Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[American Patriot]

Lindsey Graham: Obama Admin 'Incredibly Incompetent or Misleading' on Benghazi Attack

By Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter
October 14, 2012|7:25 pm

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) believes that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours after the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. President Obama and other administration officials were claiming the attack was a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video for two weeks after the Sept. 11 attack.

"The coordinated attack lasted for hours with al-Qaida associated militia. My belief is that was known by the administration within 24 hours," Graham said in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Graham argued that the Obama administration promulgated incorrect information about the Benghazi attack because it is "trying to sell a narrative about the Middle East – the wars are receding and al-Qaida's been dismantled." Admitting that it was a terrorist attack, Graham continued, would show that "leading from behind didn't work" and it "undercuts that narrative."

The Obama administration "never believed the media would investigate, Congress was out of session and this caught up with them," Graham said. "I think they've been misleading us, but it finally caught up with them."

"Well that is a very serious charge you just leveled, Senator," host Bob Schieffer responded. "Are you saying the administration deliberately misled the American people to make it look as if terrorism is not as much of a threat as apparently it is?"

"Either they are misleading the American people or they are incredibly incompetent," Graham answered. "There was no way, with anybody looking at all, that you could believe, five days after the attack, it was based on a riot that never occurred. There was no riot at all. So, to say that, you're either very incompetent or you're misleading."

Follow us

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who was interviewed after Graham on the same show, called Graham's remarks "ridiculous."

"This conspiracy stuff is kind of ridiculous, to be honest with you. And I'm kind of surprised that they've gone to these lengths, but you know, that's what they do," Cummings said.

Last week, State Department officials said that they were in contact with personnel in Benghazi as the attack was happening. In a conference call with reporters, a State Department official said it was never the department's assessment that the raid was caused by a spontaneous demonstration. However, Susan Rice, who works in the State Department as the Ambassador to the United Nations, claimed on five talk shows the Sunday after the attack that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration in response to the YouTube video.

During last Thursday's vice presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden was asked why the Obama administration claimed for two weeks that the attack was caused by a spontaneous demonstration.

"Because that's exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment," Biden said.

On "Fox News Sunday," David Axelrod, Obama campaign senior strategist and a former White House official, backed up Biden's remarks.

"That's what the intelligence was at the time, the intelligence community itself and Director [James] Clapper [director of national intelligence] has said that," Axelrod claimed.

Axelrod also said that "there is nobody on this planet who is more concerned and more interested in getting to the bottom of this than the president of the United States."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/li...iIKPMwlSD6Z.99

[American Patriot]

Oh, crap. We're at war with these people....LMAO. I wonder wtf they would do if we said, "Ok. Holy War it is......" and just start obliterating everything in their countries.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri

• From: The Australian
• October 15, 2012 12:00AM

Ayman al-Zawahiri. Source: AFP



THE leader of al-Qa'ida has called for holy war against the US and Israel over an anti-Islamic video which triggered mayhem in the Muslim world.




In a seven-minute speech published on jihadist forums yesterday, Zawahiri hailed "the honourable people . . . who stormed the US embassy in Benghazi and those who protested outside the US mission in Cairo where they replaced the US flag with that of Islam and jihad".


The amateurish film depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish deviant offended many Muslims and sparked anti-US protests in a number of countries that cost several lives and saw mobs set US missions, schools and businesses ablaze.


Zawahiri called on those who protested "to continue to counter the US-crusader-Zionist attack on Islam and Muslims, and urge other Muslims to follow suit".


He condemned the US, "whose laws allow attacks on the Muslim Prophet and their holy book (the Koran), in the name of freedom of expression, while charging those who attack Jews with anti-Semitism".

[American Patriot]

Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8148a098-0...#ixzz29OhYGQYm

September 29, 2012 5:28 pm
Benghazi embassy attack was ‘deliberate’




©EPA
WASHINGTON, September 28 – The top US intelligence authority now believes the September 11 attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was a “deliberate and organised terrorist attack”.
James Clapper from the office of Director of National Intelligence said that the statement represented a change in the US intelligence assessment of how and why the attack happened. During the attack on two US government compounds in the eastern Libyan city, four US personnel, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.



