The cowardly Obama administration left them to die
“And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.” 2 Samuel 11:15
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. http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/...a-benghazi.jpgAt 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.
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 quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/...s-benghazi.jpgThey watched the entire event unfold in real-time via drone camera, and they just watched…and did nothing.
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground 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. source – Fox News
October 27th, 2012, 21:58
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
KUSA - President Barack Obama would not directly address questions from 9NEWS on whether Americans under attack in Libya were denied requests for assistance during the September 11th terror attack.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday that the military did not send immediate help to the consulate in Benghazi because commanders lacked enough information about the ongoing attack to put troops in harm's way.
President Obama discussed the situation in Libya during a satellite interview Friday afternoon with 9NEWS reporter Kyle Clark, who also asked if it's fair for Americans to be told to wait until after the election to learn what truly happened in Libya.
"The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened," President Obama said. "Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do."
President Obama was directly asked twice whether pleas for help on the ground in Libya were denied during the attack. Both times, he repeated his standard call for a thorough investigation.
The President was also asked about the loss of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in the failure of Abound Solar, a Fort Collins company connected to one of the President's billionaire fundraisers.
"These loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country," President Obama said. "Some of them have failed but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction."
"These are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics," President Obama said.
President Obama was asked, in light of his calls for increased civility in politics, why he recently called Governor Mitt Romney a "bullsh-----" in an interview appearing in Rolling Stone magazine.
"This was a conversation after an interview in a casual conversation with a reporter," President Obama said. "A major issue in any election is can you count on the person that you're putting into the Oval Office?"
KYLE CLARK: Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi Libya denied requests for help during that attack? And is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and we'll all find out after the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, 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. But 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.
KYLE CLARK: Were they denied requests for help during the attack?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. 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.
KYLE CLARK: In a national address, you touted the stimulus money going to Abound Solar - a Colorado company connected to one of your billionaire fundraisers. Now, as you may know, Abound Solar is out of business and under criminal investigation. The jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars. How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado's Solyndra - a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Laughs) Well, Kyle, I think that if you look at our record that these loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country and only about four percent of these loans were going to some very cutting-edge industries that are going to allow us to figure out how to produce energy in a clean, renewable way in the future and create jobs in Colorado and all around the country. And some of them have failed but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction. And that's good for Colorado and good for the country. And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.
KYLE CLARK: Mr. President, you've called for more civility in our nation's political conversation - and much has obviously been made about the tone of this race. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, you called Governor Romney a "bullshitter." What did you mean and why did you choose that word?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, this was a conversation after an interview, a casual conversation with a reporter. The basic point that I've been talking about throughout this campaign, is people know what I mean and they know that I mean what I say and what I care about, who I'm fighting for and you know a major issue in any election is can you count on the person you're putting into the Oval Office fighting for you having a clear set of convictions that they believe in.
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 -- only he -- could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something."
28 Oct 2012, 1:41 AM PDT
October 29th, 2012, 12:25
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at AFRICOM after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18. Tiger Droppings reported:
The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.
Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.
Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.
He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.
In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.
“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”
Hat Tip Tom
More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.
Also check out the comments at Freeper on this story.
In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.
In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette “pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.”
The statement said Gaoutte would return to the carrier’s home port of Bremerton, Washington.
A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.
The Stennis group arrived in the Fifth Fleet’s area of operations on Oct. 17 to replace the USS Enterprise, which was on the final deployment of its 50 years of service. The allegations are recent and were made within the last couple of weeks.
The Stennis returned to Bremerton in March from a seven-month deployment to the Middle East. In July the Pentagon ordered the carrier to deploy in August — four months ahead of schedule — so a two-carrier presence could be maintained in the Middle East after the Enterprise finished its deployment. The other carrier strike group currently operating in the Fifth Fleet is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Gaouette’s Chief of Staff, Capt. William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker arrives to take command “until the matter is resolved.”
October 29th, 2012, 12:54
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Well..... you know, he didn't follow orders and all that.
grrrr
October 29th, 2012, 13:49
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) - It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
The ambiguity has helped fuel the election-time bickering in the United States ever since.
The Obama administration has sent out muddled messages whether it was a planned attack or a mob protest that got out of control. A day after the attack, President Barack Obama referred to "acts of terror." He told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview aired the following Sunday that he believed those involved "were looking to target Americans from the start."
Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.
Republicans, embroiled in a heated presidential campaign, seized on the confusion. They have accused the Obama administration of being hesitant to call it a "terrorist attack" linked to al-Qaida because that would weaken one of Obama's key campaign selling points - that under his watch, al-Qaida had been weakened and Osama bin Laden had been killed..
As that debate roiled, the actual events - and their meaning - became somewhat skewed in the mouths of politicians. One assumption often made in the back-and-forth is that if the attack was planned, then it must have been linked to al-Qaida.
Ansar al-Shariah, the group whose members are suspected in the attack, is made up of militants with an al-Qaida-like ideology, but it is not clear whether it has any true ties to the terror organization. Made up mainly of veterans of last year's civil war, it is one of the many powerful, heavily armed militias that operate freely in Libya and in Benghazi, while government control remains weak. Some Benghazi officials have praised Ansar al-Shariah for helping keep order in the city, even as they note its jihadi ideology.
With its arsenal of weapons, the group is capable of carrying out such an attack on the consulate on its own and even on relatively short notice. Islamist militias in Benghazi had in previous months threatened to attack the compound.
U.S. officials say they are still investigating whether there is an al-Qaida connection. They say members of Ansar al-Shariah called members of al-Qaida's branch in North Africa outside of Libya and boasted of the attack. The administration has even said it is prepared to carry out drone strikes against the branch, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, if a link is proven. But the officials also acknowledge the calls alone do not yet prove AQIM was involved.
A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" - leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.
So far, the attackers' motives can only be speculated at.
