Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


WoT Benghazi News Conglomeration
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 101
  1. #41
    That sounds good. I'll have to post tomorrow. Today was ,.....insane.....
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Between Holy & Crap
    Posts
    77,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Be Well View Post
    AlmostReady and Mzkitty - do you think articles about the fake anti-Muzlim movie made by the "Coptic Christian" should be posted here? I found several articles about this, casting more light on it.
    I agree with AR about cross-linking the movie here.

    Also, AR, I thought about what you said earlier in this thread. I honestly think they're so freaking stupid about Islam and Jihad that they were willing to risk our people. They are also insane. No clue what they're really dealing with. None. They live in unreality about what they think "the rules" should be.
    So when's the Revolution? God or Money? Choose.

  3. #43

    3

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...past-august-2/

    Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August

    Oct 8, 2012 6:55am

    U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.

    The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.”

    But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel. The Regional Security Officer “asked for a number of U.S. shooters because of the pending SST redeployment and he was at that number,” said the senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified because of the ongoing internal investigation.

    The State Department issued a statement Monday, saying, “The SST was enlisted to support the re-opening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. They were based in Tripoli and operated almost exclusively there. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.”

    The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had already asked for — and received — an extension of the SST earlier in the year. A February draft request for a 120-day extension, obtained by ABC News, stated that the team is “an integral part of our mobile and fixed site security functions,” augmenting the security escort work done by the Mobile Security Detachment, protecting the embassy, training local guards, serving as a Quick Reaction Force, providing “vital medical, communications, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), as well as, command and control enablers that are critical to post’s security effort.”

    The embassy request stated: “Quite simply, we cannot maintain our existing levels of Embassy operations, much less implement necessary staffing increases, without a continued SST presence.”

    Asked for comment to the memo and Wood’s comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News: “Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee’s investigation continues to seek answers about why — even as threats against Americans increased — senior State Department officials erroneously decided such security was no longer needed.”

    Investigators are exploring whether anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request another extension.

    < snip >

    The State Department pushed the American diplomats to develop plans to transition its security staffing to one that incorporated more locally based assets, but its ability to do so was “severely limited by a number of factors,” the February memo states, including inconsistent support from the Libyan government, no reliable “armed, uniformed host government security at our residential and office compounds,” no “real progress on the policy framework required to support a transition to an armed locally engaged body guard force,” silence from the Libyan Minister of Interio
    r when it came to formal U.S. “requests for firearms licenses, training sites, or static, host nation security.”

    The request concludes: “Given the unstable security environment, projected staffing increases, lack of physical and technical security upgrades in place and continued high volume of VIP visits, Embassy Tripoli requests an extension” of the Security Support Team for four months, which “will allow us to implement the security transition plans recommended by the Department. A loss of SST now would severely and negatively impact our ability to achieve the Department’s policy and management objectives at this critical time in Libya’s transition.”

    But ultimately the SST left and “they just had to make do with less security,” Wood told ABC News.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  4. #44
    Live (Well, not live right now) Congressional Hearing about the attack in Benghazi. Video will not embed here, you'll have to click the link to watch it. I will find more commentary about this and post it later.

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congres...10737434835-1/

    Congress Holds First Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Libya


    Washington, DC
    Wednesday, October 10, 2012

    U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed September 11th in an assault on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Wednesday, the full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meets to detail the security situation leading up to the attack.

    U.S. officials believe Stevens, a career diplomat who worked with the Libyan resistance before Qaddafi's overthrow, was killed by al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents who used the protest over an anti-Islamic film as cover for their assault on the U.S. Consulate compound.

    The attack was just one of a series of assaults on foreign facilities in Libya. According to several foreign policy experts, pro-Qaddafi holdouts and violent insurgents are taking advantage of political instability to threaten Libya's slowly emerging democracy.

    The murder of Ambassador Stevens highlights the deteriorating political situation in the North African country since the fall of Moammar Qaddafi.

    In response to the attack, President Obama said the United States "condemns in the strongest terms this shocking attack." He also stated that diplomatic posts around the world will all increase security.

    Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has called Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy to testify alongside Deputy Assistant Director for International Programs Charlene Lamb and Eric Nordstrom, the former State Department Regional Security Officer for Libya.

    Later in the afternoon, Ambassador Patrick Kennedy came to the State Department Briefing room to answer questions regarding his testimony at the hearing. He reaffirmed that the State Department's version of events in Benghazi were based on the best intelligence available and that the information "evolved" over time.

    When asked whether it was valuable to maintain the Benghazi consulate given the risks, Ambassador Kennedy said, "On the basis of the information we had at that point, it was worth the risk."
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  5. #45
    There's going to be a lot about this hearing.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/09/pe...ast-columnist/

    Peter King: Obama admin may have given classified briefings to Daily Beast columnist

    3:50 PM 10/09/2012

    House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King is asking CIA director Gen. David Petraeus and White House national security adviser James Clapper to investigate whether a columnist for The Daily Beast received the same classified foreign policy briefings as President Barack Obama.

    “While I recognize that members of the Executive Branch provide background briefings to members of the media, I do not recall any occasion where a journalist received an intelligence briefing equivalent to that received by the President or the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack against U.S. personnel,” King wrote to the high-ranking national security officials in a letter obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller.

    King asked whether “other members of the media receive the intelligence briefings,” but his inquiry focuses on The Daily Beast’s Dr. Leslie Gelb.

    On Oct. 8, Gelb — a foreign policy columnist for the Newsweek-affiliated website — defended U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for her role in what has become known as “Benghazi-gate.”

    In the wake of a Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the United States consulate in Libya that culminated in the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent Rice on a series of Sunday television talk shows during which she blamed the attack on a little-seen anti-Islam YouTube video, and claimed it was a “spontaneous” uprising.

    Rice’s comments were inaccurate. The Obama administration, reports now confirm, knew the incident was a planned terrorist attack within 24 hours of Stevens’ death. Calls for Rice’s resignation have ensued.

    Gelb’s article served as one firewall the administration may have used to explain why Rice made false public statements. In it, he blamed the intelligence community. And, as King points out in his call for an investigation, Gelb “even infers that he received the same briefing as President Obama and Ambassador Rice.”

    “Her mistake was taking the initial intelligence at face value. The White House briefers made the same error, and so did I,” Gelb wrote. “I too repeated in an op-ed on The Daily Beast what the intelligence briefers told me.”

    In his letter to Petraeus and Clapper, King asked — in order to “ensure the protection of classified information against unlawful disclosure” — if Gelb “maintains a security clearance” and, “if so, [at] what classification level.”

    King also asked them if “any employee or contracted employee of the Obama Administration and/or the U.S. Intelligence Community provide Dr. Gelb an intelligence briefing,” if Gelb had “access to intelligence also contained in the Presidential Daily Brief” and if Gelb was given “finished intelligence products, or signals, imagery or human intelligence reports, of equal or lesser classification level than those provided to Ambassador Rice.”

    “If disclosures of classified information to Dr. Gelb were authorized,” King asked, ”was his publication of such intelligence also authorized? If the disclosures were unauthorized, what penalties are in place to protect against such disclosures in the future?”

    King tied this potential leak to the other Obama administration leaks of classified national security intelligence.

    “As you know, for nearly four years, I have written to President Obama, yourselves, and other Intelligence Community leaders to express my deep concern about the numerous leaks coming from the Obama Administration,” King said. “Illegal disclosures of classified information have repeatedly jeopardized our clandestine and law enforcement officials, special operators, and intelligence sources and methods.”

    “These leaks include the whereabouts of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, details of the intelligence and raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden, the existence of a human source penetration of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, possible U.S. involvement in cyber attacks against Iran’s nuclear arms program, specifics regarding drone campaigns, and (most recently) reported ongoing counterterrorism efforts and even future possible operations in North Africa,” King continued.

    “If the Obama Administration and/or the Intelligence Community now provide intelligence briefings (as opposed to background briefings) to journalists—as claimed by Dr. Gelb—I urge you to take immediate corrective action to protect the public trust in your agencies, vital intelligence, and lives.”


    King gave Clapper and Petraeus until Oct. 19 to respond.

    Neither a White House spokesman nor a Daily Beast spokesperson immediately returned TheDC’s request for comment.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  6. #46
    http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-st...wood-testimony

    Security Failures at Benghazi: Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood [TESTIMONY]

    ForexTV NewsDesk | October 10 2012 10:35 EDT

    Watch Live Coverage of The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the failed security at Benghazi
    (Link at site)

    Eric Nordstrom, the former Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, has told congressional investigators that security at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was “inappropriately low” – and believed that State Department officials stood in the way of his attempts to change that.

    Nordstrom and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, the commander of a 16-member Security Support Team, heard that foreign fighters were flowing across the Egyptian border and were making their way across the border to the Libyan city of Derna – which is to the east of Benghazi — and from there were making their way to Benghazi. But State Department officials seemed oblivious to their Benghazi post’s vulnerability.

    In a testimony written by Colonel Andrew Wood to the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform he describes the vulnerability and lack of proper protection for the US Embassy in Benghazi where 4 Americans were murdered including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

    The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., will hold hearings on what went wrong today at noon ET. Nordstrom will testify at that hearing.
    [INDENT] I am Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood. I am a member of the Utah National Guard with

    24 years of service as a Special Forces soldier. I was mobilized for the 2002 Winter

    Olympics, Afghanistan from September of 2003 to May of 2004, and for counter

    terrorism work in the Southern Philippines from August of 2007 to May of 2008. I

    currently work for the US Bureau of Reclamation as the Upper Colorado Regional

    Security Officer or RSO. I am responsible to Reclamation for the security program that

    oversees 58 high and significant hazard dams in 5 western States, one of which is Glen

    Canyon Dam, a national critical infrastructure facility.



    Upon hearing of the death of Ambassador Stevens and later of the Congressional

    inquiry, I identified myself to my Congressional Representative's staff as a person with

    intimate knowledge of the security situation prior to the attack. I was subsequently

    contacted and began a dialogue with staff investigators.


    I made a personal decision to come forward with information and do not represent DoD

    or any government agency. I had unique access and placement to many government

    leaders and agencies working in Libya. I feel duty bound to come forward in order to

    inform and provide a portion of ground truth information. I feel a sense of honor for

    those individuals who have died in the service of their country. I realize much of my

    work in Libya was entangled in sensitive government work and I must be careful not to

    betray the trust and confidences that have been placed in me. The killing of a US

    Ambassador is a rare and extraordinary thing and requires our attention as a people.

    As a citizen I made the determination that this out weighs all other interests and will risk

    whatever circumstances may result from my testimony.


    I served as the Site Security Team (SST) Commander in Libya from 12 February to 14

    August of this year, 2012. I was mobilized from the Utah National Guard into Title 10

    status and reported to Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA) which

    serves directly under AFRICCOM. I was detailed in Title 22 status to the Department of

    State and assumed command of the SST.


    The SST element consisted of 16 members. It is my understanding that it was crafted

    by the National Security Council to meet the demanding security c hallenges facing the

    Department of State and their requirement to re-establish diplomatic relations with a

    post Qaddafi or Free Libya. The SST loaned considerable support to the Department of

    State's security posture in this uncertain and volatile environment.


    The SSTs mission was to support and answer to Chief of Mission in Libya. I worked

    directly for the Regional Security Officer. We provided Security Support, Medical

    Support, Communications Support for every facet of security that concerned the

    Embassy.


    As the SST Commander I had a seat on the County Team and I was closely involved

    with the operational planning and support to the RSO's security objectives. The

    Embassy staff lived and worked together at two locations in Tripoli and Embassy

    property in Benghazi. The SST supported security for movements of diplomatic officers 2

    in and around Tripoli and other parts of Libya as their work required. On two occasions

    I sent SST members to Benghazi to support and bolster security at that location. The

    SST was closely integrated with regular diplomatic security agents working directly for

    the RSO as well as the Mobile Security Deployment teams.


    I traveled to Benghazi on two occasions, once with the RSO to evaluate the security

    situation there and once to conduct some work for the Defense Attache's office. I was

    there the second time in June when the UK Ambassador's convoy was attacked. I

    responded with DS security agents in order to help provide medical and security

    assistance for wounded UK security personnel. I conducted a post attack investigation

    of the ambush or assault.


    I met regularly with and held frequent conversations with Ambassador Cretz and

    Stevens and other members of the country team. In June when Eric Nordstrom rotated

    out, I was the senior member of the Country team with the exception of Ambassador

    Stevens. We lived and worked closely together in an atmosphere that is common to an

    expeditionary post. Ambassador Stevens was an avid runner and played tennis as well.

    The SST was heavily involved in performing his personnel security detail when he ran. I

    ran with him on several occasions.


    The SST provided an important link for the country team to SOCAFRICA with its

    intelligence assets and resources. There was a good exchange of intelligence

    information between SOCAFRICA and the RSO. There was a great working

    relationship between SST and Diplomatic security agents and MSD members at the Embassy
    posts throughout Libya.


    I reported 3 times a week thru video teleconference to SOCAFRICA and sent daily

    Situation reports. I had the communications capability to provide a direct link to

    SOCAFRICA 24-7. I no longer have access to email and documents that I worked with

    on a daily basis much of this was contained on AFRICOM servers and computers that I

    worked thru. My recollection of dates is mostly from memory and I will need to reaccess that
    information in order to specify dates with certainty.


    State Department's decision not to extend SST's security work beyond August 5th

    terminated our work in this capacity. The military members of my team were in the

    process of changing status from Title 22 back to Title 10 shortly before my departure.

    The situation on the ground was continuously updated in reports that I sent to my

    military chain and CC'ed the RSO on. The RSO sent information on security and

    threats in a similar manner.


    While the sound of gunfire in and around Tripoli subsided from February to April the

    situation remained unstable. Libyans struggled with a Transitional government that

    hesitated to make decisions and was forced to rely upon local or tribal militias with

    varying degrees to loyalty. In late spring, Police were allowed to return to work to help

    with traffic but were limited to that. Fighting between militias was still common when I
    departed. Some militias appeared to be degenerating into organizations resembling

    free lance criminal operations. Targeted attacks against westerners were on the

    increase. In June the Ambassador received a threat on Facebook with a public

    announcement that he liked to run around the Embassy compound in Tripoli.


    When I arrived in February there were 3 MSD teams on the ground. Ambassador Cretz

    was confronted with having to loose one of these and requested an equal number of

    regular diplomatic security agents. Ambassador also struggled with renewing the SST

    beyond April 5th. The second MSD team was withdrawn shortly after his departure, and

    the last MSD team was restricted from performing security work and limited to only

    training local guard force members in July. The remaining MSD was withdrawn at about

    the same time the SST security work was terminated. The RSO's struggled to maintain

    these losses with regular diplomatic security personnel.

    The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time

    there. The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was

    getting worse. Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US

    diplomatic security agent stationed there. The RSO struggled to obtain additional

    personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.


    I hope the information I provide will be put together with 'data points' from others so an

    accurate picture can be obtained. We need to be dedicated to understanding the

    problems that surround this attack in order to find a solution. Our failure to do so will

    result in repeated instances that allow our adversaries an advantage over us. My

    purpose in conveying this information is to prevent their ability to take the life of another

    Ambassador or kill other valuable and talented public servants working in the diplomatic

    service of their country.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  7. #47
    Sorry for the strange formatting of Colonel Woods' testimony, I couldn't fix it.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  8. #48
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck...han-watergate/

    Beck Walks Through Libya Timeline and Describes ‘Massive Cover-Up…Bigger Than Watergate’

    Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:29am

    On Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck delved into a laundry list of evidence revealing that the White House and President Obama have been far from honest when it comes to the recent embassy attacks in Libya and in Cairo.

