Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 10:58:26 AM



Title: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 10:58:26 AM
Benghazi: Multiple Requests for Increased Security Denied by Washington
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/02/Multiple-Requests-for-Increased-Security-in-Benghazi-Were-Denied-by-Washington?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


by John Sexton

2 Oct 2012, 9:43 AM PDT


 

The security lapses in Benghazi that led to the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans trace back to security decisions made in Washington. That's the message of a letter Rep. Darrell Issa sent to Secretary Clinton Tuesday. The letter indicates that the US mission in Libya made repeated request for increased security prior to the September 11th attack but that these requests were denied. Issa's House Oversight committee is planning a hearing on Wednesday, October 10, to investigate the failure.
 
Issa's letter is an effort to gather relevant information on security arrangements in Libya prior to the attack. In particular, Issa is requesting information on security requests from the Libyan Embassy and relevant documents on how those requests were handled. According to the letter, "multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11th attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."
 
The letter offers a partial timeline of attacks on western outposts in Tripoli and Benghazi which shows a pattern of targeting western diplomats and outposts. It also suggests the attacks were escalating in their boldness, i.e. late night attacks give way to strikes in broad daylight. What follows is summary of the incidents mentioned in Issa's letter:

 •April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.

•April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.

•April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.

•April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.

•April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.

•May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.

•May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.

•June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.

•June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.

•June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi.
No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.

•Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.

•August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.

•Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."

While the list suggests a clear pattern it is far from complete. For instance, in April a bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya as he traveled through Benghazi.
 
The letter requests a written response to three questions. Did the State Department know about all of the above attacks? What security arrangements were made in light of them? What requests did the Libyan Embassy make for additional security prior to September 11, 2012? Issa requests that a written answer be provided to the committee by Monday October 8th.
 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 11:00:39 AM

 •April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.

•April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.

•April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.

•April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.

•April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.

•May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.

•May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.

•June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.

•June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.

•June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi.
No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.

•Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.

•August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.

•Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."
 





OBAMA LIED - AMBASSADOR DIED


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 11:28:09 AM
White House Has No Comment on House GOPers’ Assertions that Libyan Mission Requested Security Prior to 9/11/12 Attack


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-has-no-comment-on-house-gopers-assertions-that-libyan-mission-requested-security-prior-to-91112-attack






White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to the September 11, 2012 attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were denied.
 
“I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,” Carney said.
 
Earlier today, chairman of the committee Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chair of the subcommittee on national security, homeland defense, and foreign operations, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asserting that “multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 (2012) attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these requests by officials in Washington.”
 
The two congressmen also listed thirteen incidents leading up to the attack – ranging from I.E.D. and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.
 
“Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by October 8. “If not, why not?”
 
“If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?” they asked. The two also asked for details of “any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks” detailed in the letter.
 
Carney said that “embassy security is a matter that is in the purview of the State Department,” and noted that “Secretary Clinton instituted an accountability review that is underway as we speak” while the investigation of the attack itself is being conducted by the FBI.
 
The press secretary said that “from the moment our facility was attacked” the president has been focused on providing security to all diplomatic posts “and bringing the killers to justice.”
 
About the list of security issues, Carney said it was a “known fact that Libya is in transition” and that in the eastern part of Libya in particular there are militant groups and “a great number of armed individuals and militias.”
 
Carney made his comments in an off-camera gaggle in Las Vegas, Nevada. President Obama is in nearby Henderson, Nevada, preparing for his fist debate with Mitt Romney, to be held Wednesday night.
 
-Jake Tapper


SHOWS:


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 12:06:26 PM

GOP: Consulate received multiple threats, had requested security

By Julian Pecquet - 10/02/12 11:50 AM ET




Two House Republicans say they have been informed by whistleblowers that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and threatened 13 times before the incident last month that killed four Americans.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a letter on Tuesday that detailed the whistleblowers’ allegations.



“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” Issa and Chaffetz wrote. “It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest."

The congressmen said the consulate asked for more security to deal with the growing threat but was turned down by the administration.

“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The two lawmakers told Clinton they intend to convene a hearing of Issa’s House Oversight panel on Oct. 10 to review possible security failures in Libya, including “State Department security assessments and security related decision making.”

The letter from the congressmen for the first time reveals an April 6 attack against the Consulate in which two former security guards threw homemade improvised explosives over the fence of the compound.

The letter also says militants made no secret of their intention to target Americans in Libya.

On May 22, a warning message was posted on Facebook that a rocket-propelled grenade attack against the Red Cross offices in Benghazi would be followed by a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” A separate threat was made the following month against Ambassador Christopher Stevens that mentioned his morning run with a security detail, complete with a photo of the late ambassador.

Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a Sept. 11 attack on the consulate. The Obama administration initially blamed the attack on militants who acted spontaneously and used protests against an anti-Islam video posted online as cover.

But the administration has shifted its account, with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calling it a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack” on Friday.

Republicans say the administration’s account has been misleading. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other GOP lawmakers believe the attack was premeditated, and argue the administration has played that possibility down because it could hurt President Obama’s reelection effort.

— This story was first posted at 9:48 a.m. and has been updated.




________________________ _________________


Funny - when Fury had his thread going and a few us us were for keeping Gadafi in power we were ridiculued by Andre benny 180 et al.


Look who was right AGAIN! 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2012, 12:32:04 PM
This is criminal.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 12:35:33 PM
This is criminal.

This is OBAMA! 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
BUMP FOR BLACKEN, LURKER, 180, STRAW, OPTION f, ET AL 


 •April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.

•April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.

•April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.

•April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.

•April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.

•May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.

•May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.

•June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.

•June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.

•June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi.
No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.

•Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.

•August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.

•Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."
 





OBAMA LIED - AMBASSADOR DIED


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: blacken700 on October 02, 2012, 02:39:13 PM
Darrell Issa the witch hunter :D :D :D :D


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
Darrell Issa the witch hunter :D :D :D :D

How many bumps in the road is enough for you obama drones to realize that anything he touches ends up in dead americans? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: blacken700 on October 02, 2012, 02:49:43 PM
anything that comes from the criminal Darrell Issa you have to take with a grain of salt


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 02:50:45 PM
anything that comes from the criminal Darrell Issa you have to take with a grain of salt

Univision is lying now too?  CNN said obama is a liar today as well. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: blacken700 on October 02, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
Univision is lying now too?  CNN said obama is a liar today as well. 

hahahahahahahahahahah earth to 333386 politicians don't always tell the truth  :D :D :D :D


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
hahahahahahahahahahah earth to 333386 politicians don't always tell the truth  :D :D :D :D

Lying about where he was born is one thing, lying about dead americans is another. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 03:33:52 PM
This is criminal.

why aren't congressional repubs starting an investigation?

Obama is guilty as fck here.  Yet they're too busy with 1700 social wedge issues and nailing baseball players for juicing.

WHy isn't obama's indictment the biggest thing on their menu today?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 03:42:46 PM
why aren't congressional repubs starting an investigation?

Obama is guilty as fck here.  Yet they're too busy with 1700 social wedge issues and nailing baseball players for juicing.

WHy isn't obama's indictment the biggest thing on their menu today?

They are alrady - did you even read the story?   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 03:46:43 PM
They are alrady - did you even read the story?   

no, i'm seeing "Issa’s House Oversight panel" which has taken what 18 months to get nowhere with F&F?

Sorry, but I've lost faith in that dude's ability to even catch a cold.  He has holder on video lying and can't make a case.   Issa = fail.  get another person leading the investigation so we can see some results before 2014, please!!!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 07:30:14 PM
CNN reported a new bombshell in the ongoing Libya fiasco on Monday night, while the networks had already moved on from the story. CNN's Erin Burnett disclosed that "key intelligence" was left out of the post-Libya narrative given to the American public. The networks made no mention of Libya all day Monday and through Tuesday morning after being late to new developments in the story.  

"[T]here were a decision made as to some of these key things that obviously are now considered to be crucial to this – essential to this attack were left out of the briefing points given to Congress and given to the American people," Burnett reported.

Burnett added that an "intelligence expert" told CNN that "the key information left out of the talking points can only mean the administration is covering something up." This story is a new development on the previous narrative, where the Obama administration's initial explanation for the attacks did not match up with U.S. intelligence which had , and evolved since the attacks.

However, CNN reported with certainty that not only were the attacks planned, but this information was withheld from the ensuing administration narrative. The networks did not report this story on Tuesday morning.

The networks were also late to the prior story that U.S. intelligence had "strong indications" within a day after the embassy attacks that they were planned and carried out by al Qaeda affiliates. The Daily Beast report on U.S. intelligence aired early Wednesday morning on September 26, yet it took until Thursday night for ABC to report it. As of Friday morning, NBC and CBS had not reported it.

On Friday night, NBC aired two full stories on the matter. Both NBC and CBS reported on the story on Saturday and all three networks mentioned Libya on Sunday, with NBC's David Gregory talking about it in detail with Obama adviser David Plouffe.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 11:03:18 PM
CNN reported a new bombshell in the ongoing Libya fiasco on Monday night, while the networks had already moved on from the story. CNN's Erin Burnett disclosed that "key intelligence" was left out of the post-Libya narrative given to the American public. The networks made no mention of Libya all day Monday and through Tuesday morning after being late to new developments in the story. 

"[T]here were a decision made as to some of these key things that obviously are now considered to be crucial to this – essential to this attack were left out of the briefing points given to Congress and given to the American people," Burnett reported.

Burnett added that an "intelligence expert" told CNN that "the key information left out of the talking points can only mean the administration is covering something up." This story is a new development on the previous narrative, where the Obama administration's initial explanation for the attacks did not match up with U.S. intelligence which had , and evolved since the attacks.

However, CNN reported with certainty that not only were the attacks planned, but this information was withheld from the ensuing administration narrative. The networks did not report this story on Tuesday morning.

The networks were also late to the prior story that U.S. intelligence had "strong indications" within a day after the embassy attacks that they were planned and carried out by al Qaeda affiliates. The Daily Beast report on U.S. intelligence aired early Wednesday morning on September 26, yet it took until Thursday night for ABC to report it. As of Friday morning, NBC and CBS had not reported it.

On Friday night, NBC aired two full stories on the matter. Both NBC and CBS reported on the story on Saturday and all three networks mentioned Libya on Sunday, with NBC's David Gregory talking about it in detail with Obama adviser David Plouffe.

look at this article from newsbusters.    Dedicated to complaining that the media is not covering the topics the author wants. 

They're private companies that covers whatever gets viewers to stay tuned.  They're not honorable, they're not devoted to some noble cause.  They're driven by profit.  They don't have morals.

I don't understand why complain about it.  You don't complain that your mailbox doesn't make toast - because that is NOT THE ROLE of your mailbox.  The media companies are NOT here to deliver truth or anything else.  They're here to make money.  Sell ad revenue.  That's it.   FOX has no obligation to show negative things about Mitt, and MSNBC has nothing obligated to show bad things about obama.


MITT will have the floor tomorrow.  He can talk about F&F, Libya, or anything else.  THAT is the dude with an obligation to point out his opponent's flaws - not some media enteretainment company that also believes polar bears breaking into grocery stores are more important than other news items (they all do it - that car chase on FOX this week wasn't more important than their spring break drinking news piece lol....)

Can't hate on ANY media org for not covering certain topics.  They make their choices based upon what their viewers want.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:22:37 AM
Report: Obama Admin Rejected Military Intervention in Benghazi During Attack
 
by AWR Hawkins2 Oct 201296post a comment




According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a "wait and see" approach.
 
Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.
 
When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.
 
But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens' life was close to its end.
 
In hindsight, anonymous officials privy to details of those Sept. 11 decisions asked why we didn't at least send aircraft from the U.S. base in Sicily -- which is less than 500 miles away from Benghazi. The line of thinking is that that such a show of force might have given the attackers second thoughts.
 
The State Dept. has dismissed this option has "unrealistic."









Fucking WOW! 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 03, 2012, 07:42:36 AM
Mitt, I know you're reading this, blowing off steam before tonight's debate.

How about you bring this shit up tonight?  You have the final 2 minute closing statement tonight.  PLEASE bring this up!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 03, 2012, 07:54:37 AM
There goes Hilary's 2016 chance right out the window, got to wonder why she hitched her wagon to this cluster fuck


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 03, 2012, 07:58:09 AM
There goes Hilary's 2016 chance right out the window, got to wonder why she hitched her wagon to this cluster fuck

Hilary will be 70 or something, right?   SHe's not going to run in 2016.  There will be some young rock star.  she will get the taste of private life and she's gonna LOOK 70 at that point.  takes a lot of energy to campaign.  She would be an amazingly safe veep pick tho.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:58:42 AM
Hilary will be 70 or something, right?   SHe's not going to run in 2016.  There will be some young rock star.  she will get the taste of private life and she's gonna LOOK 70 at that point.  takes a lot of energy to campaign.  She would be an amazingly safe veep pick tho.

Gov. Cuomo is going to be the pick.   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 08:06:53 AM
Hilary will be 70 or something, right?   SHe's not going to run in 2016.  There will be some young rock star.  she will get the taste of private life and she's gonna LOOK 70 at that point.  takes a lot of energy to campaign.  She would be an amazingly safe veep pick tho.

Ill give you credit - you are admitting this fiasco for what it is. 

Now look at all the shit i get for the silly stuff I post. 

notice how those freaks are nowhere to be found on this issue? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 03, 2012, 08:09:04 AM
I think polls are BS, but how in the fuck can all this be going on and Obama still lead in a poll? F&F scandal, ME all fucked up, economy all fucked up, not doing his job..................... .....


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 08:22:10 AM
Hillary to Issa: You should reserve judgment about Benghazi until … November
 Hotair ^


Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:30:42 PM


Via Powerline, I think this is her version of a compromise. Deep down, she’d prefer that he held off until November 2016.

Clinton said that the State Department’s Accountability Review Board will begin work this week and the letter revealed the names of all five board members. In addition to former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, who will lead the board, the other members will be former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen (ret.), Catherine Bertini, Hugh Turner, and Richard Shinnick.

Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

How’s the Accountability Review Board going to get to the bottom of what happened when the FBI still can’t get access to the crime scene? The news tonight from Reuters is that the State Department’s still negotiating with the Libyan government to get people in there, nearly three weeks after the attack. Even the locals can’t quite believe the foot-dragging:


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
I think polls are BS, but how in the fuck can all this be going on and Obama still lead in a poll? F&F scandal, ME all fucked up, economy all fucked up, not doing his job..................... .....

It's not hard to see. Look at the drones on this board and then extrapolate their numbers to the rest of the population and *presto* you end up with a legion of sycophantic retards.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 12:45:24 PM
Sensitive documents left behind at American mission in Libya

By Michael Birnbaum, Wednesday, October 3, 3:19 PM



BENGHAZI, Libya — More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.

Although the gates to the compound were locked several days after the attacks, looters and curiosity-seekers were free to roam in the initial chaotic aftermath, and many documents may already have disappeared.  

No government-provided security forces are guarding the compound, and Libyan investigators have visited just once, according to a member of the family who owns the compound and who allowed the journalists to enter Wednesday.

Two private security guards paid for by the compound’s Libyan owner are the only people watching over the sprawling site, which is composed of two adjoining villa complexes and protected in some places by a wall only eight feet high.

“Securing the site has obviously been a challenge,” said Mark Toner, deputy spokesman at the State Department, in response to questions about conditions at the Benghazi compound. “We had to evacuate all U.S. government personnel the night of the attack.  After the attack, we requested help securing the site, and we continue to work with the Libyan government on this front.”

State Department officials were provided with copies of some of the documents found at the site. They did not request that the documents be withheld from publication.

None of the documents were marked classified, but this is not the first time that sensitive documents have been found by journalists in the charred wreckage of the compound. CNN discovered a copy of the ambassador’s journal last month and broadcast details from it, drawing an angry response from the State Department. Unlike the journal, all of the documents seen by The Post were official.

At least one document found amid the clutter indicates that Americans at the mission were discussing the possibility of an attack in early September, just two days before the assault took place. The document is a memorandum dated Sept. 9 from the U.S. mission’s security office to the 17th February Martyrs Brigade, the Libyan-government-sanctioned militia that was guarding the compound, making plans for a “quick reaction force,” or QRF, that would provide security.

“In the event of an attack on the U.S. Mission,” the document states, “QRF will request additional support from the 17th February Martyrs Brigade.”

Other the documents detail — with names, photographs, phone numbers and other personal information — the Libyans contracted to provide security for the mission from a British-based private firm. Some of those Libyans say they now fear for their lives, and the State Department has said it shares concerns about their safety.

The discovery of the documents coincides with increasing pressure on the Obama administration to provide a full accounting of security at the mission prior to the attack, as well as an explanation for the slow pace of the investigation that has followed the Sept. 11 assault.

On Tuesday, two House Republicans sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton demanding more information about the incident. The letter from Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (Utah) said Libyans working as private security personnel at the compound were warned by family members in the weeks before the attacks to quit their jobs because of rumors of an impending attack. The congressmen did not say where they had received the information.

Concerns about safety in Benghazi have confined a team of FBI investigators to the Libyan capital, Tripoli, which is hundreds of miles away, and local security officials say they cannot guarantee that Americans would be safe here.

But many of the Libyan contractors, as well as some members of the brigade once tasked with guarding the compound, say they have not been contacted by the Libyan or American governments about their own safety concerns. Some say they have tried to contact the Americans but have not received a response.

The Blue Mountain contractors were intended to complement the armed members of the militia. Both groups were present at the mission on the night of Sept. 11.

In the unsigned memorandum from the U.S. mission to the militia, which appears to be a draft, guards “are required to acquire and maintain their own weapons and ammunition,” the document states.

The security presence appears to have been bare-bones, with three or more members on the compound any time the “principal officer” was present — either the head of the mission or the ambassador.

When the principal officer was not present, a single militia member was instructed to be at the front gate between 8 a.m. and midnight. Between midnight and 8 a.m., one militia member was scheduled to be on roving patrol. The militia members were supposed to work a minimum of eight hours a day and were to be paid a stipend of about $28 a day. They were housed on the compound.

The itinerary of Stevens’s trip to Benghazi includes a near-full accounting of his planned movements during what was supposed to be a visit that lasted from Sept. 10 until Sept. 15. It includes names and phone numbers of Libyans who scheduled were to meet with him. Some of those Libyans have not made their contact with Stevens public and could be at risk if it were publicly known.

The meetings include briefings with American officials, a private dinner with influential local leaders, and meetings with militia heads, businesspeople, civil society activists and educators. The highlight of the visit was the opening of the American Space, a center intended to serve as a hub for U.S. culture and education.

Several copies of the itinerary were scattered across multiple rooms of the compound. One appears to be a page from the ambassador’s personal copy; it was on the floor, next to a chair in the bedroom where he had been sleeping.

The compound still reeked of smoke Wednesday, and all of the buildings had been looted. Overturned furniture, broken glass and strewn documents were everywhere. Chandeliers lay on the floor. In kitchens, food was rotting.

But elsewhere on the compound, gardens were blooming and untouched. Guava trees were heavy with fruit; purple grapes were swelling on rows of vines. The newly hired security guards appeared to be living in a small room at the front gate, where a thin mattress lay on the floor, along with preparations for lunch.


Ayman Alkekly contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sensitive-documents-left-behind-at-american-mission-in-libya/2012/10/03/11911498-0d7e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_print.html






speechless.   This is Obama's USA now.  Disgusting. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 02:02:20 PM
October 2, 2012
 

Complicity in Duplicity?
 
By MAUREEN DOWD

 


A woman named Rice in a top administration job, ambitious to move up to secretary of state, hitting the Sunday talk shows to aggressively promote a Middle East narrative that’s good for the president but destined to crumble under scrutiny.

Accusations that intelligence on Al Qaeda links in the Middle East was cherry-picked by American officials to create a convenient reality.

A national security apparatus that becomes enmeshed with the political image-making machine.

Sound familiar?

Last time it was Condoleezza Rice helping her war-obsessed bosses spin their deceptive web, as they recklessly tried to re-engineer the Middle East. This time it was Susan Rice offering a noncredible yarn as the Obama team desperately tries to figure out the Middle East.

W.’s administration played up Al Qaeda ties, exploiting 9/11 to invade Iraq, which the neocons had wanted to do all along. The Obama administration sidestepped Al Qaeda ties in the case of the Libyan attack to perpetuate the narrative that the president had decimated Al Qaeda when Osama bin Laden was killed, and to preclude allegations that they were asleep at the switch on the anniversary of 9/11. Better to blame it all on a spontaneous protest to an anti-Islam video on YouTube.

It’s remarkable that President Obama, who came to power abhorring the manipulative and duplicitous tactics of the Bush crowd, should now be vulnerable to similar charges.

You know you’re in trouble when Donald Rumsfeld is the voice of reason. “The idea of sending a United Nations ambassador for the United States out to market and peddle and spin a story that has, within a matter of hours, demonstrated to be not accurate, I think is inexcusable,” the former defense secretary told Fox News on Tuesday. “I can’t imagine.”

His imagination fails him even though he, his pal Dick Cheney and his ward W. sent then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. to market a story that fell apart one invasion later. Rumsfeld said that if the Obama administration’s critics are right, that perhaps officials were “bureaucratic and unwilling to respond promptly to a threat report.” Like when W. was unwilling to respond promptly to that threat report screaming “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”?

There was something off-kilter about the tragic saga of Christopher Stevens from the beginning. Even for a highly regarded ambassador with a dash of Lawrence of Arabia’s empathy and mistaken sense of invulnerability, Stevens was obviously too lightly guarded in a region roiling with threats and hatred; he was in a susceptible complex without enough armed security and basic emergency equipment. Even afterward, the place was so unprotected that a CNN staffer could walk in and pick up Stevens’s private diary, which reflected the ambassador’s fear about never-ending attacks and being on an Al Qaeda hit list.

There were, after all, Al Qaeda sympathizers among the rebels who overthrew Muammar el-Qaddafi with American help.

House Republicans will hold a hearing next week and have asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to explain why the consulate was not better defended given, as Representative Darrell Issa noted in a letter, the “long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

Susan Rice’s tumble is part of a disturbing pattern of rushing to pump up the president on national security, which seems particularly stupid because it’s so unnecessary.

Last year, the White House had to backtrack from the overwrought initial contentions of John Brennan, a deputy national security adviser, who said Bin Laden died after resisting in a firefight and that he was “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield.”

Now that one of the members of the Navy SEAL team, Matt Bissonette, has written a book, there are contradictory accounts, one by a Democratic White House dying to sound tough, and one by an eyewitness. Bissonette wrote that the lead commando shot an unarmed Bin Laden in the head when he peered out of his bedroom door and they shot his convulsing body again inside the bedroom. In the administration’s version, the shot in the stairwell missed.

Just so, in an overzealous effort to burnish a president who did not need burnishing — especially against foreign policy bumbler Mitt Romney and foreign policy novice Paul Ryan — they have gotten tangled in contradictory accounts about Benghazi. The administration had benefited from the impression that it had diminished Al Qaeda, even though the public no doubt appreciates that it was never going to be so simple. But, as Romney learned when he prematurely rushed to the microphone to take advantage of the crisis and mangled his facts, there is a cost to letting the political spin cycle dictate how you discuss national security.

The U.S. military is preparing to retaliate for the Libyan attack. But, even if Stevens is avenged, will the president get the credit he deserves if his acolytes have left the impression that they’re willing to rewrite the story for political advantage?




Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 02:53:06 PM
WaPo: Document Indicates Americans in Benghazi Discussed Possible Attack

http://freebeacon.com/wapo-document-indicates-americans-in-benghazi-discussed-possible-attack

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 3, 2012 4:33 pm



Officials at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi appear to have been discussing the possibility of an attack in early September, according to sensitive documents retrieved from the consulate by the Washington Post Wednesday.
 
In a memorandum dated Sept. 9, officials outlined expectations for the 17th February Martyrs Brigade as part of the Quick Reaction Force at the consulate, according to the Post:
 

At least one document found amid the clutter indicates that Americans at the mission were discussing the possibility of an attack in early September, just two days before the assault took place. The document is a memorandum dated Sept. 9 from the U.S. mission’s security office to the 17th February Martyrs Brigade, the Libyan-government-sanctioned militia that was guarding the compound, making plans for a “quick reaction force,” or QRF, that would provide security.
 
“In the event of an attack on the U.S. Mission,” the document states, “QRF will request additional support from the 17th February Martyrs Brigade.”
 
Other documents retrieved at the site include contract information for a security contractor employeed by the facility, personal information for security contractors, and detailed itineraries for diplomatic staff at the consulate. Security is still minimal at the site, according to the Post:
 
Although the gates to the compound were locked several days after the attacks, looters and curiosity-seekers were free to roam in the initial chaotic aftermath, and many documents may already have disappeared.
 
No government-provided security forces are guarding the compound, and Libyan investigators have visited just once, according to a member of the family who owns the compound and who allowed the journalists to enter Wednesday.
 
Two private security guards paid for by the compound’s Libyan owner are the only people watching over the sprawling site, which is composed of two adjoining villa complexes and protected in some places by a wall only eight feet high.

 This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Benghazi attack. Bookmark the permalink.









Speechless over this incompetence.   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 05, 2012, 12:57:47 PM
In And Out: FBI Spends Less Than 24 Hrs in Benghazi (nothing to see here, move along now)
 Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace ^


Posted on Friday, October 05, 2012 3:34:11 PM


FBI came to Benghazi and left in past 24 hours

By EILEEN SULLIVAN and LOLITA C. BALDOR

Associated Press WASHINGTON

A team of FBI agents arrived in Benghazi, Libya, to investigate the assault against the U.S. Consulate and left after about 12 hours on the ground as the hunt for those possibly connected to the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans narrowed to one or two people in an extremist group, U.S. officials said Thursday.

Agents arrived in Benghazi before dawn on Thursday and departed after sunset, after weeks of waiting for access to the crime scene to investigate the Sept. 11 attack.

The agents and several dozen U.S. special operations forces were there for about 12 hours, said a senior Defense Department official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation. The FBI agents went to "all the relevant locations" in the city, FBI spokeswoman Kathy Wright said. The FBI would not say what, if anything, they found.

Killed in the attack were Stevens, a State Department computer expert and two security agents who were former Navy SEALS. Al-Qaida-linked militants are believed responsible.

Attorney General Eric Holder said people should not assume that "all that we could do or have been doing" in the investigation is restricted solely to Benghazi.

"I'm satisfied with the progress," Holder said Thursday. He said there were a variety of other places inside and outside Libya where "all these things could be done and have been done and that the matter has been under active investigation."


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 05, 2012, 01:03:22 PM
Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya
 


ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties.
 
Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya,  Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support.
 
No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have  definitively  made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.
 
But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country.
 
Earlier this week, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and another member of the committee wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listing 13 incidents leading up to the attack, ranging from IED and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.
 
“Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by Oct. 8. “If not, why not? If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?”
 
The subject line of the email, from Miki Rankin, the post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia, reads “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
 
Rankin informs Stevens and the others on the email, whose names have been redacted, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy “has determined that support for Embassy Tripoli using the DC-3 will be terminated immediately. Post’s request to continue use of the plane in support of the SST was considered. However, it was decided that, if needed, NEA will charter a special flight for their departure.”
 
You can read the email HERE.
 
An “SST” is a Security Support Team, about 16 Special Forces troops assigned to protect officials from the U.S. State Department. This particular SST was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
 
Shown the email uncovered by ABC News, a spokesman for the committee said the “document is consistent with what the Oversight Committee has been told by individuals who worked in Libya. Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission in Libya made multiple security related requests that were turned down by Washington based officials. Security related transportation has been identified as one of the particular items where embassy personnel did not receive the support they sought.”
 
Provided with a copy of the e-mail, a senior State Department official downplayed the importance of the denied request. The official told ABC News that “the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.”
 
The U.S. government official who provided the email to ABC News – and wanted to remain anonymous because of  the sensitivity of the matter – described the small DC-3 plane as an asset for a security team to more freely and safely move throughout the country, and to more easily transport arms and other security equipment. In short, having the plane allowed the security team to better perform its duties, the official said.
 
The State Department official acknowledged that the plane was used to get around Libya, not just to get in and out of the country. But once commercial air service was re-established, the State Department decided that the SST didn’t need the plane anymore. The security team, it would seem, disagreed.
 