More

On this topic

• Liberal wins Libyan premiership
• Libya armed Islamists driven underground
• Editorial Disbanding Libya’s lawless militias
• Libya issues ultimatum to militias

IN Middle Eastern Politics & Society

• Egypt’s political class needs wider focus
• Netanyahu calls early Israel election
• Morsi pardons Egyptian activists
• Jordan’s opposition groups stage protest

Shawn Turner, spokesman for Mr Clapper’s office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, US agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the US embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.
Mr Turner said that as US intelligence learnt more about the attack, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organised terrorist attack carried out by extremists”.
He said it remained “unclear” if any individual or specific group commanded the attack. US agencies believe that some of the militants involved in the attack were “linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaeda”.
In an apparent reference to a series of contradictory statements by some top Obama administration officials, Mr Turner said intelligence agencies’ “initial assessment” had been passed on “to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available”.
One US official familiar with the background to the shifting intelligence assessments said the process of figuring out from scraps of intelligence who perpetrated an event like the Benghazi attack was “imprecise” and “evolving”.
Debate over whether militant groups planned the assault or whether the violence resulted from protests against the film insulting Islam has become US election-year fodder. Republican lawmakers have demanded answers about the incident from the Obama administration.
Within hours of the attack, government sources in Washington were acknowledging that this might well have been planned and organised in advance, and that members of two militant factions, Ansar al-sharia and al-Qaeda’s north Africa-based affiliate, known as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.
But top administration officials later made public statements that contradicted that assessment.
On September 14, three days after the attack, US President Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, said the United States had no evidence the Benghazi attack was planned.
Two days later, Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, said preliminary information suggested the attacks were not premeditated and were protests against the anti-Muslim film that provoked demonstrations in Egypt.
On September 19, Mr Carney echoed Ms Rice, saying, “Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that – and the unrest in Cairo that helped – that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.”
A day later, on September 19, Mr Carney was still insisting, “Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated.”
But that same day, one key administration official moved back toward the assessment that the Benghazi assaults had been organised and intentional.
At a congressional hearing, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, part of the National Intelligence Director’s office, labelled the assault a “terrorist attack on our embassy” and said the United States was examining information that people involved in the attack had connections to al-Qaeda or its North African affiliate.
By the next day, Mr Carney was asserting it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
In his statement on Friday, Mr Turner said that while US intelligence agencies now believed the Benghazi attacks were well organised and deliberate, with some involvement of people connected to militant factions, it was not clear if “any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate”.

[Malsua]

One has to wonder why the White House didn't want to call this attack what it was.

How did they gain by blaming it on a trailer for a film that no one had heard of?

[American Patriot]

I think they didn't want to call it a duck attack because you know there were no ducks... just "freedom fighters".

But when it looks, walks and quacks like a duck you usually call it a duck.

When terrorists attack and MURDER four Americans on 9-11 it's a bloody terrorist attack and they knew it but were afraid to call it what it was out of POLITICAL REASONS.

America is on to them now.

This isn't going to fly in November.

The Left is trying to spin it now. In fact another group is trying to say this was "orchestrated by the CIA themselves" probably in an effort to incite the Muslims. Give me a break.

[vector7]

WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown

by Ulsterman on October 15, 2012 with 20 Comments in News




(Our White House Insider indicates senior adviser Valerie Jarrett takes great pleasure in being known as the “defacto president” of the Obama White House – though she was recently enraged at campaign staff for Barack Obama’s failure during his first presidential debate against Mitt Romney. The following is the most recent communciation from this longtime D.C. political operative who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, and has been working tirelessly for the last three years to correct what they since have described as a “Terrible mistake for America.”)

• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.

(NOTE: Now I want to make it real clear here. America just helped take out a leader who had ruled a country for over 40 years. That’s a big f-cking deal. You can’t tell me the safety of an American ambassador into the region right after that should not be a huge concern to any administration. So when they say they didn’t know about all the worries about safety that were shared in the months before the attack. BULLSH-T. THEY KNEW)


• March, 2012: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.


(NOTE: So who do we believe? The on the ground guy who is risking his damn life or Barack Obama and the assh-les surrounding him who are now saying they didn’t know? Nordstrom has no reason to lie. No reason to risk his own future by speaking out against the administration. I’ll say it again. State knew. Obama knew. THEY ARE ALL LYING. Yeah. Hillary? F-ck her too. We told her to stay away from these people. 2016 huh? Good luck with that now.)


• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
(NOTE: Six months before the September 11th attack. No need for more security huh?)


• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.


(NOTE: So we got sh-t like this happening and the Obama White House tried to say it wasn’t a terrorist attack that killed those Americans on September 11th? Terrorists were posting the Ambassador’s daily schedule for f-ck’s sake.)


• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.
(NOTE: Take this June 6th event and put it up against what the White House will say after the September 11th attack that they had no “actionable intelligence” regarding a pending attack. This was clearly a test run. We got people in the White House who are purposely ignoring threats to the United States. Their entire foreign policy is a bunch of new age talk nice bullsh-t. Period. Terrorists blew a huge hole in the wall of the consulate four months before September 11th and the White House will say they had no clues there was a situation brewing? )


• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.
(NOTE: There was already several attacks against American personnel prior to this video being released. How then is the video to blame for those and subsequent attacks?)


• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.