    The latest in a string of damning information now indicates that the State Department even rejected embassy staff’s request for additional security prior to the attack and that security threats were present in Libya for months prior to September 11, when U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and another American civil servant were killed.

    The coup de grace for the Obama administration, however, was in blaming a YouTube video for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi when they were in fact premeditated. Watch below as Beck goes point for point through a powerful timeline of events — both in the administration and across the Middle East — that remove any shred of doubt that, as Beck put it, a cover-up far exceeding the Watergate scandal is at play.

    A chronology of crucial moments leading up to and in the aftermath of the attacks is provided below courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:
    April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

    April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.

    April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.

    May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.

    May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.

    May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.

    May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.

    June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”

    June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.

    Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.

    August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.

    September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.

    September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

    September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

    September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

    September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attackwas involved.

    September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

    September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

    September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

    September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

    September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

    September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

    September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

    September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congressthe attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

    September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

    September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

    September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

    September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

    September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

    September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

    September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

    September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

    September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

    October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.

    Beck went on to ask why the embassy was denied their repeated requests for additional security and why Stevens was even still present in Benghazi when the British embassy and Red Cross were “smart enough to leave.“ He also wondered why the FBI were not deployed to the scene until last week and spent a mere ”three hours” on the ground there.

    “Whose idea was it to make up the video excuse?” Beck asked. He added his theory that Stevens “was our broker tasked with arming the Libyan rebels” and that eventually, when he “needed to get the weapons back,“ the deal ”went bad.”

    “This is a massive institutional cover-up bigger than Watergate,” he slammed. It may be just “massive incompetence but you have been lied to in a massive and coordinated fashion.”

    Beck suggested that the reason Obama is so focused on “Big Bird” currently is to detract attention away from this scandal and that the president is pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood by condemning the “slander of Islam.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  9. #49
    http://townhall.com/columnists/diana..._the_sheepfold

    Administration Welcomed Wolves Into The Sheepfold

    Oct 12, 2012

    Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?

    The question has yet to come up in House hearings, but I think it holds the key to the Obama administration's betrayal of the American people in "Benghazi-gate." To an American with common sense not subverted by advanced degrees, the thought of putting Islamic "martyrs" in charge of American "infidels" in Benghazi -- which, fun fact, literally means "city of holy warriors" -- would trigger the inevitable "heck, no." And that's without even knowing what is significant about Feb. 17.

    But I'm talking about Washington, D.C. Here, placing the lives of Americans in the hands of a thug-army linked to multiple atrocities and drawn from jihad-epicentral eastern Libya disturbs no collective brain wave. No matter that Benghazi and nearby Derna sent more men, per capita, to Iraq to kill Americans than anywhere else in the world. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, putting local boys in barracks inside the consulate compound was a great idea. Why not? President Obama's ambassador, the late Christopher Stevens, was, as they say, "reaching out" across the jihad spectrum on official business.

    Meanwhile, Ansar al Sharia ("Supporters of Islamic Law"), the al-Qaida-linked militia believed to have led the consulate assault in September, is a spinoff of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, but that didn't scratch the lacquered political surface, either. And even as reports remind us of ties among February 17 Martyrs Brigade leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood and the web of jihad-poison spun by Qatar's Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Libya's Ali al-Salabi -- the latter having been tapped by the Qatari dictatorship to distribute $2 billion to Libyan "rebels" -- the focal point remains elsewhere.

    Partly, that's because the breathtaking lies the Obama administration has told us post-9/11/12 distract our attention from the disastrous policy previously in place. Plus, there remains a lingering confusion over good guys and bad guys. After all, Uncle Sam isn't supposed to support bad guys. The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam's lot with bad guys -- the "rebels," the "martyrs," the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the "Other Side." It is this alliance or support for "martyrs" and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such "martyrs."

    Whether, as The Daily Beast reported, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade may have been ordered by a pro-al-Qaida Libyan politician to "stand down" for the attack remains to be verified. Meanwhile, the State Department reminds us not to forget the service of two brigade members who were beaten and two who were shot defending the compound. "But there were some bad apples in there as well," one intelligence source told The Daily Beast.

    How could there not be? And here is where the significance of Feb. 17 comes in.

    John Rosenthal, an independent journalist based in Europe, wrote early on that the Libyan rebellion wasn't led only by al-Qaida commanders. This anti-Gadhafi movement was symbolically also an Islamic jihad on Western liberty itself. We know this because, as Rosenthal reported, the "Day of Rage" called for Feb. 17, 2011, to kick off the Libyan civil war was the fifth anniversary of another assault on the West, also in Benghazi.

    Following Friday prayers on Feb. 17, 2006, thousands of Benghazians attacked the Italian Consulate to punish the temerity of an Italian minister, Roberto Calderoli, who several days earlier had publicly defended free speech in the West. The world was then experiencing another cycle of Islamic violence, this one orchestrated to punish a tiny Danish newspaper for publishing a sheet of Muhammad cartoons and, in turn, Denmark itself for refusing to punish the journalist-transgressors of Islamic law, which outlaws any critiques and all depictions of Muhammad.

    Calderoli didn't merely defend free speech. During his TV interview, he dramatically unbuttoned his shirt to reveal a T-shirt featuring a cartoon of Muhammad. Referring to Islamic rioters worldwide, he added: "When they recognize our rights, I'll take off this shirt." He was forced to resign from his post the next day, a sacrifice on the altar of Shariah (Islamic law) by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. It wasn't enough.

    "We feared for our lives," the wife of the Italian consul later told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, describing the attack in which the consulate was set on fire. All personnel were safely evacuated. Libyan police used tear gas to try to disperse the rioters, later opening fire and killing 11 attackers.

    These are the "martyrs" who serve as role models for the security team that was defending the U.S. Consulate. Symbolically, they figure into the wider war in Libya, which is often called the February 17 Revolution. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the Islamic war on free speech, the basis of our liberty, was an inspiration of "regime change" in Libya. And we supported it.

    That's the real scandal.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  10. #50
    http://audio.wrko.com/a/64657882/col...evelations.htm

    Fri, 12 Oct 2012

    Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt checked in with us again after the revelation that there were multiple listening posts which heard the cries for help from the US Embassy in Libya and none of them did anything. The State Department says they still do not know what really happened in Libya.

    For six hours the entire military, intelligence, diplomatic and civil command structure of the United States government watched, in real time, as our consulate in Benghazi was under attack, while our ambassador and his hobbled security died.

    That command structure did nothing. Afterward, they lied outright to cover-up their own culpability for political reasons. An intelligence failure, under the circumstances, was impossible.

    State Department officials have revealed for the first time that there were no demonstrations or protests outside the Libyan Embassy last month and that the so called anti-Muslim video had nothing to do with the attack and murder of our Ambassador and other Americans. The White House is now saying it was bad intel that led them to blame the movie. We spoke with Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt about these revelations.

    SecState Clinton’s signature on documents ordering reduced security, no marines, unloaded weapons - and cover-up

    Col. David Hunt w/ Howie Carr WRKO AM 680 - Boston - Wednesday, October 10, 2012 (32:14)
    http://audio.wrko.com/a/64574661/isl...h-col-hunt.htm

    The Congressional hearing on the Libyan attack has revealed that the State Department denied a request by American Special Forces in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. Meanwhile the State Department okay-ed the funding for Chevy Volts with a charging station for the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. We spoke with Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt regarding Libya and the White House’s attempts to sanitize their accounts.

    Six hours in Benghazi - live and in color. “How are we not responding, when there’s a live fire fight underway for six hours?” Candlelight vigil outside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi gets out of hand.
    We still don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi.

    Col. David Hunt w/ Howie Carr WRKO AM 680 - Boston - Thursday, October 11, 2012 (22:06)
    http://audio.wrko.com/a/64625569/col...s-on-libya.htm

    Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt checked in with us again after the revelation that there were multiple listening posts which heard the cries for help from the US Embassy in Libya and none of them did anything. The State Department says they still do not know what really happened in Libya.

    Col. David Hunt w/ Howie Carr WRKO AM 680 - Boston - Friday, October 12, 2012 (28:37)
    http://audio.wrko.com/a/64657882/col...evelations.htm
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  11. #51
    Some comments:

    This is part of the information revealed during open House investigation hearings, this week.

    The fact of an “Ops Center” near the U.S. Consulate.
    Col. Hunt said that the Ambassador was in Bengazi for a personal reason. Said the reason for the visit may be as big a story as the coverup.

    Immediately communicated when embassy under attack, satellites & drones looking at this while it happened & the ambassador & 3 others were killed. Hundreds knew this was going on, watched/listened for 6 hours while the consulate was under attack & decision-makers were being constantly updated and DID NOTHING.... then lied about it for 8 days. Biden KNEW this was not an intelligence failure and lied during the debate about it.
    “Col. Hunt ...explains how at least 12 command centers get IMMEDIATE info when the embassy was attacked.”

    Hunt said that from the moment the call went in to Lamb, all of those command centers were instantaneously notified.

    Hunt said that as soon as he heard Lamb’s testimony he was stunned. Said this is the elephant in the room the media refuses to report. He said none of what I am saying is my opinion. It is fact and standard operating procedure, but the WH refused to act or issue an order to help save our people there. They watched and listened for 6 hours and did NOTHING.
    Immediately communicated when embassy under attack, satellites & drones looking at this while it happened & the ambassador & 3 others were killed. Hundreds knew this was going on, watched/listened for 6 hours while the consulate was under attack & decision-makers were being constantly updated and DID NOTHING.... then lied about it for 8 days. Biden KNEW this was not an intelligence failure and lied during the debate about it.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  12. #52
    http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/12...they-left.html

    British say weapons they left at U.S. consulate in Benghazi are missing


    When British diplomats abandoned their offices in Benghazi over the summer after the British ambassador’s motorcade was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, their security detail left its weapons and vehicles in the custody of the U.S. consulate in that eastern Libyan city.

    Now that cache of weapons is missing amid signs that the Islamist militants suspected in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate and a nearby annex remain active, despite Libyan government demands that they disband.

    The June 11 attack on British Ambassador Sir Dominic Asquith as he drove through Benghazi is among a list of 230 security incidents, 48 in Benghazi alone, that U.S. officials compiled to show how dangerous Libya had become. Two of Asquith’s security guards were wounded in the attack. In contrast to the Americans, who remained in Benghazi, the British determined that the city was too dangerous and closed their offices.

    Before withdrawing, however, British officials reached an agreement with the U.S. consulate to leave their weapons and vehicles at the poorly guarded U.S. compound.

    “We are working with the U.S. to establish what, if anything, has happened to this equipment,” British news agencies quoted an unnamed Foreign Office spokesman as saying.

    The issue of the missing weapons and vehicles came to light during testimony Wednesday at a congressional hearing in Washington, where Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, who headed a 16-member U.S. military security force in Libya, revealed that the British would return periodically to Benghazi and reclaim the weapons, then give them back to the Americans when they left the city again.

    Wood added that he had expected an attack to come sooner or later. “I almost expected the attack to come,” he said. “We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time. The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there.”

    On Friday, U.S. officials said they still were working to determine what precisely had taken place during the assault on the consulate building. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation after the building was set on fire.

    Two other Americans, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Wood, died at an embassy annex a few blocks away when it came under attack from mortar and rifle fire. The annex was believed to house the local offices of the CIA.
    Now that cache of weapons is missing amid signs that the Islamist militants suspected in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate and a nearby annex remain active, despite Libyan government demands that they disband.

    The June 11 attack on British Ambassador Sir Dominic Asquith as he drove through Benghazi is among a list of 230 security incidents, 48 in Benghazi alone, that U.S. officials compiled to show how dangerous Libya had become. Two of Asquith’s security guards were wounded in the attack. In contrast to the Americans, who remained in Benghazi, the British determined that the city was too dangerous and closed their offices.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  13. #53
    Comments:

    After Gaddafi was deposed, 10,000 - 20,000 MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles went missing that can take out commercial airliners. Glen Doherty (one of the Seals killed) was in Libya because he was on an intel mission trying to track them down.

    The ambassador's killing was obama and Hillary tying up some loose ends. It was set up by Hillary and obama. How? By making the ambassador"s travel schedule and destination known. By making those who were going to kill him aware that the consolate was unarmed. Why? Probably because for all practical purposes he had accomplished what they had planned for him, and hence, he changed from an asset to a liability. He knew where the bodies were buried. he knew wher the guns were and who supplied them and how they were supplied.
    The 10-20K MANPADS were in Libya’s arsenal and when Gaddafi fell, the rebels got into them and they ‘disappeared’. Doherty was trying to track down some of these weapons. The consulate/embassy, etc. has equipment/weapons for keeping the facilities secure. When the British pulled out after the assassination attempt on their Ambassador, they had a MOU (memorandum of understanding) with our embassy to keep their vehicles, equipment until they returned & it was being stored at the consulate which had the room. It is my understanding that certain British personnel had been back for short visits, pulled their equipment while they were there, then brought it back (I think I heard this in the hearing). Now, after the terror attack, of course the terrorists took any equipment/weapons that would be useful to them.
    And do people who die of smoke inhalation leave bloody handprints on walls?
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  14. #54
    Video From Benghazi Consulate Shows Organized Attack

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ed-attack.html

    Oct 12, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

    Footage from the night of Sept. 11 might be the clearest evidence yet of a military-style assault on the consulate in Benghazi. Eli Lake reports.

    Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

    The Obama administration has been studying the videos, taken from closed-circuit cameras throughout the Benghazi consulate’s four-building compound, for clues about who was responsible for the attack and how it played out. The two officials tell The Daily Beast that analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known jihadists.

    The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.

    In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.

    Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.

    The videos were filmed from multiple closed-circuit cameras throughout the compound, and are at times grainy and hard to decipher. There are also some gaps. There is no footage, for example, of Ambassador Chris Stevens going into the safe room where he eventually died from smoke inhalation. The footage at the gate of the compound is taken from an angle that filmed the attackers from the side, so the people in the crowd can mostly be seen in profile.

    The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days.

    In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening.

    Analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known databases of jihadists.

    At the same time, there was evidence that countered this assessment. An initial investigation by congressional Republicans alleged that the families of local Libyans serving for a contractor to provide security at the consulate were urged in the days before the attack to have the guards not show up to work on Sept. 11. U.S. intelligence officers also knew of four suspects within 24 hours of the attack that had links to Ansar al-Sharia, a local jihadist organization with some ties to al Qaeda’s regional affiliate for north Africa.

    The video footage also supports the accounts of four diplomatic-security officers who were at the Benghazi compound and who initially responded to the attack. On Sept. 17, these officers told State Department investigators in formal briefings that there was no spontaneous protest the night of the attack, U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast. This information was what led the State Department to conclude there was no protest at the consulate on the day of the attacks, according to these officials.

    Nonetheless, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to say until Sept. 20 that the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest over the Internet film.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  15. #55
    Cross posted the article below on the Innocence of Muslims thread. It is more than 2 weeks old and more info has been found, but he has stuff I have not seen elsewhere.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49761

    Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack


    Tuesday, September 25, 2012

    Doug Hagmann

    By now, it is well known that something is very wrong with the official narrative pertaining to the controversial video known to everyone as Innocence of Muslims. The official government script we are asked to believe is that this video supposedly caused the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate in Libya and ignited the ensuing violence and death across the Muslim world that continues without abatement today. Officially, the video was cited as the primary motive in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. There are more than a few problems with this narrative. First, aside from the trailer, the video does not exist anywhere in any public forum. Not now, not ever.

