Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Princess L on October 31, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
-
Today, four senators issued a letter to President Obama, demanding that Obama and his staff answer questions about the Benghazi attacks that resulted in the death of an American ambassador and three other Americans. The letter was also sent to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
The letter was from Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Ron Johnson (R-WI). The letter reads:
McCAIN-GRAHAM-AYOTTE-JOHNSON LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
October 31, 2012
President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.
On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.
The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives.
In order to facilitate an immediate response to our important questions on behalf of the American people, below are the questions from the letters we have sent over the last three weeks.
In our October 9, 2012, letter that we wrote with Senator Saxby Chambliss, we asked the following questions of Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan:
• Within 48 hours of the attack, was there credible information and reporting to suggest that the assault on our Consulate and other U.S. facilities in Benghazi should be characterized as a terrorist attack?
• At what time did intelligence community agencies or elements first assess that the events in Benghazi were a terrorist attack?
• What information did the intelligence community provide to senior policymakers that led some of them to draw the conclusion as late as five days after the attack in Benghazi that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration, not a terrorist act?
• Was there no credible evidence at that late date that was compelling enough for the intelligence community and the senior policymakers to draw a conclusion with at least moderate confidence that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist act?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent letters to Mr. Brennan, Director Clapper, Director Petraeus, as well as National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. The letters highlighted the fact that on June 6, 2012, assailants placed an improvised explosive device (IED) on the north gate of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The IED detonated and ripped a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as "big enough for forty men to go through." This attack was preceded by an earlier IED attack against the Consulate in April 2012. Based on these facts, the letter included the following questions:
• Were you aware of these attacks?
• Did you inform the President of these attacks?
• If so, what action was taken to protect our Consulate?
• If you did not inform the President, why not?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent you a similar letter asking the following questions:
• Were you informed of these attacks on our Libyan Consulate?
• If not, why not?
• Did you consider these serious events?
• If you were informed, what action was taken to protect the Consulate?
On October 19, 2012, we sent a follow-up letter to the same three senior intelligence officials in your administration noting that ten days had elapsed since we sent the October 9 letter.
On October 24, 2012, we sent a letter to you asking the following questions:
• Why did your administration insist that a spontaneous demonstration was responsible for the attack on our Consulate, but as the State Department later divulged, no demonstration even occurred in Benghazi?
• Why were requests for greater security assistance by officers on the ground not fulfilled, especially in light of the fact that there had already been two attacks on our Consulate in Benghazi this year and an attempt to assassinate the British Ambassador-events about which you should have known?
• In light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and the escalating series of attacks in the preceding months, why were there not rapid reaction forces or other military assets available in the region to deploy to Libya in the event of an emergency on September 11, 2012-a day that our intelligence agencies consistently cite far in advance as a moment of heightened security threat for the United States and our citizens and interests abroad?
On October 26, 2012, we sent a letter to Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Attorney General, Eric H. Holder requesting the immediate declassification of the surveillance video in and around the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for the two days-September 11 and 12, 2012-that it and related U.S. facilities were under attack.
On October 27, 2012, Senators McCain and Portman sent a letter to Secretary Panetta asking the following questions:
• What military forces were available to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya?
• What military forces were requested to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya, by whom, and what forces were provided?
• What communication and coordination did you have with the President and other members of the National Security Council regarding possible Defense Department support in Libya?
Your failure to answer these important questions will only add to the growing perception among many of our constituents that your administration has undertaken a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts and stonewall Congress and the American people. We look forward to a prompt and thorough response to these questions. The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened in Benghazi where four brave Americans were murdered.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain United States Senator
Lindsey Graham United States Senator
Kelly Ayotte United States Senator
Ron Johnson United States Senator
Cc: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense; The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States; The Honorable James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence; The Honorable David H. Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
-
Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Admin Hired Al-Qaeda Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
Gateway Pundit ^ | 10-31-2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:55:29 PM by
Unbelievable.
Commander of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdelhakim Khwildi Belhadj, an Al-Qaeda ally. (Tunisia Live)
Leaked security documents reveal the Obama Administration hired a top al-Qaeda brother to run security at the US embassy in Tripoli.
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack reported, via Jihad Watch:
A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.
It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.
The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a translation of the letter:
National Transitional Council – Libya
8/30/11
Code: YGM-270-2011
Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj
Greetings,
We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.
Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil
President, National Transitional Council – Libya
Official Seal of National Transitional Council
Copy for file.
As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:
“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj (center left), a prominent militia commander, walks with Transitional National Council Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil in Tripoli on Sept. 10. The battle to oust Moammar Gadhafi produced a number of leaders who will have to work together to form a new government. (NPR)
And you wonder why four US heroes were slaughtered in Benghazi?
-
I want to see Obama gone like the rest of you, but I find it funny how no one cared about getting answers from Bush/Cheney after the original 9/11.
