Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[American Patriot]

October 16, 2012 Will there be any consequences for Secretary Clinton accepting responsibility for Benghazi attack?

Bruce Johnson

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted responsibility for Benghazi security deficiencies.


Now, who accepts the consequences of responsibility? And what of the disinformation campaign?


Accepting responsibility is only step one. The consequences of failure come second.
Will the second part ever happen? No.


Will Hillary resign? No. Will Hillary suffer any consequence for accepting the "responsibility" for under manning our hottest embassy situation on the 9/11 anniversary? Will she accept responsibilities for the deaths that ensued after requests for additional security? No. Will she be held on misleading the nation as to the causes of the attack. No. This is nothing more than an uncomfortable admission which serves as a diversion.


Will Obama be held for his non attendance of intelligence briefings the week prior to 9/11? Or for flying to Las Vegas on 9/12 for a fund raiser? No. Hillary took the bullet.
This is a vapid "end of story" empty acquiescence. A "Please media, go away", declaration and request. What is necessary now is the consequence of poor decision making and department control which cost lives out there in the "big game". What is necessary is the revelation of who knew what and when. Just like Fast and Furious, somehow "who knew" never comes out. This is political bargaining behind the scenes. We have this on you, and now you will march to our music. It seems to be a more valuable bobble to have in one's political war chest, than to bring to sunlight the facts and the circumstances. In this mode, politicians all appear to have a mutual understanding amongst themselves. Kinda like, "we are all in the same actor's guild, we all make mistakes".
And maybe that is the BIG problem in the American political system. You, Hillary, won't get hurt, but now we own you for a while. The Public will never know. Their right to know seems to have been lost somewhere.
Witness the Jesse Jr. charade. His big crime is attempting to buy the Senate seat. But he was suddenly struck by bipolar disorder symptoms within a week of his water carrier going state's evidence. He disappears. Deals seem to have been made. Suddenly he now is accused of decorating his house with campaign funds. From murder to a speeding ticket. But Jesse, tip toe from now on. We gottcha.
Hillary's "acceptance" or responsibility is only step one. Step two is consequence to Hillary. I am guessing this will never occur. But someone will own her for a while.
Walk softly Mrs. Clinton.


Bruce Johnson


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz29TDUe0zH

[American Patriot]

Africa News Round Up October, Tuesday 16, 2012


16 October 2012

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she takes responsibility for the failure in security at the US consulate in Benghazi, where the US ambassador to Libya was killed last month, the BBC reports.

Mrs Clinton said ensuring the safety of US diplomatic staff overseas was her job, not that of the White House.

It comes ahead of the second campaign debate between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

In all, four Americans died when the US consulate in Benghazi was attacked.

"What we had to do in the state department was keep focused not on why something happened - that was for the intelligence community to determine - but what was happening and what could happen," she told US TV channels.

"And that's what I was very much working on, day and night, to try to make sure that we intervened with governments. We did everything we could to keep our people safe, which is my primary responsibility."

Elsewhere in Libya at least 120 prisoners escaped from Libya's largest jail on Monday after the policeman in charge threw a set of keys into the prisoners' cells, News24 reports.

The mass escape is the latest in a string of incidents which highlight the ongoing instability in Libya a year after the end of the civil war that toppled dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Supreme Security Council spokesperson Abdel-Monem al-Hurr told Reuters that 120 men detained in the Jdeida prison in Tripoli were now on the run and were believed to be hiding in the city.

"We don't know why the policeman threw the keys into the prison," he said on Monday. "We've been able to catch only seven of the prisoners so far."

Jdeida prison is the biggest jail in Libya and falls under the jurisdiction of the interior ministry.

In South Africa newly-elected African Union Commission chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said on Monday that AU would spare no effort to try and resolve conflict in Mali and the Sahel region, News24 reports.

"This crisis has the potential to spread across the region and even the continent," she said during the hand-over ceremony in Addis Ababa, according to a copy of her speech.
Dlamini-Zuma said the AU would continue to provide support to both Sudan and South Sudan, the Somali government, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Guinea Bissau.
She said peace and stability were a prerequisite for social, economic, and human development, and good governance.

She said the AU would discuss ways to improve co-operation and co-ordination with the United Nations.

Africa should be united to ensure it was a force for global change. Dlamini-Zuma said the magnitude of the task did not escape her.
Elsewhere in South Africa, efforts to end a rash of gold mine strikes that have strangled production at South African mines have reached an impasse, with no further talks planned, RNW reports.

In last-gasp talks, unions reported that a negotiated wage offer was met with scepticism by striking miners, leading the Chamber of Mines to declare "it is not in a position to make any further proposals."

The announcement could spell the end of an effort to deal with a spate of labour unrest through a centralised bargaining process.

"The individual companies will now explore other avenues to try to bring normality to the gold mining industry," a Chamber of Mines statement said.

Workers indicated Thursday they could not get behind a deal negotiated between the National Union of Minerworkers and the Chamber, saying it was not up to their demand of roughly 12,500 rand ($1,430) per month wages.

The latest offer would have seen monthly wages and bonuses go up to between 7,000 and 10,000 rand.

The unrest has been marked by workers' rejection of union leadership, especially the NUM, which is allied to the ruling African National Congress (ANC).

In Nigeria, loud explosions and gunfire have rocked Nigeria's northern city of Maiduguri, which has seen growing violence by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram, the BBC reports.

Details are unclear, but reports said at least 10 people had been killed, including several soldiers.

A primary school and a radio tower were reportedly set ablaze.

Earlier this month witnesses said soldiers shot dead up to 30 civilians after a bomb attack on an army patrol in Maiduguri.

In the latest incident, reports said soldiers sealed off nearly every street in the city centre as the attacks began on Monday afternoon and continued after dark.

Witnesses said that, earlier on Monday, a gunman had shot dead a traffic warden in the city close to a military checkpoint.

The army denied killing civilians although correspondents say it offered contradictory explanations about what had happened.

Attacks in central and northern Nigeria blamed on Boko Haram have killed some 1,400 people since 2010.

[American Patriot]

Rep. King: Al Qaeda a greater threat now than before 9/11

By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times

October 16, 2012, 08:59AM

• Enlarge Photo
  **FILE** Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican (Associated Press) more >

U.S. Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and Chairman of the House's Homeland Security Committee, said Tuesday that al Qaeda is a greater threat now than it was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


"That is the consensus of most intelligence experts," he said on CNN's "Starting Point." "What they've done is they are now more under the radar screen, they're more spread out, and they're harder to define. It was great killing … [Osama] bin Laden, I give President Obama credit for that, for bin Laden being killed, but having said that, he was one element, because al Qaeda [had] shifted. And it [had] shifted its emphasis from being a centralized force to being a diversified, diverse force, which is harder to track down. They're under the radar screen in many cases.