Told of the State Department’s explanation, the House Oversight Committee spokesman said the “State Department’s naive determination to follow rigid bureaucratic policies, instead of making common sense decisions that took the serious threat of terrorism conveyed by those on the ground into account, appears to have been a significant factor in the Benghazi Consulate’s lack of preparedness.”
 
On Wednesday, Oct. 10, the committee will hold a hearing featuring the testimony of Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who was stationed in Libya from September 2011 through June 2012; and Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Programs Charlene Lamb.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2012, 04:21:22 PM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Bombshell: Obama Administration Withdrew 16 Member Special Forces Team From Libya
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 7, 2012 | Jim Hoft
Posted on October 7, 2012, 2:41:51 PM EDT by Mozilla

Bombshell: The Obama State Department withdrew a 16 member special forces team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks on 9-11. Lt. Col. Andy Wood was the leader of the 16 member special forces team whose job it was to protect US personnel in Libya. His team’s mission ended in August a month before the deadly Al-Qaeda attack on 9-11. A six member mobile security team was also withdrawn around the same time. This was despite the fact that there were over a dozen attacks in the country this year. Lt. Col. Wood was subpoenaed to appear at a House committee hearing this coming week. Wood told CBS News it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew security when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 07, 2012, 04:35:28 PM
great article - I hope romney starts every interview by bringing up the good Col. Wood tomorrow!!!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 01:14:37 AM
Security team pulled out of Libya in August (Obama/Clinton coverup over on Wed)
american thinker ^ | 10/07/2012 | rick moran
Posted on October 7, 2012 9:27:36 PM EDT by barryobi

he blundering boobs at the State Department recalled a 16-man security team in August just as the Libyan diplomats were asking for more security, not less. CBS: CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya. The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack. Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased. Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack. A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 05:02:36 AM
Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August
Ibrahim Alaguri/AP Photo

Via ABC

 


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.”
 
Wood, a member of the Utah National Guard who ordinarily works in security for the Department of the Interior, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee hearings on Wednesday.
 
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.
 
In his interview with ABC News, Wood did not argue that his and the Security Support Team’s presence would have made a difference for Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans killed at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
 
“That’s way speculative; I don’t even know the facts of what happened” that night, Wood said.
 
Stevens didn’t typically travel to Benghazi during Wood’s rotation in Libya, Wood said, though the ambassador made some attempts to travel there in June and Wood said that the Security Support Team was planning on accompanying him for protection during that planned trip.
 
Ultimately, plans fell through and Stevens’ schedule kept him in Tripoli.
 
The senior State Department official said that Ambassador Stevens traveled with agents of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and that the SST was based in Tripoli and would have been in Benghazi that night. There were five DS agents on the Benghazi compound that night; three of them previously stationed there and two having traveled with Stevens from Tripoli to Benghazi. There were also a few officials with a Quick Reaction Force outside the compound supporting Stevens’ movement, two of whom were killed that night.
 
The February draft report from the embassy in Tripoli to the State Department paints a picture of the Security Support Team as far more vital to security than the senior State Department official portrayed the group.
 
The draft was circulated by Joan Polaschik, the deputy chief of the mission in Libya, and emailed to members of the diplomatic corps, the SST team members, and Wood.
 
“Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers,” the embassy’s request reads. The continued presence of the Security Support Team’s was “essential,” the report states, “to support our daily moves and a continuing high volume of senior-level visits, provide static security in the absence of an appropriate Local Guard Force … and assist our Mobile Security Detachment (MSD) colleagues in the training of our newly hired LGF members and locally engaged bodyguard force.”
 
Key to understanding the February request and its context is the fact that after it was made, security in Libya devolved even more when it came to the targeting of Westerners.
 
Polaschik referenced in her February memo how Western targets had not yet been hit, but within months that would change, with an IED thrown into the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi on April 6, an RPG attack on the Red Cross in Benghazi in May, another IED attack on the U.S. post in Benghazi in June, an RPG attack on the convoy of the British ambassador to Libya Dominic Asquith a few days after that, and another attack on the Red Cross — this time in daylight — causing that relief organization to leave Benghazi.
 
In February, the embassy reported to the State Department that the “security environment in Tripoli remains uncertain and unstable. Although there has been a marked decrease in the number of militia checkpoints around Tripoli, the Transitional National Council (TNC) has not yet succeeded in demobilizing the multiple militias or bringing them into a centralized command and control structure. There continues to be large numbers of weapons throughout Tripoli, with gunfire heard throughout the city on a daily basis.”
 
Many militia clashes “appear to be rooted in political, economic or property disputes among the militias and do not seem to be any sort of organized campaign against the TNC or westerners,” the report states. “While not targeted against U.S. interests or personnel, these clashes pose a serious danger particularly as the fledgling national police and military forces do not yet have a proven capacity to respond to these clashes — or to any calls for help from the Embassy.”
 
The report also notes a general “increase in violent crime, including homicides, carjackings, and armed robberies,” and suggests it “is likely that the Libyan government will not make any significant progress in demobilizing the revolutionary militias or establishing any credible national security structures until after the election for the constitutional assembly and formation of a new government — a point that senior Libyan leadership, including TNC Chairman Jalil, has begun to acknowledge both publicly and privately. Until these militias are off the streets and a strong national police force is established, we will not have a reliable, host government partner that is capable of responding to the Embassy’s security needs. It is likely that we will need to maintain a heightened security posture for the foreseeable future.”
 
The February memo outlines the considerable challenges facing Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic corps.
 
“In the midst of this uncertain and unstable security environment, Embassy Tripoli has been tasked with a large and growing mandate to support Libya’s transition and rebuild the Embassy facilities,” the report says. “This policy and management workload translates into a large number of movements that require security support.”
 
Not including the movements of Ambassador Stevens and Deputy Chief Polaschik, from September 2011 through February 2012, the various U.S. security forces supported 1,028 movement requests to 2,099 venues — requiring an average of 10 security agents, including those drawn from the Security Support Team. In addition, the security teams supported 15 VIP visits, including four cabinet-level visits.
 
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 Interior 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.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 08, 2012, 05:09:11 AM
Obama gave the direct order to not issue more security. He wanted the embassy to be attacked to help his muslim brothers.
Correct?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 05:11:51 AM
Obama gave the direct order to not issue more security. He wanted the embassy to be attacked to help his muslim brothers.
Correct?

No that would be Hillary. 

Obama is the baby and incompetent drugged up leftist piece of trash who will be deposed in November. 



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 08, 2012, 05:46:47 AM
No that would be Hillary. 

Obama is the baby and incompetent drugged up leftist piece of trash who will be deposed in November. 



So Hillary is a muslim brotherhood spy now?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 05:49:37 AM
So Hillary is a muslim brotherhood spy now?

Huma Abedin anyone? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 08, 2012, 06:18:00 AM
Huma Abedin anyone? 

A almost 70-year old woman married to a previous president is a muslim spy?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 06:18:37 AM
A almost 70-year old woman married to a previous president is a muslim spy?

Her lesbian close aid is. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 08, 2012, 06:21:42 AM
Her lesbian close aid is. 

Im pretty sure lesbianism is outlawed in Islam.



Where is Achmed when you need him? :)


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Revolt of the Spooks

Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya

The White House / AP Images


BY: Bill Gertz
October 5, 2012 5:00 am





Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what career officers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.
 
Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
 
“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.
 
The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.
 
Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials “with direct knowledge of events in Libya” revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10.
 
Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is “reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the [intelligence community], as would be expected of the oversight committee.”
 
But she noted: “At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure.”
 
Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”
 
Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.
 
Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.
 
A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration coverup said: “Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads.”
 
“When there isn’t definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious,” the official said. “There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations—and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces—is part of the intelligence business.”
 
Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.
 
Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.
 
Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.
 
The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.
 
Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.
 
Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.
 
After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.
 
The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.
 
“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.
 
That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.
 
The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.
 
“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.
 
The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” an assertion contradicted by the group’s rise in the region.
 
The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
 
Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.
 
The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.
 
Recent intelligence reports show that Egypt’s Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities.
 
The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Iran’s support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria.
 
However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obama’s culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology.
 
Intelligence officials said in Egypt—currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in March after having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt.
 
In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime.
 
In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Iran’s Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region.
 
The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obama’s decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month.
 
Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism.
 
The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others.
 
Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported.
 
A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda.
 
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

http://freebeacon.com/revolt-of-the-spooks




Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 07:14:20 AM
Murdered ambassador sent cable warning of threats on day of Benghazi attack
 Hotair ^ | 10/08/2012 | Ed Morrissey


Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 10:02:12 AM


A number of media sources have fresh looks at the Obama administration's handling of security in the weeks before the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi drove us out of eastern Libya and killed four Americans, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens. First, Fox News reported yesterday that the State Department decided to stick to its schedule of rotating out a 16-man Special Ops team assigned to diplomatic security in Benghazi, just weeks before the attack in August. They were joined in their exit by a six-man security team from the State Department itself:



ABC News follows this up with a report this morning that Stevens himself wanted the special forces team to stay in Libya, but apparently were overruled:


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.” …

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.

The State Department responded this morning by claiming that Stevens had requested a specific level of security which matched what he already had. However, Eli Lake’s report from the Daily Beast today underscores just how fragile those security arrangements were. Thanks to Obama administration efforts in Libya, Stevens sent a cable the morning of the attack warning State that their support of a Libyan candidate for Prime Minister threatened to alienate the militias that protected the Benghazi consulate:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.

The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.

The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty.

The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack. Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17 militia, the cable says.

Lake notes that the overall tone of the cable was positive about improving security in Libya. However, it’s also rather interesting that the cable makes no mention at all of the 14-minute YouTube video that the White House insisted for more than a week was the reason for the assault on the consulate. Instead, Stevens notified Washington of a rise in Islamist forces in the region, including morality brigades enforcing sharia law at the local university. Less than 24 hours later, Stevens would be murdered while the militias turned out to be ineffective at best in the coordinated terrorist attack on the consulate.

The House Oversight Committee hearing on the attack begins on Wednesday. Will the White House story change yet again between then and now?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 08, 2012, 07:20:13 AM
romney's going to call him on it, in this huge foreign policy speech.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
romney's going to call him on it, in this huge foreign policy speech.

Obama's whole bin laden thing is now meaningless. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 08, 2012, 07:39:27 AM
Obama's whole bin laden thing is now meaningless. 

i'll agree with you AFTER the debate.   He still has the potential to say "Ask osama bin laden if i'm soft on foreign policy" or something like that, which will tip the win to him.

Romney's really good at being a backseat driver, a monday morning QB but we're year to see him be right about something BEFORE it happens.  Which is why his credibility is "well, he's not obama".


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 08, 2012, 08:26:12 AM
i'll agree with you AFTER the debate.   He still has the potential to say "Ask osama bin laden if i'm soft on foreign policy" or something like that, which will tip the win to him.

Romney's really good at being a backseat driver, a monday morning QB but we're year to see him be right about something BEFORE it happens.  Which is why his credibility is "well, he's not obama".

Killing Bin Laden is symbolic, has no real effect on Al Queda. But the majority of Americans don't understand that.
Come on, Obama lives by the Poll numbers, he is like a wind sock


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 09:02:31 AM
Ex-Security Team Leader In Libya: "Multiple Pleas" For "More, Not Less" Security Staff



(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

"We tried to illustrate... to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is... it's just unbelievable," Wood tells CBS News.

One State Department source tells CBS News the security teams weren't "pulled," that their mission was simply over.

State Department officials have told CBS News that Wood was not part of the security assessment in Benghazi and that his assignment to Tripoli means he was unfamiliar with the local situation in the smaller port city in the country's east.

Lt. Col. Wood, Nordstrom and State Department official Charlene Lamb, based in Washington, will offer some of the key testimony at this week's House Oversight Committee hearing, led by committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports that the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy, will be the highest ranking official from the State Department to testify before the committee.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the State Department is cooperating fully with the congressional investigation, according to Brennan.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
In a briefing to Capitol Hill staffers delivered the day after the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the killings appeared to be the result of a terrorist attack.  
 
Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy -- who exercises responsibility for all department personnel, facilities, and operations, and who is one of the department's most respected civil servants, having served in his position under both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations -- delivered the assessment in an unclassified, half-hour conference call with staff aides to House and Senate lawmakers from relevant committees, and leadership offices, on the evening of Sept. 12.
 
That a State Department official of Kennedy's rank -- one with direct oversight of the installations and people targeted in Benghazi -- reached so swiftly the conclusion that the attacks were premeditated and coordinated stands in stark contrast to the opposing narrative pressed at that time, and for several days afterward, by other top officials at State, the White House, and the intelligence agencies.
 
Three days after Kennedy's conference call, for example, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows to insist that the attacks were neither coordinated nor premeditated, but were rather the result of a spontaneous mob action, inspired by an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, that spun out of control.
 
Rice has since told lawmakers that her comments reflected "the intelligence community's best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances," and a spokesman to the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, has said in a statement that the intelligence community "revised our initial assessment to ... (conclude) that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists."
 
According to participants on the Kennedy call, the under secretary noted he is not a "security expert," but then focused on the presence of light and heavy weapons outside the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi where U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been killed the night before.
 
"He made clear that this was a sophisticated attack," said one Hill staff aide with a security clearance.  "He indicated this was fairly complex, and not, like, a protest that got out of hand. ... These were not the kind of weapons you tote around."
 
In subsequent days, Kennedy delivered an in-person, classified briefing to a group composed of many of the same congressional staff aides who had participated on the Sept. 12 conference call.
 
Fox News and other news organizations have previously reported that earlier on Sept. 12 -- within 24 hours of learning about the murders -- the Obama administration made a secret determination that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack.  Doing so enabled them, under the terms of a 2001 anti-terrorism statute, to move men, money and materiel around more freely, and position these assets to meet the threats in Libya and other parts of the Mideast that had recently seen attacks on U.S. installations.  Kennedy's assessment accorded with that determination.
 
This leaves unexplained how Rice, ostensibly armed with the intelligence community's best assessment, could have offered such a starkly different account in her Sunday show appearances.  As late as Sept. 17, Fox News reported last week, high-level U.S. intelligence officials obtained from outside security contractors assessments of the mortar damage done at the U.S. annex in Benghazi.  Sources told Fox News these officials then used the contractors' mortar damage assessments -- which indicated the presence of at least two highly skilled mortar teams using GPS devices -- to rebut Rice's claims internally.
 
The next day, on Sept. 18, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified publicly that the attacks were an act of terrorism - which effectively ended the internal disputes roiling the Obama administration and the intelligence community.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/top-clinton-aide-swiftly-briefed-capitol-hill-on-coordinated-attack/#ixzz28j9gtYZE








OBAMA RICE AND HILLARY LIED THEIR FUCKING ASSES OFF. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2012, 04:59:48 PM
AP sources: We didn't link Libya attack to video
 Associated Press ^ | Oct. 9, 2012 | BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK

Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:58:21 PM by Free ThinkerNY

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.


(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 09, 2012, 05:59:11 PM
obama has to keep the waters muddy about this issue, continually reminding us that he killed bin laden and that romney doesn't have that many differences from him on foreign policy.

and 33, you gotta admit, their positions on everything aren't that different.  I'd say the ONLY thing different is that romney wants do increase military spending by 20% - and obama (and you agree with him by the way) wants to LOWER military spending. 

We have 50k troops in south korea (knowing damn well any war with NKorea would involve very fast missiles raining down) and we cannot get more than 4 marines to guard this embassy?  W?  T?  F? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: tonymctones on October 09, 2012, 06:10:48 PM
obama has to keep the waters muddy about this issue, continually reminding us that he killed bin laden and that romney doesn't have that many differences from him on foreign policy.

and 33, you gotta admit, their positions on everything aren't that different.  I'd say the ONLY thing different is that romney wants do increase military spending by 20% - and obama (and you agree with him by the way) wants to LOWER military spending. 

We have 50k troops in south korea (knowing damn well any war with NKorea would involve very fast missiles raining down) and we cannot get more than 4 marines to guard this embassy?  W?  T?  F? 
so what youre saying is that the one "strong point" obama has in this entire debacle of a presidency is basically the same stance as romney?

well I guess obama is fucked then seeing as the rest of the issues romney kicks his ass in.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 09, 2012, 06:17:32 PM
so what youre saying is that the one "strong point" obama has in this entire debacle of a presidency is basically the same stance as romney?

well I guess obama is fucked then seeing as the rest of the issues romney kicks his ass in.

I'm saying obama had those positions first - he adopted them from bush.

Can romney list 5 things he'd do DIFFERENTLY as prez?  No.
He'll tell us 5 things he'll do BETTER but it'll be vague - I'll spend more, respond faster, blah blah, but changing policy? no. 

Aside from arming the syrian rebels with weapons so they can shoot at our soldiers eventually...

tony, can YOU list 5 differences in the foreign policy positions of these 2 neocons? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: tonymctones on October 09, 2012, 06:19:40 PM
I'm saying obama had those positions first - he adopted them from bush.

Can romney list 5 things he'd do DIFFERENTLY as prez?  No.
He'll tell us 5 things he'll do BETTER but it'll be vague - I'll spend more, respond faster, blah blah, but changing policy? no. 

Aside from arming the syrian rebels with weapons so they can shoot at our soldiers eventually...

tony, can YOU list 5 differences in the foreign policy positions of these 2 neocons? 
LOL if you think these two have the same agenda especially economically your a bigger moron then the person who admitted you to an mba program.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 09, 2012, 06:32:01 PM
LOL if you think these two have the same agenda especially economically your a bigger moron then the person who admitted you to an mba program.

i'm asking you to tell me 5 major differences between their foreign policies?

Obama's taken a lot of heat for being a neocon on many things - and romney's team is comprised of many bush era neocons.

I hear mitt saying lots of vague things like "faster response" and "greater money for defense" but I'd love to hear 5 REAL differences - how would he handle libya any differently?  Obama's just following bush policy on iraq and afghanistan and iran too.

Really, obama is a neocon's wet dream - I don't know what team romneycon is going to do differently.



And since I asked you to list 5, and you didn't, I dont think you know either ;)


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2012, 06:33:58 PM
i'm asking you to tell me 5 major differences between their foreign policies?

Obama's taken a lot of heat for being a neocon on many things - and romney's team is comprised of many bush era neocons.

I hear mitt saying lots of vague things like "faster response" and "greater money for defense" but I'd love to hear 5 REAL differences - how would he handle libya any differently?  Obama's just following bush policy on iraq and afghanistan and iran too.

Really, obama is a neocon's wet dream - I don't know what team romneycon is going to do differently.



And since I asked you to list 5, and you didn't, I dont think you know either ;)

Russia
China
World Kneepad Tour
Building up the Navy
Israel



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 09, 2012, 06:43:16 PM
Russia
China
World Kneepad Tour
Building up the Navy
Israel

dude, if you think romney is going to change a thing with russia, china, you're smoking some good shit you should share.  Bush, clinton and obama all played ball with them.

Kneepad tour?  yes, romney will be a dick to them and that will be awesome.

build up the navy/  yes, we can afford that.  goodness knows with our weak navy today, people are jjust meeting with us left and right lol...

#5?  Romney admitted nothting will get done here - have you seen that video from the waiter table?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2012, 06:48:03 PM
dude, if you think romney is going to change a thing with russia, china, you're smoking some good shit you should share.  Bush, clinton and obama all played ball with them.

Kneepad tour?  yes, romney will be a dick to them and that will be awesome.

build up the navy/  yes, we can afford that.  goodness knows with our weak navy today, people are jjust meeting with us left and right lol...

#5?  Romney admitted nothting will get done here - have you seen that video from the waiter table?

Yes - mittens won me over w that quote.   The Romney i voted for in 2008 primary is emerging and will be our next Reagan if he does what he is promising   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2012, 08:24:39 PM
AP SOURCES: STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER LINKED LIBYA ATTACK TO ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO
 The Blaze ^ | October 9, 2012 | Jason Howerton

Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:04:45 PM by Snuph

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.


(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 09, 2012, 08:32:20 PM
Yes - mittens won me over w that quote.   The Romney i voted for in 2008 primary is emerging and will be our next Reagan if he does what he is promising   

i hope youre right.

mitt won you over the minute he said "I am not barry obama".


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
i hope youre right.

mitt won you over the minute he said "I am not barry obama".

True. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 10:17:20 AM
U.S. Security Official in Libya Tells Congressional Investigators About ‘Inappropriately Low’ Security at Benghazi Post


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/u-s-security-official-in-libya-tells-congressional-investigators-about-inappropriately-low-security-at-benghazi-post

STR/AFP/GettyImages

 


ABC News has learned that 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 the commander of a 16-member Security Support Team, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, 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.
 
Nordstrom was worried -he did not know how much the Americans could rely on members of a local Libyan militia in Benghazi that provided security — the “17th of February Martyrs Brigade.” Mostly merchants and shopkeepers before the war, they seemed eager, but they hadn’t much experience and other than a daily $30 stipend for food from the U.S. Embassy, they hadn’t been paid in months.
 
Nordstrom had “no idea if they would respond to an attack,” he told investigators.
 


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.
 
Nordstrom twice wrote to the State Department – in March and July 2012 — to beef up the presence of American security officers in Benghazi, but neither time was there a response. At no point from December 2011 through July 2012, when he left Libya, were more than three Diplomatic Security Service agents permanently and simultaneously stationed at the Benghazi post.
 
Nordstrom wanted at least five personnel to be stationed at Benghazi, but the State Department would not allow it. There were American security officers, however, at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, including three Mobile Security Detachments, which were part of the DSS, and a 16-member Security Support Team detailed from Special Operations Command AFRICOM, commanded by Wood. But the State Department would not give him permission to deploy them to be stationed at Benghazi. Deputy Assistant Secretary for international programs Charlene Lamb, in Nordstrom’s view, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low,” according to a memo for Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
 
Wood, a former Green Beret, told ABC News that he and other members of the Security Support Team wanted to remain in Libya past their deployment was scheduled to end in August, and that Ambassador Stevens wanted them to remain as well. Nordstrom has said that Lamb told him not to request for the Security Support Team to be extended again. (Its deployment had been previously extended in February 2012.)
 
Lamb will testify before the House committee later today.
 
“I do recall one conversation with her where she (Lamb) said that since we now had a residential safe haven in Benghazi that she didn’t seem to have a problem with having no agents on the compound because if something happened then personnel could simply go to that residential safe haven,” Nordstrom told investigators.
 
That safe haven proved a deathtrap. Situated inside the main residence in Benghazi, consisting of three bedrooms and a bathroom set aside from the rest of the building by metal grillwork and several locks, the safe haven is where Stevens and information officer Sean Smith suffered severe smoke inhalation after the attackers set the house on fire.
 
On Tuesday afternoon, State Department officials acknowledged that despite earlier explanations from the Obama administration, there was no protest outside the Benghazi compound at all. Only an hour before gunmen methodically and deliberately stormed the post, the streets were empty and everything seemed calm. Obama administration officials originally claimed the trouble began with demonstrations against an anti-Muslim video, a protest that, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told ABC News’ THIS WEEK on the Sunday after the attack, “seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists.”
 
Rice and White House officials now say those initial accounts were based on early intelligence, since corrected. State Department officials now call the attack unprecedented given the number of gunman, weapons and lethal force used.
 
-Jake Tapper


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
US Embassy in Libya Sought $13,000-Per-Year Bodyguards..Preference to..‘Same-Sex Domestic Partners
 CNSNews ^ | October 10, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey


Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:51:01 PM



(CNSNews.com) - In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the U.S. Embassy in Libya was seeking to hire two bodyguards with “limited” English language skills at salaries of about $13,000 per year.

Job descriptions for these openings that the U.S. Embassy in Libya posted online said the State Department would give preference in filling them to qualified U.S. citizens who were family members of U.S. government employees.

The job descriptions explicitly stated that this included the “same-sex domestic partners” of U.S. government employees.

In addition to the two bodyguards, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya was also seeking a security guard, a surveillance detection specialist, a chauffeur for the consulate in Benghazi and a “Senior Guard” for the Local Guard Force working to secure the embassy.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 01:29:51 PM





Lamb to the slaughter
 
Posted By Josh RoginWednesday, October 10, 2012 - 3:59 PM Share
 




In an often heated congressional hearing Wednesday, lawmakers and witnesses alike pointed to State Department official Charlene Lamb as the person most directly responsible for rejecting multiple requests for increased security at the U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya prior to the Sept. 11 attack.
 
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA) excoriated the State Department for rejecting requests from the U.S. Embassy in Libya for an extension of temporary security forces that were withdrawn in the months prior to the attack that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
 
In a dramatic moment at the hearing, Issa released unclassified cables from March and July that the State Department had refused to release, detailing those requests.
 
One cable, written by then Amb. Gene Cretz, noted that three Mobile Security Detachments [MSD], consisting of 18 personnel, and the Site Security Team [SST], consisting of 16 personnel, were about to leave their temporary assignments. He said that the Libya mission needed both an extension of those forces and an increase in the number of permanent security officials in Libya.
 
The SST is a team of U.S. military personnel that was deployed to assist the embassy staff on a temporary basis for 60 days and then extended for another 60 days, but not extended for a third 60 day tour.
 
During the hearing, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer Eric Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August, placed the blame squarely on Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, whom they said was the official who denied those requests.
 
"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," Nordstrom testified, adding that Lamb had directly told him over the phone not to make the requests, but that Cretz decided to do it anyway.
 
"In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway," Nordstrom said.
 
Nordstrom, who said in his opening statement that he understood the balance needed to manage risk at high-threat posts to allow diplomats to do their work, criticized the State Department for failing to plan for security in Libya after the team's departure.
 
"Once the first team of [temporary personnel] expired, there was a complete and total lack of planning for what was going to happen next," he said. "There was no plan, there was just hope that everything would get better."
 
Nordstrom also said that he received a danger pay increase after the U.S. security teams left because the official assessment of the danger for U.S. personnel in Libya had increased.
 
Lamb defended her decision not to extend the missions of the MSD and SST teams, arguing that the mission of those teams had changed and that in any case they were replaced by local Libyan security personnel. The post had agreed that having only three diplomatic security agents in Benghazi was sufficient, she claimed.
 
""We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11," Lamb testified.
 
"That doesn't ring true to the American people," Issa responded.

Nordstrom said that Lamb never responded to the Tripoli embassy's request for continued security resources in what he considered a rejection, even if Lamb never issued a written objection. Lamb said that the U.S. mission in Libya had not been specific enough in its requests for forces, but Nordstrom pointed to the cables as evidence that was simply not true.
 
Lamb said that the specialized skills contained in the forces were being acquired by Libyan forces.
 
"We had been training local Libyans and arming them for almost a year," Lamb said. She also said that the extension of the SST in Tripoli "would not have made any difference in Benghazi."
 
Wood pointed out that the SST had traveled to Benghazi at least twice to help protect the top U.S. official at that mission and he dismissed that idea that local Libya forces could have the same specialized skills as by the U.S. security personnel that were removed.
 
"We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met," Wood testified.
 
Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy said he disagreed with Lamb and was inclined to support an extension of the SST mission in Libya, before he was cut off by Issa because time had expired.
 
Kennedy and Lamb were also pressed several times to explain why senior officials including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made statements in the days after the attack describing it as a reaction to an anti-Islam video, considering that the State Department was monitoring the events that night in real time.
 
Kennedy suggested that another government agency was to blame.

"There were reports that we received that there were protests, and I would not go any further than that," Kennedy said, citing a reluctance to go into detail in open session. Other officials, including Rice, have said that they based their comments on the intelligence community's initial, albeit caveated, assessment.
 
But Wood testified that there was no way anyone who was following the events in real time could conclude the attacks were anything but a terrorist attack.
 
"It was instantly recognizable as a terrorist attack. We almost expected the attack to come. It was a matter of time," Wood said. "[Al Qaeda's] presence grows there every day. They are certainly more established there than we are."
 











IMPEACH


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 03:21:51 PM
Attackers or Terrorists? State Dep't Security Chief: 'I'm Not Making Any Judgments'

By Elizabeth Harrington

October 10, 2012


Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts






Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012 (AP Photo)

 
(CNSNews.com) – The State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Programs, Charlene R. Lamb, responsible for security at 285 embassies and consulates, used the word "attack" five times and "attackers" four times in describing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya but when asked why she did not call it "terrorism," Lamb said, "I'm not making any judgments on my own."
 