:-X
-
Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Admin Hired Al-Qaeda Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
Gateway Pundit ^ | 10-31-2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:55:29 PM by
Unbelievable.
Commander of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdelhakim Khwildi Belhadj, an Al-Qaeda ally. (Tunisia Live)
Leaked security documents reveal the Obama Administration hired a top al-Qaeda brother to run security at the US embassy in Tripoli.
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack reported, via Jihad Watch:
A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.
It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.
The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a translation of the letter:
National Transitional Council – Libya
8/30/11
Code: YGM-270-2011
Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj
Greetings,
We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.
Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil
President, National Transitional Council – Libya
Official Seal of National Transitional Council
Copy for file.
As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:
“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj (center left), a prominent militia commander, walks with Transitional National Council Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil in Tripoli on Sept. 10. The battle to oust Moammar Gadhafi produced a number of leaders who will have to work together to form a new government. (NPR)
And you wonder why four US heroes were slaughtered in Benghazi?
Holy crap, of this is true......
-
Glenn Beck CONFIRMS Two Major Media Outlets Withholding 0bama's 'Stand Down' E-Mails
The Blaze ^ | October 31, 2012 | Obama_Is_Sabotaging_Amer ica
Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:22:55 PM by
On his Internet program 'The Blaze' today, Glenn Beck has CONFIRMED that two major media outlets have copies of 0bama's 'stand down' orders to the former SEALs and/or our military, concerning the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
Beck is underscoring that the major media are covering-up for 0bama's failure to protect and defend the Americans on the ground in Benghazi.
-
I think the chances of Obama answering any of those questions before the election are about zero. He's just trying to run out the clock. And if he is reelected, he'll be mired in scandal over this issue.
-
(http://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/HenryWCoeCrickets.jpg)
-
secret documents from a libyan source, 5 days before election?
source please, that one doesn't hold water.
Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Admin Hired Al-Qaeda Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
-
secret documents from a libyan source, 5 days before election?
source please, that one doesn't hold water.
Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Admin Hired Al-Qaeda Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
Dude, the consulate was looted, all sorts of classified shit is in the hands of who knows.
-
(http://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/HenryWCoeCrickets.jpg)
lol
-
Dude, the consulate was looted, all sorts of classified shit is in the hands of who knows.
it doesn't mean this anonymous foreign source is credible.
IF it is credible, it's a smoking gun to turn the election on its ear, and we sure as fck wouldn't be keeping it anonymous.
-
it doesn't mean this anonymous foreign source is credible.
IF it is credible, it's a smoking gun to turn the election on its ear, and we sure as fck wouldn't be keeping it anonymous.
Really? The media has no interest in reporting this, that is obvious.
-
secret documents from a libyan source, 5 days before election?
source please, that one doesn't hold water.
Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Admin Hired Al-Qaeda Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
Everyone has been asking for answers for WEEKS ~ well, everyone who's not left of center. >:(
-
Today, four senators issued a letter to President Obama, demanding that Obama and his staff answer questions about the Benghazi attacks that resulted in the death of an American ambassador and three other Americans. The letter was also sent to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
The letter was from Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Ron Johnson (R-WI). The letter reads:
McCAIN-GRAHAM-AYOTTE-JOHNSON LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
October 31, 2012
President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.
On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.
The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives.
In order to facilitate an immediate response to our important questions on behalf of the American people, below are the questions from the letters we have sent over the last three weeks.
In our October 9, 2012, letter that we wrote with Senator Saxby Chambliss, we asked the following questions of Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan:
• Within 48 hours of the attack, was there credible information and reporting to suggest that the assault on our Consulate and other U.S. facilities in Benghazi should be characterized as a terrorist attack?
• At what time did intelligence community agencies or elements first assess that the events in Benghazi were a terrorist attack?
• What information did the intelligence community provide to senior policymakers that led some of them to draw the conclusion as late as five days after the attack in Benghazi that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration, not a terrorist act?
• Was there no credible evidence at that late date that was compelling enough for the intelligence community and the senior policymakers to draw a conclusion with at least moderate confidence that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist act?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent letters to Mr. Brennan, Director Clapper, Director Petraeus, as well as National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. The letters highlighted the fact that on June 6, 2012, assailants placed an improvised explosive device (IED) on the north gate of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The IED detonated and ripped a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as "big enough for forty men to go through." This attack was preceded by an earlier IED attack against the Consulate in April 2012. Based on these facts, the letter included the following questions:
• Were you aware of these attacks?
• Did you inform the President of these attacks?
• If so, what action was taken to protect our Consulate?
• If you did not inform the President, why not?
On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent you a similar letter asking the following questions:
• Were you informed of these attacks on our Libyan Consulate?
• If not, why not?
• Did you consider these serious events?
• If you were informed, what action was taken to protect the Consulate?