"They're a greater threat than they were back on September 11, because of the fact that they are much more spread out, the fact that there is active recruiting going on, people under the radar screen, and if you talk to intelligence experts, most will agree with that," Mr. King continued. "That on September 11 and the immediate years afterwards we knew who they were, we know we had a generalized idea of how to get them, and we were getting them one by one. And the culmination was when President Obama got bin Laden in May of 2011 … but the fact is, it has now spread out into many different groups, and that is why it is considered by most intelligence experts to be more dangerous now than it was then, and that's the story the president is not telling."


Mr. King said that the Obama administration's evolving story over the recent events in Libya has unfolded because immediately labeling the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an act of terrorism would undercut the administration's message that al Qaeda, a terrorist group, has been decimated.


While traveling in Peru, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is taking "full responsibility" for the lack of security at the consulate before the attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that led to the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

[American Patriot]

Posted at 09:30 AM ET, 10/16/2012 NSC failure? Clinton’s failure?

By Jennifer Rubin

Now on the eve of the second presidential debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes forward with a rather meaningless acceptance of responsibility, telling CNN that she takes “responsibility” for what happened in Benghazi. Huh? She knew about the requests for more security and turned them down? She knew Libya had become a shooting gallery and kept it to herself? If she is really at fault she should first resign and then get herself to either a news conference or a congressional hearing to explain what she knew.
But of course this is another transparent move to deflect blame from the White House and race to catch up to events on the ground.
The Obama administration is scrambling to catch up to reality in Libya. Libya is not a “success” in leading from behind but rather on the verge of being disabled, if not overrun, by jihadists. The New York Times reports that only in the wake of the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are the Pentagon and State Department “rushing to help the Libyan government create a commando force to combat Islamic extremists like the ones who killed the American ambassador in Libya last month and to help counter the country’s fractious militias, according to internal government documents.”
The administration, of course, should have known that the security situation was perilous months ago, when, for example, the International Red Cross pulled out. It is no mystery to European governments, to outside analysts and even to some intelligence figures (not to mention to members of Congress) that Libya has been a non-functioning state with a dire al-Qaeda problem. But only now does President Obama do something about it.
Is Hillary Clinton saying this failure was her fault? Well, we do have intelligence agencies and, more to the point, the National Security Council. Where were all these folks?
In fact, the president seems to always be the last to know about everything. In a remarkable State Department background briefing on Oct. 9 was this exchange:

QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the — a large number of armed men assaulting the compound

The State Department (except Susan Rice, it seems) had it right, but the president didn’t? Or the State Department permanent bureaucracy knew what was going on, but the secretary of state was clueless?
Even if we assume no one was trying to push this under the rug until the election and no one in the administration was nervous, the Libya attack would undermine the claim both to have put al-Qaeda on its heels and to have achieved a victory in Libya with only the slightest U.S. imprint. Doesn’t this all suggest that not only Clinton but also the NSC had utterly failed to keep the White House up to speed on what was going on?
Either national security adviser Tom Donilon has been asleep at the wheel for months (along with Clinton, I guess), failing to keep the president abreast of either the descent of Libya into chaos or the most up-to-date intelligence on the murder of four Americans, or Donilon did his job and the president failed in his. It’s one or the other.
If Clinton wants to throw herself under the bus, far be it from me to object. But it is silly to think she is solely or even principally responsible for the debacle. Sorry, but the buck stops at the White House.

By Jennifer Rubin | 09:30 AM ET, 10/16/2012

[American Patriot]

Economics

|

10/14/2012 @ 9:58PM |2,908 views

Obama on Benghazi: Believe Me or Your Lying Eyes (Or At Least Wait Until After the Election)

In this handout photo provided by The White House, U.S. President Barack Obama signs a condolence book in memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (L) looks on, September 12, 2012 in Washington,(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)



In Duck Soup, Groucho Marx pleads his innocence to his wealthy matronly fiancé, who catches him smooching with a show girl: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”


Since September 12, the Obama administration has been asking us to believe him, his press secretary, and his proxies that our Libyan ambassador and three other consulate officials were killed by a spontaneous mob driven into frenzy by an anti-Muslim film produced by an unknown Christian film maker. He asks that we not believe his state department or top intelligence officials who testify that this narrative is false. Nor should we notice the coincidence of the attack taking place on 9/11 or that this was revenge for the fifteen top al Qaeda leaders killed by drones under Obama. Of course, Obama spiking the “I-killed-Osama” football at the Democrat convention had nothing to do with this either. Nor did the Libyan President warn of impending violence three days earlier.

We should at least wait until Obama’s own investigation is complete – that is, until after the election to decide what really happened!
The following partial CNN chronology reveals the collapse of the Obama narrative and his futile attempts to keep it alive.


Note that this chronology tells us what the various officials say on record and sometimes under oath, but the truth would have been known within hours or a day. We now know that there were surveillance cameras on site and a U.S. drone overhead to record the fact that there was no spontaneous protest and that this was a planned coordinated attack – the key fact that was initially denied. Surviving consulate personnel could have been debriefed immediately. Hence it is clear that the Obama administration knew almost from the beginning but chose to obfuscate the official record for political gain.


The cover up began immediately on September 12 with Hillary Clinton’s statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet….”


White House press secretary, Jay Carney, on September 13: “The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”


A senior U.S. official on September 13 is one of the first to contradict the Obama narrative: The Benghazi violence was “not an innocent mob… The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”
Carney on September 14 continued to deny the obvious: ”We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”


Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS (Sunday September 16) dug the hole deeper:
“We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned….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… .”


Carney on September 18:“Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”


The Director of National Intelligence before Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (September 19) trashed the Obama narrative under oath: “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”


Carney on September 19 continued to plead ignorance: “… Right now I’m saying we don’t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a — to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.”


Only on September 20 (nine days after the tragedy) did Carney finally concede: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.” (Why did the affair become self-evident within one day?)


With his narrative collapsing on all sides, Obama still refused to abandon the video story in a town hall meeting organized by Univision Network on September 20: “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.”
Hillary Clinton on September 21 drove another nail into the video coffin “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack…”


Obama on ABC’s “The View” on September 25, asked about Hillary Clinton’s act-of-terrorism statement: “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it….”


Background briefing by senior state department official (October 9): “The lethality and the number of armed people are unprecedented… And so it is unprecedented, in fact, it would be very, very hard to find precedent for an attack like (it) in recent diplomatic history.”


With the video story so widely demolished, Obama could only plead with voters to wait until all the facts are in.


There are three reasons why Obama sticks so stubbornly to his discredited narrative at the cost of credibility with voters on the eve of the election. He will likely pay heavily for this intransigence in the upcoming foreign policy debate:


First, a counter-narrative had to be ginned up quickly to counter what would shortly become Paul Ryan’s “Obama’s Mid East policy going down in flames” characterization. After all, the President himself, on May 2 of this year, assured the American people from Bagrham Air Base that “the tide has turned,” the Taliban’s “momentum has been broken,” al Qaeda leadership had been “devastated,” and that he had kept his campaign promise to kill Osama. The handoff of security to local Afghan forces is going well, he asserted, especially since we extricated ourselves from the “bad war” in Iraq, which had diverted resources from the “good war” in Afghanistan. Obama decided to mislead the public about Benghazi to perpetuate the myth of a successful Mid East policy until the election.