Lamb, as her State Department bio reads, is "responsible for the safety and security of over 285 overseas Embassies and Consulates and oversees the 550 special agent/security professionals posted at those locations."
 
Lamb testified today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where the ambassador and three other Americans were killed.
 
In her testimony, Lamb described the incident as an "attack" five times:
 
-- "Additionally, I was in our Diplomatic Security Command Center monitoring multiple open lines with our agents for much of the attack." (Emphasis added.)
 
-- "The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time."
 
-- "Let me add here that over the course of the attack, two local Libyan security personnel were beaten, and two were shot."
 
-- "When the attack began ...."
 
Lamb also described the people who overran the consulate as "attackers" on four occasions in her testimony:
 
-- "Dozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity."
 
-- "When they attempted to return to the main building, they encountered armed attackers and doubled back to Building B."
 
-- "The attackers used diesel fuel to set the main building ablaze."
 
-- "At the same time, attackers swept across the compound towards the Tactical Operations Center and Building B."
 
At no time in her prepared testimony did Lamb refer to the Sept. 11 incident as a terrorist act or terrorist attacker, and she did not describe the perpetrators as terrorists.
 
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) pressed Lamb, who appeared as a witness on Capitol Hill on the security breaches surrounding the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi last month, following her testimony:
 
“Today as I listen to people, and you, Ms. Lamb, have said you’ve described these attackers in a number of ways, but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that?” Burton asked.
 






“The compound had been attacked once before and breached, and these people had all these weapons, projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything but a terrorist attack? Why do you call them attackers?” Burton added.
 
“Sir, I have just presented the facts as they come across,” Lamb said. “I am not making any judgments on my own.”
 
Lamb, as noted, called the events a “full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity.”
 
For days following the attack, the White House said it was “spontaneous,” resulting from protests against an anti-Islamic YouTube video. On Sept. 21, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 04:38:15 PM
State Dept. Meltdown at Benghazi Hearing
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 10.10.2012 - 4:45 PM




The Obama administration’s Benghazi response continued to unravel at the House Oversight Committee hearing today, as State Department officials struggled unsuccessfully to get their stories straight.
 
Ambassador Patrick Kennedy defended UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s claim on September 16 that the attack was part of a spontaneous protest that erupted over an anti-Islam video, saying that anyone at the State Department would have said the same thing as Rice based on the intelligence available at the time. “If any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point,” said Kennedy.
 
But, as Republicans on the Oversight Committee pointed out, that appears to contradict Kennedy’s comments from a September 12 unclassified briefing, when he reportedly called it a terrorist attack.
 
Another State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wrote in her prepared testimony (but did not read aloud) that she was able to monitor the attack “in almost real-time” once a Diplomatic Security agent activated the imminent danger notification system. Yet she didn’t explain why the State Department and other administration officials initially said spontaneous protests were responsible for the attack, if there had been officials monitoring it in real-time.
 
Both Kennedy’s and Lamb’s comments also contradicted the State Department’s latest official position. In a conference call last night, senior State Department officials told reporters that the department had never believed the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest:
 

Asked if the State Department agreed with the White House conclusion that the attack was sparked by the video instead of a planned terror attack on U.S. civilians, the official stated, “that is the question you’d have to ask others, that was not our conclusion.”
 
That statement contradicts what the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said on Sunday morning political talk shows on Sept. 16.
 
The officials also struggled to defend the security situation at the consulate. “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi” at the time of the attack, Lamb told the committee. Kennedy seemed to dispute this later in the hearing, saying that State Department security is “never going to have enough guns” to prevent full-force military attacks like the one in Benghazi.
 
Meanwhile, Benghazi security official Lt. Col. Woods, a whistle-blower working with the Oversight Committee, said he “knew instantly” Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Woods added that he “almost expected the attack” because of the regular threats and security breaches in the area, and the fact that “we were the last flag flying” after the British ambassador had his convoy bombed and pulled out of Benghazi.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 05:52:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRKGOrRkT4


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/10/state-department-budget-cuts-had-nothing-to-do-with-lax-security


Elijah Cummings = pofs apologist


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 06:17:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBL1nz4eq6I


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 06:18:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTH8aJL033A


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 06:20:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNu6E7c4vA

Obama and Hillary need to be arrested.   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 06:26:53 PM
Obama and Hillary lied - people died

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpoIoYEw-fg


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 07:08:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=424go4QIo-w


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 07:12:56 PM
Love this guy.  Spot on!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12xvztg3v8


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 07:24:44 PM
Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False (video)
 RealClearPolitics ^ | October 10, 2012 | RealClearPolitics

Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:19:50 PM by i88schwartz

Posted on October 10, 2012 Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False

Piers Morgan, CNN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge. And it's pretty unAmerican, pretty unAmerican to be putting up completely false statements before you know the facts, isn't it?

Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given --

Piers Morgan: That turned out to be complete wrong.

Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn't mean it was false. It doesn't mean that it was deliberate. It means that.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 07:40:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU


BUSTED!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 08:02:22 PM

Posted on October 10, 2012


Krauthammer On Libya Cover Up: Hillary Clinton Told Video Story While Body Of Ambassador Was Next To Her



CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's beyond a disconnect, it is utterly damning. There are two scandals going on. The first is the coverup. We now know, and they knew earlier there was no mob, there was no demonstration, there was no incentive about the video. It was all a completely false story. This was simply an attack of our men who infiltrated and killed our people.

So everything that Susan Rice said was a confection, it was an invention. And as you showed, it was repeated again and again. You had Hillary Clinton speaking of the video as the body of the ambassador was lying next to her. Then you had Susan Rice spinning the tails. You had the president of the United States addressing the [U.N.] General Assembly more than two weeks later talking about the video, the insult to Islam, et cetera. You have this entire story going all along. They're trying to sell the video, they're trying to sell extremism and they're trying to sell all of this at a time when they know it isn't true. So that's number one. That's a scandal and I think it has to do with the fact that they were spiking the football over the death of bin Laden and al-Qaeda a week earlier in Charlotte and this is a contradiction of it.

The second scandal is the lack of security at the site before. So what happened before? And I think that what happened was the administration, it wasn't a lack of money that they withdrew all the support and they didn't put up the required barbed wire and the fences and all of that. It was under the theory which starts with Obama at the beginning; we don't want to be intruders in the area, we don't want to be oppositional, we don't want to have a fortress in America, we don't want to look imperialist. We want to blend in with the people and help them build. That's a noble aspiration and that was the motive for having very light security, but it was a catastrophically wrong decision to do it in Benghazi in a no man's land in Dodge City and it cost us the lives of the Ambassador and three other Americans. bret


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 10, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q72Kt1VLWUo


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 02:48:31 AM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Why The Obama Administration Lied About Benghazi
TalkingSides.com ^ | 10/10/12 | CaroleL
Posted on October 10, 2012 2:16:24 PM EDT by CaroleL

Today the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on diplomatic security; specifically the lack of security that facilitated the September 11 murders of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Most often these investigations center on the question 'What did a government official know and when did they know it?' but in this case we already have those answers.

Hours before the congressional hearing began, the State Department briefed reporters on the facts of the case saying it never determined that the deadly attack on the US consulate stemmed from protests over an anti-Islam YouTube video as administration officials claimed for over a week. So the question which needs to be answered is not what did Obama & Company know and when did they know it but rather, why did they blatantly and repeatedly lie to the American people?

The possible answers:

A. A terrorist attack on US soil that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador does not substantiate the administration's assertion that President Obama's foreign policy has been a success. The fact that four years of apologies and appeasements did not result in the new era of mutual respect Mr. Obama promised; but rather in more hate and terror will not assist the president in winning a second term.

B. The administration wanted to cover-up the fact that it denied and/or ignored requests for additional security in Libya. In the weeks after the Benghazi attack, multiple requests from US officials in Libya have been uncovered which show concern over the lack of security there. Ambassador Stevens himself repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi but his requests were denied. US Security Officer Eric Nordstrom asked his State Department superiors for more security agents months before the Benghazi attack but got no response.

C. Blaming the ridiculous YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi gave the president another opportunity to apologize for American values rather than defend them. The day after the murders, Mr. Obama condemned the violence but also condemned criticism of Islam. This attempt to morally equate murder with the exercise of free speech was such an obvious political disaster that the president had to quickly release a statement asserting that the First Amendment "is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I'm sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind."

D. They thought they could get away with it. With the mainstream media tucked comfortably in Mr. Obama's pocket for years, there was good reason for the administration to believe that if they repeatedly lied about what happened in Benghazi, the lie would be reported as the undisputed truth. In the most blatant case, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on numerous television programs stating the attack was "a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo" and that what transpired in Cairo "was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video." The dutiful media aired what we now know to be brazen lies without challenge.

As the State Department begins to reveal the truth and the Congressional investigation moves forward, it looks like the answer is most likely E. All of the above.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 02:52:13 AM
BUSTED.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/1892704860001



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 03:02:31 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mother-slain-state-dept-official-tired-being-lied-and-stonewalled-obama-administration_654163.html


Obama lies people die.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 07:07:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2RuF0xoDs


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 11, 2012, 07:08:22 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mother-slain-state-dept-official-tired-being-lied-and-stonewalled-obama-administration_654163.html


Obama lies people die.

Funny how you dont give a shit when republicans start wars killing 1000 of americans.

Go fuck yourself


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 07:11:32 AM
Funny how you dont give a shit when republicans start wars killing 1000 of americans.

Go fuck yourself


So you are ok w the blood on obama's hands and his lies? 



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 11, 2012, 07:23:11 AM
So you are ok w the blood on obama's hands and his lies? 



So you are ok with the blood on the hands of the GOP and their CONSTANT lies???


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 07:31:39 AM
So you are ok with the blood on the hands of the GOP and their CONSTANT lies???

Start a thread on it. 

Why do you keep covering for obama's deadly incompetence? 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 11, 2012, 07:55:56 AM
Start a thread on it. 

Why do you keep covering for obama's deadly incompetence? 

I dont.

Obama is a dirtbag.

But you blame every issue on him despite the GOP is as bad as him.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 08:37:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjO3_QWWgG8


Holy Shit 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 10:07:40 AM
President Obama and the "Intelligence Brief" Scandal
 http://townhall.com/columnists/paulkengor/2012/10/11/president_obama_and_the_intelligence_brief_scandal ^ | Paul Kengor
 
Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:15:42 PM by Kaslin

The last few weeks have produced many intriguing political moments, but none as shocking as the revelation that President Obama has been absent from the vast majority of his daily intelligence briefings.



According to a study by the Government Accountability Institute, Obama failed to attend a single Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in the week leading up to the recent anniversary of 9/11 and the chaos that erupted in the Arab world. The mere fact that we were approaching 9/11 was a crucial enough reason to attend not one but all the briefings. President Obama attended none.



Worse, this is apparently nothing new. Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his administration. For this year, he attended a little over a third.



This is stunning, and there’s no excuse for it.



Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, who worked for President George W. Bush, pressed NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor for an explanation. Thiessen reported:



Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail. “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”



That’s simply the White House covering for the president.



Similarly, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the PDB charge as “hilarious.” No, no, said Carney, the president “gets it every day.” By “it,” Carney was apparently talking about the intelligence briefing papers, not the actual meetings.



Pro-Obama journalists happily accepted Carney’s explanation. CNN posted Carney’s comments under a photo of a pensive Obama sitting at an intelligence briefing.



Sorry, but, once again, there’s no excuse for this, especially in the post-9/11 world. George W. Bush not only didn’t miss the PDB but actually expanded it to six meetings per week.



Consider, too, the case of Ronald Reagan, who liberals, ironically, portrayed as an uninformed idiot who didn’t pay attention in meetings or read anything.



Reagan, in fact, attended the daily intelligence briefing. I could lay this out at length, but here I’ll offer just two Reagan sources, both still living, who can speak to this:



One source is Herb Meyer, special assistant to CIA director Bill Casey in the 1980s. Meyer told me: “Of course Reagan attended all those daily briefings. And after the briefers returned to CIA headquarters, Bill [Casey] would meet with them just to be sure the president (and Haig & Weinberger) got answers to whatever questions they may have had. In short, it was a very—very—serious business.”



Another source is Bill Clark. Clark was Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man in foreign policy. As his biographer, I know Clark well. He is 80 years old and lives in California. Clark told me this about Reagan and the PDB:



Bill Casey would, by courier, send the President’s Daily Brief each morning at about 5:00 a.m. to our war room downstairs in our [National] Security Council…. It would be delivered to the president in his residence before he came over [by 7:00 a.m.]…. He’d write questions all over the margins about things that weren’t clear in the briefing. And, of course, the agency [CIA] would come down with further explanations.



Clark recalls how Reagan craved that regular morning update. He would read it and then they would meet. Reagan ate up these briefings. He asked questions of his advisers. He probed for ideas. Reagan attended the briefings and used them as presidents should.



When Reagan finished his presidency, after two terms, genuine freedom and democracy were surging all over the communist world.



As for President Obama, if he’s in the process of finishing his presidency, after one term, he’s facing a surge of radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Can any of that be blamed on Obama’s failure to attend these routine briefings? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly can’t help.



In fact, as Marc Theissen and the Government Accountability Institute have noted in follow-up stories, Obama is now suddenly attending his daily briefing. That’s no doubt a response to political criticism. But could it be—on the heels of the eruptions in Libya and Egypt, which Obama initially blamed not on pre-meditated terrorism but a video—that maybe President Obama feels like he might have been missing something?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
Cutter: Benghazi Is Only an Issue ‘Because of Romney and Ryan’
 Washington Free Beacon ^ | October 11, 2012 | Washington Free Beacon Staff

Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:09:24 PM by Snuph

Video at link...Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–


(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Did Stephanie Cutter Just Win The Foreign Policy Debate For Romney?

video

by Noah Rothman | 4:14 pm, October 11th, 2012



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-stephanie-cutter-just-win-the-foreign-policy-debate-for-romney



In case you haven’t seen the video, watch it. Drink it in. Obama campaign Deputy Communications Director Stephanie Cutter, in a craven and flailing attempt to salvage the White House’s ebbing credibility surrounding their response to the 9/11/12 attacks in Libya, said that it was her estimation that the attacks were only an issue because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made it one.
 

In effect, Cutter said that this attack, one of the most comprehensive and successful Al Qaeda attacks on American assets since September 11, 20001 in which an American ambassador overseas was killed for the first time since the Carter administration, was only on the media’s radar because it is an election year. Stephanie Cutter has just provided Mitt Romney a stronger argument against President Barack Obama’s handling of foreign affairs he could have hoped for. In a single bound, Cutter revealed the administration’s thinking about how to respond to this deadly attack – it is not about American security, it is about politics. Fair or not, that is how Romney will frame Cutter’s glib remark.



Stephanie Cutter must have known that the administration has been under fire for sending out high level officials to disseminate information about the origins of that attack that they were aware at the time was false. Cutter must have known that the State Department is in the hot seat for ignoring consulate and embassy requests for more security and reallocating assets that could have aided those threatened diplomatic officials elsewhere on the globe. There is no way Cutter could not have known that she was simply unqualified to discuss matters of national security or the president’s response to threats posed by global terrorism in North Africa and the Middle East.

But she ignored all that when she jumped out in front of the issue and brazenly accused the Republican ticket of politicizing the attack in Libya. She then dared to suggest that Romney criticized Obama on the Libya attacks before he had enough information. Even if he did, events have vindicated him. Cutter is a few news cycles behind the rest of us.

One of the president’s chief spokespeople has now handed a weapon for the foreign policy debate on October 22 that he could never have dreamed of having. Cutter has created a victim of Romney – a martyr, accused of politicizing an event when he is, as I expect him to say, seeking answers about a mishandled tragedy for the American people. He will cite the grieving families of the victims of that attack and the millions of Americans who are now threatened by an emboldened and resurgent Al Qaeda. Romney will be righteous and he will be justified in that righteousness.
 
The Libya issue has already decimated how American’s view Obama’s handling of foreign affairs — once a strong suit of the president. Two months ago, the Chicago team probably thought they could walk through the foreign policy debate. Now, less than a week and a half before the final presidential debate, Obama’s own staff may have already lost it for him.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2012, 08:46:15 PM

Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security
 
Posted By Josh RoginThursday, October 11, 2012 - 8:06 PM Share
 
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_security




Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
 


"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.
 
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
 
"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway."
 
Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department's reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, "For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."
 
"We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met," testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.
 
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released the unclassified cables containing those requests.
 
Rep. Paul Ryan pointed out the testimony to Biden during the debate. Ryan also erred when he criticized the State Department for assigning Marines to protect the ambassador in France but not Amb. Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
 
"Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him, shouldn't we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?," Ryan said.
 
According to the U.S. Embassy Paris website, there is a Marine Security Guard Detachment in the embassy, but they are there primarily to protect classified information and are not part of the ambassador's personal security detail.
 
"The mission of the Marine Security Guards is to provide internal security at designated United States Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified material and equipment which, if compromised, would cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States; and to provide protection for U.S. citizens and property within the principal buildings of the Mission," the website reads, noting that in certain situations the Marines might be in a position to protect the chief of mission.
 
Ryan also criticized President Barack Obama for attributing the Benghazi attack to an anti-Islam video and he referred to comments today by Obama campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter, who said the Benghazi issue was only politically relevant because the Romney-Ryan campaign was pushing it.
 
Biden accused Romney of spouting off about the Benghazi attack before knowing all the facts and he pledged that the administration would pursue the investigation to wherever it leads.
 
 















Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: AbrahamG on October 12, 2012, 02:01:51 AM
Benghazi: Multiple Requests for Increased Security Denied by Washington
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/02/Multiple-Requests-for-Increased-Security-in-Benghazi-Were-Denied-by-Washington?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


by John Sexton

2 Oct 2012, 9:43 AM PDT


 

The security lapses in Benghazi that led to the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans trace back to security decisions made in Washington. That's the message of a letter Rep. Darrell Issa sent to Secretary Clinton Tuesday. The letter indicates that the US mission in Libya made repeated request for increased security prior to the September 11th attack but that these requests were denied. Issa's House Oversight committee is planning a hearing on Wednesday, October 10, to investigate the failure.
 
Issa's letter is an effort to gather relevant information on security arrangements in Libya prior to the attack. In particular, Issa is requesting information on security requests from the Libyan Embassy and relevant documents on how those requests were handled. According to the letter, "multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11th attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."
 
The letter offers a partial timeline of attacks on western outposts in Tripoli and Benghazi which shows a pattern of targeting western diplomats and outposts. It also suggests the attacks were escalating in their boldness, i.e. late night attacks give way to strikes in broad daylight. What follows is summary of the incidents mentioned in Issa's letter:

 •April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.

•April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.

•April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.

•April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.

•April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.

•May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.

•May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.

•June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.

•June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.

•June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi.
No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.

•Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.

•August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.

•Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."

While the list suggests a clear pattern it is far from complete. For instance, in April a bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya as he traveled through Benghazi.
 
The letter requests a written response to three questions. Did the State Department know about all of the above attacks? What security arrangements were made in light of them? What requests did the Libyan Embassy make for additional security prior to September 11, 2012? Issa requests that a written answer be provided to the committee by Monday October 8th.
 

How about the nearly half trillion dollars the GOP waxed from embassy security.  Against the wishes of Sec. Clinton.  Huh moron?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 05:43:00 AM
How about the nearly half trillion dollars the GOP waxed from embassy security.  Against the wishes of Sec. Clinton.  Huh moron?

Hey idiot - the state department said funding played no role in the decision not to put more security at the embassy - like a typical stupid braindead 94er you know absolutely nothing on this topic. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 06:53:27 AM
Bam team’s bloody failure
Last Updated: 12:13 AM, October 11, 2012
Posted: October 11, 2012


 
‘What is the difference between chaos and control?”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) posed that question yesterday to a witness at a House Oversight Committee hearing into the State Department’s cascading security failures that led directly to the wanton slaughter of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

But the question also stands as an indictment of the Obama administration’s tenuous hold on the broader Middle East, where the influence and security of the United States are fading — and where al Qaeda is very much on the rise.

But first, that hearing from yesterday.
 


AP

 Eric Nordstrom

Eric Nordstrom, the State Department’s regional security officer for Libya, twice sought to enhance security for US missions there in the wake of cutbacks in the months before the 9/11 attack.

But Nordstrom says his requests were ignored by Washington “because there would be too much political cost.”

Instead, he was given a “danger pay” hike when 16 US soldiers from a Site Security Team and 18 members of three Mobile Security Deployments were yanked.

Clearly, the hazardous-duty pay means the State Department recognized the increasing risks in Libya.

Yet State Department official Charlene Lamb — who refused the manpower requests — testified yesterday that “we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11.”

That’s self-evidently false — to say nothing of insane — but it also telegraphs the administration’s cluelessness about the region.

After the 16 soldiers were removed, “there was a complete and total lack of planning for what was going to happen next,” Nordstrom said. “There was no plan, there was just hope that everything would get better.” It didn’t.

 The Benghazi mission was sacked, four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens — were murdered and the White House sought to cover things up by calling the well-coordinated strike an “impromptu” protest against an obscure online video.

In fact, there was never a protest at all — just a premeditated paramilitary assault which totally surprised Washington.

No shock there.

The White House’s attention has been elsewhere: Eager to proclaim victory in the War on Terror, President Obama spent a year celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALs — claiming that al Qaeda was “devastated,” “decimated” and “on its heels.”

That’s not true in Iraq, where the number of al Qaeda fighters has more than doubled, from 1,000 to 2,500, since Obama withdrew US forces last year — and where there are now 20 al Qaeda attacks every single day.

And it’s not true in Libya, where Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, the former commander of the State Department Site Security Team there, told Congress al Qaeda is on the rise.

“Their presence grows there every day. They are certainly more established there than we are,” Wood said yesterday.

Of course they are.

Just as all but the sunniest optimists said they would be as the administration’s “leadership from behind” fell quickly to pieces after Moammar Khadafy’s inglorious fall.

Osama may be dead.

But al Qaeda is very much alive.

Another Barack Obama failure.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
Benghazi's Real Scandal? Uncle Sam Joined the Jihad
 DianeWest.net ^ | 11OCT12 | Diane West

Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 10:35:05 AM



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.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 08:37:01 AM
Obama Campaign Spokesman Abruptly Ends Radio Interview After Being Asked About Obama 'Lying' About
 The Blaze ^ | 10/12/12 | Madeleine Morgenstern

Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 11:20:22 AM by Nachum

Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt abruptly ended a heated radio interview Thursday after being pressed on President Barack Obama’s differing statements on the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

LaBolt insisted on Cleveland‘s WTAM that the White House has been sharing all the facts as they’ve come in from the intelligence community. Asked whether the president should make a statement disavowing his past comments blaming the assault on an anti-Islam video, LaBolt pushed back.

“The president called it an act of terror within 24 hours, he again updated the American people on the incident in Benghazi in his interview on ABC News last night and he — ” LaBolt said.

“So which time was he lying, when he called it a terror attack or when he called it a video problem?” WTAM’s host interjected. “Because he said two different things.”

“Thank you for having me this morning, I’ve gotta move to my next interview,” LaBolt said, ending the conversation.

Listen to the full interview below; hangup occurs around the 11:05 mark.


(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Biden adds more confusion to Libya story with debate claim on security
 fox news ^ | 10/12/2012 | fox news


Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 12:16:14 PM


Vice President Biden's claim at Thursday's debate that the administration wasn't told of requests for more diplomatic security in the run-up to the Libya terror attack added only more confusion to an already muddled narrative.

In addition to raising eyebrows over that comment, the vice president went a step further and threw the intelligence community under the bus -- putting the blame squarely on their shoulders for the faulty narrative, pushed for more than a week by the administration, that the attack was a protest spun out of control.

The exchange on Libya, which opened the debate in Kentucky, was among the toughest in a persistently confrontational face-off. But Biden's comment on security was drawing widespread condemnation from Republicans Friday, with Romney adviser Dan Senor saying Biden "continued the administration's pattern of misleading" on Libya.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
White House Defends Biden's Statements On Libya
 AP ^ | October 12, 2012

Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 12:29:09 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is defending Vice President Joe Biden's debate statement that "we weren't told" there had been requests for more security at the U.S. consulate in Libya where four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack one month ago.


(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...





LOL!!!! 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 10:16:35 AM
Video From Benghazi Consulate Shows Organized Attack
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 U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a September 11, 2012, protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States. (Newscom)
 

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.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 11:09:36 AM
White House throws Hillary under the 2012 bus
 The Daily Caller ^


Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 1:58:25 PM


White House throws Hillary under the 2012 bus

Posted By Neil Munro On 1:01 PM 10/12/2012 @ 1:01 PM In DC Exclusives,DC Exclusives - Original Reporting,Politics

The White House is throwing Hillary Clinton under the 2012 election bus.

Top officials have already claimed the nation’s intelligence agencies did not alert the White House to the growing danger facing the State Department’s facility in Benghazi, Libya, which was destroyed Sept. 11 by a jihadi attack on the 11th anniversary of the atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

The claim was repeated Oct. 11 by Vice President Joe Biden during the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky. “We weren’t told they wanted more security,” he announced.

Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for communications, extended the claim Oct. 11 by telling told Foreign Policy magazine that neither Biden nor President Barack Obama knew of the growing danger.

“Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time,” Rhodes said, according to Foreign policy.

“These kinds of issues are handling in the State Department by security officials,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said during Friday’s press briefing.

Security matters “are decided at the State Department,” he said, amid tough questioning from Fox News Channel’s Ed Henry.

The White House’s statements leaves Hillary Clinton on the hook, because she runs the Department of State.

The widening breach between Clinton and the team of Obama and Biden comes as the president is being outpolled by Gov. Mitt Romney.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 11:22:32 AM
Sec'y Clinton: Still no clear picture of Benghazi
 Anchorage Daily News/AP ^ | October 12, 2012 | MATTHEW LEE


Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 1:50:52 PM by

As Republicans heap criticism on Vice President Joe Biden for claiming "we weren't told" about requests for extra security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday the precise details of the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the compound in Libya still remain unclear.


(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 11:30:05 AM
TheBlaze TV
Beck Walks Through Libya Timeline and Describes ‘Massive Cover-Up…Bigger Than Watergate’
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:29am by Tiffany Gabbay
Print »
Email »





Comments (72)


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-walks-through-libya-timeline-and-describes-massive-cover-up-bigger-than-watergate/#



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.”


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 12, 2012, 11:36:53 AM
it may take 1 to 1.5 years for a formal investigation into these attacks to begin.   

that's how attacks like this go. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 11:47:33 AM
Preventable tragedy

Obama administration can’t spin its way out of blame for Benghazi

Friday October 12, 2012 5:16 AM

 


Testimony in a congressional hearing Wednesday on the Sept. 11 outrage against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi fueled a growing suspicion: President Barack Obama’s administration was more concerned about projecting the image of improving stability in Libya, to bolster his re-election chances, than it was about ensuring the security of Americans on the ground there.
 
The fact of a successful terrorist attack against the U.S. on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — a day, above all others, when security for American officials in volatile countries should be at its utmost — is demoralizing and infuriating.
 
After months of concern by diplomats in Libya about the country’s deteriorating security, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy employees were murdered by heavily armed and organized terrorists. The possibility the government could have prevented their deaths by responding to their pleas for greater security is devastating.
 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who helps oversee diplomatic security, acknowledged in the hearing that she had told security officials at the U.S. Embassy in the capital city of Tripoli not to bother asking for more security help after the assignment of a supplemental security team ended in August.
 
Security officer Eric A. Nordstrom told Congress members he took Lamb’s refusal to mean “there was going to be too much political cost.”
 
In March and July, Nordstrom cabled his superiors in the State Department asking for more security at Benghazi, which had much less protection than the embassy in Tripoli. He got no reply.
 
His further comment at Wednesday’s hearing is damning: “The takeaway from that, for me and my staff: It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?’ ”
 
That ice broke at 9:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, when a cadre of men stormed the consulate compound. They fired guns, threw grenades and set buildings on fire.
 
What followed in the ensuing weeks is an astounding display either of incompetence or dishonesty, as Obama administration officials gave constantly shifting accounts of what happened.
 
For at least a week, State Department officials blamed the attack on a spontaneous demonstration against a rogue video, made in the U.S., that mocks Islam. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said on Meet the Press on Sept. 16, “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”
 
That explanation came under withering scrutiny, with pundits mocking the notion of “spontaneous” demonstrators showing up armed with rocket-propelled grenades.
 
