Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[American Patriot]

Why is ABC News ignoring emails related Obama's Libya scandal?

By L. Brent Bozell III

Published October 26, 2012

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz2AhEqWjFD


Wednesday, ABC "World News" gave a dismissive 20 seconds of lip service to a blockbuster report that revealed State Department emails showing that the White House knew on September 11 that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist attack. The emails documented that within two hours of the attack, the State Department had told the Obama administration that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for this terrorist attack.

This is news because White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14: “We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack.” The emails show they did, in fact, have information suggesting a planned terrorist attack, yet President Obama and his spokesmen for days lied to the American people, falsely claiming it was a “spontaneous” attack spurred by a “video.”

The email story broke Tuesday night on the "CBS Evening News." Since then, the Media Research Center reviewed all of ABC News' programs, and the network has almost completely refused to report this new evidence, giving it a scant 25 seconds on “Good Morning America” and 20 seconds on “World News” Wednesday night. “Good Morning America” skipped the story entirely on Thursday morning, but did commit nearly 2 minutes to the capture of a monkey in Florida. “World News” did not mention the emails on Thursday night.

Yes, ABC News has covered the attacks in Benghazi but it is giving scant attention to the latest development concerning the release of emails.

ABC is aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s cover-up of their deceitful response to the Benghazi terrorist attack. There is no bigger story than Obama’s Benghazi lie, and ABC, a so-called "news network," has absolutely no excuse for hiding the truth from the American people.

The questions are simple: what did President Obama know? And when did he know it? These emails prove that either Obama knew it was a terrorist attack and lied about it for weeks, or his administration is historically incompetent. Either way, it’s major news and demands more than mere seconds of total coverage from one of the three major broadcast networks.

ABC has been shielding Obama from the Benghazi fallout for weeks in order to help him win re-election, but the American people see right through it. Their corruption is as obvious as it is unforgivable.

Brent Bozell is founder and president of the Media Research Center.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz2AhElbxWm

[American Patriot]

White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn't Respond
+ Comment now
A burnt building is seen inside the US Embassy...

A burnt building is seen inside the US Embassy compound on September 12, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, following an overnight attack on the building. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives.

Why?
Pants On Fire: Obama Scrambles For Cover As Benghazi Lie Explodes Larry Bell Larry Bell Contributor
More Pants On Fire Over Benghazi: Asinine Claims Nakedly Exposed Larry Bell Larry Bell Contributor
Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, And The Press Complied Bill Flax Bill Flax Contributor
Obama on Benghazi: Believe Me or Your Lying Eyes (Or At Least Wait Until After the Election) Paul Roderick Gregory Paul Roderick Gregory Contributor

The attack began on September 11, at about 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. in Washington). Ambassador Chris Stevens and his small staff inside our consulate immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. Thirty minutes later, after the main consulate building was on fire and Ambassador Stevens was missing, Tripoli (400 miles away) dispatched an aircraft carrying 22 men. Much more formidable response resources including Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft and attack fighters were available 480 miles away at the U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily, but were never dispatched. An F18 fighter jet blazing in with afterburner thundering to unnerve attackers and take out mortar locations could have reached Benghazi in an hour. Commandos could have arrived there within three hours. This was four hours into the seven- hour assault after President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta initially met at 5:00 p.m.

In the meantime, the terrorists forced the Americans to abandon the consulate with the ambassador still missing. They fell back to an annex building about a mile away. Looters ransacking the empty consulate discovered Ambassador Stevens lying unconscious from smoke inhalation on the floor and rushed him to a hospital where doctors were unsuccessful in saving his life. Not knowing who he was, they took a cell phone from his pocket and called numbers. By about 2:00 a.m. Libyan time, the American embassy received word he was dead.

At about that same time (four hours into the attack), the 22 men arriving at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli drove into the annex to assist the Americans trapped there. Around 4:00 a.m. enemy mortar rounds killed two defenders on the annex roof. The attack ended at dawn when Libyan militia finally arrived to aid our Americans.

CBS News has reported that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known by Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced. The messages were also independently obtained by ABC News. Although names of individual recipients were redacted, the source who requested anonymity said it appears they were sent to the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts of top security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first alert with a subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” which arrived from Tripoli just 25 minutes after the attack began describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people firing shots, with explosions heard as well. It reported that Ambassador Stevens and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel were sequestered in the compound safe haven with the 17th of February militia providing security support. Another email arriving about one-half hour later reported that shooting had stopped and that the response team was attempting to locate COM personnel.

A third email received two hours after the attack commenced updated officials that Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist group, claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had also threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy. The Facebook claim was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not entirely convincingly, saying: “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their region, to grant victory to the prophet. The response has to be firm.”

The Obama administration has an immediate obligation to inform the public why security responses were so tragically lacking both before and during the course of this terrible and fatal assault. Why was Ambassador Stevens, after he recognized and communicated the existence of a special 9/11 security threat, repeatedly denied protection he requested? It is clear that on August 2nd the consulate asked for an additional 11 security personnel to be added to the rotation of 24. Though the 11 were to replace temporary security staff, Stevens had made it clear that violence and terrorism were a threat amid a volatile political landscape. He wrote: “Due to the level of threat in regards to crime, political violence and terrorism, post feels this is an appropriate number of LES [locally employed staff] security personnel needed to further embassy diplomatic outreach missions. Violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.” He further emphasized that “Host national security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment.”

Andrew Wood, former head of a U.S. military team in Libya, has reported: “…the security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there”. He added that the head of U.S. security in the region had pushed for more people “…but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.” Eric Nordstrom, the former security chief for U.S. diplomats in Libya, has observed that he had been fighting a losing battle over numbers in which “ …we couldn’t even keep what we had.” He finally concluded after his contact with state department bosses that “…we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident”.

And why, in the heat of battle with real-time communications regarding what was going on, didn’t our top leaders send responsive help that was so urgently needed? Past presidents have taken rapid actions to protect our people. For example, in 1984, President Reagan ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella within a 90 minute window while they were still airborne. The Obama national security team had several hours to move forces from that same air base to Benghazi. We deserve an explanation.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• The Leftist Plot to Destroy the US Military
  
• Will a Leftist Takeover of the Military Precede a Leftist Military Takeover?
  
• New U.S. Air Strategy In Afghanistan: First, Do No Harm
• Army 2-star fired for criticizing Afghans
• McChrystal Out, Patraeus In
• Obama names CIA chief Panetta to Defense Secretary Linked to Communist Spies
  
• General David Petraeus tipped to take over CIA
  

The hidden real truth about Benghazi

- Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives) Sunday, October 28, 2012 (35) Comments

Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.

A mosaic of lie

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?

A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.

Fallout

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”


Monday, October 29, 2012
From Benghazi to Aleppo

Now that the Benghazi debacle has become more fully exposed, it is clear that one of Ambassador Stevens’ major tasks was to collect weapons supplied by the United States and its allies to the Libyan mujahideen, and send them to the Syrian mujahideen, possibly with the collusion of the Turkish government.

The following news report from Russian TV discusses the provenance of these weapons, which are being amassed in Syria by Islamic fundamentalists — including Al Qaeda affiliates — to bring down the Assad regime and install a Salafist government.

Many thanks to Russkiy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript:


00:01 The Russian General Command has stated today that Syrian opposition is using weapons

00:05 of foreign origin, including American. According to the head of the Command Nicolay Makarov

00:10 the opponents of the Assad regime are in possession of transportable rocket launchers,

00:15 including American Stinger missiles. The administration of Barack Obama denies the accusation that it arms the rebels.

00:20 Nevertheless, the Russian military wants to determine how the rebels came into possession of such powerful arsenal,

00:25 as according to the decision of OSCE, the sale and supply of rocket launching devices is strictly controlled.

00:30 Member States that support the treaty including USA have the responsibility to deal with only legitimate state governments.






Monday Oct 29, 2012
Benghazi - October Surprise

The terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate and CIA annex on 9/11 were continually blamed on a YouTube video by the Obama Administration. Now as the facts emerge the truth is horrendous and beyond belief. I sat down with a former CIA operative of 20 years, Clare Lopez, for a candid interview of why.



First, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was blamed on the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims”. According to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, it caused a demonstration out in front of the U.S. Consulate that “began spontaneously” and “then spun out of control”,

“The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.”

“But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.”

We all know how it went, everyone from the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to the Press Secretary Jay Carney, to the Director of National Security James Clapper and President Obama himself all were on the YouTube video bandwagon until the wheels fell off.

But as time has gone on, new bits and pieces have emerged. The information on the attack makes the deaths of the four Americans that much more senseless. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs working under the State Department, were killed alongside information management officer Sean Smith and U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Emails from Benghazi have surfaced showing that Obama, the FBI, CIA, the State Department, the military, as well as other intelligence offices within the government knew within two hours, that the attack on the Benghazi consulate had been carried out by terrorists.







A live feed of audio and video were being watched at the White House and now we find out from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that the request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate as well as the attack hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA command.

Two times the CIA operatives were told to “stand down” when they requested to go to the aid of the Ambassador and his team.

It has also come out that the 2 former SEALs who were murdered had gone against orders and rescued those who remained at the consulate along with the body of Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack.

Given what can only be called a “cover-up” by the Obama Administration I sat down with one person I know and trust when it comes to matters of the CIA, Clare Lopez, Vice President of the Intelligence Summit.

Clare M. Lopez’s bio is by itself a who’s who of counter-intelligence. She is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, homeland security, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments, acquiring extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation issues with a career regional focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. She has served in or visited over two dozen nations worldwide, speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian, and currently is studying Farsi.

Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre- www.cicentre.com ). Formerly, she was Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington, DC think tank, from 2005-2006. She has served as a Senior Scientific Researcher at the Battelle Memorial Institute; a Senior Intelligence Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, and Program Manager at HawkEye Systems, LLC.; and previously produced Technical Threat Assessments for U.S. Embassies at the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, where she worked as a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Chugach Systems Integration.

Gadi Adelman: Clare, thank you so much for this interview. Let me jump right in to this. You and I pretty much knew, and I say you and I, I mean along with many other people in the counter-terror field, we knew right from the beginning that something wasn’t right and Amb. Susan Rice was out there on 5 TV shows saying that this was a spontaneous riot that erupted from a demonstration.
At what point did you realize that something’s not Kosher here?

Clare Lopez: You mean as far as the Administrations characterization of the attack?

GA: Yes, I uploaded a video less than 24 hours after the attack on YouTube, thank God YouTube has dates, I uploaded a video saying that Al-Qaeda was behind this.

CL: Yes, I wrote an article that night as a matter of fact, which ran the very next day on September the 12th on RadicalIslam.org. I was up late the night of 9/11 writing that article, so it was obvious to me too.

GA: I have heard from 3 people and tell me if you are aware of this as well, that The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our military monitored the battle in real time starting with the first phone calls directly from Benghazi.

CL: Yes.

GA: When the CIA annex requested permission to go to the aid of the consulate they were told two times to “stand down”.

CL: Correct.

GA: Two SEALs went in against orders…

CL: Former SEALs, former SEALs that were on contract to the CIA.

GA: Correct, former SEALs, they went anyway, against orders and died about 4 hours later.

CL: They died at the annex building after they saved everyone that was still alive at the first compound; they went back with all of them to the annex building, it was there that the attack continued; it never stopped. They were fired upon during the entire ride running the gauntlet through the streets back to the annex and the attack then continued at the annex and that’s where they were eventually killed.

GA: Right, so they arrived back at the annex at about midnight which would have been about three hours after the initial attack began.

CL: Yes.

GA: Okay, that’s important because of some other things that have come out. At that point they again called for military support and help and a third time were denied.

CL: Yeah.

GA: Regardless that they were taking fire at the CIA safe house or annex, that request was denied. There were no communication problems at the annex according to those that were present on the ground.

CL: That’s right.

GA: The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters and in fact at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun while mortars were being fired on them and the CIA compound.

CL: Yes, Woods was up there. Tyrone Woods, he was the one on the roof.

GA: Now Tyrone Woods father has come out and is saying that his son had taken a position with a laser to guide in what would have been planes, drones or missile support. So he was there honed in on a target waiting for back up that never arrived?

CL: Yeah.

GA: The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than 4 hours and now here’s the point, the Sigonella Naval Air base in Italy is only 480 miles away…

CL: Yeah, they could have gotten there in time.

GA: Okay, so by f-18 it’s under an hour but even with a C-130 carrying commandos it’s 2 hours away.

CL: I’d say even less maybe, but yeah. I was thinking a Spectre AC-130 gunship.

GA: Yes, the AC-130 gunship that has the Gatling gun in the side, it’s like a tornado…

CL: Yeah, it’s unbelievably lethal, devastating power and accuracy, I mean pinpoint accuracy, the technology is amazing.

GA: I read yesterday that two Tier One Special Operations groups were at Sigonella including Delta Force which happened to be training in Europe.

CL: Yes, I read that too.

GA: More information has come out that no less than two drones were overhead during the attack and one of those drones was actually ordered in from Tripoli and sending back images in real time.

CL: Yes, my understanding is that the one was replaced by the other, maybe it ran out of fuel and the second one came in and took its place.

GA: Okay, so this battle was sent on video directly to the ‘Situation Room’ at the White House, would that not be a proper assumption?

CL: Yes, yes it was.

GA: Just the other day, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said,
There was no “real-time information” to be able to act on, “and you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on. We felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation”.
Isn’t that what the military does?

CL: That’s what their supposed to do. And that’s one of the things that the military does, everywhere, everywhere around the world, whether they be land based or on a ship, whatever it may be, they practice over and over again repeatedly the rescue of civilians and the rescue of embassy personnel in each area wherever it is that they’re posted. They have drills, they have plans, they have practice situations, and they have role players that play the part of attackers or assault teams, the bad guys basically. And they practice this over and over and over again.

GA: And that makes me wonder and this is conjecture on my part, but knowing what I do about the SEAL teams, how many of those guys were on submarines or ships right off the coast of Libya?

CL: They were there. I mean in different places, there were loads of assets and every one of them had practiced just exactly this scenario repeatedly. I don’t mean to say Benghazi, but I mean a rescue situation where an American mission is under attack.

GA: Now it turns out that around 5 pm eastern time, which would have been only about an hour and a half in to the attack, that President Obama met with Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the White House for over an hour…

CL: Yes, this is all in the press, right.

GA: So would you go so far as to say that it would be pretty clear that Obama watched in real time and did nothing while 4 Americans were murdered?

CL: Yeah, that’s very clear, yes.

GA: Then, at some point later President Obama went to bed. Whether it was before or after everyone had died we’ll probably never know, but he had that super important fund raising trip in Las Vegas the next day and here’s what gets me. He gets up the next day and he skips, yet again, his National security briefing.

CL: Yes, that’s right.

GA: Here’s some questions for you, from your 20 years with the CIA, why do you think that Hillary Clinton has been so absent since all this has started to come out?

CL: I don’t know, I really don’t know, she was there early on putting out the false narrative story about the video and obviously she was the one that gave the orders to Amb. Susan Rice to go on the Sunday talk shows and give the same story. I don’t know. I don’t even know what to say.

GA: The silence on her part has been deafening. I heard that she has proof that would clear her of all this and her husband, former President Clinton wants her to come forward and she refuses.

CL: I don’t lend much credence to that at all, because, number one, throughout the months of 2012 requests were made repeatedly for additional security for Benghazi, the site security team that had been there up until August was withdrawn against everybody’s wishes, including the team itself which would have stayed, and the other thing is, that within the Department of State there is the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, sometimes called just DS – Diplomatic Security or DSS- Diplomatic Security Service and these are her people, she can order them anywhere in the world whenever she wants to. They are specifically security people, many of them former military, to go to any American diplomatic post in the world as she so chooses. That’s her propagative as Secretary of State.

GA: Would she need to clear that with Obama or would she have just done that?

CL: No, these are her people, her assets if you will, this is her department, her chain of command, all she had to do was say “DSS, send some more people to Benghazi” and they would have been gone. It would be different if she wanted to assign a Marine Security Guard Detachment because that has to go in coordination through DOD (Department of Defense), so those things you can understand have to have different approvals, but her own people, her own department, her own security service which exists for the purpose of defending American missions abroad, she had total authority of those people. She could have sent them anytime and she didn’t have to ask anyone to do it.