    Based on my findings from a lengthy and extensive investigation that is ongoing, the trailer (which will be referenced interchangeably in this report as “the video”) was not a motive, but a means to an end not yet seen. In fact, I believe that the entire story is even deeper and more sinister than that.

    Because easily obtainable evidence exists that the video was not the cause of the violence but a made-to-order excuse for it, most investigative journalists representing the right side of the political spectrum have long stopped any meaningful, deeper inquiries, while the left-leaning press doubled down in the face of such evidence. It is obvious that the perpetuation of the longstanding right-left paradigm is still actively serving the larger agenda nicely in providing a suitable smoke screen for the truth. The truth of this matter, however, seems to be located deep within a rabbit hole straight out of Alice in Wonderland, as all is not what it appears.

    Investigation leads to disturbing discoveries


    During the course of any complex investigation, detectives are always searching for that elusive “ah-ha!” moment, or the point at which a breakthrough of a case is achieved. Often, that moment never arrives, or is considerably less than dramatic when it does. In this case, the truth appeared to be so adeptly hidden and convoluted that it took me a long time before I realized that many of the puzzle pieces were actually in plain view, but they were just not readily identifiable. The reason, I concluded, was that I was looking at this entire situation all wrong. That’s when the “ah-ha” moment turned into an “uh-oh” moment.

    First, I made the erroneous assumption that I knew who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are, much like someone watching a vintage movie with “cops and robbers” where the good guys wear the police uniforms and the bad guys wear masks. I did not anticipate that some of the so-called good guys might actually be the perpetrators, especially considering the evil woven into these events. I am willing, however, to stipulate that some of the “bad guys” might be nothing more than unwitting pawns unknowingly involved in a larger agenda, although I find that more difficult to accept given the death and destruction involved.

    Secondly, I believe that I’ve found evidence that suggests links between this video, or at least the manner in which this video was first created, then changed and finally used, to key people and entities involved with a number of suspicious events over the last decade. It would appear that some of the individuals and entities, including but not limited to high ranking members of both political parties, elected officials, and members of the intelligence community have some level of active or passive involvement in this and various past events of significance, but have adeptly maintained a plausibly deniable role by only slight degrees of separation.

    To bring more specificity to the above, it would appear that there is a possible connection between the dissemination of the controversial video with the 2008 passport office break-in scandal that involved improper computer access to the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain. The latter is an enigma in its own right, having its own level of complicity and complexity. Additionally, that particular event appears to involve other events at its periphery, including but not limited to the murder of the key witness in that case, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.

    One thing that appears to exist, if my investigative findings are correct, is that some of the same individuals and entities that were directly and indirectly involved in the passport office break-in, including government and defense contractors, appear to have a role in the video controversy.

    This leads to the third and perhaps most disturbingly critical discovery. If my investigative findings are correct, it is my opinion as a professional investigator that the events in Libya, which have now spread across the globe, were a direct result of a covert CIA mission that appears to have been compromised from within our own government. If I am incorrect, however, the alternative is even more unthinkable.

    If correct, my investigative trail leads directly to the U.S. Department of State and the CIA with some level of White House involvement, at which point things become even more convoluted. It is here that one might become confused with the aforementioned “good guy versus bad guy” identification process.

    Chronology of the video

    14 July 2011: A “casting call” was posted to Craig’s List, soliciting actors and actresses to appear in a movie under the working title Desert Warrior. Research published by various websites such as gawker notes that key in the video’s production was 65 year-old Alan Roberts, a/k/a Robert Brownell, a film director and editor of films such as Young Lady Chatterly, The Happy Hooker goes to Hollywood, and Karate Cop.



    Roberts directing role was the result of a request by Egyptian native Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a/k/a “Sam Bacile,” who was allegedly an informational and possibly operational asset for the U.S. Department of Justice.

    According to several cast members who appeared in the video, they were told that they were appearing in a historical drama set in the Middle East and were hoodwinked into a false plot. Some have publicly stated that some of their dialogue was changed to such an extent, that someone actually dubbed over the words they spoke. In other words, the audio was changed. After a careful review of the video trailer, this claim appears to have merit.

    The video was scheduled to be shown at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, California on 30 June, 2012 under a new title, The Innocence of Bn Laden [sic]. Two-(2) screenings were scheduled.Thousands of flyers written in Arabic were created and passed out in advance of that date.

    29 June 2012 (Friday):
    A regular to the Los Angeles City Council meetings, a man identified as John Walsh, Hollywood resident and operator of a local blog site, participated in the general public comments. His appearance begins at the 2:30:15 mark in the archived footage of the Los Angeles meeting at City Hall. Rather cryptically, he simply asks rhetorically whether the “neo-Nazis are coming to Hollywood” and directs the council members to his blog that references the Vince Theater showing.

    30 June 2012 (Saturday):
    Accounts of the scheduled showing differ, but based on information obtained from Steve Klein, the spokesman for the film on a special 90-minute edition of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report on Sunday, September 23, 2012, the showings were cancelled when no one showed up to watch the video. The theater reportedly “closed” the screening without incident. It is relevant to point out that the alleged screening for this video was scheduled during the time when Jews typically observe Shabbat. Therefore, it is unlikely that the screening was scheduled or otherwise arranged by anyone in the Jewish community.

    1 July 2012 (Sunday): Interestingly, the title of the video that was published online was changed from The Innocence of Bn Laden to The Innocence of Muslims on a YouTube channel that hosted the trailer. The video was hosted on an account under the name Sam Bacile, who was later actually determined to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

    1 July - 11 September 2012: T
    he video lies relatively dormant until it is cited for the violence by U.S. government officials.

    The official assertions made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Barack Hussein Obama that the controversial video was the proximal cause of the initial spate of violence or protests can be readily dispelled by simply looking at the history of the number of views through September 11, 2012. The video did not gain notoriety until the murderous events had already concluded in Libya.

    Internet profile


    Having received training and certification in Internet Profiling, I began to look into the Internet activity related to the video right after the murder of Stevens and the violence that was attributed to the video. This investigation was as elusive as it was revealing, as I began to note that links to the video began disappearing after I would visit various sites related to the video or its apparent “host.”

    It was on or about 22 September 2012 that during my research, I found a video titled Proof Positive - In My Opinion posted by an individual on the YouTube channel under the user name “Montagraph.” I found that many of his findings mirrored mine (or mine his), although there were a few exceptions. Nonetheless, this Internet video contains links to many interesting screen captures.

    The individual in the video Proof Positive - In My Opinion on the YouTube channel Montagraph details some very disturbing possibilities, including the identification of a news and politics website (a series of them, interrelated) known as NewsPoliticsNow and its various name variations, might be linked to Stanley Inc., which is now known as CGI. It is interesting that my investigative results seem to be generally consistent with his findings, and also that there appears to be a link to this company that provides products and services to the U.S. military, the U.S. State Department and DHS.

    The video, defense contractors & Obama

    In the “Montagraph video,” a connection is drawn to Stanley Inc. The importance of this, beyond the status as defense contractors from Arlington, Virginia, lies in the digital fingerprints connecting the videoInnocence of Muslims with a user with access to the NewsPoliticsNow website. The “Montagraph video” explains the connection by the presence of a common avatar, or an image used by Internet posters. It is here that things become as disturbing as they are convoluted.

    According to published reports, Stanley Inc. was awarded a $164 million contract to print new U.S. passports in 2006. Two employees of Stanley Inc., along with a third individual employed by another defense contractor identified as The Analysis Corporation, were identified as the perpetrators who breached the records of the U.S. passport office on three occasions in 2008 and “improperly accessed” the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The breaches occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008.

    It is important to note that the CEO of the Analysis Corporation at the time of the passport office break-in was John O. Brennan, who served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and foreign policy. Brennan also contributed to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Brennan also had a 25-year career in the CIA.

    Presently, John Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to Barack Hussein Obama under the official title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.

    Since 2008, the accepted and unchallenged motive for the breach was that the perpetrators were looking at the passport and biological data on all three presidential candidates in some sort of “exploratory” mission. They were summarily fired from their jobs and disappeared into the night before they could be interviewed by investigators working on the case. What took place following this admitted breach, however, has an extremely sinister overtone.

    Flashback: 2008 Obama revelation; Key witness to passport office break-in murdered


    Recall that at the time of the passport office break-in, Barack Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of the last intrusion, and a week later, on March 21, 2008, Obama was asked for his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper while campaigning. Obviously, Obama now officially knows that the public has been informed about the level of the breach, and that Obama’s personal and confidential biographical information, in addition to his international travels was apparently “accessed.”

    It is important to note that that the files accessed included Obama’s personal passport and were not limited to his diplomatic passport.

    On April 8, 2008, Obama continued to comment on the fact that the confidentiality of his passport records were apparently compromised. It was on this occasion when Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. One wonders whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time had it not been for the uncertainty that the information was already “in play.”

    Even ABC News appeared surprised at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. Research shows that Obama did not disclose this trip at any time during any policy discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach.

    It is also important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the passport office records, the Washington Times reported that “officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, however, so did the leaks. It was reported that at least one employee within the U.S. State Department shared passport information with a man identified as Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.

    My investigation suggests that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from the State Department employee, but received more than what he bargained for. When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also began to talk with investigators and ultimately, made a deal with federal prosecutors.

    Before he could make good on his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot in the head.

    The murder of Harris remains unsolved, and the official narrative of that murder is that Harris was either a victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone bad.”

    Prelude to attack

    In the days and weeks leading up to the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, the U.S. Department of State received at least three warnings of not only impending violence, but of U.S. embassies being specifically targeted. One warning was specific to the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which was directly related to the current imprisonment of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Others specified the Libyan embassy.

    On September 9, 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reportedly received a warning that stated “[t]he time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh…Let your slogan be: No to the American embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh, even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”

    The warnings in the week before the attack were received while Ambassador Stevens was traveling in Germany, Austria and Sweden. Accordingly, it is important to determine why Ambassador Stevens was at the consulate office in Benghazi during a time of heightened threat, was he made aware of the increased threat situation by the Clinton State Department, and who was responsible for the safety and security of Ambassador Stevens and what actually happened in Benghazi?

    Research, investigation and confirmation from one source within the U.S. government found that in the situation involving Stevens, protection of the U.S. consulate was provided in large part by an organization known as “the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade.” This is a local Libyan militia led by Fawzi abu Kataf, who has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is now being reported that the “protection team,” specifically the leaders of the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade received orders from a senior Libyan government official to stand down during the coordinated attack against the U.S. Consulate.

    It is unclear whether Ambassador Stevens was made aware of the threats, but it would logical to believe that he was not aware of the stand-down order or the impending attack. Regardless, it is important to determine what Ambassador Stevens’ mission was in Benghazi along with Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

    On the ground in Benghazi: timeline

    Prior to any overt attack, it is vital to note that FSO Sean Smith, known as vile_rat in the online gaming community, posted the following disturbing message to an open gaming forum:“vile_rat: assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Investigation suggests that FSO Smith was referencing a member of the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade.

    8:00 p.m.: Sometime around 8:00 p.m., Ambassador Stevens completed a meeting with the Turkish Consul General, allegedly at the Benghazi compound. Contrary to the insistence of the Obama administration, there were no Muslim protestors at or around the compound. This was substantiated by CBS News and also The New York Times.

    9:30-10:30 p.m.: At or about 9:30 p.m. local time, Muslim terrorists attacked the consulate from three sides with rocket propelled grenade launchers and laser sighted weapons, breaching the walls that surrounded the property. No security forces were present to repel the attack. It was reported that upwards of twenty Americans were inside of the compound at this time, although this has yet to be confirmed.

    10:30 p.m.
    The attackers gain access to the interior portion of the compound. Reports suggest that only Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were inside and failed in their attempt to repel the attackers.

    It was during this time that Libyan government reinforcements arrived. One of the reinforcements allegedly makes it inside, finds the body of Sean Smith, but is unable to locate the Ambassador. It was also during this time that the attackers storm the rear portion of the compound. The reinforcements retreat to a safe-house located about one-half mile away.

    12:30 a.m. The attackers are seen on video pulling the body of Ambassador Stevens from the compound while shouting praises to Allah.

    1:00 - 3:30 a.m.: Accounts as to the location of Ambassador Stevens vary, but it is confirmed that his body was located at the Benghazi Medical Center at approximately 3:30 a.m.

    Numerous reports suggest that Ambassador Stevens suffered either ante-mortem or post-mortem injuries suggestive of sodomy. Additional reports also suggest that numerous classified documents were recovered from the consulate office by the attackers.

    It was almost immediately following public reports of the attack that U.S. government officials, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, asserted that the attack on the U.S. embassy were the direct result of the video Innocence of Muslims. They also publicly stated that the attacks were spontaneous, there was no pre-planning involved in the attack, and cell phone video taken of Ambassador Stevens being pulled from the compound was documentation of a rescue attempt.

    In consideration of the above information, it is clear that this administration is being disingenuous in their continued denials that (1) the attack was spontaneous; (2) a video, virtually unknown until after the 9/11 Libyan attacks, is behind these attacks; (3) they had no advance warning of impending attacks. So, where does this leave us?

    Interview with Steve Klein, video spokesman

    After a 90-minute interview on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report with Steven Klein, the spokesman for the video that can be heard here*, it would appear that there are even more questions than answers with regard to this video.

    * http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/6850

    Mr. Klein stated that he agreed to be a spokesman for the producers of the film after they were forced into hiding by the blowback from the negative publicity, yet denied knowing much about the production or providence of the video. However, he described those who were involved in creating the video as “refugees” who initially approached him, before the video even entered the production phase, with questions about First Amendment issues. He refused to identify the individuals behind the video by name, citing concern for their safety and protection. His rather cavalier attitude, in addition to his claims of not knowing a number of critical details of the production and providence of the video suggests either an incredible level of naivet√© or perhaps something else. Based on my professional investigative assessment, I am compelled to believe the latter.

    Conclusion

    At this point, I have a better grasp of the lies, misinformation and disinformation associated with the video and our government’s exploitation of it than I do solid truths.

    This video appeared to come out of nowhere and seems to have been amateurishly produced. It is so poorly done that many are still unable to determine whether it was created as a parody or if it was a serious attempt at some type of documentary. It is interesting to note that among those who claim they don’t know is Mr. Klein, the current spokesman for the video. This is problematic and troublesome to say the least.

    If my investigative findings are correct, there appear to be some very disconcerting ties between this video and individuals and entities associated with our own government. The official narrative of everyone from Obama to Rice to Obama presidential campaign advisor Robert Gibbs is that this specific video is to blame for the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

    Clearly, their continued assertions in the face of contrary evidence suggests something much larger. The video appears to be serving multiple purposes. It appears to be a multi-faceted catalyst by seemingly opposing parties to advance different agendas. One might be to suppress any criticism of Islam and ultimately restrict our freedom of speech - both religious and political dissent, while the other is to foment chaos in Islamic countries as a means to an end.