Even as military and intelligence officials flatly stated the obvious as early as Sept. 13 — that the attack was a planned terrorist operation — the statements of those closest to the president, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, vacillated. On Sept. 18, Carney said, “Our belief ... is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo... and that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.”
 
By Sept. 20, finally, Carney was declaring, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
 
What is equally evident is that, despite repeated concerns by diplomats working in Libya, the administration shortchanged security. And when the worst happened, it wasn’t willing to tell the truth to the American people.
 
And as of Wednesday, administration officials continued to insist that the consulate had adequate security.
 
The tragedy is magnified by the fact that Stevens, by all accounts, was passionately devoted to restoring Libya as a U.S. ally. He wanted to help build a democratic nation. But he wasn’t blind to the danger still posed by militant Islamists and other anti-American groups.
 
The murder of Stevens and his colleagues raises serious questions about the administration’s priorities and competence.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 12:13:19 PM
At Wednesday's House oversight hearings into the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, Democrats protested loudly about a GOP political witch hunt. If only such alleged partisanship were always so educational. The Congressional investigation has in a few hours brought greater clarity about what happened before, during and after the events of 9/11/12 than the Obama Administration has provided in a month.
 
Among the revelations:
 
• There was no public demonstration whatsoever against an anti-Islam video, or any other grievance, outside the consulate in Benghazi the night of the attack.
 


OpinionJournal: The Vice-Presidential Debate

The WSJ editorial board's live commentary and analysis.
.
"There had been nothing unusual during the day at all outside [our emphasis]," a State Department official told reporters in a Tuesday night briefing hastily organized before the House committee session. Only at 9:40 p.m. on September 11 did a large pack of armed men storm the compound, firing guns and grenades and eventually setting buildings on fire. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.
 
For more than a week afterwards, Obama Administration officials said the attacks were the result of a demonstration triggered by anger over a YouTube video, as were protests earlier in the day in Cairo. "Putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on September 16 on NBC's "Meet the Press."

On Tuesday night, a State Department official said, "That was not our conclusion."

• The frontal attack by an extremist militia group with links to al Qaeda was recognized as such by some Obama Administration officials within 24 hours. Testifying on Wednesday, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guard Green Beret who commanded a 16-member security team in Tripoli, said the attacks were "instantly recognizable as a terrorist attack. . . . I almost expected it to come."

• The State Department denied repeated requests to improve security at the Libyan mission. It kept the consulate in Benghazi open after Britain and the Red Cross had pulled out of the city after security deteriorated this year. No special security measures were in place for the anniversary of 9/11.

Lt. Col. Wood said he had argued to extend his team's tour in Libya but was pulled out in August. The State Department approved a 30% "danger pay" bonus for Americans working in Libya, but it turned down an Embassy request to keep a DC-3 plane in the country for security support.

Eric Nordstrom, a State official who was the regional security officer in Libya until June, told the committee about a "complete and total absence of planning" for security. The U.S. was relying on a Libyan government that was "overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection," according to an October 1 memorandum written by Mr. Nordstrom.
 
Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa has forced the Administration to start to answer for this stunning and deadly assault on U.S. sovereign soil in Libya, but a lot of questions demand further investigation. Were warnings of an imminent threat ignored? Was incompetence or a systemic failure to blame for the security lapse?
 
The most immediate question concerns the Administration's response, and this is where electoral politics deserves to come in. Ms. Rice has defended her false and misleading statements by saying she was reading off a script prepared by U.S. intelligence—apparently a script not shared with the State Department she formally reports to.

It'd be instructive to know who provided her this script, and whether or not she spoke to White House political aide David Plouffe or the Chicago campaign office as she prepared for her Sunday TV show appearances on September 16.
 
Ms. Rice's Sunday story happened to fit the narrative offered by White House spokesman Jay Carney two days earlier that a rogue video had caused the anti-American demonstrations, which also fit the Obama campaign narrative that the President has made the U.S. more popular and that terrorism is on the wane in the world. A terror attack that killed Americans in Benghazi blows up that happy tale.
 
In a campaign speech Monday night, President Obama kept at it, saying that "al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more." The second half of the sentence is true. But the more we learn about what happened in Benghazi, the more the first sounds like fantasy, and the less Americans can trust this White House to tell them the truth.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578048503227442228.html?mg=reno64-wsj



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 12:19:09 PM
Libya Attack Gains Steam as Issue in Race for President
 New York Times ^ | October 12, 2012 | By PETER BAKER and TRIP GABRIEL


Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 2:35:11 PM



WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s handling of the Libya attack has opened up a new front in the presidential campaign just weeks before Election Day, as Republicans seize on it to question the president’s performance as commander in chief.

The dispute over the episode escalated after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said during the debate on Thursday night that “we weren’t told” that Americans on the ground wanted security bolstered, despite testimony that requests were made to and turned down by the administration. Mitt Romney’s campaign on Friday accused the vice president of trying “to mislead the American public.”

For President Obama, who had counted on foreign policy as a political strength, the issue has put him on the defensive, while Republicans who had focused on the economy now see a chance to undercut his credibility with the public on national security.

The political back-and-forth over Libya comes as the administration tries to get a more definitive picture on the Benghazi attack and figure out a potential response. An investigation is looking into what was known in advance and how the government acted.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2012, 01:17:39 PM
Posted at 12:15 PM ET, 10/12/2012
Sen. Corker: Obama must have known what happened in Libya

By Jennifer Rubin



This morning, I spoke with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who had just returned from Libya, about the Benghazi debacle. He was animated and clearly flabbergasted at the administration’s reaction. “It baffles me that the vice president of the United States would continue to say things that don’t square with the facts on the ground, “ he said in reference to VP Joe Biden’s remarks in the debate Thursday night. He reiterated, “There was no protest. There was no reaction to the [anti-Muslim video], and they knew it in 24 hours. I don’t understand what they are doing.”
 
This week he had extensive meetings with the FBI and intelligence officials on the ground in Benghazi as well as officials from the Libyan government. He was emphatic: “What I know is our intelligence officials on the ground in real time and also in Washington within 24 hours knew what had happened.”
 
Corker, who with the departure of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is next in line to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has tried to jump-start hearings in the Senate. However, it conceded, “There is no way before the election [to have hearings] with the majority that doesn’t want them.” The game plan here for Democrats, it appears, is to sweep the scandal under the rug until the election.

From Corker’s standpoint, the explanation for the administration’s public dissembling is plain. He told me, “It is strictly my opinion but the president has gone around the country spiking the football on Osama bin Laden.” Once it became clear that his boast of “vanquishing” al-Qaeda was proven false, the president, according to Corker, “panicked.” He continued, “The president worried it was going to affect the election.”
 
Corker is known as a workhorse in the Senate and as meticulous on the facts. In this case, he was both irate and insistent: “When four Americans are killed, it’s just not possible that the president didn’t know [it was a terrorist assault].. . . There is not a cell in my body that doesn’t earnestly believe that the administration didn’t know within 24 or 48 hours.”
 
Biden’s effort in the debate to lay this off on the intelligence community isn’t winning over national security experts either. The Romney campaign put out a statement by former CIA director Michael Hayden and former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff that read: “During the Vice Presidential debate, we were disappointed to see Vice President Biden blame the intelligence community for the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Given what has emerged publicly about the intelligence available before, during, and after the September 11 attack, it is clear that any failure was not on the part of the intelligence community, but on the part of White House decision-makers who should have listened to, and acted on, available intelligence. Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs.”

In fact, Corker explained that the U.S. government had information for some time about the internal security breakdown in Libya. He noted that Foreign Relations Committee had hearings in which the Libyan security situation was referenced. But the administration, Corker believes, still clung to the story that Libya was doing just fine. He said, “That narrative is the reason you are seeing the administration acting the way it is.”
 
As for Libya itself, Corker told me, “It is hard for me to believe the country is functioning as well as it is. It is really a tribute to the Libyan people.” That said, he described a country without a functioning centralized government. He explained that when there is a security problem, the Libyan government calls local militia to deal with it. Some of these are effective, and some aren’t. “Some go overboard,” he said. He continued, “There are no institutions. There is no court system.”

He resists calling Libya a “failed state.” He did, however, say, “It is in­cred­ibly fragile. . . . It is very, very dicey at this stage.” He explained, “The greatest threats are the security conditions inside, [where] jihadists, we knew from hearings, have been moving in for some time and second, moving through the constitutional process.” He cautioned, however, that this is not a case where, as in some Arab Spring countries, “the population’s not fond of the U.S.” He noted that in Libya there is “a general appreciation” for the United States.
 
So what can we do? He was adamant that we don’t need boots on the ground and can’t be seen as directing the political process. “What we cannot do is take away from Libyan sovereignty,” he said. He continues, “We can help with institution building. [They must build] a country from scratch — creating a real court system, a command system, dealing with internal security.” He stressed that the U.S. role in this should be to provide technical assistance, which is “relatively inexpensive.” He cautioned that it is necessary to “weave” local militias into a unified security operation. “But the militias are not about to put down their arms until there is a vision about what the country is going to be.” That requires a new constitution and election of officials with popular support.
 
Corker deferred to his colleagues on the issue of his chairmanship (or rise to ranking member) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The committee makes that decision, but I hope that’s going to be the case.” He promises a “robust” committee that will look at “the State Department and USAID top-to-bottom” and that will help define what exactly are our national security interests. (He says that under Obama, figuring out our national security interests has been very “ad hoc.”) For now, he’s a man on a mission to get to the bottom of the Libya fiasco and to help guide U.S. policy so Libya can, in fact, be a success story.
 
This blog post was updated at 12:52 p.m., Oct. 12.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 06:23:05 PM
Obama’s Intelligence Brief Scandal
 The Western Center for Journalism ^ | Paul G. Kengor

Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:16:04 PM by Kenny

The last few weeks have produced many intriguing political moments, but none as shocking as the revelation that President Obama has been absent from the vast majority of his daily intelligence briefings.

 According to a study by the Government Accountability Institute, Obama failed to attend a single Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in the week leading up to the recent anniversary of 9/11 and the chaos that erupted in the Arab world. The mere fact that we were approaching 9/11 was a crucial enough reason to attend not one but all the briefings. President Obama attended none.

 Worse, this is apparently nothing new. Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his administration. For this year, he attended a little over a third.

 This is stunning, and there’s no excuse for it.

 Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, who worked for President George W. Bush, pressed NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor for an explanation. Thiessen reported:

 Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail. “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”

 That’s simply the White House covering for the president.

 Similarly, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the PDB charge as “hilarious.” No, no, said Carney, the president “gets it every day.” By “it,” Carney was apparently talking about the intelligence briefing papers, not the actual meetings.

 Pro-Obama journalists happily accepted Carney’s explanation. CNN posted Carney’s comments under a photo of a pensive Obama sitting at an intelligence briefing.

 Sorry, but, once again, there’s no excuse for this, especially in the post-9/11 world. George W. Bush not only didn’t miss the PDB but actually expanded it to six meetings per week.

 Consider, too, the case of Ronald Reagan, who liberals, ironically, portrayed as an uninformed idiot who didn’t pay attention in meetings or read anything.

 Reagan, in fact, attended the daily intelligence briefing. I could lay this out at length, but here I’ll offer just two Reagan sources, both still living, who can speak to this:

 One source is Herb Meyer, special assistant to CIA director Bill Casey in the 1980s. Meyer told me: “Of course Reagan attended all those daily briefings. And after the briefers returned to CIA headquarters, Bill [Casey] would meet with them just to be sure the president (and Haig & Weinberger) got answers to whatever questions they may have had. In short, it was a very—very—serious business.”

 Another source is Bill Clark. Clark was Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man in foreign policy. As his biographer, I know Clark well. He is 80 years old and lives in California. Clark told me this about Reagan and the PDB:

 Bill Casey would, by courier, send the President’s Daily Brief each morning at about 5:00 a.m. to our war room downstairs in our [National] Security Council…. It would be delivered to the president in his residence before he came over [by 7:00 a.m.]…. He’d write questions all over the margins about things that weren’t clear in the briefing. And, of course, the agency [CIA] would come down with further explanations.

 Clark recalls how Reagan craved that regular morning update. He would read it, and then they would meet. Reagan ate up these briefings. He asked questions of his advisers. He probed for ideas. Reagan attended the briefings and used them as presidents should.

 When Reagan finished his presidency, after two terms, genuine freedom and democracy were surging all over the communist world.

 As for President Obama, if he’s in the process of finishing his presidency, after one term, he’s facing a surge of radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Can any of that be blamed on Obama’s failure to attend these routine briefings? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly can’t help.

 In fact, as Marc Theissen and the Government Accountability Institute have noted in follow-up stories, Obama is now suddenly attending his daily briefing. That’s no doubt a response to political criticism. But could it be—on the heels of the eruptions in Libya and Egypt, which Obama initially blamed not on pre-meditated terrorism but a video—that maybe President Obama feels like he might have been missing something?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 06:59:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvv9zw0jP4k


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 07:01:26 PM
QUESTION: So if there was – I mean – and yet, Under Secretary Kennedy said that in his conversations with people on the Hill, the next day or the 12th or the 13th, that his personal opinion was that it was premeditated or it was a coordinated terrorist attack. And I guess I’m just, does the State Department defer to DNI if DNI comes out and tells you that something that is demonstrably at odds with what witnessed on the ground had to say about it?
 
MS. NULAND: Look, I’m not going to parse this 17 ways from this podium. What I am going to say is, obviously when one goes out and tries to represent what the totality of what we know, the intelligence community plays a large role in that. And they had given an assessment to the entire government, which was the basis on which Ambassador Rice spoke on Sunday, they themselves have talked very explicitly about how their assessment has evolved over time.
 
QUESTION: Right. And yet --
 
QUESTION: But you never – okay.
 
QUESTION: And yet Under Secretary Kennedy and other people in this building knew, or felt in their opinion, that that was not correct, and that this was --
 
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into the personal feelings of anybody. I’m simply going to say that in making public statements, one depends on the totality of what the Administration knows.
 
QUESTION: But you didn’t. You never said that.
 
MS. NULAND: Look, I’m generally dumber than most of the rest of the government. I mean, that’s what I’m paid to be. (Laughter.)



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/12/state_dept_spokeswoman_on_libya_im_paid_to_be_generally_dumber.html


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 07:09:20 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/12/Joe-Biden-Don-t-Lecture-Me-On-Embassy-Security


Marines in Barbados but not Benghazi 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 08:01:07 PM


Ex-Navy Seals weren't part of ambassador's security detail but rose to occasion, officials now confirm

 UPDATED 21:58 PM EDT, September 19, 2012 | BY John Solomon


Why It Matters:


 
The Obama administration's initial account of the Libyan consulate attack didn't give the full story about two ex-Navy SEALs who helped repel the security breach until they were killed. Now officials are confirming those two heroes' real jobs at the embassy along with evidence of ties between the attack and al-Qaida.
 



The two former Navy SEALs killed in last week's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were not part of Ambassador Chris Stevens' official security detail but took up arms in an effort to protect the facility when it was overrun by insurgents, U.S. officials tell the Washington Guardian.

The two former SEALS,  Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security, the officials said.

They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him when he traveled from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, the officials said.

The two ex-Seals and others engaged in a lengthy firefight with the extremists who attacked the compound, a fight that stretched from the inner area of the consulate to an outside annex and a nearby safe house -- a location that the insurgents appeared to know about, the officials said.

The officials provided the information to the Washington Guardian, saying they feared the Obama administration’s scant description of the episode left a misimpression that the two ex-Navy SEALs might have been responsible for the ambassador’s personal safety or become separated from him.

“Woods and Doherty weren’t part of the detail, nor were they personally responsible for the ambassador’s security, but they stepped into the breach when the attacks occurred and their actions saved others lives -- and they shouldn’t be lumped in with the security detail,” one senior official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the State Department.

The administration has not fully described the two former Navy SEALs' activities, characterizing  their work only vaguely  as being security related. “Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after the attacks.

As recently as Sunday, UN Ambassador Susan Rice gave a similar description. “Two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them,” Rice told ABC's This Week program.

In fact, officials said, the two men were personal service contractors whose official function was described as "embassy security," but whose work did not involve personal protection of the ambassador or perimeter security of the compound.

The details emerged the same day that U.S. officials confirmed in public a Washington Guardian story Friday that U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida or its affiliates played a role in the attack. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates," Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterrorism Center, told lawmakers.

Administration officials had downplayed al-Qaida connections shortly after the attack.

Many U.S. agencies in foreign hotspots like Benghazi rely on and even share contract workers with special skills like those of retired Navy SEALs for security, reconnaissance and threat assessments.

Unlike full embassies such as the one in Tripoli, consulates like Benghazi usually don’t have a contingent of Marines to provide security, and private contractors help fulfill some of those responsibilities. The Washington Guardian reported last week concerns about the embassy security that predated the deadly attack.

Those briefed on the latest intelligence say investigators are trying to determine when and why Stevens’ official State Department security team got separated from the ambassador when the attacks occurred the evening of Sept. 11.

The separation of the team from the ambassador remains one of the more serious matters under review, the officials said.

In addition, while the administration has downplayed any link to al-Qaida, there is evidence some of  the attackers were affiliated with another group that sympathizes with al-Qaida and has grown more influential in Libya and other parts of north Africa.

State Department officials did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment Wednesday.

The current evidence leads U.S. intelligence to believe that a band of Islamist extremists with some ties to the north African affiliate of al-Qaida had accumulated a stash of weapons and extra human muscle, performed some reconnaissance to identify possible U.S. targets, and may have even infiltrated the Libyan security forces that help protect the consulate in hopes of eventually conducting a terrorist operation somewhere in Benghazi.

However, U.S. intelligence does not believe -- at present -- that the attackers specifically targeted Stevens, official said. Instead, they think the attackers sprang into action when, seeing crowds forming outside the consulate on Sept. 11, they perceived an opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack, officials said.

“Yes, they were killed in a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Olsen told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Wednesday. “The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicates an opportunistic attack on our embassy.”

U.S. officials say they have some evidence at least one of the attackers had prior connections to al-Qaida's senior leadership and that others were linked to a sympathetic spinoff group in northern Africa known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which is gaining influence in Libya.

Specifically, U.S. intelligence is investigating whether there is any connection to an al-Qaida-linked player named Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was captured by U.S. officials after the September 11, 2001 attacks and held at Guantanamo Bay for years before being released to Libyan authorities by the Bush administration in 2007. Qumu has emerged in recent months as an increasingly influential Islamist figure in eastern Libya, near Benghazi.

Fox News reported Wednesday night he might be a mastermind of the attack, but U.S. intelligence officials said such conclusions are premature.

“There’s an active effort to uncover those individuals and groups who were responsible for the attack. Any suggestion that a leading suspect or ‘mastermind’ of the attack has been identified at this point is premature.  It is safe to assume that any significant extremist in Eastern Libya is going to be under a lot of scrutiny right now," one U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Guardian.

U.S. intelligence believes part of the motivation for launching the attack was a video from al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri that surfaced the night of Sept. 10, imploring Libyans to attack Americans in retribution for the U.S. drone strike that killed Libyan-born al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in June.

The Washington Guardian reported on Friday that U.S. intelligence had intercepted and translated Zawahiri’s message imploring Libyans to attack U.S. officials the night before the consulate attack and were still analyzing its significance when the ambassador was killed. No significant changes to security countermeasures at the diplomatic mission were taken until after the compound was overrun


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 08:02:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrWKyTwNxtQ


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2012, 08:23:56 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/video-from-benghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html




Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 04:25:34 AM
http://audio.wrko.com/a/64657882/col-hunt-on-the-newest-libyan-revelations.htm


OUCH.   

this makes watergate look like nothing.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 04:42:53 AM
Timeline of Libya attack reveals administration contradictions
The Hill ^ | 10/14/12 | Julian Pecquet
Posted on October 14, 2012 7:36:48 AM EDT by markomalley

The timeline of events leading up to last month’s deadly attack in Benghazi and the administration’s shifting explanations have become a major problem for Democrats less than a month before Election Day.

Already under criticism for linking the assault on the U.S. consulate to an anti-Islam video, the administration raised even more eyebrows Thursday when Vice President Biden said he didn’t know about the U.S. mission’s request for more security. Biden’s statement directly contradicts sworn testimony from State Department officials given just the day before.
The following is a detailed timeline of events leading to the Sept. 11 attack and what the Obama administration has said since then.

• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.

• February: The U.S. embassy requests — and is granted — a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.

• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.

• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.


• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.


• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.

• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.

• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”


• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”


• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.

• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”

• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.

• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” Carney declares it “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter brief members of Congress. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls it “the most useless worthless briefing I have attended in a long time.”

• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.

• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”

• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”

• Sept. 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video. In a statement, spokeswoman Shawn Turner says that initially “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

• Oct. 1: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Clinton stands by Rice after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) calls for her resignation.

• Oct. 3: FBI investigators finally arrive at the crime scene in Benghazi, which has been unsecured for weeks.

• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”

• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.


• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”

• Oct. 12: After Republicans pounce, the White House says Biden was speaking for himself and the president because such decisions are made by the State Department.



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 04:46:37 AM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

The Benghazi Scandal
The Weekly Standard ^ | The October 22, 2012 Issue | Stephen F. Hayes
Posted on October 14, 2012 1:12:48 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Three hours before the vice presidential debate here on October 11, Stephanie Cutter, a top spokesman and deputy campaign manager for Barack Obama, previewed Joe Biden’s explanation for the administration’s ever-changing narrative on the deadly 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In short: The intelligence made us do it. The reason administration officials repeatedly told the country a story that was untrue—in virtually all its particulars—is that they got bad information from the intelligence community. Or so they say.

At the debate, moderator Martha Raddatz noted “there were no protesters” that day in Libya, and asked Biden why the administration’s talk of protests “went on for weeks.”

Biden answered directly: “Because that’s exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”

Cutter pointed to a September 28 statement from Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). “Take a look at the director of national intelligence’s statement, which you may disagree with, but you can’t accuse them of playing politics,” Cutter told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “His statement, two weeks after the attack, said that there was an original conclusion that people were taking advantage of protests surrounding that [anti-Muslim] video to attack the embassy. We then learned weeks later that it was a deliberate, premeditated attack by terrorists.”

First, it’s worth noting that the statement did not come from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as Cutter claimed. It came from a spokesman. This isn’t a trivial distinction. Much thought is put into whose name goes on statements like this. Why wasn’t it Clapper’s?

Second, Cutter’s timeline and the ODNI statement are not consistent. Cutter claims the White House learned the truth about the attacks “weeks later.” The statement from the ODNI spokesman says only that the earliest assessment, “in the immediate aftermath,” turned out to be wrong. The statement reads, in relevant part: “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. .  .  . As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

The obvious question: When did the intelligence community tell the White House (and other policymakers) that the assault on the compound was a premeditated terrorist attack conducted by al Qaeda-linked jihadists? Was it really weeks later as both Biden and Cutter claim?

It was not. Two U.S. officials familiar with the reporting on the Benghazi attack tell The Weekly Standard that revisions to the initial reports came within days—sometimes within hours. Intelligence products published on September 12, sources tell us, included detailed evidence that al Qaeda-linked jihadists were involved in the Benghazi attacks.

* As first reported by Newsweek’s Eli Lake, within hours of the attack, “U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s North African affiliate.” Lake reported that the intelligence was so detailed, U.S. officials “had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers.”

* Senior State Department officials were in contact with security agents on the ground in Benghazi, in real time, as the attacks unfolded. In conversations that evening and the next day U.S. officials in Libya gave no indication that there had been any protest of any kind.

* On September 12, the New York Times reported: “American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning.”

* That same day, Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he had no doubt the attacks were planned. “It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid.”

* Democrats said the same thing. Representative Adam Smith, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said: “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.”

* Senator Carl Levin, leaving a briefing with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, was asked if the attack was planned: “There’s been evidence of that. .  .  . The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.”

* On September 14, a U.S. official told Reuters that while the question of planning was an open one, “Everything I have seen says this was a highly armed, organized attack. Not a mob reacting to a movie.”

The officials who gave these assessments—elected and unelected, Democrat and Republican—were in a position to do so for one reason: the intelligence. Most important: There is no intelligence whatsoever linking the Benghazi attack to the anti-Muslim video.

Notice that all of those assessments came before U.N. ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five political talk shows September 16 and linked the Libya attack to the video. And they came well before Barack Obama appeared on David Letterman on September 18 and did the same.

Obama: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, a sort of shadowy character who is extremely offensive video directed at Muhammad and Islam.

David Letterman: Making fun of the Prophet Muhammad.

Obama: Making fun of the Prophet Muhammad. And, so, this caused great offense. In much of the Muslim world. But, what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.

There are two possibilities. Either the intelligence community had a detailed picture of what happened in Benghazi that night and failed to share it with other administration officials and the White House. Or the intelligence community provided that detailed intelligence picture to others in the administration, and Obama, Biden, Clinton, Susan Rice, and others ignored and manipulated the intelligence to tell a politically convenient—but highly inaccurate—story.

If it’s the former, DNI James Clapper should be fired. If it’s the latter, what happened in Benghazi—and what happened afterwards—will go down as one of the worst scandals in recent memory.

It seems far more likely that it’s the latter. After all, is it conceivable that White House officials at the highest levels were not actively engaged in interagency meetings to determine what happened in Benghazi? Is it conceivable that intelligence officials, knowing there was no evidence at all of a link between the film and Benghazi, would fail to tell the president and his colleagues that their claims were unfounded? Is it conceivable that somehow the latest intelligence on the 9/11 attacks was left out of Obama’s intelligence briefings in the days after 9/11? It would have been a priority for every professional at the CIA, the State Department, and the National Security Council to discover exactly what happened in Benghazi as soon as possible. Is it conceivable that the information wasn’t passed to the most senior figures in the administration?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: 240 is Back on October 14, 2012, 11:29:14 AM
33, you have some very good info on the embassy attack.  props for being so thorough on this 911 attack. 


Many people let major events go by, toeing the party line and defending their president - even when the timeline of events shows he let it happen.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: tonymctones on October 14, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
33, you have some very good info on the embassy attack.  props for being so thorough on this 911 attack. 


Many people let major events go by, toeing the party line and defending their president - even when the timeline of events shows he let it happen.
careful cracker jack, you keep sticking that tongue in your cheek and youre going to bite it off.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 05:15:59 PM
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT







Denying the Libya Scandal


By Andrew C. McCarthy

October 13, 2012 4:00 A.M.

 




The desultory vice-presidential debate underscored that, even if there were not a thousand other reasons for denying President Obama a second term, the Libya scandal alone would be reason enough to remove him.
 
By the time the ineffable Joe Biden took center stage Thursday night, Obama operatives had already erected a façade of mendacity around the jihadist murder of our ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. officials. The vice president promptly exploited the debate forum to trumpet a bald-faced lie: He denied the administration’s well-established refusal to provide adequate security for the diplomatic team. Just as outrageously, he insisted that the intelligence community, not the election-minded White House, was the source of the specious claim that an obscure, unwatched video about Islam’s prophet — a video whose top global publicists are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — spontaneously sparked the Benghazi massacre.
 
Our emissaries in Libya understood that they were profoundly threatened. They communicated fears for their lives to Washington, pleading for additional protection. That is established fact. Yet Biden maintained that it was untrue: “We weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again.”
 
Shameful: so much so that even Jay Carney, no small-time Libya propagandist himself, would feel compelled to walk Biden’s denial back the next morning. But the vice president was far from done. His assertion that “the intelligence community told us” that protests over the video had sparked the murders of our officials was breathtaking, even by Biden standards.
 
For a moment, let’s pretend that there is no historical context — meaning, no Obama-policy context — in which to place what happened in Benghazi on September 11. Let’s just stick with the freshest intelligence.
 
In recent months, Benghazi has been the site of several jihadist attacks. The International Red Cross offices there were bombed in May by an al-Qaeda affiliate called the “Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades” — named in honor of the “Blind Sheikh,” whose detention in the U.S., on a life sentence for terrorism convictions, al-Qaeda has repeatedly vowed to avenge.
 
On June 4, four missiles fired from an unmanned U.S. drone killed 15 people at a jihadist compound in Pakistan. The most prominent was al-Qaeda’s revered Libyan leader, Hassan Mohammed Qaed, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Yahya al-Libi. It was a severe blow to the terror network, and the intelligence community instantly knew al-Qaeda was determined to avenge it.
 