(NOTE: My understanding is the man begged them to stay on. Stevens was afraid. Really worried. Borrowed time worried. And the Obama White House could have given a sh-t. Or, they were up to some weird save the day plan like you forwarded me earlier. I am not pushing away any conspiracy on this thing. It stinks all the way. Top to bottom this thing stinks like week old road kill in July.)


• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”


(NOTE: That date of September 8th. So they had Libyan militia telling diplomats the sh-t was about to hit the fan. If State had been on the ball. If the administration had been on the ball, they had 48 hours to secure the safety of American personnel. Here’s a big red f-cking siren going off here. After these reports 48 hours earlier though we have the ambassador flying INTO Benghazi???????????????? When I first read that report of the Libyans telling us on the 8th that the danger level had become critical and then we have Stevens flying INTO Benghazi after those warnings, gave me chills. That means there is something way more going on here. I got no real answer as to what. Just that there was something really strange going on. The missing weapons? Maybe. But maybe more. Like I said. Gave me chills. My gut telling me there is something there and they want it buried so deep now they are willing to look like idiots doing it. Better to look like idiots than murderers?????


• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.


(NOTE: Hello??? No actionable intelligence? Really Jay Carney? Really?)
• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”


(NOTE: Mitt Romney was RIGHT.)


• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”


(NOTE- within 24 hrs media reports indicated the Benghazi Massacre was clearly a coordinated attack while the Obama administration aggressively pushed the “not our fault it was the video” excuse. The cover-up is fully engaged at this point. The question I still have is WHY????????? It’s got to be more than they just didn’t want Obama to look dumb. He does that enough all on his own. What the f-ck was going on in Libya? Why was Stevens flying into Benghazi when all the warnings were screaming to do the exact opposite? Who ordered him to go? No way he does that on his own. The guy was afraid. He was ordered in. Who made that call? And why?)


• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”


(This is about 48 hrs after the Benghazi attack. Intelligence in Libya and back to DC knew by then it was most likely terrorists. You asked if it was possibly something that had been staged by Obama operatives and it went bad? I’ve run that scenario around and around and there are some missing peices that I can’t quite fit together. But I’m not saying it isn’t possible. With these people, not possible no longer applies. That would be a huge f-cking risk though.)

• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.


(READ THAT STATEMENT AGAIN. THIS IS THREE DAYS AFTER THE BENGHAZI MASSACRE. THER HAD BEEN NO LESS THAN THREE RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE AMERICAN CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH. WHY ARE THEY SO WILLING TO LIE LIKE THIS WHEN ALL THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO A TERRORIST ATTACK??? HAS TO BE SOMETHING BIG THEY ARE COVERING UP. BIG. BIG. BIG.)

• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”


(NOTE: Apparently Libyan intelligence is better than American intelligence under the Obama regime. Susan Rice was directly prepped by the Obama White House. She was told EXACTLY what to say when she went on television and repeatedly LIED to the American public. And she doesn’t answer to Hillary. She answers to Obama/Jarrett.)


• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.


(NOTE: This is where the first real rift between the United States intelligence community and the Obama White House is put out in the open. This is when I started to really get chatter about some people getting real pissed with the Obama WH because they are learning they are gonna be set up as the blame for the attack.)


• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


(NOTE: Obama is openly lying to the American people. I’m screaming at the TV asking why???? Why did Jarrett send him out there to lie like this? Why risk that kind of damage? Are they that stupid? That confident? And lots of people are asking these questions at this point. Talking Senators starting to ask some tough questions of the administration. Behind the scenes still. But pushing for answers. Obama is looking like he really could be one and done, so some of them are willing to push them around a bit. Not as much as I would like, but it’s a start.)


• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.


(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up. I got little to no sympathy for Hillary. But I am watching Bill’s reaction to this. Real close. So far it’s been very quiet and if I was Obama and Jarrett, that would make me very very nervous. I have known very few people that can snap a leash as hard and unexpected as Bill Clinton, and he’ll be smiling ear to ear and look like the nicest guy you could ever know while he does it. That first debate, BC had a hand in some of that. How Obama was left hanging a few times. How he looked over at the moderator for help and it didn’t arrive. “He don’t want to listen - he don’t want to prepare? Let him be on his own then.” The only one I’d want to piss off less than BC is the Old Man. He don’t snap a leash. He makes you hang yourself with it and has you thanking him for giving you the opportunity to do so.)


• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”


(NOTE: Why does our current president REFUSE to use the term TERRORIST when it involves Muslim extremists? Even as his own Secretary of State and National Counterterrorism Center director have gone on record DAYS EARLIER calling the Benghazi killings a terrorist attack, Barack Obama refuses to do so.)


• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”


(NOTE: Panetta had been pretty low profile up to this point. Two days after Obama’s UN speech, Panetta is using the term terrorist attack in regards to the Benghazi Massacre that pushes Obama into a corner while he comes to the defense of the intelligence community. And then we get a new report out about how Obama didn’t really make the call on Bin Laden from a former military intelligence guy. Coincidence? F-ck no. That was a firm tap to the top of Obama’s head reminding him there are people who KNOW things, right? We got these very powerful people all facing off against each now. Each one of them is hoping nobody goes THERE, but each one of them is letting it be known they will go there if they have to. And all the rest of them are just scrambling for cover hoping they don’t get stepped on.)


• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”


(NOTE: Now the rift between the Obama White House and the intelligence community is really opening up here. Some might not realize that as U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice answers FIRST to President Barack Obama NOT to Hillary Clinton. Rice is a cabinet member. Her loyalty is to the WH not State. That letter she sent blaming the intelligence community was drafted and approved by high ranking Obama White House advisers…JARRETT.)


• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.


(NOTE: Hillary now using the Obama White House tactic of blaming the U.S. intelligence operations. Possible rift now between her and Leon Panetta? If so, dangerous for her to roll that dice unless it has been agreed beforehand some poor no namer is going to be given up as the sacrificial lamb in this current blame game scenario. Actually, it’s dangerous regardless, because if she is crossing Panetta in any way, she won’t win unless Bill does a full on intervention and I don’t know if he wants to go there. Don’t ever underestimate Leon Panetta. He is powerful in a way that only comes from information. And information he’s got. On a whole lot of them and us.)


• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).


• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”


(NOTE: Has there ever been an administration so willing to throw some of the very bravest who serve to protect the safety of American citizens right under the wheels of the f-cking bus? In all my years of being around these kinds of people I have never seen this kind of thing. Never. There’s been scraps between officials. There’s been firings and resignations. That’s all part of the deal. But to blame the entire intelligence community when the record clearly shows people were aware of how bad the situation had gotten? When the Libyans knew but we are saying we didn’t know?


Bullsh-t. Barack Obama is lying. Everyone around him is lying. And that lie comes at a whole lot of risk. So what is the motivation to lie? Why do it? What are they covering up? Sorry I got more questions than answers on there but that’s what it is.) LINK
_________________________
What I can tell you is the Benghazi issue is playing out in the media much more than it was just a week ago. That took some effort, but it’s reaching a closer version of critical mass. We got the debate tomorrow. The townhall thing makes me nervous and hopeful. The Obama team will try and pack the house with their people. Not sure how successful the Romney people will be able to counter that. It’s New York. Happy to report though that there is some serious endowment influence to be leveraged here with Hofstra. You know who has apparently made some friendly “don’t make me pull the plug on you” calls in our favor.


One last thing. Got a story that came back my way. A little dated now but figured you’d like to hear it. Few days or so after the first debate. When it finally started to sink in just how badly Obama did and how Romney was really starting to look like he could win this thing. Jarrett went ballistic upstairs. Inside her office in West Wing 2. Remember how I told you how there is her office upstairs and then Obama’s study just down the hall? How Obama spends most of his time in the study and hardly any time downstairs in the Oval?


Anyways, Jarrett was blaming everyone around her for Obama’s performance on the debate. This got back to Plouffe who has apparently become more and more agitated over Jarrett’s influence. She’s not only trying to coordinate Obama’s brain but now telling the operatives how to handle the campaign and that’s got Plouffe biting nails over what to do with her. So she is holed up in a meeting with somebody from the White House Counsel in her office and comes out pissed. Sends staff to go get Plouffe. His office is downstairs right next to the Oval. Where Axelrod used to be. Plouffe is down there a lot more than Obama is. The poor bastard is trying to coordinate the plans from Chicago, and Jarrett’s interference from upstairs. Not an easy job. Jarrett decides to make the trip downstairs herself. Now this kind of thing with Jarrett, her pushing people around, it happens a lot these days. It’s become her thing. When it gets back to her how people call her the defacto president, she likes that. A lot. Makes her smile to hear it. Like she told Obama a while back. He might not like his life but she does. And she’s living it.


I’m guessing she’s not even sure if Plouffe is on the premises because he has been spending more time in Chicago with all the others, but down she goes. No word on if Obama was around in the version I got. Maybe he was still in his study. Or over at the residence. Doesn’t really matter. He has depended on the script more and more these days and that script either comes from Jarrett or is approved by her if it comes from someone else. She controls everything going to and from the president.