Yasser el-Sirri, a former Egyptian militant who runs the Islamic Observation Center in London closely tracking jihadi groups, said the attack "had nothing to do with the film but it was a coincidence that served the (militants') purpose."
He believes the ambassador was the target and the attackers may have been inspired by an al-Qaida call to avenge the death of a top Libyan jihadist on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001. But he offered no firm evidence that was the motive.
The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadowed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens' death was confirmed.
On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an "armed attack" and detailed its organized nature.
The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.
The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.
Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.
"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."
The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.
The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staffer, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.
The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacking.
Because of the checkpoints, "it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in," he said.
The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department's account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.
They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound's building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans.
October 29th, 2012, 13:51
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Fox: FBI, NCTC showed al-Qaeda connection to Benghazi attack 2 days afterward
posted at 9:21 am on October 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
John McCain asked yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, “What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?” Fox News has more on the first two questions this morning. According to their sources, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center briefed lawmakers two days after the attack on al-Qaeda’s connections to the Benghazi attack, one day before the CIA director showed up on Capitol Hill to tell a completely different story:
Two days after the Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.
The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration. …
FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.
Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.
Petraeus has been the quiet man in all of this, and this could be the reason why. According to Fox’s report, Petraeus left very little room for equivocation in his briefing. According to their sources, Petraeus dismissed the significance of the use of a mortar position in the attack and insisted that the event started as a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control when radicals took advantage of the confusion.
But there’s another problem in this report for the White House. Since having to back away from Susan Rice’s attempt to sell the same story to the media five days after the attack on five different Sunday talk shows, they have insisted that the Obama administration shared the assessments it received from the intel community as they received them. Did anyone ever share the FBI and NCTC assessments in the 13th that al-Qaeda was linked to the attack? Not to my recollection.
October 29th, 2012, 13:54
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Father of Slain State Dept. Official: 'I Want Answers'
The father of slain State Department official Sean Smith says, "I want answers. ... I want to know how he died. I want people brought to justice who did this to him."
Sean Smith was one of the four Americans killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Smith was information management officer at the State Department.
Smith's father, Ray Smith, made the comments to the Tampa Tribune.
Ray Smith, who was working to repair his broken relationship with his son, found out about Sean Smith's death on TV. The Tribune reports:
Smith was furious to learn about his son's death on TV, and he wanted answers about what had happened. So he reached out to his congressman, Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young.
"He blew up when he saw that," Young said. "I went to [Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton to see if she could talk to him about his son. She and his son were friends."
Clinton had Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy call Smith, Young said.
"I got a call from Patrick Kennedy about three weeks ago," said Smith. "He sent me a form letter and a flag. That was it. 'I am so sorry about your son.' We didn't talk too long, about two or three minutes."
The call did little to soothe the grieving father.
October 29th, 2012, 13:56
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Was talking to some military friends over the weekend. All former, save one now. Several who worked with me in DC years ago are like me "in the know" about certain things, specifically communications and how things are done.
They are all LIVID about this and think this was a deliberate act by a certain individual to allow what happened to happen.
I'm trying to be careful on how I say this... but they all consider this an act of murder.
October 29th, 2012, 13:58
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Why is ABC News ignoring emails related Obama's Libya scandal?
Wednesday, ABC "World News" gave a dismissive 20 seconds of lip service to a blockbuster report that revealed State Department emails showing that the White House knew on September 11 that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist attack. The emails documented that within two hours of the attack, the State Department had told the Obama administration that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for this terrorist attack.
This is news because White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14: “We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack.” The emails show they did, in fact, have information suggesting a planned terrorist attack, yet President Obama and his spokesmen for days lied to the American people, falsely claiming it was a “spontaneous” attack spurred by a “video.”
The email story broke Tuesday night on the "CBS Evening News." Since then, the Media Research Center reviewed all of ABC News' programs, and the network has almost completely refused to report this new evidence, giving it a scant 25 seconds on “Good Morning America” and 20 seconds on “World News” Wednesday night. “Good Morning America” skipped the story entirely on Thursday morning, but did commit nearly 2 minutes to the capture of a monkey in Florida. “World News” did not mention the emails on Thursday night.
Yes, ABC News has covered the attacks in Benghazi but it is giving scant attention to the latest development concerning the release of emails.
ABC is aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s cover-up of their deceitful response to the Benghazi terrorist attack. There is no bigger story than Obama’s Benghazi lie, and ABC, a so-called "news network," has absolutely no excuse for hiding the truth from the American people.
The questions are simple: what did President Obama know? And when did he know it? These emails prove that either Obama knew it was a terrorist attack and lied about it for weeks, or his administration is historically incompetent. Either way, it’s major news and demands more than mere seconds of total coverage from one of the three major broadcast networks.
ABC has been shielding Obama from the Benghazi fallout for weeks in order to help him win re-election, but the American people see right through it. Their corruption is as obvious as it is unforgivable.
Brent Bozell is founder and president of the Media Research Center.
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn't Respond
+ Comment now
A burnt building is seen inside the US Embassy...
A burnt building is seen inside the US Embassy compound on September 12, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, following an overnight attack on the building. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives.
Why?
Pants On Fire: Obama Scrambles For Cover As Benghazi Lie Explodes Larry Bell Larry Bell Contributor
More Pants On Fire Over Benghazi: Asinine Claims Nakedly Exposed Larry Bell Larry Bell Contributor
Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, And The Press Complied Bill Flax Bill Flax Contributor
Obama on Benghazi: Believe Me or Your Lying Eyes (Or At Least Wait Until After the Election) Paul Roderick Gregory Paul Roderick Gregory Contributor
The attack began on September 11, at about 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. in Washington). Ambassador Chris Stevens and his small staff inside our consulate immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. Thirty minutes later, after the main consulate building was on fire and Ambassador Stevens was missing, Tripoli (400 miles away) dispatched an aircraft carrying 22 men. Much more formidable response resources including Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft and attack fighters were available 480 miles away at the U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, but were never dispatched. An F18 fighter jet blazing in with afterburner thundering to unnerve attackers and take out mortar locations could have reached Benghazi in an hour. Commandos could have arrived there within three hours. This was four hours into the seven- hour assault after President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta initially met at 5:00 p.m.
