Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[Phil Fiord]

Found this image on a Reuters credited photo in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lot-scare.html

Could there have been a better photo? I think not.

Hillary 2016

[American Patriot]

Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton ‘got away with murder’

• Tweet 5

• Short URL
  URL
• Email
• Print

By BREANNA EDWARDS | 1/29/13 1:15 PM EST
Sen. Lindsey Graham wasn’t impressed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony at the Benghazi congressional hearing, telling Fox News that she “got away with murder.”
(Also on POLITICO: Clinton's biggest regret: Benghazi)
Continue Reading Text Size

• -
• +
• reset

Clinton defends Susan Rice, protest reports


Clinton’s most contentious hearing moments







“Hillary Clinton got away with murder in my view. She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn’t know about the ambassador’s cable coming back from Libya?” the South Carolina Republican told host Greta Van Susteren Monday on “On The Record”.


“Our guys tried to ask questions, she is very good on her feet, deflecting the questions. But she said two things that will come back to haunt her, they had a clear-eyed assessment of the threats in Libya, and they had close contact with the Libyan government. I don’t believe either one of them,” the lawmaker added.
(PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton's top 12 Benghazi hearing lines)


Clinton clashed with congressional Republicans, most notably Sen. Ron Johnson, at her hearing on the attack on the Benghazi, Libya consulate last week.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2JOfEwSCO

[vector7]

Rand Paul: Obama in guns-to-jihadists cover-up?

Senator raises questions about role of CIA annex in Benghazi

Published: 17 hours ago



In a radio interview, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, questioned whether the Obama administration may be covering up the role played by the CIA annex in Benghazi in a possible scheme to run guns to rebels in the Middle East.

The annex was attacked Sept. 11 along with the special U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Charged Paul: “There has been a lot made of the political cover up of President Obama’s administration saying this (Benghazi attack) had something to do with a homemade film from some guy in Los Angeles. But in reality the question is, or the secondary quotation is, why would they do a cover up? What are they covering up?”

Paul said he has “a feeling that it had something to do with the CIA annex.”

“You know, a week before the ambassador was killed in Libya, a ship left Libya and docked in Turkey, and it actually interviewed the captain of that ship who said there were arms on board and that he actually witnessed the rebels taking the arms and disputing over who got what,” he said. “That there were grenade launchers; that there were significant arms being transferred.

Paul said it doesn’t prove the CIA was involved but raised the question of the purpose of the annex.

“The Libyan government is said not to have known that they were there,” he noted. “And is that the reason for the cover up? So there are a lot of unanswered questions.”

Paul was speaking Sunday night on WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”



Any arming of Middle East rebels would be considered highly controversial. Widespread reports have documented that Syrian and Libyan rebels consist in large part of jihadists, including members of several major al-Qaida groups.

It was not the first time Paul publicly raised suspicions on alleged gun running in Benghazi.

In a Senate hearing on the Benghazi attacks last month, Paul asked outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post.

The alleged weapons transfers to the rebels in Syria would not be the first time the Obama administration reportedly coordinated weapons shipments to Middle Eastern rebels.

In December, the New York Times reported the Obama administration “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.”

The Times reported the weapons and money from Qatar “strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.”

Last week the U.S. announced $60 million in nonlethal aid to Syrian rebels, while the White House continues to deny it was involved in coordinating arms shipments to Syrian fighters.

Last month, the New York Times reported the White House rebuffed a plan developed last summer by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus to arm and train Syrian rebels.

However, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND, the U.S. has been coordinating Arab arms shipments for months now to the Syrian rebels. At issue is that the rebels consist in large part of al-Qaida-linked jihadists, according to scores of news reports.

The Middle Eastern security officials further described the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Assad’s regime. The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Days after the Benghazi attacks, WND broke the story that late Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

This scheme seems to mirror the Petraeus-Clinton plan as described by the New York Times.

Poking further holes in the White House denial of supporting that plan, it was revealed in testimony last month the arms-to-rebels plan had been endorsed by the leaders of the CIA, Pentagon and State Department.

If, indeed, President Obama rejected the arms plan, it would mean the White House went against the recommendations of not only Clinton and Petraeus but also outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey.