So down she goes to West Wing 1, and she’s got that look everyone around there is so familiar with. Queen Jarrett on the warpath. Needs somebody to blame for her boy f-cking up so bad during the first debate. Got polls getting shaky. Got a fundraising red alert going out. She enters Plouffe’s office. Comes right back out. Has words with an assistant down there. Not sure who. But the assistant apparently gives as good as she gets. Then another woman steps in. From the description I’m thinking it’s Smoot, though I thought she was out of town at that time but the description fits her. Like so many of them, she’s been back and forth to Chicago as well. Now you got to know that Julianna is a good company individual. Good at what she does. Wall Street connected. Carolina girl. Especially well thought of with some high profile members of Congress. A hell of a lot more thought of than Valerie Jarrett. Good at the cash box.



And for those people, cash is always king. So if Jarrett was going after Smoot on that day, I can see her discovering a woman more than willing to push right back.

So Jarrett is told by this other woman to step back into Plouffe’s office area. The door closes and they have it out. Jarrett is screaming at her. Now you got to understand, this is maybe 20 feet at most from the Oval. So if Obama was in there, he wasn’t coming out. And there’s security of course. But apparently they don’t intervene like they have before. Guessing these kinds of altercations have become so common they don’t bother. Just another day in paradise inside the Obama White House.


What I do know is that the phrase “He said he was one of ours! What the hell happened? He was one of ours, that’s what we were told. What the hell happened?” was repeated at least a few times during that altercation.


That was coming from Jarrett and it had to have been overheard by at least ten people in and around the West Wing at the time. It was loud enough to get Lew to quickly trot down to that end of the hall and into the office where the two women were still squaring off. He only made it about 30 seconds before Jarrett was heard telling him “You – OUT!” And that’s what he did. Right back down the hall and back to his office without saying a word to anyone about it. Just shook his head a bit as if to say “what are you gonna do?”


Both women came back out and Jarrett made her own way back down the hallway with the other woman following her. Jarrett swung around again and the two were face to face before a male member of the staff intervened between them. Told it was an intern. Poor bastard. Also told Jarrett very clearly looked like she didn’t want to take it any further but the other woman looked like she was ready to go. You ever cross a Carolina woman when she’s pissed? Wouldn’t recommend it. She wasn’t giving any indication of being one bit afraid of Valerie Jarrett on that day in that hallway.


Now it’s not so much the argument I want to point out here but what Jarrett said to that other woman, who I believe was Julianna Smoot. When she was screaming about “he was one of ours” I am thinking it was a reference to Jim Lehrer, the moderator of that first debate. I went back and rewatched that debate a few times and there are several examples where Obama looks right over at Lehrer and appears to be waiting to be bailed out. And I’m guessing Lehrer tried to do just that but Obama was so bad so often and Romney was so good nobody could have saved Obama’s ass that night. Nobody.


And that means they will try to ensure they get that kind of help even more for the second debate. But just like he was prepared for the first debate, the governor will be even more prepared the second time around. And this time we are pushing Benghazi out there hard. A whole lot of us. They will try and pack the house. They will try and play out a gotcha moment. But we are prepared. The governor doesn’t have to win big like he did last time. He’s just got to win.


We get that, we get a one and done pile of sh-t pretender out on his ass where he belongs. There’s the riots though. They got some plan to have him come out and calm the f-cking racist seas after the election. Heal the country. Get the rioters to go back home and move on because “that is what America does”. That will help secure him sainthood status in the history books and line up about a $100 million for his United Nations One World World bullsh-t Tour in 2014.

[vector7]

White House considering retaliatory strike on militant targets over Libya consulate attack - @AP

2 hours ago from hosted.ap.org by editor

Oct 15, 4:05 PM EDT



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali - if investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

The dilemma shows the tension of the White House's need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to al-Qaida, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.

Vice President Joe Biden pledged in his debate last week with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to find those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

"We will find and bring to justice the men who did this," Biden said in response to a question about whether intelligence failures led to lax security around Stevens and the consulate. Referring back to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year, Biden said American counterterror policy should be, "if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be."

The White House declined to comment on the debate over how best to respond to the Benghazi attack.

The attack has become an issue in the U.S. election season, with Republicans accusing the Obama administration of being slow to label the assault an act of terrorism early on, and slow to strike back at those responsible.

"They are aiming for a small pop, a flash in the pan, so as to be able to say, `Hey, we're doing something about it,'" said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rudy Attalah, the former Africa counterterrorism director for the Department of Defense under President George W. Bush.

Attalah noted that in 1998, after the embassy bombing in Nairobi, the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles to take out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that may have been producing chemical weapons for al-Qaida.

"It was a way to say, `Look, we did something,'" he said.

A Washington-based analyst with extensive experience in Africa said that administration officials have approached him asking for help in connecting the dots to Mali, whose northern half fell to al-Qaida-linked rebels this spring. They wanted to know if he could suggest potential targets, which he says he was not able to do.

"The civilian side is looking into doing something, and is running into a lot of pushback from the military side," the analyst said. "The resistance that is coming from the military side is because the military has both worked in the region and trained in the region. So they are more realistic."

