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 was denied by U.S. officials -- 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 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 Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Watch "Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.
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. Spectre 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.
"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.
October 26th, 2012, 18:15
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Wow. So there it is.
October 26th, 2012, 18:36
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Jennifer Korn: Where Does “the Buck Really Stop” in the Benghazi Attack?
By Jennifer Sevilla Korn
Published October 25, 2012
Fox News Latino
“Spoiler alert: we got bin Laden.”
This statement from the Commander-in-Chief was part of a light moment as President Obama and Governor Romney poked fun at themselves and each other during the traditional Alfred E. Smith dinner. But, it was also a glimpse into what has become this Administration’s key talking point describing what they consider a successful national security and foreign policy. This was evident in Monday night’s presidential debate.
Of course, Americans are grateful that Osama bin Laden is no longer able to plan additional acts of terrorism against us. It is a tremendous victory for our military and our nation. But the vast majority of Americans are sophisticated enough to understand the world is complicated, dangerous and in constant flux. And they know that America’s national security policy must reflect and be responsive to this ever-changing reality.
Consider the danger of a nuclear Iran, the resurgence of al Qaeda in Africa and parts of the Middle East, threats from Russia and China, and growing extremism around the world as evidence of just a few national security challenges. The President - our head of state, Commander-in-Chief, and leader of the executive branch - must be able to address a myriad of security challenges; and he must be willing to speak truthfully to the American public. Winning one battle - in this case killing bin Laden - does not mean we have won the war on terror. The death of bin Laden is not the death of al Qaeda.
Case in point is the failure to protect our Ambassador and other Americans serving our country in Libya.
Six weeks after extremists murdered four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, the President’s stump speech continues to highlight the death of bin Laden and the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, he and his team have not told the American people what really happened in Benghazi.
The debate over whether or not the President labeled the Benghazi attack what it is - terrorism - the day after, is semantics. The fact remains that Ambassador Rice and other high-ranking officials in the Obama administration went out of their way to point out that the tragic events in Libya were in response to a now infamous YouTube video offensive to Muslims. For two weeks - two weeks - they placed blame for the attack on a “widespread” protest of the anti-Muslim video. The problem is that this rhetoric doesn’t equate with reality.
There were warnings from our own diplomats. Newly released documents written by our Ambassador detailed the deteriorating security situation and underscored just how dangerous Libya had become. There were also repeated requests for increased security on the ground - with one document stating: "What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks."
And let us not forget the events leading up to the deadly attack. The American Consulate had been previously attacked twice. The British consulate in Benghazi was closed after the British ambassador was attacked, and the Red Cross was closed due to deteriorating security.
Then came September 11, 2012 - on the 11th anniversary of that terrible attack on U.S. soil. The assault lasted seven hours, with no land troops or other military reinforcements available. Witnesses called the storming of the compound a “strong, multi-pronged and organized” effort, with perpetrators wielding various weapons, including machine guns and RPGs.
Media reports now state that the CIA chief in Libya informed Washington within 24 hours that the attack was carried out by militants. Libya’s President said that there is “no doubt” that this was terrorism.
Every day it is increasingly clear that, tragically, the deaths of four Americans in Libya were the result of a failure by our government. But who does “the buck really stop” with? The handling of the attack at best shows this Administration's incompetence in managing the basic responsibilities of protecting those on the front lines of our national security. At worse, it demonstrates a lackadaisical foreign policy approach. Those serving our country and representing America are deserving of much more.
Perhaps I am more sensitive to this outrage because I lived this reality. As a military wife, whose husband has selflessly sworn to defend America with his life, I dare not even imagine how his safety may not be as serious a consideration as it should be for his Commander-in-Chief.
I know my concern is shared by Pat Smith, whose son Sean was killed in Benghazi. My heart broke when I saw her being interviewed on television pleading with the President and his team saying, “Just tell me the truth... I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son's? I don't know if he was shot. I don't know.” She and the other families deserve to know.
