Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[American Patriot]

U.S. captures Benghazi suspect in secret raid

• 0
• More

An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi late on Sept. 11, 2012. The alleged ringleader in the attack has been captured by involving Special Operations forces. (AFP/Getty Images)
By Karen DeYoung, Adam Goldman and Julie Tate June 17 at 11:19 AM Follow @karendeyoung1
U.S. Special Operations forces captured one of the suspected ringleaders of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in a secret raid in Libya over the weekend, the first time one of the accused perpetrators of the 2012 assault has been apprehended, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured near Benghazi by American troops, working alongside the FBI, following months of planning, and was now in U.S. custody “in a secure location outside Libya.” The officials said there were no casualties in the operation, and that all U.S. personnel involved have safely left Libya.
Khattala’s apprehension is a major victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for having failed so far to bring those responsible for the Benghazi attacks to justice.
One jubilant official called Khattala’s capture “a reminder that when the United States says it’s going to hold someone accountable and he will face justice, this is what we mean.”
The Washington Post learned about the capture Monday but agreed to a request from the White House to delay publication of a story because of security concerns.





















The attacks in Benghazi
Back to beginning
Embed:

More from The Washington Post







Sept. 11, 2012 - A vehicle and the surrounding buildings burn after being set on fire inside the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2011.
AFP/Getty Images
Share:





Last year, the U.S. Attorney in the District filed charges against Khattala and at least a dozen others in connection with the Benghazi attacks. None besides Khattala — who is expected to be arraigned in Washington — has been apprehended.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity about the still-secret operation, would not say where Khattala was being held. They said he was “en route” to the United States, but would not say when he was expected to arrive.
Several terrorist suspects abducted overseas have been held aboard U.S. naval ships at sea while being interrogated, after which they were turned over to FBI “clean teams” to question them for trial without endangering the admissibility of evidence.
The State Department designated Khattala a terrorist in January, calling him a “senior leader” of the Benghazi branch of the militant organization Ansar al-Sharia, a group that arose after the 2010 fall of the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.
Ansar al-Sharia was also designated a terrorist organization and held specifically responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and State Department security official Sean Smith dead.
Two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed in a mortar attack at a nearby CIA annex where the attackers moved after overtaking the diplomatic compound.
Officials who confirmed Khattala’s capture declined to comment on whether others were apprehended with him, or to describe the specific military or law enforcement units that were involved. Last October, commandos from the Army’s elite Delta Force, along with members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, carried out a similar raid in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and abducted Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai,who is accused of participating in the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa.
Ruqai, also known as Anas al-Libi, is currently awaiting trial in New York.
A plan to grab Khattala days after Ruqai’s capture was postponed because of violent uprisings against the Libyan government, which had approved the abductions. Asked whether Libya had approved the Sunday abduction, a U.S. official said: “I am not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic discussions, but to be clear: This was a unilateral U.S. operation.”
“We have made clear to successive Libyan governments our intention to bring to justice the perpetrators of the attack on our facilities in Benghazi,” the official said. “So it should come as no surprise to the Libyan government that we would take advantage of an opportunity to bring Abu Khatalla to face justice.”
Following the October raid, the FBI feared it had missed its best opportunity to arrest Khattala.
Shortly after the Benghazi attacks, FBI agents in New York, which has territorial responsibility for Africa, began working with federal prosecutors there, although the case was subsequently moved without explanation to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District.
Failure to make arrests in the Benghazi case was seen as an enormous frustration for the FBI, and a subject of sharp criticism from lawmakers. Within weeks of the attacks, and sporadically thereafter, Khattala was interviewed by American reporters in the open in Benghazi, where he said he did not participate in the initial assault on the Benghazi compound but came on the scene as it was ending.
In a June 11 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director James Comey testified: “I take the Benghazi matter very, very seriously. It is one that I am very close to—briefed on a regular basis. One we are putting a lot of work into and that we’ve made progress on.”
“One thing you’ve got to know about the FBI, we never give up,” Comey said. “So sometimes things take longer than we’d like them to, but they never go into an inactive bin.”
Believed to be in his 40s, Khattala was imprisoned for many years by the Gaddafi regime for his Islamic views.
The FBI believes other groups were also involved in the Benghazi attacks and is pursuing criminal charges against several individuals, including Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah. Qumu has also been designated a terrorist by the State Department, as has his group.
In 2007, Qumu was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to Libya, where he was detained. Gaddafi’s government released him in 2008.
The Benghazi attacks and their aftermath have been the subject of ongoing controversy. A volatile political issue, Benghazi has already influenced initial skirmishing over the 2016 presidential election, particularly for Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Obama’s secretary of state at the time of the attacks.
Republicans have charged the White House with failing to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, attempting to cover up what actually occurred on the night of the attacks, and mishandling the subsequent investigation. After numerous hearings and an official State Department review, a select committee has been set up in the House of Representatives to investigate further.

[American Patriot]

Breaking Suspected Benghazi attack ringleader in U.S. custody

Caption Libya AFP/GettyImages
An armed mob protesting a video they said offended Islam attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and set fire to the building.

Caption Libya AFP/GettyImages
An armed man gestures as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya. Warning: The next photo in this gallery contains an image that may be disturbing to some readers.

Caption Libya AFP / Getty Images
Libyan civilians help an injured man, identified by eyewitnesses as U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, at the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi.

Caption Libya U. S. Embassy Tripoli
In this photo posted on the Facebook page of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, on Aug. 27, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, left, shakes hands with a Libyan man in Tripoli. Libyan officials say the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have been killed in an attack on the...

Caption Libya Ibrahim Alaguri / Associated Press
Glass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

David S. Cloud contact the reporter

Wars and InterventionsChristopher StevensBenghaziU.S. Department of DefenseU.S. MilitaryCentral Intelligence Agency

Ahmed Abu Khatallah, suspected ringleader of Beghazi embassy attack, is in U.S. custody


The U.S. military has captured a man believed to be one of the ringleaders of the deadly attacks on the American diplomatic compound and a CIA base in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012, officials said Tuesday.
According to the Pentagon, Ahmed Abu Khatallah is in U.S. custody in a secure location outside of Libya.
Military officials said no civilians were injured in the raid and that all U.S. personnel involved have safely left the country.

lRelated

Politics Now

Clinton pushes back against critics on Benghazi

See all related
8

The attack on the U.S diplomatic facility killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another American. Two other Americans were slain the following morning by mortar fire on a nearby CIA post.
The incident has become highly political, sparking a long-running partisan battle. A report earlier this year by House Republicans blamed the Obama administration for failing to beef up security.
But the same report debunked a persistent claims about the response to the incident: that the U.S. military was ordered to "stand down" instead of going to the aid Stevens and others.

cComments

• They'll probably release him in a trade for some worthless deserter.
  Zenatorres
  at 9:09 AM June 17, 2014

Add a comment See all comments
1

"There was no 'stand down' order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli," the report said, blaming the claim on "confusion" about the facts arising from what it termed inadequate previous reviews.
The Times will have more shortly.

[MinutemanCO]

If most recent events may be used as a model, we should see Obama affect his release fairly soon.

[American Patriot]

While a Marine still sits languishing in Mexico.

Yep.

Way to go Obama.

[American Patriot]

Libya demands US to handover Benghazi suspect

By Associated Press June 18 at 9:46 AM



TRIPOLI, Libya — The Libyan government has denied it had prior knowledge of the U.S. capture of a top suspect in the deadly 2012 assault on Americans in Benghazi and demanded his return.


In a statement read on television Wednesday, the interim government condemned the seizure of Ahmed Abu Khattala, who the U.S. accuses of involvement in the attack on its consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.