    Despite the gradual awakening of people to the larger agendas, both agendas seem to be working. My investigation is continuing.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  16. #56
    Ex-Embassy Security Officer In Libya: "Taliban On Inside Of Building" At State Dept

    Ex-Embassy Security Officer In Libya: "The Taliban Is On The Inside Of The Building" At State Dept




    During a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee: The Former Security Officer for the embassy in Libya says that as far as he was concerned, the Taliban were inside the building (October 10, 2012).
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  17. #57
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...safe-room.html

    As is usual on the UK Daily Mail, there are a lot of photos. Photos of all four men who died. (Rumors are that more than just those four died, btw)

    Hillary Clinton reveals what REALLY led to Benghazi massacre - and demolishes White House claim it was triggered by anti-Islam film

    | UPDATED: 13:34 EST, 10 October 2012

    • Announcement of State Department dissent from rest of Obama administration could help protect Clinton during 2016 presidential run
    • Obama administration originally said assault stemmed from protests against anti-Islam video but then backtracked saying terrorists responsible
    • Officials tell how ambassador Chris Stevens was trapped in safe-room as assailants burnt the compound down
    • AK-47s, grenade attacks, and a smoke-filled safe-room - chilling account of the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens revealed
    • Ambassador's whereabouts after attack not known until officials rang his cell phone - and found doctors trying unsuccessfully to save his life in hospital
    • Most serious attack on U.S. diplomatic compound since al-Qaeda bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 14 years ago



    The State Department has said that it never believed the September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie - directly contracting the rest of the Obama administration.

    By trying to distance her department from the inept and deceptive handling of the Benghazi attack, which left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead, Hillary Clinton could help herself politically for a 2016 presidential run.

    A dramatic new account by the State Department reveals that Stevens was locked inside a 'safe room' choking to death from diesel-heavy smoke as the building around him burned to the ground.

    Alongside him was a security guard, tasked with the impossible choice between staying in the deadly room - or facing the rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns outside.

    Eventually the guard slipped through the window - and was cut down by the grenades.

    No-one saw the ambassador alive again - another agent tried desperately to enter the safe-room, but could not find him anywhere.

    The State Department's insistence it never bought the story - expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations - that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

    State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill's administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

    In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told.

    The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee holds a Wednesday hearing Wednesday on diplomatic security in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    The attack as become a political football in the final weeks before the election.

    The surviving members of the compound have now described the overnight attack, which saw agents trapped in the burning compound before finally speeding away.

    As they drove through the crowd, attackers threw grenades and sprayed their armoured vehicle with gunfire from AK-47 assault rifles from a distance of two feet.

    Meanwhile, the ambassador was locked in a safe-room as the compound filled with flames.

    When the decision was made to escape the diesel-heavy smoke, it was too late, and Stevens never made it out.September 11, 2012, started out as a regular day in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    The site is the size of a football field surrounded by a nine-foot wall topped by barbed wire and other security upgrades.

    Ambassador Stevens arrived in the city the day before, accompanied by a five-person security detail.

    As it was the anniversary of 9/11, the American envoy decided to hold meetings inside the secured compound, fearing possible acts of violence.

    Then, at around 8:30pm that evening, Stevens concluded his final meeting of the day and retired for the night, unaware of what was to come an hour later.

    At 9.40pm, security agents started hearing loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate.

    A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen was burnt down, and a large group of armed men was captured on a security camera flowing into the consulate.

    The alarm was sounded and one agent, armed with a sidearm and an M4 submachine gun, led Stevens and computer specialist Sean Smith to a safe room inside one of the compound's two main residences.

    The room is equipped with a heavy metal grill and several locks, as well as windows that can be opened only from the inside.

    The other security officials armed themselves with long guns, body armor, helmets and ammunition at other buildings.

    Two of them made an attempt to enter the building with Stevens, but were forced to retreat after meeting resistance.

    Attackers eventually managed to enter the building where the ambassador was hiding and attempted to open the door to the safe room, but to no avail.

    Instead, they dumped jerry cans of diesel fuel in the building, lit furniture on fire and set the exterior of the building on fire.

    Two of the remaining four agents barricaded the insides of the compound's other residence, preventing the armed men from entering.

    The protesters then attempted to gain access to the tactical operations center, but were unable to enter the building despite smashing the door.

    Meanwhile, the building that was housing the ambassador rapidly began filling up with thick diesel smoke and fumes from the burning furniture.

    Inside, visibility was less than three feet.

    Unable to breathe, the Americans opened a window in the bathroom, but it proved insufficient to fill the room with fresh air. At that point, a decision was made to leave the building.

    The agent went out first, as is standard procedure, flopping out onto a patio enclosed by sandbags and immediately taking fire, believed to include rocket-propelled grenades.

    Stevens and Smith did not come out, so the third agent, suffering severely from smoke inhalation, went in and out of the building several times to look for them.

    He then climbed to the roof and collapsed, but not before radioing the other agents to alert them.

    The other four agents were able to reunite and take an armored vehicle to Stevens' building.

    They reached the agent on the roof and tried to set up a perimeter. Taking turns enter the building, the agents scoured the premises on their hands and knees for the missing Americans.

    Smith was eventually pulled out dead. Stevens was not found.

    A six-person quick reaction security team arrived from their compound across town accompanied by about 60 Libyan militiamen accompany. They also attempted to secure a perimeter around the building, but determined that they could not hold it.

    Outnumbered by ‘an unbelievable amount of bad guys’ in the compound, the militia fighters told the security team they had to evacuate, according to a State Department official.

    ‘We've got to leave, we can't hold the perimeter,’ the official said the militia told the team.

    After taking fire, a decision was made to evacuate the compound and return with everyone to the reaction force's compound.

    Agents piled into an armored vehicle, with Smith's body in tow, and left through the main gate under fire.

    Crowds and groups of men blocked two different routes to the security compound, creating heavy traffic that slowed down the escaping Americans to about 15mph.

    Traveling a narrow street, they reached a group of men who signaled for them to enter a compound.

    However, the security officials ‘smelled a rat’ and sped away, taking heavy fire from AK-47 machine guns at a distance of only two feet, and hand grenades thrown against and under the car which blew two of the tires.

    They sped past another crowd of men and onto a main street and across a grassy median into opposing traffic. The agents drove against traffic, eventually reaching their compound, where they took more heavy fire for several hours.

    INVESTIGATION: CAUSE OF ATTACK WAS NOT BASED ON FILM PROTESTS

    The State Department says it never concluded that the attack was simply a protest gone awry.

    Meanwhile the investigating committee's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has accused the State Department of turning aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before the attack.

    One scheduled witness, Eric Nordstrom, the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya, told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.

    Department officials were asked about the administration's initial - and since retracted - explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet.

    One official responded 'that was not our conclusion' and called it a question for 'others' to answer, without specifying to whom he was referring.

    The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republican lawmakers have increasingly sharpened their criticism of the administration's initial explanation of the attack.

    They said they never accepted the original explanation.

    It was a top administration diplomatic official, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who gave a series of interviews five days after the attack that wrongly described the attack as spontaneous.

    She said that the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons 'hijacked' the protest against the anti-Islamic video.

    She did qualify her remarks to say that was the best information she had at the time. Rice since has denied trying to mislead Congress.

    A concurrent CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi 'were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo' and 'evolved into a direct assault' on the diplomatic posts by 'extremists'.

    Nordstrom, the former security official in Libya, addressed the diplomatic security issue in an October 1 email to a congressional investigator.

    He said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to 'normalise operations and reduce security resources'.

    A memo on Tuesday by the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff provided details of Nordstrom's interview with the panel's investigators.

    In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.

    He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low.

    He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.

    Nordstrom's October 1 memo to the congressional investigator said: 'You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions.

    'This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012 - the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.

    'Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi.'

    In the night, a team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reached the security compound.

    At around 4am, the compound's building was hit by mortar fire which killed agents Doherty and Woods. One agent who was involved in the attack from the beginning was severely wounded.

    The men then decided to evacuate the city entirely. The following several hours were spent securing the annex and moving a large convoy of vehicles to the airport before they were evacuated on two flights.

    Stevens was not seen by the security team again until his body was delivered to the airport, officials said, and they still do know how he reached the Libyan hospital where attempts were made to treat him for smoke inhalation.

    Officials said that they were informed that Stevens was at the hospital only after doctors found his cell phone and began calling the most recently dialled numbers.


    VIDEO: Clinton reveals what REALLY led to Benghazi Massacre

    (I can't embed the video. It does not have Hitlery in it, just a newsreader quoting an anonymous State Dept person denying that they ever blamed the anti-Muzlim video for the attack. BTW it looks as the 0bastard and Hitlery are trying to throw each other under the bus about Benghazi.)
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  18. #58
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...speed=noscript


    What Happened In Benghazi


    Posted on October 13, 2012 by John Hinderaker

    The State Department has released a transcript of a briefing that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday).

    Transcript:
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/201...QQjpX0.twitter

    I am not certain about this, but I believe the transcript was only made public today. You should read it in its entirety; it is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.

    While this is by no means clear, it appears that the State Department may have released the transcript as part of the escalating conflict between Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In their desperation to avoid responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, Obama and Biden have pointed fingers in two directions: at the intelligence community for reporting incorrectly that the incident was a protest over a YouTube video clip, and at the State Department for not providing adequate security for the Ambassador.

    Here are some excerpts from the narrative:

    A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the [Tactical Operations Center]. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building. …

    They turn around immediately and head back – or the two of them, from Building B, turn around immediately with their kit and head back to Villa C, where the Ambassador and his colleagues are. They encounter a large group of armed men between them and Building C. I should say that the agent in Building C with the Ambassador has radioed that they are all in the safe haven and are fine. The agents that encounter the armed group make a tactical decision to turn around and go back to their Building B and barricade themselves in there. So we have people in three locations right now.

    And I neglected to mention – I should have mentioned from the top that the attackers, when they came through the gate, immediately torched the barracks. It is aflame, the barracks that was occupied by the 17th February Brigade armed host country security team. I should also have mentioned that at the very first moment when the agent in the TOC seized [sic -- apparently should read "sees"] the people flowing through the gate, he immediately hits an alarm, and so there is a loud alarm. He gets on the public address system as well, yelling, “Attack, attack.” Having said that, the agents – the other agents had heard the noise and were already reacting.

    Okay. So we have agents in Building C – or an agent in Building C with the Ambassador and Sean, we have two agents in Building B, and we have two agents in the TOC. All – Building C is – attackers penetrate in Building C. They walk around inside the building into a living area, not the safe haven area. The building is dark. They look through the grill, they see nothing. They try the grill, the locks on the grill; they can’t get through. The agent is, in fact, watching them from the darkness. He has his long gun trained on them and he is ready to shoot if they come any further. They do not go any further.

    They have jerry cans. They have jerry cans full of diesel fuel that they’ve picked up at the entrance when they torched the barracks. They have sprinkled the diesel fuel around. They light the furniture in the living room – this big, puffy, Middle Eastern furniture. They light it all on fire, and they have also lit part of the exterior of the building on fire. At the same time, there are other attackers that have penetrated Building B. The two agents in Building B are barricaded in an inner room there. The attackers circulate in Building B but do not get to the agents and eventually leave.

    A third group of attackers tried to break into the TOC. They pound away at the door, they throw themselves at the door, they kick the door, they really treat it pretty rough; they are unable to get in, and they withdraw. Back in Building C, where the Ambassador is, the building is rapidly filling with smoke. The attackers have exited. The smoke is extremely thick. It’s diesel smoke, and also, obviously, smoke from – fumes from the furniture that’s burning. And the building inside is getting more and more black. The Ambassador and the two others make a decision that it’s getting – it’s starting to get tough to breathe in there, and so they move to another part of the safe haven, a bathroom that has a window. They open the window. The window is, of course, grilled. They open the window trying to get some air in. That doesn’t help. The building is still very thick in smoke. …

    Okay. We’ve got the agent. He’s opening the – he is suffering severely from smoke inhalation at this point. He can barely breathe. He can barely see. He’s got the grill open and he flops out of the window onto a little patio that’s been enclosed by sandbags. He determines that he’s under fire, but he also looks back and sees he doesn’t have his two companions. He goes back in to get them. He can’t find them. He goes in and out several times before smoke overcomes him completely, and he has to stagger up a small ladder to the roof of the building and collapse. He collapses. …

    The agent in the TOC, who is in full gear, opens the door, throws a smoke grenade, which lands between the two buildings, to obscure what he is doing, and he moves to Building B, enters Building B. He un-barricades the two agents that are in there, and the three of them emerge and head for Building C. There are, however, plenty of bad guys and plenty of firing still on the compound, and they decide that the safest way for them to move is to go into an armored vehicle, which is parked right there. They get into the armored vehicle and they drive to Building C.

    They drive to the part of the building where the agent had emerged. He’s on the roof. They make contact with the agent. Two of them set up as best a perimeter as they can, and the third one, third agent, goes into the building. This goes on for many minutes. Goes into the building, into the choking smoke. When that agent can’t proceed, another agent goes in, and so on. And they take turns going into the building on their hands and knees, feeling their way through the building to try to find their two colleagues. They find Sean. They pull him out of the building. He is deceased. They are unable to find the Ambassador. …

    At this point, the quick reaction security team and the Libyans, especially the Libyan forces, are saying, “We cannot stay here. It’s time to leave. We’ve got to leave. We can’t hold the perimeter.” So at that point, they make the decision to evacuate the compound and to head for the annex. The annex is about two kilometers away. My agents pile into an armored vehicle with the body of Sean, and they exit the main gate. …

    [T]hey take fire almost as soon as they emerge from the compound. They go a couple of – they go in one direction toward the annex. They don’t like what they’re seeing ahead of them. There are crowds. There are groups of men. They turn around and go the other direction. They don’t like what they’re seeing in that direction either. They make another u-turn. They’re going at a steady pace. There is traffic in the roads around there. This is in Benghazi, after all. Now, they’re going at a steady pace and they’re trying not to attract too much attention, so they’re going maybe 15 miles an hour down the street.

    They come up to a knot of men in an adjacent compound, and one of the men signals them to turn into that compound. They agents [sic] at that point smell a rat, and they step on it. They have taken some fire already. At this point, they take very heavy fire as they go by this group of men. They take direct fire from AK-47s from about two feet away. The men also throw hand grenades or gelignite bombs under – at the vehicle and under it. At this point, the armored vehicle is extremely heavily impacted, but it’s still holding. There are two flat tires, but they’re still rolling. …

    As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.

    At that point, a decision is made at the annex that they are going to have to evacuate the whole enterprise. And the next hours are spent, one, securing the annex, and then two, moving in a significant and large convoy of vehicles everybody to the airport, where they are evacuated on two flights.
    Barack Obama, meanwhile, was jetting off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

    It was obvious to the reporters on the call that this narrative blows Obama’s evasions sky high:
    First question is from the line of Anne Gearan with the Washington Post. Please go ahead.

    QUESTION: Hi. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unusual outside, on the street, or outside the gates of the main compound. When did the agents inside – what – excuse me, what did the agents inside think was happening when the first group of men gathered there and they first heard those explosions? Did they think it was a protest, or did they think it was something else?

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The agent in the TOC heard the noise, heard the firing. Firing is not unusual in Benghazi at 9:40 at night, but he immediately reacted and looked at his cameras and saw people coming in, hit the alarm. And the rest is as I described it. Does that help?
    This exchange is priceless:
    OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.

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

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.
    So Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video. He is lying, evidently.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  19. #59
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  20. #60
    A week old but very informative. Embedded links to sources, at the site. Diplomad says this about himself:

    Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.

    http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2012...lame-game.html

    Back to Libya and the Blame Game


    Sunday, October 7, 2012

    I am glad that the Congress is taking seriously what happened in Libya. A Congressional investigation, if done right, is really the only way to go as long as Congress does not do just another version of State's own Accountability Review Board (ARB.) State's ARB will take months, and, at best, make some marginal comments on how security should have been better in Libya and how to improve it.