In the meantime, the terrorists forced the Americans to abandon the consulate with the ambassador still missing. They fell back to an annex building about a mile away. Looters ransacking the empty consulate discovered Ambassador Stevens lying unconscious from smoke inhalation on the floor and rushed him to a hospital where doctors were unsuccessful in saving his life. Not knowing who he was, they took a cell phone from his pocket and called numbers. By about 2:00 a.m. Libyan time, the American embassy received word he was dead.
At about that same time (four hours into the attack), the 22 men arriving at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli drove into the annex to assist the Americans trapped there. Around 4:00 a.m. enemy mortar rounds killed two defenders on the annex roof. The attack ended at dawn when Libyan militia finally arrived to aid our Americans.
CBS News has reported that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known by Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced. The messages were also independently obtained by ABC News. Although names of individual recipients were redacted, the source who requested anonymity said it appears they were sent to the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts of top security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The first alert with a subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” which arrived from Tripoli just 25 minutes after the attack began describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people firing shots, with explosions heard as well. It reported that Ambassador Stevens and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel were sequestered in the compound safe haven with the 17th of February militia providing security support. Another email arriving about one-half hour later reported that shooting had stopped and that the response team was attempting to locate COM personnel.
A third email received two hours after the attack commenced updated officials that Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist group, claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had also threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy. The Facebook claim was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not entirely convincingly, saying: “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their region, to grant victory to the prophet. The response has to be firm.”
The Obama administration has an immediate obligation to inform the public why security responses were so tragically lacking both before and during the course of this terrible and fatal assault. Why was Ambassador Stevens, after he recognized and communicated the existence of a special 9/11 security threat, repeatedly denied protection he requested? It is clear that on August 2nd the consulate asked for an additional 11 security personnel to be added to the rotation of 24. Though the 11 were to replace temporary security staff, Stevens had made it clear that violence and terrorism were a threat amid a volatile political landscape. He wrote: “Due to the level of threat in regards to crime, political violence and terrorism, post feels this is an appropriate number of LES [locally employed staff] security personnel needed to further embassy diplomatic outreach missions. Violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.” He further emphasized that “Host national security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment.”
Andrew Wood, former head of a U.S. military team in Libya, has reported: “…the security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there”. He added that the head of U.S. security in the region had pushed for more people “…but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.” Eric Nordstrom, the former security chief for U.S. diplomats in Libya, has observed that he had been fighting a losing battle over numbers in which “ …we couldn’t even keep what we had.” He finally concluded after his contact with state department bosses that “…we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident”.
And why, in the heat of battle with real-time communications regarding what was going on, didn’t our top leaders send responsive help that was so urgently needed? Past presidents have taken rapid actions to protect our people. For example, in 1984, President Reagan ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella within a 90 minute window while they were still airborne. The Obama national security team had several hours to move forces from that same air base to Benghazi. We deserve an explanation.
October 29th, 2012, 14:52
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.
A mosaic of lie
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
Now that the Benghazi debacle has become more fully exposed, it is clear that one of Ambassador Stevens’ major tasks was to collect weapons supplied by the United States and its allies to the Libyan mujahideen, and send them to the Syrian mujahideen, possibly with the collusion of the Turkish government.
The following news report from Russian TV discusses the provenance of these weapons, which are being amassed in Syria by Islamic fundamentalists — including Al Qaeda affiliates — to bring down the Assad regime and install a Salafist government.
Many thanks to Russkiy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Transcript:
00:01 The Russian General Command has stated today that Syrian opposition is using weapons
00:05 of foreign origin, including American. According to the head of the Command Nicolay Makarov
00:10 the opponents of the Assad regime are in possession of transportable rocket launchers,
00:15 including American Stinger missiles. The administration of Barack Obama denies the accusation that it arms the rebels.
00:20 Nevertheless, the Russian military wants to determine how the rebels came into possession of such powerful arsenal,
00:25 as according to the decision of OSCE, the sale and supply of rocket launching devices is strictly controlled.
00:30 Member States that support the treaty including USA have the responsibility to deal with only legitimate state governments.
The terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate and CIA annex on 9/11 were continually blamed on a YouTube video by the Obama Administration. Now as the facts emerge the truth is horrendous and beyond belief. I sat down with a former CIA operative of 20 years, Clare Lopez, for a candid interview of why.
First, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was blamed on the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims”. According to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, it caused a demonstration out in front of the U.S. Consulate that “began spontaneously” and “then spun out of control”,
“The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.”
“But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.”
We all know how it went, everyone from the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to the Press Secretary Jay Carney, to the Director of National Security James Clapper and President Obama himself all were on the YouTube video bandwagon until the wheels fell off.
But as time has gone on, new bits and pieces have emerged. The information on the attack makes the deaths of the four Americans that much more senseless. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs working under the State Department, were killed alongside information management officer Sean Smith and U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
Emails from Benghazi have surfaced showing that Obama, the FBI, CIA, the State Department, the military, as well as other intelligence offices within the government knew within two hours, that the attack on the Benghazi consulate had been carried out by terrorists.
A live feed of audio and video were being watched at the White House and now we find out from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that the request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate as well as the attack hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA command.
Two times the CIA operatives were told to “stand down” when they requested to go to the aid of the Ambassador and his team.
It has also come out that the 2 former SEALs who were murdered had gone against orders and rescued those who remained at the consulate along with the body of Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack.
Given what can only be called a “cover-up” by the Obama Administration I sat down with one person I know and trust when it comes to matters of the CIA, Clare Lopez, Vice President of the Intelligence Summit.
