(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.
The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.
“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”
The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized in the Washington Daybook--a planning service to which news organizations subscribe--and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself.
The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack.
The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. “The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony submitted Oct. 10.
About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.
The subject line on this email said: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The text of the email said: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and our COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.” It went on to say: “The Operations Center will provide updates as available.”
In her testimony to the Oversight Committee, Charlene Lamb indicated that soon after the attack started, she was able to monitor it from Washington, D.C., in “almost real time.”
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA,” Lamb testified. “Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
According to Lamb, three U.S. agents used an armored car to approach the safe haven at the U.S. consulate to rescue a U.S. security agent on the roof of the facility and also to try to retrieve Amb. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran and State Department communications specialist.
“Despite thick smoke, the agents entered the building multiple times trying to locate the Ambassador and Mr. Smith,” Lamb testified. “After numerous attempts, they found Sean Smith and, with the assistance of members of the U.S. quick reaction team, removed him from the building. Unfortunately, he was already deceased. They still could not find the Ambassador.”
It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there.
“At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle."
But the battle was far from over.
“Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time.”
The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the “early morning” that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded.
“In the early morning, an additional security team arrived from Tripoli and proceeded to the annex,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after they arrived, the annex started taking mortar fire, with as many as three direct hits on the compound. It was during this mortar attack that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and a Diplomatic Security agent and an annex quick reaction security team member were critically wounded.”
Doherty and Woods were both former Navy Seals who served in both the Iraq and Afghan wars. They were working as U.S. security personnel in Libya.
When exactly did Obama learn that U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and who did he order to do something about it? The White House is not saying.
“I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives,” Obama told KUSA TV in Denver on Friday. “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”
Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com asked the White House on both Monday and Tuesday to reveal exactly when Obama learned the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and who exactly Obama directed to ‘make sure that we are securing our personnel’ there?” The White House did not respond.
At an Oct. 25 Pentagon press briefing, a reporter noted that “there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex [in Benghazi] and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex.” He then asked Panetta: “Why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or dropping more special forces in?”
“[T]here's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said.
“We quickly responded, as General [Martin] Dempsey [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” Panetta continued. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
“But the basic principle here--basic principle--is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place,” said Panetta. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
A reporter followed up: “So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.”
“This happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening,” Panetta said.
October 31st, 2012, 13:00
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
As the story about the death of four brave Americans doing what their nation had asked of them, at least from a government perspective, fades into the noise of the 2012 elections and the monstrosity known as the mainstream media, the question which must be asked is staring everyone in the face:
Did President Barack Obama order the assassination of the United States Ambassador to Libya and the subsequent cover up?
The supposition stated above is not a reach, nor is the speculative inquiry which follows.
First, let’s establish a series of facts thanks to the hard work of some surviving journalists within the Washington, D.C. cesspool of propagandists.
1. The facts that this was indeed a terrorist attack are still vague. As of over 30 days later, only one suspect, a dupe from Tunisia was captured in Turkey and charged with being a suspect in the alleged attack. Despite leaks from the administration that “retaliatory strikes” were in the planning stages, no arrests nor counterattacks even using drones as purportedly would occur, have been carried out against the alleged terror cell which engaged in the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
2. President Obama was 100% aware of the events which were occurring in real time on September 11, 2012. The Blaze.com published an obvious, but logical article on October 28, 2012 validating this fact with an article where retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer stated that his sources knew the President was witnessing the attack in real time. Despite the reality which even the regime knew would leak out eventually, the political handlers and insiders insisted on promoting the story that the murder of our ambassador was due to a two time loser creating a video for YouTube which fewer than 50,000 people had seen before 9-11-12. This begs the question which the media is too stupid to ask: Was Obama watching in horror or to ensure that the job was done properly?
3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was never allowed to survey the scene immediately after the attack nor interrogate any suspects in the nation. The most disturbing facts are that the stories erased from the memory of the American public create questions which have not nor will not be answered unless the CIA investigation or other intelligence source data is released:
Why was the Ambassador sodomized by the Islamist terrorists immediately before or just after his death and that aspect of the reporting deleted in all future references to the story? If we are to believe Islamic lore, it was to dishonor his body as too impure for entrance into heaven and condemnation to hell by Allah. It is also a method used to dissuade other intelligence insiders though also to keep silent and play ball with the administration until further notice.
Lastly, why was the F.B.I. denied entry into the consulate until many days after the attack? According to the initial media reports there was extensive looting, including quite probably classified data, before the buildings were set on fire. The U.S. Government and especially the Obama administration are delaying any Congressional or media inquiries into what data was lost or the role of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the smuggling of arms to various regional rebellions before his death on September 11th.
Now it begs the big questions which are hanging over this entire national nightmare being deliberately obscured by media malpractice and political malfeasance by both parties. In this commentator’s opinion there are only two reasons as to why the President of the United States could or would be capable of such a heinous act such as the assassination of an American ambassador overseas.
The first, and most logical reason would be the simple solution:
Where and what happened to the over 19,000 shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS) from the collapsed Libyan regime?
The former U.S. Navy Seals who were killed in Benghazi on that eventful night were on a mission according to numerous news sources to meet with Libyan intermediaries and seek out those weapons so they could be placed under control of the new Libyan government or a NATO coalition to prevent them from being obtained by terrorist organizations outside of the region. Their heroic efforts that night not withstanding, the lack of any apparent progress and the sudden appearance of shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of the Syrian rebels is far too much of a coincidence to view without great skepticism.