    I won't go over the Benghazi disaster again. I have written a number of posts highly critical of the late Ambassador, State, NSC, CIA, and the White House. "Diplopundit" has a useful timeline of events which shows that the Embassy, the Ambassador included, and the State Department did not take seriously the worsening security situation in Libya. "Diplopundit" also has an interesting post that slams the GOP Congress for slashing the Department's budget and its security budget, in particular. That issue should be examined. Was Congress partly to blame for the lack of security in Benghazi and elsewhere? I will deal with that a bit below.

    There are press reports, and Sean Hannity on FOX has featured these, showing that a low level Post Management Officer denied the Embassy security team continued access to a dedicated aircraft. It is not clear that this email is the smoking gun; it is a smoking cartridge, perhaps, and might serve as one indication of how lax an attitude State had towards security in Libya. Presumably having a dedicated aircraft MIGHT have made a difference in getting people out, if that aircraft had been positioned ahead of time in Benghazi, if there had been a clear path to the aircraft, if there had been sufficient security to guarantee a convoy's safety on the way to the aircraft, if the aircraft's security could have been guaranteed, etc. Lots of "ifs" there, and readers can think of many more--not the least of which is "if" that aircraft was so important, what did the Ambassador say or do in the wake of its being pulled out of Libya? Why in light of State's presumed refusal to back him on security enhancements did he go to Benghazi on 9/11, of all days?

    Other media reports show State disagreeing with recommendations from security experts to beef up security in Libya. Again, this would indicate a generally lax attitude towards security, and, more troubling, and this is the real issue, a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. State seemed to have assigned no greater priority to requests coming out of Libya for additional security than it did to those coming out of, say, Embassy Ottawa. Those were apparently considered part of the "bureaucratic noise" from different offices and programs all wanting more.

    What about the White House? Are reports accurate that the President was briefed on the attack underway, and then went to bed? Did he task SOCOM or AFRICOM to put together a rescue operation? What was the White House reaction? How did the relevant combatant commands respond? What did the NSC do? What did the Pentagon do? What did State do?

    Is Congress to blame for lousy security? The House did deny some funds to State--but then no budget has been passed by the Dem-controlled Senate in years, so it strikes me as odd to blame the Republicans. In addition, I have seen how poorly State presents its case to Congress; how it refuses to make clear priorities, and to say what it will need to do and why if funding requests are not met. It is all a bureaucratic game, and State is not very good at it under Democrats and Republicans.

    State is a notoriously bad manager under Democrats and Republicans. The State Department is a bloated bureaucracy increasingly removed from its core business of foreign policy and defense of US national interests. The bulk, yes, the bulk, of State offices and budgets have little to do with core US interests. One of the biggest programs when I was there involved campaigning against "trafficking in persons." While that sounds very noble, these programs basically consist of giving millions of dollars to foreign and US NGOs to fight "trafficking" by conducting seminars, police training and prosecutor training, and, of course, by constantly expanding the definition of trafficking to include stuff that is not necessarily human trafficking, e.g., all forms of prostitution. These programs require State officials to criss-cross the globe, staying in nice hotels and getting per diem, like some sort of new morality crusaders. The anti-trafficking program has steadily expanded, its offices spilling out of main State and across DC. State's human rights bureaucracy is another bloated scam which revolves around the writing of a massive, unreadable, and, hence, seldom read global human rights report that keeps adding "rights." Another huge chunk of State is devoted to visas and consular affairs. The biggest part of State consists of all the people, offices, and programs to manage and administer all the other people, offices, and programs.

    When it comes to diplomatic security, a great deal of money is wasted and a huge bureaucracy has sprung up to help waste it. There are tons of regulations, forms, waivers, contracting procedures, endless and time-consuming hoops to jump through before any significant security enhancements can be instituted. This leads to all sorts of cheating.

    It seems that the facility in Benghazi was one of those "cheaters." It is not clear what that facility was, and how it was classified. It is not listed as a consulate. Who had primary responsibility for that facility? Was it, as some press reports have indicated, primarily a CIA listening post? Was it something else? As I have noted before,
    The facility in Benghazi was not a regular consulate despite what the press has been saying. It is not clear what exactly that facility was--it does not appear on the Embassy Tripoli website or in the State Department's list of consulates--but appears to have been operated on the bureaucratic sly to enable it to avoid expensive and time-consuming security requirements. The Near East (NEA) head, the Diplomatic Security (DS) head, the Undersecretary for Management (M), the Deputy Secretary (D), and the Secretary of State (S), and, of course, the CIA Director, and the head of the NSC, knew this, or should have, and should be fired--if they did not, they also should all be fired. Any investigation must focus on what functions the facility performed, and what risk assessment had been made; in other words, what were the pros and cons of running this place? Was it worth the risk of operating it under the conditions it did?
    Again, the real issue is that the State Department has increasingly little foreign policy common sense. It recruits people out of the universities who have little experience or common sense, and merely reflect the nonsense passed off as wisdom in grad student or teacher lounges. The State Department rewards people who do not rock the boat, who have a good ear for domestic US trends, and who worry about achieving consensus. You do not often find the thinkers and doers and knowers in the action parts of the State department. You will find some of the smartest people at State working in Intelligence and Research (INR), in fact, their reports tend to be considerably better than those by CIA or DIA; they are virtually ignored, especially if their assessment is at odds with whatever the political fad of the day has become. INR is a career dead-end; doesn't pay to be smart and knowledgeable.

    State has come to believe that foreign policy just involves an exotic locale for carrying out domestic political obsessions. We will liberate women! We will bring democracy to these people! They are just like us but don't know it yet! A piece I wrote last April about developing a post-Obama foreign policy seems relevant for today's discussion,
    [We must realize that] Our Army is the American, not the Salvation Army. No more nation building. That has proven our undoing in Afghanistan. There are places in the world where we will have to go, e.g., Afghanistan, that are nasty pieces of work. They have religions, cultures and political traditions hostile to freedom, equality, PETA, and gay rights. There is little effective we can do about that. We need to pursue our core interests; in the Afghan case, killing the al Qaeda thugs and their supporters, and move on. Bribe some warlords to kill folks who need killing, forget about trying to build democracy and farm-to-market roads, or empowering feminist NGOs. I am always reminded of the scene in the 1974 Luis Buñuel film, The Phantom of Liberty, in which Napoleon's soldiers are gunning down Spanish peasants while shouting "Long live liberty!" and the Spaniards are dying shouting "Down with liberty! Long live the chains!" Freedom might not be for everybody on the time table we would wish.
    Bottom line: Liberal delusions and an administration with no appreciation for US interests or understanding of Islam and its intimate relationships with terrorism came together to produce disaster in Benghazi and across the Muslim world.


    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  21. #61
    It wasn’t an intelligence failure, it wasn’t a communications failure, and it wasn’t a failure in the chain of command. It was a decision making failure before, during and after the attack in Benghazi.

    Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations

    Fri, 12 Oct 2012

    Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt checked in with us again after the revelation that there were multiple listening posts which heard the cries for help from the US Embassy in Libya and none of them did anything. The State Department says they still do not know what really happened in Libya.



    http://audio.wrko.com/a/64657882/col...evelations.htm
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Marysville, WA
    Posts
    1,508
    BeWell, here's one I found today regarding Hillary Clinton's
    unwillingness to be "scapegoated" and thrown under the bus
    over Obama's (Zer0's) Benghazigate.

    Link: http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/20...-feet.html?m=1

    Article:

    SUNDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2012

    The rug beneath Obama's feet

    "I am not going under the bus
    because of Benghazi, Barack!"
    When it comes to Machiavellian, political maneuvering, even the Chicago-trained Barack Obama and team are the rankest of amateurs compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks for a fleeting second that Hillary Clinton is going to fall on her sword for Obama over the Benghazi attack is living in a choom-clouded lala land.

    To recap: At Thursday evening's debate with Rep. Paul Ryan, Vice President Joe Biden said of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that took the lives of four Americans, including our ambassador, on Sept. 11:
    MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that's exactly what we were told —

    MS. RADDATZ: By who?

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That's why there's also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

    MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren't told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That's why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.
    This doesn't exactly throw Hillary under the bus, but it sure opens the door while the bus is moving. The State Department has a large intelligence bureau that focuses closely on security of US displomats, staff and properties overseas. So what Biden basically said was, "Hillary? She never told us nuthin'! If only she had!"

    If President Obama is wondering why the grounds are shifting beneath his feet, he can first read the polls and then take a look at the rug he's standing on - because*Hillary and husband Bill are starting to yank it out.

    Furthermore:
    The State Department has released a transcript of a*briefing that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters*via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday). I am not certain about this, but I believe the transcript was only made public today. You should read it in its entirety; it is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.
    While this is by no means clear, it appears that the State Department may have released the transcript as part of the escalating conflict between Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In their desperation to avoid responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, Obama and Biden have pointed fingers in two directions: at the intelligence community for reporting incorrectly that the incident was a protest over a YouTube video clip, and at the State Department for not providing adequate security for the Ambassador.
    Prediction: If the White House doesn't relent (and I don't think it will), H. Clinton will appear before Rep. Darrell Issa's*House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, officially at Committee request (or even subpoena) but unofficially by her own, back channel request. There, with the convenience of being under oath and thus having no choice, she will effectively go destructo on her putative boss, Barack Obama.

    If her legacy-clearing testimony costs Obama the election, so be it. Hillary Clinton absolutely will not take the fall for Obama on this matter.

    ********
    Heard to watch for intel leaks and feud between Hillary and
    Zer0 culminating in Hillary testifying before Issa. Is this the
    October surprise?

    Ranger

  23. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Between Holy & Crap
    Posts
    77,868
    I put this on the WoW thread, but it should be here too:


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

    19 mins ago from hosted.ap.org by editor

    ------------


    Oct 15, 4:05 PM EDT

    White House mulls how to strike over Libya attack


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ---

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
    So when's the Revolution? God or Money? Choose.

  24. #64
    Heard to watch for intel leaks and feud between Hillary and
    Zer0 culminating in Hillary testifying before Issa. Is this the
    October surprise?
    There is a lot of speculation that the WH/State Dept "allowed" or even engineered the attack, meaning it to become a hostage situation. Then the WH/State could "wheel and deal" and give the evil Blind Sheik to Egypt (or whoever/whatever it is that wants the fiend), save the hostages, and look good while aiding and abetting jihadis.

    It's fun to watch Hitlery and 0bastard fight. Hope to see a lot more of it. They both know so much dirt on each other they could easily destroy each other.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  25. #65
    White House considering retaliatory strike on militant targets over Libya consulate attack - @AP
    Anything 0bastard does will be wrong with wrong motives, no doubt about it. And since the only reason he'd do it is to look good for the election while not aggravating his Muz handlers/funders, he'll likely just pi** everyone off.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  26. #66
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-...-libya-attack/

    Sen. Lindsey Graham Alleges Possible Cover-Up After Libya Attack

    Posted on October 14, 2012

    (TheBlaze/AP) — A senior Republican senator Sunday accused President Barack Obama’s aides of deliberately covering up the details of the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador so voters wouldn’t question Obama’s handling of the war on terror.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a long-time point man for the GOP on national security issues, said he believes the administration knew within 24 hours of the assault that it was a coordinated militia attack and was not tied to other anti-U.S. protests across the Middle East. According to Graham– who is investigating the attack– the administration suggested otherwise so voters wouldn’t think Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East has failed.

    He explained:
    “They’re trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mid-East– the wars are receding and that al-Qaeda has been dismantled. And to admit that our embassy was attacked by al-Qaida operatives, and [in] Libya leading from behind didn’t work, I think undercuts that narrative. They never believed the media would investigate, Congress was out of session, and this caught up with them. I think they’ve been misleading us, but it finally caught up with them.”
    After Bob Schieffer said it was a “very serious charge” for the senator to level, Graham continued:

    “Either they’re misleading the American people, or incredibly incompetent. There was no way with anybody looking at all that you could believe five days after the attack that it was based on a riot that never occurred… This is the same administration that leaks every detail of classified operations that are successful… When something goes bad, they deny, they deceive, and they delay. And the truth is, we’re not safer. Al-Qaeda is alive– Bin Laden may be dead–Al-Qaeda is alive, and they’re counter-attacking throughout the entire region.

    Here is video of the interview:


    (Gotta go to link for video)

    Though many have been voicing similar opinions for weeks, Graham’s allegations are drawing particular attention to what has become a major national security issue for both candidates. The attack on a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi– which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens– has raised questions about whether the State Department denied its embassy staff adequate security, and why the White House was so slow to label the assault a “terrorist attack.”

    But Democrats have shrugged off the allegations.

    “This conspiracy stuff is kind of ridiculous to be honest with you, and I’ve been kind of surprised that they’ve gone to these lengths. But you know that’s what they do,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the incident.

    [They pretend that the word "conspiracy" means "paranoid fantasy" when it really means two or more people who plan to commit a crime or crimes. And don't forget that Cummings is a MOZLEM!]

    The White House declined Sunday to comment on Graham’s comments. However, it has previously been said that officials have simply dispersed information about the attack as it became available.

    Five days after the attack, US. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice described the violence as “spontaneous,” and said the administration believed extremists had “hijacked” an anti-U.S. protest over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also blamed the YouTube video for days, the president even taking the message to the United Nations.

    A CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited initial intelligence that supported the assertion, but during last week’s congressional hearing the State Department said it never concluded that the consulate attack stemmed from protests. Moreover, Graham said Sunday that he was told by intelligence officials in Libya that “within 24 hours they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack.”

    Obama’s senior campaign adviser, David Axelrod, tried to refute allegations on Sunday that Rice or any other administration deliberately tried to mislead the American public.

    “Anyone would have said what she said, because that’s the intelligence we were receiving,” Axelrod insisted.

    [The fact that they're trotting out Axelrod shows their desperation. He is one of the most unattractive personages they can find, and I don't just mean physical appearance.]
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  27. #67
    http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=21263

    Benghazi becoming rerun of “Fast and Furious”


    Oct. 15, 2012

    by Peter Grady –



    Congressman Darrell Issa’s investigation of the events surrounding the Benghazi attack which killed a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans appears to be playing out like a rerun of the Fast and Furious investigation.

    Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, has been conducting a series of events into the attack after the administration issued contradictory statements about the attack, choosing for several days to insist the attack was because of a video that Muslims say mocks Muhammed.

    Administration officials have attempted to place the blame for their statements about the film on intelligence agencies, saying they were the ones who provided the information that terrorism had nothing to do with the attack.

    However, it was revealed that intelligence agencies had video footage the day of the attack indicating it clearly was a terrorist attack. Embassy officials also warned of security concerns in communications sent to Washington officials prior to the attack. Vice-President Joe Biden said the government was not aware of these security concerns.

    Biden’s statement came during the vice-presidential debate which was just a day after Congress heard testimony that embassy officials had in fact expressed their concerns to Washington.

    As the investigation continues, it appears it could end up being like a bad rerun of the Fast and Furious investigation. Fast and Furious was a program begun by the Obama administration to allow illegal guns to be purchased in the U.S. by the Mexican drug cartels and cross the border into Mexico. There was no effort made to ensure the guns could be tracked once they left the country.

    The guns have been used to cause the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry as well as several Mexican nationals. During the investigation, the Obama administration asserted executive privilege in an attempt to prevent Issa’s committee from obtaining the information it needed.