GA: Lt. Colonel Andy Wood was the head of one of those fast security teams…

CL: Yes, he testified before Congress…

GA: He requested as the leader of that group to stay in Benghazi…

CL: Yes, they were there from February to August. That was the period of time that they were assigned, that was the extent of their mission, it’s not that they were pulled out early, that was the end of it as it was planned. But at that point everybody said security demands more support and his team wanted to stay, Chris Stevens wanted them to stay in Benghazi, everyone wanted them to stay. But Secretary of State Clinton pulled them out.

GA: So that would have been Clinton’s call there?

CL: Yeah.

GA: Is there any chance that Obama told her “pull them out” if she had gone and discussed it with him or she would have just made that decision on her own?

CL: Yes, it could have come from the White House, but we don’t know.

GA: Why do you think that media, for the most part, is ignoring something this huge?

CL: It’s a good question isn’t it? That’s a really good question. Political? I have no idea. It boggles the mind, I don’t know.

GA: Do you believe that this was a cover up from the very beginning?

CL: Oh yes, the gun running of course, that was the thing.

GA: That was my next question; do you believe that this administration is smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda?

CL: Well, not… I mean… The short answer is yes. They were working with the very same Al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stock pile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.

GA: Some of those weapons have already shown up in the Sinai on the southern border of Israel.

CL: Yes, they’ve gone to the Sinai and they’ve also gone to Mali and to other places in western Africa and they’ve also gone to Syria. That was the operation, that’s what they were doing.

GA: If the truth of all this ever does come out, what do you think should happen to all those involved? And when I say involved that includes President Obama.

CL: A complete investigation. Congressional hearings and an investigation.

GA: With what we know, as far as sitting there and watching four Americans, including an ambassador die, does that not fall under the grounds of treason?

CL: Well, that’s what an investigation would be needed to look at. There are a number of Congressmen now who are talking about calling for hearings.

GA: Clare I really appreciate you taking the time for this.

CL: Thank you for covering this Gadi, very good.

I must remind everyone of the opening statement given by President Obama in the last debate that was moderated by Bob Schieffer. The President stated,

“Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe, and that's what we've done over the last four years”.

Somehow I doubt that the families of Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods or Sean Smith believes that.

[vector7]

MILITARY INSIDER: “Do The Math…Left On Own To Die Out There”

by Ulsterman on October 29, 2012 with 17 Comments in News



A longtime Military Insider gives a brief and searing response regarding whether or not U.S.military could have successfully been deployed in time to save Americans under attack by terrorists on September 11th at the American consulate in Benghazi.

MILITARY INSIDER: How soon could we have gotten to Benghazi? All that was needed to send those -deleted- scattering was one single F-18. Range of app. 2k. TS of over 1000mph. Do the math. We had that capability less than 500 miles away. NASSIG would have had full armed deployment inside of 20. From time of initial report to arming, to takeoff. I’ve seen it done in less. ETA to consulate in less than hour. Would have ripped a hole in the sky to get there. This is exactly what we are trained for. Just one flyer would have lit those -deleted- up inside of 10. Coordinates known. That’s all our guys need. Would have been precision termination. Clean. In/out.

Instead, left on own to die out there.

Not the first time.

WHC coordinating with State, others to TS classify everything.

EVERYTHING.

Shutting it all down.

Significant activity out of NLSO on this as well.

Have eyes. Have ears. Need mouths.

F***ing politicians.




Disturbing, Developing: New Catherine Herridge Report Suggests Petraeus Involvement In Benghazi Coverup

Oct 29, 2012 No Comments ›› Pat Dollard

FYI, Catherine Herridge is the reporter who has been busting this whole story wide-open from the beginning. So far, she has the best inside sources actually willing to talk. She’s the one who first reported that the admin 3 times denied a rescue team for the ambassador…

Excerpted from Catherine Herridge’s report today in Fox News: Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.

The Sept. 13 assessment was based on intercepts that included individuals, believed to have participated in the attack, who were celebratory — as well as a claim of responsibility.

FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.

Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.

The FBI and NCTC did not immediately respond to a request from Fox News for comment.

Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.

On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs.

Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.

Intelligence officials have since given a mixed picture of what happened that day, acknowledging that an investigation is under way. The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month acknowledged the strike was a coordinated terror attack, but officials have subsequently said the strike could have been opportunistic — taking their cue from protests over the film in Egypt.

Still, some point to the use of mortars and several other strands of evidence to claim the attack involved some premeditation.



Latest on Benghazi: Tyrone Woods Painted a Target, But the Missile Never Came

October 29, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, coming up in the next hour, ladies and gentlemen, some of the highlights from a Saturday night show on Fox. Jeanine Pirro had the father of Tyrone Woods on. There's something that has come up about Benghazi, about Tyrone Woods that needs to be pointed out with a question asked about it, and it's this: The consulate was being shelled by mortar fire. Now, Tyrone Woods, Navy SEAL, violated three orders not to go.



And it's not correct to say, folks, that they were ordered to stand down. That doesn't quite cut it, because what that really means is they were told not to go help. They were told not to relieve the ambassador. They were told not to offer assistance. That's what they were told. They weren't told to stand down. What that means is, “Sit tight and don't go there and don't help.” He violated orders. He went over there.

He found where the mortar fire was coming from. He painted it with his laser. Now, folks, talk to anybody in the military. There's only one reason you do that. He was painting where that mortar fire was coming from because he figured there was air support that was then gonna take that mortar location out. That's why he was lasering it. He was effectively lighting it up.

He thought there was air support. He thought there was cover. Because all he did was tell the terrorists at the mortar control place where he was! They were able to find him, and it was that mortar fire that killed him. Now, why would he light it up? Why would he paint it if there was no assistance? He clearly thought there was. This becomes more outrageous as the days go by and as we continue to learn more and more about it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit has run across a bombshell blog post from a former Delta operator, BlackFive. “Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me. One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION!

“Probably an AC130U,” an airplane on station. This is a former Delta operator. This guy has painted targets with lasers, which guide the bombs from the aircraft. In this case, the Specter is the C-130 out of Italy. We're told we didn't have any assets. We're told the assets were told to “stand town” and the people were told to “stand down.” But BlackFive, this former Delta operator, said (summarized), “Wait a minute, I heard that Tyrone Woods was painting the target.” In other words, he was giving the laser-guided bomb the target.



“One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U,” an airplane. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not ‘paint’ a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130,” the Hercules, “was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on [presidential] direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.”

And we first learned of AFRICOM with our really wonderful, great caller last week.

“If the AC130 never left [Italy] (as Penetta [sic] says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed. If that SEAL was actively ‘painting’ a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!” That’s from this former Delta guy, and this is what got Tyrone Woods killed. Because by painting the target, he was also illuminating himself.

He was targeting a laser-guided missile to the mortar-fire encampment, location. I don't know what the military term for that is, but where the terrorists were firing mortars, he had found it and he was painting it for a strike. He thought that there were assets in the sky. There would be no reason -- you don't need a Delta operator to tell you this. Common sense. There's no reason to paint that target and give yourself up in the process if there's no attack.

Why point the laser at a target that's gonna guide the missile if there isn't a missile? So what all of these military people who know this stuff are thinking -- and you can see this popping up now on various blogs all over the Internet. There is an outrage bubbling up because the lies are being compounded, and none of it makes any sense. What Panetta and the White House and the State Department and all these other people are saying doesn't make any sense, when put in context with the actions taken by the SEALs on the ground.

So the conclusion these guys are coming to is that the asset was there to launch the laser-guided missile. Tyrone Woods was painting the target, but the missile wasn't fired. So the question becomes: Who ordered no attack, after having the asset? And if it wasn't the Hercules it means the drone that was videotaping this -- which is what enables the White House and the State Department to see it in real time, the drone up there -- then the drone was armed and somebody pulled the order to have the missile fired from the drone.