The following day, the Abdul Rahman Brigades detonated an explosive outside the American consulate in Benghazi. According to CNN, the attack was specifically “timed to coincide with preparations for the arrival of a senior U.S. State Department official.” The Brigades recorded the attack on video, interspersing scenes of the mayhem with footage of al-Qaeda leaders and 9/11 carnage. In claiming responsibility, the jihadists brayed that they were targeting U.S. diplomats in retaliation for the killing of al-Libi. A week later, the Brigades shot rockets at the British ambassador’s convoy as it moved through Benghazi.
 
By midsummer, al-Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recorded an acknowledgment of al-Libi’s death that exhorted jihadists, particularly in Libya, to retaliate: “His blood urges you and incites you to fight and kill the crusaders.” Naturally, Zawahiri was targeting September 11 as the moment for vengeance. His recording was released on that morning, intimating that a revenge strike would be the most fitting way for Libyans to mark the day when, eleven years earlier, al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Obligingly, al-Qaeda affiliates carried out the Benghazi massacre later that day.
 
Not only did the intelligence community have reason aplenty to anticipate trouble in Benghazi on September 11 — reason having nothing to do with the Mohammed video. We now know, thanks to reporting by the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake, that the diplomatic compound’s surveillance cameras recorded “an organized group of armed men attacking the compound.” Mr. Lake adds that the intelligence community had a surveillance drone taking video “for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.” Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials figured out, within a day of the attack, that the operation was pre-planned and several participants were tied to al-Qaeda affiliates.
 
Yet, the administration continued, day after day, blaming the massacre on the video. The claim was absurd on its face. Plus, it contradicted an intelligence tapestry signaling a well-planned jihadist operation, to say nothing of the manner of the attack — the timing, preparation, and cruelty of which veritably screamed, “al-Qaeda!” Still, even now, Biden and the Obama administration claim that the intelligence community actually believed our people were killed over a video — that Obama officials were simply repeating what they were told, not spouting what they audaciously hoped to deceive Americans into believing.
 
Why the deception? Because if you conclude the Benghazi massacre had nothing to do with a cockamamie video no one has seen, you soon realize Obama’s favorite campaign theme — namely, that killing bin Laden decimated the terror network — is nonsense. And you realize that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is directly traceable to Obama’s Middle East policy.
 
As noted above, the recent intelligence we’ve just reviewed arose in a historic context. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration, echoing the Republican establishment, told Americans that Qaddafi had become a key ally of the United States against terrorism. Obama even substantially increased the American aid the Bush administration had begun providing to Qaddafi’s regime. The rationale for embracing the dictator was straightforward: Not only had Qaddafi abandoned his nuclear program; he was providing vital intelligence about jihadist cauldrons throughout his country. By percentage of population, more Libyans traveled to Iraq to wage terrorist war against American troops than did citizens of any other country. And in Libya, Benghazi was the epicenter of the jihad.
 
In 2011, however, President Obama initiated an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime. Though Qaddafi had taken no intervening hostile action against the United States, and though no vital American national interest would be served by Qaddafi’s removal, Obama chose to side with the Islamist rebellion against him. Why? As demonstrated in my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the president was determined to sell the “Arab Spring” fantasy of a Middle East seized by the desire for freedom rather than strangled by the ambitions of freedom-killing Islamic supremacists.
 
In Libya, Islamists were the backbone of the rebellion: the Muslim Brotherhood partnering, as it is wont to do, with violent jihadists — in this instance, al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Toppling Qaddafi would necessarily result in their empowerment. They’d insinuate themselves into any new government. They’d set up sharia enclaves where they were strong enough to do so. And they’d strengthen themselves by seizing chunks of Qaddafi’s arsenal of high-powered weaponry. Being incorrigibly anti-American, they’d use their new influence and power against the United States.
 
That is why some of us implored Obama not to intervene. As I argued at the time (responsively quoting a Fox News anchor):
 

I am not “suggesting that we would be better off with the Qaddafi dictatorship still in effect.” I am saying it outright. If the choice is between an emerging Islamist regime and a Qaddafi dictatorship that cooperates with the United States against Islamists, then I’ll take Qaddafi. If the choice is between tolerating the Qaddafi dictatorship and disgracing ourselves by . . . turning a blind eye to the atrocities of our new Islamist friends . . . then give me the Qaddafi dictatorship every time.
 
The “atrocities” of note at the time were twofold: the massacres Libya’s Islamists carried out against black Africans suspected of allying with Qaddafi’s regime, and the barbaric murder of Qaddafi himself — when he was abused and displayed as a trophy, just like Ambassador Christopher Stevens would later be. These opened a ready window on the type of savages Obama’s policy was guaranteed to abet.
 
The straight line from Obama’s Libya policy of empowering Islamists to the Benghazi massacre is rarely discussed. Maybe it would be clearer if the Republican establishment had not ardently supported Obama’s war against Libya. Maybe it would be clearer if Romney and Ryan stopped sounding nearly as delusional about the “Arab Spring” as Obama and Biden do. Maybe it would be clearer if Romney and Ryan stopped talking about reprising the Libya debacle in Syria, joined at the hip to what they call “our ally Turkey” — Hamas’s new sugar daddy and staunchest defender. It would surely be welcome if the GOP ticket started diagnosing “spring fever” instead of manifesting its symptoms.
 
In Benghazi, we see the wages of the disease. The pathogen was not a video. Want to know why our people were left unprotected and why mounds of intelligence foreshadowing peril were ignored? Don’t look to Obama’s vice president, look to Obama’s policy.
 
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was recently published by Encounter Books.
 
Permalink
 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
Axelrod Refuses to Say Whether Obama Met with Nat’l Security Team Before Heading to Las Vegas
 National Review ^ | October 14, 2012 | Eliana Johnson

Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:02:07 PM by Snuph

After David Axelrod’s repeated assurances this morning on Fox News Sunday that “there isn’t anybody on this planet” who feels a greater sense of responsibility for our diplomats than this President, Chris Wallace asked how soon after the Benghazi attacks the President actually met with his national security team.

Wallace followed up on Axelrod’s non-answer by asking whether the President managed to squeeze in a meeting with the National Security Council before jetting off to Las Vegas for a campaign rally. Given Axelrod’s inability to produce a straightforward answer to the questions, it’s pretty clear the answer is “no.”


(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 06:52:55 PM
'Within 24 Hours': When U.S. Intel in Libya Told Washington 9/11/12 Was Terror Attack


By Terence P. Jeffrey

October 14, 2012

Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts



   

 
 


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community in Libya informed the administration in Washington, D.C., within 24 hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that the attack had been a terrorist strike whose perpetrators included militia associated with al Qaeda.
 
Graham said the fact that the administration was still publicly declaring more than five days later that the attack may have arisen as a spontaneous protest indicated that either "they are misleading or incredibly incompetent."
 
"Well, the facts are there was never a riot," Graham told Bob Schieffer of CBS News. "The night in question, September 11, Ambassador [Chris] Stevens was being visited by the Turkish ambassador. There wasn't a soul around the compound. And the coordinated attack lasted for hours with al Qaeda-associated militia.
 
"My belief is that that was known by the administration within 24 hours," said Graham. "And, quite frankly, [U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations] Susan Rice, on your show on September 16, the president on the 18th, and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video. They`re trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mid-East, the wars are receding and al Qaeda's been dismantled, and to admit that our embassy was attacked by al Qaeda operatives and 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 have been misleading us," said Graham, "but it finally caught up with them."
 
Schieffer then told Graham: "Well, that is a very serious charge you just leveled, Senator Graham. "Are you saying the administration deliberately misled the American people to make it look as if terrorism is not as much of a threat as apparently it is?"
 
"Either they are misleading the American people or incredibly incompetent," Graham said. "There was no way with anybody looking at all that you could believe five days after the attack it was based on a riot that never occurred. There was no riot at all. So to say that, you`re either very incompetent or misleading."
 
Schieffer challenged Graham to explain where he go the information to challenge the credibility of the administration's statements about what happened in Libya.
 
"Where did you get this information that led you to this conclusion?" asked Schieffer. "Did you talk to officials there? Did you talk to people in the CIA? Did you talk to people in the administration? How are you so convinced of what you have just stated?"
 
Graham said that the U.S. intelligence commmunity in Libya had told both him and Sen. Bob Corker (R.-Tenn.) that they had informed Washington within 24 hours that the attack in was a terrorist attack.
 
"The intelligence community on the ground in Libya has told Senators Corker and myself that within 24 hours, they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack," said Graham. "The president of Libya on the same date said it was a terrorist attack. The video of the compound shows that there was nobody at the Benghazi consulate. There was never a group to riot. And the evidence is overwhelming, and the idea that it was spawned by a video and a riot would hold the administration blameless. They said it was a copycat of Cairo. It wasn`t a copycat, it was a sustained attack that lasted for six or eight hours using heavy weapons, which undercut the idea that al Qaeda has been dismantled and on the run. And it certainly undercuts the idea that our policy choices in Libya have not going after the militia, not helping the Libyans train a national army were good choices.
 
On Sept. 16, five days after the attack in Benghazi and four days after Graham says the intelligence community informed Washington that the attack had been a terrorist attack, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on "Face the Nation" and assured the country that the administration had no information to suggest the attack had been preplanned.
 
"We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned," Amb. Rice said.
 
Sen. Graham said that it was not just Amb. Rice, who--even after the intelligence community had informed the administration Benghazi was a terrorist attack--continued to suggest to the nation it had been a spontaneous protest to a video tape posted on YouTube.
 
"Well, it`s not just Susan Rice, the president of the United States said it was the result of a video on David Letterman two days later," said Graham. "And the facts are very clear. There was never a riot. There was never a group of people around the embassy. It was a coordinate terrorist attack that took hours. Patrick Kennedy from the State Department briefed congressional staffers the day after the attack saying it was a terrorist attack. The next day, after she [Amb. Susan Rice] was on your show, the counter-terrorism deputy said it was a terrorist attack. And the president after that went on national TV, "The View," and David Letterman talking about we're not sure if this was inspired by a video, a hateful video."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2012, 07:31:48 PM
Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security
 
49






Comments (12)

By JOHN BRESNAHAN |
10/14/12 11:13 AM EDT


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.
 
Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.
 
Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.
 
"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."
 
With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.
 
"You can't always look to [new] money when there's money sitting there," Issa said. "We're going through a 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11 [2001], Americans were attacked by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened, and we can't be in denial."
 
Issa said that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice may be called before his panel for testimony. Rice said shortly after the Benghazi attack that the incident was caused by an anti-Muslim video, not terrorists, a position that even President Barack Obama has now refuted.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 04:00:19 AM
Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that just five unarmed locally hired Libyans were placed on duty at the compound on eight-hour shifts under a deal that fell outside the State Department's global security contracting system.
Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work.
The compound was overrun by a mob of Islamic extremists on the morning of September 12 in an apparent planned attack that resulted in the death by asphyxiation of the ambassador, Chris Stevens.
Blue Mountain, which is run by a former member of the SAS, received paper work to operate in Libya last year following the collapse of Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime. It worked on short term contacts to guard an expatriate housing compound and a five-star hotel in Tripoli before landing the prestigious US deal.
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.
RELATED ARTICLES
Ali Zeidan elected Libyan prime minister 15 Oct 2012
US Navy cruiser collides with nuclear submarine 14 Oct 2012
British guns missing after Benghazi attack 11 Oct 2012
Benghazi consulate attack was 'a matter of time' 10 Oct 2012
US state department contradicts original Benghazi account 10 Oct 2012
US 'had no actionable intelligence' over Benghazi attack 10 Oct 2012
"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.
A five man security team from the US diplomatic protection service and three members of a local revolutionary brigade were also on duty on the night of the attacks.
But Blue Mountain's local woes appears to have hampered a coordinated response by the compound's defenders when the late assault kicked off.
Darryl Davies, the manager of the Benghazi contract for Blue Mountain, flew out of the city hours before the attack was launched. The Daily Telegraph has learned that relations between the firm and its Libyan partner had broken down, leading to the withdrawal of Mr Davies.
Abdulaziz Majbiri, a Blue Mountain guard at the compound, told the Daily Telegraph that they were effectively abandoned and incapable of defending themselves on the night of the attack.

"We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool," he said. "I was separated from the others and couldn't get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot."

US congressional investigators have told the Daily Telegraph that consular staff had reported Blue Mountain guards to the Libyan police on one occasion last year. The diplomats believed that two disgruntled Blue Mountain employees were behind a minor pipe bomb attack on the facility.

However after questioning no action was taken by the police or company over the incident.

Nigel Thomas, the Blue Mountain director, refused to answer any questions about the companies activities in Libya, citing official US inquiries into the incident. He said: "The US State Department investigation is still ongoing at this time. Blue Mountain have no comment to make and all questions should be directed to the US mission."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 04:01:04 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

Wow.   What a total fail. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 04:04:02 AM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Lying From Behind on Libya
Townhall.com ^ | October 15, 2012 | John Ransom
Posted on October 15, 2012 6:53:35 AM EDT by Kaslin

Let’s start where it first began.

No, not the election of Barack Hussein Obama, although that would be a good call.

Jump further ahead in the story.

Back in March 2011, when Obama started lobbing missiles at Libya, liberals assured us that we were NOT at war.

Instead the administration described it as time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military activity- which is just another made up phrase that liberals use to remind us that they are the people Orwell warned us about.    

And thankfully, NPR-- yes THAT NPR, the Big Bird NPR-- allowed us to remain calm, by helping the administration keep it simple.

Just lie, they reminded the greatest communicator ever. Obama took his cue and lied from behind.

We are not at war, the Corporation for Public Race-baiting tells us, even if we are a bunch of Tea Party fascists and racists, I wrote in March 2011.

To bolster the NPR case, their totally, 100 percent, objective reporter found a college professor to tell us not to worry, we’re not at war.

"Would I consider us 'at war' with Libya at this moment?” Judkin Browning, a professor of Military History at Appalachian State, who studies the American Civil War, told NPR. “I would say no, simply because of the very limited nature of our military mission."

Wow. That was easy.

Kind of like an award-winning Sesame Street episode.

“No.”

N.O. spells “No.” This non-war was sponsored by the letters N & O.  

Remind me: Just exactly why does Romney propose killing and eating Big Bird?

It’s not like Big Bird was responsible for the subsequent capture and sodomizing of Muammar Gaddafi before he was killed by extra-legal means.

“No.”

N.O.

It was likely a contingent of NATO soldiers that made Gaddafi’s capture and beating death possible.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the guy deserved to get beaten to death.

But then there is a big difference between my personal opinion, and the obligations of the president of the United States to follow the laws of war, especially when he’s the “brilliant” legal scholar and Nobel Prize recipient, law-giver and leading cell-phone provider in the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.  

Not to worry, lied the man who condemned the trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein-- who, by the way, received justice under the laws of Iraq. Gaddafi got it on the side of the road by a mob enabled by the USA under president Obama.

And pay no attention to the men behind the dictator beating him says the guy who condemns U.S. detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as inhumane.           

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports calls for an investigation into the death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as part of Libya's transition from dictatorship to democracy,” winked the Associated Press at the time.

“Clinton says a democratic Libya should begin with the rule of law and accountability, as well as unity and reconciliation. She says investigating Gadhafi's death is part of the process.”

It’s been 18 months since Obama got off his missiles in Libya.

There’s been no investigation, no declaration of war, no explanation as to why we are destabilizing the region deliberately.

One would think that the man strong enough to stop the seas from rising, as Obama says he has, might be strong enough to withstand his own administration’s rhetoric.

Democracy, rule of law, accountability and… lies.

Especially lies.

The lies are the glue that holds Obama’s Libyan policy together.

Because the line Obama must take at all costs is that, of course, we are NOT supporting Al Qaeda-- or radical Islamists-- in Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, when, OF COURSE that’s exactly what we are doing. 

Hence the coordinated terror attack by Al Qaeda on the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya proves an inconvenient truth for Obama that must be blamed on someone else. The repeated call for increased security by the diplomatic staff before the attack, also proves awkward for the administration as it lies from behind.

"It's awkward for anybody. If you talk to people in the intelligence community and now at the State Department, they're not happy,” said CNN’s John King. “The leaders of the administration, in their view, Jay Carney speaks for the president, so that's the President of the United States, the Vice President last night, on stage last night, essentially publicly scolding, publicly blaming others for what happened in the administration. Those people don't like that."

They don’t like it because they have warned Obama that arming Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, and likewise Islamists in Egypt, has spread the influence of terror networks just at a time when their bases of operation in places like Yemen are under pressure.

These are folks who have suffered through multiple deployments overseas fighting Al Qaeda, and personally know people who have died for Obama’s bumper-sticker wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Africa.

Ask your kids a quick question: Arming Al Qaeda; good idea? Yes or No?

It’s an easy question only Obama could flunk.    

And now these brave people, who have born the brunt of the war on terror around the world, have a commander-in-chief who blames them for their own casualties, while he claims credit for their victories, like the death of bin Laden.

And like all his other failures, Obama can only blame others for his own mistakes and then lie from behind. 



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 05:38:26 AM
Fresh scapegoats

White House Libya blame game
By MICHAEL A. WALSH
Last Updated: 11:25 PM, October 14, 2012
Posted: 10:39 PM, October 14, 2012

 


Michael A. Walsh

How is the Obama White House going to fit the entire State Department and the intelligence community under the bus?

Last month’s Benghazi fiasco saw four Americans — including our ambassador to Libya — murdered by elements of al Qaeda in a military-style assault timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

The weeks afterward saw the administration blaming a video that, even the White House now admits, had nothing to do with it. And the months before the attack saw Washington adamantly reducing security in Benghazi — despite pleas for reinforcements from the folks on the ground.
 


UPI

 Blaming the State Department and the intelligence community: Joe Biden used both scapegoats to dodge Paul Ryan’s charges in last week’s debate.

Yet President Obama’s top spokesman — and Vice President Joe Biden, in last week’s debate — have been busy pointing fingers of blame at State and the IC.

It won’t work. Neither Foggy Bottom nor the intel community’s legion of spooks, analysts and secret-keepers is likely to go quietly.

Indeed, State has already started the pushback. It has pointedly released the transcript of an Oct. 9 media briefing in which Brad Klapper of the Associated Press asks what “led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

Someone described only as “Senior State Department Official Two” answers, “That is a question you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.”

Of course, Biden and Obama spokesmen like Jay Carney have been claiming that “the intelligence” the White House received at first had blamed the attack on the video.

This part of the blame game will fail because it just doesn’t make any sense. The American IC is not infallible, but what part of it — the CIA? The National Security Agency? State’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research? — would have leaped to such a ridiculous conclusion?

Mere hours after the attack, the nation’s spooks knew this was terrorism, not amateur movie criticism. There had been ample warning — including an assault on the British ambassador as well as earlier attacks on our consulate — that something was coming.

And yet the White House — which as recently as Oct. 8 was still insisting that a resurgent al Qaeda is “on its heels” — has chosen to stick to another exonerative fairy story: that it was unaware that Ambassador Chris Stevens had begged for more security at the beleaguered Benghazi compound.

The reasons for this denial may be best known to campaign guru David Axelrod. After all, the administration’s only indisputable foreign-policy triumph — the killing of Osama bin Laden — would be in serious jeopardy were Obama and Biden to publicly admit that the Libyan attacks were in part retaliation for bin Laden’s death and the ongoing US drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere.

But it’s simply untrue that the government was unaware of the deteriorating security conditions in Benghazi. In last week’s congressional hearing, security officials testified that Washington repeatedly turned a deaf ear to their urgent requests for beefed-up forces at the Benghazi compound and CIA “safe house.”

Indeed, two separate security teams had recently been withdrawn from Libya after their temporary assignments had expired. And last week’s testimony made it plain that this was according to policy — a policy set by just what higher-ups, we still don’t know.

There’s more bad news to come. It now appears that the CIA “safe house” in Benghazi — which was tasked with tracking down the lethal weapons looted from the collapsed Khadafy regime — was also stripped of valuable information in the Sept. 11 attack.

That intelligence likely included the names of Libyans and others who’d been cooperating with the Americans, as well as possible double agents within Ansar al-Sharia (the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula branch behind the Benghazi attack) and al Qaeda itself. This may explain why, on Thursday, masked gunmen shot and killed a local security officer in Yemen who’d been working with the US Embassy.

So the Benghazi attacks may well prove to be an intelligence disaster of the highest order, seriously compromising scarce US assets in the region.

Yet the White House response seems to be utterly political — a concerted effort to shift blame, even if it means risking a break with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and payback from husband Bill. (Not to mention the chance of embarrassing blowback from the spooks who keep the secrets).

Maybe Team Obama can manage to dodge all the way to Nov. 6 — but they’re going to need a bigger bus.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 05:45:50 AM
Lol at the people who didnt see 9/11 coming despite numerous warnings writing this shit.

Lets stop this blame game shit its getting really old.

Neither Bush nor Obama can see into the future. Deal with it shit happens everyday stop crying about it.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 05:52:00 AM
Lol at the people who didnt see 9/11 coming despite numerous warnings writing this shit.

Lets stop this blame game shit its getting really old.

Neither Bush nor Obama can see into the future. Deal with it shit happens everyday stop crying about it.

STFU.   Stop kneepadding obama like a 2 dollar hooker in Hunts Point.   


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 15, 2012, 05:53:56 AM
STFU.   Stop kneepadding obama like a 2 dollar hooker in Hunts Point.   


I have said numerous times Obama is a weak greedy creep. However his policies is WAY more sound than Romneys. And he lies a lot less too.

You defend what the neocons did to RP if im a Obama kneepadder you are a Romney cock-socker


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:34:47 AM
The Benghazi attack: No more lies
 

By Tribune-Review

Published: Saturday, October 13, 2012, 8:59 p.m.
Updated: Saturday, October 13, 2012




Regarding the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya last month that left this nation’s ambassador and three others dead, the Obama administration is:
 
a.) lying
 
b.) stupid
 
c.) living in a parallel universe, or
 
d.) all of the above
 
Go to the head of the class if you chose “all of the above.”

We’re all familiar with the administration’s first narrative of the Sept. 11 incident — it was the spontaneous reaction of a rioting mob upset over a low-budget anti-Muslim film. But that fiction began to unravel almost immediately.
 
There was no “protest,” only well-armed terrorists in a well-coordinated attack. Yet for weeks the White House stuck to its lie. And even now, after being forced to concede its tall tale was fact-bereft, many of Obama’s acolytes have not stopped lying.
 
Among the latest, during Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden insisted that the consulate did not request additional security. That’s a lie, as the congressional testimony of four State Department officials proves.
 
Then there’s Obama campaign mouthpiece Stephanie Cutter, insisting that the unbelievable Benghazi attack narrative is an issue only because the Republican presidential ticket has made it one. How stupid is she and how stupid does she think the American people are?
 
Caught up in its repeated lies, the Obama administration has created a parallel universe. Where and when does it end?
 
In the polling booth on Nov. 6.


Read more: http://triblive.com/opinion/2765433-74/attack-obama-administration-benghazi-lies-stupid-consulate-editorials-lie-lying#ixzz29NWDrW8E

 Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
Former USS Cole Commander on Benghazi: Obama only cares about power and getting reelected

 Posted by  The Right Scoop on October 13th, 2012 in Politics | 180 Comments





Lt. General Tom McInerney told Judge Jeanine tonight that the only reason the Obama administration ordered the FBI to investigate the Benghazi attack is to stall it through the election. He says this was an act of war against the United States and if this had been assigned to the military we would have known 2 days later what happened. He adds that we know who they are and where they are and that we should have already attacked those people.

Former USS Cole Commander Kirk Lippold said that the parallels between this case and the attack on the USS Cole are absolutely striking in that the Cole attack was one month before an election and that Clinton delayed just as the Obama administration is delaying all for political purposes. He further states emphatically:
 

The Obama administration in this thing, just like the Clinton administration, does not care about what the American people think about this incident. They care about power and getting reelected.

Watch:


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
Forbes, CNN destroy Obama administration’s Benghazi lie
 Legal Insurrection ^ | 10-15-2012 | Bryan Jacoutot

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 2:47:46 PM


Forbes contributor, Larry Bell, released an article late last night entitled, “Pants On Fire: Obama Administration Scrambles for Cover as Benghazi Lie Explodes.”

The article, drawing on reports from CNN, reveals a picture the Obama administration is desperately trying to sweep under the rug.

President Obama’s foreign policy is an absolute disaster.

Moreover, the things the Obama administration has told the American people in the days since September 11th reveal either gross incompetence, or willful deception. Perhaps, even, a combination of the two. [Emphasis added]


For more than a week after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration which pledged to be the “most transparent administration in history”, continued to maintain a ruse that the outbreak of violence was nothing more than a spur-of-the-moment protest in response to the offensive video. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the fiction, and White House press spokesman Jay Carney told us all that there was “no evidence” that this was a “preplanned or premeditated attack.”

An October 2nd CNN report disagreed. It revealed that the administration repeatedly sent out talking points that contradicted top intelligence officials and sources for the network on the details of what caused the attack. It also said that: “CNN has learned tonight that the White House chose to leave out key intelligence from the attacks on Americans in Libya. There are three things U.S. intelligence has now confirmed to be true: the attacks were preplanned, terrorist attacks, and the work of Al-Qaeda- linked groups. None of these three points were in talking points distributed to congress and other government officials. U.S. intelligence knew of the al-Qaeda link within 24 hours of the attacks. And the now infamous comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attacks were not preplanned and not the work of terror came four days after that. This doesn’t add up.”

In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video, information released in a letter from Representative Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Clinton shows that the situation in Libya had been deteriorating for months. It reads: “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

This is unacceptable behavior from a sitting administration. By any objective viewing of the facts, the Obama administration has deliberately misled the American people in an attempt to shield their claims of foreign policy superiority from scrutiny in the months leading up to the election.

What’s more, as Bell points out, this is no isolated incident. The shooting at Fort Hood, the 2009 Christmas Day bomber, and the assassination attempt on the Saudi Ambassador in D.C. all have links the al-Qaeda network.

Yet this reality contradicts the narrative President Obama has been pushing about his foreign policy experience, so the acts were said to have been singular and uncoordinated incidents of violence.

Bell notes this connection.


Finally, carefully contemplate what Obama said in his speech before the Democratic National Convention: “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we’ve seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so deeply.”

Is it possible that the past blustering and blundering he referred to is really his own, and that we might truly be ready for new foreign policy leadership after all?

The American people don’t deserve to be jerked around by the Obama administration just so it can save face.

We deserve better.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 12:34:27 PM


Larry Bell, Contributor

 I write about climate, energy, environmental and space policy issues.


Op/Ed

|

 10/14/2012 @ 9:10PM |15,607 views

Pants On Fire: Obama Scrambles For Cover As Benghazi Lie Explodes















A Libyan man stands next to a wall apparently stained with blood at the main entrance of the US consulate in Benghazi on September 13, 2012, following an attack on the building late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya and three other US nationals were killed.(Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

The carefully coordinated and heavily armed September 11th strike upon the American Consulate in Libya contradicted President Obama’s repeated narrative that, thanks to his tough policies and actions, al-Qaeda has been defeated.  And although misrepresented by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as a “spontaneous outbreak” of violence provoked by a “hateful” movie denigrating Muslim prophet Muhammad, he and other high members of his administration knew full well and early on that this was patently untrue. Congressional testimony reveals that the White House had been informed on day one that al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible for the murders of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi.

For more than a week after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration which pledged to be the “most transparent administration in history”, continued to maintain a ruse that the outbreak of violence was nothing more than a spur-of-the-moment protest in response to the offensive video. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the fiction, and White House press spokesman Jay Carney told us all that there was “no evidence” that this was a “preplanned or premeditated attack.”

An October 2nd CNN report disagreed. It revealed that the administration repeatedly sent out talking points that contradicted top intelligence officials and sources for the network on the details of what caused the attack. It also said that: “CNN has learned tonight that the White House chose to leave out key intelligence from the attacks on Americans in Libya. There are three things U.S. intelligence has now confirmed to be true: the attacks were preplanned, terrorist attacks, and the work of Al-Qaeda- linked groups. None of these three points were in talking points distributed to congress and other government officials.  U.S. intelligence knew of the al-Qaeda link within 24 hours of the attacks. And the now infamous comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attacks were not preplanned and not the work of terror came four days after that. This doesn’t add up.”