The larger concern however, is what if the Ambassador had information he was about to make public about a threat on the U.S. homeland? Imagine the election implications if millions of people suddenly cancelled commercial aircraft flights because of the threat of Islamist radicals shooting down extremely vulnerable U.S. commercial flights on take off or approach to airports throughout the American homeland. To make matters worse, think of the immediate collapse of the air transportation industry with millions of people cancelling flights during the busiest flying season of the year around Thanksgiving, triggering tens of thousands of layoff notices before the election.
Based on the performance of this administration to date, such a warning would never be allowed nor permitted due to the pragmatic risk to the economy and the potential panic it would create. Thus this justification for killing the ambassador might seem reasonable and simple, the real possibility of this occurring does not seem to impact the decision making process of the leadership in Washington.
That leaves the second possibility, and most damning one:
Follow the money.
In 2008, there was extensive reporting about mysterious donations to the Obama campaign from overseas sources which to this day remain a mystery. In an article from Andrew McCarthy at the National Review (Obama’s Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations) where he quotes Ken Timmerman at Newsmax, the following statement rings true to this election cycle also:
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
Yet the mainstream media remains complicit in the coverup of this alleged illegal activity even during this election cycle. The problem is though, that governments like those in Saudi Arabia do not offer up nor authorize “donations” to foreign leaders for free as they extract political favors or in some cases, mercenary activity to justify giving large sums to Presidents and Prime Ministers of other nations. The connection between the article linked above about the sudden appearance of shoulder fired aircraft missiles and the story from the U.K. Guardian on June 22nd does not take much of a reach:
The plan then, as it is in action now, is to funnel arms and communications equipment through Jordan and Turkey into Syria to the rebels to further destabilize Bashir Al-Assad and collapse his regime. The issue for the Saudi royal family however is that there can be no direct link to the purchase or supply of weapons from their Kingdom to the use by other Muslims to kill another Islamic leader; even if he is a Twelver and loyal Shiite ally of the Iranians. Conveniently enough, that is where the United States comes into the picture along with a campaign for re-election starving for cash.
Logically speaking, the assumption that thousands of the arms reported missing in Libya have been secured or at least accounted for by the U.S. intelligence community. With the blessings of the State Department looking to remold the world in its own perverse utopian vision of singular world governance along with the establishment of regional blocs of power, the administration basically had a green light to supply the Syrian rebellion with weapons provided it could funnel those arms from a source with few if any American fingerprints. Initially the administration failed to engage in resupplying the anti-Assad forces with weapons but limiting American involvement to humanitarian support; at least until the middle of this summer.
The theory is quite simple. Weapons are shipped via one of the Ambassador’s former shipping partners of whom he had a prior relationship with during the Libyan rebellion would be used to transit arms paid for by Saudi overseas agents, probably front companies in Europe. The weapons are moved using CIA intermediaries to American bases in Turkey, inventoried and then transported via private carriage into Syria for use against Assad. For allowing the use of American facilities to support the Saudi royal families political goals, the Obama campaign would receive tens of millions of dollars in donations, often below the $200 per donation reporting limit in exchange for this support of the Syrian rebels. It is a total win for the administration as it strengthens the relationship of the Obama administration with Saudi Arabia and the royal family. It assists the rebellion in Syria to overthrow the dictatorship of Assad and helps to create the vision Obama and others have seen via the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their Wahhabi financiers in Riyadh. Lastly it guarantees a steady flow of cash which will never be tracked nor traced to its origins because of U.S. election law and the refusal of the Obama administration to supply the data as it is not required by U.S. law.
Imagine what would happen if an American ambassador decided to show some honor and come forward and do the right thing by threatening to go public with the corruption and information he or she had about such an operation. Then imagine a meeting being set up with a member of the Turkish government, probably friendly to or working with U.S. intelligence agencies in Benghazi on September 11th to either discuss the next shipment or establish further plans for expanding the arms for money laundering operation. Fast forward to a reality where the guards surrounding the ambassador abandon him upon the first attack which could or could not be construed as a CIA sponsored hit under orders from the President to eradicate all evidence on site at the consulate including the ambassador. Far fetched? Not with this administration. If one takes a moment to look at the current status of this abomination in Libya, there is no evidence remaining as to what covert activity the ambassador was up to nor is there any ability to confirm now which deals he was indeed involved in during a confidential Congressional hearing which will never occur now.
The lack of a proper team to protect the Ambassador now begins to make sense considering the vulnerability of meeting the Turkish attache in Benghazi and the apparent orders of American forces to stand down while the assault was underway. This lack of protection, similar to an insider organized crime hit, also validates the old saying, “Dead men tell no tales.”
If anyone doubts the logic behind the concept of the U.S. government ordering a hit on one of its own, a quick refresher course of American history is long past due. The problem with this regime is that their Marxists tendencies are similar to those of the old Soviet Union where the achievement of political goals regardless of obstacles must be achieved with extreme prejudice; even if that means killing American citizens in cold blood to promote their program.
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."
October 31st, 2012, 23:56
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Hope you guys actually read that entire news article above.... check the dates, the classification of the communique, understand what an RSO is and understand this
Quote:
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
November 1st, 2012, 00:19
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Something Ryan could have used during the VP Debates on the Left's flawed reasoning on operartions in Afghanistan.