On October 19, 2012, we sent a follow-up letter to the same three senior intelligence officials in your administration noting that ten days had elapsed since we sent the October 9 letter.
On October 24, 2012, we sent a letter to you asking the following questions:
• Why did your administration insist that a spontaneous demonstration was responsible for the attack on our Consulate, but as the State Department later divulged, no demonstration even occurred in Benghazi?
• Why were requests for greater security assistance by officers on the ground not fulfilled, especially in light of the fact that there had already been two attacks on our Consulate in Benghazi this year and an attempt to assassinate the British Ambassador-events about which you should have known?
• In light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and the escalating series of attacks in the preceding months, why were there not rapid reaction forces or other military assets available in the region to deploy to Libya in the event of an emergency on September 11, 2012-a day that our intelligence agencies consistently cite far in advance as a moment of heightened security threat for the United States and our citizens and interests abroad?
On October 26, 2012, we sent a letter to Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Attorney General, Eric H. Holder requesting the immediate declassification of the surveillance video in and around the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for the two days-September 11 and 12, 2012-that it and related U.S. facilities were under attack.
On October 27, 2012, Senators McCain and Portman sent a letter to Secretary Panetta asking the following questions:
• What military forces were available to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya?
• What military forces were requested to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya, by whom, and what forces were provided?
• What communication and coordination did you have with the President and other members of the National Security Council regarding possible Defense Department support in Libya?
Your failure to answer these important questions will only add to the growing perception among many of our constituents that your administration has undertaken a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts and stonewall Congress and the American people. We look forward to a prompt and thorough response to these questions. The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened in Benghazi where four brave Americans were murdered.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John McCain United States Senator
Lindsey Graham United States Senator
Kelly Ayotte United States Senator
Ron Johnson United States Senator
Cc: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense; The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States; The Honorable James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence; The Honorable David H. Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Considering this is obviously politically motivated due to the election, the President doesn't have answer to Senators.....
-
>:(
Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand 'coordinated attack'
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/
-
Considering this is obviously politically motivated due to the election, the President doesn't have answer to Senators.....
Shame on you.
-
Considering this is obviously politically motivated due to the election, the President doesn't have answer to Senators.....
Who does he owe answers to VINCE?
-
Everyone has been asking for answers for WEEKS ~ well, everyone who's not left of center. >:(
For all due purposes, there is no center and that's a big part of the problem as to why congress can't move on anything....including where to buy toilet paper for the Whitehouse!
-
Considering this is obviously politically motivated due to the election, the President doesn't have answer to Senators.....
How about answering to the taxpayers? There's a novel idea.
-
Considering this is obviously politically motivated due to the election, the President doesn't have answer to Senators.....
4 people killed in Libya is politically motivated? fuck you Vince, you sorry excuse for an American. Last time I checked the POTUS works for the American people.
-
4 people killed in Libya is politically motivated? fuck you Vince, you sorry excuse for an American. Last time I checked the POTUS works for the American people.
Vince is a 94%er slave. What else do you expect from a cult member in the Church of Obama?
-
Vince is a 94%er slave. What else do you expect from a cult member in the Church of Obama?
What do I expect? Maybe to pull his head out of his fucking ass.
-
What do I expect? Maybe to pull his head out of his fucking ass.
Will never happen. 94ers are beyond reason or help. Race over all else for them.
-
Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief
Posted: Nov. 1, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.
Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.
The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.
Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."
Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.
The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn't want to "offend the sensibilities" of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.
The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.
An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies - theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.
When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.
Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.
-
-
Obama 'Has Not Participated in the Investigation' of Benghazi ( Jay Carney told reporters ....)
Weekly Standard ^ | 12:07 PM, Nov 1, 2012 | DANIEL HALPER
Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:46:55 PM by
White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One today that President Obama "has not participated in the investigation" of the terror attack against Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
-
Posted at 09:30 AM ET, 11/01/2012
Libya storyline still crumbling
By Jennifer Rubin
Fox News reports:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack” . . . .
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected. . . .
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
This is yet another contradiction of the White House narrative. (“While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.”) If the president had spent a fraction of the time he is now play-acting as Sandy disaster commander to the deteriorating situation in Libya, would the pleas from Ambassador Stevens have gone unheeded?
Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies e-mails Right Turn: “Based on this cable, one might have expected additional security to have been promptly provided, or the mission closed, at least temporarily. Instead, the mission was left open and vulnerable. In such a circumstance, why would the ambassador have gone there, least of all on the 9/11 anniversary? So many questions have been raised but it does not appear that the administration is eager to provide them, certainly not until after the election.”