This is outrageous, folks. This is just unacceptably outrageous. It's not just the incompetence here. It is now the lying and the cover-up that is really getting to people. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, was on Fox. He’s been all over the place, but he said some really powerful stuff on Saturday night.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, folks, please bear with me here. I'm gonna get to the sound bites of Charles Woods el quicko, but I want to make one more point about Tyrone Woods painting the mortar target with his laser in the expectation -- by the way, BLACKFIVE is a website run and operated, frequented by former military types, including a lot of Delta operators, Delta Force, Special Ops. They're livid. He wouldn't have painted the target if he didn't think there was an asset that was gonna fire on the target. That mortar encampment is what killed him. When he painted it he gave his location away. Cell phones have night vision capability. He gave himself up.

Now, here's what's interesting. On the campaign trail in Denver, on October 26th, Barack Obama said this: "The minute I found out what was happening, I gave the directive to make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and the military knew the number one priority was making sure our people are safe." Now, our ambassador in Libya was killed in the consulate in Benghazi on September 11th. For three weeks after that, Obama said the morning after the attack was over he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region. Then October 26th he changed the story. He said, "The minute I found out what was happening I gave the directive."



So here's what military experts are asking now. If the operative story from Obama is that he had given orders to do whatever it took to secure the lives of these people, who didn't follow them? In other words, who ordered either the AC-130 or the drone not to fire on the target Tyrone Woods had painted with his laser? Because Obama is out there on record, he gave the order, do what's necessary. So Obama's trying to cover himself by saying, "Look, I'm not the one that told anybody not to use the military." He's out there now saying he essentially gave the order to do what was necessary to defend and protect these people. So the question now has become, well, who disobeyed orders? And of course the logical conclusion is that Obama never gave the order, that he's just lying now, saying that he did.

Wait 'til you hear Pat Caddell. You can't follow this story and learn more and more without becoming physically angry and repulsed -- you just can't -- at all of the cheap lying and rear-end covering that's going on here. It's just unacceptable. We are the United States of America. The idea that they don't have the ability to defend and protect people in that kind of situation is simply absurd. And the idea that we wouldn't take the action necessary to do so is also absurd.

Okay, Saturday night on Fox it is Justice with Judge Jeanine, Jeanine Pirro. She interviewed Charles Woods, the father of security agent, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, killed in the attack at the consulate at Benghazi. This is the young man painting the target with the laser. She first said to him, "Mr. Woods, what did the president say to you?"

WOODS: He came up to me and in not a very sincere voice said, "I'm sorry." Now -- and then we shook hands, gave him, you know, like that, and then what I said to him was, "Mr. President, I appreciate your service." And I said, "I am at peace." And I could tell that he was not at peace. And I said, "My heart grieves because I've lost my son. My emotions have gone up and they've gone down, but the reason that I am at peace is because I know that God is in control of every situation. That's why our family is handling this much better than you would expect."



RUSH: That's what he told President Obama. Jeanine Pirro said, "Why do you think no help was sent? You know that your son, Ty, was on the ground asking for backup. He was pleading for an AC-130. How does that make you feel?"

WOODS: The Navy SEALs are extremely honorable, and they have a code of ethics, a code of honor. And part of that code of honor is they will never leave anyone behind. Okay, why did they allow them to die? Why didn't they send help? When it came out this last week that whoever it was -- I'm not gonna say who it was, but whoever it was in the White House was watching this live feed of my son being murdered, then I decided, it's time to do two things. One, is this is not political, okay. If this becomes political, that would dishonor my son's life and his death. But what we want to do is we want to honor my son, and we also want there to be truth and justice, as well as forgiveness.

RUSH: He wasn't going to go public with any of this. That was the nature of her question. He wasn't gonna go public until he found out that they started to lie. When he found out that there was video of this in the Situation Room at State Department, people were watching this, and no help was sent, that's when he decided to start doing interviews. Then Jeanine Pirro said, "You feel your son risked his life and that your son was murdered. You've made some strong statements here."

WOODS: The legal definition of murder would not fit into this. Let's put it this way. My feeling is, that in fact it was murder.

PIRRO: And if you could say something to the president, what would you say?

WOODS: I would say, if it was you, Your Honor, I totally forgive you. But for your benefit, I would want you to turn your life around and head the other direction so that blessings can continue to flow into your life. I want the best for you, and that means you need to stand up, admit your fault, and then change the direction of your life. I love this country of ours.



RUSH: That is the father of Tyrone Woods. And that was, folks, powerful. She asked him, "If you could say something to the president, what would you say?" "I would say if it was you, Your Honor, I forgive you. But I would want you to turn your life around, head the other direction. I want the best for you, and that means you need to stand up and admit your fault and then change the direction of your life." Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods. Next question from Geraldo Rivera. This was last night on Geraldo's show. He said, "How do you feel about calling the president a murderer?"

WOODS: If this attack on American citizens, on American soil, happened 2,000 miles away from Washington, DC, say in Los Angeles or in Seattle, would you have waited seven hours before you sent the first airplane? Would you have waited seven hours until the attack was over? Would you have waited a couple of days until you had all the videos and all the information before you responded in a responsible military way?

RUSH: Okay, we have a break coming up. When we come back, Pat Caddell was on Judge Jeanine's show Saturday night on Fox. Caddell followed Charles Woods and he nearly loses it in describing his anguish and his anger over the way this whole story is not being reported, the way the substance of the story was dealt with by the United States government, and it will, I'm sure, sound very similar to the reactions that you have been having as well.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, take a moment and just stop and think of what heroes these guys were, Tyrone Woods and the other three. They defied orders three times. They gave up their lives to try to save and protect the seven or so Americans that were still in the consulate, including the ambassador.

And they're being ignored by the nation's media. Their acts of valor are being ignored and swept under the rug, all because the media is deathly afraid that it would redound negatively to President Obama.

And then I want you to compare the kind of media attention Cindy Sheehan did get from the mainstream media. Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, was made a national heroine. Every move she made was followed and documented. She was bought and paid for by a San Francisco advertising agency to go camp out on the grounds just outside the home of George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas. Everywhere Cindy Sheehan went, she was the mother of a nation. She was a heroine. They used Cindy Sheehan to the point she thought she could actually get elected to Congress, in Nancy Pelosi's seat. They built her up into the most important American citizen for two years. And not a word about Tyrone Woods and his three colleagues, Navy SEALs and private sector security. Not a word. Not a single word.

The media was given every shot. The Republicans on the Sunday shows yesterday brought the subject up. Last Sunday they brought the subject up on the Sunday shows. And none of the mainstream Sunday show anchors, other than Chris Wallace, wanted to talk about it. They have not even asked Obama about it when they've had the chance. And that leads me to Pat Caddell who was also on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Saturday night on Fox. Pat Caddell, a former pollster for the Democrats and for Jimmy Carter. She said, "It just comes out, Pat, that the CIA operative on the ground asked for help three times. The New York Times doesn't cover it. A front page from yesterday, and a front page from today, and they don't even mention it, Pat."



CADDELL: I am appalled right now. This White House, this president, this vice president, the secretary of state, all of them are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected, willing to cover up and lie, and the worst thing is, the very people who are supposed to protect the American people and the truth, the leading mainstream media, they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people. What I saw with Ty Woods' father and family and the outrage I feel for my country and the shame that these people have no honor, and when will people finally say it? Cover-up is too nice a word, and the media is the one that it's worse on.

RUSH: Pat Caddell, talking about the media. They've become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy. They are the enemies of the American people. You shoulda seen him. He was practically crying, describing what he had seen with Tyrone Woods' father and family, the outrage he feels for his country. He wasn't finished.

CADDELL: This president didn't care enough to stay in the White House and, quote, "find out what was going on" the next day. Now I know why he didn't meet with his national security adviser. And why he got on a plane and went to a fundraiser, an act, if any president, Democrat or Republican, prior to this had done while the consulate was smoldering, would have been crucified. I've said it. This is -- I'll tell you, I'm so personally -- not politically, but personally nauseated by this.