Second, Obama’s blame-the-video narrative obfuscates the extreme naïveté and egoism of a rookie President who believes that living in a Muslim country as a youth and delivering one Cairo speech, preaching mutual understanding and apologizing for past sins and affronts, can make things right with the Muslim world. With Obama in charge, Muslims throughout the world, perhaps even the Taliban, will treat us with love and respect once they understand his good intentions. The Benghazi tragedy was only a small part of the Mid East conflagration, but it was the most visible. It had to be blamed on someone else, other than a naïve and egotistical self-described multi-cultural American president who believes that his words can transform the Muslim world into our friend.

Already in campaign mode in May of 2007, candidate Obama declared in a radio interview that the day he is elected “the rest of the world will look at the United States differently.” Only he can “reach out to the Muslim world” because “I understand their point of view” even though I am a Christian… With me as President, “the world will have confidence that I am listening to them.” This understanding “will make us safer, something this (Bush) administration failed to understand.”
As Sarah Palin might be tempted to say: “How is that listening working out for you. Mr. President?”


Third, the zealot-film-maker narrative could be used to tarnish all those Bible-thumping, anti-abortion, and racist evangelicals, who vote overwhelmingly Republican. On the weighty David Letterman show, the President instructed the late-night audience what harm America’s religious nuts can cause. In one false move, a “shadowy figure” destroyed all the good will built up by Obama’s policy of apology, understanding, and sympathy for the downtrodden Muslim world. It’s not Obama’s fault. After all, he cannot control all the right-wing nuts in America.


Obama did not elaborate that the “shadowy” filmmaker’s amateurish trailer languished unseen on the internet since July until al Qaeda operatives and Mullahs dredged it up. Moreover, it does not help the Obama narrative that the so-called film maker is a Coptic Christian, an ancient Egyptian branch of Christianity that has nothing to do with those who “cling to guns and religion in their frustration.” Obama also would not like it known that the new ruling Muslim Brotherhood is expelling Coptic Christians from their ancient home in Egypt and threatening them with death for practicing their religion. Our “shadowy” film maker had good cause to be upset. His lifespan is now limited after the President’s condemnation. He has a number of Fatwa bounties on his head.


Al Qaeda and the Mullahs did not even need the excuse of the Coptic film maker. A brief survey of the internet brings up hundreds of Anti-Islam cartoons and videos. They are a dime a dozen and emanate from all kinds of civilized countries weekly, if not daily. If the Mullahs, the Taliban, or al Qaeda wish to stir up a crowd, they do not need our shadowy film maker.


The Obama administration’s offense is a shabby cover up that has been aided and abetted by the main stream press. (The flagship newspaper of the party, the venerable New York Times, has maintained a hush of silence around this cover up). If the matter is raised at all in the mainstream press, it is in the context of whether Obama denied extra security for Libyan diplomatic outposts. (If he did, Obama would say that it was the Republicans’ fault anyway for cutting vital funding).


I have a deep faith in the common sense of the American people. They know a bunch of malarkey (to coin a phrase) when they hear it. Obama will regret the day he decided to cover up the Benghazi tragedy by blaming it on someone else. He should have come clean, taken his licks, and hope that that would end the bleeding.
Paul Gregory’s new book The Global Economy and its Economic Systems will be published shortly by Cengage.

[vector7]

MILITARY INSIDER: Ambassador Rice Just Confirmed Obama White House Lie

by Ulsterman on October 16, 2012 with 2 Comments in News

In a recent interview with the very Obama-friendly Washington Post, Ambassador Susan Rice said something very interesting that would appear to confirm the belief that it was senior advisers within the Obama White House who told her to lie to the American public regarding the true nature of the Benghazi Massacre that killed four Americans – including a United States ambassador. According to a longtime military insider, the quote from Ambassador Rice leaves NO DOUBT – it was the Obama White House that told her exactly what to say.



EXCERPT:

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Tuesday, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said, according to The Post’s characterization, that “she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials. LINK

__________________________

A figure with long standing ties to the United States defense industry, received this bit of information from a longtime Military Insider, and then passed it along to me. I am now, with their permission, sharing it with all of you…

Rice just told media she was relying on “intelligence agency talking points” before going public with her version of Benghazi.

Read more in News
« Senators Slam Obama On Benghazi Massacre – “No Confidence”

We provide intel. We don’t tell an administration how to sell that intel to the public. We don’t do “talking points”. Any talking points received came directly from administration. They packaged it. They delivered their version of it. Rice just admitted to that. Confirmation of Obama White House lie. Will forward to committee with assessment. -NAME DELETED- pushing for hearing announcement no later than 23rd.

[American Patriot]

So, basically Valerie Jarret is the one that told Rice to suck it up and lie.... Because I'm betting now Obama ain't that friggin smart. Oh, he's a smart man, but I don't think he sees things on a strategic scale. I don't think he ever did which is one reason he never should have been President.

Jarret is commie enough to mate with the Muslims in my opinion.

[American Patriot]

Obama accused by GOP of shirking responsibility over Benghazi attack

Republicans say Obama must 'man up and accept responsibility' after Hillary Clinton accepted blame for Libya security failings

• Chris McGreal in Tampa
  
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 October 2012 13.05 EDT

Hillary Clinton told CNN: 'I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the of the state department's 60,000-plus people all over the world.' Photograph: Reuters

Leading Republicans have accused Barack Obama of trying to duck responsibility for the attack in Benghazi after the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, accepted the blame for security failures over the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other officials by an armed militia.


In an apparent attempt to weaken a potential line of attack on Obama by Mitt Romney in Tuesday's crucial debate, Clinton broke away from a tour of Latin America to tell US television networks that responsibility for the circumstances that led to the death of the ambassador, Chris Stevens, stops with her not the White House.


"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN. "I'm in charge of the state department's 60,000-plus people all over the world and 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."


Republicans reacted with scorn and accused the White House of attempting to shirk responsibility for failures exposed by a hearing in Congress last week, including the state department's refusal of requests to strengthen diplomatic security in Libya even following a series of attacks on American, British and other international targets in Benghazi.


Richard Williamson, a Romney foreign policy adviser, said he expected the Romney to use the debate to press the president to "man up and accept responsibility" for failures that led to Stevens' death.


Senator John McCain praised Clinton for "throwing herself under the bus" to shield Obama. But McCain joined two other Republican senators – Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte – in questioning White House claims that it knew nothing of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi ahead of the killings on September 11 nor the requests for added protection.


They noted that the attack on the US consulate was "preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi".


"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," the senators said. "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."


While Clinton moved to shield the president, she also accepted responsibility only up to a point. The secretary of state said specific decisions about protection in Benghazi were made by others.