During Senate hearings on Benghazi two weeks ago, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked Panetta and Dempsey whether they had supported a plan “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria.”

“We do,” Panetta replied.

“You did support that?” McCain asked again.

“We did,” added Dempsey, who was sitting next to Panetta.

Neither Dempsey nor Panetta elaborated on their positions.

[vector7]

White House: Clinton’s 'Signature' on Benghazi Docs Doesn't Mean She Knew of Them

April 25, 2013

---

By Fred Lucas
Subscribe to Fred Lucas RSS


White House spokesman Jay Carney (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – The White House dismissed the signature of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it “protocol” for government official “signatures” to appear on documents they did not sign. “It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, using his fingers for quote marks when he said “signature.” He continued. “This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”

A report by five House committees released Tuesday found that Senior State Department officials, including Clinton, approved reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions.



On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi. Obama administration officials first told the public that the attack was a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim You Tube video.

The interim report was a joint effort of the Republican controlled House Judiciary, Armed Services, Oversight and Government Reform, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence committees. House Democrats on these committees said they were not asked to participate.

On Tuesday, a reporter asked, “I wanted to bring up the House report yesterday on Benghazi. They point to cables that reportedly had secretary -- technically then-Secretary Clinton’s signature on it that referenced a request for additional security and in which instead cuts were made and some members are saying that this shows administration culpability in the security problems there, and some have gone so far as to say signs of a cover-up. I just wanted to get your response on that.”

Carney said the Benghazi matter has been politicized.

“I would draw your attention to the letter that the Democratic members of the same committee sent to Speaker Boehner yesterday strongly objecting to what is an obviously partisan Republican staff report,” Carney asserted. “Now, it seems to me that if these members of Congress were genuinely interested in getting information, they would not have abandoned the customary oversight process and excluded Democratic members from the entire process, which is what they did.”

Carney continued, “And on the issue of the signature, you have to be factual and acknowledge reality here. It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom. This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”

“Additionally, all cables originating from our overseas posts are similarly signed, i.e. have the name at the bottom, by the ambassador and are addressed to the secretary,” Carney said. “In this way, this Secretary Clinton and others before her signed hundred of thousands of cables during their tenures as secretary.”

Earlier Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the House Democrats complaint.

“The committee chairmen involved in Benghazi came together in terms of this report,” Boehner said at a press conference Wednesday. “I think they’ve done a very good job in outlining what we know thus far and also raising questions about what we don’t know. I hope that our chairmen would reach out to their ranking members because I happen to believe ranking Democrats on the committees are just as interested in the truth as we are.”

[American Patriot]

oh... Bullshit

[vector7]

State Department Blocks Lawyers from Representing Benghazi Whistleblowers

8:22AM Monday
April 29, 2013



The State Department is blocking local lawyer Victoria Toensing from representing whistleblowers on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, according to her legal partner and husband Joe DiGenova. Teonsing wants to represent such whistleblowers at the upcoming Congressional hearings about the Benghazi case.

"The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony," DiGenova said.

On April 26, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Ca) sent a letter to Dept. of State secretary John Kerry demanding that lawyers who would represent these whistleblowers would be given clearances so they could talk to their clients about classified information, DiGenova said.

DiGenova added that there will be a "constitutional showdown" if Toensing and other lawyers don't get clearance.

"Congress is going to win," he said. "The administration's effort to cover up what happened in Benghazi is going to fail."

[vector7]

Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says

By James Rosen
Published April 29, 2013
FoxNews.com




At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.

“It's frightening, and they're doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we're going to kill you,’ or not ‘we're going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

Federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistle-blowers.” The laws aim to ensure these individuals will not face repercussions from their superiors, or from other quarters, in retaliation for their provision of information about corruption or other forms of wrongdoing to Congress, or to an agency’s inspector-general.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday to complain that the department has not provided a process by which attorneys like Toensing can receive the security clearances necessary for them to review classified documents and other key evidence.

“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”

The Obama administration maintains that it has been more than forthcoming on Benghazi and that it is time for the State Department to move on. At a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry noted that administration officials have testified at eight hearings on Benghazi, provided 20 briefings on the subject and turned over to Congress some 25,000 documents related to the killings.