RUSH: Personally nauseated by all of it. Now, let's go back to Obama. Obama left Washington yesterday to attend a fundraiser in Orlando, Florida today. He left in the midst of all of the forecasts of this storm that is now hitting the northeast. Yesterday was known, just as what is today known, how bad the forecasts are, the warnings, the admonitions, get out, evacuate, all those orders came yesterday. In the face of all that, Obama left the command center, the White House, and goes down to Florida for a fundraiser, and then overnight somebody decides -- it has to be what happened here. Somebody decides, because of this Benghazi business, I am convinced they got him on the airplane and they flew him back to DC today. He blew off the campaign appearance. Somebody had to get control of the situation. I'm sure some people said, "Look, we can't defend you anymore." It's probably what they're saying to themselves. You've got this storm about to wreak havoc, just like Benghazi had havoc wreaked upon it, and they're probably trying to save him from himself by not letting him do this campaign appearance.

So Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine has a tweet. "No one thinks that the president shouldn't go back to DC for the storm. The issue is the previous times when he didn't return ... and the staff said it made no difference." Well, the staff obviously says it does make a difference now. Mark Halperin is being roasted by Obama supporters because they view his tweet as unhelpful to Obama. He's being roasted on Twitter by fellow Democrats. Meanwhile, everywhere you look on cable TV today with this storm, every Obamaite is out trying to make the case that this storm can help Obama's reelection. Stop and think of that.

Obama campaign people on TV today speculating, hoping, explaining to people how this storm could be good for Obama. Who cares whether it's good for Obama or not? The people in line, in harm's way, the people targeted by this storm don't care whether this helps Obama or not. It's their lives that are about to be disrupted and, in perhaps unfathomable ways. And they turn on television and they watch Obama campaign aides salivating over the possibility this could really make Obama look presidential, really good in a crisis. That's why they had to get him back to DC. The people on Twitter are so ticked off at Mark Halperin they're calling him a Republican now, just for that little tweet that I read you. They have been blindsided.

The polling data, folks, is just devastating for Obama. The first debate was devastating. And the little secret is that this is who Obama has always been. He never was the myth that they created in 2008. He never was any of that. He never was messianic. He never was postpartisan. He never was somebody that could make the world love us. All of that was a myth. All of it was manufactured. You live by the media, you're gonna die by it.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. I guarantee, you let the media build you up, at some point they're not gonna be able to protect you if they're lying about you. The truth will out, and it is in the process of doing that even as we speak.

END TRANSCRIPT

[vector7]

Did General Disobey Obama’s Orders to Stand Down to Muslim Terrorists?

The indescribably shameful ascension to power of Barack Hussein Obama has confronted some military personnel with an agonizing choice: do they serve their country, or do they serve the sick joke in the White House? From a careerist’s point of view, General Carter Ham appears to have chosen incorrectly, according to this piece of RUMINT relayed by the Washington Times:

General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack [on our consulate in Benghazi] was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty also disobeyed the unconscionable order to allow terrorists to kill our ambassador. Instead of losing their careers, they lost their lives when their repeated requests for assistance were denied by the Obama Administration. But they certainly did not lose anyone’s respect.

Due to the Obamunist media’s Benghazi blackout, don’t hold your breath waiting for it to investigate this story.

If the massive voter fraud the Obama Regime has encouraged its supporters to engage in results in a contested election, we may find more weak links in the chain of command that connects the slimy left-wing politicians at the top to the patriotic heroes down below.



General Ham may have put country before career.

On tips from Joe B and Curtis F. Hat tips: Before It’s News, American Thinker.

[vector7]

Benghazi: Symbol of Obama's Leadership

By Mona Charen - October 30, 2012

The first statements from the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi seemed plausible. There were, after all, protests throughout the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9/11 -- some incited by Islamists using an obscure video to arouse anti-American fervor in the mobs, and some, no doubt, just pelting U.S. embassies on general principles. When the administration explained that one of those protests had spun out of control and led to the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya, there seemed no reason to doubt it.

For a day. But within hours, the administration account deflated like a punctured balloon. CBS reported that there was no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi. Members of Congress who were briefed said the attack was a military-style assault. We learned that an al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack. It was reported that Ambassador Stevens had noticed increased al-Qaeda activity, had feared for his safety, and had requested additional security, only to be turned down. Yet day after day, the administration continued to distort reality by referring to the Internet video.

Most of the press was willing to let the story fade because the man in charge is their man, and he is in a tight race for reelection. But Fox News, Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, and one or two others have revealed details about the administration's handling of the crisis that are beyond embarrassing -- they verge on malfeasance.

According to Fox's Jennifer Griffin, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was part of a small team at the CIA safe house about a mile from the consulate, heard shots fired at 9:40 p.m. He urgently requested backup from the CIA and asked permission to head to the consulate to help. The request was denied three times. He and his team were told to "stand down."

Woods and others disobeyed orders and headed over to the consulate where they rescued several people and carried away the body of Sean Smith. They did not find the ambassador. Upon returning to the safe house, they again requested military back up and were again denied. They were soon under fire. The fighting there went on for four more hours. Washington was in constant touch with personnel in Benghazi through email. In addition, Griffin reports, a special operations force was stationed only 480 miles away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. They could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. The New York Post further reports that a military drone aircraft was over Benghazi at the time of the attacks, relaying real time information back to Washington.
President Obama told a Denver TV station, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice."

Investigations can stretch on for a long time -- certainly past Nov. 6. If the president gave such an order, why were urgent pleas for military support denied? Would the military defy the orders of the Commander in Chief? General David Petraeus says that the CIA never denied a request for help -- which raises the question: Who else but the White House would have made such a decision?

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may have answered the question -- and exposed Obama's claim of directing that our personnel be secured as false. Panetta explained,"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

Really? Is the Secretary of Defense really saying that we can't put forces at risk when Americans are already at risk and are being shot at? Why do we have a military again? Tyrone Woods certainly didn't have any doubt about what to do when Americans were under attack. He defied orders and rushed to help, sacrificing his own life. It's what any member of the armed forces would normally do -- unless restrained by incompetent civilian authority.




10/29/12 Bret Baier, Benghazi: New Revelations Part III

FOX News: On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists overran the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya and murdered our ambassador along with three other Americans. Now, more than six weeks after the attack, some of the most important questions remain unanswered: Who did this and why? Could the attack have been prevented or repelled after it began? What did the White House know and when? And, as we enter the final stretch of the race for the White House, which side is closer to the truth: Those who argue this terrible tragedy was largely unforeseeable or those who say we're seeing President Obama's foreign policy unraveling right on our TV screens? Fox News has been on this story from the very beginning. Tune in this weekend, Bret Baier reveals explosive new details that you haven't heard.

[American Patriot]

"Rogue"U.S. General Arrested for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down Order
Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-10-29 11:25:35 | PinkTeaPatriot
Posted on Monday, October 29, 2012 1:12:26 PM by tselatysr


The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Bengzahi, Libya which left four Americans dead, has now officially fallen apart.



After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S.military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to "stand down."



Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.
According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.

"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The question now is whether the American people will hold to account the chain of command responsible for leaving our people behind, fabricating a politically expedient story, and continuing to sell the now defunct lie(s) even after all of their variations of the story were found to be false and misleading.
A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future.


In some circles the actions of those at the very top of the command structure during the Bengzahi attacks would be considered traitorous.


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

[American Patriot]

here is the original to the story above.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rogue...n-order_102012

[vector7]

Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate




by AWR Hawkins
30 Oct 2012, 1:20 PM PDT

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.

I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.

Here's what Ward told me:

We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.

Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.

Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.



Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.

In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.

How low can you go?

[American Patriot]

I just re-shared that photo again on FB. Thanks for the heads up Vector. I told Face book to pound sand as well. Let's see if I get censored. lol

[vector7]

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden 55 Minutes After WH Knew Benghazi Was Under Attack
By Terence P. Jeffrey

October 30, 2012

Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.

The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.

“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”

The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized in the Washington Daybook--a planning service to which news organizations subscribe--and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself.

The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack.

The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. “The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony submitted Oct. 10.

About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.

The subject line on this email said: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The text of the email said: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and our COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.” It went on to say: “The Operations Center will provide updates as available.”

In her testimony to the Oversight Committee, Charlene Lamb indicated that soon after the attack started, she was able to monitor it from Washington, D.C., in “almost real time.”

“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA,” Lamb testified. “Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”

According to Lamb, three U.S. agents used an armored car to approach the safe haven at the U.S. consulate to rescue a U.S. security agent on the roof of the facility and also to try to retrieve Amb. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran and State Department communications specialist.