    The obstructions resulted in Attorney General, Eric Holder, being found in contempt of Congress for not honoring a subpoena. During the hearings, Democrats criticized the investigation for being conducted saying it was politically motivated.

    Appearing on Face the Nation Oct. 14, Issa said the hearing was not simply based on why the administration continued to say a video was responsible for the attack long after evidence to the contrary was revealed, but was why the Obama administration ignored security concerns.

    “Everybody who works throughout the Middle East is at risk if we can’t get the security level right,” Issa said.

    Democrats have attempted to blame Republicans for the security lapses, saying they cut the security budget by $300 million. Biden mentioned this figure during last week’s debate.

    However, Issa claims that there is a $2.2 billion discretionary fund available for the State Department to use for security if they needed it. He suggested the issue was not one of money, but of the administration wanting to avoid the appearance of security concerns in the country.

    Issa went on to say this was Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” moment, a reference to a banner placed by sailors on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln behind President George W. Bush when he gave a speech announcing victory in Iraq.

    However, like the Fast and Furious investigations, Democrats are again saying the investigation is solely about politics.

    Appearing after Issa, Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is a member of the Black Congressional Caucus and the leading Democrat on the committee, was asked if there was legitimate concerns to be addressed. Cummings said the FBI should be left alone to do the investigation and Congress should not be looking into the issue.

    Cummings said Congress, “rushed to a hearing” and, “This is not the way to do it. We have an FBI hearing going on.” He went on to say Congress was only conducting the hearing to give Mitt Romney “talking points” to use during the campaign.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  28. #68
    Interesting comparison between the face of the odious Cummings and Issa, who is not giving up on Fast and Furious and now investigating Benghazi. I've said all along that Benghazi is another F and F since weapons are involved. At the very least weapons that were "allowed" to get into the madmen muzzies' hands, and maybe some were illegally funnelled to them as well.

    Comment I read:

    Remember that the CIA who was supposed to get control of the SAMS, chemical weapons and nuclear material during the fall of Gadafi failed to find them...and guess what... one of the SAM’s was used to down the Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan that killed 38 of our best troops...
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gone ...
    Posts
    20,523
    This administration is a disaster on all fronts...
    "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arises not from deficits in the Constitution or Confederation , nor from want of honor and virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." -- John Adams
    "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." -- Lord Acton

  30. #70
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Job hunting in Santo, TX
    Posts
    39,220
    And the Post Turtle is scheduling a Klintonesq cruise missile vs herder tent experience in the next few days.


    GOtta see if the SIL has gotten any interesting lunch phone calls...
    Pineland ain't just NC anymore.

    http://bluemudpatriot.wordpress.com/

  31. #71
    And in the FWIW / YMMV department:

    http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/...nghazi-attack/

    Did Obama stage the Benghazi attack?


    October 15, 2012 By C.O. Jones

    I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is fairly well-connected politically. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling. She said she had received information from someone high up in White House circles, and wanted my thoughts. No, there is no leaked email, no concrete proof, and this article is based on “hearsay.” I’m not one that usually engages in or repeats hearsay, but if this is true, it could be the biggest story in 50 years.

    According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an “October Surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador. Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obama’s strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero. After all, his supposed killing of Osama Bin Laden bounce had long since faded. Thus, sweeping him to victory in November. Imagine the headlines and talking points. The election would be a lock. The Muslim Brotherhood has every reason to want Obama re-elected in November and have an American President sympathetic to their causes. Not to mention an administration filled with Muslim appeasers. Therefore, they agreed to aid in these theatrics. Unfortunately for Ambassador Stevens and three others, the Brotherhood could not control the hired thugs that were to perform the kidnapping and things escalated and four American lives were lost. Panic set in at the White House and with little time to place blame as far away from Obama as they could, they settled on a ridiculous fairy tale about an irrelevant video posted four months prior on YouTube and ran with it. Barack Obama even ran with it after evidence showed he knew better and ran with it all the way to his speech at the U.N.

    So now, they are admitting it was a terrorist attack. They are admitting that the State Department had denied requests for more security from Washington, but nobody told them. Blame anyone but Barack Obama. I’m betting the White House is smirking and perfectly happy to be accused of having a breakdown in communication as opposed to the alternative. This scenario, if true, more than satisfies my common sense gland.

    Comment from Freep:


    This is not merely an internet meme. Pundits from Newt Gingrich to Rudy Giulliani and others are delving into this theory as possible to probable.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Natural State
    Posts
    540
    From Twitter:

    CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk)
    10/15/12, 6:53 PM
    Hillary #Clinton: 'I take responsibility' for what happened in #Benghazi. on.cnn.com/Wr862K
    Psalm 147:11
    The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

  33. #73
    And a great article from Sept 20, I meant to post it but didn't and kind of misplaced it. Well worth reading carefully.

    http://gulagbound.com/33988/weapons-.../#.UHx9MK4lDtw

    WEAPONS HUNTING: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya

    September 20, 2012, 7:33 pm By Denise Simon and Arlen Williams

    by Denise Simon (founderscode.com, @spongedocks) & Arlen Williams (@ArlenWms)
    Libyan al Qaeda ringleader Qumu, hired by Hillary Clinton to overthrow America-cooperative Muammar Qaddafi, in the Obama/Clinton version of the bipartisan-prepared Arab Spring, kills the U.S. field staff engaged in weapons tracking and (one would hope) recovery, on the job in Benghazi, on 9-11-2012
    He and Ambassador Stevens, as well as the two other special operators from Wind Zero, were executing a CIA and State Department mission to track not only Qaddafi’s weapons, but to trace any and all weapons trafficking in the regions. Smith was the information officer at the Benghazi mission and likely was too close to having uncovered intelligence that pinpointed key players both in and outside of Libya. Intelligence was shared with the CIA, which does enforce the drone program, whether inside Libya, stemming from the mission to remove Qaddafi, or in other hot-spots in the Middle East.
    The Soviet occupation in Afghanistan was a long and stalwart war to install a subset of an overall communist footprint in the region. Military and ideological defeat were predictable and the CIA aided in the quest against the Soviets. Part of the original objective of the United States (credited to Zbigniew Brzezinski and adopted by Presidents Carter and Reagan) was to arm key factions to fend off the Soviets.

    This was successful. But, as the full retreat by the Soviets was underway, al Qaeda and the Taliban were soon in full possession of weapons that the United States had provided over the years to the anti-Soviet opposition. And the greater part of weapons inventories were Soviet, including even tanks, amidst quite a full array of conventional weapons left behind in their hasty exit. The Afghanis being resourceful took full advantage and learned to repair, rebuild and clone weapons and ammunition, both.

    This would soon become a major threat to the West. The cure was to dial up big dollars and go on a buy-back mission to get the weapons out of the hands of militants. Everyone in the nation was armed with virtual immunity; no checks and balances of force existed. Mutual failures to contain were nearly locked in. So, at least by the time of the Clinton administration, the U.S. had begun attempts at a buy-back program, to regain weapons sent to Afghanistan.




    Looking over to Libya, Qaddafi during his reign, set on a quest to obtain his own arsenal. It came to include not only millions of weapons, from small arms and rocket propelled grenades, to Russian shoulder fired SA-24 missiles; it also carried a nuclear ambition. Foreign leaders pressed Qaddafi only on the nuclear ambition and there he capitulated, but all other weapons including the MANPADS among its surface to air missiles arsenal, was left out of the process and the arrangements made with him.

    Last year, as the mission was underway to remove Qaddafi from power, a great deal of confusion set in and all armories were raided by unique militias across Libya. All weapons were stolen and taken to destinations unknown. Qaddafi had spent an estimated $30 billion in the span of twenty-five years, on conventional weapons from the USSR and China, via Algeria and even Belarus. Included in this stout purchasing campaign were planes and communications equipment.

    In the realms of arms trafficking, black markets, and jihad, members of these groups know the movement of weapons and maintain a keen eye upon their vulnerability, either to steal or to purchase them at discounted prices. Such was the case during the regime change objective, to remove Qaddafi from power. Libya experienced a huge infiltration of underworld terror groups such as al Qaeda, Boko Harem, pirates from Somalia, and militias, all sneaking into Qaddafi’s inventory. Weapons did leave Libya, but it is unknown just what remained in country. Of particular importance are the 20,000 MANPADS of which today, only 5,000 have been recovered.

    Enter the United States with a large purse of an allocated $40 million, to search for weapons and to buy-back in large numbers, while tracing and tracking the sources and associations of the groups. (To be sure, a few other countries did in fact donate much smaller dollars to support the mission.)

    Transitional fighters and jihadis across the region have no loyalty to a country or flag, but only to their causes. They include AQIM, al Shabaab, AQAP, and Ansar al Sharia, to list only a few. The groups transit borders, from North Africa to Syria, with some number and variations of these weapons from Libya. Since the removal of Qaddafi, Libya has no cohesive government in place and Benghazi is a perfect product of lawlessness and confusion.

    It should also be known and understood that communications between and among the leadership of terror networks is performed on the Internet by means of dynamic chat rooms and similar websites. The most clandestine communications are found on the sites of video games and other computer games. Here, open chatter, instruction, and planning take place under the guise and cover of gaming. Such is the case in the matter of weapons and the terror attacks we are witnessing in the Middle East.

    One of the four Americans murdered in Benghazi was Sean Smith, who was known for his online gaming and social media skills. He and Ambassador Stevens, as well as the two other special operators from Wind Zero, were executing a CIA and State Department mission to track not only Qaddafi’s weapons, but to trace any and all weapons trafficking in the regions. Smith was the information officer at the Benghazi mission and likely was too close to having uncovered intelligence that pinpointed key players both in and outside of Libya. Intelligence was shared with the CIA, which does enforce the drone program, whether inside Libya, stemming from the mission to remove Qaddafi, or in other hot-spots in the Middle East.

    The single Obama regime method of processing the ‘kill list’ is to use drone strikes and having proven intelligence as provided by Sean Smith and the two retired SEALS via Wind Zero connecting the dots of weapons, money, and names, led to the violent event and their deaths in Benghazi. It was never about a video. That pretense was concocted as cover and the State Department, as well as radical Muslims had their hand in disseminating that disinformation.

    Related observations

    Ambassador Stevens spoke Arabic and French. He was a foreign service officer all his life and had spent significant time in Syria. Likely, [edit: along with a sense for serving his country] he was drawn to the mission and to the high salary and benefits for taking this job.

    Very likely, the fact of the homosexual U.S. Ambassador’s presence among the weapons hunting American operatives was icing on the cake.

    As reported in numerous venues, the four murdered Americans were found in an apartment [edit: house] not a recognized consulate, in the Jihadi rich city of Benghazi.

    Al Qaeda in Libya and their ringleader, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, were trying to get rid of Gaddafi for 20 years. Ostensibly, Qumu has health problems and was released from Gitmo to Qaddafi in 2007. But, essentially, he was employed by Hillary Clinton, neck-deep in the instigation of Arab Spring unrest under the shadow-creating umbrella of the U.S. State Department’s “Civil Societies” initiative. See in Gulag Bound, “The Engineers of ‘Leaderless’ Arab Spring & Occupy Wall Street.” See in the New York Times, “Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.” Qumu essentially created or re-created the al Qaeda effort which successfully participated in ousting Qaddafi.

    The Blind Sheikh was and is a major issue of Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood; this was Libya.

    Egypt was a massive protest on 9-11-2012; this was a militia attack of Benghazi operators.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  34. #74
    http://gulagbound.com/34933/the-real...r#.UHx9Hq4lDtw

    Follow-up to: “WEAPONS HUNTING: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya,” by Denise Simon, covering the topics of MANPAD missile recovery and the operative relationship between the Obama administration and Gitmo-released al Qaeda leader in Libya, Bin Qumu.


    The Real Why of Benghazi, part 2


    October 15, 2012, 12:05 pm By Denise Simon

    Get out the PAM cooking spray so nothing sticks to anyone involved in the murders and failed diplomatic operations in Benghazi. Yet, there is no one more responsible than the handful at the White House and the State Department. Remember that oath, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. The date sadly was 9-11 but in this case it was 9-11, #11, an anniversary that historically brought out elevated states of alert and a position of readiness was always invoked, globally.

    Such was not the case at not only Benghazi, but at all U.S. foreign government locations worldwide. This anniversary witnessed a vastly elevated number of major demonstrations at embassy locations on all continents against the United States and NATO partners however the White House and the State Department were in party mode.

    Prior to the 11th anniversary, there was a long trail of detailed threats published for Libya just weeks earlier. In August 2012, intelligence reports spelled out in clear terms, the names and locations of jihadist activities. These came from the counter-terrorism professionals and Intelligence Community (IC) professionals as they provided to critical personnel and decision makers within the Obama administration. What is worse, not one person in this administration asked a pro-active single question framed as, “Is there enough security personnel in any of the diplomatic posts in Libya and should we review the safety of our people there?” This administration has proven a higher concern for a ‘green energy’ agenda, ensuring Chevy Volts were celebrated for the vehicle pool, and yet the U.S. embassy in Barbados even had an SST Marine division on security duty.

    In Benghazi, the United States was the “last flag standing” after many months of assassination attempts, bombings, attacks, and protests since the fall of Qaddafi. All other nations had vacated the area earlier. Perhaps it is prudent for our purposes here to count all the attacks on U.S. embassies or those of our allies in the last several years. We should then question the need to have diplomatic posts in areas of such volatile and proven possibilities. If the need is great as determined by foreign policy stances, then shouldn’t we also question the level of security? When posts in safer places have such large Marine contingents and dangerous places do not, does this not place that foreign policy stance into question?

    Marines currently serve at 148 US embassies and consulates; however Libya wasn’t one of them. The MSGs’ primary mission is to provide internal security services at designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment that is vital to national security of the United States of America. The secondary mission of the MSG is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises/facilities during exigent circumstances that require immediate aid or action. It is important to mention here however, that President Obama has said publicly and mandated throughout this administration that he and all within government will stand on the side of the Muslims.

    As a result the clear conclusion is President Obama as well as the Secretaries of State and Defense would rather eliminate all visible deterrents of protection and security that offend Muslim sensibilities and have in fact done so, sadly, even with the approval of the Joint Chief, General Martin Dempsey.

    In the case of Benghazi, it is an established hotbed of jihad activity even while Qaddafi ruled the nation and even more so after he was captured and killed. Today, Libya is completely unstable and has no real government in place, certainly not one that can be embraced by any Western culture or leadership, except that of the Obama administration. Since the fall of Qaddafi, the United States had several clandestine objectives underway as posted by SUA here on September 20th. As a follow up to that article, the work by covert contractors and the CIA in Libya, is now wasted and remains not only unfinished but, all of the weapons and terror factions now go unchecked while unknown quantities of Qaddafi’s weapons are making their way to even Syria today.

    Yes, all of Libya is dangerous, but it begs the question on how CNN was able to keep journalists safe even in Benghazi as the US FBI was having trouble gaining access. So the examination remains, why the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, an information officer, the two former SEALs, the RSO’s and the FBI were so unprotected and felt unsafe and called many times for more armed security. Could it be that the administration placed its faith in a set of Islamist networks to protect and defend our national security and sovereignty in Libya or other countries where there are continued attacks and killings against the West?

    With these questions in mind, let’s look at some of the people in and around Libya that our State Department approved for interaction, security, and partners in country.