While the Romney campaign has not responded directly to our request for comment, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told me this cable reveals multiple problems. “This cable shreds the idea that pre-9/11 security concerns and requests for security enhancements were limited to Embassy Tripoli. The vulnerability of our consulate in Benghazi, particularly to armed terrorist attacks, is front and center here.” He added: “State’s refusal to answer the questions raised by the cable reflects poorly on Secretary Clinton, but explains why she may seek to stay in office at least temporarily if President Obama wins a second term. She needs to remain in control of the State bureaucracy in order to protect herself most effectively.”
But there is a bigger policy failure at work here, Bolton said: “The reference to terrorists and al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area is chilling. In light of the threatening environment around the consulate, it is even more unbelievable that anyone could have propounded the theory that the deadly attack in September was caused by the Muhammad video.”
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the president either refused to accept facts that undermined his “success” in Libya or that he was so absorbed by campaigning that he was entirely disconnected from national security matters. In either case, it is the triumph of politics over policy. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute minces no words in blasting the willful indifference to our security threats. She asserts that “presidents who want to lie about the threat we face end up sacrificing decent, hardworking Americans for their own political interests. Al-Qaeda is back, they want to kill us, and the sooner we admit that we know they’re out there, planning, working, the better off we’ll be. The first part of winning is admitting that the enemy is alive.”
In the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney has shied from this issue, for reasons that escape many conservatives. Whether recklessly indifferent to events in Libya or intentionally attempting to miscast events to protect his administration, Obama has failed at the task he says is his most important: keeping Americans safe. He didn’t keep four Americans safe and didn’t pay heed to a growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya and elsewhere. No amount of strolls on the beach with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is going to conceal that.
-
Lingering questions about Benghazi
By David Ignatius, Oct 30, 2012
The Washington Post Published: October 30
The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.
Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reported Friday that CIA officers in Benghazi had been told to “stand down” when they wanted to deploy from their base at the annex to repel the attack on the consulate, about a mile away. Fox also reported that the officers requested military support when the annex came under fire that night but that their request had been denied.
The Benghazi tragedy was amplified by Charles Woods, the father of slain CIA contractor Tyrone Woods. He told Fox’s Sean Hannity that White House officials who didn’t authorize military strikes to save the embattled CIA annex were “cowards” and “are guilty of murdering my son.”
The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
So what did happen on the night of Sept. 11, when Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two others were killed? The best way to establish the facts would be a detailed, unclassified timeline of events; officials say that they are preparing one and that it may be released this week. That’s a must, even in the campaign’s volatile final week. In the meantime, here’s a summary of some of the issues that need to be clarified.
First, on the question of whether Woods and others were made to wait when they asked permission to move out immediately to try to rescue those at the consulate. The answer seems to be yes, but not for very long. There was a brief, initial delay — two people said it was about 20 minutes — before Woods was allowed to leave. One official said that Woods and at least one other CIA colleague were “in the car revving the engine,” waiting for permission to go. Woods died about six hours later, after he returned to the annex.
The main reason for the delay, several sources said, was that CIA officials were making urgent contact with a Libyan militia, known as the February 17 Brigade, which was the closest thing to an organized security force in Benghazi. The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere, and officials wanted to coordinate any response to the consulate attack. After this delay, Woods and his colleague proceeded to the consulate.
Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn’t up to the job? Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?
Second, why didn’t the United States send military assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer. The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound. One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.
What more could have been done? The Pentagon’s answer is that there wasn’t enough time to deploy forces that could have saved American lives. George Little, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, told me on Wednesday, responding to an initial online version of this column: “Within a few hours, Secretary Panetta ordered all appropriate forces to respond to the unfolding events in Benghazi, but the attack was over before those forces could be employed.”
Administration officials argue that the military, in real life, isn’t a “911” rescue number. Two Joint Special Operations Command teams were moving that night to the Sigonella air base in Sicily, for quick deployment to Benghazi or any other U.S. facility in danger across North Africa. But officials say that the teams didn’t arrive in Sicily until Sept. 12, many hours after the Benghazi attack was over.
As for armed drones or AC-130 Spectre gunships, officials say that they were too far away to help. Unclassified data put the range of Predator and Reaper armed drones at 770 miles and 1,150 miles, respectively. The nearest known base for armed drones, in Djibouti, is about 1,700 miles from Benghazi. Regarding the Spectre gunships, Little said: “No AC-130 was within a continent’s range of Benghazi.”
If these rebuttals are accurate, that raises another troubling question: At a time when al-Qaeda was strengthening its presence in Libya and across North Africa, why didn’t the United States have more military hardware nearby?
Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night. Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire. But the anguish of Woods’s father is understandable: His son’s life might have been saved by a more aggressive response, had one been possible. The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions.
A final, obvious point: The “fog of battle” that night was dense not just in Benghazi but also in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere. As one official concedes, “The reports were all over the map that night, and there was a lot of confusion.” America needed better intelligence. That’s the toughest problem to address, but the most important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html