The campaign speeches will continue for the next two weeks, and chances are that the Benghazi story will continue to shift. As Americans follow this story, they must remember more than just one talking point about one battle that was won - important as it may be - for our national security. They need to remember that any President must be nimble enough to ensure the safety of those serving us while serving as head of state and the leader of our country. If one applies that test to President Obama, the results may be the real spoiler alert for him on Election Day.
Jennifer S. Korn, a Marine Corps spouse, is Executive Director of the Hispanic Leadership Network (HLN). Previously, she served in President George W. Bush’s White House as Director of Hispanic and Women’s Affairs.
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Father of ex-SEAL: Those who denied request for help at consulate 'murderers of my son'
Published October 26, 2012
FoxNews.com
SEAL father: Who denied military aid during Benghazi...
When will we know the truth about Benghazi attack?
McCain: Clinton 'harming her reputation'
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."
Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.
"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."
Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to "stand up."
Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
Charles Woods said his son's action "does not surprise me."
"I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed," he said.
Woods, in interviews earlier this week, also described a series of conversations he had with administration officials at the memorial service held Sept. 14. He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack -- pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.
"Her countenance was not good and she made this statement to me ... she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted," he said on radio host Glenn Beck's online show, adding that she also apologized.
Woods said he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth."
The account shows an apparent disconnect between evidence that extremists were involved in the attack -- including a newly released State Department email on the day of the attack saying the militant Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility -- and the desire by some to focus strictly on the film as the cause.
The State Department on Friday reiterated that the administration is committed to seeking justice for those responsible.
"Since the moment they were first given the terrible news of their loss, through that very difficult day when they witnessed the return of the remains of their loved ones, and every day since, the families of those killed have been a top priority of the department," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday. "And everything is being done to bring to justice those responsible for their deaths."
Clinton and the rest of the administration made repeated reference to the video in their public comments in the days after the attack. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said on Sept 16 the attack was a "spontaneous" reaction to demonstrations over the video. The administration even funded an ad in Pakistan condemning the video.
Intelligence officials have since given a mixture picture, saying the strike was a coordinated terror attack -- but also leaving open the door to the possibility that militants reacted opportunistically to the protests in Egypt at the time over the film.
Woods also described encounters on Sept. 14 with Vice President Biden and President Obama.
He claimed that at one point, Biden came over to him and said, "in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, 'did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"
Woods said in the Beck interview: "I will ask you the question, is that the voice of someone who is truly sorry?"
In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama's hand was "like shaking hands with a dead fish."
Woods said: "He kind of just mumbled, you know, 'I'm sorry.' His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, 'I'm really sorry, you know, that you're son died,' but it was totally insincere."
Op-ed writer Ross Douthat is a rare truth teller among the NewYork Times’s writers’ stable. Columnist Paul Krugman spouts daily left-wing fact-uninformed economics.
Token conservative, David Brooks, pens trivia about the latest book he read. Maureen Dowd jokes about women’s issues. Only Douthat questions the Times’ ueber-liberal party line and tells the truth.
In his Sunday October 14 Mystery of Benghazi, Douthat dissects why “White House officials continued to stress the importance of the ‘hateful’ and ‘disgusting’ video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack” even as “it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was an al Qaeda operation” — a narrative “pushed on Sunday morning programs, on late-night talk shows and at news conferences, by everyone from Rice to Hillary Clinton to the president himself.” Per Douthat: “When Obama spoke at the United Nations shortly after the attacks, the video was referenced six times in the text; Al Qaeda was referenced only once.”
Douthat, for the first time on the pages of the venerable Times, clearly lays out the time line of what he terms the administration’s “strange denial” that the Benghazi consulate attack was a planned terrorist action.
Douthat rejects two common explanations for Obama’s “self defeating strategy,” before coming up with his own.
Romney’s charge that “this White House can’t resist the urge to appease our enemies when America comes under attack” does not hold water, reasons Douthat. After all, Obama had no trouble “wrapping himself in the mantle of the war on terror” at the Charlotte convention. Obama could have used this tragedy to be presidential and rally the American people. (Question: Why didn’t he?)