Abu Khattala is headed for the United States to face what President Barak Obama called “the full weight of the American justice system.” Obama called the Libyan an “alleged key leader” of the attack.


The Libyan statement said: “The government stresses its right to try Abu Khattala on its territories and according to its laws.”

[American Patriot]

Ya THINK?


Hillary Rodham Clinton says some 'unanswered questions remain about Benghazi'

By The Associated Press
June 18, 2014 - 07:36 am





WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton says many unanswered questions remain about the deadly 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, even as U.S. authorities have captured their first suspect in the case.


Clinton, speaking in separate interviews with CNN and Fox News, said Tuesday she was still seeking information on the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans and led to numerous investigations. But she defended the Obama administration's response to the incident and said the State Department tried to respond to the fast-moving attacks that have become a focal point of criticism from Republicans.


"We want to know who was behind it, what the motivation of the leaders and the attackers happened to be. There are still some unanswered questions," Clinton said on CNN. "It was, after all, the fog of war."


The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate addressed the Benghazi investigation and a range of issues in the two interviews as part of a promotional tour for her new book, "Hard Choices," about her four years as President Barack Obama's secretary of state.


Clinton urged the Obama administration to remain cautious about working with Iran to combat fast-moving Islamic insurgents in Iraq. And she said it was unclear whether it would have turned the tide in Syria if the U.S. had tried to help moderate rebel forces there, as she once advised.


The former first lady's appearances came hours after the Obama administration announced the capture of a Libyan militant suspected in the Benghazi attacks. Clinton said the capture showed the U.S. has an "an unwavering commitment" to go after anyone who would attempt to harm Americans.


A significant portion of the Fox News interview focused on Clinton's response to the Benghazi attack, reflecting criticism among Republicans that Obama and Clinton were disengaged during the incidents and later misled voters about the causes of the attacks. A new GOP-led House select committee on Benghazi could extend the issue into the next presidential campaign.


The probe could figure into Clinton's political future if she seeks the White House again; Clinton said during the Fox interview that "I know you and your viewers have a lot of questions." But she said the U.S. often sends people into dangerous places to represent its national security interests and she didn't think that should change. "I don't think we should be retreating from the world," she told CNN.


The interviews also touched on several issues brewing in Congress, including investigations into the Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of political groups seeking tax-exempt status and efforts to curb gun violence and reform immigration laws.


Clinton suggested the IRS case could benefit from a "fair-minded" investigation, even though Obama has called it a "phony scandal." Clinton said, "Anytime the IRS is involved, for many people, it's a real scandal."


Clinton reiterated her support for expanding background checks for firearm purchases and reinstating the ban on assault weapons.


"We cannot let a minority of people - and that's what it is, it is a minority of people - hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people," she said on CNN.


On immigration, Clinton touted the need for comprehensive reform and expressed concern for the influx of Central American immigrant children and teenagers. She said many of the children should be sent back once they can be reunited with family members, cautioning against sending "a message that is contrary to our laws, or we'll encourage more children to make that dangerous journey."


Clinton took a wait-and-see attitude on medical marijuana and the legalization of the recreational use of pot in Washington state and Colorado. Asked whether she would partake, Clinton laughed. "I didn't do it when I was young. I'm not going to start now."

[American Patriot]

June 17, 2014
Americans Not Closely Following News on Benghazi Hearings

More approve than disapprove of hearings investigating the attack

by Lydia Saad


PRINCETON, NJ -- As the Republican-led House of Representatives launches the eighth congressional investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack against American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, fewer than one in five Americans say they are following the story "very closely." Another 24% say they are following it "somewhat closely," while the slight majority, 57%, are paying little or no attention.

The combined 43% of Americans who report paying very or somewhat close attention to news about the upcoming Benghazi hearings in Gallup's June 5-8 poll falls well short of the average 60% attention-to-news rating in Gallup's data bank of major news stories measured since 1991. In fact, it ranks 189^th out of the 224 news events Gallup has measured.
And although attention may rise once the hearings get under way, it is not much lower than in May 2013 during a previous set of Benghazi hearings. At that time, barely half of Americans (53%) were following the ongoing congressional hearings very or somewhat closely.
Currently, Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats and independents to say they are following this news story very closely. However, even Republicans' combined "close attention" score of 58% falls short of Gallup's historical average for all major news stories.
Party-Based Support Ranges From Broad, to Mixed, to Tepid
The upcoming hearings are part of a Republican-led U.S. House Select Committee investigation that was launched last month to further review the terror incident at the Benghazi consulate. Though the Democratic-led Senate has also held hearings on the matter, many Democrats see the newest House investigations as an attempt to weaken either Democratic President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the possible future Democratic presidential nominee and the secretary of state at the time of the attack.
Given the relatively light attention that Americans say they are paying to the Benghazi investigations, it is understandable that they issue no decisive judgment about the hearings themselves. Slightly more Americans say they approve than disapprove of the hearings -- 45% vs. 38%, respectively -- but neither position garners majority support, in part because 18% have no opinion on the matter.

Independents' views are especially ambiguous, with about four in 10 approving as well as disapproving. Democrats are also fairly mixed: Just over half, 52%, say they disapprove of the hearings, while 30% approve and 18% have no opinion. Republicans are the most opinionated on the matter, and the most supportive of the hearings, with three-quarters approving.
Bottom Line
Despite much partisan debate in May about whether a new round of congressional investigations into the deadly 2012 terrorist attack against American diplomats in Benghazi should proceed, relatively few Americans say they are paying very close attention to the matter. As the hearings get under way, that could change, but the initial results suggest these hearings have a long way to go to reach the level of attention paid to a different investigation 16 years ago -- congressional impeachment hearings against then-President Bill Clinton. In December 1998, Gallup found 77% of Americans following those hearings very or somewhat closely.
The comparison is important because Republicans' decision to impeach Clinton is often credited -- or blamed, depending on the political vantage point -- for temporarily harming the Republican Party's image, and in the process boosting Clinton's standing with the American people. Many observers now wonder whether Republicans risk making the same mistake with Benghazi, by looking like they are engaged in a partisan-based effort to discredit former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
For now, given Americans' relatively low attention to and moderate public approval of the hearings, the risk-to-reward ratio may be favorable for the GOP. Should the hearings produce no new findings, they may be quickly forgotten, whereas if Republicans uncover new evidence that supports their claims of incompetence or cover-up by the administration, the public seems open to learning about it. Indeed, in May 2013, Gallup found 69% of Americans agreeing that the issues being raised in the Benghazi hearings at the time were serious matters that needed to be investigated.
Tuesday's news that U.S. special operations forces captured one of the key suspects in the attack could, however, change the dynamic.
Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 5-8, 2014, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,027 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View survey methodology, complete question responses, and trends.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

[vector7]

CIA Operation “Zero Footprint”, Qatar, Benghazi and The Connection To Ahmed Abu Khattala – The Real Motive For The Obama Administration’s Recent Arrest…

Posted on June 18, 2014 by sundance
Yesterday, it was announced the Obama administration had moved on Sunday to arrest a Benghazi al-Qaeda leader Ahmed Abu Khattala. Many people, including Fox’s James Rosen pointed particular questions to the State Dept. about “why now”?

As unbelievable as this might sound, the most likely answer has little to do with what’s currently being pondered as a motive for this administration, “squirrel”. The reality is within the Bergdahl deal, and the GITMO-5 to Qatar, there is a far more likely reason.


Ahmed Abu Khattala is directly connected to the covert transfer of U.S. arms from Qatar to Libya in the initial 2011 decision to arm the Benghazi “rebels”.

Against the backdrop of recent discoveries about Qatar giving some of the aforementioned arms, specifically stinger missiles, to the Taliban in Afghanistan - Khattala became a risk of exposure to the White House.