Quote:
On Afghanistan, Ryan missed a golden opportunity. Biden was sneering in his constant repetition of “we’re turning this over to the Afghans we trained.” Yet Ryan was unwilling to note that it’s those trained Afghans who are the greatest threat to American troops in the country.
If there are news agencies sitting on emails showing the White House not only refused to help those under attack in Benghazi, but ordered the military and CIA to stand down from intervening, that’s inexcusable.
Glenn Beck agrees:
November 1st, 2012, 20:19
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
The nature of the Benghazi disaster is now clear. Ambassador Stevens was engaged in smuggling sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Smuggling arms to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" is itself a huge gamble, but Obama has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab Spring -- which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.
For the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty can be bought. We therefore betrayed Hosni Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, so that the Muslim Brotherhood led by Muhammed Morsi could take over. Obama indeed demanded publicly that Mubarak resign, for reasons that never made any sense at all. Egypt went into a political and economic tailspin, and the Muslim Brotherhood were elected. The Muslim radicals have now purged the only other viable political force, the army and police, to protect their monopoly on power. We have colluded in that betrayal.
In Libya, we betrayed Moammar Gaddafi, who had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush administration. In Afghanistan, we betrayed the central government set up by the Bush administration and negotiated with the fanatical war sect of the Taliban to take over. The Taliban entered our history when they gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11/01 to plan, train, equip, and implement the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The Taliban are our fanatical theological enemy, as shown by their sadistic attempt to assassinate 14-year-old women's rights advocate Malala Yousuf.
Afghanistan has many thousands of Malalas we will never hear about.
Our consistent policy of betrayal of moderate Muslims in favor of radical Islamofascists goes hand-in-hand with our appeasement of the Iranian Khomeinist regime, which is the most America-hating Shiite regime, now facing competition from America-hating Sunni regimes in Egypt and elsewhere. It also fits our cooperation with Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" regime, which has also purged the Turkish army and police to remove modern-minded Turks from power. Egypt and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.
We have therefore followed a single "community disorganizing" policy toward the Muslim world, consisting of betraying moderates to bring theocratic fascists to power. Obama "explained" that policy in a publicized argument with Hillary Clinton at the White House when Mubarak was overthrown. His explanation? Fascist revolutions are "organic," and therefore more stable than moderate revolutions. Obama's fantasy policy runs contrary to U.S. foreign policy since World War I.
The biggest loser in this mad administration has been hundreds of millions women of the Muslim world, who were on a path to modernity and freedom until Obama and Hillary Clinton betrayed them. Today they are shut inside the prisons of sharia law.
The second-biggest loser has been relative stability in a great geographical swath of the Muslim world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across the Middle East, all the way to Tunisia and Morocco.
The third-biggest loser has been our anti-proliferation policy against the spread of weapons of mass destruction among developing nations. From fighting proliferation, we have turned to aiding it.
Those three Horsemen of the Apocalypse are now out of the barn and riding free.
In Benghazi, al-Qaeda showed that they could not be bought even by our back-stabbing policy. Our Benghazi arms-smuggling base was attacked by elements of AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Maghreb) in an act of betrayal against our fantasy-driven way of doing things. The American betrayer was itself betrayed, and Obama-Hillary could do nothing to defend the Americans under attack at the Benghazi arms-smuggling base, because any public revelation of the truth would rip the cover off our mad actions and focus the hatred of Muslim nations on the United States.
The evidence now shows that Obama was aware of the attack within 55 minutes of the start. It lasted for six or seven hours, and Obama consistently countermanded standing orders to protect Americans under attack in the Africom command area. General Ham may have been fired for following standard U.S. policy to defend American personnel.
In Syria, the Assad regime now has a legitimate basis to convict us of deadly dabbling in the Syrian civil war. Russia and China are likely to take up Assad's cause at the United Nations. They would be right on the facts.
Because the Benghazi attack coincided exactly with the AQ attack on our Cairo Embassy, both on September 11 of this year, this was apparently a central command decision by AQ, presumably ordered by Osama bin Laden's successor, Al Zawahiri, in Pakistan using a video released on the web shortly before those attacks. The message was "al-Qaeda lives!" Everybody who saw the news photos that day got that message. Only Obama is in public denial.
Because the Egyptian regime chose not to defend our embassy, we know that Muhammad Morsi was in cahoots with the AQ attack. Host governments always have the first responsibility to defend accredited embassies. Egypt "forgot" to defend us, and that was the message.
The purpose of the AQ attacks was to embarrass the United States, and to show us to be a paper tiger, precisely the way Ayatollah Khomeini did to Jimmy Carter. AQ also wanted to tear off the cover of the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation, to make us look like a treasonous ally, which, as it turns out, we are. All of our allies around the world, from South Korea and Japan to Israel, Australia, and Norway, must now be reassessing our reliability. One major betrayal of our allies is enough to shatter sixty years of faith in American leadership.
Here is the evidence as published in the Jerusalem Post, in an interview with retired counterintelligence professional Clare Lopez. The credit for the exposing the U.S. arms-smuggling conspiracy that just capsized goes to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org) and other alert conservative columnists around the web.
A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.
It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.
The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):
We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.
Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil
President, National Transitional Council – Libya
Official Seal of National Transitional Council
Copy for file.