Douthat also doubts the more plausible explanation that “this White House… is loath to acknowledge the possibility that it doesn’t have Al Qaeda completely on the run.” Reasons Douthat: If al Qaeda is still with us, “why wouldn’t Americans want to keep the president who gave the Abbottabad order so he could finish the job?”
In rejecting this protect the “al Qaeda on the run” explanation, Douthat may give the President more credit than due for his analytical capabilities.
Douthat’s own explanation for Obama’s Benghazi blunder: “Obama could not afford the narrative about how a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another… In this context, it’s easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi attack was just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of Al Qaeda’s growing presence in post-intervention Libya as well.”
We may disagree with Douthat’s analysis of the Obama ‘Benghazi Blunder’, but his bottom line is clear. Obama sought to conceal the truth of the Libya tragedy for personal political advantage.
The American people will re-elect a President who tells them the truth, no matter how hard. They will not re-elect a President who distorts the truth for political advantage.
Kudos to columnist Douthat. Let’s hope he can hold on as the Times’ sole truth teller. His latest sin: Admitting that Obama is losing in his Aura of Defeat article of October 24.
October 26th, 2012, 18:48
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
Credits:
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.
Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.
Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in Benghazi from the CIA to the National Security Agency and that there’s intelligence cables that have not been released.
Wilkow asked, “If everybody knew this including the White House, who would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?”
Klein, “The President…he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction force…”
Wilkow, “Not Petraeus?”
Klein, “Well it has to come from the president.”
Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett who’s the Senior Advisor to Obama and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her role in this cover-up.
Klein said, “We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”... so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line…she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”
This latest news comes on the heels when the Paulding County Republican Examiner reported that former CIA officer, Clare Lopez was a guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening and told Beck, “They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn't do anything about it.”
October 26th, 2012, 18:50
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
BENGHAZI-GATE
Obama in cahoots with known terrorists
Diana West on Libya: 'Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the other side'
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column addressing the national scandal that investigation into the security failures and lies surrounding Benghazi-gate must also expose.
This even larger scandal concerns the fact that throughout the revolutionary cycle known as Arab Spring, the Obama administration threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with the bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy and Shariah-ruling crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. In so doing, Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.”
We are continuing this same treacherous policy in Syria, something I hope Mitt Romney (as president, I also hope) comes to understand quickly. In Libya, Obama’s Arab Spring policy – supported by U.N.-niks, Republicans and media alike – meant making common cause with al-Qaida forces and other jihadists, including Libyan veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who fought and killed Americans. It was if the whole world had gone mad.
Take the Libya Shield Brigade, an eastern Libyan militia aligned with the Libyan government. Libya Shield members met the eight U.S. Marines who arrived in Benghazi from Tripoli in the wee hours of Sept. 12, 2012. Libya Shield escorted our Marines to the secret annex – relying on GPS coordinates the Marines brought with them – where the survivors of the consulate attack had successfully taken cover. This annex did not come under mortar attack until soon after Libya Shield and the Marines arrived.
Coincidence? It was in this barrage, by the way, that ex-SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
John Rosenthal has reported at WND.com that the Libya Shield Brigade fought in the anti-Gadhafi revolution – which Uncle Sam, of course, supported – under the black flag of al-Qaida. Rosenthal further notes that in October 2011, Libya Shield’s leader, Wissam Bin Hamid, issued a statement to Arabic jihadist websites stating: “The Islamic Shariah is a red line, we will not cede one rule of it, and Islam is the only law-giver and not (merely) the foundation (of the law).”
Bin Hamid, not at all incidentally, is also described on an online jihadist forum as a veteran of jihad in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I mean by Libyan “allies” who have fought and killed Americans from the other side. Now, they’re escorting Marines to secret American annexes, and doing so as a matter of Obama administration policy.
This is a crucial piece of the Benghazi story. The U.S. wasn’t relying on Libya Shield and, as I’ve written before, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade in some ad hoc security arrangement. This is all part of continuing Arab Spring policy.