“So if you have additional questions or you think there's some document that somehow you need, I'll work with you to try to get it and see if we can provide that to you,” Kerry told committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., on April 17. But Kerry added: “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi.”

Asked about Issa’s complaints about attorneys not receiving security clearances, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases. “I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters. “I'm not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another.”

Ventrell cited the work of the FBI – whose probe of the attacks continues almost eight months later and without any known instances of perpetrators being brought to justice – and the Accountability Review Board. The board was an internal State Department review panel led by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. An unclassified version of the board’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.

“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing. “Congress has its own prerogatives, but we've had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared. And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”

[American Patriot]

Threatened Whistleblowers??????

Gosh, that's ILLEGAL and our government would NEVER do that!

[vector7]

Threatened Whistleblowers??????

Gosh, that's ILLEGAL and our government would NEVER do that!

Yeah and Obama pleads stupidity on the subject or is that called lying:

Obama on Allegations Benghazi Whistleblowers Have Been Blocked From Testifying: ‘I’m Not Familiar With it’

Apr. 30, 2013 11:37am Becket Adams


President Obama on Tuesday said he is unaware that anyone has been blocked from testifying on the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“There are people in your own State Department saying they have been blocked from coming forward,” said Fox News’ Ed Henry, “that they survived the terror attack and they want to tell their story.”

He is referring to recent reports that at least four officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have been warned by unnamed Obama administration officials about testifying on the Benghazi terror attacks.

“Will you help them come forward and say it once and for all?” Henry asked.

“Ed,” the president responded. “I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying. What I’ll do is I’ll find out what, exactly, you’re referring to.”

“Our job, with respect to Benghazi, has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies – not just in the Middle East but around the world – are safe and secure, and to bring those who carried it out to justice. But I’ll find out, exactly, what you’re referring to.”

“[T]hey’ve hired an attorney because they say they’ve been blocked from coming forward,” Henry persisted.

“I’m not familiar with it,” the president responded:

[American Patriot]

I heard his comments about "not being familiar". He is now.

If I were the President of the United States and I got wind someone was threatening someone who worked for me, I'd find out who was being threatened by whom and have them BOTH standing in the Oval Office pretty damned quick.

Then the threatener would be gone in 30 seconds... escorted out and prevented from returning to work. The whistleblower would then be given the chance to talk.

Oh wait... *I* would be an HONEST President though... I'm not Obama. I forgot who we were talking about for a minute.

[Ryan Ruck]

What most people forget is that there were a number of people that survived the attack and were successfully evacuated.

The question that should be being asked is why aren't they being heard from. That would tie right in with this whistleblower stuff.

[American Patriot]

we already know, I think Ryan, that the "Whistleblowers" have firsthand knowledge of the incident. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that they are probably scared to death they would be hunted down and killed now - and it would be "blamed on terrorists" instead of who would actually do it.....

[American Patriot]

Obama and Hillary are covering their asses, they are lying through their teeth. These people who were just on are pissed off - lawyers for the people and those people are being told "if you talk you might not be around much longer".

What kind of shit is that?

[vector7]

Report: Three Operatives From Yemen’s Al-Qaeda In The Arabian Peninsula Took Part In Banghazi Attack, May Have Been Sent To Lead Operation…



Refresh my memory, how long did the Obama administration cling to the claim the attack was the result of a movie?(CNN) — Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.

The attack on the compound and subsequently on a “safe-house” to which Americans had been evacuated left four U.S. citizens dead, including the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

If the AQAP members were dispatched to Benghazi, it would be further evidence of a new level of co-operation among jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, counterterrorism analysts say.

[American Patriot]

Yeah... ok, but where are the Whisle Blowers again?

[vector7]

US Hired al-Qaida-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission

Friday, 03 May 2013 12:12 PM
By John Rosenthal



The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for some months before the deadly attack.

That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.

The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.

Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”

The report also stated that just a few days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the Martyrs Brigade informed State Department officials they no longer would provide security as members of the mission, including Stevens, traveled through the city.