They needed to throw a bag over him.

Bear with me through the complexity and I’ll outline the events with all citations included for reference.

On March 30th 2011 Reuters News Agency reported that President Obama had already signed a secret order authorizing the CIA to provide covert support to the Libyan opposition, an operation that would become known as “Zero Footprint”.

2011- U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons. (link)

Ultimately a joint decision between the State Department (Hillary Clinton) and CIA (General David Petraeus) was reached to use friendly nations as cover for direct shipment of U.S. arms into Libya as part of Operation Zero Footprint.

According to federal law, in the event a covert operation is deemed necessary, it is the president’s responsibility to alert the leadership in the House and Senate, as well as the chairman and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees in both chambers.

In the intelligence community, this group is referred to as “the Gang of 8″ [ John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Rogers, Ruppersberger, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss].

The Gang of 8, which included leaders from both parties should have known about Operation Zero Footprint. Now think about all the political people who have either thrown roadblocks up, or dragged their heels, in the two years since the Benghazi attack…. now go back and look at that list again. Got it? OK, good… read on.

Ironically – who probably didn’t know about Zero Footprint? John McCain – Seen here, in Benghazi, with Chris Stevens around the time it was all being executed.



It is important to remember this covert operation was after General Carter Ham (Africom) was removed in his authority over the Libyan conflict and NATO took over.

Nothing moved in and out of Libya but for the approval of NATO; so Admiral Stavridis, NATO command, had to authorize any of the armed shipments that came in there.

By the time of this White House/NATO decision Chris Stevens was embedded in Benghazi, helping to coordinate those arms shipments.

In the process constructed NATO (via Stavridis), following the instructions of the U.S. State department and CIA, used the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the financier of the weapons.

Qatar was used as the front or go-between to handle the logistics and shipping of the weapons in and out of Libya.



Ahmed Abu Khattala in his position as the insurgent commander within the Libyan Islamic Fighting group, and as leader of Ansar al-Sharia (which is the Muslim Brotherhood link in Libya), was the recipient of all those arms flowing into Libya.

Khattala was the commander within the actual fighting force on the ground. Khattala was the leader of what Hillary called “the rebels”.
[Ahmed Abu Khattalah, also known as Ahmad Bukhattalah - references Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended 23.22 in]

It was only a year after the attacks on the State Dept./CIA compound – on December 31, 2013- when the State Department designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah as a global terrorist.

Khattalah was the senior leader of the group Ansar al-Sharia, known for its extreme hostility toward the West. Khattalah had spent most of his adult life imprisoned by the Qaddafi regime for his Islamist views, fueling his hatred for the dictator.

Because of the unique construction of the entire Libyan operation the Department of Defense and the FBI had virtually no knowledge of Operation Zero Footprint, which is completely consistent with the US Senate Select Committee’s finding after the Benghazi attack.

In addition -as has previously been reported- AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham was not aware a CIA Annex even existed in Benghazi, at the time of the attacks.

As the Senate Select Committee pointed out:

We are puzzled as to how the military leadership [vis-a-vi Ham] expected to effectively respond and rescue Americans in the event of an emergency when it did not even know of the existence of one of the U.S. facilities.

Details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Petraeus), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon), who were all trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias. A decision that would ultimately lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

A few weeks ago, when the political team of McDonough, Blinkin, Rhodes et al, made the political decision to use Bowe Bergdahl as an example of President Obama’s military bona-fides, and try to cover the growing VA scandal, they didn’t think through the possibility of a linkage with Qatar so heavily referenced in the media again as part of the deal to release the GITMO-5.



Indeed, Qatar might have slipped by unnoticed were it not for the backlash against the release of the terrorists and the political hot-potato the entire decision became.

The White House team could never have anticipated the re-surfacing of Qatar and the connections that came up to Qatar’s previous less-than-honorable follow-through with the Libyan missiles; some of which ended up in the hands of the Taliban and were used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

However, once folks -including media- began sniffing around the Qatar connections, the problem of Ahmed Khattala re-surfaced as a risk that needed to be under control. The risk compounded with the reality that ISIS, the Syrian al-Qaeda insurgency, was in the news all over Northern Iraq holding the same -albeit a different batch- stinger missiles previously id’d to the Taliban.

So last Sunday they threw a bag over him.



Now, with all of that absorbed, take a break – grab a beverage – and sit down to watch this video you’ll see how it all comes together:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGwB92K5SU



Pay close attention at the 23:00 minute mark.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...recent-arrest/

[American Patriot]

"Squirrel!"


"Shiny"

All means the same thing.

[American Patriot]

REVEALED: If This Is True, Benghazi Is Even Worse Than We Ever Thought

Warning: This video contains images that may be disturbing to some viewers.

---

Share Tweet Email

Kris Zane — June 25, 2014

The plan was to kidnap Ambassador Christopher Stevens and attack the CIA annex on 9/11. A team of Iranian operatives under the control of Qassem Suleymani, the head of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, arrived a few days before September 11, 2012 in order to put the plan into operation.


There was only one hitch: the NSA, which had a top secret listening station at the CIA annex in Benghazi, picked up on local jihadist chatter, revealing the plan. But Suleymani had a CIA source that told him of the NSA’s discovery. A backup plan was then quickly put into motion that sounds like something out of a spy novel.


The Iranian operatives, posing as doctors as part of the Red Crescent—the Islamic version of the Red Cross—travelled in a caravan of Red Crescent vehicles to their hotel. In a hail of gunfire, the al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar al-Sharia, surrounded the caravan and took the Iranian operatives captive. Through the CIA’s contacts, they found out that Ansar al-Sharia had taken them prisoner and shipped them back to Iran, thus ending the Iranians’ plan to kidnap Chris Stevens and attack the CIA annex. And thus, no precautions were taken to protect the ambassador and fortify the CIA annex.


But it was all part an elaborate ruse.


According to the book Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi by Kenneth R. Timmerman, released today, the attack and kidnapping of Suleymani’s men by Ansar al-Sharia was completely staged to make the NSA and CIA think the plan to kidnap Chris Stevens and attack the CIA annex had been cancelled. The plan was merely altered, however, to have Ansar al-Sharia carry out the attack on the Benghazi consulate and CIA annex instead of Suleymani’s men. Suleymani didn’t believe Ansar al-Sharia could successfully kidnap Chris Stevens, so Suleymani ordered Chris Stevens to be murdered instead.


The NSA, CIA, and Obama fell for an elaborate ruse that left four Americans dead.


That was why Obama would not send in help to Benghazi. That was the reason for the ridiculous story of a protest turned violent over an internet video. And that was the reason for the biggest coverup in U.S. history.



The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/rev...SD44W6H6Scq.99

[American Patriot]

http://wchildblog.com/2014/07/25/val...stevens-video/

Valerie Jarrett Was Behind the Botched Plan to KIDNAP Chris Stevens (video)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa2...Gh-Pdtugdg_qcQ

[vector7]

CIA expert: Obama, Osama share Mideast goal

Clare Lopez: 'It is clear what he is doing'

Published: 2 days ago

Garth Kant

WASHINGTON – Clare Lopez looks more like the prototypical all-American mother she is than the highly trained government CIA operative she was for 20 years.

Sitting across the table at a Washington eatery, the somewhat petite, charming blonde with a friendly and engaging smile was generally soft-spoken but often emphatic in delivery, especially while unloading a bombshell analysis that turned the common understanding of U.S. foreign policy on its head.

According to the former CIA operative, President Obama’s plan for the Middle East is just what Osama bin Laden wanted: removing U.S. troops and putting the jihadis in power.