A U.S. embassy cable made public by congressional investigators makes this patently clear. While requesting more security on March 28, 2012, Eric Nordstrom, then U.S. regional security officer in Libya, notes that “rebuilding and expanding” the “local” guard force is one of his “core objectives.” This objective directly relates to what he describes as the State Department’s recommendation for “developing plans to transition our security staffing … to (a model) that incorporates more locally based and nonemergency assets.”
Naturally, these “plans” weren’t working. Hence, Nordstrom’s request for more American security. And hence the denial from State for reasons, Nordstrom told Congress this month, that came down to the fact “there was going to be too much political cost.” It is these “politics” – this Obama policy of outreach to jihadists – that must be exposed and stopped.
The final diplomatic cable to go out under the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ name is dated Sept. 11, 2012. It recounts events of the previous week in Benghazi, including a Sept. 9 meeting between an unnamed U.S. diplomat and, whaddya know, Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of Libya Shield. A second Libya Shield commander, Muhammad al-Gharabi, was also present. During a fractious-sounding meeting, the Libyans declared their support for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate then running to become Libyan prime minister and threatened to withdraw security from the U.S. in Benghazi if another candidate won in upcoming elections.
It makes for surreal reading. Here we see a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, jihadist veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and fighter for Shariah under the al-Qaida flag threatening American officials, and it’s just another bulleted point in a routine cable home to the State Department. Little wonder, of course, that two days later, Bin Hamid’s militia and others like it in eastern Libya were unable to forestall disaster. What a dastardly joke: They were all too likely involved in it.
It gets worse. As Rosenthal notes in his WND article, “The jihadist inclinations of Bin Hamid and his Libya Shield forces are not unknown to the U.S. government. Indeed, a recent study prepared by the research division of the Library of Congress links the Libya Shield Brigade to al-Qaida and even cites speculation that Bin Hamid may be the leader of the al-Qaida network in Libya.”
We must find out how we got to this perilous place and why. But first we have another question to answer: Do we really want four more years of the same?
October 26th, 2012, 18:52
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?
A mysterious Libyan ship -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.
Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.
On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.
A congressional source also cautioned against drawing premature conclusions about the consulate attack and the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey -- noting they may in fact be two separate and distinct events. But the source acknowledged the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was "unusual."
According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines.
"This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya," said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. "So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons."
The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
The ship's Libyan captain told the Times of London that "I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid" for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."
"The point is that both of these weapons systems are extremely accurate and very simple to use," Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt explained. He said the passage of weapons from Libya to Syria would escalate the conflict. "With a short amount of instruction, you've got somebody capable of taking down any, any aircraft. Anywhere in the world."
The Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) -- the group accused of moving the weapons -- disputed the claims and in published Turkish reports said it "will take legal action against this article which was written without concrete evidence. It is defamatory, includes false and unfair accusations and violates publishing ethics."
Information uncovered in a Fox News investigation raises questions about whether weapons used to arm the Libyan rebels are now surfacing in Syria.
In March 2011, the Reuters news service first reported that President Obama had authorized a "secret order ... (allowing) covert U.S. government support for rebel forces" to push the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi from office.
At a hearing on March 31, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, several lawmakers raised concerns about the finding reported by the Reuters news service and whether the Obama administration knew who constituted the rebel forces and whether Islamists were among their ranks.
"What assurances do we have that they will not pose a threat to the United States if they succeed in toppling Qaddafi?" Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked. "There are reports that some opposition figures have links to Al Qaeda and extremist groups that have fought against our forces in Iraq."
While the source of the weapons used to attack the consulate is part of an ongoing investigation, former CIA Director Porter Goss told Fox News there was no question some of the weapons that flooded Libya during the uprising are making their way to Syria -- adding that the U.S. intelligence community must be aware, given their presence in Benghazi.
"Absolutely. I think there's no question that there's a lot of networking going on. And ... of course we know it."
A month after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya "secure and recover its weapons stockpiles." Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro expressed concerns that the situation on the ground was far from under control.
Speaking to the Stimson Center in Washington D.C., on Feb. 2, Shapiro said: "This raises the question -- how many are still missing? The frank answer is we don't know and probably never will."