"The decisions about security assets are made by security professionals," she told Fox News.


Clinton also sought to shift some of the responsibility for inaccurate statements initially made by administration officials about the circumstances of the assault on the Benghazi consulate.


Five days after the attack, the administration sent the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, on to television talk shows to say that the assault was part of a broader backlash across the Middle East against an anti-Muslim video. The administration later backtracked, describing the attack as a preplanned terrorist assault that went on for several hours.


Clinton said Rice was merely conveying faulty intelligence.


"As the intelligence community has now said, their assessment over the last month changed. But everyone in the administration was trying to give information to the best of their ability at the time with the caveat that more was likely to be learned and there would be most likely changes," she told Fox News. "The fog of war, the confusion you get in any kind of combat situation, remember this was an attack that went on for hours."


Rice also denied the administration was covering up the true nature of the attack.


"It was purely a function of what was provided to us," she told the Washington Post.


But McCain remained sceptical.


"They're either deceiving the American people or they are so incompetent they don't deserve to serve," he said.


Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Centre for Politics, said Clinton's series of interviews were clearly an effort to draw fire away from the White House.
"There's three weeks to the election and Obama's struggling. The last thing he needs is to have this placed on this plate so she's doing her party duty. She swinging into action as Bill [Clinton] swung into action for the party convention," he said.


But Sabato said that while Obama will be relieved to be able to defend himself in the debate by pointing to Clinton's statements, there is little evidence that Republican criticism is having an impact on the election.


"This issue is not cutting. It's not having an impact. People seem to be focused squarely on domestic and economic matters in this election, and I just haven't seen any impact," Sabato said. "The Republican base is interested but they've already made a decision."


The greater impact may ultimately be on Clinton if she decides to make a bid for the presidency in 2016.


"It would come back and it would be used by her opponents. I can't imagine it would by any means be the decisive issue. But if she does run, the critical question among the Obama supporters will be: was she loyal? So far the Clintons are the best thing Obama has got going," Sabato said.

[American Patriot]

I don't think ANY of us are "defending" Hillary. Everyone KNOWS the President is responsible, ultimately. She is an idiot for taking the blame - but it was a calculated risk because they did this just before the debate tonight to get attention off of Obama!

No one is defending her.

National Security
Why Republicans Aren’t Attacking Hillary Clinton over Benghazi

By Michael Crowley | @CrowleyTIME | October 15, 2012 | +






Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images


President Barack Obama heads back into the Oval Office after making a statement about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC., on Sept. 12, 2012.




On Sunday’s talk shows, Republicans remained indignant about Joe Biden‘s statement in last week’s debate that “we did not know” about requests for more security to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi shortly before the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The White House has clarified that Biden was not talking about the entire Obama Administration, but the White House itself, which seems an entirely reasonable position. But senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie was not buying that line when pressed by Fox’s tenacious Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: What about — what about the argument that you just heard from David Axelrod, when he said “we”, he meant the president and the vice president. And, even the White House, and, quite frankly, there is no reason that they would have heard that people were asking for more security in Libya. That is not something that would rise to the presidential level.

GILLESPIE: Well, first of all, you know, I guess we’ll accept that explanation. “We” generally means your administration, when you are talking as the president or vice president of the United States, including your State Department.

And clearly what we saw here this morning and what we have been seeing is an effort by President Obama and Vice President Biden to say, no, it was really Secretary Clinton. It was the State Department that you ought to be looking at and talking to and criticizing here or questioning here as opposed to us in the White House.


GILLESPIE: I’m not sure that that’s sustainable, frankly. I think that the buck does stop at the — in the Oval Office.

This debate is strange on a couple of levels. One is the simple logic of it. Why is it not “sustainable” for the White House to say it was unaware of a bureaucratic fight over security at a second-tier diplomatic site? It seems overwhelmingly plausible, and it’s hard to imagine most voters would disagree.


Even stranger, however, is the position Republicans have adopted of defending Hillary Clinton. The Secretary of State has been an archvillain of Republican campaigns for decades now. And when it comes to the debate over security in Benghazi, it would seem that the buck should stop with her. But suddenly it doesn’t suit the GOP to attack Clinton. Her approval ratings are sky-high. Romney already has a problem with female voters. And Hillary’s not on the ballot this November. The GOP wants to concentrate its political attacks on Obama, even at the cost of sounding nonsensical.

The Benghazi security debate is really a proxy for something larger anyway. Republicans don’t argue that Obama was somehow indifferent or incompetent when it came to protecting Chris Stevens. They say that the Libya attack illustrated the “unraveling” of Obama’s larger foreign policy. As Joe explains well, that thesis doesn’t make much sense either.


But all that may be beside the point. At his infamous “47%” fundraiser, Romney assured a concerned donor that if a foreign policy crisis emerged late in the campaign, “I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” And so he has.

[American Patriot]

This was all from Time and all the notes in there (hyperlinks) are mostly from Time as well.

They are a bunch of Bullshit Liberals anyway. So who cares what they blather about?

[American Patriot]

I have to wonder about this article.

I've heard that the Ambassador was beaten, tortured and then killed. NOW this article is saying he died from SMOKE INHALATION!

WTF?

The administration has abandoned its early depictions of the assault in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans as the escalation of a spontaneous and peaceful demonstration. Photographer: Mahmud Turkia/AFP/GettyImages

Bloomberg News

Evidence Points to Hasty Strike on U.S. Compound in Libya

By John Walcott and Christopher Stephen on October 16, 2012



While details of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya last month may never be fully known, there is ample evidence neither the Obama administration’s initial accounts nor Republican portrayals of the incident are accurate.


The administration has abandoned its early depictions of the assault in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans as the escalation of a spontaneous and peaceful demonstration. Republicans, meanwhile, have sought to tie the attack to a resurgent al-Qaeda that President Barack Obama’s administration failed to detect and deter.


Instead, accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.


The Sept. 11 assault has emerged as an issue in the U.S. presidential race, with challenger Mitt Romney and fellow Republicans saying the Obama administration failed to secure the facility in Benghazi properly before the attack and painted a false picture of it for eight days afterward.


The White House was “trying to sell a narrative about the Mideast that the wars are receding and that al-Qaeda was being defeated,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Oct. 14 on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Acknowledging that “an al-Qaeda-affiliated militia” carried out what he called a coordinated attack would undercut the administration’s preferred narrative, he said.
No Link

Republicans may find efforts to link the attack to a resuscitated al-Qaeda difficult to sustain. U.S. officials who have reviewed the evidence say the intelligence doesn’t support that version.


There is no intelligence suggesting that either the remaining core of al-Qaeda in Pakistan or its loose affiliates in Yemen and North Africa plotted, financed or directed the attack, which one of the U.S. officials described as amateurish.