Islamists in the region are preparing for a reaction from the U.S.

"If America hits us, I promise you that we will multiply the Sept. 11 attack by 10," said Oumar Ould Hamaha, a spokesman for the Islamists in northern Mali, while denying that his group or al-Qaida fighters based in Mali played a role in the Benghazi attack.

Finding the militants who overwhelmed a small security force at the consulate isn't going to be easy.

The key suspects are members of the Libyan militia group Ansar al-Shariah. The group has denied responsibility, but eyewitnesses saw Ansar fighters at the consulate, and U.S. intelligence intercepted phone calls after the attack from Ansar fighters to leaders of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, bragging about it. The affiliate's leaders are known to be mostly in northern Mali, where they have seized a territory as large as Texas following a coup in the country's capital.

But U.S. investigators have only loosely linked "one or two names" to the attack, and they lack proof that it was planned ahead of time, or that the local fighters had any help from the larger al-Qaida affiliate, officials say.

If that proof is found, the White House must decide whether to ask Libyan security forces to arrest the suspects with an eye to extraditing them to the U.S. for trial, or to simply target the suspects with U.S. covert action.

U.S. officials say covert action is more likely. The FBI couldn't gain access to the consulate until weeks after the attack, so it is unlikely it will be able to build a strong criminal case. The U.S. is also leery of trusting the arrest and questioning of the suspects to the fledgling Libyan security forces and legal system still building after the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

The burden of proof for U.S. covert action is far lower, but action by the CIA or special operations forces still requires a body of evidence that shows the suspect either took part in the violence or presents a "continuing and persistent, imminent threat" to U.S. targets, current and former officials said.

"If the people who were targeted were themselves directly complicit in this attack or directly affiliated with a group strongly implicated in the attack, then you can make an argument of imminence of threat," said Robert Grenier, former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

But if the U.S. acts alone to target them in Africa, " it raises all kinds of sovereignty issues ... and makes people very uncomfortable," said Grenier, who has criticized the CIA's heavy use of drones in Pakistan without that government's support.

Even a strike that happens with permission could prove problematic, especially in Libya or Mali where al-Qaida supporters are currently based. Both countries have fragile, interim governments that could lose popular support if they are seen allowing the U.S. unfettered access to hunt al-Qaida.

The Libyan government is so wary of the U.S. investigation expanding into unilateral action that it refused requests to arm the drones now being flown over Libya. Libyan officials have complained publicly that they were unaware of how large the U.S. intelligence presence was in Benghazi until a couple of dozen U.S. officials showed up at the airport after the attack, waiting to be evacuated - roughly twice the number of U.S. staff the Libyans thought were there. A number of those waiting to be evacuated worked for U.S. intelligence, according to two American officials.

In Mali, U.S. officials have urged the government to allow special operations trainers to return, to work with Mali's forces to push al-Qaida out of that country's northern area. AQIM is among the groups that filled the power vacuum after a coup by rebellious Malian forces in March. U.S. special operations forces trainers left Mali just days after the coup. While such trainers have not been invited to return, the U.S. has expanded its intelligence effort on Mali, focusing satellite and spy flights over the contested northern region to track and map the militant groups vying for control of the territory, officials say.

In northern Mali, residents in the three largest cities say they hear the sound of airplanes overhead but can't spot them. That's standard for drones, which are often invisible to the naked eye, flying several thousand feet above ground.

Residents say the plane sounds have increased sharply in recent weeks, following both the attack in Benghazi and the growing calls for a military intervention in Mali.

Chabane Arby, a 23-year-old student from Timbuktu, said the planes make a growling sound overhead. "When they hear them, the Islamists come out and start shooting into the sky," he said.

Aboubacrine Aidarra, another resident of Timbuktu, said the planes circle overhead both day and night. "I have a friend who said he recently saw six at one time, circling overhead. ... They are planes that fly at high altitudes. But they make a big sound. "

[American Patriot]

Ok... Now I don't know this blogger from adam himself, but I lived and worked in DC for 8 years. I spent an entire YEAR inside the OEOB and the White House Grounds. I've been IN the Oval office, down stairs there, I've been around the offices he mentioned about.

I had only a cursory glance upstairs a couple of times...

BUT, I do know this, security or not (Marines are outside the doors normally, and the PPD is inside the doors) and no one gets in anyone's way if there's a shouting match going on.

If someone were in the President's face, that would be a different story, but this bitch Jarret is someone who managed to get where she was by hook and by crook and if she is the one running Washington today then we're fucked a lot worse than Obama doing it. I've posted shit about Jarret before. She's a communist. A Marxist Commie, plain and simple and she's the kind of person we need to have removed from Washington and any power structure.

Obama is a fool, but he's involved in this to the hilt and ain't innocent.