Lopez spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. She currently manages the counterjihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

Lopez told WND she sees a pattern in Obama’s actions, or inaction, that reveals his blueprint for the Middle East and Northern Africa is to let the warring jihadi factions, the Sunnis and the Shiites, divide the region into two spheres of influence, and for the U.S. to withdraw.

“The administration’s plan, I believe, is to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands,” Lopez asserted.

When WND remarked that was just what Osama bin Laden had demanded, Lopez pointed out that is the aim of all jihadis, “Because that is what Islam demands, that foreign forces be kicked out of Islamic lands.”

Does Obama think if we leave the Mideast the jihadis will then leave us alone?

“I don’t know,” she said. “I can just see the pattern that is enabling the rise of Islam, empowering the Muslim Brotherhood domestically and abroad, alienating and distancing ourselves from our friends and allies and debilitating the American military.”


Osama bin Laden

Even if she doesn’t have insideinformation, the former operative said, “I can see what he is doing; it seems to be a clear agenda. It is clear that is what he is doing.”

WND spoke with Lopez about the current crisis in Iraq, in which the Islamic terrorist army ISIS has blitzed across the country, capturing large chunks of territory while slaughtering Christians and other Muslims and threatening genocide. In a wide-ranging interview, the foreign policy expert also assessed the current state of the Mideast.

She believes Obama’s hesitance in the face of the horrific violence in the current crisis comes from a basic mistake, not recognizing the true motivation of the jihadis is an ideology of relentless conquest.

But she isn’t advocating a return to the Iraq War. Lopez believes the U.S. should protect its interests and those minorities facing genocide, but otherwise, let the warring parties sort it out, for the time being.

Lopez believes regimes such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey play all sides of the jihadi game and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.

Besides, she observed, there isn’t much else left for the U.S. to protect in Iraq.

When WND asked her if Iraq is lost, she had a startling but succinct reaction: “Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. I liken it to Humpy-Dumpty. It’s fallen off the wall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put it back together again.”

Given that bleak assessment, the former CIA operative described what she believes the U.S. must now do to preserve its core interests in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf region:

• Protect American personnel and facilities at the Embassy in Baghdad and the Irbil and Basra consulates with either airstrikes or evacuation.

• Provide as much humanitarian aid as possible to beleaguered minorities facing genocide, as well as to friendly countries like Jordan that are burdened with overwhelming economic demands to care for millions of refugees.

• Stand by allies and partners in the region, especially Israel and Jordan.

• Help the Kurds survive by providing diplomatic support, intelligence, logistics and modern weapons.

• Deploy a Special Forces capability to the region to gather intelligence and provide early warning of threats to U.S. interests, and provide the ability to project power and influence as required.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently criticized Obama for not arming what she called moderate rebels in Syria when the civil war there began, which, she claimed, could have prevented the rise of ISIS.


Hillary Rodham Clinton

WND asked Lopez if it really would have been possible to form a credible, non-Islamist, fighting force.

“No, I don’t think it was possible to find a truly credible, capable, pro-Western force in Syria,” she said. “Yes, there were those who were not jihadi.

Early in the conflict in Syria, in 2011, there were (acceptable) groups. There were military defectors from Assad’s regime who could have been classified as genuinely secular. Pro-Western? Not so sure. Genuinely pro-democracy? Not so sure.”

(Lopez also explained she doesn’t use the term Islamists, “because I can’t figure out a difference between Islam and Islamism. It’s either Islam or it’s not Islam. They are either Muslim or have declared themselves not to be Muslims, in which case, they’re apostates.”)

When WND asked whether the U.S. should have armed those groups, the former CIA operative said she was not sure that would have been effective, simply because their numbers were never going to be credible and significant enough in size and capability to overthrow Assad.

Did Obama really have bad intelligence on ISIS, as he had claimed?

Lopez said it was hard to know, but he was “certainly getting bad intel” in general.

“The CIA has proved it is completely incapable of operating in this environment,” she said. “But I’m not on the inside, and can’t be sure what they are telling him. What we do know is what we see.”

As an example, she described how U.S. special forces were sent to Jordan to train people who turned out to be jihadis, even though it was reported they “vetted everybody.”

“They vetted them and asked, ‘Did you ever belong to al-Qaida?’ and they said ‘Oh, no – not me!’ But did they ever ask them what their ideology was?

They’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to define our enemy so how can we even identify our enemy? So, we fall into things like this where we actually train future ISIS jihadis, according to the Jordanian security officials.”

Lopez lauded the reporting of WND’s Aaron Klein in exposing the U.S training of what would become ISIS troops, saying, “Aaron is super. I did a radio interview with him in Tel Aviv. He is a very good reporter, very careful.”

Regardless of the quality of our intelligence, somehow, she said, we still ended up training the bad guys.

“We gave them tactics, intelligence and arms,” she noted.


Purported ISIS massacre in Iraq

Although it is often said the devil is in the details, in this instance, Lopez said the problem is really the administration’s myopic view of the big picture.

The analyst described a U.S. leadership that simply no longer recognizes the threat posed by the jihadist agenda, whether from ISIS or Iran, to U.S. regional interests, to friends and allies and, eventually, to the homeland itself.

“This sort of understanding demands a sharp reversal of existing policy that refuses even to acknowledge the Islamic ideology that animates this enemy’s threat doctrine. Only once that basic professional responsibility is met can an overall strategic policy that makes any sense be formulated and implemented.”

Lopez spoke of three keys to understanding the big picture and what is wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

• One was the aforementioned failure by the administration to appreciate that the jihadis are motivated by ideology, not political grievances.

• Another was the fact Obama appears bent upon empowering rather than confronting Iran.

• And, last but not least, she asserts the jihadist organization the Muslim Brotherhood has deeply infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

‘Obama wants to empower Iran’

Lopez doesn’t just think Obama wants to withdraw entirely from the Mideast.

She believes he wants to turn most of it over to Iran.

“I am convinced that this administration intends Iran to become the nuclear power hegemon of the entire Persian Gulf region – and that includes especially the oil-rich areas. This includes the east coast of Saudi Arabia as well as southern Iraq and Iran itself.”

Lopez said the key to understand the president’s behavior is in a book written by a fellow former-CIA operative, “The Devil We Know,” by Robert Baer.
“I now believe this book is the blueprint for the Obama administration’s Middle East plan,” she explained.

She strongly disagrees with the book’s premise that the U.S. should empower and partner with Iran, and says it is mistaken on a number of points, but it is still important because the recommendations it made to the then-incoming administration in 2009 seem to have been adopted by Obama.

Lopez said the author knows Saudi Arabia very well and absolutely hates the Saudis. His premise was the Obama administration ought to assist Iran to become the dominant power of the Persian Gulf, and, essentially, the entire Middle East.

“I am not making this up. You can’t make this up to save your life,” she marveled.

Lopez said the book advises America to seek a truce with Iran, deal with it as an equal and reach settlements on one issue at a time, “until Iran is ready for détente and maybe more.”

And, she believes the Obama administration is, in fact, following a plan to let Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East, with the intention of turning the state that sponsors more terrorism than any other, into a security partner of the U.S.


The Persian Gulf

“We pull all our forces out, which has been done, and we let them take over,” Lopez explained. “I think that’s already underway. This book’s argument says Iran should be enabled to do exactly what it is doing, which is take over the entire Persian Gulf region.”

She then quoted from the book: “We cannot and should not stand in the way of Iran’s quest to dominate Islam.” That includes throwing Israel under the bus, she added.

