with the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria is two years into a civil war with 70,000 dead. I have begun to suspect that the advent of the Internet and the way news is now swiftly packaged and presented has left too many, but particularly the young, living entirely in the present with neither knowledge, nor interest in the past even the recent past. With our blogs and our ability to comment on everything as it occurs on Facebook or via Twitter, we are suspicious of the experts people who may actually have the knowledge and experience to comment in a cogent, informed fashion because we know what we feel even if we do not know what we do not know! Too many of those experts come with an agenda that is intended to keep us frightened and compliant. That is why this White House feels confident it can tell us the same lies over and over again, secure in the knowledge that we will only remember them, however briefly, and then move on to whatever the latest, the present news may be. We are developing the memory and attention span of fungus. That changes our relationship with the White House, Congress, the arcane workings of the Federal Reserve, the dizzying ups and downs of Wall Street, the imponderable fact that so many millions of our countrymen are unemployed, and that news of the latest Northeastern blizzard has already replaced the devastation of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. We are the people we have been waiting for, President Obama said during his 2008 campaign. I hope not. The sheer novelty of electing the first black President was sufficient to get him elected. That was just over four years ago and the novelty is gone. All that remains are the lies and an economy in disrepair. The reality of Obamacare and other elements of the Presidents agenda are beginning to bite, but the bulk of Americans are now conditioned to live in the present, ignore even the recent past, and regard the future as chaos. They only know what is occurring to themselves today. Who can or even will plan for the future when you have credit cards? 246

Benghazi: Obama Admin Gunrunning To Jihadists

February 25th 2013 By Tim Brown

Many have put forward the theory that the Benghazi attacks were nothing more than an international Fast and Furious Operation and that it went south. We have been among them. Many people have wondered why American forces were being sent to the border of Turkey. It seems quite interesting since during the questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the issue of Turkey and gun running came up. The interaction between Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Clinton went like this (pick up at the 2:19 mark): Paul asked Clinton about whether there was a gun running operation in Benghazi. She claimed that she did not know of a special mission in which the U.S. was involved in such an operation. Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya? Paul questioned.

Rand Paul Grills Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi Consulate Attacks 1/23/2013 To Turkey? Clinton asked. I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me. Its been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, Paul continued, and what Id like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included? Well, senator, youll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex, Clinton responded. I will see what information is available. Youre saying you dont know? asked Paul. I do not know, Clinton affirmed. I dont have any information on that. Now this little tidbit was not given a lot of time in the media. I confess I am even quite limited in writing on the subject. 247

However, Aaron Klein did confirm with knowledgeable security sources that the use of the Benghazi mission in aiding the rebels who are known to be saturated by al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. Klein writes, In September, KleinOnline broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assads regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials. In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters including jihadists to target Assads regime, the security officials said. The White House has said that they were against supplying arms to Syrian rebels who are largely made up of terrorists, it seems they are in direct contradiction with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former CIA Director David Petraeus. During the Senate hearings on Benghazi, there was an exchanged between Senator John McCain (R-AZ), outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey. McCain asked both men if they supported a plan to provide weapons to the resistance in Syria. We do, Panetta replied. You did support that? McCain asked again. We did, added Dempsey, who was sitting next to Panetta. The U.S. has admitted direct involvement with arming Libyan rebel groups last year against Moammar Gaddafi and his regime. In fact, Chris Stevens was to serve as a U.S. liaison to those rebels. He reportedly worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the al-Qaida-tied Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. In an interview with Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, he acknowledged that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were not only al-Qaeda fighters, but they had also fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then stated that his fighters are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists, but then added members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. One of the things, Ive struggled with in writing on the Benghazi matter was the use of the terms embassy and consulate. I have often used the term consulate, though the first reports indicated an embassy or consulate. Interestingly enough, the State Department lists only one embassy in Libya and that is in Tripoli. There are no consulates listed. In addition, Klein points out in his article that U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading. The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a consulate, even though the government itself has been careful to call it a mission. Klein stated that the However, in the following video where Barack Obama announces the attacks on September 12, 2012 from the Rose Garden he calls is a diplomatic post (0.27 mark). 248

He is obviously not using the term to speak of an office or job, such as might be used to describe Ambassador Chris Stevens, since he then goes on to name those killed in the attack on the diplomatic post. Calls to the State Department to define the term diplomatic post resulted in numerous transfers with no one being able to define it, but I was assured that the would respond and define the term. Well see how that pans out.

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi 9/12/2012 Klein points out that government officials have tried to be careful in referring to Benghazi as a U.S. Special Mission which was set up without the Libyan governments knowledge. In this particular audio segment, Klein said, Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). From all points, this was not an official mission of the United States, but was rather something else. Additionally, Paula Broadwells speech regarding a CIA prison comes into play here and the entire scenario lends credibility to the theory Glenn Beck put forth several months ago about the fact that Ambassador Stevens was the main gun runner and that this was a CIA operation which blew up in their faces. Consequently all the lies that are on display for all to hear are miserable attempts to cover up the truth of what our government was engaged in and that is supplying the very people that they would indefinitely detain us for, via the NDAA if we had dealings with them, with weapons of war to overthrow another countrys government. In most of those instances, those weapons far exceed what law abiding citizens carry in this country.