Clare M. Lopez’s bio is by itself a who’s who of counter-intelligence. She is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, homeland security, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments, acquiring extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation issues with a career regional focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. She has served in or visited over two dozen nations worldwide, speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian, and currently is studying Farsi.
Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre- www.cicentre.com ). Formerly, she was Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington, DC think tank, from 2005-2006. She has served as a Senior Scientific Researcher at the Battelle Memorial Institute; a Senior Intelligence Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, and Program Manager at HawkEye Systems, LLC.; and previously produced Technical Threat Assessments for U.S. Embassies at the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, where she worked as a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Chugach Systems Integration.
Gadi Adelman: Clare, thank you so much for this interview. Let me jump right in to this. You and I pretty much knew, and I say you and I, I mean along with many other people in the counter-terror field, we knew right from the beginning that something wasn’t right and Amb. Susan Rice was out there on 5 TV shows saying that this was a spontaneous riot that erupted from a demonstration.
At what point did you realize that something’s not Kosher here?
Clare Lopez: You mean as far as the Administrations characterization of the attack?
GA: Yes, I uploaded a video less than 24 hours after the attack on YouTube, thank God YouTube has dates, I uploaded a video saying that Al-Qaeda was behind this.
CL: Yes, I wrote an article that night as a matter of fact, which ran the very next day on September the 12th on RadicalIslam.org. I was up late the night of 9/11 writing that article, so it was obvious to me too.
GA: I have heard from 3 people and tell me if you are aware of this as well, that The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our military monitored the battle in real time starting with the first phone calls directly from Benghazi.
CL: Yes.
GA: When the CIA annex requested permission to go to the aid of the consulate they were told two times to “stand down”.
CL: Correct.
GA: Two SEALs went in against orders…
CL: Former SEALs, former SEALs that were on contract to the CIA.
GA: Correct, former SEALs, they went anyway, against orders and died about 4 hours later.
CL: They died at the annex building after they saved everyone that was still alive at the first compound; they went back with all of them to the annex building, it was there that the attack continued; it never stopped. They were fired upon during the entire ride running the gauntlet through the streets back to the annex and the attack then continued at the annex and that’s where they were eventually killed.
GA: Right, so they arrived back at the annex at about midnight which would have been about three hours after the initial attack began.
CL: Yes.
GA: Okay, that’s important because of some other things that have come out. At that point they again called for military support and help and a third time were denied.
CL: Yeah.
GA: Regardless that they were taking fire at the CIA safe house or annex, that request was denied. There were no communication problems at the annex according to those that were present on the ground.
CL: That’s right.
GA: The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters and in fact at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun while mortars were being fired on them and the CIA compound.
CL: Yes, Woods was up there. Tyrone Woods, he was the one on the roof.
GA: Now Tyrone Woods father has come out and is saying that his son had taken a position with a laser to guide in what would have been planes, drones or missile support. So he was there honed in on a target waiting for back up that never arrived?
CL: Yeah.
GA: The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than 4 hours and now here’s the point, the Sigonella Naval Air base in Italy is only 480 miles away…
CL: Yeah, they could have gotten there in time.
GA: Okay, so by f-18 it’s under an hour but even with a C-130 carrying commandos it’s 2 hours away.
CL: I’d say even less maybe, but yeah. I was thinking a Spectre AC-130 gunship.
GA: Yes, the AC-130 gunship that has the Gatling gun in the side, it’s like a tornado…
CL: Yeah, it’s unbelievably lethal, devastating power and accuracy, I mean pinpoint accuracy, the technology is amazing.
GA: I read yesterday that two Tier One Special Operations groups were at Sigonella including Delta Force which happened to be training in Europe.
CL: Yes, I read that too.
GA: More information has come out that no less than two drones were overhead during the attack and one of those drones was actually ordered in from Tripoli and sending back images in real time.
CL: Yes, my understanding is that the one was replaced by the other, maybe it ran out of fuel and the second one came in and took its place.
GA: Okay, so this battle was sent on video directly to the ‘Situation Room’ at the White House, would that not be a proper assumption?
CL: Yes, yes it was.
GA: Just the other day, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said,
There was no “real-time information” to be able to act on, “and you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on. We felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation”.
Isn’t that what the military does?
CL: That’s what their supposed to do. And that’s one of the things that the military does, everywhere, everywhere around the world, whether they be land based or on a ship, whatever it may be, they practice over and over again repeatedly the rescue of civilians and the rescue of embassy personnel in each area wherever it is that they’re posted. They have drills, they have plans, they have practice situations, and they have role players that play the part of attackers or assault teams, the bad guys basically. And they practice this over and over and over again.
GA: And that makes me wonder and this is conjecture on my part, but knowing what I do about the SEAL teams, how many of those guys were on submarines or ships right off the coast of Libya?
CL: They were there. I mean in different places, there were loads of assets and every one of them had practiced just exactly this scenario repeatedly. I don’t mean to say Benghazi, but I mean a rescue situation where an American mission is under attack.
GA: Now it turns out that around 5 pm eastern time, which would have been only about an hour and a half in to the attack, that President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the White House for over an hour…
CL: Yes, this is all in the press, right.
GA: So would you go so far as to say that it would be pretty clear that Obama watched in real time and did nothing while 4 Americans were murdered?
CL: Yeah, that’s very clear, yes.
GA: Then, at some point later President Obama went to bed. Whether it was before or after everyone had died we’ll probably never know, but he had that super important fund raising trip in Las Vegas the next day and here’s what gets me. He gets up the next day and he skips, yet again, his National security briefing.
CL: Yes, that’s right.
GA: Here’s some questions for you, from your 20 years with the CIA, why do you think that Hillary Clinton has been so absent since all this has started to come out?