As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:
“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.
In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:
“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the the BBC article as…
“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.
Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:
This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.
The nexus between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood comes into clearer focus when one looks at the Libyan Ambassador to the United States. His name is Ali Sulaiman Aujali. He had the following to say about Belhaj according to an ABC News report:
“(Belhaj) should be accept(ed) for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis… people evolve and change.”
Really? How many times do westerners have to fall for this line before they trip over it?
Aujali represents one individual who is willing to bridge the gap between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, fast forward to 9/13/12, two days after the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated the Muslim Eid holiday in the Ben Franklin room in Washington, D.C. and shared a podium with none other than Ali Sulaiman Aujali and a woman named Farah Pandith, who is a prominent name inside the Muslim Brotherhood in America.
In 2009, Pandith was sworn in as a U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities by Hillary Clinton. Pandith followed the path of the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress and was sworn in on the Qur’an.
Another interesting alliance revealed itself in various cities across America in the days after the death of Ambassador Stevens. In at least both Los Angeles, CA and Columbus, OH the Libyan American Association aligned with CAIR to hold a vigil for Ambassador Stevens.
…whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people…
At that very moment – and in light of the release of this secret document – the appropriate question would have been:
…whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of Al-Qaeda…
When put that way, Hillary’s position isn’t nearly as unassailable.
Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Walid Shoebat.
November 1st, 2012, 20:21
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Despite the calls for extra security and knowledge that al-Qaeda training camps were nearby, Team Obama ignored intelligence and the calls for help. The results: 4 dead Americans and a massive cover-up.
From Fox News (because the liberal media isn’t investigating their President):
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
Sen. John McCain Thursday called the Obama administration's response to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "a classic scandal and cover-up" with Watergate overtones, saying it would likely have an impact on the election outcome by turning veterans and active-duty military personnel against the president.
"I think that this Libya fiasco and tragedy is turning some veterans' votes and some active-duty military," McCain told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Thursday night.
"They are angered and disgusted. Our active duty military people believe they can't trust the president of the United States," McCain added, referring to the administration's refusal so far to publicly lay out the facts surrounding the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed in the attacks.
"These people are covering up so much in such a ridiculous fashion," he said.
The Arizona Republican, who was his party's 2008 presidential nominee, called the administration's handling of the questions about the attack "a classic scandal and cover-up" that is "angering our veterans and . . . our active duty people."
"I think it can have an impact [on the election] because we've still got five more days. And this is a classic scandal, where almost every day, or every few days, another shoe drops," McCain continued.
The senator said he told some veterans who complained to him about events surrounding the Benghazi attack that "it could be as bad as Watergate."
"And one of our veterans said, 'Yes, but nobody died in Watergate,'" McCain said.
The senator's comments came amid reports that Stevens had cabled the State Department nearly a month before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, about security concerns at the consulate and the presence of al-Qaida and other Islamist extremist groups in Benghazi.
McCain and many other Republicans have complained that Stevens' warnings were ignored and that the administration failed to respond to requests for help when the consulate was actually under attack.
On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that a group of CIA security agents from an agency annex in Benghazi did respond within 25 minutes of the attack beginning and managed to get most of the State Department personnel out of the consulate.
The story, quoting unidentified intelligence personnel, appeared to refute recent reports that the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" during the attack.
McCain, however, said the nation's active duty military personnel deserve answers and would like to have them before the Nov. 6 election.
"I'm getting a reaction the likes of which I have seldom seen. . . . They know what's going on. They know a cover-up is going on. And I can tell you, they do not trust the president of the United States," he said.
In a separate interview with Van Susteren, Sen. Pat Roberts offered a more critical assessment of how he thinks American military personnel have come to view the president in the wake of the Benghazi attack.
The Kansas Republican said he spoke to one young man who just got out of the service after being deployed five times.
"He says, 'I'm glad I'm out. I knew I was going to be in harm's way. That's why, you know, I signed up. But today, I don't think they'd have my back,'" Roberts quoted the young veteran as saying.
"Now, if that's true and that starts to fester, I would hate to see any president bear that burden, whether it be [Mitt] Romney or Obama," Roberts continued.
The senator said it was important to get answers now because, "You don't want to lose the morale of our service people put in harm's way. That's not right."
"This has been the doggonedest series of events, where it's sort of a drip, drip, drip, you know, revelation, and it doesn't make any sense," the senator said of the administration's response to the attack. "It's a jigsaw puzzle."
On June 6 of this year, a bomb planted at the U.S. compound in Benghazi ripped a 12-foot-wide hole in the outer wall.
On June 11, the British ambassador’s motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone and the British Benghazi post was closed.
At the same time, the Red Cross, after a second attack, shut down and fled the city.
“When that occurred,” says Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the military security team in Tripoli, “we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove.”
On Aug. 15, at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, an emergency meeting was convened to discuss the 10 Islamist militias and their training camps in the area, among them al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia.
On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”
The cable was sent to Hillary Clinton — and signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens.
On Sept. 11, Ambassador Stevens died in a coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound by elements of Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida.
Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the “smoking gun.”
Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”
While House spokesman Jay Carney said Biden’s “we” applied only to Biden, Obama and the White House. As the National Security Council is part of the White House, Carney was saying the NSC was in the dark over the Aug. 16 cable that had warned about the exact attack that occurred.