“Despite thick smoke, the agents entered the building multiple times trying to locate the Ambassador and Mr. Smith,” Lamb testified. “After numerous attempts, they found Sean Smith and, with the assistance of members of the U.S. quick reaction team, removed him from the building. Unfortunately, he was already deceased. They still could not find the Ambassador.”

It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there.

“At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle."
But the battle was far from over.

“Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time.”

The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the “early morning” that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded.

“In the early morning, an additional security team arrived from Tripoli and proceeded to the annex,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after they arrived, the annex started taking mortar fire, with as many as three direct hits on the compound. It was during this mortar attack that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and a Diplomatic Security agent and an annex quick reaction security team member were critically wounded.”

Doherty and Woods were both former Navy Seals who served in both the Iraq and Afghan wars. They were working as U.S. security personnel in Libya.

When exactly did Obama learn that U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and who did he order to do something about it? The White House is not saying.

“I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives,” Obama told KUSA TV in Denver on Friday. “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com asked the White House on both Monday and Tuesday to reveal exactly when Obama learned the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and who exactly Obama directed to ‘make sure that we are securing our personnel’ there?” The White House did not respond.

At an Oct. 25 Pentagon press briefing, a reporter noted that “there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex [in Benghazi] and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex.” He then asked Panetta: “Why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or dropping more special forces in?”

“[T]here's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said.

“We quickly responded, as General [Martin] Dempsey [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” Panetta continued. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

“But the basic principle here--basic principle--is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place,” said Panetta. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

A reporter followed up: “So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.”

“This happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening,” Panetta said.

[vector7]

The Assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens

by John Galt
October 31, 2012 05:00 ET

As the story about the death of four brave Americans doing what their nation had asked of them, at least from a government perspective, fades into the noise of the 2012 elections and the monstrosity known as the mainstream media, the question which must be asked is staring everyone in the face:

Did President Barack Obama order the assassination of the United States Ambassador to Libya and the subsequent cover up?

The supposition stated above is not a reach, nor is the speculative inquiry which follows.

First, let’s establish a series of facts thanks to the hard work of some surviving journalists within the Washington, D.C. cesspool of propagandists.

1. The facts that this was indeed a terrorist attack are still vague. As of over 30 days later, only one suspect, a dupe from Tunisia was captured in Turkey and charged with being a suspect in the alleged attack. Despite leaks from the administration that “retaliatory strikes” were in the planning stages, no arrests nor counterattacks even using drones as purportedly would occur, have been carried out against the alleged terror cell which engaged in the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

2. President Obama was 100% aware of the events which were occurring in real time on September 11, 2012. The Blaze.com published an obvious, but logical article on October 28, 2012 validating this fact with an article where retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer stated that his sources knew the President was witnessing the attack in real time. Despite the reality which even the regime knew would leak out eventually, the political handlers and insiders insisted on promoting the story that the murder of our ambassador was due to a two time loser creating a video for YouTube which fewer than 50,000 people had seen before 9-11-12. This begs the question which the media is too stupid to ask: Was Obama watching in horror or to ensure that the job was done properly?

3. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was never allowed to survey the scene immediately after the attack nor interrogate any suspects in the nation. The most disturbing facts are that the stories erased from the memory of the American public create questions which have not nor will not be answered unless the CIA investigation or other intelligence source data is released:

Why was the Ambassador sodomized by the Islamist terrorists immediately before or just after his death and that aspect of the reporting deleted in all future references to the story? If we are to believe Islamic lore, it was to dishonor his body as too impure for entrance into heaven and condemnation to hell by Allah. It is also a method used to dissuade other intelligence insiders though also to keep silent and play ball with the administration until further notice.

Why were all media reports about the alleged theft of CIA files, including the North Africa NOC (non-official cover) list scrubbed from the internet, even though the New York Times as late as September 23rd acknowledged the setback for U.S. intelligence agencies in the region?

Lastly, why was the F.B.I. denied entry into the consulate until many days after the attack? According to the initial media reports there was extensive looting, including quite probably classified data, before the buildings were set on fire. The U.S. Government and especially the Obama administration are delaying any Congressional or media inquiries into what data was lost or the role of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the smuggling of arms to various regional rebellions before his death on September 11th.

Now it begs the big questions which are hanging over this entire national nightmare being deliberately obscured by media malpractice and political malfeasance by both parties. In this commentator’s opinion there are only two reasons as to why the President of the United States could or would be capable of such a heinous act such as the assassination of an American ambassador overseas.

The first, and most logical reason would be the simple solution:

Where and what happened to the over 19,000 shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS) from the collapsed Libyan regime?

The former U.S. Navy Seals who were killed in Benghazi on that eventful night were on a mission according to numerous news sources to meet with Libyan intermediaries and seek out those weapons so they could be placed under control of the new Libyan government or a NATO coalition to prevent them from being obtained by terrorist organizations outside of the region. Their heroic efforts that night not withstanding, the lack of any apparent progress and the sudden appearance of shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of the Syrian rebels is far too much of a coincidence to view without great skepticism.

The larger concern however, is what if the Ambassador had information he was about to make public about a threat on the U.S. homeland? Imagine the election implications if millions of people suddenly cancelled commercial aircraft flights because of the threat of Islamist radicals shooting down extremely vulnerable U.S. commercial flights on take off or approach to airports throughout the American homeland. To make matters worse, think of the immediate collapse of the air transportation industry with millions of people cancelling flights during the busiest flying season of the year around Thanksgiving, triggering tens of thousands of layoff notices before the election.

Based on the performance of this administration to date, such a warning would never be allowed nor permitted due to the pragmatic risk to the economy and the potential panic it would create. Thus this justification for killing the ambassador might seem reasonable and simple, the real possibility of this occurring does not seem to impact the decision making process of the leadership in Washington.

That leaves the second possibility, and most damning one:

Follow the money.

In 2008, there was extensive reporting about mysterious donations to the Obama campaign from overseas sources which to this day remain a mystery. In an article from Andrew McCarthy at the National Review (Obama’s Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations) where he quotes Ken Timmerman at Newsmax, the following statement rings true to this election cycle also:

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

Yet the mainstream media remains complicit in the coverup of this alleged illegal activity even during this election cycle. The problem is though, that governments like those in Saudi Arabia do not offer up nor authorize “donations” to foreign leaders for free as they extract political favors or in some cases, mercenary activity to justify giving large sums to Presidents and Prime Ministers of other nations. The connection between the article linked above about the sudden appearance of shoulder fired aircraft missiles and the story from the U.K. Guardian on June 22nd does not take much of a reach:

Saudi Arabia plans to fund Syria rebel army


The plan then, as it is in action now, is to funnel arms and communications equipment through Jordan and Turkey into Syria to the rebels to further destabilize Bashir Al-Assad and collapse his regime. The issue for the Saudi royal family however is that there can be no direct link to the purchase or supply of weapons from their Kingdom to the use by other Muslims to kill another Islamic leader; even if he is a Twelver and loyal Shiite ally of the Iranians. Conveniently enough, that is where the United States comes into the picture along with a campaign for re-election starving for cash.

Logically speaking, the assumption that thousands of the arms reported missing in Libya have been secured or at least accounted for by the U.S. intelligence community. With the blessings of the State Department looking to remold the world in its own perverse utopian vision of singular world governance along with the establishment of regional blocs of power, the administration basically had a green light to supply the Syrian rebellion with weapons provided it could funnel those arms from a source with few if any American fingerprints. Initially the administration failed to engage in resupplying the anti-Assad forces with weapons but limiting American involvement to humanitarian support; at least until the middle of this summer.

The theory is quite simple. Weapons are shipped via one of the Ambassador’s former shipping partners of whom he had a prior relationship with during the Libyan rebellion would be used to transit arms paid for by Saudi overseas agents, probably front companies in Europe. The weapons are moved using CIA intermediaries to American bases in Turkey, inventoried and then transported via private carriage into Syria for use against Assad. For allowing the use of American facilities to support the Saudi royal families political goals, the Obama campaign would receive tens of millions of dollars in donations, often below the $200 per donation reporting limit in exchange for this support of the Syrian rebels. It is a total win for the administration as it strengthens the relationship of the Obama administration with Saudi Arabia and the royal family. It assists the rebellion in Syria to overthrow the dictatorship of Assad and helps to create the vision Obama and others have seen via the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their Wahhabi financiers in Riyadh. Lastly it guarantees a steady flow of cash which will never be tracked nor traced to its origins because of U.S. election law and the refusal of the Obama administration to supply the data as it is not required by U.S. law.