From June 2011 to July 2012, Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for Libya at the time, documented more than 200 security threats and violent incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occurred in Benghazi.

Yet despite those threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department, for reasons that remain unclear.

Perhaps the biggest question is why the State Department would hire a group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaida, and ask it to participate in the defense of its diplomatic mission.

The banner, or “cover photo” of one of the group’s Facebook pages, shows an Islamic fighter, or mujahid, with a portable rocket launcher resting on his shoulder.

The distinctive black flag of al-Qaida can be seen fluttering to the man’s left, attached to the vehicle in which he is riding. The mujahid wears a headband based on the design of the al-Qaida flag. The flag in question features the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, and a white circle that is sometimes described as the “seal of Mohammed.”

The flag was made famous by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi al-Qaida affiliate, commonly known as “al-Qaida in Iraq.” The flag originally used by al-Qaida was a plain black flag with the shahada written on it in white. Both flags are widely used by contemporary jihadist groups.

The original cover photo on Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, displaying the al-Qaida banner.

An Arabic inscription written over the photo reads: “Allah, his prophet and Libya and that’s it.” The cover photo was posted by the site administrator on June 10, 2012., and was the first activity on the Facebook page.

The photo was presumably taken at a massive rally in support of the sharia, or Islamic law, held in Benghazi three days earlier, on June 7. The rally included a military parade featuring units from a large cross-section of the Eastern Libyan militias that spearheaded the 2011 rebellion against Moammar Gadhafi.

Video of the event posted by local sources shows several al-Qaida flags flying at the event. Al-Qaida-inspired accessories, such as headbands and decals, were widely displayed as well. One of the sponsoring organizations of the rally was Ansar al-Sharia. The term Ansar al-Sharia means “supporters of the sharia.” Sharia is Islamic law and regulations.

On June 15, five days after the photo was posted, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade updated the cover photo on the Facebook page, replacing the image with a photo montage featuring its own logo and a masked commando sporting the colors of the new Libyan national flag on a shoulder patch.

The cover photo has been updated several times since then. It is clear, however, that the group has repudiated neither al-Qaida nor its violent ideology.

On June 28, for example, the brigade posted a second graphic bearing a headline title that translates to: “The bearded [man] is suspect until he proves he is not a Muslim!!!”

The graphic features two rows of pictures. The top row consists of bearded Muslim men. The images include some of the leading figures of modern-day jihadism, including al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden and the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Arabic text on the graphic states the Muslims are accused of various faults, including “terrorism” and “extremism.”

The second row shows bearded non-Muslims (including Tolstoy, Che Guevara and George Bernard Shaw). The caption suggests the Western world sees the bearded non-Muslims as intelligent, and holds them in high esteem.

To drive home the point, the graphic includes a quotation from the Quran: “Then will we treat Muslims like criminals? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?”

The implication is that the Muslims in the top row, including Osama bin Laden, have been unfairly labeled.

Graphic from Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade

Several entries on the Facebook page make clear the brigade’s sympathies for the Ansar al-Sharia militia, which allegedly has al-Qaida ties. In the Western media, Ansar al-Sharia has been widely accused of having perpetrated the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.

An entry posted Sept. 19, eight days after the Benghazi attacks, laments the death of an Ansar al-Sharia member. It asks God to “receive him amongst the martyrs” and to receive him “into his wide paradise.” The entry points out that the deceased, Adham al-Falastini, previously was a member of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.

Another revealing earlier post, on June 25, shows a graphic from a now-defunct Ansar al-Sharia Facebook page. It carries a warning from Ansar al-Sharia about the distribution of pens bearing an image of the Virgin Mary. The graphic cautions against propagating beliefs that Muslims should scorn.

A warning from Ansar al-Sharia about “Virgin Mary pens.” Graphic reproduced on a Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.

At least two recent entries on the February 17th Martyrs Brigade site feature the Ansar al-Sharia logo. One of these, dated Jan. 29, suggests that Ansar al-Sharia is the target of a “treacherous” plot to get the brigade blamed for various attacks and assassination attempts.