WND asked why the Obama administration would do something, were it known, that would be widely perceived as opposed to the best interest of the U.S.
“Its not in the United States’ best interests, but it is one way of getting us out of Muslim lands, which is what this administration wants done. They are trying to be even-handed between the Shiites and the Sunni, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood clamoring in their ear,” she said. “So, what happens? Arab Spring. North Africa goes to the Sunnis: al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. They should be happy with that: They get Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. The Persian Gulf region goes to Iran.”

And Iran is permitted to be a nuclear power.
“I think it already is a nuclear power,” Lopez said. “I think they have functioning warheads. They obviously have functioning missiles, including ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). The Pentagon has published openly its estimate by next year, 2015, Iranian ICBMs will be capable of reaching the continental U.S. from Iran. This is open, unclassified, open-source publication.”

WND noted that made sense out of remarks Obama recently made that we were witnessing “a transition from an old order to a new order” in the Mideast, along with “the terrible violence that occurs as a result,” which seemed to indicate he believed the bloodshed was akin to birth pains.

Lopez said Americans have no clue what he is talking about, which is dividing the Middle East between two sets of jihadis, Sunni and Shiite.

Just in case it wasn’t already clear enough, she spelled out exactly what Obama’s plan would mean: A return to the barbaric past of the Dark Ages.
“So, the plan of this administration is to pull out of the Middle East, allow it to revert to Islamic control, as in the caliphates of old, or imamates, in the case of the Shiites. And to allow Islam to resurge, which is exactly what’s happening.”

WND asked, Obama’s plan is to take us back 1,300 years?

“Well, not us, but to let the Middle East do that,” she clarified.

“There have been monkey wrenches,” she said. “Syria was supposed to be (reserved) for Iran and under the control of (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad. He winds up with a rump state. Syria is another Humpty-Dumpty. Also, the Kurds are a fly in the ointment. They are Muslims, but not jihadis.

They should be our natural allies in the Middle East. Recent events have forced the hand of the administration to assist the Kurds, especially as they are assisting such minorities as Yezidis and Christians to escape this savage slaughter.”


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Lopez described how the administration had no other option but to support the Kurds now because ISIS has captured so much top-of-the-line American weaponry from the fleeing Iraqis, and they now have access to income from the oil wells they’ve captured as well as their income from kidnap ransoms.

She added, none of the shocking ISIS behavior, including beheadings and attempted genocide, should be considered strange or unknown, because “it is totally in keeping with Islamic doctrine. There is nothing ISIS is doing that is not what Muhammad did. It is completely according to Islamic doctrine, law and scripture, as well as Muhammad’s biography. But people now look at it and they’re horrified, as we all should be.”

But why, WND asked, would Obama have threatened to bomb Assad last summer for his alleged use of chemical weapons, if he wanted to see Iran’s influence spread?

That brought her to what she described as the biggest problem in the big picture, the influence of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood over the U.S. government.

‘The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government’

Lopez said Obama only threatened Assad, “because of the infiltration of his government by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are clamoring in his ear at the National Security Council, ‘Do something, do something.’”

“They wanted help for their Muslim Brotherhood brothers. But the Middle East and Syria is designated for Iran, so what’s Obama gonna do? He decided on half and half. Give the Muslim Brotherhood Sunnis a little bit of aid, but not enough to overturn Assad. Make the Brotherhood happy. But don’t overturn Assad. And, at the same time, back and support Iran to be the hegemon.”

Lopez said, in addition to infiltrating the administration, the Brotherhood has established influence over many branches of the federal government over the last few decades.

She asserted the infiltration accelerated in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, picked up even more steam during the George W. Bush administration and is now in “hyper-drive” during the Obama administration.

The analyst maintains that infiltration has caused our elected political leadership, political appointees, the intelligence community and the military to all become “gradually blindfolded to what actual Islam really is.”

“They became incapable of seeing the history of Islam, the doctrine, the law, the scripture that motivates and animates Islamic terrorism,” she explained. “Those things became divorced. You were not allowed to talk about them anymore. Between 2011 and 2012 there was an actual purge in our government that removed hundreds of pages of presentations, PowerPoint presentations, curriculum and the instructors. They were taken out of all government curriculum, including the military.”

How could this have happened?

“It was done under the request, pressure and urging of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, as a matter of fact, were the advisers who oversaw the purge. They were the ones who actually supervised the purge.”

Through intermediaries?

“No, directly,” she replied. “They were tapped to become advisers about what should be removed from the curriculum.”

Was this when former Egyptian Muhammad President Morsi was still in office in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was our supposed ally?

Lopez said the purge of references to Islamic terrorism in U.S. government materials occurred from late 2011 into 2012. Morsi became president in the summer of 2012, so the purge was well under way before that.

“But it was the purge and the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood within our leadership that predisposed the Obama administration to be supportive of the Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere through what they call the Arab Spring.”

Lopez said the closest adviser for the National Security Council has been an imam named Muhammad Magid.

“He heads up something called the ADAMS Center, the ‘All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center,’ near Dulles airport. He is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood’s grand mufti of Sudan. He is also the president of something called ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in the country. And, ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding trial.


Imam Muhammad Magid

Indeed, in February 2013, WND’s Diana West warned that Magid was working with the National Security Council with the support of John Brennan, who for four years was the president’s top counterterrorism adviser and is now CIA director. West reported then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough also heaped praise on Magid. McDonough is now Obama’s chief of staff.

WND also reported that one of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam even claimsthat Brennan became a Muslim while serving overseas. Brennan did, indeed, serve as CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the 1990s.

Whether the claim about Brennan is true or not, from the above accounts, it appears Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the Obama administration could not have reached much higher.

Lopez explained that ISNA’s close connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is indisputable.

“ISNA is actually listed by the Muslim Brotherhood on its own documents called the ‘Explanatory Memorandum,’ which was submitted in evidence at that Holy Land Foundation trial; that’s how we know about it. The last page is a list of organizations, and it says it’s a list of our friends and the organizations of our friends. And ISNA is one of them.”

Lopez’s Center for Security Policy describes the Explanatory Memorandum as the guide to the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals, modus operandi and infrastructure in America, as written in 1991 by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was “certainly not intended for public consumption.”

“Magid, the head of ISNA, is probably the closest adviser to our national security council. Inside the White House,” she said. “See how this works?”
So, WND asked, the enemy is our consultant on how to deal with our enemy?

Lopez said, not only that, but “all of this infiltration completely suborns our national security apparatus.”

“They’re very smart,” she added. “These guys are not camel-jockeys with towels on their heads. These are sophisticated operators. This has been going on for more than 1,300 years. It just happens that we live in the 21st century. That doesn’t make us unique or immune or in some kind of historical bubble.”

Is cultural jihad a bigger threat than the military jihad?

The former CIA operative said that is true inside the United States, but in the Middle East, the bigger threat is military conquest.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is the vanguard of Islam and Islamic jihad. The forces of Islam, historically, have conquered every, single major civilization they’ve ever taken on, except for two. Western Civilization, or whatever’s left of it, and the Han Chinese. The Muslims have defeated the Buddhists, the Byzantines, Christianity in the Middle East, Jews in the Middle East, Hindus and the Persians. This includes huge, sophisticated civilizations.”
Did Muslims conquer those civilizations by using the same methods as they are applying against us?

“In part, yes. Infiltration first. Co-option and subordination of leadership. These are intelligence terms, okay? I recognize this because of my background. Infiltration and subordination from within are intelligence operations. These are information operations. We are completely ignoring the information battle space and yet that is the one where they are defeating us first.”

Lopez described terrorist acts such as Sept. 11 as “punctuation marks” for the overall campaign. She described the attacks as warnings that say, “Look, we can do this to you, you can’t stop us from doing this to you, and if you don’t shape up and accept what we’re telling you to accept, you’re going to get more of it.” It’s also punishment because the West has not accepted the call to Islam.