What else have we lately learned?
The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.
Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.
From an Oct. 26 report by Jennifer Griffin, also of Fox News, we now know there were two drones over Benghazi the night of Sept. 11 capable of sending pictures to U.S. commanders within reach of Benghazi, and to the CIA, Pentagon and White House.
We also know that ex-SEAL Ty Woods, in the CIA safe house a mile away, was denied permission to go to the rescue of the compound, and that he disobeyed orders, went and brought back the body of diplomat Sean Smith.
After the attack on the compound, the battle shifted to the safe house — for four more hours. Another ex-SEAL, Glen Doherty, made it to Benghazi from Tripoli. Seven hours after the initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Smith, Doherty and Woods were still returning fire, when, having been abandoned on the orders of someone higher up, they were killed by a direct mortar hit.
Due to stonewalling and the complicity of the Big Media in ignoring or downplaying the Benghazi story during the last weeks of the campaign, the Obamaites may get past the post on Nov. 6 without being called to account.
But the truth is coming out, and an accounting is coming. For the character, competence and credibility of Obama’s entire national security team have been called into question.
Hillary Clinton said she takes full responsibility for any security failure by her department at the Benghazi compound. But what does that mean? Did she see the Aug. 16 secret cable sent to her by Stevens describing his perilous situation? Was she oblivious to the battle in her department over security in Benghazi?
This failure that occurred in her shop and on her watch, that Stevens warned about in his Aug. 16 cable, resulted in his death and the most successful terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.
Why has Hillary not explained her inaction — or stepped down?
The CIA has issued a terse statement saying it gave no order to anyone not to try to rescue the ambassador or not to move forces to aid Doherty and Woods, who died because no help came.
Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to “stand down”?
The president says he is keeping Americans informed as we learn the truth. But is that still credible?
When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time, that camera-carrying drones were over the city that night, that a seven-hour battle was fought, that desperate cries for help were being turned down.
The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president?
Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.
Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?
November 2nd, 2012, 13:35
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Secret Cable Revelation Blows Open Benghazi Cover-Up Story
The revelation of a classified cable dated August 15 from Ambassador Christopher Stevens to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describing in detail the security threats to the U.S. Benghazi consulate is a quantum leap forward in the reporting on the attack that left the ambassador and three security personnel dead.
We have Fox News’s Catherine Herridge to thank for reporting yesterday on the existence of the classified cable. Mainstream media coverage of Benghazi has been scandalously negligent. Indeed, David Ignatius, one of The Washington Post’s top columnists, is now citing Fox News for its breaking stories on Benghazi. This has clearly not been sitting well with the editors of the Post’s op-ed section, who initially chose to run Ignatius’s column, “Lingering Questions About Benghazi,” dated October 30, on its website only. Criticized roundly on talk radio and social media, the Post ran it in its print edition two days later.
The August 15 cable, marked “secret,” was sent by the Benghazi mission and outlined both the threats and the insufficiencies to U.S. security in Libya. The mission called for an “emergency meeting” to discuss the rapidly eroding situation on the ground:
RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.
The cable repeatedly describes the situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively” because “the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal” from the government of Libya.
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.” The cable went on to include “the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi.… [T]hese groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’”
The revelation of the cable follows the report on Friday by Fox’s Jennifer Griffin that CIA officers in Benghazi had been ordered to “stand down” when they wanted to help repel the attack on the consulate about a mile away. Fox also reported that the CIA officers at the annex had asked for military support when the annex came under fire later, but they had also been turned down.
Questions on what happened before, during, and after the Benghazi attack continue to pile up, and just a few media outlets seem to be looking for real answers.
November 2nd, 2012, 13:35
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
BLUE ASH, Ohio – Former Sen. Fred Thompson today said he was “totally disgusted” by the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terrorist attack, saying that U.S. officials failed to act “while our people were being systematically slaughtered” at the Benghazi consulate.
Speaking at an event sponsored by the free-market group Americans for Prosperity, the former Republican senator from Tennessee invoked his experience nearly 40 years ago as a Watergate investigator, saying that Congress must “get to the bottom of” the administration’s failures in the Sept. 11 incident that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead in Libya.
“This is probably the biggest cover-up in American history – and you’re talking to an expert in cover-ups,” Thompson said.
“There are three scandals here – before, during and after,” Thompson told about 40 people gathered for the AFP event at the Mariner's Inn in the Cincinnati suburb of West Chester. Citing the numerous incidents and warnings leading up to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Thompson mockingly asked, “What was your first hint that there might be trouble in Libya?”
Thompson commented on reports that administration officials refused to approve U.S. air strikes to defend the embattled Benghazi compound because of concerns about civilian casualties.
“You’re outside our embassy while it’s being attacked? Fair game, buddy,” said Thompson, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. With the latest news from CBS that the administration did not convene its Counterterrorism Security Group during the Libyan crisis, he said the scandal was “playing out as we speak.”
Thompson, who as an actor starred in film hits like the Hunt for Red October and on TV in Law & Order, said that the terrorists would have scattered “with just one shot” from the C-130 gunship that the U.S. had overhead during the Benghazi attack. “Apparently, we’re not even willing to defend our own ambassador.”
November 2nd, 2012, 13:36
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Liberal national media covers up truth about Benghazi
For several days now, I have been looking for an IR story of Washington’s disgraceful cover-up of the killing of Americans in Benghazi and have found nothing.