    Mohamed Yousef el Magariaf is a Libyan politician who has been President of the General National Congress of Libya since August 2012. He was the first leader of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which was created in the early 1980?s and was funded by the CIA and a Saudi financed group. The mission was to either remove and/or assassinate Qaddafi but it failed.

    Qaddafi put out orders to kill el Magariaf, but he escaped to the United States and spent thirty years in exile here. el Magariaf is a member and fellow at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Curious that Wales is the home base for Blue Mountain, the security contractor for the Benghazi mission.

    Fawzi Bukatef was head of the “February 17th Brigade” along with Rafallah al Sahati’s Ismail al Salabi and they were later replaced by Magarief along with other Colonels. al Salabi also heads a group of Islamists fighters. Magarief early on supported the militias and in September of this year, ordered them to leave the state, which were at one point under state control.

    Fawzi Bukatef was/is head of the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the U.S. State Department put its reliance on him to provide protection at the diplomatic post in Benghazi. Bukatef himself received one of the desperate calls for help during the 9-11 terror attack, but Bukatef told his fighters to stand down. Additionally, the “February 17th Brigade” is also assigned to Libyan border protection.

    Blue Mountain is a security firm out of Wales, UK that was formed by former British SAS members. Blue Mountain is a Private Military Company that is hired mostly to escort businessmen and diplomats including even those that belong to the IMF, that may travel to Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq, etc. The U.S. State Department signed a contract with Blue Mountain an estimated 4 months before the attack in Benghazi for $380,000 for moderate security and transportation services. Employees at Blue Mountain were paid less than $5.00 an hour. The contract did include an option for expansion with a financial cap of $780,000 but it is important to know that the contract was a ‘no bullet’ contract, which is to say there are they as unarmed sentinels.

    Mahmoud Jibril was the Justice Minister under the Qaddafi regime and defected during the revolution. He was also the chairman of the National Transitional Council transferring authority to Mohammed Ali Salim after failing to ensure to make all Islamist and rebels a cohesive unit and to establish a new parliament. Hillary Clinton approved his early agenda. During this time the Red Cross had been attacked five times and soon left the country. Jabril too left Libya and found his way to the United States and became a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, in a think tank paid for by Qaddafi’s son Saif al Islam. He is a high proponent of ‘Sharia’ law.

    Omar Abdul Rahman Brigade took responsibility for the previous attacks on the Red Cross office in Benghazi. Rahman, better known to the Intelligence community as the Blind Sheik, now in a U.S. imprison for the 1993 WTC bombing, and the al Qaeda faction(s) in Libya operate on his behalf. The Rahman Brigade likely has more than one name or associates with splinter groups that have connections to the targeted attempt to kill the British Ambassador on June 11 of this year. Up to this point, there are countless terror threats and bombing events that as a collective demonstrate that not only Benghazi but all of Libya is a lawless nation of full anti-West terror networks. It is unconscionable that the Obama administration can deny knowledge of actionable intelligence in Libya further adding gasoline to the fire that soon killed four Americans.

    The full timeline of what led to the murders in Benghazi can be read here. We are fed a new fabricated story each day from top personnel in this administration about what happened and who is, or rather who is not responsible for the deaths of four Americans. In the end, there is no mistake, the intelligence community was well aware of the events that led to 9-11 – #11. Each day, Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB) are provided to top security advisers and Cabinet personnel in the White House, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the Ambassador to the United Nations. Sadly, no one bothered to embrace or analyze the threats including the President and Vice President himself.

    Has anyone actually challenged Hillary Clinton or the members of the White House National Security Council or Valerie Jarrett? No one bothered to ask questions but mostly, no one bothered to order increased security to all diplomatic posts of the United States across the most threatened regions globally. If for nothing else, President Carter blew it on his agenda regarding Iran which led the embassy in Tehran to be attacked in 1979. Let it be said however, Carter did not ignore the threat or the captive Americans, he thought of nothing else and in the end they were rescued with the assistance of Canada and eventually released after 444 days, pathetically this is not the case with President Obama and the State Department.

    There is no denial that intelligence was provided and what is worse, since the United States has had operational drones in Libya, where one such drone recorded and flashed all events into the CIA and the NSC. These video and intelligence points totally negate the story that a pathetic YouTube video was the cause. This was a lie that was fabricated by the entire Obama administration to cover what, creepy new friends and allies?

    What is more, there is a video feed that is monitored full time of events inside all embassies and the post in Benghazi was no exception. Hence there are two sets of audio/video feeds that prove blood is on the hand of countless members of the Obama administration for the deaths of four Americans. The words in the oath have escaped all involved and each should be held in contempt of murder, accessories of four Americans. One should also ask, what happened to the employees working at the Benghazi compound that were on the payroll of Blue Mountain?

    Not only did the United States not consider the loyalties of who would take control of Libya and a post Qaddafi government that would be in the best interest of the West as well as stabilizing some part of the Middle East, we can now legitimately claim that Libya is a failed state and will soon be under the full control of the Muslim Brotherhood and/or al Qaeda. One cannot dismiss the riches to be gained for the Muslim Brotherhood from Libyan oil. During this administration, we witnessed the fall of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen is feeble at best and Jordan is much the same. North Africa has come under a siege by Iran of this there is no doubt. This also begs the question perhaps that due to the sensitivities of Obama to Islam was this in fact part of the taller objective? More still, is this part of an appeasement request to the Muslim Brotherhood which has also made large gains in Syria in addition to other Gulf States? We can say that the Mullahs and other tribal militia factions win yet another country without even firing a single shot. This too may explain why the Obama administration assigned Thomas Pickering, an Iranian lobbyist to investigate this terror event.

    Obama has been soft on Iran and their nuclear program, so it no shock that assigning Pickering to the Benghazi case delivers a silent win to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We cannot just yet tie Iran into the Libya/Benghazi affair at this juncture; however we would be remiss not to include Iran in the whole equation. This failed foreign policy approved by all the Obama placeholders puts even more focus on Syria still, as this administration and their detached and deferred policy for Syria has been out-sourced to the United Nations. Expect Syria to fall the way of other ‘Arab Spring’ countries – an event that will trump previous conflicts.

    The work of the CIA, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the FBI and all associated agencies are angered by the blame and worse by the loss of work opportunities due to this administration. There should also be a State Department warning to all U.S. personnel that work in locations around the world that your government has no intentions to ensure your full protection and safety, certainly so if you are in a country where Sunni’s, Shi’ites or other radical Islamists prevail. It would be prudent to look deeply at security contracts and video feeds for any voids in your personal safety.

    In closing, while drafting this researched piece, a stellar thinker and policy intellect, Andrew McCarthy wrote his own summation at nationalreview.com on Benghazi. In what appears to have some of the very same target points with this article both summaries echo many same conclusions while one is directed at the fallout of Benghazi and the other provides a deeper look and likely a hidden agenda for what the Middle East will look like at the end of four more years under Obama. Here is a handshake to McCarthy; it is gratifying to know we concur on several key points.


    Denise Simon is Senior Research Analyst on Domestic and Foreign Policy for Stand Up America; also 3rd Officer for Watchmen of America, Public Affairs Officer, and an Intel Officer for Watchmen of Florida. Denise is a member of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals and is a First Observer, in addition to an executive career in national and international telecommunications, and non-profit organization.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  35. #75
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/cli...azi/index.html

    Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security

    updated 11:11 PM EDT, Mon October 15, 2012


    Lima, Peru (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

    "I take responsibility," Clinton said during a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

    But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

    "I take this very personally," Clinton said. "So we're going to get to the bottom of it, and then we're going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we're going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice."


    The attack took place in the eastern Libyan city that was the cradle of that country's 2011 revolution. Obama administration officials initially blamed a mob inflamed by a U.S.-produced movie that mocked Islam and its Prophet Mohammed, but later said the storming of the consulate appears to have been a terrorist attack.

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

    "In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there's always going to be confusion," Clinton said. "And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, that information has changed. We've gotten more detail, but that's not surprising. That always happens."

    She added, "What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game."

    "I know that we're very close to an election," Clinton said. "I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I've done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents."

    Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.

    Clinton's statement of responsibility was "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever," the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

    Stevens, State Department computer expert Sean Smith and security contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died in the Benghazi assault, which State Department officials now say was the work of dozens of armed men.

    Clinton also described a desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack, as staff tried to find out what had happened.

    "This was a many-hour ordeal that we were all involved in, and I was deeply concerned as you would obviously assume, to hear about an attack," she said. Not only was the picture coming out of Libya murky, but also, "Then we couldn't find Ambassador Stevens, and we were trying desperately to figure out what happened to him and to Sean Smith and to the others who were there."

    Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, and also to ensure the work of American diplomats won't be stopped even in dangerous areas like Benghazi.

    "We can't retreat. We have to continue to lead. We have to be engaged," she said. "We can't hang out behind walls." She said Stevens, who came to Benghazi on a cargo ship to start building ties with rebel leaders during last year's revolt, "knew that more than anybody."

    [My comment: basically she's also saying that 0bastard doesn't know what the aitch is going on in foreign policy. IMHO she wants 0bastard to look bad. She and her evil husband do not like 0bastard.]


    http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id=


    STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE ON SECRETARY CLINTON’S COMMENTS THIS EVENING ON BENGHAZI ATTACK


    October 15, 2012


    Washington, D.C. *– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following statement on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments this evening regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

    “We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

    “However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

    “Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  36. #76
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/1...-to-attack-it/

    Reuters: State Dep’t suspected in April that Libyan guards at Benghazi consulate had tried to attack it


    posted at 8:01 pm on October 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

    Time for your daily reminder that State didn’t merely stick Chris Stevens with “average” security despite him living and working in one of the jihadi-est places on earth. The security they provided him was actively, inexplicably, inexcusably bad. And before you read any further, let me remind you that the ominous chat-room message posted by Sean Smith the day he died about a Libyan guard taking photos of the compound still hasn’t been addressed by anyone in the government that I’ve seen. Did Stevens’s security break down to the point that his killers actually had someone on the inside?

    More red flags from Reuters:
    State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by Reuters…

    The April attack illustrated concerns among some U.S. officials in Libya that hiring local residents for embassy guard duties could in itself raise security issues.

    The emails identified one of the suspects in that incident as a former employee of Blue Mountain Group who had been fired four days earlier for vandalism, and said the other was still working for the company. Both were unarmed guards who performed routine security tasks, such as screening visitors.
    Both suspects were ultimately released after being interrogated by the local “police,” a.k.a. the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which was partly responsible for providing security for the consulate and whose members were last seen hiding on the roof during the attack because they weren’t ready for it. No word on whether either of them was still working for Blue Mountain on 9/11, but that brings us to another unanswered question. Why did State hire Blue Mountain, an inexperienced firm, in the first place?
    Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city.

    “We have visited the consulate in Benghazi a number of times and have an excellent relationship with the Americans. Our assessment was the unarmed Libyan guards were extremely poor calibre,” said one security source. “The Libyan Ministry of Interior are generally not happy with Blue Mountain and had them on their close observation/target list.”

    The New York Times last week reported that major security firms with a track record of guarding US premises elsewhere had made approaches to undertake work in Libya but were rebuffed.

    “We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened,” a security firm official told the newspaper.
    Blue Mountain had six employees on the scene, five Libyans and one British supervisor recruited from “the celebrity bodyguard circuit.” Security was sufficiently weak that BM’s local affiliate, Blue Mountain Libya, complained to its parent company this past summer that the resources they were being given weren’t enough. State was asked to intervene in the dispute between the two — but chose to do nothing. So it came to be that the U.S. ambassador ended up on 9/11 at a consulate that was vulnerable even according to its own security detail, and which State had had ample opportunity to fortify. Meanwhile, on the same day, the U.S. embassy in Barbados enjoyed protection from a detail of Marines. “Smart power,” 2012.

    Just as O’s interest in an “easy” intervention in Libya made a difficult intervention in Syria more difficult, State’s decision to half-ass security for the Benghazi consulate has created a new, bigger security headache for the White House in Libya. Namely, how hard do they hit the local jihadis in reprisal? The Libyan government doesn’t want to approve an attack lest it be seen as a U.S. stooge at a moment when it’s trying to build legitimacy, and the U.S. doesn’t want to raise the profile of a group like Ansar al-Sharia by making it the Great Satan’s new enemy number one. There is a compromise solution, but of course it’s not ready yet. If only State had thought of this before letting a smile be Chris Steven’s umbrella against the mujahedeen.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  37. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Between Holy & Crap
    Posts
    77,868
    For Benghazi diplomatic security, US relied on small British firm - @Reuters

    28 mins ago from www.reuters.com by editor

    ----------

    Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:52pm EDT

    (Reuters) - The State Department's decision to hire Blue Mountain Group to guard the ill-fated U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, entrusted security tasks to a little-known British company instead of the large firms it usually uses in overseas danger zones.

    The contract was largely based on expediency, U.S. officials have said, since no one knew how long the temporary mission would remain in the Libyan city. The cradle of last year's uprising that ended Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, Benghazi has been plagued by rising violence in recent months.

    Security practices at the diplomatic compound, where Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns, have come under U.S. government scrutiny in the wake of the September 11 attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    Federal contract data shows that the Benghazi security contract, worth up to $783,284, was listed as a "miscellaneous" award, not as part of the large master State Department contract that covers protection for overseas embassies.

    "Blue Mountain was virtually unknown to the circles that studied private security contractors working for the United States, before the events in Benghazi," said Charles Tiefer, a commissioner at the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which studied U.S. contracting in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

    Several British government sources said that they were unfamiliar with Blue Mountain, which is based in Wales. They said British authorities used a different contractor for security protection in Libya.

    Fred Burton, vice president of intelligence at the Stratfor consulting firm and a former U.S. diplomatic security agent, said he did not know Blue Mountain, but it likely got State Department work because it was already working in Libya.

    "They may have been the path of least resistance," he said.

    Blue Mountain was able to work in Libya because it forged a business alliance with a local security firm, as required by Libyan regulations.

    Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer for the U.S. Embassy in Libya, testified at a congressional hearing last week that contracting out for security in the eastern Libyan city "was largely based on our concern of how long we would be in Benghazi. We were concerned that if we retained or brought on board full-time employees we would have to then find a position for them if that post ever went away."

    In describing the challenges of hiring private security at Benghazi, he added: "It's my understanding that there was a very high turnover with those people."

    GUARDS OF BENGHAZI

    Blue Mountain hired about 20 Libyan men - including some who say they had minimal training - to screen visitors and help patrol the mission at Benghazi, according to Reuters interviews.

    Some of the guards sustained injuries and said they were ill-prepared to protect themselves or others when heavily armed militants last month stormed the rented villa that was serving as the mission.

    They also described being hired by Blue Mountain after a casual recruiting and screening process.

    State Department security officials had their own concerns about some of the guards at the mission months before the recent attack, according to emails obtained by Reuters this week. One guard who had been recently fired and another on the company's payroll were suspected of throwing a homemade bomb into the U.S. compound in April. They were questioned but not charged.

    The State Department has declined to comment on the company other than confirming it was the contractor in Benghazi. Blue Mountain did not respond to numerous emails and phone calls, and a person answering the phone at its office in Carmarthen, Wales, said the company would not discuss the issue.

    Previously known as Pilgrim Elite, Blue Mountain says on its website that it offers security services and professional training and has operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

    The website once listed General Motors as a client, and a GM spokeswoman in Detroit told Reuters that Blue Mountain's work for the company was "on a very limited basis and mostly in the UK."

    A Blue Mountain recruiter posted a notice on a security website in 2011 seeking employees with visas to work in Libya.