Attack on World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001

She said to remember that Osama bin Laden gave us two warnings because Islamic doctrine obligates them to do that, and we should take them seriously when they warn us.

In her criticism of Obama’s Mideast policy, Clinton advised practicing containment against radical Islam. WND asked if instead of seeking an elusive peaceful coexistence, should the U.S. pursue a more Reaganesque policy of confronting and defeating the enemy?

“Certainly peace through strength should be our policy. But, when you’re talking about containment, it sort of brings up this image of ‘They’re over there, and we can just draw this barrier around them and hold them in.’”

She said there is a bigger problem.

“They’re already inside the wire,” she said. “They’re already deeply embedded inside our own national security infrastructure. It’s no longer a question of manning the barricades and pointing outward. They are inside.”

The former operative advised going back to an intelligence-led strategy that understands information operations, stealth operations, and how to conduct counter-intelligence within our own ranks.

“Very much as back in the ’30s, ’40s and the ’50s, when the communists infiltrated our government, and the same phenomenon took place, our top leadership refused to acknowledge that, refused to accept it, refused to confront it, even to the point that Joe McCarthy was vilified. And he was 100 percent correct about communist infiltration, as documents released after the collapse of the Soviet Union verified.”

WND noted she was identifying our top priority as cleaning out our own stables, but that even a change to a hawkish administration would not, by itself, improve security.

“No,” she said. “Unless they understand the things I’ve just been telling you, that won’t help. This infiltration took place over multiple administrations. It’s not a partisan thing. It’s institutional now.”

[vector7]

Benghazi: When America Switched Sides In The War On Terror And Armed Al-Qaida

Posted By Ginni Thomas On 10:30 AM 08/17/2014 In | No Comments



The Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez, says in this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller that very few have seemed to care that America switched sides in the global war on terror when President Obama deposed an erstwhile ally in the Middle East and provided weapons to al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Focusing on this under-reported, critical shift in American foreign policy, Clare Lopez discusses how an American ambassador and others were killed in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 because the Obama administration decided to promote and defend their narrative that “al-Qaida was on the run,” even as we were outright arming militants affiliated with the terrorist group.

Lopez spent 20 years as an undercover operations officer for the CIA. Believing she can now best serve her country in the policy arena, she has found a natural fit at a non-partisan non-profit that promotes American national security and foreign policy based on the principle of “peace through strength.”

This week, we feature part 1 of 2 of our video interview with Lopez on the topic of the Benghazi attacks.

Lopez, who’s also a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, says, “Benghazi is symbolic of more than just a disastrous foreign policy or a disastrous attack on our mission that took the lives of four Americans serving there and injured many more. Benghazi is not just what happened on September 11, 2012 either.

Americans really need to care about Benghazi and what happened there because that is the place, and 2011 and 2012 was the time, when America switched sides in the war on terrorism.”

To her, the American decision to overthrow the head of a sovereign government, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and to instead support al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood laid the important framework for a resurgence of global jihad.

Lopez says when we supported the local Islamic forces, America flipped in the global war on terror and we, the U.S. government, turned on our erstwhile ally and provided funding, backing, intelligence, our participation in a NATO effort and weapons for rebel forces.

“We facilitated the flow of weapons to the Gaddafi opposition, and we knew the opposition was dominated by al-Qaida. It was led by the Muslim Brotherhood and the fighting militia was dominated by al-Qaida. That’s who we helped,” she explained.

Later in the interview, Lopez discusses the important, unanswered questions on Benghazi before, during and after the 2012 attack. She discusses the weapons transfers happening in Benghazi that were at the heart of the controversial change in American policy, and the significance of the capture and prosecution of Ahmed Abu Khattala.

In addition, Lopez discusses the significance of the Muslim Brotherhood giving a “kill order” to al-Qaida, showing significant “command and control” as the global jihadist forces began a resurgence.

Lopez ends by bringing viewers back to the fall of 2012. When the reality of the Benghazi attack came to light due to Judicial Watch’s “smoking gun email,” we now know the Obama administration scurried to promote a narrative that did not challenge the President’s reelection mantra “Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida is on the run.” Lopez says, “It would not have suited, at all, to be defending against a nonexistent al-Qaida!”

She continues, “To admit that would be to admit a complete failure of American foreign policy, a complete failure and dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the President, Obama and the White House, to defend our mission and our people. And that, they could not allow.”

[American Patriot]

I'll believe this when I see it happen... lol

Obama To Resign January 1st Amid New Benghazi Revelations

Posted on September 9, 2014 | 1 Comment
Devvy Kidd
“According to several senior-ranking White House officials, President Barack Obama will resign from office on January 1st 2015, after learning that a so-called “Smoking Gun” story regarding the Benghazi scandal will soon be revealed. Those sources claim Obama will announce his resignation shortly after the midterm elections in November.


“The decision to resign came after reporters from Fox News were allegedly contacted in August by a survivor of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, who came forward with shocking video evidence that Obama, then- White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew, and then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that an attack on the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was “imminent,” and intentionally ordered key security personnel to leave the facility and travel eight blocks away.


“Sources at Fox News say that the unidentified survivor allegedly recorded a video teleconference on his cell phone in which Lew gave the orders, while Obama and Clinton watched on. “You don’t want a guy like Mitt Romney deciding your budget,” Lew supposedly states in the video, which Fox News has not yet released. “We need to win this thing, and that means we need to make some sacrifices. Let me be clear, no one will be harmed in this. We’re sacrificing a few buckets of paint, that’s all. We just need a little nudge in the polls.”


“The sources at Fox say the network was prepared to air the video on August 23rd, but House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) convinced them to hold off on releasing the footage. White House sources say two unidentified reporters from Fox News joined Issa in a private meeting with Obama this past weekend, on August 30th, and agreed to not reveal the video if Obama agreed to resign. White House senior staff negotiated with Issa and the reporters so Obama could stay in office until the end of the year, and that he would announce the resignation in November, shortly after the midterms. Why they agreed to those terms is unclear.”


Last week the criminal impostor in the WH said he will delay giving millions of liars, cheats and thieves, illegal aliens, amnesty until after the mid-term elections. I’m sure Democrats in danger of losing a senate seat got in his face. After all Barry will be gone, but they do not want to give up the power of being a house member or senator. Naturally, the America hating pro-illegals groups and organizations are calling their favorite son all kinds of names, but nothing is done in Washington District of Criminals unless it’s well planned.


Barry’s announcement was a shocker although he’s still putting on the bravado he “will act”, just not now. If the senate loses control to the Republicans, I guess we’ll see what the game plan really is.


Over the weekend FOX ran an hour long special – the ‘smoking gun’ on Benghazi with survivors who have decided now they will talk. I watched part of it and their statements about who gave the order to stand down. That individual answers to Hillary and she could not have made it without approval from the piece of garbage in the White House.


Hillary the Hun has stated she’s going to wait ‘100 days’ to determine whether or not, tragically for this country, to run for president. That would be around the time if Barry jumps ship. IF being the key word. I think Daryl Issa owes the American people an explanation of the allegations in the cited column above. I do believe the one thing that will keep one world government priestess, Hillary the man Clinton, from running is Benghazi. She owns it for all the future to come.


Nothing will be gained if that dirty traitor leaves the White House because America will inherit Joe Biden who is just as rabid about giving amnesty as is Soetoro. Biden is very dangerous. Lots of people laugh at his ‘gaffes’, but I think he’s in the early stages of dementia. Should the powers that be decide old Joe can’t stay in the WH, who then becomes president? Why that would be our wino buddy, John Boehner, if he were to be elected Speaker of the House again. Beohner is for giving amnesty. He just dresses up his treachery in different packaging.