CL: I don’t know, I really don’t know, she was there early on putting out the false narrative story about the video and obviously she was the one that gave the orders to Amb. Susan Rice to go on the Sunday talk shows and give the same story. I don’t know. I don’t even know what to say.
GA: The silence on her part has been deafening. I heard that she has proof that would clear her of all this and her husband, former President Clinton wants her to come forward and she refuses.
CL: I don’t lend much credence to that at all, because, number one, throughout the months of 2012 requests were made repeatedly for additional security for Benghazi, the site security team that had been there up until August was withdrawn against everybody’s wishes, including the team itself which would have stayed, and the other thing is, that within the Department of State there is the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, sometimes called just DS – Diplomatic Security or DSS- Diplomatic Security Service and these are her people, she can order them anywhere in the world whenever she wants to. They are specifically security people, many of them former military, to go to any American diplomatic post in the world as she so chooses. That’s her propagative as Secretary of State.
GA: Would she need to clear that with Obama or would she have just done that?
CL: No, these are her people, her assets if you will, this is her department, her chain of command, all she had to do was say “DSS, send some more people to Benghazi” and they would have been gone. It would be different if she wanted to assign a Marine Security Guard Detachment because that has to go in coordination through DOD (Department of Defense), so those things you can understand have to have different approvals, but her own people, her own department, her own security service which exists for the purpose of defending American missions abroad, she had total authority of those people. She could have sent them anytime and she didn’t have to ask anyone to do it.
GA: Lt. Colonel Andy Wood was the head of one of those fast security teams…
CL: Yes, he testified before Congress…
GA: He requested as the leader of that group to stay in Benghazi…
CL: Yes, they were there from February to August. That was the period of time that they were assigned, that was the extent of their mission, it’s not that they were pulled out early, that was the end of it as it was planned. But at that point everybody said security demands more support and his team wanted to stay, Chris Stevens wanted them to stay in Benghazi, everyone wanted them to stay. But Secretary of State Clinton pulled them out.
GA: So that would have been Clinton’s call there?
CL: Yeah.
GA: Is there any chance that Obama told her “pull them out” if she had gone and discussed it with him or she would have just made that decision on her own?
CL: Yes, it could have come from the White House, but we don’t know.
GA: Why do you think that media, for the most part, is ignoring something this huge?
CL: It’s a good question isn’t it? That’s a really good question. Political? I have no idea. It boggles the mind, I don’t know.
GA: Do you believe that this was a cover up from the very beginning?
CL: Oh yes, the gun running of course, that was the thing.
GA: That was my next question; do you believe that this administration is smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda?
CL: Well, not… I mean… The short answer is yes. They were working with the very same Al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stock pile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.
GA: Some of those weapons have already shown up in the Sinai on the southern border of Israel.
CL: Yes, they’ve gone to the Sinai and they’ve also gone to Mali and to other places in western Africa and they’ve also gone to Syria. That was the operation, that’s what they were doing.
GA: If the truth of all this ever does come out, what do you think should happen to all those involved? And when I say involved that includes President Obama.
CL: A complete investigation. Congressional hearings and an investigation.
GA: With what we know, as far as sitting there and watching four Americans, including an ambassador die, does that not fall under the grounds of treason?
CL: Well, that’s what an investigation would be needed to look at. There are a number of Congressmen now who are talking about calling for hearings.
GA: Clare I really appreciate you taking the time for this.
CL: Thank you for covering this Gadi, very good.
I must remind everyone of the opening statement given by President Obama in the last debate that was moderated by Bob Schieffer. The President stated,
“Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe, and that's what we've done over the last four years”.
Somehow I doubt that the families of Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods or Sean Smith believes that.
October 30th, 2012, 05:18
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
A longtime Military Insider gives a brief and searing response regarding whether or not U.S.military could have successfully been deployed in time to save Americans under attack by terrorists on September 11th at the American consulate in Benghazi.
MILITARY INSIDER:How soon could we have gotten to Benghazi? All that was needed to send those -deleted-scattering was one single F-18. Range of app. 2k. TS of over 1000mph. Do the math. We had that capability less than 500 miles away. NASSIG would have had full armed deployment inside of 20. From time of initial report to arming, to takeoff. I’ve seen it done in less. ETA to consulate in less than hour. Would have ripped a hole in the sky to get there. This is exactly what we are trained for. Just one flyer would have lit those -deleted-up inside of 10. Coordinates known. That’s all our guys need. Would have been precision termination. Clean. In/out.
Instead, left on own to die out there.
Not the first time.
WHC coordinating with State, others to TS classify everything.
FYI, Catherine Herridge is the reporter who has been busting this whole story wide-open from the beginning. So far, she has the best inside sources actually willing to talk. She’s the one who first reported that the admin 3 times denied a rescue team for the ambassador…
Excerpted from Catherine Herridge’s report today in Fox News: Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.
The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.
The Sept. 13 assessment was based on intercepts that included individuals, believed to have participated in the attack, who were celebratory — as well as a claim of responsibility.
FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.
Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.
The FBI and NCTC did not immediately respond to a request from Fox News for comment.
Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.
On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs.
Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.
Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.
Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats.As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.
Intelligence officials have since given a mixed picture of what happened that day, acknowledging that an investigation is under way. The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month acknowledged the strike was a coordinated terror attack, but officials have subsequently said the strike could have been opportunistic — taking their cue from protests over the film in Egypt.
Still, some point to the use of mortars and several other strands of evidence to claim the attack involved some premeditation.
RUSH: Okay, coming up in the next hour, ladies and gentlemen, some of the highlights from a Saturday night show on Fox. Jeanine Pirro had the father of Tyrone Woods on. There's something that has come up about Benghazi, about Tyrone Woods that needs to be pointed out with a question asked about it, and it's this: The consulate was being shelled by mortar fire. Now, Tyrone Woods, Navy SEAL, violated three orders not to go.