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
WashPost Buries Benghazi Emails Story on A9, Plastered Front Page with Puffy Piece on Obama Counterrorism Advisor
By Ken Shepherd | October 25, 2012 | 15:31
This morning the Washington Post website announced that the paper had decided to endorse President Barack Obama for reelection. That endorsement should hit the print edition tomorrow. But make no mistake, endorsing the president is not the only cover the paper is granting the president. Witness the Post's treatment of the latest, damning development in the Benghazi fiasco.
Post editors buried a news story on the Benghazi State Department emails on page A9, assigning it a rather boring headline -- "E-mails show State named militant group on night of Libya attack" -- and a staff writer, Anne Gearan, who previously wrote a piece consumed with concern about Hillary Clinton's tarnished legacy post-Benghazi. By contrast, Post editors placed on the front page a 74-paragraph profile of Obama's counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, headlined "Brennan reshaped anti-terror strategy: CIA veteran emerges at core of effort to cement process for lethal action."
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
In other words, the Post devoted a positive story about an Obama advisor's efforts to kill terrorists on the front page, but shuffled a story damaging to the Obama administration deeper within the paper. For a taste of the pro-Brennan puffery, here are some excerpts to give you a flavor (emphasis mine):
In his windowless White House office, presidential counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is compiling the rules for a war the Obama administration believes will far outlast its own time in office, whether that is just a few more months or four more years.
The “playbook,” as Brennan calls it, will lay out the administration’s evolving procedures for the targeted killings that have come to define its fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. It will cover the selection and approval of targets from the “disposition matrix,” the designation of who should pull the trigger when a killing is warranted, and the legal authorities the administration thinks sanction its actions in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.
“What we’re trying to do right now is to have a set of standards, a set of criteria, and have a decision-making process that will govern our counterterrorism actions — we’re talking about direct action, lethal action — so that irrespective of the venue where they’re taking place, we have a high confidence that they’re being done for the right reasons in the right way,” Brennan said in a lengthy interview at the end of August.
A burly 25-year CIA veteran with a stern public demeanor, Brennan is the principal architect of a policy that has transformed counterterrorism from a conventional fight centered in Afghanistan to a high-tech global effort to track down and eliminate perceived enemies one by one.
[...]
When operations are proposed in Yemen, Somalia or elsewhere, it is Brennan alone who takes the recommendations to Obama for a final sign-off.
As the war against al-Qaeda and related groups moves to new locations and new threats, Brennan and other senior officials describe the playbook as an effort to constrain the deployment of drones by future administrations as much as it provides a framework for their expanded use in what has become the United States’ permanent war.
“This needs to be sustainable,” one senior administration official said, “and we need to think of it in ways that contemplate other people sitting in all the chairs around the table.”
The message of the story is clear: Brennan is one tough hombre doing the yeoman work to help President Obama and future administrations kill terrorists and keep Americans safe.
It isn't until the page on which the story ultimately concludes, A9, that the reader might stumble across the story on the State Department emails. But have no fear, Obama backers, Anne Gearan is on the job, and she was determined to keep the damage minimal.
Gearan failed to directly quote any critics of the Obama/Clinton State Department in her 24 paragraph story, although she was certain to quote Secretary of State Clinton twice, once in the middle of the story and once again to close out the story (emphasis mine):
About a half-hour after militants overran the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month, the State Department notified officials at the White House and elsewhere that the compound was “under attack” by about 20 armed assailants, e-mails obtained by The Washington Post on Wednesday show.
Two hours later, the State Department reported that the Libyan militia group Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and had also called for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
[...]
“Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence” of terrorist involvement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said when asked about the e-mails Wednesday. “I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”
[...]
Stevens apparently died of smoke inhalation inside the villa. Information officer Sean Smith also died in the villa. Two security employees died when a second U.S. government compound was attacked a short distance away.
Clinton suggested Wednesday that the e-mails do not tell the whole story. An independent investigation “is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one document there,” she said.
About the Author
Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Ken Shepherd on Twitter.