Republican assertions that al-Qaeda had a hand in the attack rest in part on the ties that Muhammed Jamal abu Ahmad, a leader of Ansar al-Sharia -- the militia believed to have mounted the attack -- has to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and to its affiliates in Yemen and North Africa. However, the al-Qaeda groups learned of the assault only after one of the attackers called to boast of it, said the officials. A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia has denied the group’s involvement.
‘Opportunistic’ Attack

The administration has walked away from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s initial description of the attack to television news shows on Sept. 16 as a “spontaneous” response to protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video clip that was “hijacked” by extremists.


Instead, two State Department officials told a U.S. House committee last week, it was an armed attack on the compound. Eyewitnesses in Benghazi also have said there was no non-violent demonstration prior to the armed attack.


The most accurate account, based on the evidence so far, is one provided on Sept. 19 by Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the officials said. Olsen called the attack “opportunistic” during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, adding: “What we don’t have is specific intelligence that there was significant advance planning or coordination for this attack.”


The types of weapons used and the level of violence don’t indicate a well-planned al-Qaeda operation either, according to the U.S. officials and the physical evidence. Rather than use a car bomb to breach the compound walls quickly, the attackers used a rocket-propelled grenade, which one U.S. official said are as easy to find as couscous in Benghazi.
Bullet Holes

At the compound, a Bloomberg News reporter counted two bullet holes through the front door and 22 through the back door, along with a few bullet marks on a wall opposite the facility. There is evidence of at least five bullets fired by defenders inside the compound.


Moreover, the attackers failed to get into the building’s safe room, although a window in the room was unlocked. The ambassador died of smoke inhalation after the building was set on fire with diesel fuel. Looters found his body when they climbed through the unsecured window after the attack.


That evidence leaves the administration in the awkward position of publicly describing contingency plans to attack the North African group, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, with drones or special forces at the same time that officials say they have no actionable intelligence the group is responsible for the Benghazi attack.

Allowed Escape

Comparing the haphazard assault in Benghazi to attacks such as the two bombings of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, in the early 1980s, is a stretch, said one of the U.S. officials.


Before the second Beirut attack in 1984, Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorists built a mock-up of the unfinished vehicle barriers protecting the U.S. mission, then practiced driving through them as fast as possible, the official said. In Benghazi, the attackers failed even to surround the compound, allowing U.S. diplomats to escape through the front or back gates, said the official and Benghazi residents.


The evidence also doesn’t suggest that the Benghazi attack evolved from a spur-of-the-moment peaceful protest. Political demonstrations in Libya are almost always preceded by Facebook postings from participants, and there was no mention of the compound attack on the social-media site either before or immediately afterward.



Erroneous Reports

The erroneous reports of a spontaneous protest came in part from former Libyan deputy interior minister Wanis al-Sharif, who said the demonstration had been peaceful until guards at the compound started shooting, though he also blamed the violence on loyalists of fallen Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Al-Sharif was fired a week after the attack.


While intelligence doesn’t support Rice’s description of a spontaneous, initially peaceful protest, it does indicate that the attackers were spurred by demonstrations in neighboring Egypt against the anti-Islamic video. The Libyan extremists didn’t want to sit out a wave of anti-American protests, said one U.S. official.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday tried to defuse criticism that administration officials stuck for several days with a mistaken depiction of the attack. In the wake of such a violent incident, “there’s always going to be confusion” and information about the Benghazi assault has changed over time, she said in an interview with CNN.


“I know that we’re very close to an election,” said Clinton, who was interviewed during a visit to Lima, Peru. “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”
Political Firefight

The political firefight over the attack has intensified as the Nov. 6 election nears. The Romney campaign is accusing Obama of weakening American interests abroad at the same time he has failed to boost the economy back home.


During the Oct. 11 vice-presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden defended the administration’s performance, saying the White House wasn’t aware of any requests for added security in Benghazi. A day later, Romney chastised Biden, citing congressional testimony from State Department officials who said the post had sought additional protection.


Clinton told CNN yesterday that she accepts responsibility for security conditions at the Benghazi compound before the attack and that Obama and Biden shouldn’t shouldn’t be blamed. “The president and the vice president certainly wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals,” she said.
‘Laudable Gesture’

Graham and two other Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee last night called Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility a “laudable gesture” while criticizing 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,” Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said in an e-mailed statement.


The father of Chris Stevens said his son’s death shouldn’t be turned into fodder for the presidential race.


“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, said in an Oct 13 telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California, as he prepared for a memorial service for his son next week.


Still, the administration’s handling of the attack will come under scrutiny as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a State Department panel and several congressional committees conduct inquiries into what happened.
Inquiries Planned

California Republican Representative Darrell Issa, whose House Oversight Committee held one hearing on the events last week, said he will lead a congressional delegation to North Africa after the election to investigate the safety of U.S. diplomatic facilities.


Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, announced yesterday that their Homeland Security Committee would conduct a bipartisan inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the attack.


One question that is likely to arise is whether Stevens wanted more armed guards and higher walls. He was highly regarded because he preferred more openness and freer contact with local people, the U.S. officials said.


“There is an inherent tension for diplomats between doing their duties well, with everything that entails regarding contact and exposure in faraway places, and living securely,” Paul Pillar, a former U.S. intelligence official, wrote in an Oct. 1 blog post on The National Interest website.


The partisan debate is feeding public misunderstanding of foreign events and the nature of diplomatic and intelligence work, Pillar said in a telephone interview.


“The seemingly endless public rehashing of the attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans is not taking a form that serves any useful purpose,” he wrote in his blog.


To contact the reporters on this story: John Walcott in Washington at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net; Christopher Stephen in Tripoli, Libya at cstephen9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

[American Patriot]

Clinton leaves country to avoid questions about Benghazi, say critics

• October 16, 2012
• By: Jim Kouri

The rapidly aging Clinton is once again involved in a scandal created by a man, say critics.
Credits:
USSD Press Office










Upon telling the news media that the buck stops with her when it comes to who was in charge of security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday flew to Peru to lecture on a subject close to her heart -- women's empowerment.


More than one source told the Law Enforcement Examiner that they are suspicious of this so-called admission coming the day before a highly-anticipated debate between President Barack Obama and his GOP opponent Mitt Romney.


"To me this was a politically-motivated 'hit-and-run' or 'drive-by' admission that presents no consequences to either the globe-trotting Clinton or the TelePrompTer-less Obama," said former police commander Ernie Collastrona.


In addition, Clinton said that the administration's evolving story about what exactly happened at the consulate was attributable to "the confusion you get in any type of combat situation." "The only problem with that excuse is that no one in the White House was in a combat situation. In fact, Obama jumped on Air Force One and flew to a campaign event in Las Vegas," said Collastrona.

There are more than a few political insiders who believe the motive for her trip is to a avoid specific questions regarding the controversy surrounding last month's deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.


"For some reason, while the Republicans are attacking President Barack Obama and members of his administration -- and rightly so -- over the Benghazi incident and the suspected cover-up, they are not even mentioning Hillary Clinton. Has Bill Clinton's 'Teflon' transferred over to his wife? Or do some Republicans really believe Hillary isn't as bad as Barack?" asked Mike Baker, a political strategist.