Imagine what would happen if an American ambassador decided to show some honor and come forward and do the right thing by threatening to go public with the corruption and information he or she had about such an operation. Then imagine a meeting being set up with a member of the Turkish government, probably friendly to or working with U.S. intelligence agencies in Benghazi on September 11th to either discuss the next shipment or establish further plans for expanding the arms for money laundering operation. Fast forward to a reality where the guards surrounding the ambassador abandon him upon the first attack which could or could not be construed as a CIA sponsored hit under orders from the President to eradicate all evidence on site at the consulate including the ambassador. Far fetched? Not with this administration. If one takes a moment to look at the current status of this abomination in Libya, there is no evidence remaining as to what covert activity the ambassador was up to nor is there any ability to confirm now which deals he was indeed involved in during a confidential Congressional hearing which will never occur now.

The lack of a proper team to protect the Ambassador now begins to make sense considering the vulnerability of meeting the Turkish attache in Benghazi and the apparent orders of American forces to stand down while the assault was underway. This lack of protection, similar to an insider organized crime hit, also validates the old saying, “Dead men tell no tales.”

If anyone doubts the logic behind the concept of the U.S. government ordering a hit on one of its own, a quick refresher course of American history is long past due. The problem with this regime is that their Marxists tendencies are similar to those of the old Soviet Union where the achievement of political goals regardless of obstacles must be achieved with extreme prejudice; even if that means killing American citizens in cold blood to promote their program.

Or in this case, their “Project.”

[American Patriot]

Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand 'coordinated attack'

By Catherine Herridge
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."

[American Patriot]

Hope you guys actually read that entire news article above.... check the dates, the classification of the communique, understand what an RSO is and understand this

In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

[vector7]

Something Ryan could have used during the VP Debates on the Left's flawed reasoning on operartions in Afghanistan.

On Afghanistan, Ryan missed a golden opportunity. Biden was sneering in his constant repetition of “we’re turning this over to the Afghans we trained.” Yet Ryan was unwilling to note that it’s those trained Afghans who are the greatest threat to American troops in the country.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bid...t-impressions/

[vector7]

Glenn Beck To News Agencies Sitting On Benghazi Emails: Release Them Or I’ll Expose You (Video)

On November 1, 2012, in Digest, by Duane Lester

If there are news agencies sitting on emails showing the White House not only refused to help those under attack in Benghazi, but ordered the military and CIA to stand down from intervening, that’s inexcusable.

Glenn Beck agrees:

[vector7]

November 1, 2012
Benghazi Reveals Obama-Islamist Alliance

By James Lewis

The nature of the Benghazi disaster is now clear. Ambassador Stevens was engaged in smuggling sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Smuggling arms to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" is itself a huge gamble, but Obama has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab Spring -- which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.

For the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty can be bought. We therefore betrayed Hosni Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, so that the Muslim Brotherhood led by Muhammed Morsi could take over. Obama indeed demanded publicly that Mubarak resign, for reasons that never made any sense at all. Egypt went into a political and economic tailspin, and the Muslim Brotherhood were elected. The Muslim radicals have now purged the only other viable political force, the army and police, to protect their monopoly on power. We have colluded in that betrayal.

In Libya, we betrayed Moammar Gaddafi, who had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush administration. In Afghanistan, we betrayed the central government set up by the Bush administration and negotiated with the fanatical war sect of the Taliban to take over. The Taliban entered our history when they gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11/01 to plan, train, equip, and implement the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The Taliban are our fanatical theological enemy, as shown by their sadistic attempt to assassinate 14-year-old women's rights advocate Malala Yousuf.

Afghanistan has many thousands of Malalas we will never hear about.

Our consistent policy of betrayal of moderate Muslims in favor of radical Islamofascists goes hand-in-hand with our appeasement of the Iranian Khomeinist regime, which is the most America-hating Shiite regime, now facing competition from America-hating Sunni regimes in Egypt and elsewhere. It also fits our cooperation with Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" regime, which has also purged the Turkish army and police to remove modern-minded Turks from power. Egypt and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

We have therefore followed a single "community disorganizing" policy toward the Muslim world, consisting of betraying moderates to bring theocratic fascists to power. Obama "explained" that policy in a publicized argument with Hillary Clinton at the White House when Mubarak was overthrown. His explanation? Fascist revolutions are "organic," and therefore more stable than moderate revolutions. Obama's fantasy policy runs contrary to U.S. foreign policy since World War I.

The biggest loser in this mad administration has been hundreds of millions women of the Muslim world, who were on a path to modernity and freedom until Obama and Hillary Clinton betrayed them. Today they are shut inside the prisons of sharia law.

The second-biggest loser has been relative stability in a great geographical swath of the Muslim world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across the Middle East, all the way to Tunisia and Morocco.

The third-biggest loser has been our anti-proliferation policy against the spread of weapons of mass destruction among developing nations. From fighting proliferation, we have turned to aiding it.

Those three Horsemen of the Apocalypse are now out of the barn and riding free.

In Benghazi, al-Qaeda showed that they could not be bought even by our back-stabbing policy. Our Benghazi arms-smuggling base was attacked by elements of AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Maghreb) in an act of betrayal against our fantasy-driven way of doing things. The American betrayer was itself betrayed, and Obama-Hillary could do nothing to defend the Americans under attack at the Benghazi arms-smuggling base, because any public revelation of the truth would rip the cover off our mad actions and focus the hatred of Muslim nations on the United States.

The evidence now shows that Obama was aware of the attack within 55 minutes of the start. It lasted for six or seven hours, and Obama consistently countermanded standing orders to protect Americans under attack in the Africom command area. General Ham may have been fired for following standard U.S. policy to defend American personnel.

In Syria, the Assad regime now has a legitimate basis to convict us of deadly dabbling in the Syrian civil war. Russia and China are likely to take up Assad's cause at the United Nations. They would be right on the facts.

Because the Benghazi attack coincided exactly with the AQ attack on our Cairo Embassy, both on September 11 of this year, this was apparently a central command decision by AQ, presumably ordered by Osama bin Laden's successor, Al Zawahiri, in Pakistan using a video released on the web shortly before those attacks. The message was "al-Qaeda lives!" Everybody who saw the news photos that day got that message. Only Obama is in public denial.

Because the Egyptian regime chose not to defend our embassy, we know that Muhammad Morsi was in cahoots with the AQ attack. Host governments always have the first responsibility to defend accredited embassies. Egypt "forgot" to defend us, and that was the message.

The purpose of the AQ attacks was to embarrass the United States, and to show us to be a paper tiger, precisely the way Ayatollah Khomeini did to Jimmy Carter. AQ also wanted to tear off the cover of the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation, to make us look like a treasonous ally, which, as it turns out, we are. All of our allies around the world, from South Korea and Japan to Israel, Australia, and Norway, must now be reassessing our reliability. One major betrayal of our allies is enough to shatter sixty years of faith in American leadership.

Here is the evidence as published in the Jerusalem Post, in an interview with retired counterintelligence professional Clare Lopez. The credit for the exposing the U.S. arms-smuggling conspiracy that just capsized goes to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org) and other alert conservative columnists around the web.

Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli

By Shoebat Foundation on October 31, 2012 in Blog, General

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):



Translated, the document reads:

National Transitional Council – Libya
8/30/11

Code: YGM-270-2011

Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj

Greetings,

We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.

Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil

President, National Transitional Council – Libya

Official Seal of National Transitional Council

Copy for file.

As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:

“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.

In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:

“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”

Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the the BBC article as…

“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.”

Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.
Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:

This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.

The nexus between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood comes into clearer focus when one looks at the Libyan Ambassador to the United States. His name is Ali Sulaiman Aujali. He had the following to say about Belhaj according to an ABC News report:

“(Belhaj) should be accept(ed) for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis… people evolve and change.”

Really? How many times do westerners have to fall for this line before they trip over it?