I cannot believe the lack of information coming to the public on behalf of liberal journalism. If the president were a Republican, the papers would be crucifying him, on a daily basis; yet we hear nothing from Lee Newspapers.
Washington is withholding the truth about their failure to respond to calls for help in Libya until after the elections. This lack of information supplied to everyone is a dishonor to the brave Americans that died and to the United States.
Becky Buckmaster
East Helena
November 2nd, 2012, 13:36
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Gingrich: The White House is playing games with us
Published October 31, 2012 | Hannity | Sean Hannity
Special Guests: Newt Gingrich, former presidential candidate
This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," October 31, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. SEAN HANNITY, HOST OF "HANNITY": Welcome back to "Hannity"; Now in a moment, I will be joined by former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who says that he may have information on secret White House e-mails about the Benghazi cover-up.
But first the administration in a desperate attempt to make Obama appear presidential released a photo of him in the situation room during Hurricane Sandy.
Now you may recall they did the very same thing in the aftermath of the raid that got Usama bin Laden. But here's my question, where is the picture of the president sitting in the situation room during the Benghazi terror attack.
Now you want to know why the White House has not released that photo. Well, probably because it looks like this, empty, they don't want us to know what the president was up to as this assault was taking place. In other words, like everything else, they've been trying to cover it up.
Because as we now know the night of the attack, the president was not focused on Libya, he was getting ready for this, a campaign trip to good old Las Vegas instead of staying in Washington and getting to the bottom of the terrorist attack.
And we are also learning tonight courtesy of our own Catherine Herridge that according to our classified cable reviewed by Fox News, the U.S. mission in Benghazi warned the State Department back in mid-August less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a coordinated attack.
Joining me now with reaction, former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. So let's see they spiked the football again and again with bin Laden. They are out there, photo op galore today as the president goes out there with Hurricane Sandy. I'm fine with it.
But where is the picture of the situation room when they had literally real-time video of our consulate being attacked and Americans being murdered? Where is that video? NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, this whole thing gets stranger and stranger. You know, we're not asking what was Al Qaeda doing, we're not asking what the various gangs in Benghazi doing. We're asking about the American government what it was doing.
Now you would think they have pretty good records about where the president was, where the national security advisor was, where the secretary of defense was, where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was.
I mean, none of these things ought to be very hard to put together. And yet seven weeks after Americans were murdered in Benghazi we cannot get the truth out this administration.
Their answer today to the suggestion, which I’d been given by a United States senator that there may will be some e-mails from the security advisors office that closed down an effort to help. Their answer was very narrowly worded. HANNITY: I have it. I can put it up on the screen as long as you're talking about it and what it specifically says. Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any request for assistance in Benghazi during the attack. GINGRICH: Right. Now first of all, clearly people in Benghazi asking for assistance so what does that mean? Does it mean it was cut of somewhere? That the president although he is commander in chief did not know that they were asking for assistance?
It's very clear if you look at the reports we now have that the SEALs, the former SEALs who stayed to defend the ambassador and defend consulate, they fought until they were killed at 4:00 in the morning that there was going to be C-130 gunship overhead.
Because they were using a laser designator to target the mortars and they apparently thought there was going to be an airplane overhead to take out those mortars. So they thought help was on the way.
And in fact, from Tripoli -- it’s almost -- I don’t know what the right word. It is so sad, Sean. The people in Tripoli on their own put together six American contractors, 16 Libyan contractors, they fly in to Benghazi trying desperately to bring help.
Meanwhile, right across the Mediterranean, there is a Marine combat unit. There are C-130s. There are F-18 fighter airplanes. A little further to the east, in Turkey, there is fighter aircraft available. None of this is mobilized.
And the White House is playing games with us. Who was in charge? Who did the president say should take care of this? Did they want to in fact rescue the ambassador and the people who were being killed with him? Why wasn't anything done for seven hours.
I mean, we now have seven weeks of refusal to explain seven hours. I find it very mystifying. HANNITY: Well, there are three aspects to this from my perspective, before during and after the ambassador requested extra security. He was denied. They reduced the force at one point so who made that decision?
Then it's during this entire episode, we know that according to Charlene Lamb, our government, our State Department was watching this in real-time. Where was president? The intelligence community knew within hours this was a terror attack.
We have audio that actually caused a Navy SEAL, Ty Woods, to disobey an order to stand down, risk his military career and his life and gave his life seven hours later fighting. He did rescue people.
So during this whole thing, they're all requesting, there is an audiotape of the consulate begging for help that caused this Navy SEAL to act after being told to stand down. Now, apparently these tapes exist according to my sources. Does the White House have an obligation to release them? GINGRICH: Look, I think the president owes every American on Friday or Saturday at the latest a press conference where they lay out their case. Tell us the truth. They -- we're not asking you to say everything worked perfectly.
We're not going to blame you if some things that were terrible happened, but the American people deserve to know the truth. You may remember that in testimony, the man who was in charge of security in the region actually said at one point speaking at a congressional hearing that he felt Al Qaeda was in the building, meaning the State Department.
He felt that his enemies -- he had greater problems getting help out of the State Department that he felt like he had a threat from Al Qaeda. He could not get the people -- he cited one phone conversation that must have been horrific where he and this guy were arguing about whether or not Americans ought to be protected. The guy said to him don't even make the request. It's not going to be honored. That by the way on the record by somebody who is employed by the U.S. government. HANNITY: What did the president know? When did he know it? Did he leave to Vegas on that night of knowing that the country had just been a victim of a terror attack considering this is American -- considered American sovereignty here?