Final Comment on Benghazi by Jack Graff:

Let's quit the chickenshit dancing around here. The Obama regime has been running guns and BIGTIME armaments and munitions, including MANPADS, which are shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles designed to shoot down commercial jetliners, to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is just Fast-and-Furious except that the people being armed are musloids tasked with reforming the Islamic Caliphate instead of the drug cartels. But it is exactly the same thing. Gadhafi was overthrown because the Obama regime wanted to use a chaotic, destabilized "wild west" Libya as the doorway to the Caliphate to get the arms in for distribution to Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and eventually Saudi Arabia. Egypt would have been too risky. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA were somehow, some way running or heavily involved this armament pipeline. The Obama regime wanted and "needed" Chris Stevenss dead, probably to cover the gun and armament running, so they killed him. Word was sent to the Muslim Brotherhood to attack the Benghazi facility. The Obama regime promised that there would be no retaliation and that a cover story about "slandering the prophet" would be provided. The Muslim Brotherhood wins all around. They get to keep all of the arms and MANPADS supplied by Obama with no whistleblowers AND they get their bullshit Sharia Law agenda advanced and explicitly ratified by the government of the United States. Get used to this business of the Oligarch class using the Muslim Brotherhood to do their dirty work for them. This has been the plan all along, and it will only escalate from here. As I have been saying since 2008, Barack Obama is the explicit enemy of what used to be the First American Republic and of Western Civilization in general. EXPLICIT ENEMY. As in traitor. As in treason. As in murderer. As in should be arrested as a non-state, non-uniformed enemy belligerent, tried in a military tribunal, and upon conviction be put against a wall and shot by a firing squad, and then have his dead body publicly displayed so that there will be no future doubt or bullshit conspiracy theory crap that the son of a bitch wasn't executed. No shit. And the same goes for dozens of people in his "administration" right along with him, except that the U.S. citizens, like Hillary Clinton, should be tried for treason. But like Obama, upon conviction (which should take all of five minutes to deliberate) these people should be executed by firing squad without delay. They are traitors and they are murderers. After almost four years of this shit, you people are still trying to parse these events as if these people are just misguided or inept. These people are the declared enemy of what used to be the United States (they put the last nail in the coffin the Republic is already dead) and of Western civilization. They are attempting to bring about a global tyrannical oligarchy and are in a close, explicit alliance with Islam in order to consolidate control of the oil producing areas of the Muslim world and eliminate Israel, and eventually to use the Caliphate as the army which will totally overrun and overthrow Europe.


Clinton, Obama, Panetta, Axelrod and THEIR HANDLERS, all of these people are coming straight out of Communism, which is really nothing more than a push for a global tyrannical oligarchy. It has little to do with any sort of economic theory per se, its only goal is to put a cadre of oligarchs in power, and to enrich them by any means necessary. We should probably stop calling it Communism and just call it neo-Stalinism. Chris Stevens was tortured, gang ass raped, killed, and his dead body was gang ass raped again because the initial order came from Washington D.C. to kill him. The details really didn't concern the murderers sitting in Washington watching it happen via drone-cam, nor did the collateral damage in the form of the other three men killed. Stevens thought he was "in the club", but the poor fool was just another "stupid faggot" in the eyes of the Obama regime who was used and then killed because he was worth less than nothing to them. But then, all human life is worth less than nothing to these people. One of the SEALs was on the roof of the building painting a target with a laser expecting a drone or a gunship to engage. What the SEAL failed to understand is that the drone he knew was flying above him was in fact the asset of the very people who ordered the strike, and that they were back in Washington watching via that drone-cam, cooly waiting for him, the ambassador and the other assets there present to die.

You people need to wake the hell up. Prepare for war. These people are killers and will stop at nothing until someone stops them.

Lying to America 251

The following document comprises articles I have collected with additional links to further references and videos from the day after the attack at the Annex in Libya from September 12th through October 31st 2012. Post Script articles added November 1st-February 25th. After almost 12 weeks of news from the alternate media that the MSM refuses to cover to protect this piece of pig excrement Obama. And due to the fact that the MSM will go to any lengths to protect Obama I just couldnt stomach it any more. It is my hope that those that take the time to read this document in its entirety will cry out for justice for the 4 dead Americans that were left to be murdered by the Criminal Obama Regime for Political Expediency!!! It is also my strongest and sincere hope that this document and the majority of other documents on my computer find there way into the hands of an intellectually honest and objective historian. And that they will detail and chronicle the complete history of the most corrupt Administration in the history of America and the disgraceful activities of the Criminal Obama Regime!!! Jack Graff