Baker believes that Secretary Clinton is up to her neck in this BenghaziGate scandal and that the recent congressional hearings provide evidence of her being as responsible as Obama and his "court jester Joe Biden."


"While Obama and Biden may be prone to lying or deceiving, Hillary made being disingenuous an art form," said former police commander and political advisor Kenneth Dugan. "Remember the whoppers she has uttered such as her being named after the guy who climbed Mount Everest? Turned out she was born three years before her mountain climbing namesake scaled Everest."


"Notice that [Hillary] Clinton said she takes responsibility but doesn't say she should be held accountable. In other words, 'Opps, I made a mistake. Sorry.' Then it's case-closed in time for the November election," Duggan added.


The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee probe last week into the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is revealing an inept, uninformed and dishonest Obama administration and an equally inept and dishonest Clinton State Department.


Prior to the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens' request for additional security officials was turned down by the political appointees in the State Department in order to project a friendly atmosphere to the distrusting Islamic population, a State Department security official in Washington, D.C., told a Congressional panel Wednesday.


"In the immediate aftermath of the attack, and then for several days, administration officials contended that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to a crude anti-Islamic movie trailer posted to YouTube. The New York Times, Reuters, and Fox News have in the last few days published stories, based on what these news organizations said were reliable sources, that “within hours” of the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies submitted dozens of reports to high officials suggesting that an al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan militia was behind the attack," according to Homeland Security Newswire.


House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders had previously sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the violent and deadly terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel, according to Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), the committee chairman, and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) the subcommittee chairman.


"While the written requests were unemotional and respectful, verbal requests were pleas from American foreign service personnel who were terrified of their surroundings and their vulnerability in a turbulent environment," said the Law Enforcement Examiner source.


"So far, the investigation of this dreadful security failure proves that the Obama administration possesses a far too limited understanding of radical Islamists and terrorism," he added.


“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials insisted, the result of a popular protest,” said Issa and Chaffetz.


“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the [Oversight] Committee that, prior to the attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington,” the congressmen alleged.


The letter to Secretary Clinton outlined 13 security threats during the six months prior to the attack that claimed the lives of Stevens, two Navy SEALs and a consulate staff member.


For example, on June 6, 2012, in BENGHAZI, under cover of darkness, assailants placed an IED on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi, blowing a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as, “big enough for forty men to go through.”


Also in Benghazi, on June 10, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers.


“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” chairmen Issa said.


Several Republican lawmakers expressed their frustration with the obvious slow response to the attack, with some claiming that Secretary Hillary Clinton and her State Department are waiting until after the presidential election to conclude the investigation and announce its results. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), on Wednesday renewed their demand for documents relating to the attack after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to hand over the cables they initially requested.


Rep. Peter King (R-NY) believes Obama had political reasons for avoiding calling the Benghazi attack terrorism. “What I believe is that President [Obama] is so fixated on convincing the American people that he has defeated al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda is no longer a real threat by saying this was a terrorist attack, or by acknowledging a terrorist attack would be looked upon as a defeat for his policies against al-Qaeda,” King says.


"King is 1,000% right! This was another snafu by an incompetent and politicized White House and State Department. The reason for the slow reaction by the Obama administration is the news media's belief in the myth that Hillary Clinton is a political giant, instead of the incompetent Democratic Party hack she truly is. Did the media forget that Hillary lies at the drop of a hat and her only experience in military affairs is her being married to a draft-dodger," said former military intelligence officer and New York police detective Michael Snopes.

[American Patriot]

U.S. diplomats in Libya begged for more security to no avail

• Embassy Security
• October 4, 2012
• By: Jim Kouri
• Subscribe

Not only did Obama administration officials, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice, swarm the weekend news shows and repeat statements they knew were lies, but members of the news media aided them by confusing Americans with conflicting stories.
Credits:
NewswithViews










Prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens' request for additional security officials was turned down by the Obama administration in order to project a friendly atmosphere to the distrusting Islamic population, an anonymous security official in Washington, D.C., informed the Law Enforcement Examiner on Wednesday.


House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders on Tuesday evening sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the violent and deadly terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.


The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel, according to Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA), the committee chairman, and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) the subcommittee chairman.


"While the written requests were unemotional and respectful, verbal requests were pleas from American foreign service personnel who were terrified of their surroundings and their vulnerability in a turbulent environment," said the Law Enforcement Examiner source.


“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, As Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” wrote Issa and Chaffetz.


“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the [Oversight] Committee that, prior to the attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington,” the congressmen alleged.


The letter to Secretary Clinton outlined 13 security threats during the six months prior to the attack that claimed the lives of Stevens, two Navy SEALs and a consulate staff member.


For example, on June 6, 2012, in Benghazi, under cover of darkness, assailants placed an IED on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi, blowing a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as, “big enough for forty men to go through.”


Also in Benghazi, on June 10, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers.


“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen wrote.


The Committee indicated it intends to convene a hearing in Washington on Wednesday Oct. 10, 2012, on the security failures that preceded the attack.

[American Patriot]

Republicans determined not to let Barack Obama off the hook despite Hillary Clinton insistence she bears responsibility for Benghazi

By Toby Harnden In Hempstead, New York
PUBLISHED: 14:33 EST, 16 October 2012 | UPDATED: 14:33 EST, 16 October 2012

• Comments (0)
• Share
• 
  
  

Republicans are showing no sign of letting up on President Barack Obama over the death of four U.S. officials in Benghazi despite Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, taking 'responsibility' for the debacle.


Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, blasted Obama and Clinton after her intervention, which threw the president a potential lifeline in tonight's second presidential debate against Mitt Romney.


'I think it’s a 3 a.m. call,' he told MSNBC, referring to the famous Clinton ad aimed against Obama in 2008. 'The buck stops at the White House. That's what Hillary Clinton said back in 2008. She’s saying something differently today.


'But I think it's a mater of leadership, I think it's a matter of straight answers. Look, terrible things can happen and that's not necessarily obviously a reason to say that somebody isn't fit to lead. But I think its's a matter of how do you ask once something terrible happens and how honest are you with the American people.


'I just get the feeling that this president hasn't been straight with the American people or certainly the White House hasn't been straight with the American people.


'Or they've been so sloppy in getting the right answers and communicating the correct answers to the American people that it brings the question to the table: has your leadership in the White House produced the kind of results that you promised this country you would produce in northern Africa and the Middle East. And it hasn't.


The 3am ad featured a sleeping child and a persistently ringing phone. It suggested that Obama didn't have the experience and mettle to protect Americans.


On Monday, Clinton told CNN during a visit to Peru: 'I take responsibility. 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.'



Speaking before Priebus, Obama campaign aide Robert Gibbs invoked the father of Ambassador Chris Stevens, one of the four killed, who argued at the weekend that the attacks should not be politicised.