That Ambassador was as good as murdered by State.

Now, I've worked with State, I've worked with CIA, I've worked with WHCA, I've worked with Secret Service, hell, I've even worked with the Metro DC police before....

And everyone's got their fingers in the middle of some pie or another.

But letting this man run the white house? Or his woman handler? Even worse.

I guess whatever "experience" I have in DC is a moot point, but honestly, there's something that's going deep here with Steven's death. Maybe he knew something and they wanted him killed?

Maybe he was a "sacrifice" made by the administration to these fucks in Muslimland.....

I'm beginning to think the latter.

[American Patriot]

You know the saddest thing?

Ambassadors are appointed by the President. They are people who might be asskissers or whatever for whomever the political party is (and someone tried to tell me the other day this ambassador was "left over from Bush", /sigh) but he's an AMBASSADOR and as such as diplomatic immunity in the eyes of the law.

This just goes to show without a doubt there IS NO LAW in these God Forsaken Countries. Allah wouldn't even want these fucks.

[American Patriot]

BREAKING: Obama Preparing Military Strike Against Benghazi Terrorists

by Ulsterman on October 15, 2012 with 12 Comments in News


The Associated Press is now reporting that the Obama administration has given the order to prepare for strikes against terrorist forces in Libya. The timing of this announcement is very suspicious given the potential political implications. A true Wag the Dog moment – and perhaps something even more sinister as to what the true intended use of now dead Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be for the Obama White House. Dead lips tell no truths…

EXCERPT:
The Associated Press reports:
Administration officials say the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to hit militant targets from Libya to Mali, if U.S. investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador in Libya.

…Details were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke only on condition of anonymity. LINK

[vector7]

If they time the retaliation right, Obama could take credit during the election debates.

They just got Hilary to take the fall on Benghazi...

Clinton: 'I take responsibility' for security

By Elise Labott, CNN

Lima, Peru (CNN) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the buck stops with her when it comes to who is to blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru, for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, was the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she added, noting that it is close to the election.

The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the consulate.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week's vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. Following the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

Fact Check: Benghazi security

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.

Actress sues filmmaker

In the wake of an attack, there is always "confusion," Clinton said. But the information has since changed, Clinton said in the interview.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an "intense, long ordeal" as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again -- but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

"We can't not engage," she said. "We cannot retreat."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/cli...azi/index.html

[American Patriot]

The White House is imploding.

[American Patriot]

FNC is reporting this as "Hillary falling on her sword".

[American Patriot]

McCain, Graham and Aiiat (not sure of the spelling of her name) are going after the WH on this.

[American Patriot]

I'm reading a book, written about 1976ish. When I joined the service the Cold War was still going strong.
In any case, I am going to quote something out of the book because I think the first part of the paragraph captures the whole thing here, though it is about nuclear war and not terrorist attacks. Bear with me a moment:

How would a nuclear war get started? The popular
myth of the insane general with a finger on the button is
pretty far from reality, but something like it did happen
during the Nixon administration. The President, harried
by the Watergate investigation, remarked to some
members of Congress, "I can go into my office and pick
up the telephone and in twenty-five minutes 70 million
people will be dead." This remark sparked a great deal of
concern and a special Congressional investigation into
the mechanism of command and control over this country's
nuclear weapons. Before the investigation could
convene, Defense Secretary Schlesinger quietly told his
staff that any unusual orders from the White House
should not be honored until he had personally examined
them. This was a prudent action under the circumstances,
since the Secretary was worried about a possible
military coup, but it was also quite illegal. The danger of
an insane President (the person occupying the most
stressful job in the world) cannot be dismissed. (Clayton, "Life After Doomsday" 15)

Now, I bring this up because Nixon was far from nuts. I met the man a couple of times and he was as sane as anyone. Would he have "killed 70 million people" out of spite? Most likely he would never have done this. Can others within the chain of command countermand orders? They can. The question though, is WOULD THEY?

More important, does the President have ultimate responsibility for the people and personnel he sends to foreign countries to represent the US? He certainly does and it doesn't MATTER if Hillary "accepts responsibility" for what happened. The fact is SHE IS responsible to ensure the safety of those people, NOT THE SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, but her... but ULTIMATELY she is working for Obama and ultimately HE is responsible so don't let this smoke-and-mirrors thing block your view.

Obama sent Stevens there at great risk. Stevens was FLYING BACK IN under threat of death and he knew it. Why did he do it? He was ordered back in. By whom and for what purpose?

Why isn't Congress all over this?

[American Patriot]

LOL!

Bill Hemmer (FNC): "So, the Secretary of State jumping UNDER the Benghazi Bus...."