[American Patriot]

I've only seen clips of this. I reblogged it from the site that has the link so I can watch later.

Here's the gist of it.

13 Hours in BENGHAZI – Bret Baier, Fox News Special Report (Full video) – A Must See.

09 Tuesday Sep 2014
Posted by bydesign001 in Uncategorized
≈ 1 Comment

Tags
Benghazi, governent coverups, libya, Scandal, September 11 2012 Islamic terrorist attacks

[COLOR=#]Rate This[/COLOR]

Image from Bret Baier’s Facebook page.


The Right Planet
Bret Baier of Fox News sat down with three of the security contractors—Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and JohnTiegen—who were on the ground and fighting the terrorist mob that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11–12, 2012; 22:00–02:00 EET (UTC+02:00). …
Read full article



Rarely do I watch a program more than once but I watched it at least three times out of the many times the above program played this weekend.


I did so because I wanted to be sure that I was hearing correctly the events as they unfolded as told by witnesses who were on the ground in Libya when the U.S. Consulate and CIA safe house came under assault in Benghazi almost two years to the date, September 12, 2012, by Islamic terrorists that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, US. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, Ambassador, Sean Smith, Information Officer, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, Navy SEALs and the injuries dozens of others.


The fact that help was just five minutes away and had they not been ordered to stand down for 30 minutes, Stevens, Ambassador, Smith, Doherty and Woods would not have died that night leaves one’s blood boiling.
There must be accountability.

LINKS:

https://www.facebook.com/BretBaierSR/photos_stream

http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/0...ghazi-special/

[American Patriot]

FOX NEWS HOST GRETA RECALLS WHITE HOUSE ‘DIRTY’ CALL ORDERING JENNIFER GRIFFIN TO STOP REPORTING ON BENGHAZI’S STAND DOWN ORDER…OBAMA HAS TO CALL FOX BECAUSE THE REST OF THE OBAMACRAT MEDIA UNDERSTOOD BENGHAZI IS A STORY HAS TO BE IGNORED.

MEDIA, Politics
September 9, 2014



Fox News Host Reveals the ‘Dirty’ Phone Call She Received From the White House

Sep. 8, 2014 4:30pm Zach Noble TheBlaze.com
Fox News has been aggressive in pursuing the story behind the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and that persistence has earned the network more than a few snubs from the government, as Greta Van Susteren noted Friday.
“The Obama administration’s behavior post-Benghazi has been weird, like they’re hiding something,” Van Susteren said, outlining multiple government-sponsored news conferences from which Fox News was excluded as the network investigated Benghazi.
At one point, Van Susteren claimed, the White House tried to hush up information from the network.
“When reporter Jennifer Griffin said she was told that there was a stand-down order at Benghazi, I got a weird call from the Obama administration trying to pressure me to get Jennifer to back down from her report. I thought the call from the Obama administration was dirty.”










Read Griffin’s report here.


www.theblaze.com

[American Patriot]

BREAKING: First Public Benghazi Hearing Officially Announced For September 17

Katie Pavlich | Sep 10, 2014










The first public hearing in the Benghazi select committee investigation will be held a week from today on September 17. More from Fox News producer Chad Pergrum:

#BREAKING House Select Cmte on #Benghazi schedules 1st open hearing for 10 am et on September 17.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) September 10, 2014

According to the Committee website, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Greg Starr, Independent Panel on Best Practices Chairman Mark J. Sullivan and former Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection for the Department of Homeland Security Todd Keil will be the witnesses.

1st #Benghazi hrng will focus on recommendations of State Dept's Accountability Review Brd.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) September 10, 2014

The select committee was formed back in May of this year and is made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats. The Committee is chaired by Republican South Carolina Congressman and former prosecutor Trey Gowdy.
This post has been updated.

[American Patriot]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/22...t-full-of-crap

Graham: House GOP Benghazi report 'full of crap'

By Rebecca Shabad - 11/23/14 09:29 AM EST
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday blasted a House GOP-led investigation that recently debunked myths about the 2012 Benghazi attack.
“I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The House Intelligence Committee released a report on Friday evening, which took two years to compile, that found there was no outright intelligence failure during the attack, there was no delay in the rescue of U.S. personnel and there was no political cover-up by Obama administration officials.
ADVERTISEMENT

After Graham was asked whether the report exonerates the administration, he initially ignored the question, and then eventually said “no.”

The House Intelligence panel, Graham said, is “doing a lousy job policing their own.”
Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack.
“I don’t believe the report is accurate given the role [former CIA deputy director] Mike Morell played in misleading the Congress on two occasions,” Graham said.
Host Gloria Borger said the report found no one lied.
“That’s a bunch of garbage,” Graham replied.
“This report puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community.”

[American Patriot]

The pieces fall into place suddenly.

CIA Director John Brennan Appears On Fox News Sunday – And Missing Historical Puzzle Pieces Simultaneously Fall Into Place….

Posted on March 22, 2015 by sundance
Sorry to go so deep on a weekend, but seeing Brennan broadcast in a 22 minute interview is enough to blow the blood pressure cuff:

I have never been more certain of something, yet simultaneously never able to prove it, as I am about two events. The first is that Jack Lew and the White House in 2010/2011 coordinated the DOJ attack, with Eric Holder, against political opposition using the IRS.
The second event is that journalist Michael Hastings was killed by the dispatch of CIA Director John Brennan.

Director John Brennan spent almost his entire formative career inside the CIA and intelligence community. 25 Years inside the CIA prior to 2008.
Mr. Brennan spent most of his C.I.A. career as an analyst, but during the 1990s served a tour as the chief of the CIA station in Saudi Arabia, the rumored financier of a now famous Harvard Law Review editor.
Prior to the 9/11 attack (from 1999 to early 2001) Brennan was chief of staff to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, as the position was then called. At the end of that period of his C.I.A. service, in the world created by the patriot act and homeland security (2004 and 2005), Mr. Brennan set up what is now the U.S. Counterterrorism Center.
John O. Brennan, later became candidate Senator Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser while also being owner of a company called The Analysis Corp. Brennan’s firm, Analysis Corp. was identified and cited in March 2008 for penetrating the files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State Department’s passport office.
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign. After the breach was revealed by the Washington Times Brennan stated:

“This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,” Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public. (link)

The Washington Times Reported - Passport application data includes such details as date and place of birth, e-mail address, mailing address, Social Security number, former names and travel plans. Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961 to a Kenyan father and American mother. He lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, from age six to 10.
Computer-monitoring equipment detected the activities by the three employees on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, triggering alarms in each case, Mr. McCormack said. Mr. McCormack said the officials accessed Mr. Obama’s records “without a need to do so.”
“In each case, we immediately contacted our contractors, their employer, and two were fired and one was disciplined,” [Brennan] said. (link)
Yet people would have you believe after 25 years within the CIA,… and after being the Chief of Staff to the Director,…. and after being the person who set up the counter terrorism center,…. and after being the CIA approved contractor for the State dept.,… well, he just didn’t know that someone from his firm was penetrating the passport files within the State Dept. on three occasions in Jan and Feb 2008 to look at information of the candidate who he was specifically working for! You getting this?
Well, that was their story, and they stuck to it in 2008. After the initial inquiry, federal investigators maintained the target of the illegal activity was Obama’s passport file.
It does not take a stretch to come to the conclusion this was for the sole purpose of cleansing the records of information that would jeopardize Obama’s candidacy.
As many people speculated at the time, the breach of the passport records of the other candidates was merely to create confusion. Brennan was, at the time, an unpaid advisor working with Obama’s campaign. Passport files include an applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number.
Additional information may include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S. born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
It is important to remember the oversight agency who would be investigating the breach – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department.
At the time Senator Joe Biden, now Vice President Biden, was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time the breach would be investigated.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach. “I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” Rice told reporters. She phoned Clinton and McCain and offered similar apologies.
Following the breach, State Department managers met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, whose committee has oversight over the Foreign Service and the passport office. (link)
…..And, well, what do you know?…. Biden became the VP pick of Obama.
Also, after election -in mid February 2010- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs alerted WH reporters who regularly cover daily events that certain questions about Obama’s job with Business International Corporation (BIC) would not be subject to discussion.
BIC was well-known in Washington DC to be a front company for the CIA, hence many speculated the State Department passport records were scrubbed to erase any mention of Obama’s CIA activities and his personal information; it would not be too long a dotted line to the false story claim of Columbia University attendance.
But it became over-the-top suspicious when the State Department employee, Lt. Quarles Harris, Jr. who had the access, and apparently was the one who penetrated the database and scrubbed the records, was killed – April 18th 2008.
Lt. Harris decided to cooperate with the FBI who was investigating the break-in. Soon after his cooperation became a matter of record his body was discovered in his parked car; He had been shot in the head, described as execution style.
…..FAST FORWARD TO 2013