'This really shouldn’t be something that, as Ambassador Stevens’s dad said, becomes a big political issue,' Gibbs said. 'If you look at what Mitt Romney has done since the moment this happened was play politics with it.'



On Fox News’s “Fox & Friends,” Representative Jason Chaffetz, a key Romney ally, said that Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility still left unanswered questions.



'At least somebody’s taking some responsibility here. What’s inexcusable is that it got to this point. I still think they don’t have their story straight about was this a video, was this not a video?'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz29UfWJHX1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[American Patriot]

Clinton's mea culpa spurs intrigue over Obama ties

By Stephen Collinson (AFP) – 30 minutes ago

NEW YORK — If President Barack Obama wins re-election in three weeks time, he will begin his second term heavily in debt to Bill and Hillary Clinton, one-time tormentors turned power couple protectors.

As Obama headed to New York for a crucial debate against resurgent Republican challenger Mitt Romney, the Clintons, the dominant Democrats of the last 20 years, were again stealing the headlines.

Taking a hit Romney may have lined up for Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the blame Monday for shortcomings in the handling of an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Her comments, in Peru, may have taken some of the sting out of Romney's possible attack and marked the administration's most emphatic effort to quell a political storm over Libya that threatens to hurt Obama's re-election bid.

The 11th-hour pre-debate intervention also prompted new questions over the motives of the Clintons in embracing their former foe, including: will the bill come to Obama in the form of backing a "Hillary 2016" White House bid?

Republicans, though, are not done with this year, and continued to pin the Benghazi blame on Obama, recalling the ad Clinton ran in the 2008 Democratic primary, questioning whether her relatively inexperienced rival was ready for a national security crisis.

"I think it's the 3 am call, right? I mean, the buck stops at the White House. That's what Hillary Clinton said back in 2008. She's saying something differently today," Republican party chief Reince Priebus told MSNBC.

With a wink and a smile Clinton often declares she will be "out of politics" early next year, but her enduring popularity makes her decision to accept the Benghazi fallout for Obama on the eve of a make-or-break debate a distinctly political act.

Bill Clinton, the 42nd President, was meanwhile waging another tussle for his Democratic successor, rebutting Romney's tax policy in the folksy drawl he used in last month's acclaimed Democratic National Convention speech.

In a campaign video, the snowy-haired veteran made the kind of forceful case that was beyond Obama in the first debate -- a point not lost on one of the ex-president's chief antagonists, former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich.

"You have to admire the Clintons. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done more to re-elect Barack Obama than Barack Obama has," Gingrich told Fox News.

Bill Clinton, whose economic credibility is vital for Obama, will hit the campaign trail again for Obama in Ohio and Wisconsin this week.

The heft of the Clinton effort for Obama is all the more remarkable considering the bitterness spawned by his 2008 primary battle with Hillary.

Obama, whose campaign was once dismissed as a "fairy tale" by the former president, effectively blocked what would have been a remarkable Clinton restoration, eight years after they left the White House.

Clinton was also furious when some Obama supporters said he had played the race card.

The thaw began when Obama shocked his inner circle by asking Hillary, then a New York senator, to join his "team of rivals" cabinet.

But even now, few people suggest that the Clintons and Obama are friends, though the president and his secretary of state and her husband show mutual respect.

As for the Clintons' motives, they remain open to debate.

Given Hillary Clinton's narrow defeat to Obama and support of 18 million primary voters in 2008, talk of a possible second presidential campaign frequently churns in the Washington rumor mill.

Could the former first lady be courting Obama's supporters to bolster her own coalition, knowing she will be the Democratic favorite four years hence?

Some Clinton watchers doubt the retiring secretary of state, who will be 68 in November 2016, has the desire for another campaign, and point out her legacy would be sullied if she lost.

Much may depend on the political conditions in a few years, but the Clintons have towered over Democratic politics for so long that many in Washington cannot believe their ambition is slaked.

A less Machiavellian explanation may be that the Clintons want Obama to win, as the latest bulwark against the conservatism they spent their lives fighting.

Bill Clinton must also be luxuriating in the sight of Obama, who was once sniffy towards his 1993-2001 administration, now gushing with praise.

A former Clinton campaign aide said on condition of anonymity, that the ex-president was in a "no-lose" situation in his support of Obama.

Should Obama tumble to Romney, Clinton would get credit for helping Obama and would still be known as the only Democrat to win two terms since World War II. Memories of his age of prosperity would grow just a little more golden.

If Obama wins, the ex-president will guarantee himself a place in the history books alongside the man who he once believed stole the Clinton crown.

USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham suggested that lingering hurt over the race row may also be driving Clinton, once known as America's "first black president."

"If Clinton plays a key role in delivering the winning margin of voters to Obama, an overwhelming number of blacks -- and many historians -- will see him as one of black America's greatest friends," he wrote Tuesday.

[American Patriot]

Editorial: Don't let Benghazi facts get in the way of politics

An editorial / Dale McFeatters - Scripps Howard News Service October 16, 2012 - 10:35 am EDT

Successive generations of White House staffs and newspaper editors relearn the same hard lesson: Don't get ahead of the facts. — The initial White House reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which cost the lives of our ambassador and three others, was that it was a spontaneous response to an amateurish video made in the United States that purportedly ridiculed Islam.


The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, amplified that explanation five days later in a round of talk shows. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the White House knew within 24 hours that it was an orchestrated attack by a terrorist militia, one possibly affiliated with al-Qaida.


If it was a deliberate misrepresentation, as Graham charges, it was a dumb idea -- not that dumb ideas are unknown in Washington -- because the details were bound to leak out over time.


The White House may have been afraid of losing control of what is now called in Washington-speak "the narrative" and, with the FBI unable to get to the ruined consulate for three weeks, unwilling to wait for all the facts to begin emerging.


Unfortunately for the truth and possibility of preventing a recurrence, this controversy comes at a time when politics colors everything.


To put the worst possible face on it, the GOP may have been trying to take down Rice, a rising star in the Obama administration and a rumored successor to Hillary Clinton, and to tarnish an Obama success, the overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Republicans derided the plan until the day Gadhafi was finally killed.


Republicans blamed the White House for ignoring clear warnings of an imminent attack; the White House responded that the Republicans had cut $300 million in diplomatic security funding.


None of this sparring is at all helpful. It is the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign diplomats and embassies, but that's difficult in the extreme in countries that have no governments or, in the case of Libya, not much of one.


As a practical matter, the U.S. cannot retreat into fortress-like embassies; that defeats the whole purpose of having wingtips on the ground, so to speak -- the attaches, the specialists and, yes, the spooks who are eyes and ears in foreign countries.


Unfortunately, a certain amount of risk comes with being a foreign service officer in unsettled parts of the world, risks that the diplomats, like their military counterparts, know going in. Those four Americans who died in Benghazi, and especially Ambassador Chris Stevens, were heroes.