    The State Department contract for "local guard" services in Benghazi took effect in March 2012. Several of Blue Mountain's Libyan employees told Reuters that they had no prior security training or experience.

    "I was never a revolutionary or a fighter, I have never picked up a weapon during the war or after it," said Abdelaziz al-Majbiri, 28, who was shot in the legs during the September 11 assault.

    The Libyan commander in charge of the local guards at the mission was a former English teacher who said he heard about Blue Mountain from a neighbor. "I don't have a background in security, I've never held a gun in my life," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

    When hired, the commander said he was told "you have great English and get along with everyone and are punctual; we want you to be a guard commander."

    The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters.

    He also displayed a medal embossed with "Department of State" and a horseman carrying Libyan and U.S. flags. "They thanked us for our help and also gave us this medal as an appreciation," he said.

    Despite their inexperience, the Blue Mountain guards said they feared the Americans were not concerned enough about security.

    "We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

    'DOWN IN THE WEEDS'

    Tiefer, who is also a government contracting law professor at the University of Baltimore, said the Benghazi contract paled in comparison to other State Department security awards.

    "This is down in the weeds," he said in a telephone interview.

    Most State Department work goes to eight large private security firms with vast experience.

    In the late summer of 2011, after Libyan rebels took control of Tripoli, Blue Mountain guards were seen working security at the Corinthia Hotel and its sister Palm City residential compound in the Libyan capital.

    A United Press International report indicated that Blue Mountain and its local partner, Eclipse, also were competing for contracts guarding oil fields.

    Blue Mountain and Eclipse parted ways in the spring over problems with Tripoli contracts, several sources familiar with the matter said.

    The severed relationship may have prevented Blue Mountain from getting additional work in Libya, which required the local affiliation.

    On a social network website earlier this year, a Blue Mountain official described the firm as "one of the few companies certified and legally allowed to work in Libya."

    Blue Mountain Chief Executive Officer Nigel Thomas, a former British special forces member, did not respond to emails or phone calls.

    NO EASY TASK

    Setting up security in Libya after the anti-Gaddafi revolution was not easy, documents show.

    In a July 9 memo approved by the late ambassador Stevens, regional security officer Nordstrom said his office hoped to shore up defenses at U.S. compounds in Libya and would consider partial arming of some local guard supervisors, without being more specific.

    But Nordstrom described difficulties getting local gun permits, noting it could take up to 60 days for "selection, training, equipping, policy approvals and deployment" of armed guards.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...&dlvrit=286409
    So when's the Revolution? God or Money? Choose.

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,839
    This one is sufficiently important that it should have its own thread, but am posting it here first for feedback.

    Published: Oct. 15, 2012 Updated: 7:23 a.m.

    Deroy Murdock: Benghazi's inconvenient truths

    n anonymous State Department official told the Associated Press recently: "That was not our conclusion" – namely that a notorious YouTube video that lampooned the Islamic prophet Mohammed unleashed deadly mayhem upon America's consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    This denial should shock anyone who watched the news after U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were murdered on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11.


    That anti-Islamic video's culpability certainly was the "conclusion" among top administration officials, including President Barack Obama. They fingered this video for eight days, even as evidence mounted that these Americans were slain in a commando-style operation that involved machine guns and mortar shells, not banners and placards.

    As Fox News Channel's Bret Baier and Bill O'Reilly each detailed last week, Team Obama energetically promoted this now-repudiated "conclusion."

    Sept. 11: Despite anti-video demonstrations in Cairo, Benghazi is tranquil. According to U.S. diplomats, "everything is calm. There's nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside. No protests all day."

    At 9:40 p.m. local time, however, gunfire and explosions rock the consulate.

    Sept. 12: As these homicides become clear, Obama says, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None." Obama then skips his daily intelligence briefing and jets to a Las Vegas fundraiser.

    Sept. 13: "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares. "We absolutely reject its content and message."

    Sept. 14: "The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announces.

    That day, as the murdered Americans' remains reach Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton says: "We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."

    Sept. 16: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice calls the violence "a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video."

    Sept. 18: Obama tells comedian David Letterman that he rejects the "extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam." Obama adds that "extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya."

    Sept. 19: Team Obama abruptly changes tunes. National Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen informs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, "I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

    Why would Team Obama essentially accuse a video of these murders, even as Lt. Col. Andrew Wood – leader of a 16-man, dedicated military unit withdrawn from Libya last August – called the hit "instantly recognizable" as terrorism?

    During Obama's difficult campaign, that fantasy was far more palatable than this reality: a pre-meditated, well-executed al-Qaida strike on a U.S. mission eradicated four Americans, even after they longed for the security assistance that might have prevented them from coming home in caskets.

    Amb. Stevens warned Washington that Libya "remains unpredictable, volatile, and violent."

    Eric Nordstrom, a former U.S. security officer in Libya, told the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Wednesday that State documented 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. Nordstrom consequently requested 12 more security personnel.

    "You're asking for the sun, moon and the stars," a regional director complained. Nordstrom concluded that "we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident." He wondered, "How thin does the ice need to get until someone falls through?"

    These inconvenient truths would have obviated Team Obama's "bin Laden is dead/al Qaida is comatose" re-election theme. Thus, the same government that apparently leaks secrets to make the president look tough evidently oozed falsehoods to keep him from looking weak.

    In short: People died, Obama lied.


    photo of the reporter of this story in the Orange county Register

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ob...ideo-sept.html
    "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see."
    — Ayn Rand

  39. #79
    The security guards hired by Blue Mountain were not allowed to have weapons. I read some place that Blue Mountain in England usually does "celebrity" guarding.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

  40. #80
    Cross posting this article, thanks Intestinal Fortitude


    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/..._waterloo.html

    October 18, 2012

    Benghazi: Emperor Obama's Waterloo?

    By Daren Jonescu

    It is now obvious that the U.S. government's original story about the Benghazi consulate attack, delivered by its two heaviest hitters, the president and secretary of state, was false, and, more importantly, that it was intended to deceive. How can Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton outrun the scandal that now chases them, a scandal that makes Watergate look like cheating at tiddlywinks? As if "Fast and Furious" weren't enough, the administration now gives America "Slow and Spurious."

    On the morning of September 12, Obama and Clinton gave a joint statement that every sentient being could immediately recognize as a pack of lies, delivered (particularly on Obama's part) with the conviction and intonation of a child actor doing a first read-through of a new script. The president could not have projected less seriousness about the murder of his Libyan ambassador if he had delivered his speech wearing a propeller beanie. (Of course, as we learned during the vice-presidential debate, someone else has dibs on that cap on weekdays.)

    Though vague about details, Obama and Clinton were clear, unequivocal and emphatic about a few key points during that official statement: (1) this assault on the Libyan consulate was an expression of understandable anger in the Arab world about a YouTube video mocking Muhammad; (2) the American government will not tolerate any intolerance toward Islam; and (3) violence - even as an expression of understandable anger over "disgusting" and "offensive" YouTube videos - never solves anything.

    The administration, through its various mouthpieces, continued to emphasize these three points over the days and weeks following the Libyan consulate assassination/movie review. As time passed, however, and various truth missiles from beyond Washington's reach found their way through Obama's media defenses and into the American mainstream, the fissures in the government's official story became increasingly inescapable, even to those who had desperately hoped to help Obama escape them.

    Obama himself, in his Univision town hall interview on September 21, fell back on his original script, connecting the attack to a "natural protest" ("natural"?) about a video, days after his own administration had begun to pull away from this script in the face of ridicule and exposure. So indefensible has this grand lie become that Martha Raddatz, though thoroughly devoted to the task of holding Joe Biden's hand through his debate with Paul Ryan, was forced to begin the evening with a carefully worded question about the lie:
    The State Department has now made clear there were no protesters there. It was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?
    Biden's response, naturally, ignored the thrust of the question, repeating the usual talking points about "the ongoing investigation" before quickly moving on to praise the broader Obama foreign policy.

    But the phrasing of Raddatz's question is itself part of the issue. Much like George Stephanopoulos' famous question to Obama regarding his relationship with Bill Ayers, it was designed and framed, not to discover anything, but to give the Democrat a chance to answer an unavoidable charge, and then move on.

    Notice that the question was not, "Why did Obama and his surrogates run immediately to the media, to the American public, and to the UN, to blame a YouTube video and downplay any talk of a planned terrorist attack, when this was in fact an Al-Qaeda operation with no connection whatsoever to any video?"

    "Intelligence failure" is a cute way of deflecting blame from the administration itself. "Failure" suggests error and ignorance, rather than dishonesty and duplicity. Blaming the "intelligence" is a clever attempt to produce some "fog of history" around the initial moments of this story, in the hope that the public will accept the inaccuracy of the administration's official narrative as an honest mistake.

    But the primary scandal here, masked by the establishment media's new "intelligence failure" trope, is not that an assault on the Libyan consulate occurred "without warning" -- there was warning -- but rather that the government knowingly and repeatedly lied about the attack's cause and meaning.

    Candy Crowley's unconscionable intervention into the second presidential debate, falsely affirming that President Obama attributed the Benghazi attack to pre-meditated terror in his September 12 Rose Garden address, has merely served to keep in the public eye the trail of deception and misdirection as the administrations scrambles to reconcile its multiple conflicting stories about the terror attack.

    Do a quick internet search about the Arab protests over the YouTube video. You will find that every story is dated September 11 or later. No one was talking about this video at all prior to that time frame. How did it become the administration's convenient "root cause" cover story in the hours after the Benghazi attack? And why were they so quick and unequivocal in embracing a storyline which, as we now know, was completely unsupported by any facts?

    The video -- a purported "trailer" for an alleged film -- was posted on YouTube in July. No one saw it or cared, until, on September 8, Sheikh Khaled Abdullah, a host on the Egyptian Islamist TV station Al-Nas, played an excerpt from it on the air. (Note: Al-Nas altered the video, blurring out a female character, because they do not allow women to be seen on the air.)

    Three days later, which just happened to be September 11 ("don't jump to conclusions," the White House warned), a larger than usual group of "protesters" swarmed the American embassy in Cairo. As Ian Lee, the CNN reporter on the scene, noted during his live report from Cairo that day, this was "not the usual crowd that we see at most protests," but rather "definitely a very Islamic-looking crowd -- we see a lot of men in their traditional garb."

    Members of this "very Islamic-looking crowd" tore down the embassy's American flag and replaced it with a black al-Qaeda flag.

    Then, within hours, came the "intelligence failure" in Libya, in which hundreds of armed movie critics, knowing exactly where to look, attacked both the U.S. consulate and an alternate safe-house location, killing the ambassador and three of his protectors -- protectors who, as Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wood reveals, were woefully undermanned and ill-armed, due to the administration's explicit refusal to provide requested reinforcement, and the State Department's explicit demand to stop asking for reinforcement.

    By September 12, mainstream media sources from everywhere but the United States were reporting on this attack as an al-Qaeda plot carried out behind the thin cover of "ordinary protesters." These media sources were relying on statements from members of the Libyan government, reports from witnesses on the scene, and even statements from "U.S. officials."

    For example, Reuters, while spouting Obama's official line, also neglected, in the confusion of those early hours, to delete the actual reporting that had slipped into its original story:
    U.S. government officials said the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance and there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia -- which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law -- may have been involved.
    They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.

    Ansar al-Sharia has been identified as the name of a variety of al-Qaeda front groups. Within hours of the attack, while many of the details remained understandably confused, and while the White House was preparing its official position -- to paraphrase, "we despise our deplorable infidels as much as you do, so please stop killing our ambassadors" -- the BBC was reporting eye-witness accounts of Ansar al-Sharia's involvement.

    On September 11, the Daily Telegraph described al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's message, issued on September 10, calling for jihadists to "puncture" America's arrogance in revenge for the death of Libyan al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi. The next day, following the murder of Ambassador Stevens, the Telegraph observed, pointedly, that (a) Zawahiri's message of September 10 was too late to have provoked such a carefully planned and successfully staged attack, and (b) the calls for protests against the video seemed to have fallen on deaf ears in Libya, as no protest took place in the capital, Tripoli, where the actual U.S. embassy is located.

    The efforts, in the days immediately preceding September 11, of a hard line Egyptian Islamist broadcaster, along with the official head of al-Qaeda, to drum up protests and anger against the evil empire, in conjunction with the well-orchestrated attack in Benghazi on the very day those protests were to be staged, suggests more than an opportunistic connection between the two. Rather, it seems plausible that Islamists were attempting to stoke general public protests as a smokescreen for their assault team(s), or perhaps that they hoped, having drawn a crowd, to commandeer the assembled mob in order to swell their jihadist numbers, in a well-known strategy of militant revolutionary groups worldwide. (This technique was attempted by the Weather Underground, for example, during Chicago's Days of Rage in 1969.)

    The key to this Slow and Spurious scandal, however, is that all of this information -- Libyan officials' descriptions of a planned attack, eye-witness accounts of armed Ansar al-Sharia militants approaching the consulate, the direct involvement of al-Qaeda's leader in calling for revenge for the death of a Libyan commander, repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens and his security team for more resources, and, obviously, the fact that this was the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 -- was readily accessible to the entire world on September 12. And yet on that same day Obama and Clinton, who would have had access to all of this information and more, issued their joint statement explicitly blaming the whole thing on a cheap video exhibiting disrespect for Islam, a narrative the administration and its media enablers attempted to cling to for weeks, while the rest of the world -- along with Americans who seek their information beyond the bubble of the American legacy media -- was learning more and more about the horrors and indignities of the ambassador's murder, and the extent of the planning and security breaches that made it possible. (More on this latter issue from James Lewis at American Thinker.)

    Hundreds of armed men carried out a carefully planned attack in a public place. Many witnesses described the events. U.S. and Libyan personnel who were at the scene, and survived, were already being debriefed on the attack.

    The real question is not, "Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure?" The administration's new template of "intelligence failure" is just a convenient and untenable diversion from the central issue.

    Rather, the real questions are: Why did the president and the secretary of state try to hide the facts about this attack, facts that were being reported by mainstream media sources in Europe and Canada from day one? Why did they try to deny that this was a planned al-Qaeda operation? Why did they repeatedly recite and disseminate the script about a "deplorable" video, and their disavowal of "religious intolerance," when they knew that Ambassador Stevens' death had nothing to do with any video, or any slight against Islam? Why did the world have to suffer through weeks of conflicting and contradictory tales from the administration, as they tripped all over each other trying to conceal their own obfuscations?

    Current events reveal the complete and tragic disaster of Obama's Middle East policy of combining appeasement, apology, and empathy for Islamists with showy targeted attacks on individual terrorists. This policy has turned most of the region into civilization jihad's playground, and signaled open season on representatives of the self-emasculated Great Satan. The Bush policy may have been foolish. The Obama policy is suicidal.

    The coordinated and concerted effort to conceal the relevant facts about the Libyan attack is merely the final and most egregious lie in the continuing cover-up of the realities of Arab Spring, and the Obama administration's complicity in this reality. And this cover-up is, in turn, just one facet of the sparkling jewel of subterfuge, concealment, and untruth that is the Obama presidency.

    Will the Benghazi cover-up become Obama's Waterloo? If so, then it is fitting that in this Battle of Waterloo, the role of the Duke of Wellington, the emperor's nemesis, will be played by Truth itself, which, as Shakespeare wrote, will out.
    Asato Ma Sad Gamaya
    Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya

    Leave illusion, come to the Truth
    Leave the darkness, come to the Light

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.