All right, we got to take a break. We will talk more with Newt Gingrich right after this.
As he left his Marine One helicopter Wednesday evening and walked to the residence of the White House, President Obama did not respond to a question shouted out by ABC News’s Mary Bruce about when he would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up about what exactly what went wrong in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
The president smiled and continued walking.
Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day.
As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies.
But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the president’s involvement in decision-making. In addition, they’re preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15.
Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.
For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room.
As for recent stories suggesting otherwise, Vietor says, “the White House didn’t deny any requests for assistance. Period. Moreover, what the entire government did – the White House, State Department, Intelligence Community, Department of Defense included – was to work to mobilize all available assets and move them into the region as quickly as possible. That’s what the President ordered the Secretary of Defense and Chairman to do the first time he was briefed about these issues. Many of those assets were later used to reinforce embassies in places like Yemen, Libya and Egypt.”
But that doesn’t mean the myriad questions stacking up are all political in nature, nor that those interested in answers about the Benghazi tragedy are motivated by partisan and nefarious aims.
The Washington Post’s respected foreign policy columnist David Ignatius just yesterday posed “Lingering Questions about Benghazi.”One of them, pointedly, was “At a time when al-Qaeda was strengthening its presence in Libya and across North Africa, why didn’t the United States have more military hardware nearby?”
In the place of a detailed description from the Obama administration about what happened more than six weeks ago comes the drip-drip-drip of stories about the failures of the Obama administration to provide those Americans on the ground in Libya with all the security assets they needed.
ABC News broke some stories on this, ranging from a security team being denied continued use of an airplane its commander wanted to keep in country to better do his job; to the security team leaving Libya before Ambassador Stevens wanted it to. Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge last night reported on a newly discovered cable indicating that in August, less than a month before the attack, the diplomatic post in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” concerned about local Al Qaeda training camps. Said the cable: “RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”
The cable stated that “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
The State Department’s comment to Fox: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
It was the exact same statement given to ABC News earlier in the month about a different revelation. This afternoon, journalists Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa in Foreign Policy Magazine reported that when they arrived at the compound in Benghazi on October 26 they found “several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents — such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack — are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit — and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.”
A Sept. 11 missive to the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes that on that morning, “one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”
On Air Force One today, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked by ABC News how closely the President is reading and following the media reports about what went wrong in Benghazi.
“Is he engaged in the investigation and receiving updates on the investigation, or is he waiting until it’s complete?” ABC News’ Devin Dwyer asked.
Carney noted that since the “investigations are being conducted by both the FBI and the Accountability Review Board” the president himself “is not participating in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened, who was responsible and what lessons we can learn from it in terms of how we ensure that it never happens again.”
The White House press secretary – who has not held a full-fledged briefing with the White House press corps since October 12 – said that the president “expects the investigations to be rigorous. He is extremely focused on making sure that we find exactly what happened and who was responsible, and tracking down those who were responsible and bringing them to justice.”
-Jake Tapper, Mary Bruce, Devin Dwyer and Dana Hughes
November 2nd, 2012, 17:23
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Geraldo Explodes at Co-Host [Eric Boling] Over Libya Story on Fox: 'You Are a Politician Looking to Make a Political Point!' it was one of the most heated arguments in recent memory on the news network. In short, Geraldo continued to trumpet his argument from last week that the U.S. military could not have done anything to save those attacked in Libya. After fill-in host Eric Bolling suggested how disgraceful it was that the government did "nothing" to help the eventual victims, Geraldo wasn't having any of it.
That’s how Geraldo Rivera started his segment on Fox News Friday morning as the conversation turned to Libya. But while he may not have come to argue, that’s exactly what happened. And it was one of the most heated arguments in recent memory on the news network.
In short, Geraldo continued to trumpet his argument from last week that the U.S. military could not have done anything to save those attacked in Libya.
After fill-in host Eric Bolling suggested how disgraceful it was that the government did “nothing” to help the eventual victims, Geraldo wasn’t having any of it.
It’s an “obscene lie,” he said emphatically.
“You are a politician looking to make a political point!” he added after Bolling challenged him, later repeating the point: “You are misleading the American people because you want to make a political point.”
Geraldo was visibly disturbed, raising his finger and voice and even shaking. He even lightly chastised the father of slain former SEAL Tyrone Woods for attacking the president over the debacle. He even added that what Woods’s father was insinuating — that Obama went off to Las Vegas instead of trying to protect his son — was a “a lie.”
While visibly angry at the administration detractors, Geraldo did say that there was room for criticism, mainly regarding why we had our ambassador in Libya if we couldn’t protect him. He also said it’s “legitimate” to investigate whether the government covered up the “genesis” of the attack, referring to the YouTube video the administration blamed.
Eventually host Steve Doocy had to calm him down, resting his hands on Geraldo’s back and leg to ease him.
“Geraldo, we get where you’re coming from.”
But that wasn’t all. Gretchen Carlson went to tease an upcoming segment on immigrants and college and that’s when Geraldo threw all caution to the wind: “Oh great. Now they’re going to go get lynched.”