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Obama denies misleading on Benghazi, vows to capture plotters
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 14 mins ago
President Barack Obama speaks during a campaign rally in Richmond, Virginia. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, telling radio host Michael Smerconish "I've always been straight with the American people." Speaking to Smerconish during a 15-minute Oval Office interview, Obama also declared he was "absolutely" prepared to kill those behind the assault but would prefer to capture them and "bring them to justice."
Asked whether the Administration's shifting explanation for the September 11th strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up."
"And what is true -- this is something that the American people can take to the bank -- is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people."
Smerconish asked Obama, when and if the location of those behind the attack is known, "will you take that person out without regard for the election timetable?"
"Absolutely," Obama replied. "But I think our goal would be to bring them to justice."
The embattled incumbent has taken fire over the attack, which raised questions about his handling of the "Arab Spring" countries across the broader Middle East. State Department officials have acknowledged turning down requests for more security in Libya. And Republicans have called into question the president's truthfulness after the administration spent days pinning blame for the assault on Muslim anger at an Internet film that ridicules Islam. Yahoo News reported in late September that American officials had concluded on "Day One" that terrorists were behind the siege. But The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Obama's "presidential daily brief" from the CIA tied the assault to on a spontaneous protest linked to the video — despite intelligence contradicting that scenario.
Asked whether he knew that Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied: "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that." (The State Department handles those requests).
"But we're going to find out exactly what happens," he said. "Ultimately, though, any time there is a death of an American overseas, I want I want to find out what happened because my most important job as president is keeping the American people safe."
"And we will get to the bottom of what happened and we're going to make sure most importantly that those who carried it out, that they are captured," Obama said.
Obama said he takes "full responsibility" for the tragedy, in which heavily armed extremists stormed a U.S. compound in the eastern Libyan city in an attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The authors of the attack have not been publicly or conclusively identified.
"My biggest priority right now is bringing those folks to justice. And I think the American people have seen that's a commitment I always keep," the president said in an apparent reference to the bin Laden raid.
Obama harshly criticized Romney for his early response to the crisis. The former Massachusetts governor, in his first statement, implied that the Administration had sided with the attackers. Smerconish asked whether Romney's criticisms of the changing explanation for the attack were "disingenuous" given that he himself started getting intelligence briefings (though they only began roughly one week later on September 17).
"He certainly understood that when our diplomats are still under fire — not just in Benghazi but around the world, in Cairo, in Pakistan, etc — that if you aspire to be commander in chief you don't release a political press release.," Obama said. "You don't have a political press conference that tries to take advantage of that opportunity that is so reckless that even members of your own party criticize you for it."
The president said a top priority was making sure that Americans are kept informed on matters of national security "within the constraints of classified information that would endanger folks in the field, so that people can have confidence that their president and everybody involved in national security is working for them.
Asked whether Romney had turned down his sharp criticisms on Libya because of what he learned in intelligence briefings, Obama said he doubted his rival was "constrained by facts." "I just don't think that that was getting a lot of political traction for them," he said.
Obama was not asked about, and did not bring up, a stunning report by Fox News Channel that said American officials repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. A spokesman for the president's National Security Council did not acknowledge a request for comment on that report. But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, complained Thursday about "Monday morning quarterbacking" and said that there was not a clear enough picture of events on the ground to order troops to Benghazi.
October 26th, 2012, 19:11
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
So when Vice President Joe Biden said to Charles Woods, the father of the former navy seal Tyrone Woods who was killed in Benghazi, in an extremely loud and boisterous voice:
Quote:
‘Did your sons always have balls the size of cueballs?’
He was actually referring to the fact his son disregarded the direct order to stand down and not rescue U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens team who were screaming for help while being attacked by Al-Qaeda.
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz.
It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.
An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.
There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.
The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.
What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.
Update (Bryan): Here is an AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise. The crackling sound you hear is its extreme rate of fire.
October 26th, 2012, 19:24
Malsua
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Holy shit, Obama has royally screwed the pooch here.