[American Patriot]

White House ponders a strike over Libya attack

• By KIMBERLY DOZIER and RUKMINI CALLIMACHI
  Associated Press
• Posted: 10/16/12 09:31 am

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House, under political pressure to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is readying strike forces and drones but first has to find a target.
And if the administration does find a target, officials say it still has to weigh whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group’s profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight the group in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.
Details on the administration’s position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.
In another effort to bolster Libyan security, the Pentagon and State Department have been developing a plan to train and equip a special operations force in Libya, according to a senior defense official.
The efforts show the tension of the White House’s need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to al-Qaida, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.
Vice President Joe Biden pledged in his debate last week with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to find those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

“We will find and bring to justice the men who did this,” Biden said in response to a question about whether intelligence failures led to lax security around Stevens and the consulate. Referring back to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year, Biden said American counterterror policy should be, “if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be.”

[American Patriot]

Rep. Peter King Dismisses Susan Rice’s Libya Excuses: ‘Yeah, I Don’t Accept That’

Video
by Alex Alvarez | 9:30 am, October 16th, 2012
» 1 comment On Tuesday, Starting Point host Soledad O’Brien invited Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King on to discuss the Obama administration’s handling of security issues in Benghazi, Libya.
“I give Secretary Clinton credit for taking some responsibility,” he told O’Brien. “I wish Joe Biden and President Obama would also take responsibility. I think the administration has a lot to explain from the day this story broke, back on September 11th, September 12th, they told misleading stories, confusing stories, contradictory stories. The reality is what they said the very first day, almost every word they’ve said has been disproven.”
“The fact is,” he added, contrary to what the administration had been telling us, “this attack showed that Al Qaeda and its affiliates and offshoots are still a powerful force against the United States and, in some ways, even more dangerous than September 11th.”
O’Brien then shared remarks by Susan Rice, wherein she claimed that the information she had shared while making her Sunday morning talk show rounds after the attack in Benghazi had been flawed, but that it reflected was the most up-to-date briefing she had been given at the time, and she that she had not given intentionally false or misleading information.
“Yeah, I don’t accept that,” said King, adding that Rice had basically failed to perform her due diligence before sharing information with the public and that she had come forward with an agenda, which was to perpetuate the story that the attacks had been a spontaneous protest of the film Innocence of Muslims.
O’Brien then pointed out that the President had used the word “terror” almost immediately following the attack, prompting King to point out that he’d only used the term once and that his administration almost immediately denied a link to terror immediately after.
When the host noted that King seemed to not want to characterize the administration’s actions a “cover-up,” King corrected her, saying that he did, although he wasn’t going so far as to allege unlawful activity.
Have a look, via CNN:

[American Patriot]

Clinton mea culpa for deaths in Libyan consulate raid

Date

October 17, 2012

• Tweet
• Pin It
• Email article
• Print

Taking responsibility ... US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that security at all of America's diplomatic missions abroad is her job, not that of the White House. Photo: AP

WASHINGTON: The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said she accepted responsibility for what happened in last month's attack on a US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador.
Mrs Clinton told CNN that President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden were not involved in diplomatic security decisions and should not be blamed for the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
''I take responsibility . . . I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,'' Mrs Clinton said on CNN's OutFront program.
The Libya attack has emerged as an issue in the US presidential race, with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and fellow Republicans saying the Obama administration failed to secure the facility before the attack and painted a false picture of it afterwards.
Advertisement
Three Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee called Mrs Clinton's acceptance of responsibility a ''laudable gesture'' while criticising the White House for not doing the same.
''The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief,'' senators John McCain, of Arizona, Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, said. ''The buck stops there.''
In her CNN interview, Mrs Clinton also tried to deflect criticism that administration officials stuck with a mistaken depiction of the attack as a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video that was hijacked by extremists.
After such an incident there was always ''confusion'' and the information had since changed.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/clinton-...#ixzz29TBc514H

[American Patriot]

Senators: The buck stops with Obama, not Clinton, on Benghazi

Posted By Josh Rogin Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 9:33 AM Share

Even though U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she bears responsibility for the security failures in Benghazi, three GOP senators said late Monday that they still believe that President Barack Obama, not Clinton, should be held to account.
On Monday in Lima, Peru, Clinton said that the buck stops with her when it comes to diplomatic security decisions abroad. She was backing up Vice President Joe Biden, who said at last week's debate that "we" weren't aware of requests for more security in Libya prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The White House later clarified that when Biden says "we" he only speaks for him and the president.
"I take responsibility," Clinton said. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."
Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) have been criticizing the administration for its statements on the Benghazi attack, especially U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who said on Sept. 16 that based on the best information available at that time, the attack appeared to be a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Clinton's attempt to claim responsibility was "laudable" but doesn't absolve Obama and the White House of their responsibilities, the senators said, both for the security failures surrounding the attack and for the statements made by White House officials afterward.
"We must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador," they said.
"If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.