The other, dated Jan. 20, announces that Ansar al-Sharia has begun guarding the western gate of Benghazi “in the service of our religion and…of the Libyan people.”

This news, which is corroborated by other sources, is notable in light of Western news reports claiming Ansar al-Sharia was driven out of the city following the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission.

Ansar al-Sharia logo on Facebook page of February 17th Martyrs Brigade

A more recent entry, March 2, features a graphic celebrating Jabhat al-Nusra, the offshoot of al-Qaida in Iraq that has played a leading role in the Syrian insurrection against the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

Late last year, Jabhat al-Nusra was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

In defiance of the U.S. designation, the Arabic on the graphic declares, “We are all Jabhat al-Nusra.”

The accompanying Facebook entry repeats this sentiment, and recites the exploits of the al-Qaida-linked brigade in the Syrian civil war, including “more than 40 martyrdom operations.” Jihadist groups use “martyrdom operations” to refer to suicide bombings.

“We are all Jabhat al-Nusra.” Graphic from a Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade

The State Department had hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A document recovered from the mission two days after the attack indicated the State Department had arranged for the Martyrs Brigade to act as a “Quick Reaction Force” to protect the mission.

The Memorandum of Agreement states that “in the event of an attack on the U.S. mission, QRF will request additional support from the 17th February Martyrs Brigade.”

Throughout the summer leading up to the attack, embassy officials repeatedly asked the State Department for additional security. But the State Department actually reduced security, pulling out a military detachment responsible for defending diplomats in Libya.

One reason the requests for additional security may have been denied: They did not fit into the administration narrative that al-Qaida elements no longer posed a threat to U.S. interests.

One diplomatic cable to the mission indicated that the U.S.-based deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security was “reluctant to ask for [additional security] apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets to protect our mission.”

When the mission’s regional safety officer expressed an interest in July 2012 asking State Department official to permit the military security team to continue to protect the mission, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary in charge of diplomatic security, sent an e-mail that responded: “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the [military security] team to stay!”

Republicans have complained in recent weeks that the Obama administration has been stonewalling their investigation. According to Fox News, four career officials at the State Department and the CIA have retained counsel as they prepare to provide Congress with inside information on the attacks.

"Victoria Toensing, an attorney representing one of the whistleblowers, said they have been threatened by CIA and State Department officials with repercussions if they talk to Congress about what happened in Benghazi. But President Obama said earlier this week he was “unaware” of anyone being discouraged from coming forward to tell Congress their side of the story.

" House Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued a statement on Tuesday: “Over the past two weeks, I have sent four letters requesting that this administration make information available about how lawyers — who already have security clearances and are representing Benghazi whistleblowers — can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any responses from the Obama administration.”

The House Republicans’ Interim Progress Report concludes with an ominous warning: “This singular event will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world, and properly postures resources and security assets to counter and respond to those threats.

“Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect more catastrophes like Benghazi, in which U.S. personnel on the ground perform bravely, but are not provided with the resources for an effective response,” the report stated.

[American Patriot]

Imagine that... Hillary tried to cut out her own people from this. Everyone KNEW it was a terrorist attack.

Apparently the "whistle blowers" will be speaking today.

CIA was providing reports to State.

the name "Al Qaeda" was scrubbed from reports.

Sounds like a lot of lying going on.

[Malsua]

They're all liars. They can't ever tell the truth as it may make them look bad. Scum.

[American Patriot]

I guess it will be Wednesday before they have the hearing. I misunderstood what the news was saying. I just heard it won't be today, but sometime Wednesday. Daryl Issa is leading the ... charge? on this.

[vector7]

Benghazi ‘emerging evidence’: White House ‘knowingly misled’ Americans

• National Security
• May 5, 2013
• By: Patricia Campion
• Subscribe

During his Sept. 12, 2012 remarks in the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama – in the company of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – said the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was because of a controversial Prophet Muhammad video.
Credits: Alex Wong/Getty Images

As reported Saturday, Fox News has “learned the names of the self-described Benghazi ‘whistle-blowers’ who are set to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday.”

Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, became the highest-ranking American diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.