And it's not correct to say, folks, that they were ordered to stand down. That doesn't quite cut it, because what that really means is they were told not to go help. They were told not to relieve the ambassador. They were told not to offer assistance. That's what they were told. They weren't told to stand down. What that means is, “Sit tight and don't go there and don't help.” He violated orders. He went over there.
He found where the mortar fire was coming from. He painted it with his laser. Now, folks, talk to anybody in the military. There's only one reason you do that. He was painting where that mortar fire was coming from because he figured there was air support that was then gonna take that mortar location out. That's why he was lasering it. He was effectively lighting it up.
He thought there was air support. He thought there was cover. Because all he did was tell the terrorists at the mortar control place where he was! They were able to find him, and it was that mortar fire that killed him. Now, why would he light it up? Why would he paint it if there was no assistance? He clearly thought there was. This becomes more outrageous as the days go by and as we continue to learn more and more about it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit has run across a bombshell blog post from a former Delta operator, BlackFive. “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,” an airplane on station. This is a former Delta operator. This guy has painted targets with lasers, which guide the bombs from the aircraft. In this case, the Specter is the C-130 out of Italy. We're told we didn't have any assets. We're told the assets were told to “stand town” and the people were told to “stand down.” But BlackFive, this former Delta operator, said (summarized), “Wait a minute, I heard that Tyrone Woods was painting the target.” In other words, he was giving the laser-guided bomb the target.
“One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U,” an airplane. 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,” the Hercules, “was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on [presidential] direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.”
And we first learned of AFRICOM with our really wonderful, great caller last week.
“If the AC130 never left [Italy] (as Penetta [sic] 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!” That’s from this former Delta guy, and this is what got Tyrone Woods killed. Because by painting the target, he was also illuminating himself.
He was targeting a laser-guided missile to the mortar-fire encampment, location. I don't know what the military term for that is, but where the terrorists were firing mortars, he had found it and he was painting it for a strike. He thought that there were assets in the sky. There would be no reason -- you don't need a Delta operator to tell you this. Common sense. There's no reason to paint that target and give yourself up in the process if there's no attack.
Why point the laser at a target that's gonna guide the missile if there isn't a missile? So what all of these military people who know this stuff are thinking -- and you can see this popping up now on various blogs all over the Internet. There is an outrage bubbling up because the lies are being compounded, and none of it makes any sense. What Panetta and the White House and the State Department and all these other people are saying doesn't make any sense, when put in context with the actions taken by the SEALs on the ground.
So the conclusion these guys are coming to is that the asset was there to launch the laser-guided missile. Tyrone Woods was painting the target, but the missile wasn't fired. So the question becomes: Who ordered no attack, after having the asset? And if it wasn't the Hercules it means the drone that was videotaping this -- which is what enables the White House and the State Department to see it in real time, the drone up there -- then the drone was armed and somebody pulled the order to have the missile fired from the drone.
This is outrageous, folks. This is just unacceptably outrageous. It's not just the incompetence here. It is now the lying and the cover-up that is really getting to people. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, was on Fox. He’s been all over the place, but he said some really powerful stuff on Saturday night.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, folks, please bear with me here. I'm gonna get to the sound bites of Charles Woods el quicko, but I want to make one more point about Tyrone Woods painting the mortar target with his laser in the expectation -- by the way, BLACKFIVE is a website run and operated, frequented by former military types, including a lot of Delta operators, Delta Force, Special Ops. They're livid. He wouldn't have painted the target if he didn't think there was an asset that was gonna fire on the target. That mortar encampment is what killed him. When he painted it he gave his location away. Cell phones have night vision capability. He gave himself up.
Now, here's what's interesting. On the campaign trail in Denver, on October 26th, Barack Obama said this: "The minute I found out what was happening, I gave the directive to make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and the military knew the number one priority was making sure our people are safe." Now, our ambassador in Libya was killed in the consulate in Benghazi on September 11th. For three weeks after that, Obama said the morning after the attack was over he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region. Then October 26th he changed the story. He said, "The minute I found out what was happening I gave the directive."
So here's what military experts are asking now. If the operative story from Obama is that he had given orders to do whatever it took to secure the lives of these people, who didn't follow them? In other words, who ordered either the AC-130 or the drone not to fire on the target Tyrone Woods had painted with his laser? Because Obama is out there on record, he gave the order, do what's necessary. So Obama's trying to cover himself by saying, "Look, I'm not the one that told anybody not to use the military." He's out there now saying he essentially gave the order to do what was necessary to defend and protect these people. So the question now has become, well, who disobeyed orders? And of course the logical conclusion is that Obama never gave the order, that he's just lying now, saying that he did.
Wait 'til you hear Pat Caddell. You can't follow this story and learn more and more without becoming physically angry and repulsed -- you just can't -- at all of the cheap lying and rear-end covering that's going on here. It's just unacceptable. We are the United States of America. The idea that they don't have the ability to defend and protect people in that kind of situation is simply absurd. And the idea that we wouldn't take the action necessary to do so is also absurd.
Okay, Saturday night on Fox it is Justice with Judge Jeanine, Jeanine Pirro. She interviewed Charles Woods, the father of security agent, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, killed in the attack at the consulate at Benghazi. This is the young man painting the target with the laser. She first said to him, "Mr. Woods, what did the president say to you?"
WOODS: He came up to me and in not a very sincere voice said, "I'm sorry." Now -- and then we shook hands, gave him, you know, like that, and then what I said to him was, "Mr. President, I appreciate your service." And I said, "I am at peace." And I could tell that he was not at peace. And I said, "My heart grieves because I've lost my son. My emotions have gone up and they've gone down, but the reason that I am at peace is because I know that God is in control of every situation. That's why our family is handling this much better than you would expect."
RUSH: That's what he told President Obama. Jeanine Pirro said, "Why do you think no help was sent? You know that your son, Ty, was on the ground asking for backup. He was pleading for an AC-130. How does that make you feel?"