Journalist Michael Hasting’s wife, Elise Jordan, confirmed to media in California that John Brennan was the subject of Hastings investigative reporting.
In 2013 a source provided San Diego 6 News with an alarming email hacked from super secret CIA contractor Stratfor’s President Fred Burton. The email (link here) was posted on WikiLeaks and alleged that Obama counter-terrorism Czar John Brennan, was in charge of the government’s continued crackdown or witch-hunt on investigative journalists.
After providing the Stratfor email to the CIA for comment, Brennan’s spokesperson responded in lightning speed. Two emails were received; one acknowledging Hastings was working on a CIA story and the other said:

“Without commenting on information disseminated by WikiLeaks, any suggestion that Director Brennan has ever attempted to infringe on constitutionally-protected press freedoms is offensive and baseless.”

The emails also prompted a phone from CIA media spokesman Todd Ebitz. He said they were saddened by Michael’s death and reiterated their position that they had a cordial working relationship with the investigative reporter. (link)
Then last year -2014- Brennan admitted to directing the intentional spying on congress and openly apologized to Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Obviously Brennan benefited from a left-wing U.S. media unwilling to call the Obama administration to task.
.
Let’s just say ALL OF THAT presents a baseline for understanding the truthfulness of John Brennan, ok?

But the essential conversation for this Fox News Sunday appearance surrounds questions about Iran. So it is worthwhile to focus on Brennan’s actual view of Iran, not the bullshit the administration and he would sell today.
John Brennan wrote about Iran in an obscure foreign policy magazine over the summer of 2008 – during the Obama campaign.
The article, entitled “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” appeared in the July issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.”
Among other recommendations, it argued that the next U.S. administration should grant political legitimacy to the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, and should exercise “strategic patience” with Iran rather than engaging in “bellicose” rhetoric and coercive diplomacy. (link)
Remember that complete failure of an outstretched hand toward Iran in 2009? Remember the complete failure of the Obama administration to support the Green Party uprising in Iran, following Obama’s famous Cairo speech?
Remember all of that 2009/2010 insufferable stupidity that eventually led to the “Islamist Spring”?
From Brennan’s Abstract specifically about Iran:
After nearly three decades of antagonistic rhetoric and diplomatic estrangement between the United States and Iran, the next president has the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries.
When the next president takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Iranian officials will be listening. The president must implement a policy of engagement that encourages moderates in Iran without implying tolerance for Tehran’s historic support of terrorist activities.
This strategy will require patience and sensitivity to the complex political realities inside Iran. To successfully chart a new course for U.S.-Iranian relations, the next president must (1) tone down rhetoric; (2) establish a direct dialogue with Tehran, including comprehensive, private discussions and deployment of a special envoy; (3) encourage greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system; and (4) offer carrots in addition to sticks, including consideration of legitimate Iranian concerns on regional security issues.
– John Brennan July, 2008
It was during the specific timeframe of this pre-election 2008 phase, that we recently became aware of another massive puzzle piece.

From a radio interview in October of 2014 Mark Levin discusses with Michael Leeden the details of a secret message sent by candidate Senator Barack Obama to Iran in 2008 via a former Ambassador, William G Miller.
In essence the content of the communique was Senator Obama telling the Iranian government not to negotiate with the outgoing George Bush administration because Obama was more friendly toward the position of Iran and he would work to structure a more favorable outcome to the Iranian people. (link)
To provide some even greater understanding to how Brennan’s ideology took hold while actually inside the White House – you only need to look at Brennan’s comments in 2011.
This commentary is from June of 2011 three months after the U.S. began arming al-Qaeda in Libya (Brennan is -at the time- Obama’s main national security guy):

“Our strategy is…shaped by a deeper understanding of al Qaeda’s goals, strategy, and tactics. I’m not talking about al Qaeda’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate.
That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen.
We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are.”
~John Brennan, White House Senior Advisor to The President (for counterterrorism and national security) June 29th 2011

So that’s the backdrop for this interview broadcast today on Fox News Sunday:

[vector7]

Trey Gowdy: Benghazi Committee Lacks Authority To Subpoena Hillary’s Private Server

By: Rachel Blevins Apr 16, 2015

Following Hillary Clinton's decision to delete all of the emails on her private server, after they had been subpoenaed by the House Benghazi Committee, the Committee's chairman said he does not have the authority to issue a subpoena for Clinton's server.

On Wednesday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that while the House has the authority to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s private server, his committee has a “more limited jurisdiction.”

In an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Gowdy explained that although the Benghazi Committee lacks the authority under House rules, “most experts believe” that the House as an entity could issue a subpoena for the server.

“I would think if you’re interested in national security breaches, and also the completeness of the public record, that you would want a neutral, detached arbiter as opposed to her own lawyer,” Gowdy said. “The lawyer’s obligation is to the client. I want someone with an obligation to my fellow citizens to say the public record is complete. I can’t just take her lawyer’s word for it.”

Clinton’s personal email on a private server, which she used to conduct government business during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, was revealed in a report from the New York Times on March 2.

The Committee issued subpoenas on March 4, for all emails related to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, from both Clinton and her staff members’ personal accounts.

On March 27, Gowdy released a statement revealing that Clinton deleted all of her emails, and wiped her server clean. Gowdy explained that while it is not clear exactly when Clinton chose to delete the emails, he believes it was after the State Department first requested that she make her emails public in October 2014.

On March 31, the Benghazi Committee formally requested a transcribed interview with Clinton. The interview would include questions over Clinton’s use of private email for government business, along with questions on why Clinton chose to delete all of the emails on her server, after she was aware that they had been subpoenaed by the Committee.

While Gowdy’s request said that the Committee was willing to schedule the interview at a time that was convenient for Clinton, it gave a deadline of May 1.

Politico reported that a spokesperson for the Committee said that Clinton has yet to answer the request for either the interview about the emails, or a public hearing on the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

Gowdy told Hewitt that including Clinton, he plans to interview several others, regarding the Benghazi attack, such as former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, Clinton’s chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills and Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. The interview list will also include Sidney Blumenthal, who according to Politico, is a “longtime confidant of the Clintons whose hacked emails to Hillary Clinton first revealed the existence of her private account.”

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that it obtained letters, which revealed that congressional investigators wrote to Clinton in Dec. 2012, asking about her use of private email for government business.

The Times noted that it was not until March 2013, two months after Clinton left office, that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the author of the letter, received an answer from the State Department, which “ignored the question and provided no response.”