The issue may have been quelled by the secretary of state herself. The formidable Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the deaths and noted that it is she, and not the White House, who is responsible for the security of our diplomatic missions.

[Malsua]

"Let's not make this a political thing"

That's all this is and can ever be. When the folks in charge are being assessed for their worthiness to man these positions of power, what else should you judge them on? You fucked up, now fall on your sword!

Oh, wait, Hillary did that today, just before the debate so Obama can't be called on it.

[American Patriot]

None of this sparring is at all helpful. It is the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign diplomats and embassies, but that's difficult in the extreme in countries that have no governments or, in the case of Libya, not much of one.

Inaccurate, nearly untrue... And I will show you why now.

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/c9010.htm
Protecting Diplomats and Other Dignitaries

Diplomatic Security protects more dignitaries than any other agency in the U.S. Government. DS special agents guard the Secretary of State 24 hours a day, seven days a week, everywhere she or he goes in the world.


In addition to the Secretary, our agents protect the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and foreign dignitaries below the level of head of state who visit the United States (approximately 150 each year). Protection is afforded to a foreign dignitary on the basis of perceived threat level and that country's willingness to provide the same level of protection for our diplomats in their country. Through the years, DS has provided security to a diverse number of individuals. Among those foreign dignitaries who have received DS protection are foreign ministers, former heads of state, members of the British royal family, representatives of the Middle East peace delegations, the Secretary General of NATO, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassar Arafat, Boris Yeltsin and Nelson Mandela (prior to their becoming heads of state), and the Dalai Lama.


Each fall, DS protects about 30 foreign dignitaries in New York during the United Nations General Assembly, a very personnel-intensive and demanding event. Preparations for UNGA begin in January and continue through early September, when virtually every special agent moves to New York for the duration of the General Assembly.


DS also provides security for special events. In recent years, DS agents protected the Israeli and Syrian foreign ministers during the Israel-Syria Peace Talks held in Shepherdstown, WV in 1999. More recently, DS agents worked in Salt Lake City at the 2002 Winter Olympics to protect athletes, visiting dignitaries, and sites. Currently, DS is working closely with the Greek Government on security issues surrounding the 2004 Olympics.


So... the DS protects FOREIGN dignitaries (and the US Secret Service does so as well). But they can and will protect some of our own Ambassadors (I've seen them). They protected the folks from NATO when they visited here in my area (I saw them).

We also place Marines at all Embassies and there are, in general, 2-6 Marines at consulates as well (at least in my personal experience). Now who KNOWS what this administration has done, and the chances are good they pulled everyone out.

[vector7]

Report: New Information Will Soon Prove Hillary Clinton Took the Fall for Obama in Libya Security Debacle

• Posted on October 18, 2012 at 11:45am by Billy Hallowell

• Comments (23)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Photo Credit: AP)

The drama and angst surrounding the Libyan terror attack against the American consulate is far from over. On Monday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney will face-off for one, final debate — the subject of which will be foreign policy. While one can expect that the issue of Libya will be discussed in great detail, new, notable allegations about Benghazi are being waged this week by Ed Klein, author of “The Amateur.”

While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stepped forward last week and assumed “full responsibility” for security leading up to the attack, Obama also publicly took blame during this week’s presidential debate. In an op-ed published on The Daily Caller, though, Klein lambasted Obama’s acceptance of responsibility, calling it “at best, a late and half-hearted admission of culpability.” He wrote:

Indeed, President Obama waited weeks before dropping the administration’s false story — which he floated in the Rose Garden, at the United Nations, on “The View” and on “The Letterman Show” — that the attack was the result of a spontaneous uprising and not an al Qaida-linked terrorist attack.

What’s more, in making his acknowledgement of fault, he couched his admission in such a way that the weight of blame still fell squarely on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton, not him.

Klein, who is apparently leaving no stone unturned in his quest for the truth on the Libya matter, claims to have spoken with members of Clinton’s inner circle — individuals who leaked some fascinating details.

According to the author, in the wake of the attack, Bill and Hillary Clinton brought together a team of legal experts to help them figure out a way to prevent the Benghazi tragedy from being a permanent blemish on Clinton’s record.


Photo Credit: AP

This, according to Klein, was a quest undertaken with 2016 in mind. The lawyers’ goal was to purportedly craft a path to clearing Hillary of wrongdoing or complacency so that a future run for the White House would be unfettered and the Libya issue, at least for her sake, would be put to rest. In the end, the Clintons’ team came to the conclusion, Klein writes, that the Obama administration intended to deflect blame to Hillary.

According to his sources, the author claims that Clinton’s admission of fault was politically-calculated and crafted as a means of making her appear more presidential than Obama — who had seemingly avoided responsibility before the debate. In the end, after reviewing cables between Libya and Washington, the legal team allegedly concluded that Clinton will eventually be exonerated; she apparently gave orders to bolster security in Benghazi — mandates that were never carried out — and the wires prove her innocence.

Once they go public, either through leaks or Congressional investigations, the public will learn that fault doesn’t belong with the secretary of state. Instead, someone else in the administration apparently dropped the ball. Thus, Klein’s sources tell him that Clinton believes the blame will instantly shift to Obama and away from her.

[vector7]

How U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked to Jihadist Rebels in Syria (And It Involves Weapons)

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 14: Intern Chris Jobson (R) and press assistant Isaiah Calvin (L) of Senate Democratic Media Center sign condolence book for Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Capitol September 14, 2012 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images



The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there’s certainly more to be known.

Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is “the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda.”

That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a “Front to Liberate Syria” to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

That potential connection starts with who Ambassador Stevens worked with during the Libyan revolution and ends with who he hosted on the night of his death.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition and began coordinating U.S. assistance to the rebels.
The top military commander of the rebels, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the pro-al-Qaeda Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
After Gaddafi fell the LIFG disbanded and some of the fighters joined the amorphous group Ansar al-Shariah (Soldiers of Shariah), which reportedly participated in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported the a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. (The official U.S. stance is that it is opposed to providing Syrian rebels with heavy weapons.)

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

So this much is fairly certain: Libya has been sending seasoned Islamic fighters, heavy weapons and presumably money to Syria in support of the opposition.

The uncertain part is where Stevens, and the U.S. government, fits into all of this.

If the new Libyan government was sending jihadists and 400 tons of lethal cargo to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Reuters reported that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, was used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

We also know that about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could these two CIA groups be connected as start and end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition?

We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey, but CNN reports that FSA members are “cutting their own deals to get weapons” from well-armed extremists so it raises questions about who the CIA is arming.

We know that U.S. weapons are ending up in the hands of hard-line Islamists in Syria. It turns out that many of these jihadists are the same ones that Stevens helped arm to topple Gaddafi.

On September 11 Stevens held an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat before retiring to his room at 9 p.m. Gunfire and explosions began 40 minutes later. Is Steven’s guest for his last meeting just another eerie coincidence?

Either way it seems that the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is much stronger than has been officially acknowledged.