WOODS: The Navy SEALs are extremely honorable, and they have a code of ethics, a code of honor. And part of that code of honor is they will never leave anyone behind. Okay, why did they allow them to die? Why didn't they send help? When it came out this last week that whoever it was -- I'm not gonna say who it was, but whoever it was in the White House was watching this live feed of my son being murdered, then I decided, it's time to do two things. One, is this is not political, okay. If this becomes political, that would dishonor my son's life and his death. But what we want to do is we want to honor my son, and we also want there to be truth and justice, as well as forgiveness.
RUSH: He wasn't going to go public with any of this. That was the nature of her question. He wasn't gonna go public until he found out that they started to lie. When he found out that there was video of this in the Situation Room at State Department, people were watching this, and no help was sent, that's when he decided to start doing interviews. Then Jeanine Pirro said, "You feel your son risked his life and that your son was murdered. You've made some strong statements here."
WOODS: The legal definition of murder would not fit into this. Let's put it this way. My feeling is, that in fact it was murder.
PIRRO: And if you could say something to the president, what would you say?
WOODS: I would say, if it was you, Your Honor, I totally forgive you. But for your benefit, I would want you to turn your life around and head the other direction so that blessings can continue to flow into your life. I want the best for you, and that means you need to stand up, admit your fault, and then change the direction of your life. I love this country of ours.
RUSH: That is the father of Tyrone Woods. And that was, folks, powerful. She asked him, "If you could say something to the president, what would you say?" "I would say if it was you, Your Honor, I forgive you. But I would want you to turn your life around, head the other direction. I want the best for you, and that means you need to stand up and admit your fault and then change the direction of your life." Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods. Next question from Geraldo Rivera. This was last night on Geraldo's show. He said, "How do you feel about calling the president a murderer?"
WOODS: If this attack on American citizens, on American soil, happened 2,000 miles away from Washington, DC, say in Los Angeles or in Seattle, would you have waited seven hours before you sent the first airplane? Would you have waited seven hours until the attack was over? Would you have waited a couple of days until you had all the videos and all the information before you responded in a responsible military way?
RUSH: Okay, we have a break coming up. When we come back, Pat Caddell was on Judge Jeanine's show Saturday night on Fox. Caddell followed Charles Woods and he nearly loses it in describing his anguish and his anger over the way this whole story is not being reported, the way the substance of the story was dealt with by the United States government, and it will, I'm sure, sound very similar to the reactions that you have been having as well.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, take a moment and just stop and think of what heroes these guys were, Tyrone Woods and the other three. They defied orders three times. They gave up their lives to try to save and protect the seven or so Americans that were still in the consulate, including the ambassador.
And they're being ignored by the nation's media. Their acts of valor are being ignored and swept under the rug, all because the media is deathly afraid that it would redound negatively to President Obama.
And then I want you to compare the kind of media attention Cindy Sheehan did get from the mainstream media. Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, was made a national heroine. Every move she made was followed and documented. She was bought and paid for by a San Francisco advertising agency to go camp out on the grounds just outside the home of George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas. Everywhere Cindy Sheehan went, she was the mother of a nation. She was a heroine. They used Cindy Sheehan to the point she thought she could actually get elected to Congress, in Nancy Pelosi's seat. They built her up into the most important American citizen for two years. And not a word about Tyrone Woods and his three colleagues, Navy SEALs and private sector security. Not a word. Not a single word.
The media was given every shot. The Republicans on the Sunday shows yesterday brought the subject up. Last Sunday they brought the subject up on the Sunday shows. And none of the mainstream Sunday show anchors, other than Chris Wallace, wanted to talk about it. They have not even asked Obama about it when they've had the chance. And that leads me to Pat Caddell who was also on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Saturday night on Fox. Pat Caddell, a former pollster for the Democrats and for Jimmy Carter. She said, "It just comes out, Pat, that the CIA operative on the ground asked for help three times. The New York Times doesn't cover it. A front page from yesterday, and a front page from today, and they don't even mention it, Pat."
CADDELL: I am appalled right now. This White House, this president, this vice president, the secretary of state, all of them are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected, willing to cover up and lie, and the worst thing is, the very people who are supposed to protect the American people and the truth, the leading mainstream media, they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people. What I saw with Ty Woods' father and family and the outrage I feel for my country and the shame that these people have no honor, and when will people finally say it? Cover-up is too nice a word, and the media is the one that it's worse on.
RUSH: Pat Caddell, talking about the media. They've become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy. They are the enemies of the American people. You shoulda seen him. He was practically crying, describing what he had seen with Tyrone Woods' father and family, the outrage he feels for his country. He wasn't finished.
CADDELL: This president didn't care enough to stay in the White House and, quote, "find out what was going on" the next day. Now I know why he didn't meet with his national security adviser. And why he got on a plane and went to a fundraiser, an act, if any president, Democrat or Republican, prior to this had done while the consulate was smoldering, would have been crucified. I've said it. This is -- I'll tell you, I'm so personally -- not politically, but personally nauseated by this.
RUSH: Personally nauseated by all of it. Now, let's go back to Obama. Obama left Washington yesterday to attend a fundraiser in Orlando, Florida today. He left in the midst of all of the forecasts of this storm that is now hitting the northeast. Yesterday was known, just as what is today known, how bad the forecasts are, the warnings, the admonitions, get out, evacuate, all those orders came yesterday. In the face of all that, Obama left the command center, the White House, and goes down to Florida for a fundraiser, and then overnight somebody decides -- it has to be what happened here. Somebody decides, because of this Benghazi business, I am convinced they got him on the airplane and they flew him back to DC today. He blew off the campaign appearance. Somebody had to get control of the situation. I'm sure some people said, "Look, we can't defend you anymore." It's probably what they're saying to themselves. You've got this storm about to wreak havoc, just like Benghazi had havoc wreaked upon it, and they're probably trying to save him from himself by not letting him do this campaign appearance.
So Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine has a tweet. "No one thinks that the president shouldn't go back to DC for the storm. The issue is the previous times when he didn't return ... and the staff said it made no difference." Well, the staff obviously says it does make a difference now. Mark Halperin is being roasted by Obama supporters because they view his tweet as unhelpful to Obama. He's being roasted on Twitter by fellow Democrats. Meanwhile, everywhere you look on cable TV today with this storm, every Obamaite is out trying to make the case that this storm can help Obama's reelection. Stop and think of that.
Obama campaign people on TV today speculating, hoping, explaining to people how this storm could be good for Obama. Who cares whether it's good for Obama or not? The people in line, in harm's way, the people targeted by this storm don't care whether this helps Obama or not. It's their lives that are about to be disrupted and, in perhaps unfathomable ways. And they turn on television and they watch Obama campaign aides salivating over the possibility this could really make Obama look presidential, really good in a crisis. That's why they had to get him back to DC. The people on Twitter are so ticked off at Mark Halperin they're calling him a Republican now, just for that little tweet that I read you. They have been blindsided.
The polling data, folks, is just devastating for Obama. The first debate was devastating. And the little secret is that this is who Obama has always been. He never was the myth that they created in 2008. He never was any of that. He never was messianic. He never was postpartisan. He never was somebody that could make the world love us. All of that was a myth. All of it was manufactured. You live by the media, you're gonna die by it.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. I guarantee, you let the media build you up, at some point they're not gonna be able to protect you if they're lying about you. The truth will out, and it is in the process of doing that even as we speak.
END TRANSCRIPT
October 30th, 2012, 05:33
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
The indescribably shameful ascension to power of Barack Hussein Obama has confronted some military personnel with an agonizing choice: do they serve their country, or do they serve the sick joke in the White House? From a careerist’s point of view, General Carter Ham appears to have chosen incorrectly, according to this piece of RUMINT relayed by the Washington Times:
General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack [on our consulate in Benghazi] 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.
Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty also disobeyed the unconscionable order to allow terrorists to kill our ambassador. Instead of losing their careers, they lost their lives when their repeated requests for assistance were denied by the Obama Administration. But they certainly did not lose anyone’s respect.
Due to the Obamunist media’s Benghazi blackout, don’t hold your breath waiting for it to investigate this story.
If the massive voter fraud the Obama Regime has encouraged its supporters to engage in results in a contested election, we may find more weak links in the chain of command that connects the slimy left-wing politicians at the top to the patriotic heroes down below.
The first statements from the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi seemed plausible. There were, after all, protests throughout the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9/11 -- some incited by Islamists using an obscure video to arouse anti-American fervor in the mobs, and some, no doubt, just pelting U.S. embassies on general principles. When the administration explained that one of those protests had spun out of control and led to the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya, there seemed no reason to doubt it.
For a day. But within hours, the administration account deflated like a punctured balloon. CBS reported that there was no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi. Members of Congress who were briefed said the attack was a military-style assault. We learned that an al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack. It was reported that Ambassador Stevens had noticed increased al-Qaeda activity, had feared for his safety, and had requested additional security, only to be turned down. Yet day after day, the administration continued to distort reality by referring to the Internet video.
Most of the press was willing to let the story fade because the man in charge is their man, and he is in a tight race for reelection. But Fox News, Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, and one or two others have revealed details about the administration's handling of the crisis that are beyond embarrassing -- they verge on malfeasance.
According to Fox's Jennifer Griffin, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was part of a small team at the CIA safe house about a mile from the consulate, heard shots fired at 9:40 p.m. He urgently requested backup from the CIA and asked permission to head to the consulate to help. The request was denied three times. He and his team were told to "stand down."
Woods and others disobeyed orders and headed over to the consulate where they rescued several people and carried away the body of Sean Smith. They did not find the ambassador. Upon returning to the safe house, they again requested military back up and were again denied. They were soon under fire. The fighting there went on for four more hours. Washington was in constant touch with personnel in Benghazi through email. In addition, Griffin reports, a special operations force was stationed only 480 miles away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. They could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. The New York Post further reports that a military drone aircraft was over Benghazi at the time of the attacks, relaying real time information back to Washington.
President Obama told a Denver TV station, "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 to make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice."
Investigations can stretch on for a long time -- certainly past Nov. 6. If the president gave such an order, why were urgent pleas for military support denied? Would the military defy the orders of the Commander in Chief? General David Petraeus says that the CIA never denied a request for help -- which raises the question: Who else but the White House would have made such a decision?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may have answered the question -- and exposed Obama's claim of directing that our personnel be secured as false. Panetta explained,"[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. 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."
Really? Is the Secretary of Defense really saying that we can't put forces at risk when Americans are already at risk and are being shot at? Why do we have a military again? Tyrone Woods certainly didn't have any doubt about what to do when Americans were under attack. He defied orders and rushed to help, sacrificing his own life. It's what any member of the armed forces would normally do -- unless restrained by incompetent civilian authority.
10/29/12 Bret Baier, Benghazi: New Revelations Part III
FOX News: On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists overran the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya and murdered our ambassador along with three other Americans. Now, more than six weeks after the attack, some of the most important questions remain unanswered: Who did this and why? Could the attack have been prevented or repelled after it began? What did the White House know and when? And, as we enter the final stretch of the race for the White House, which side is closer to the truth: Those who argue this terrible tragedy was largely unforeseeable or those who say we're seeing President Obama's foreign policy unraveling right on our TV screens? Fox News has been on this story from the very beginning. Tune in this weekend, Bret Baier reveals explosive new details that you haven't heard.
October 30th, 2012, 23:14
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Bengzahi, 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 Queda 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 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 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. http://cdn5.teapartytribune.com/wp-c...am-300x216.jpgA 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 Bengzahi attacks would be considered traitorous.
Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.
The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here's what Ward told me:
We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.
Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.