In fact, about one month prior to Aujali’s vouching for Belhaj, he appeared at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention. ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood front group in America.

Aujali represents one individual who is willing to bridge the gap between Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, fast forward to 9/13/12, two days after the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated the Muslim Eid holiday in the Ben Franklin room in Washington, D.C. and shared a podium with none other than Ali Sulaiman Aujali and a woman named Farah Pandith, who is a prominent name inside the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

In 2009, Pandith was sworn in as a U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities by Hillary Clinton. Pandith followed the path of the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress and was sworn in on the Qur’an.

Another interesting alliance revealed itself in various cities across America in the days after the death of Ambassador Stevens. In at least both Los Angeles, CA and Columbus, OH the Libyan American Association aligned with CAIR to hold a vigil for Ambassador Stevens.

While in Jamaica in June of 2011, Hillary Clinton rhetorically asked:

…whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people…

At that very moment – and in light of the release of this secret document – the appropriate question would have been:

…whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of Al-Qaeda…

When put that way, Hillary’s position isn’t nearly as unassailable.

Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids, which features a chapter on Walid Shoebat.

[vector7]

Exclusive: Classified Cable Warned US Consulate Couldn’t Withstand ‘Coordinated Attack’…Al-Qaeda Training Camps Nearby

November 1, 2012 by Scotty Starnes



Despite the calls for extra security and knowledge that al-Qaeda training camps were nearby, Team Obama ignored intelligence and the calls for help. The results: 4 dead Americans and a massive cover-up.

From Fox News (because the liberal media isn’t investigating their President):

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

Continue reading>>>

[American Patriot]

McCain: WH Covering Up Benghazi to 'Ridiculous' Extent

Friday, 02 Nov 2012 08:39 AM
By Greg McDonald


Share:

• Tweet
  
• 
  

Sen. John McCain Thursday called the Obama administration's response to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "a classic scandal and cover-up" with Watergate overtones, saying it would likely have an impact on the election outcome by turning veterans and active-duty military personnel against the president.

"I think that this Libya fiasco and tragedy is turning some veterans' votes and some active-duty military," McCain told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Thursday night.

"They are angered and disgusted. Our active duty military people believe they can't trust the president of the United States," McCain added, referring to the administration's refusal so far to publicly lay out the facts surrounding the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed in the attacks.

"These people are covering up so much in such a ridiculous fashion," he said.

The Arizona Republican, who was his party's 2008 presidential nominee, called the administration's handling of the questions about the attack "a classic scandal and cover-up" that is "angering our veterans and . . . our active duty people."

"I think it can have an impact [on the election] because we've still got five more days. And this is a classic scandal, where almost every day, or every few days, another shoe drops," McCain continued.

The senator said he told some veterans who complained to him about events surrounding the Benghazi attack that "it could be as bad as Watergate."

"And one of our veterans said, 'Yes, but nobody died in Watergate,'" McCain said.

The senator's comments came amid reports that Stevens had cabled the State Department nearly a month before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, about security concerns at the consulate and the presence of al-Qaida and other Islamist extremist groups in Benghazi.

McCain and many other Republicans have complained that Stevens' warnings were ignored and that the administration failed to respond to requests for help when the consulate was actually under attack.

On Thursday, the Associated Press reported that a group of CIA security agents from an agency annex in Benghazi did respond within 25 minutes of the attack beginning and managed to get most of the State Department personnel out of the consulate.

The story, quoting unidentified intelligence personnel, appeared to refute recent reports that the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" during the attack.

McCain, however, said the nation's active duty military personnel deserve answers and would like to have them before the Nov. 6 election.

"I'm getting a reaction the likes of which I have seldom seen. . . . They know what's going on. They know a cover-up is going on. And I can tell you, they do not trust the president of the United States," he said.

In a separate interview with Van Susteren, Sen. Pat Roberts offered a more critical assessment of how he thinks American military personnel have come to view the president in the wake of the Benghazi attack.

The Kansas Republican said he spoke to one young man who just got out of the service after being deployed five times.

"He says, 'I'm glad I'm out. I knew I was going to be in harm's way. That's why, you know, I signed up. But today, I don't think they'd have my back,'" Roberts quoted the young veteran as saying.

"Now, if that's true and that starts to fester, I would hate to see any president bear that burden, whether it be [Mitt] Romney or Obama," Roberts continued.

The senator said it was important to get answers now because, "You don't want to lose the morale of our service people put in harm's way. That's not right."

"This has been the doggonedest series of events, where it's sort of a drip, drip, drip, you know, revelation, and it doesn't make any sense," the senator said of the administration's response to the attack. "It's a jigsaw puzzle."



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sca...#ixzz2B4WXfFHg
Follow us: @newsmax_media on Twitter | newsmax on Facebook
Alert: At Risk For A Heart Attack? Find Out Now. Vote Here Now!

[American Patriot]

The smoking gun of the Benghazi cover-up

By: Patrick J. Buchanan
11/2/2012 04:03 AM




On June 6 of this year, a bomb planted at the U.S. compound in Benghazi ripped a 12-foot-wide hole in the outer wall.


On June 11, the British ambassador’s motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone and the British Benghazi post was closed.


At the same time, the Red Cross, after a second attack, shut down and fled the city.


“When that occurred,” says Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the military security team in Tripoli, “we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove.”


On Aug. 15, at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, an emergency meeting was convened to discuss the 10 Islamist militias and their training camps in the area, among them al-Qaida and Ansar al-Sharia.


On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”
The cable was sent to Hillary Clinton — and signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens.


On Sept. 11, Ambassador Stevens died in a coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound by elements of Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida.


Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the “smoking gun.”


Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.”


While House spokesman Jay Carney said Biden’s “we” applied only to Biden, Obama and the White House. As the National Security Council is part of the White House, Carney was saying the NSC was in the dark over the Aug. 16 cable that had warned about the exact attack that occurred.


What else have we lately learned?


The State Department was following the Benghazi assault in real time.


Three emails came from the compound that night. The first described the attack; the second came as the firing stopped; the third reported that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming credit.


From an Oct. 26 report by Jennifer Griffin, also of Fox News, we now know there were two drones over Benghazi the night of Sept. 11 capable of sending pictures to U.S. commanders within reach of Benghazi, and to the CIA, Pentagon and White House.


We also know that ex-SEAL Ty Woods, in the CIA safe house a mile away, was denied permission to go to the rescue of the compound, and that he disobeyed orders, went and brought back the body of diplomat Sean Smith.


After the attack on the compound, the battle shifted to the safe house — for four more hours. Another ex-SEAL, Glen Doherty, made it to Benghazi from Tripoli. Seven hours after the initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Smith, Doherty and Woods were still returning fire, when, having been abandoned on the orders of someone higher up, they were killed by a direct mortar hit.


Due to stonewalling and the complicity of the Big Media in ignoring or downplaying the Benghazi story during the last weeks of the campaign, the Obamaites may get past the post on Nov. 6 without being called to account.


But the truth is coming out, and an accounting is coming. For the character, competence and credibility of Obama’s entire national security team have been called into question.


Hillary Clinton said she takes full responsibility for any security failure by her department at the Benghazi compound. But what does that mean? Did she see the Aug. 16 secret cable sent to her by Stevens describing his perilous situation? Was she oblivious to the battle in her department over security in Benghazi?


This failure that occurred in her shop and on her watch, that Stevens warned about in his Aug. 16 cable, resulted in his death and the most successful terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.


Why has Hillary not explained her inaction — or stepped down?


The CIA has issued a terse statement saying it gave no order to anyone not to try to rescue the ambassador or not to move forces to aid Doherty and Woods, who died because no help came.


Who, then, did refuse to send help? Who did give the orders to “stand down”?


The president says he is keeping Americans informed as we learn the truth. But is that still credible?


When did Obama learn that State was following the Benghazi attack in real time, that camera-carrying drones were over the city that night, that a seven-hour battle was fought, that desperate cries for help were being turned down.


The CIA had to know all this. Did Tom Donilon of the NSC not know it? Did he not tell the president?


Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice went on five national TV shows to say the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.


Did the president not know she was talking nonsense? Could he himself have still been clueless about what went on in Benghazi?