Watch the fireworks below:
November 2nd, 2012, 17:54
Ryan Ruck
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Jerry Rivers is slowly becoming more and more unhinged.
November 2nd, 2012, 19:58
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
And yet they still claimed for days after the attack is was a spontaneous protest over the Mohammed film.
Via Hot Air:
Remember how the White House insisted for more than a week that there was “no evidence” that the sacking of the Benghazi consulate was anything more than a spontaneous demonstration over a two-month-old YouTube video that “spun out of control”? Fox News this morning reports that cables from the consulate itself made clear that they expected an attack from local militia groups in the hours before the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. They also told the State Department that they had reason to believe their local security was gathering intel for the attack. Keep reading…
ZIP | November 2, 2012 12:35 pm
November 2nd, 2012, 23:57
American Patriot
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
In fact, it is reported that Benghazi was chiefly a CIA operations hub. Therefore, following the Sept 11 attack, of the thirty U.S. personnel evacuated, only seven were tied to the State Dept. -- those who rounded out the thirty were tied to the CIA.
This information sheds light on CIA Director David Petraeus' absence from ceremonies marking the return of the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks. Those ceremonies were attended by the President, the Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense, but no Petraeus.
It is now being reported that he was lying low to protect the integrity of undercover CIA operations (and operatives) in Libya.
In fact, U.S. officials are now saying that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two former Navy SEALS killed in the Sept 11 attack, were not associated with the State Dept as originally reported, but with the CIA.
Amid the pressures being placed on the State Dept in the wake of the attack, some in Congress are now saying the CIA is using its cloak of secrecy to protect itself from criticism in Benghazi. Ultimately, however, the responsibility rests with Obama. This is his CIA, just as it is his State Dept.
November 8th, 2012, 16:30
vector7
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
The White House is no longer blaming him and his inflammatory video for sparking an attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya. But in the eyes of the U.S. government, Mark Basseley Youssef is still a criminal — and a potentially dangerous one at that. And so today, after Youssef admitted to four counts of violating his probation, a federal judge sentenced the man behind the notorious anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims” to a year in prison. The 55-year-old’s request to serve out his sentence in home confinement was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder; his contention that he was some sort of First Amendment martyr, brushed aside.
Youssef — then believed to be operating under the name “Sam Bacile” — became an international figure in September when his video became a flashpoint for anti-American protests throughout the Muslim world. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blasted the movie, which depicts a child-molesting Prophet Muhammad, as “disgusting and reprehensible.” The American ambassador to the U.N. claimed that a protest against the movie spontaneously morphed into the complex attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead.
That claim was later walked back by the Obama administration, to great political effect. But by then, Youssef was behind bars — the latest in 21-year-old series of run-ins with the law.
In August of 1991, Youssef, who owns a gas station, was convicted on two counts of selling watered-down fuel. Six years later, he was arrested on charges related to the manufacture of PCP. In 2009, Youssef was arrested for using 14 different identities — including “Kritbag Difrat” and “P.J. Tobacco” – in a check-kiting scheme. Afterwards, Youssef turned informant against the supposed ringleader. In return, he received a relatively light penalty for participation in the scheme: a $794,700 fine, 21 months in federal custody, and an order to stop lying about who he was.
“The defendant shall not obtain or possess any driver’s license, Social Security number, birth certificate, passport or any other form of identification in any name, other than the defendant’s true legal name,” reads Youssef’s terms of probation (.pdf). “Nor shall the defendant use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”
What prosecutors didn’t realize — and what only came out after the brouhaha over “Innocence” — was that Youssef had violated those terms even before he signed his probation agreement. Youssef was tried, convicted, jailed, and operated as a federal informant while assuming the name “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.” Up until a few months ago, he had a California driver’s license that listed him as Nakoula.
But that wasn’t his real name at all, at least not anymore. Back in 2002, he legally changed his named from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to Mark Basseley Youssef. ”Nakoula is a girl’s name and it causes me troubles,” he claimed at the time.
Boy, did it ever. Prosecutors argued — and judges agreed — that using the Nakoula and Bacile monickers — were clear violations of the former fraudster’s probation. He was arrested, held without bail, and today sentenced to a year in prison with four additional years of supervised release.
“This is not a defendant that you want out there using multiple names,” said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale. ”This is a defendant who has engaged in a long pattern of deception… His dishonesty goes back years.”
And that includes how he went about making this movie. Actors in “Innocence” say they were duped into making anti-Islam agitprop, with the most inflammatory lines dubbed in after they shot their scenes. When the video went viral, Youssef, using the name Bacile and claiming to be Israeli, falsely claimed that 100 wealthy Jews had given $5 million to back the film. As the New York Times notes, Dugdale used these deceptions as part of his sentencing argument — even though none of the charges against Youssef related directly to the production of “Innocence.”
But Youssef’s defenders — and there are many — can’t shake the feeling that this is more about the movie’s controversial content than Youssef’s deceitful manner/a>. According to the anti-Islam advocate Robert Spencer, “He is a political prisoner.”
Youssef’s attorney, Steven Seiden, made a similar argument after Judge Snyder’s ruling today. ”In my opinion, the government used these proceedings to chill my client’s first amendment rights,” he told reporters. Then added that his client had a special message for them.
“The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn’t kill the ideology,” Seiden said, according to the Associated Press.
Asked what that meant, Seiden said, “I didn’t ask him, and I don’t know.”