According to the State Department website, Mark I. Thompson -- a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counter Terrorism Bureau --“advises senior leadership on operational counter terrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”

Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya and the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks, previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012.

Joe DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and his wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee are representing Hicks and Thompson, “pro bono.”

According to DiGenova and Toensing, Hicks and Thompson believe their accounts of Benghazi were rejected by the Accountability Review board -- convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to investigate the attack -- and claim they are being threatened by unnamed administration officials that their careers will be in jeopardy if they testify.

As Examiner noted May 1, the answer provided by President Barack Obama during Tuesday’s press conference about the threats -- only “raised more questions.”

Ed Henry asked about the “new allegations” that the Benghazi survivors are being “blocked from coming forward.”

"Ed, I'm not familiar with this notion that anybody's been blocked from testifying,” Obama said.

Unsatisfied with Obama’s answer, Henry pressed the matter.

They hired an attorney because they're saying that they've been blocked from coming forward.

“I'm not familiar with it,” Obama dismissed, and quickly pointed to the next reporter for a new question.

During a press briefing the same day, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president’s claim.

We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.

However, “even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks,” Steve Hays reported for The Weekly Standard that “fresh evidence emerged that” Obama and “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.”

On Sept. 12, 20122, the day after the attack, Obama delivered a speech in the Rose Garden – with Clinton at his side – blaming the video.

We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.

During a Sept. 14 press briefing, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney followed suit.

We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

As reported Sept. 21, 2012 by The Daily Mail, the State Department spent $70,000 to run an announcement in Pakistan, “which featured clips of Obama and Clinton underscoring U.S. respect for religion and declaring the U.S. government had nothing to do with the movie.”
During Obama’s Sept. 25, 2012 speech before the United Nations delegation, he blamed the video six times.

American Power Blog noted Sept. 29, 2012 that -- during her appearances on five separate Sunday talk show programs -- U.S. United Nations Ambassador and Obama’s then-nominee to replace Clinton as secretary of state -- Susan Rice blamed the attack on the video.

What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.

However, as Hays noted, “there is no mention of any ‘video’ in any of the many drafts of the talking points.”

“After months of criticism over her Benghazi comments,” NBC News reported Dec. 13, 2012 Rice announced she would “not continue to be considered by the president for nomination of secretary of state.”

Asked about the report by Hays during Sunday’s interview on Fox News, National Review reported that Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch – who is also a member of the House Oversight Committee -- said Rice used "scrubbed" talking points on Benghazi to deliver "false information" to the American people.

"Absolutely, they were false, they were wrong" said Lynch.

There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there.

The Weekly Standard further reported that it has obtained a timeline -- briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – “detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election,” as well as “why the changes were made and by whom.”

By the request of State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland , the CIA removed all references to “Islamic extremists” -- and the word “attacks” was changed to “demonstrations” -- because she didn’t want members of Congress to use the information to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Still, from the beginning, Clinton, Carney, and Rice, insisted there was “no actionable intelligence” that an attack was pending and that no help was available to save the lives of Stevens and three other Americans once the attack began.

However, The Washington Post reported Oct. 20, 2012 that Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department of his fear of a pending attack -- and begged for additional security -- and Fox News reported April 29 that a Benghazi “insider” – who “watched the events unfold and has debriefed those who were part of the response” -- said a C110 special forces group “was doing a training exercise not in the region of Northern Africa but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond.”

“The operator -- who had his identity concealed in the video-recorded interview when he spoke to Fox News’ Adam Housley because he is “fearful of reprisal” -- believes the force could have traveled from Croatia to Benghazi "within four hours – in time for the second attack."

While the Benghazi survivors fear that testifying will result in career-ending reprisals from the Obama administration, the secretive source who spoke to Fox News said that many others – who are “connected to” and are still in Benghazi -- are afraid they will be killed if they speak out.

The problem is you’ve got guys -- in the special operations community -- who are still active and still involved. And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton responded angrily, as her response to the Benghazi attack was questioned by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jan. 23.

Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?

During his May 1 press briefing, Carney also indicated that the passage of time made questions about what happened in Benghazi irrelevant.

"Let's be clear," he said. "Benghazi happened a long time ago.”