October 26th, 2012, 19:40
Ryan Ruck
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
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?
by Ulsterman on October 26, 2012 with 13 Comments in News
With mounting questions surrounding the Benghazi Massacre, and Barack Obama’s consistent slide in the national polls, the administration has not held a press briefing at the White House since October 10th – this from the most “transparent” administration in America’s history…
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has apparently been pulled from the podium of the White House Briefing Room, as President Obama’s political advisers seek to control their messaging as much as possible and avoid unforced errors.
Carney, the public face of the “openness” White House, has not briefed from the podium since October 10. It’s the only time he has appeared there this month.
Obama’s travel does not explain Carney’s failure to brief. The press secretary generally submits to questioning before the cameras when the president is at the White House, and Obama has spent three days there in addition to October 10 – October 12, October 19, and today, when Carney is again not scheduled to brief.
Carney continues to participate in off-camera “gaggles,” briefing reporters along with Obama campaign press secretary Jen Psaki during trips aboard Air Force One. But such briefings tend to be much shorter and less intense than the televised White House briefings, and of course cannot be scrutinized directly by the public.
In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he’s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong.
After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”
President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, 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 that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”
Clark pressed again.
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.
“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “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. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
Earlier today, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported that CIA agents in the second U.S. compound in Benghazi were denied requests for help.
In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.
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.”
-Jake Tapper
October 27th, 2012, 10:10
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
This is an amazing phone call from a retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years who knows the inside baseball of what goes on in the White House. He told Rush that protocol dictates that as soon as the situation room got the email about the Benghazi attack, someone marched up to the president and informed him of the attack. He says it’s a bald faced lie if they say otherwise.
He also says that it was the president who gave the order at his 5pm meeting that day to not respond to the Libya attack in progress.
He explains it all below and I’m calling this is a MUST WATCH:
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 Spectre 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.
So there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC. Yet, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this,
“The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over.”
How much more information did they need?
* * * * *
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE.
It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth.
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
A former Department of Defense official said Friday that if President Barack Obama really gave an order to secure U.S. personnel when the consulate in Libya came under assault, there will a paper trail to prove it.
Francis “Bing” West, who served as an assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that the president’s explanation about his actions when the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked should be easily verifiable.
“President Obama today said that he gave an order to everyone while the attack was going on to do everything they could to secure the personnel,” West said. “Now that’s really big because that means that those who were turning down [former Navy SEAL] Ty Woods when he was asking for the help were going against the orders of the president of the United States.”
Woods was one of four Americans killed in the Libya assault. Obama on Friday wouldn’t answer directly whether pleas for help on the ground were denied during the attack, telling KUSA-TV, “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.”
“A chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn’t take an order from the president when he says ‘do everything’ and not put that in writing and send it out to the chain of command,” West said. “If that actually happened the way President Obama today said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, ‘well can we see the order?’ because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.”
“But if there is no order then people have to ask some very basic questions, ‘what the heck happened?’” he said.
October 27th, 2012, 16:34
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
linton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.
The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.
Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.
Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in Benghazi from the CIA to the National Security Agency and that there’s intelligence cables that have not been released.
Wilkow asked, “If everybody knew this including the White House, who would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?”
Klein, “The President…he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction force…”
Wilkow, “Not Petraeus?”
Klein, “Well it has to come from the president.”
Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett who’s the Senior Advisor to Obama and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her role in this cover-up.
Klein said, “We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”... so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line…she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”
This latest news comes on the heels when the Paulding County Republican Examiner reported that former CIA officer, Clare Lopez was a guest on the Glenn Beck TV on Monday evening and told Beck, “They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn't do anything about it.”
October 27th, 2012, 16:37
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
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.
October 27th, 2012, 16:46
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
I just listened to the guy (Doug) talking to Rush.
The man is either former WHCA, Special Forces or was a pretty "high up" officer himself. I am aware of almost all of what he said - in a different day and different time things were done a little differently than he mentioned - BUT, not MUCH different. (Names and call signs, and such were different some years ago).
Flash traffic is over SIPRnet and the "emails" mentioned are all unclass. Obama KNEW this, as did Clinton and others.
In the old days we (WHCA) would have handled that traffic to POTUS (PRESUS) and would have called a "Conference Call" and pulled in POTUS, SecDef, and others.