In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video, information released in a letter from Representative Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Clinton shows that the situation in Libya had been deteriorating for months. It reads: “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

Those attacks began in April when two Libyans threw an improvised explosive device into the consulate compound. In June, postings on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page encouraged Libyans to attack Ambassador Stevens during one of his early morning runs around Tripoli. And in the weeks leading up to September 11th, Libyan guards were being warned by their family members to quit their consulate jobs because of rumors about an impending attack. These are but a few of the escalating series of incidents. There were also carjackings, shoot-outs, and even a rocket-propelled grenade being shot at a convoy carrying the British ambassador.

It is now evident that al-Qaeda hit four, not just one, embassies last month, with none of the other three ever attributable to a video either. The Weekly Standard reports that in addition to the American Consulate in Libya, terrorists tied to the same group that attacked our homeland on 9/11 were also behind U.S. Embassy sieges in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. All were timed around the 9/11 anniversary.

One of the most ironic and inexcusable aspects of the fatal Benghazi tragedy is that Ambassador Stevens, who after recognizing and communicating the special 9/11 security threat, was denied protection he requested. Yet remarkably, Vice President Joe Biden claimed during last Thursday’s debate that the administration was unaware of security requests. This seemingly contradicted evidence presented to the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee just a day earlier. Biden said “We weren’t told they wanted more security, we did not know they wanted more security.”  But if so, why wouldn’t the president, vice president and secretary of state have been be briefed?

During the debate, Representative Paul Ryan accused the Obama administration of having an “unraveling” foreign policy, pointing particularly to “the larger failures of the administration to be completely transparent about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the security situations leading up to the attacks.” He rhetorically asked Biden, “This was Libya…a country we knew had al-Qaeda cells. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a marine detachment?”

The congressional committee was presented with a diplomatic cable sent by Stevens to the state department in Washington on August 2nd asking for an additional 11 security personnel to be added to the rotation of 24. Though the 11 were to replace temporary security staff, Stevens had made it clear that violence and terrorism were a threat amid a volatile political landscape. He wrote: “Due to the level of threat in regards to crime, political violence and terrorism, post feels this is an appropriate number of LES [locally employed staff] security personnel needed to further embassy diplomatic outreach missions. Violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.” He further emphasized that “Host national security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment.”

Two former U.S. security chiefs in Libya who testified before the committee also reported that they had found it impossible to get the message across back home that security was a critical problem. Andrew Wood, former head of a U.S. military team in Libya, told the committee that “…the security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there”. He added that the head of U.S. security in the region had pushed for more people “…but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.”

 Eric Nordstrom, the former security chief for U.S. diplomats in Libya, observed that he had been fighting a losing battle over numbers in which “ …we couldn’t even keep what we had.” He finally concluded after his contact with state department bosses that “…we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident”.

There are only two possibilities that can explain this senseless debacle. Either it reflects gross incompetence and irresponsibility on the part of the president and many others who answer to him, or it also represents this along with an egregious disinformation campaign aimed at concealing foreign policy failures to diminish known terrorist threats under his watch.  Some additional events occurring during his term in office give credence to the latter scenario.

For example, we might recall the Fort Hood, Texas massacre when Major Nidal Hasan screaming “Allahu Akbar” opened fire on a room full of Army soldiers on November 5, 2009 was dismissed by Obama as a random act of “one individual”. It was formally classified by his administration as a case of “workplace violence” rather than a terrorist act.

And we might remember that, just days after of the 2009 Christmas day attack on a U.S. airliner, the president assured our nation that the so-called underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was “an isolated extremist”. Yet within the first hours of the investigation, Obama and his national security team had known, as Abdulumutallab told the FBI under interrogation, that he had been trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Plus, consider that shortly after Faisal Shahzad attempted to detonate his explosives-packed SUV in downtown New York on May 1, 2010, the White House described it as a “one-off” incident, confidently indicating that it wasn’t part of a planned series. Yet intelligence clearly showed that Shahzad had been trained at a Taliban camp inside Pakistan, and was funded by a terrorist group.

Finally, carefully contemplate what Obama said in his speech before the Democratic National Convention:  “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we’ve seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so deeply.”

Is it possible that the past blustering and blundering he referred to is really his own, and that we might truly be ready for new foreign policy leadership after all?


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

 This article is available online at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/10/14/pants-on-fire-obama-scrambles-for-cover-as-benghazi-lie-explodes


 


 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 01:31:03 PM
WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown

 by Ulsterman on October 15, 2012 with 7 Comments in News


Like I promised you, the current 72 hour event cycle appears to be ramping up the Benghazi Massacre scandal that has now likely shot up to concern #1 for the Obama White House before the second debate.  Romney campaign feeling good about things. Real good.   Not sure if you got this timeline published by The Hill.  I am sending you some of that outline with my own comments.  Feel free to publish or just keep it for yourself.  This is to let you get an idea how we/they are forming this up leading into tomorrow night’s debate.
 


(Our White House Insider indicates senior adviser Valerie Jarrett takes great pleasure in being known as the “defacto president” of the Obama White House – though she was recently enraged at campaign staff for Barack Obama’s failure during his first presidential debate against Mitt Romney.  The following is the most recent communciation from this longtime D.C. political operative who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, and has been working tirelessly for the last three years to correct what they since have described as a “Terrible mistake for America.”)
 


________________________ ________________
 • April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.
 
(NOTE: Now I want to make it real clear here.  America just helped take out a leader who had ruled a country for over 40 years.  That’s a big f-cking deal.  You can’t tell me the safety of an American ambassador into the region right after that should not be a huge concern to any administration. So when they say they didn’t know about all the worries about safety that were shared in the months before the attack.  BULLSH-T.  THEY KNEW)


Read more in News

« New York Times Feels Pressure Over Lack of Benghazi Massacre Coverage (WSI RELATED)


• March, 2012: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.
 
(NOTE:  So who do we believe?  The on the ground guy who is risking his damn life or Barack Obama and the assh-les surrounding him who are now saying they didn’t know?  Nordstrom has no reason to lie.  No reason to risk his own future by speaking out against the administration.  I’ll say it again.  State knew.  Obama knew.  THEY ARE ALL LYING.  Yeah.  Hillary?  F-ck her too.  We told her to stay away from these people.  2016 huh?  Good luck with that now.)
 
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
 
(NOTE:  Six months before the September 11th attack.  No need for more security huh?)
 
• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.
 
(NOTE:  So we got sh-t like this happening and the Obama White House tried to say it wasn’t a terrorist attack that killed those Americans on September 11th?  Terrorists were posting the Ambassador’s daily schedule for f-ck’s sake.)
 
• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.
 
(NOTE:  Take this June 6th event and put it up against what the White House will say after the September 11th attack that they had no “actionable intelligence” regarding a pending attack.  This was clearly a test run.  We got people in the White House who are purposely ignoring threats to the United States.  Their entire foreign policy is a bunch of new age talk nice bullsh-t.  Period.  Terrorists blew a huge hole in the wall of the consulate four months before September 11th and the White House will say they had no clues there was a situation brewing? )
 
• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.
 
(NOTE:  There was already several attacks against American personnel prior to this video being released.  How then is the video to blame for those and subsequent attacks?)
 
• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.
 
(NOTE:  My understanding is the man begged them to stay on.  Stevens was afraid.  Really worried.  Borrowed time worried.  And the Obama White House could have given a sh-t.  Or, they were up to some weird save the day plan like you forwarded me earlier.  I am not pushing away any conspiracy on this thing.  It stinks all the way.  Top to bottom this thing stinks like week old road kill in July.)
 
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
 
(NOTE:  That date of September 8th.  So they had Libyan militia telling diplomats the sh-t was about to hit the fan.  If State had been on the ball.  If the administration had been on the ball, they had 48 hours to secure the safety of American personnel.  Here’s a big red f-cking siren going off here.  After these reports 48 hours earlier though we have the ambassador flying INTO Benghazi????????????????  When I first read that report of the Libyans telling us on the 8th that the danger level had become critical and then we have Stevens flying INTO Benghazi after those warnings, gave me chills.  That means there is something way more going on here.  I got no real answer as to what.  Just that there was something really strange going on.  The missing weapons?  Maybe.  But maybe more.  Like I said.  Gave me chills.  My gut telling me there is something there and they want it buried so deep now they are willing to look like idiots doing it.  Better to look like idiots than murderers?????
 
• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.
 
(NOTE:  Hello??? No actionable intelligence?  Really Jay Carney?  Really?)
 
• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
 
(NOTE:  Mitt Romney was RIGHT.)
 
• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
 
(NOTE- within 24 hrs media reports indicated the Benghazi Massacre was clearly a coordinated attack while the Obama administration aggressively pushed the “not our fault it was the video” excuse.  The cover-up is fully engaged at this point.  The question I still have is WHY?????????  It’s got to be more than they just didn’t want Obama to look dumb.  He does that enough all on his own.  What the f-ck was going on in Libya? Why was Stevens flying into Benghazi when all the warnings were screaming to do the exact opposite?  Who ordered him to go?  No way he does that on his own.  The guy was afraid.  He was ordered in.  Who made that call?  And why?)
 
• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”
 
(This is about 48 hrs after the Benghazi attack.  Intelligence in Libya and back to DC knew by then it was most likely terrorists.    You asked if it was possibly something that had been staged by Obama operatives and it went bad?  I’ve run that scenario around and around and there are some missing peices that I can’t quite fit together.  But I’m not saying it isn’t possible.  With these people, not possible no longer applies.  That would be a huge f-cking risk though.)
 
 
 
• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.
 
(READ THAT STATEMENT AGAIN.  THIS IS THREE DAYS AFTER THE BENGHAZI MASSACRE.  THER HAD BEEN NO LESS THAN THREE RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE AMERICAN CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH.  WHY ARE THEY SO WILLING TO LIE LIKE THIS WHEN ALL THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO A TERRORIST ATTACK???  HAS TO BE SOMETHING BIG THEY ARE COVERING UP.  BIG.  BIG. BIG.)
 
 
 
• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”
 
(NOTE:  Apparently Libyan intelligence is better than American intelligence under the Obama regime.  Susan Rice was directly prepped by the Obama White House.  She was told EXACTLY what to say when she went on television and repeatedly LIED to the American public. And she doesn’t answer to Hillary.  She answers to Obama/Jarrett.)
 
• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.
 
(NOTE:  This is where the first real rift between the United States intelligence community and the Obama White House is put out in the open. This is when I started to really get chatter about some people getting real pissed with the Obama WH because they are learning they are gonna be set up as the blame for the attack.)
 
• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
 
(NOTE:  Obama is openly lying to the American people.  I’m screaming at the TV asking why????  Why did Jarrett send him out there to lie like this?  Why risk that kind of damage?  Are they that stupid?  That confident?  And lots of people are asking these questions at this point.  Talking Senators starting to ask some tough questions of the administration.  Behind the scenes still. But pushing for answers.  Obama is looking like he really could be one and done, so some of them are willing to push them around a bit. Not as much as I would like, but it’s a start.)
 
• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
 
(NOTE:  Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”.  Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up.  I got little to no sympathy for Hillary.  But I am watching Bill’s reaction to this. Real close. So far it’s been very quiet and if I was Obama and Jarrett, that would make me very very nervous.  I have known very few people that can snap a leash as hard and unexpected as Bill Clinton, and he’ll be smiling ear to ear and look like the nicest guy you could ever know while he does it. That first debate, BC had a hand in some of that.  How Obama was left hanging a few times.  How he looked over at the moderator for help and it didn’t arrive.  “He don’t want to listen - he don’t want to prepare?  Let him be on his own then.”   The only one I’d want to piss off less than BC is the Old Man.  He don’t snap a leash.  He makes you hang yourself with it and has you thanking him for giving you the opportunity to do so.)
 
• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”
 
(NOTE:  Why does our current president REFUSE to use the term TERRORIST when it involves Muslim extremists?  Even as his own Secretary of State and National Counterterrorism Center director have gone on record  DAYS EARLIER calling the Benghazi killings a terrorist attack, Barack Obama refuses to do so.)
 
• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”
 
(NOTE: Panetta had been pretty low profile up to this point.  Two days after Obama’s UN speech, Panetta is using the term terrorist attack in regards to the Benghazi Massacre that pushes Obama into a corner while he comes to the defense of the intelligence community.  And then we get a new report out about how Obama didn’t really make the call on Bin Laden from a former military intelligence guy.  Coincidence?  F-ck no.  That was a firm tap to the top of Obama’s head reminding him there are people who KNOW things, right?  We got these very powerful people all facing off against each now.  Each one of them is hoping nobody goes THERE, but each one of them is letting it be known they will go there if they have to.  And all the rest of them are just scrambling for cover hoping they don’t get stepped on.)
 
• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”
 
(NOTE:  Now the rift between the Obama White House and the intelligence community is really opening up here.  Some might not realize that as U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice answers FIRST to President Barack Obama NOT to Hillary Clinton. Rice is a cabinet member.  Her loyalty is to the WH not State.   That letter she sent blaming the intelligence community was drafted and approved by high ranking Obama White House advisers…JARRETT.)
 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 01:31:55 PM
• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.
 
(NOTE:  Hillary now using the Obama White House tactic of blaming the U.S. intelligence operations.  Possible rift now between her and Leon Panetta?  If so, dangerous for her to roll that dice unless it has been agreed beforehand some poor no namer is going to be given up as the sacrificial lamb in this current blame game scenario.  Actually, it’s dangerous regardless, because if she is crossing Panetta in any way, she won’t win unless Bill does a full on intervention and I don’t know if he wants to go there.  Don’t ever underestimate Leon Panetta.  He is powerful in a way that only comes from information.  And information he’s got.  On a whole lot of them and us.)
 
• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
 
• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
 
(NOTE:  Has there ever been an administration so willing to throw some of the very bravest who serve to protect the safety of American citizens right under the wheels of the f-cking bus?  In all my years of being around these kinds of people I have never seen this kind of thing.  Never.  There’s been scraps between officials.  There’s been firings and resignations. That’s all part of the deal.  But to blame the entire intelligence community when the record clearly shows people were aware of how bad the situation had gotten?  When the Libyans knew but we are saying we didn’t know?  Bullsh-t.  Barack Obama is lying.  Everyone around him is lying.   And that lie comes at a whole lot of risk.  So what is the motivation to lie?  Why do it?  What are they covering up?  Sorry  I got more questions than answers on there but that’s what it is.)  LINK
 
________________________ _
 
What I can tell you is the Benghazi issue is playing out in the media much more than it was just a week ago.  That took some effort, but it’s reaching a closer version of critical mass.  We got the debate tomorrow.  The townhall thing makes me nervous and hopeful.  The Obama team will try and pack the house with their people.  Not sure how successful the Romney people will be able to counter that.  It’s New York.  Happy to report though that there is some serious endowment influence to be leveraged here with Hofstra.  You know who has apparently made some friendly “don’t make me pull the plug on you” calls in our favor.
 
One last thing.  Got a story that came back my way.  A little dated now but figured you’d like to hear it.  Few days or so after the first debate.  When it finally started to sink in just how badly Obama did and how Romney was really starting to look like he could win this thing.  Jarrett went ballistic upstairs.  Inside her office in West Wing 2.  Remember how I told you how there is her office upstairs and then Obama’s study just down the hall?  How Obama spends most of his time in the study and hardly any time downstairs in the Oval?
 
Anyways, Jarrett was blaming everyone around her for Obama’s performance on the debate.  This got back to Plouffe who has apparently become more and more agitated over Jarrett’s influence.  She’s not only trying to coordinate Obama’s brain but now telling the operatives how to handle the campaign and that’s got Plouffe biting nails over what to do with her.  So she is holed up in a meeting with somebody from the White House Counsel in her office and comes out pissed.  Sends staff to go get Plouffe.  His office is downstairs right next to the Oval. Where Axelrod used to be.  Plouffe is down there a lot more than Obama is.  The poor bastard is trying to coordinate the plans from Chicago, and Jarrett’s interference from upstairs.  Not an easy job.  Jarrett decides to make the trip downstairs herself.  Now this kind of thing with Jarrett, her pushing people around, it happens a lot these days.  It’s become her thing.  When it gets back to her how people call her the defacto president, she likes that.  A lot.  Makes her smile to hear it.  Like she told Obama a while back.  He might not like his life but she does.  And she’s living it.
 
I’m guessing she’s not even sure if Plouffe is on the premises because he has been spending more time in Chicago with all the others, but down she goes.  No word on if Obama was around in the version I got.  Maybe he was still in his study.  Or over at the residence.  Doesn’t really matter.  He has depended on the script more and more these days and that script either comes from Jarrett or is approved by her if it comes from someone else.  She controls everything going to and from the president.
 
So down she goes to West Wing 1, and she’s got that look everyone around there is so familiar with.  Queen Jarrett on the warpath.  Needs somebody to blame for her boy f-cking up so bad during the first debate.  Got polls getting shaky.  Got a fundraising red alert going out.  She enters Plouffe’s office.  Comes right back out.  Has words with an assistant down there.  Not sure who.  But the assistant apparently gives as good as she gets.  Then another woman steps in.  From the description I’m thinking it’s Smoot, though I thought she was out of town at that time but the description fits her. Like so many of them, she’s been back and forth to Chicago as well.  Now you got to know that Julianna is a good company individual.  Good at what she does.  Wall Street connected.  Carolina girl.  Especially well thought of with some high profile members of Congress.  A hell of a lot more thought of than Valerie Jarrett.  Good at the cash box.  And for those people, cash is always king.  So if Jarrett was going after Smoot on that day, I can see her discovering a woman more than willing to push right back.
 


So Jarrett is told by this other woman to step back into Plouffe’s office area.  The door closes and they have it out.  Jarrett is screaming at her.  Now you got to understand, this is maybe 20 feet at most from the Oval.  So if Obama was in there, he wasn’t coming out.  And there’s security of course.  But apparently they don’t intervene like they have before.  Guessing these kinds of altercations have become so common they don’t bother.  Just another day in paradise inside the Obama White House.
 
What I do know is that the phrase “He said he was one of ours!  What the hell happened?  He was one of ours, that’s what we were told.   What the hell happened?” was repeated at least a few times during that altercation.
 
That was coming from Jarrett and it had to have been overheard by at least ten people in and around the West Wing at the time.  It was loud enough to get Lew to quickly trot down to that end of the hall and into the office where the two women were still squaring off.  He only made it about 30 seconds before Jarrett was heard telling him “You – OUT!”  And that’s what he did.  Right back down the hall and back to his office without saying a word to anyone about it.  Just shook his head a bit as if to say “what are you gonna do?”
 
Both women came back out and Jarrett made her own way back down the hallway with the other woman following her.  Jarrett swung around again and the two were face to face before a male member of the staff intervened between them.  Told it was an intern.  Poor bastard.  Also told Jarrett very clearly looked like she didn’t want to take it any further but the other woman looked like she was ready to go.  You ever cross a Carolina woman when she’s pissed?  Wouldn’t recommend it.  She wasn’t giving any indication of being one bit afraid of Valerie Jarrett on that day in that hallway.
 
Now it’s not so much the argument I want to point out here but what Jarrett said to that other woman, who I believe was Julianna Smoot.  When she was screaming about “he was one of ours” I am thinking it was a reference to Jim Lehrer, the moderator of that first debate.  I went back and rewatched that debate a few times and there are several examples where Obama looks right over at Lehrer and appears to be waiting to be bailed out.  And I’m guessing Lehrer tried to do just that but Obama was so bad so often and Romney was so good nobody could have saved Obama’s ass that night.  Nobody.
 
And that means they will try to ensure they get that kind of help even more for the second debate.  But just like he was prepared for the first debate, the governor will be even more prepared the second time around.  And this time we are pushing Benghazi out there hard.  A whole lot of us.  They will try and pack the house. They will try and play out a gotcha moment.  But we are prepared.  The governor doesn’t have to win big like he did last time.  He’s just got to win.
 
We get that, we get a one and done pile of sh-t pretender out on his ass where he belongs.  There’s the riots though.  They got some plan to have him come out and calm the f-cking racist seas after the election.  Heal the country.  Get the rioters to go back home and move on because “that is what America does”.  That will help secure him sainthood status in the history books  and line up about a $100 million for his United Nations One World World  bullsh-t Tour in 2014.
 
You didn’t think we’d be rid of this guy for good once he’s out of the White House did you?
 
They got big plans to go.  And on that end of things,  I don’t think there’s a damn thing to be done about it.
 
 
 
-WHI
 
_____________________
 
 
 
Note from Ulsterman:
 
There was a section in this update from Insider in which they were referencing a scenario related to the Benghazi Massacre that I had reviewed recently and forwarded on to them to get an opinion as to its plausibility.  That scenario originated from the Lame Cherry blog and is linked  HERE .
 
While it makes for some highly speculative and at times uniquely styled  reading, there is much there to suggest the possible.  As Insider repeatedly communicated, they like so many of us, are increasingly confused as to why so many high ranking Obama administration officials would lie about the Benghazi Massacre in spite of ample evidence within 24 hours of the tragedy that it was a well coordinated, well armed, and clearly terrorist driven attack.
 
I deem the Lame Cherry scenario on this topic worthy of your attention.  How you wish to view it from there is up to each of you…


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 02:10:04 PM
Report: White House Considering Retaliatory Libya Strike
Politico ^ | 10/15/12 4:17 PM EDT | Byron Tau

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 5:03:40 PM by drewh

The Associated Press reports:

Administration officials say the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to hit militant targets from Libya to Mali, if U.S. investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador in Libya.

But the officials say the administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile governments in the region.

Details 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 only on condition of anonymity.

The White House would not confirm the reports.

(Also on POLITIOC: Clinton defends State on Benghazi)

"The investigation is on-going and we have nothing new right now. As [Pentagon spokesman] George Little has briefed recently, the DoD continues to monitor the situation closely and we are ready to respond with additional military measures when directed by the president," Robert Firman, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, told POLITICO.

Philip Ewing contributed to this report.


(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...





WAG THE DOG


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 02:19:44 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330397/october-surprise-may-be-libya-john-fund



What if we’ve already had an October surprise in this campaign, in September, and the mainstream media are failing to follow up? An issue becomes a real issue only if enough people give it the attention it’s due.
 
Many people in the diplomatic and intelligence communities say that the Obama administration, behind the scenes, is in complete disarray in the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. That tension burst into the open during last Thursday’s debate, when Vice President Joe Biden said the administration “did not know” that U.S. personnel in Libya had made repeated requests for more security before the September 11 attack. “We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden claimed.
 
That directly contradicted sworn testimony given by several officials just the day before, during a House Oversight Committee hearing. Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, who led a 16-member security team in Libya for six months, testified: “We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.” Wood’s team was ordered by the State Department to leave Libya in August, about a month before the terrorist assault.
 
After the debate, Obama-administration officials knew that Biden’s statement was untenable, so they explained that by “we” — the “we” who were in the dark about security concerns — Biden meant only two people: himself and President Obama. It’s a parsing of words worthy of Bill Clinton’s famous “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
 
It’s not the first time that the intelligence community has been thrown under the bus by an administration trying to paper over a foreign-policy failure, but Biden’s move was breathtaking in its brazenness. In front of tens of millions, he squarely blamed the intelligence officials for the administration’s pathetic, erroneous claim that an anti-Islam video had sparked spontaneous protests that later turned violent at the Libyan consulate.
 
“The intelligence community told us that,” Biden said during the debate. “As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
 
But a former senior intelligence official scoffed at that assertion. “The administration designated Benghazi as a terrorist attack within 24 hours while at the same time declaring the attack was a ‘spontaneous protest’ that ‘spun out of control,’” he told me. “They can’t get their story straight, so the cover-up is deepening.” Even some Democratic senators have been pressing for immediate hearings on Libya, but Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked them, the official added. Is the need to discover problems with U.S. security taking a back seat to electoral politics?
 
On CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Republican senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said he knows for a fact that the administration was told within 24 hours of the incident that it was al-Qaeda operatives who carried it out. “They’re trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mideast, the wars are receding, and al-Qaeda’s been dismantled,” Graham said. “And to admit that our embassy was attacked by al-Qaeda operatives and [that] 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.”
 
John Batchelor, a syndicated radio talk-show host who often features intelligence analysts on his program, reported only two days after the attack that Ambassador Stevens was probably lured by al-Qaeda to Benghazi, where he was then assassinated. This massive security failure has prompted the administration to order a rather inartful cover-up, Batchelor contends. “These are the responses of marketers, not policymakers, the reactions of electioneering and not national security,” he told me. “The White House appears to be in disarray in running its permanent-campaign model. All decisions are being made on the run and without strategic planning. It may now be unraveling.”
 
Obama officials may have made a key mistake when, in their panic, they attempted to lay blame for the Libyan fiasco solely on others. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that responsibility for Libya lay with the State Department, not the White House. Ed Klein, a former New York Times editor who has authored recent biographies of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, says his sources tell him that Bill Clinton is already pulling together an informal legal team to create a defense in case Obama officials continue to point the finger in Hillary’s direction.
 
“If she is left with this stain on her reputation, it could seriously damage her chances for election” as president in 2016, Klein told the Daily Caller.
 
Michael Baker, a former covert CIA officer who now runs a division of the Diligence intelligence company, says that most career agency professionals will keep their mouths shut between now and Election Day. “But you can bet some of the more political people in the administration will tell their side of the story,” he told me. “We could soon learn a lot more.”
 
So if the Libyan attack turns into a full-fledged scandal, will it become an issue in the campaign, or will it be even noticed?
 
This all recalls the last month of the 1996 presidential campaign, when the Clinton administration was trying to run out the clock on the John Huang fundraising scandal. A former Commerce Department official, Huang was a top fundraiser who scooped up suspect foreign cash for Team Clinton. Throughout October 1996, Huang dodged subpoenas and reporters. The dimensions of the scandal became clear only after the election, when reporters uncovered ties between Huang associates and the Communist regime in Beijing.
 
Even so, the Huang scandal had an impact on the election; it may have helped Bob Dole tighten up the race at the last minute (he wound up losing by only eight points). In her book on the campaign, journalist Elizabeth Drew quoted Bill Clinton as saying that negative coverage of the Huang fundraising scandal allowed Republicans to keep the House in the 1996 election.
 
It’s no surprise that everyone in and around the Obama administration is trying to keep the lid on the Libyan scandal. It’s also not surprising that the media — so far — haven’t been asking nearly enough questions about the administration’s conduct in the scandal. Up until now the White House has been touting the Middle East as a singular success. Many reporters seem willing to go along with that storyline. But there is still time for the media to redeem themselves.
 
— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
Did Obama stage the Benghazi attack?
 Impeach Obama ^ | 10/15/2012 | CO Jones


Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 5:40:22


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. Photo Credit: osipovva


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 02:49:15 PM
Timeline of Libya Consulate attack reveals administration contradictions

By Julian Pecquet - 10/14/12 06:00 AM ET




The timeline of events leading up to last month’s deadly attack in Benghazi and the administration’s shifting explanations have become a major problem for Democrats less than a month before Election Day.
 
Already under criticism for linking the assault on the U.S. consulate to an anti-Islam video, the administration raised even more eyebrows Thursday when Vice President Biden said he didn’t know about the U.S. mission’s request for more security. Biden’s statement directly contradicts sworn testimony from State Department officials given just the day before.

 The following is a detailed timeline of events leading to the Sept. 11 attack and what the Obama administration has said since then.

• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.
 
• February: The U.S. embassy requests — and is granted — a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.
 
• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.
 
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.





RELATED ARTICLES
•Gingrich: 'Bigger scandal' than Watergate
•White House pushes back after veep debate
•Stevens's father: Libya should not be ‘campaign issue’

• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.

• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.

• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.

• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”

• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.

• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”

• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.

• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” Carney declares it “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter brief members of Congress. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls it “the most useless worthless briefing I have attended in a long time.”

• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.

• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”
 
• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”
 
• Sept. 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video. In a statement, spokeswoman Shawn Turner says that initially “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

• Oct. 1: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Clinton stands by Rice after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) calls for her resignation.
 
• Oct. 3: FBI investigators finally arrive at the crime scene in Benghazi, which has been unsecured for weeks.

• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”

• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.

• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”
 
• Oct. 12: After Republicans pounce, the White House says Biden was speaking for himself and the president because such decisions are made by the State Department.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 03:04:25 PM
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM ALLEGES POSSIBLE COVER-UP AFTER LIBYA ATTACK
 The Blaze ^ | 10/14/2012 | Eric ritz

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 5:47:33 PM by mgist

(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.

(AP File Photo) 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.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 03:10:25 PM
Two employees at the General Services Administration have stonewalled Breitbart News, and another has mysteriously "disappeared" as the investigation into the State Department "no bullets" contract with Blue Mountain Group, the British firm that provided security at the American mission in Benghazi heats up.
 
The stonewalling continued at the State Department, which failed to respond to followup questions from Breitbart News arising from our report that it had used the General Services Administration as a front to hide the identity and nationality of Blue Mountain Group. Despite repeated emails from Breitbart News throughout the day Thursday, the State Department had not responded to our inquiries by the time of publication.
 
Late Wednesday, GSA spokesperson Mafara Hobson refused to answer specific questions from Breitbart News on the growing scandal, referring all inquiries to the State Department before going silent:
 

Mafara Hobson: Michael, while GSA manages the Federal Procurement Data System website, this is a State Department contract. Please contact the State Department for information about this contract.
 
Leahy: Ms. Hobson:
 
But why is a GSA address and phone number listed in the vendor contact of the contract between the State Department and a "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee," later revealed to be the British firm Blue Mountain Group?
 
Please answer that question.
 
Mafara Hobson: Check with the State Department.
 
Leahy: Ms. Hobson,
 
But GSA should be able to explain why a GSA address and phone number is listed in the vendor contact of the contract between the State Department and a "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee," later revealed to be the British firm Blue Mountain Group.
 
You're a spokesperson for GSA. Why can you not explain that?
 
Ms. Hobson has not responded to our last question.
 
On Thursday, Breitbart News reached GSA employee Pat Brooks, whose office phone number is listed as the "vendor contact" phone number in the State Department contract with the "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee" we now know is Blue Mountain Group.
 
Ms. Brooks refused to comment at the time but promised to call back before the end of the day in a conference call with a Public Affairs spokesperson for the GSA.
 
When the Breitbart News phone didn't ring, we knew it was Ms. Brooks.
 
Breitbart News also attempted Thursday to reach GSA employee Cory Smith, who is listed as the press contact for the Regulatory Secretariat of the GSA at its web site. The physical address listed as the "vendor contact" in the State Department contract with the "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardee" we now know is Blue Mountain Group is 1275 First St. NE, Washington, D.C. That address, however, is not one that belongs to Blue Mountain Group. Instead, it is the address for the offices of the Regulatory Secretariat of the GSA.
 
Cory Smith, however, seems to have disappeared from all official records at the GSA. Phone calls to the number listed at the GSA website as belonging to Cory Smith went to a disconnected line. And emails sent to Cory Smith's GSA email address bounced back.
 
Earlier this year, the GSA was involved in a series of embarrassing scandals that involved irresponsible spending of taxpayer dollars.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/20/State-Dept-Stonewalls-Investigation-into-Use-of-GSA-as-Front-for-British-Firm-Given-Benghazi-Security-Contract



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:08:17 PM
Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security
 

From Elise Labott, CNN
 
updated 9:14 PM EDT, Mon October 15, 2012

 






Clinton: 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi security failure
 

 
Lima, Peru (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
 
"I take responsibility" for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.
 
The attack on the night of September 11 killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the American consulate in Benghazi.
 
The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after 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.
 
Clinton said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.
 
"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she added, noting that it is close to the election.
 
Fact Check: Benghazi security
 
Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded. In the wake of an attack, there is always confusion, Clinton said. But the information has since changed, she said.
 
Actress sues filmmaker
 
The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of the assault. It was an "intense, long ordeal" as staff tried to find out what had happened.
 
Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.
 
"We can't not engage," she said. "We cannot retreat."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:45:50 PM
Sen Graham, Ayotte and McCain release statement regarding Sec Clinton's statement
 Facebook ^

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 10:33:27

just sent out this statement with Senator Kelly Ayotte and John McCain about the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi.

"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."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2012, 07:52:47 PM
Senator alleges cover-up by Obama aides on Libya (good article)
Philly.com ^ | 10/15012 | Ann Flahery

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 10:31:57 PM by mgist

Posted: Mon, Oct. 15, 2012, 3:01 AM Senator alleges cover-up by Obama aides on Libya

By Anne Flaherty Associated Press

CAROLYN KASTER / Associated Press President Obama sits with volunteers Alexa Kissinger (left) and Suzanne Stern at his campaign office in Williamsburg, Va. His senior campaign adviser, David Axelrod, disputed allegations that his administration had tried to mislead the public. Post a comment

PHILLY.COM's TOP FIVE PICKS Arlen Specter: warrior & lightning rod Sen. Specter's fighting spirit praised Straw-buyer bill gets new momentum Poll: N.J. favors minimum-wage hike Gala celebrates immigrant couples' staying power WASHINGTON - A senior Republican senator on Sunday accused President Obama's aides of deliberately covering up the details of the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador so that voters wouldn't question Obama's handling of the war on terror. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a longtime 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, the administration suggested otherwise so voters wouldn't think al-Qaeda remained a threat.

"They're trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that [the] wars are receding and that al-Qaeda has been dismantled," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee's emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation. "And to admit that our embassy was attacked by al-Qaeda operatives ... I think undercuts that narrative."

It was an exceptionally pointed allegation on what has become a major campaign issue. The attack on a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, has raised questions about whether the State Department denied its embassy staff adequate security to save money and why the White House was slow to label the assault a terrorist attack.

Democrats 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.

The White House declined to comment on Graham's allegations. It has said previously that the investigation continues and that officials have relied on information about the attack as it became available.

Five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, 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. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also had given credence to the notion that the attack was related to protests.

A CIA memo obtained by the Associated Press cited initial intelligence that supported the assertion. But during last week's congressional hearing on the matter, the State Department said it had never concluded that the consulate attack stemmed from protests, prompting lawmakers to question why the administration used the explanation for more than a week.

Graham said Sunday that he had been told by intelligence officials in Libya that "within 24 hours they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack." Graham did not specify whether that message was relayed to the White House or the State Department, or if that information was kept within the intelligence community.

"Either they're misleading the American people or incredibly incompetent," Graham said of the Obama administration. "There was no way with anybody looking at all that you could believe five days after the attack it was based on a riot that never occurred."

Obama's senior campaign adviser, David Axelrod, on Sunday rebutted allegations 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 said.

The Benghazi attack also has raised questions about whether the State Department had provided adequate security to embassy staff. Democrats blame Republicans for cutting more than $300 million in diplomatic security funds worldwide. Republicans say the State Department could have relied on other discretionary spending accounts to cover costs.

Lawmakers on both sides said Sunday that a supplemental spending measure is being considered. Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he is planning to lead a congressional delegation to various hotspots around the world to ask U.S. diplomatic staff what security concerns they have.

Bloomberg News reported Sunday that Stevens' father said that he believes his son's death is being investigated adequately and that it would be "abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue."

Graham, Cummings and Issa spoke on CBS's Face the Nation. Axelrod spoke on Fox News Sunday.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2012, 07:03:58 AM
State Dep’t suspected in April that Libyan guards at Benghazi consulate had tried to attack it
 Hotair ^

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:27:00 AM by chessplayer

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.

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.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2012, 08:19:16 AM
Hillary Throws Obama Under The Bus
 Ace of Spades ^ | 10/16 | Ace of Spades

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:40:41 AM by RummyChick

Last night from the relative safety of Lima, Peru Hillary Clinton announced that when it comes to the Benghazi disaster the buck stops with her (sort of).

Many have taken this as a sign Hilary is taking the fall for Obama and letting him off the hook. I have a a different theory....David Axlerod tried to throw her under the bus and she tossed it right back on him and Obama.

What Hillary has done is basically say, "the damn phone is ringing and President Creased Trousers isn't answering it so give it to me. She comes off as the grown up who said, look I'm in charge here and for good or ill that makes me responsible".

People tend to admire others who stand up and take the hits. Hillary looks like A-the loyal soldier and B-the only one who is going to stand up and say, "something awful happened on my watch and I'm going to look in the mirror to see who is in charge and not like some other people I could name, look around for scapegoats".

Hillary isn't taking the blame, she's taking the credit.

Now a lot of this is hypocritical because Hillary already tried casting the blame elsewhere but when all else fails, it's sometimes better to own it in the end.

How does this hurt Obama? Well tonight he will be standing next to Mitt Romney. Romney you might recall has made a rather big stink about Obama's failure to lead and his own stellar leadership record.

Here's how he might play this when Benghazi comes up (or he brings it up himself)..."It's all well and good that Secretary Clinton is taking responsibility but my leadership experience has taught me that only the person at the top of the organization is truly responsible. President Obama is at the top of the Executive Branch and he's ducking responsibility. I'd like to know if the President agrees with the Secretary and if he does, why hasn't he asked for her resignation? If he doesn't agree, why doesn't he say who is responsible? Most importantly, why hasn't he taken responsibility from Day 1. Harry Truman didn't say the buck stopped at the Department of State, it stopped at his desk in the Oval Office."

And then it will get ugly for Obama when Romney ads, "And who does the President blame for the failure of his policies to get this economy going? The Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe he blames you the voters for not paying enough in taxes. This country needs a President who accepts the responsibility that comes with the job and doesn't blame his subordinates."

Obama will have no answer to any of that. He also can't fire Hillary because that would cause problems with Team PUMA and his administration would be in disarray 3 weeks before the election

He can't suddenly say, "Oh no, it's me not Hillary who is responsible" because A-he doesn't believe that and B-It's too late. She beat him to the punch, he'll look like he's scrambling to catch up (which he would be).

Mitt's been running a campaign based on his leadership and Obama's unwillingness and inability to lead. The second most popular (maybe the most popular) Democrat in the country, who happens to be Obama's own Secretary of State, just co-signed that charge by stepping into the vacuum Obama's cowardice created.

What Hillary has done is hand Mitt a baseball bat, turned him in the direction of the giant Obama pinata on stage tonight and said, "Have at buddy. Maybe I'll see you in four years".

And what's the downside to Hillary? None. No one is really going to hold her responsible. The DMM (Democratic Machine Media) won't. The GOP certainly won't (update: as predicted) and Obama can't. She'll be hailed as "presidential", "the one official willing to stand up and take responsibility" and ironically enough, a "good soldier".

Don't forget, Hillary has seen a variation on this play work before. Remember Janet Reno taking the blame for Waco? Clinton looked weak and Reno owned him for the rest of his presidency.

Sure it's kabuki theater and there are still plenty of outstanding questions (who said "hey, let's blame a protest about some tape" among them) but the story will be the debate and if Romney can use it to put Obama back on his heels. By the time Hillary gets back in the country the story and the campaign will have moved on and the damage to Obama will be done.

Maybe Hillary didn't do all of this on purpose (but why wait until now to do this?) but intentionally or not, she's teed this up for Mitt. Will he hit it?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 05:23:42 AM
Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama
FrontPage Magazine ^ | October 17, 2012 | Matthew Vadum

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:13:04 AM by SJackson

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -




Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama

Posted By Matthew Vadum On October 17, 2012 @ 12:55 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 9 Comments


In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

It was truly unprecedented and could only have happened in the Age of Obama.

During the town hall-format debate with an audience of undecided voters, Crowley provided an assist to Obama to help him perpetuate his administration’s ongoing cover-up about the murder of four Americans –including the U.S. ambassador— at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, this past Sept. 11. Reports indicate that Ambassador Chris Stevens and other officials were provided inadequate security in a particularly hostile part of Libya.

Hours before the debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent to Lima, Peru, by Obama’s campaign to make her inaccessible, said it was her responsibility to provide security for America’s diplomatic personnel. But that was as close to a mea culpa as Clinton was willing to come.

“In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion,” she said. That fog can be especially difficult to navigate when both the White House and Foggy Bottom are run by mendacity-loving Saul Alinsky-worshipers, but I digress.

During the debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney stated –correctly— that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Romney’s supporters have been saying for weeks that Obama didn’t want to label the assault on the U.S. mission a terrorist attack because to do so would be an admission that the administration’s foreign policy was in flames.

After Romney’s statement, Obama interjected, “Get the transcript,” like an eager contestant asking for a lifeline on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

At that cue, Crowley cut off Romney, claiming that Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror” around the time it took place. Buoyed by Crowley’s compliance, Obama boasted, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

“He did call it an act of terror,” she said of the president. “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You [Romney] are correct about that.”

Crowley, it should be noted, is a more polite, more personable version of Martha Raddatz, the pretended moderator who tag-teamed Paul Ryan with smilin’ Joe Biden last week. This makes Crowley more dangerous than Raddatz, who was arguably more obnoxious than outright opinionated in her conduct during the vice presidential debate.

Crowley also happens to be wrong.

In the White House’s Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama suggested that an anti-Islam video had provoked the attack. He then offered a throw-away line, making a general statement that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.” Obama said what happened in Benghazi was “a terrible act” and promised that “justice will be done.” At no time did he say the events in Benghazi were instigated by terrorists.

Over the following two weeks, the Obama administration continued to resist calling the events in Benghazi a terrorist attack. On five different Sunday morning TV talk shows, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said the attack in that Libyan city stemmed from violent protests related to a “heinous and offensive” video.

On Sept. 25, Obama again refused to label the attack an act of terrorism during a softball appearance on TV’s “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing. He said the same thing later the same day during an address at the United Nations, blaming the violence in Libya on the video and making the much-ridiculed assertion that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

After the debate, an unapologetic Crowley jovially admitted on CNN that Romney was correct but blamed her victim, the former Massachusetts governor, for the sin of linguistic imprecision.


Well, you know, again, I’d heard the president’s speech at the time. I sort of re-read a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question, so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So we knew that the president had, had said, you know, these acts of terrors [sic] won’t stand or whatever the whole quote was and I think actually, you know, because, right after that I did turn around and say but you are totally correct, that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was a, you know, this riot right outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t. So he was right in the main but I just think he picked the wrong word.

No, Candy, Romney didn’t pick the wrong word. The Commission on Presidential Debates picked the wrong moderator.

But the damage, which may or may not be long-lasting, is now done and the debate is finished. Just another day in the mainstream media.

Former New Hampshire governor and Romney surrogate John Sununu excoriated Crowley on the Fox News Channel. “Candy Crowley had no business doing a real-time, if you will, fact check, because she was wrong,” he said. Crowley aided President Obama who “was absolutely deliberate in his dishonesty on this issue of whether it was terrorism.”

The Obama administration’s failure to provide security in Benghazi, an act that led to the death of four Americans, is “unconscionable,” Sununu said.

Commentator Charles Krauthammer skewered Obama for being “completely at sea,” and not even trying to answer the question about consulate security. Obama acted offended at suggestions he would mislead the American people, Krauthammer said, even though he put his U.N. ambassador on television to lie to the public about what transpired in Benghazi.

Romney missed “a huge opening” to pound Obama over consulate security, Krauthammer opined. Of course if there was a genuine opportunity Romney missed, it’s because he was too busy defending himself after Crowley effectively called him a liar.

Despite the standoff on Benghazi, Romney acquitted himself well.

He repeated his winning phrase, “trickle down government,” to refer to Obama’s unshakable belief that all will be well if government continues to grow in size and scope.

He explained that it was important to bringing tax rates down because it makes it easier for small businesses to hire new employees and he hit Obama over the weak economy and skyrocketing growth in dependency on government.

“We don’t have to live like this,” Romney said.

Yesterday’s debate, which took place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., came after the Oct. 3 presidential debate in which Romney gave Obama the thrashing of his political career. It also came after Vice President Joe Biden’s unprecedented 85 interruptions of GOP challenger Paul Ryan in the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate.

On Fox News Channel pollster Frank Luntz’s focus group of maybe 20 now-undecided voters who voted for Obama in 2008 was harshly critical of Obama.

In a moment of candor that slipped past network censors, one man said Obama’s been “bullshitting” the public. The focus group members agreed and even seemed angry at the president, blaming him for mismanaging the economy and praising Romney’s experience creating jobs in the private sector.

In a development that ought to make left-wingers heads’ explode, even the focus group on ultra-liberal MSNBC swung for Romney.

Meanwhile, Obama has been getting a steady stream of bad news lately on the polling front.

A devastating Gallup poll released yesterday showed that Romney had the support of an impressive 50 percent of likely voters compared to Obama’s 46 percent. The poll consisted of responses from a large sample, in this case of 2,723 likely voters, all interviewed after Obama was annihilated by Romney in the Oct. 3 debate in Denver.

Even the staid statisticians at Gallup acknowledge that even though “debates are rarely transformative events in presidential elections,” Obama “has lost ground with voters since the start of the month, most likely reflecting his poorly reviewed performance in the first presidential debate.”

In recent months maybe, just maybe, the polls weren’t necessarily wrong. Perhaps they reflected voter ambivalence. Americans were open to the possibility of firing Obama but they weren’t yet sold on Romney.

When the endless parade of progressive pundits argued in the last few months that Obama was such an inspirational figure that mundane issues like national security and the economy no longer mattered to voters, it turns out they were projecting, not commenting.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 07:50:09 AM
Yes, They Played Politics on Libya
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 10.17.2012 - 1:07 AM



President Obama went ballistic during the presidential debate at Hofstra University when Mitt Romney questioned the conduct of the administration in its reaction to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
 

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
 
It was potentially a strong moment for the president as he was able, at least for the moment, to deflect concern about the administration’s failure in Libya and turn into a question of whether Romney overstepped the mark in his criticism. But a dispassionate look at the question on which the president made his grandstand play shows that his administration stands guilty of doing exactly what he denied.
 


The whole point about the administration spending more than two weeks trying to claim that the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was merely the result of an overheated reaction to an offensive film is that it dovetails with the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign.
 
We have yet to discover exactly what President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice knew about Libya and when they knew it as well as why the consulate’s requests for security were denied and who made that decision. The president was asked a direct question about that at Hofstra and chose not to answer it.
 
Though this issue was diverted into one largely about whether the president called the incident a terror attack the next day, what is being ignored is the fact that even though Obama uttered the word “terror” the following day, his administration spent the following days and weeks shouting down those who spoke of it as terrorism.
 
Their motivation wasn’t just the product of confusion about the available intelligence. It was the product of a desire to silence any speculation about the revival of al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya.
 
In the aftermath of the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked throughout the Middle East with American flags being torn down and replaced by al-Qaeda banners. Throughout the region, Islamist terrorism continues to fester and even gain strength in certain countries.
 
That’s a grim fact that not only needs to be acknowledged but understood as a major cause of the Libya disaster. But it is not something that the administration is comfortable saying because the keynote to the president’s foreign policy and security re-election platform is the notion that al-Qaeda is as dead as Osama bin Laden.
 
Having staked so much on the “bin Laden is dead” theme, the administration dragged its feet when it came to telling the truth about Islamist terrorism in Libya. They repeatedly claimed that the ambassador died as the result of film criticism run amuck. While they claim this was the result of faulty intelligence, there’s no mystery about why they embraced this false narrative so enthusiastically. Talking about an offensive anti-Muslim video (albeit one that virtually no one has actually seen) allowed the president’s foreign policy team to avoid saying the words “terror” and “al-Qaeda.” Instead, they talked about a movie for which they endlessly apologized. The president’s faux outrage notwithstanding, if that isn’t playing politics with security issues and misleading the American public, I don’t know what is.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 08:04:36 AM
Posted at 08:30 AM ET, 10/17/2012
Obama still wrong on Libya; Crowley blows it

By Jennifer Rubin



In what surely was one of the weirdest incidents in a presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley egregiously sided with President Obama on his false remarks on Libya, was repeatedly and decisively fact-checked post-debate as wrong (somewhere between “mostly wrong” and “pants on fire” in my book) and then backed away from her own incorrect assertion. As was the case in the vice presidential debate, the biggest story may be the after-the-debate tumult over White House misrepresentations on Libya.
 
Here was the exchange:
 

ROMNEY: Yeah, I -- I certainly do. I certainly do. I -- I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
 
OBAMA:Please proceed.
 
ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
 
OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
 
ROMNEY: I -- I -- I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
 
OBAMA:Get the transcript.
 
CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir.
 
So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) --
 
OBAMA:Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
 
CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
 
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
 
CROWLEY: They did.
 
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and -- and to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the -- your -- your secretary or --
 
OBAMA:Candy --
 
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and -- and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.
 
But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:
 

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
 
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.
 
In fact, that reference to “acts of terror” didn’t appear in any sentence or paragraph with “Libya” or “Benghazi.” In that Rose Garden speech Obama seemed to obliquely refer to the purported provocation (the anti-Muslim video) when he said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” The reference to “acts of terror” (plural, not the singular attack on Benghazi) was in reference to 9/11/01 and other jihadist attacks:
 

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
 
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
 
Other media fact checkers echoed this analysis. Then came Crowley’s walk-back:
 
She owes Romney and the country a more forthright correction and apology.
 
As Mickey Kaus wrote, “He only used the phrase after talking about the original 2001 9/11 attacks, after all. Maybe those were the ‘acts of terror’ that wouldn’t shake our resolve, etc. that Obama was talking about. The antecedent is ambiguous, presumably intentionally so.” For that reason, he argued, “She didn’t let the candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean – obviously the right course to take. She flatly intervened to declare that Obama’s interpretation was right.”
 
Notwithstanding all of that and even facing two opponents, both wrong, Romney should certainly have moved in for the kill. If Obama had said it was terrorism on Sept. 12, than why did Susan Rice tell the country a different story on Sept. 16? Certainly then Obama should not have continued to link the anti-Muslim video to the attack in his Univision appearance on Sept. 20 (“ What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests”) and in his United Nations speech on Sept.25. And why did Obama not make clear it was a terrorist attack on “The View” that same day?(“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we are still gathering.”)
 
But what Romney forfeited on debating points remains a gnawing, deepening problem for the president. What did he know and when did he know it? Why was he seemingly oblivious to the deteriorating security situation in Libya months earlier when, among others, the International Red Cross, pulled out of what was fast-becoming a jihadist haven?
 
This controversy is not going away and will continue to dominate the headlines, soak up the political oxygen and make it increasingly difficult for Obama to recapture the momentum.

Romney could use some sharpening on foreign policy to put Obama away next Monday, although each debate is of less significance. Romney would do well to simply recite the timeline to viewers, making clear the president was either dissembling or out of the intelligence loop (which quickly discarded the spontaneous video protest theory because, of course, there never was a protest).

Romney was entirely on the mark on one count: Libya is indicative of a failed Middle East policy in which Obama has repeatedly misjudged our enemies, kicked our friend Israel and left the United States less influential than ever. (“Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.”) Not even Candy Crowley can fudge that.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 01:49:21 PM
Insight: Brazen Islamic militants showed strength before Benghazi attack


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-libya-alqaeda-idUSBRE89F1SL20121016

By Mark Hosenball and Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:19pm EDT

 


(Reuters) - In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
 
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

So brazen was the Islamist presence in the Benghazi area that militants convened what they billed as the "First Annual Conference of Supporters of Shariah (Islamic law)" in the city in early June, promoting the event on Islamist websites.

Pictures from the conference posted on various Internet forums featured convoys flying al Qaeda banners, said Josh Lefkowitz of Flashpoint-Intel.com, a firm that monitors militant websites. Video clips showed vehicles with mounted artillery pieces, he added.

A research report prepared for a Pentagon counter-terrorism unit in August said the Benghazi conference brought together representatives of at least 15 Islamist militias. Among the paper's conclusions: these groups "probably make up the bulk of al Qaeda's network in Libya."

Drawing on multiple public sources, the Library of Congress researchers who drafted the paper also concluded that al Qaeda had used the "lack of security" in Libya to establish training camps there. It also reported that "hundreds of Islamic militants are in and around Derna," where special camps provided recruits with "weapons and physical training."

President Barack Obama's administration has repeatedly said it had no specific advance warning of an attack like the one that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on the night of September 11.

But the reports of militants' growing clout in eastern Libya, and attempts by violent jihadists to take advantage of fragile new governments across northern Africa following the Arab Spring, appear to raise new questions about whether U.S. embassies took proper security precautions, and if not, why not.

ARAB SPRING INSTABILITY

Washington has not definitively placed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on specific individuals or groups among the jihadist factions believed to be operating in or near Libya.

But U.S. officials have said that within hours of the Benghazi attacks, information from communications intercepts and U.S. informants indicated members of at least two groups may have been involved.

One is an al Qaeda offshoot, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM, which was founded in Algeria and has region-wide ambitions. The other is a local militant faction called Ansar al-Sharia, which apparently has arms both in Benghazi and in Derna, long a hotbed of radicalism.

Like other militants seeking to take advantage of democratic openings and fragile governments created in last year's Arab Spring, the two groups are apparently seeking to exploit instability in Libya after the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The links between these groups, other jihadist organizations and the original core al Qaeda militant group founded by the late Osama bin Laden are murky at best, U.S. officials and private analysts say.

"There is a complex mosaic of extremist groups in North Africa," a U.S. counterterrorism official said. "Given AQIM's interest in expanding its reach, it's not surprising that the group is trying to gain a foothold in Libya."

While hardly sweeping the continent, violent extremist groups appear to have found ungoverned safe havens across north Africa, from Mali in the west to Egypt's Sinai in the east.

In the last month, U.S. embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have also witnessed violent attacks.

Questions have been raised about security precautions at diplomatic facilities in those countries as well.

VETERAN HARD-LINE EXTREMISTS

Tunisia, the cradle of the Arab Spring, was the scene of some of the worst recent anti-American violence. Hardline Islamists there have been accused of inciting the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tunis a few days after the Benghazi attacks. Four protesters were killed, cars were burned and the U.S. flag was torn down and replaced with a black Jihadist banner.

"The recent violence at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis highlights the unfortunate fact that extremists are increasingly active in Tunisia," the U.S. counterterrorism official said. "It's not prime AQIM territory, but there are veteran hard-line extremists in the country with nefarious intentions."

The U.S. Embassy in Yemen - home of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP, one of the group's most dangerous offshoots - was also hard hit, and Washington sent Marines to bolster security there.

Nevertheless, last week in Sanaa, attackers shot and killed a senior Yemeni member of the embassy's security force on his way to work. Yemeni officials said the attack bore the hallmarks of AQAP.

Obama moved after the eruption of violence last month to beef up protection of U.S. diplomatic installations in the Arab world, sending in Marine contingents to several embassies and temporarily reducing the number of U.S. personnel at some posts.

The president also vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi attack.

But the administration may have a hard time deciding whom to target. The increasingly diffuse nature of al Qaeda, its allies and sympathizers complicates the job of identifying precisely which individuals and groups were behind the attacks.

'IMPROVING' SECURITY?

Despite signs of growing militancy in Libya, and a string of attacks on international facilities in Benghazi over the spring and summer, two compounds housing U.S. personnel remained open in the city.

State Department messages and testimony at a recent congressional hearing showed the State Department responded slowly, if at all, to requests for beefed-up security in Libya, and sometimes turned such requests down.

Just hours before he died, a State Department cable showed, Stevens met with members of the Benghazi local council, who insisted security in the city was "improving" and the U.S. government should "pressure" American companies to invest.

Later that day, it said, Stevens was scheduled to launch a project called "American Space Benghazi," a public outreach center containing a "small library, computer lab and open space for programming."

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Todd Eastham)










Wow!!!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 03:08:23 PM
osted at 12:35 PM ET, 10/17/2012
More evidence of deception

By Jennifer Rubin


President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really had declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads:
 
The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later.
 
On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.”
 
From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:
 
Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?
 
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.
 
Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you —

MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.
 
Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just —

MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
 
Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi” the day before.

The memo goes on to argue that Obama’s position on Libya is “untenable.” That’s about the shape of things. Did he call it an act of terror and go around misleading the country for two weeks that it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie? Or did he not call it terror on Sept. 12 and lie to the voters last night?
 
There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them”
 
So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that.
 
Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?
 
The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident. The Obama White House may be out spinning the press to buy into the Obama-Crowley line, but no one is buying it. As the rest of the information comes to light, the president retains less and less credibility. Like a fish on a line he flops this way and that, trying to break free of his self-created trap.
 
And finally, this Reuters report suggests the administration was entirely unprepared for the 9-11 attacks.:
 

In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.
 
Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
 
In short, it appears that the Obama administration didn’t take 9-11 all that seriously, and when tragedy hit, it went into spin mode. Now the president is caught in a tangle of contradictions. Not even Candy Crowley can get him out.
 

More on Libya from The Washington Post:


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 06:49:34 PM
(Chaffetz) Romney surrogate rebukes Crowley for 'fact-check' on Libya during debate
 The Hill ^ | 10/17/12 | Alicia M. Cohn

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:19:13 PM by markomalley

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a prominent surrogate for Mitt Romney, on Wednesday rebuked Candy Crowley for backing up President Obama during a discussion of Libya at Tuesday's debate.

Crowley on Wednesday defended her decision as moderator to settle a disagreement between Romney and Obama, saying she only intended to "move them along."

But Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a prominent Romney surrogate, said she overstepped.

"When you have two candidates disagreeing, it's not the role of the moderator to say, 'Mr. President, you're right' or 'Gov. Romney, you're right,' " he said to Crowley during a roundtable on CNN's "Starting Point." He added that he thought she did a great job as moderator other than during the exchange on Libya.

"It wasn't necessarily your place to try to be fact-checker right there," Chaffetz said. "I happen to think that your assessment of that was wrong, and so I was a bit frustrated on that particular point."

In an exchange the campaigns are still arguing about Wednesday morning, Romney criticized Obama for not calling last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an act of "terrorism" until two weeks after the incident that resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Obama said he called the violence "an act of terror" the day after it happened, and when Romney continued to challenge him, Crowley spoke up.

"He did call it an act of terror," Crowley said. "It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there, about this tape, to come out. You are correct about that.”

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama asked during the debate, to applause from the crowd. Conservatives immediately protested that Crowley was siding with Obama and challenged that the president's use of the phrase "act of terror" in his Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12 was arguably not a direct reference to the attack on the consulate.

Crowley explained to CNN after the debate that she thought Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

She explained further in Wednesday morning's interview: "There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic, that they did take weeks to go, 'Well, actually there really wasn't a protest and actually it didn't have anything to do with the tape.' That took a long time."

She added that she thought it took nearly a month for the administration to admit that the violence was not spontaneous and that there had been security concerns at the consulate preceding the incident. The administration's initial explanation was that an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube prompted a spontaneous protest.

"Then we got hung up on this 'Yes, he said'; 'No, I didn't'; 'I said terror'; 'You didn't say terror.' There was this point where they both kind of looked at me," Crowley explained of the exchange. "What I wanted to do was kind of move this along."

Crowley's role as moderator was already under fire before the debate due to an agreement between the campaigns that would have banned her from rephrasing questions, opening a new topic, asking follow-up questions or commenting on either questions or answers given by the candidates.

Crowley said before the debate that she saw her role as that of facilitator.

Paul Ryan, in another interview with ABC News on Wednesday morning, said Crowley backtracked on siding with Obama over "act of terror," something Crowley denied. She maintained that she always granted each candidate had a point and added that she hoped the campaigns would go back to focusing on each other, rather than her, soon.

She added that she did not get the impression that either candidate was specifically targeting her or her performance during the debate.

"The first person that made a beeline for me was Gov. Romney; he came over and said, 'Thanks, Candy, very much. Great debate,' " she said. "I never felt like they were anything other than two men who were watching the calendar squeeze in on them toward Election Day, and they were there to fight it out."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 07:01:50 PM
Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.
 Western Journalism.com ^ | October 17, 2012 | Kris Zane

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:38:18 PM by Simcha7

Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.



America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.



Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.



Why the equivocation? Why the lies?



None of it made sense.



Until now.



Now Obama’s throwing long-time ally Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA. All the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses.



Kevin Dujan, a political analyst and radio and TV host wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.



That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released.



But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return.



Their beloved Blind Sheik.



Unbelievable?



Western Journalism broke the news on Monday that a source connected to the White House has stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama.



WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO:

 http://www.westernjournalism.com/benghazi-attack-was-botched-kidnapping-to-trade-blind-sheik/



Simcha7.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: AbrahamG on October 17, 2012, 08:23:56 PM
copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 17, 2012, 08:25:52 PM
copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.copy, paste.


And have refuted anything?    NO.     F Off knee padder


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: AbrahamG on October 17, 2012, 08:34:11 PM

And have refuted anything?    NO.     F Off knee padder

How will I ever recover?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2012, 07:58:26 AM
A Bright and Shining Libyan Lie
By Victor Davis Hanson - October 18, 2012





 
Almost everything we have been told about Libya over the last two years is untrue.
 
A free Libya was supposed to be proof of President Obama's enlightened reset Middle East policy. When insurgency broke out there, the United States joined France and Great Britain in bombing Muammar Gadhafi out of power -- and supposedly empowering a democratic Arab Spring. Not a single American life was lost.
 
Libyans, like most in the Arab World, were supposed to appreciate the new enlightened American foreign policy. Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech had praised Islam and apologized for the West. A new "lead from behind" multilateralism was said to have superseded George W. Bush's neo-imperialist interventions of the past.
 
Obama's mixed-racial identity and his father's Muslim heritage would also win over the hearts and minds of Libyans after the Gadhafi nightmare. During this summer's Democratic convention, Obama supporters trumpeted the successes of his Middle East policy: Osama bin Laden dead, al-Qaeda defanged and Arab Spring reformers in place of dictators.
 
To keep that shining message viable until the November election, the Obama administration and the media had been willing to overlook or mischaracterize all sorts of disturbing events. We had asked for a United Nations resolution for humanitarian aid and a no-fly zone to intervene in Libya, but then deliberately exceeded it by bombing Gadhafi's forces -- after bypassing the U.S. Congress in favor of a go-ahead from the Arab League.
 
Libya was not so much liberated as descending into the chaos of tribal payback. Former Gadhafi supporters and African mercenaries were executed by those we helped. Islamists began consolidating power, desecrating a British military cemetery and driving out Westerners.
 
On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, a radical Islamist hit team with heavy weapons stormed the American consulate in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
 
In response, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice desperately insisted that the murders were a one-time, ad hoc demonstration gone awry, without much larger significance. Supposedly, a few Muslim outliers -- inflamed over one American's anti-Islamic Internet video -- had overreacted and stormed the consulate. Such anger was "natural," assured the president.
 
But why would furor over an obscure, months-old Internet video just happen to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary attack? Do demonstrators customarily bring along rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine guns? Why did the Libyan government attribute the killings to an al-Qaeda affiliate when the Obama administration would not?
 
Forget those questions: For most of September, desperate administration officials still clung to the myth that the Libyan catastrophe was a result of a single obnoxious video. At the United Nations, the president castigated the uncouth film. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the senseless spontaneous violence that grew out of one American's excesses, as she spoke beside the returning coffins of the slain Americans.
 
Nonetheless, more disturbing facts kept emerging: Ambassador Stevens repeatedly had warned his State Department superiors in vain of impending Islamist violence. Security personnel -- to no avail -- had also urged beefing up the protection of the consulate, prompting former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom to say in exasperation that "the Taliban is on the inside of the building." Video of the attack revealed that there had been no demonstration at all, but rather a full-fledged terrorist assault.
 
Even as the fantasy of a spur-of-the-moment demonstration dissipated, administration officials tried to salvage it -- and with it their idealistic policy in the Middle East. Vice President Joe Biden told a flat-out whopper in last week's debate, saying the administration hadn't been informed that Americans in Libya had ever requested more security. He scapegoated the intelligence agencies for supposedly failing to warn the administration of the threat.
 
The new administration narrative faulted not one video, but the intelligence community for misleading them about the threat of an al-Qaeda hit on an American consulate -- and the Romney campaign for demanding answers about a slain ambassador and his associates. Meanwhile, the State Department, the Obama re-election team and the intelligence community were all pointing fingers at each other.
 
What the Obama administration could not concede was the truth: The lead-from-behind intervention in Libya had proved a blueprint for nothing. Libya has descended into chaos. Radical Islam had either subverted or hijacked the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled by the death of bin Laden or by the stepped-up drone assassination missions in Pakistan. Egypt was becoming Islamist; Syria was a bloody mess. Iran was on the way to becoming nuclear. Obama had won America no more good will in the Middle East than had prior presidents.
 
In other words, the administration's entire experience in Libya -- and in most of the Middle East in general -- has been a bright and shining lie.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.


Copyright 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.







Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2012, 08:03:46 AM
Busted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znVqyfxfbRQ


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2012, 08:13:46 AM
CBS's Crawford Exposes Obama's Deception on Benghazi Attack
 





By Brad Wilmouth | October 18, 2012 | 01:43
 
 11 54Reddit0 2

A  A

 

On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Jan Crawford devoted a full story to President Obama's deceptive claim that he called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" early on, as she recounted the administration's initial reluctance to call it a terrorist attack. The CBS correspondent also implicated debate moderator and CNN anchor Candy Crowley in bolstering Obama's distortion.

 After showing a clip of Obama and Romney clashing over whether Obama had used the words "act of terror" early on, Crawford showed a clip of what the President said the day after the Benghazi attack, but then exposed Obama's revisionism:
 
But with that statement, Mr. Obama didn't directly say the Libya attack qualified as one of those acts of terror. Earlier in his remarks, he seemed to suggest the attacks instead were triggered by an anti-Muslim video.
 
After another clip of Obama, she continued:
 
Top administration officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, delivered that message over the next five days. On Face the Nation, Rice suggested the Benghazi incident might have been triggered by demonstrations in Cairo over the film.
 
Then came a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice:
 
It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.
 
Crawford then noted Crowley's willingness to accept Obama's explanation:
 
JAN CRAWFORD: And for two weeks the President declined to call it terrorism, but debate moderator Candy Crowley accepted the President's interpretation last night, telling Romney-

 CANDY CROWLEY, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN ANCHOR: He did, in fact, sir, so let me, let me call it an act of terror- (INAUDIBLE)

 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

 CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.
 
Crawford relayed disappointment by Republicans that Romney did not challenge Crowley as the CBS correspondent concluded the report:
 
Now, many Republicans say they think that Romney missed a real opportunity last night to forcefully challenge Crowley and the President over what they say, Scott, is a new timeline that just doesn't square with the facts.
 
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Wednesday, October 17, CBS Evening News:
 
SCOTT PELLEY: Governor Romney went after the President last night on the subject of the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Jan Crawford is with the Romney campaign tonight. Jan?

 JAN CRAWFORD: Well, Scott, for weeks Republicans have said the President's reluctance to call the attacks terrorism is a sign his administration doesn't have a competent national security policy. Last night, the President said he did call it an act of terror within 24 hours of the attacks. That is a new explanation, and it triggered a clash between the President, Romney, and the debate moderator.

 FORMER GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY (R-MA): I think it's interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, you went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?

 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

 ROMNEY: All right, I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

 OBAMA: Get the transcript.

 CRAWFORD: The transcript of the President's comments in the Rose Garden the day after the attacks shows he does use those words.

 OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

 CRAWFORD: But with that statement, Mr. Obama didn't directly say the Libya attack qualified as one of those acts of terror. Earlier in his remarks, he seemed to suggest the attacks instead were triggered by an anti-Muslim video.

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

 CRAWFORD: Top administration officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, delivered that message over the next five days. On Face the Nation, Rice suggested the Benghazi incident might have been triggered by demonstrations in Cairo over the film.

 SUSAN RICE, AMBASSADOR THE THE UNITED NATIONS: It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.

 CRAWFORD: And for two weeks the President declined to call it terrorism, but debate moderator Candy Crowley accepted the President's interpretation last night, telling Romney-

 CANDY CROWLEY, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN ANCHOR: He did, in fact, sir, so let me, let me call it an act of terror- (INAUDIBLE)

 OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

 CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

 CRAWFORD: Now, many Republicans say they think that Romney missed a real opportunity last night to forcefully challenge Crowley and the President over what they say, Scott, is a new timeline that just doesn't square with the facts.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack#ixzz29fDo0Bum


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 19, 2012, 04:17:05 AM
Act of terror

Terrorist attack


WTF is the difference ???


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 04:17:42 AM
Act of terror

Terrorist attack


WTF is the difference ???

He was talking about 911 fool.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: headhuntersix on October 19, 2012, 04:20:02 AM
This is the same admin that labled the Hasan/FT Hood shooting "work place violence"......


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 19, 2012, 05:29:12 AM
He was talking about 911 fool.

And?

Who gives a fuck?


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 05:33:22 AM
And?

Who gives a fuck?


LOL!!!!     Typical.   Obama goes on a world kneepad islam tour over a fake video and you could care less. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 05:37:34 AM
CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP


WASHINGTON The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
 

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went.
 

The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
 

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
 

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
 
But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn't specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
 

Now, congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
 

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts.
 

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
 

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
 

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
 

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."
 

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
 

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case, the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that it "was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it's also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al Qaeda in Libya or across Africa.
 
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 06:20:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/libya-attack-cia-discovery-us-consulate-killings_n_1984429.html


LOL!!!!

Blaming Bush! 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
Suspected ringleader in Libya attack scoffs at US in plain sight
 nbc ^ | 10/19/2012 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK / NY Times

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 9:47:40 AM by


Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Libya’s fledgling national army is a “national chicken,” Mr. Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he smirked at the idea that the weak Libyan government could possibly do it. And he accused the leaders of the United States of “playing with the emotions of the American people” and “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.”

Mr. Abu Khattala’s defiance — no authority has even questioned him about the attack, he said, and he has no plans to go into hiding — offered insight into the shadowy landscape of the self-formed militias that have come to constitute the only source of social order in Libya since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

,,,

Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law. And he said that the United States had its own foreign policy to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everyone else?” he asked. “Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 09:27:54 AM
U.S. description of Benghazi attacks, at first cautious, changed after 3 days

Glass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 | Ibrahim Alaguri/AP
 
By Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers





WASHINGTON — In the first 48 hours after the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Libya, senior Obama administration officials strongly alluded to a terrorist assault and repeatedly declined to link it to an anti-Muslim video that drew protests elsewhere in the region, transcripts of briefings show.

The administration’s initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements, with a new narrative emerging Sept. 16 when U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice asserted in a series of TV appearances that the best information available indicated that the attack had spun off from a protest over the video.

What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Barack Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. The issue is sure to arise when Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney meet Monday to debate foreign policy.

Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

But the administration’s statements offer an ironic twist on the “fog-of-war” phenomenon: They apparently were more accurate on the day after the attacks than they were when Rice made her TV appearances four days later. Administration officials so far have provided no detailed explanation for the change.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment for this report beyond saying that, "These issues have been covered in countless comments by the president and briefings."

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner declined to address specifics. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters," he said in an email.

On the day after the attack, transcripts show, senior administration officials, briefing reporters, declined in response to three direct questions to link the Benghazi assaults to protests over the video. One senior official told reporters during the briefing that “unidentified Libyan extremists” launched what was “clearly a complex attack.” The official isn’t named because such briefings typically come on the condition of anonymity.

At campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada the next day, Sept. 13, Obama referred to the Benghazi assault as “an act of terror.” At the State Department press briefing that day, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked directly and repeatedly whether there was a link between the video protests and the attack on the U.S. consulate.

While she mentioned that commentary on social media was making the link “to this reprehensible video,” Nuland emphasized several times that there wasn’t enough information for officials to make that leap, even though some news reports, including those of The New York Times and Agence France Presse, were citing unnamed witnesses in Libya who said that anger over the video was the reason the consulate was targeted.

“We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans,” Nuland said.

That evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over a State Department reception marking an Islamic holiday; her remarks made no mention of a protest and made only passing reference to reports that listed “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” as a possible motive.



One of the speakers, Ali Suleiman Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, told Clinton and the other attendees in no uncertain terms that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

“I hope that this sad incident which happened, this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya, it will tell us how much we have to work closely,” Aujali said, according to the official transcript.



The story, however, began to change the next day, Sept. 14.

With images of besieged U.S. missions in the Middle East still leading the evening news, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney became the first official to back away from the earlier declaration that the Benghazi assault was a “complex attack” by extremists. Instead, Carney told reporters, authorities “have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” He added that there was no reason to think that the Benghazi attack wasn’t related to the video, given that the clip had sparked protests in many Muslim cities.

“The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive,” Carney said.

When pressed by reporters who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was preplanned, Carney said that “news reports” had speculated about the motive. He noted again that “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”



Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”



By that Sunday, Sept. 16, the evolution of the narrative was complete when Rice, the U.N. ambassador, showed up on all five major morning talk shows to make the most direct public connection yet between the Benghazi assault and the incendiary video.

While she couched her remarks in caveats – “based on the information we have at present,” for example – Rice clearly intended to make the link before a large American audience.

According to the then-current assessment, Rice told ABC’s “This Week,” the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo” – a reference to a demonstration triggered by the anti-Muslim video in which hundreds breached the U.S. Embassy compound there and tore down the American flag. Rice repeated the claim throughout her talk-show appearances and later blamed intelligence services for giving her incorrect information before she went on air.



The next day, Nuland faced pointed questions about Rice’s remarks from the State Department press corps, which noted that even the Libyan president was describing the events as a coordinated terrorist operation. Fielding a barrage of questions from reporters trying to pin down the administration’s position in light of the divergent statements, Nuland defended Rice’s remarks with a repeated line about the ambassador’s statements accurately reflecting “our government’s initial assessment.”



On Sept. 19, as the video story began to collapse amid news reports from Libya and intelligence leaks from Washington that pointed to a premeditated attack, the administration’s story underwent yet another alteration in what seems to be an effort to reconcile the dueling narratives.

At a congressional hearing, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, offered testimony that wove together both versions. He called it a “terrorist attack,” but also deemed it an “opportunistic attack.” He made no specific mention of a preceding demonstration over the video – witnesses interviewed by McClatchy for stories on Sept. 12 and 13 had said there was no protest – but did say that the violence “evolved and escalated over several hours.”

“What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” Olsen testified.

Under intense pressure from Republican critics over the handling of the Benghazi aftermath, the Obama administration finally came full circle on Sept. 20, returning to what Libyan and U.S. officials had said at the very beginning: the attack on the Benghazi consulate was separate from the region’s video protests and bore the hallmarks of a terrorist attack.



Carney, the White House spokesman who’d only days earlier tied the incident to the video, told reporters it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He cited Olsen’s testimony that pointed to the involvement of militant groups operating in eastern Libya, “including possible participation by elements of al Qaida,” especially its North African branch.

In the next week, as the Republican-led political storm over the administration’s shifting accounts grew, the office of the nation’s top intelligence official announced that as a result of new information, it had determined that the consulate had been hit by a "deliberate and organized attack," and that it was responsible for the narrative that the assault began “spontaneously."

Yet the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to clear up how the administration came up with its assertion that the attack was launched during a protest against the video. Issued by a spokesman and not Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself, the statement made no reference to a protest or the video.
 


Email: hallam@mcclatchydc.com, jlanday@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @hannahallam, @jonathanlanday

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html#storylink=cpy


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 12:27:48 PM
Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
 Fox News ^ | 10-19-2012 | James Rosen

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 2:56:57 PM by sheikdetailfeather

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents -- released Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack -- slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 07:37:57 PM
Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape
 CBS News ^ | October 19, 2012 | by Sharyl Attkisson

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 8:02:27 PM by Oldeconomybuyer

(CBS News) In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.

Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terror attack this past Sept. 11 at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and a separate attack that same night on a safe house where consulate staff had been evacuated.

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.


(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2012, 07:42:45 PM
CIA Told DC Benghazi Attack Not Spontaneous Within 24 Hours
 Big Peace ^ | 10/19/12 | Awr Hawkins

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 9:42:36 PM by trappedincanuckistan

The CIA is indicating that they told Washington the Benghazi attack was militant in nature, rather than spontaneous, within 24 hours of its occurrence.

According to a report released today, the "CIA station chief in Libya" alerted Washington that the attack was not in response to a video.

However, media outlets are doing their best to leave Obama a little wiggle room by claiming "it is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point." In other words, the station manager sent the alert, but there's no hard evidence anyone saw the alert in Washington.

Quick question: What does it say about the culture within the Obama administration if, in fact, they ignored or didn't even look at the CIA alert?


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 20, 2012, 03:39:41 AM
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

What really went wrong in Benghazi
NY Daily News ^ | 10/20/12 | None listed
Posted on October 20, 2012 6:11:18 AM EDT by mgist

What really went wrong in Benghazi Obama administration must come clean on security lapses before Libyan attack

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2012, 4:10 AM

MUSTAFA EL-SHRIDI/EPA

A man brandishes a rifle as the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, burns on Sept. 11. The intelligence and security failings that surrounded the murders of four Americans in Libya are coming into focus as far more fundamental than depicted in jousting between Republican Mitt Romney and President Obama.

Romney has concentrated on the administration’s shifting characterizations of the Benghazi assault that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three colleagues. Romney’s thrust has been that officials downplayed the events as a terrorist attack to minimize political damage.

With some evidence, Obama has denied the charge, but the administration has been at a complete loss to tell a coherent story. The President and Secretary of State Clinton said they take full responsibility — but for what, exactly, is unclear.

So, too, the question of how much of the onus Obama intends to bear. After saying he accepts the burdens of office, he tried to skate by the mortal debacle by declaring, “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

No, it’s an outrage that demands accountability.

Thus far, an all-but-anonymous State Department functionary has taken the heat for declining to provide what would have been a minimal boost in security at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, not at the consulate that was attacked in Benghazi.

As bad a call as that was, the larger emerging picture is that Obama and his top aides failed to comprehend how highly dangerous Libya was before they dispatched Stevens there. Then, the administration further let Stevens down as the dire nature of the peril became apparent to him.

What the Obama team failed to recognize was the tectonic impact of the Arab Spring. Across the region, popular revolutions weakened or did away with governing institutions, including intelligence services, that had kept violence-prone Islamists in check, however repressively.

In Libya, the war that toppled Moammar Khadafy further boosted the empowerment of radicals. Supplied with arms, tribal bands and militias became disciplined fighters and claimed power beside the country’s infant government.

Such was the environment in which Stevens led a delegation seeking to win the hearts and minds of Libyans, many of whom were adamantly hostile. It is no surprise, then, that in the months before his death, Stevens saw increasing danger.

In June, he cabled Washington that “Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya” and that “the Al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.”

In August, he notified State: “Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity. What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.”

Stevens added, “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

On Sept. 11, the day he died: Libyan security was “too weak to keep the country secure.”

Tragically, no one in Washington — not the State Department, not the CIA, not the President — awakened to the forces that had come into play in Libya and beyond. Stevens was left to face the furies in what all belatedly acknowledge was a highly orchestrated terror attack.

That the U.S. came up short on security was but an outgrowth of a basic misjudgment as to who was in charge in Libya: friends or enemies.

And nothing demonstrates how badly the administration got it wrong than the fact that Ahmad Abu Khattala, identified as an attack ringleader, scoffs at Obama’s pledge to bring the guilty to justice while sipping mango juice on a hotel patio and sitting for an interview with The New York Times.



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 20, 2012, 03:55:01 AM
 
 
 
0

inShare
 Comments (3)
Larger | Smaller
Printable Version
Email This
Font
Washington --

Sensing a moment of political vulnerability on national security, Republicans pounced Friday on disclosures that President Obama's administration could have known early on that militants, not angry protesters, launched the deadly attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya.

Within 24 hours of the Sept. 11 attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that it was carried out by militants, officials said. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over a video made in America ridiculing Islam's prophet Muhammad.

Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, led Friday's charge.

"Look around the world, turn on your TV," Ryan said in an interview with WTAQ radio in the election battleground state of Wisconsin. "And what we see in front of us is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy."

Obama, speaking Thursday on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," insisted that information was shared with the American people as it came in. The attack in Benghazi, which killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, is under investigation, Obama said, and "the picture eventually gets filled in."

The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said. It is not clear how widely the information from the CIA station chief was circulated.

U.S. intelligence officials have said the information was just one of many conflicting accounts, which became clearer by the following week.

But former CIA station chief Fred Rustmann Jr. says the White House would have been aware of it.

"When things go down like that, there is no analysis in between," said Rustmann, who has separately accused the Obama administration of sharing too many details about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. "You report this raw information as you receive it in Sitrep (situation report) format, from the CIA station to concerned worldwide (CIA) stations and bases and to the White House, Pentagon and State Department."

Congress is asking the administration for documents about the attack, in hopes of building a timeline of what the government knew and when.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Glendale (Los Angeles County). "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why."


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 20, 2012, 04:18:55 AM
The Number of Obama Supporters Who Have Never Heard of the 9/11 Benghazi Attack Will Terrify You
The Blaze ^ | 10/20/12 | Jason Howerton
Posted on October 20, 2012 7:05:29 AM EDT by Impala64ssa

Americans everywhere are wondering how the Obama administration will be able to recover from such a significant and deadly intelligence error in Benghazi, Libya. The White House reportedly ignored multiple calls for additional security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, even after the U.S. and international intelligence community warned of increased terrorist activity in Libya.

Ultimately, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in a fiery terrorist attack on the 9/11 anniversary.

To make matters worse, the Obama administration repeatedly blamed an anti-Muslim YouTube video for the attack for nearly two weeks, citing a make-believe demonstration outside the U.S. compound in Libya. Of course, it was later revealed that radical Islamic terrorists were behind the attack and the video had nothing to do with it.

However, as it turns out, some of Obama’s supporters don’t even know the Benghazi attack occurred in the first place — and as they say, what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2012, 04:09:50 AM
Benghazi: Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dry
Townhall.com ^ | October 21, 2012 | Doug Giles
Posted on October 21, 2012 6:57:38 AM EDT by Kaslin

 This past Friday the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hell’s corridor in Libya, begged Obama’s boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by “democracy seekers” from the “Religion of Peace” in the “liberated” nation of Libya.

As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosen’s findings in the newly released damning papers, it’s crap like …

· On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”

From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.

If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?

Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off.
Someone please forward this over to Romney’s campaign for talking points for Monday night’s debate on “National Security.”



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Princess L on October 21, 2012, 09:36:02 AM
This is certainly a much bigger scandal than Watergate and Lewinsky.  Let's hope Romney pummels Obama tomorrow night.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Princess L on October 21, 2012, 10:55:51 AM
but alas, we need to deflect from the real issue and talk about soomething much more important; American Idol,  Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey.  ::)


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: tbombz on October 21, 2012, 01:50:20 PM
princess, dont be a fuckwit.

the president is not notified of about shit like that.

blaming obama for security at the libya embassy is like blaming the CEO of mcdonalds for the bigmac you ordered in omaha with no ketchup that came with ketchup anyways.

the buck stops at the top!!!!   ::)


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2012, 01:51:46 PM
princess, dont be a fuckwit.

the president is not notified of about shit like that.

blaming obama for security at the libya embassy is like blaming the CEO of mcdonalds for the bigmac you ordered in omaha with no ketchup that came with ketchup anyways.

the buck stops at the top!!!!   ::)

Yeah - the buck always stops at the feet of a woman for Gaybama who hides behind women for his failures. 


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 22, 2012, 02:52:29 AM
princess, dont be a fuckwit.

the president is not notified of about shit like that.

blaming obama for security at the libya embassy is like blaming the CEO of mcdonalds for the bigmac you ordered in omaha with no ketchup that came with ketchup anyways.

the buck stops at the top!!!!   ::)

This!!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 22, 2012, 03:04:09 AM
This!!

Yet gaybama was notified of the shooting in Wisconsin yesterday.   Go figure.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 22, 2012, 05:04:01 AM
princess, dont be a fuckwit.

the president is not notified of about shit like that.

blaming obama for security at the libya embassy is like blaming the CEO of mcdonalds for the bigmac you ordered in omaha with no ketchup that came with ketchup anyways.

the buck stops at the top!!!!   ::)

Who appoints the people that are supposed to be handling this shit? Oh that's right the POTUS, but it's not his fault he chooses incompetence  ::)

And your comparison is fucking stupid, when was the last time putting ketchup on a bigmac resulted in the the deaths of 4 people?

Your damn right the buck stops at the top!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 22, 2012, 05:08:44 AM
Who appoints the people that are supposed to be handling this shit? Oh that's right the POTUS, but it's not his fault he chooses incompetence  ::)

And your comparison is fucking stupid, when was the last time putting ketchup on a bigmac resulted in the the deaths of 4 people?

Your damn right the buck stops at the top!

The POTUS appoints people that appoints people that hires people to handle this shit.

The US government is pretty big to think one man can fix it all is not realistic.

Just like a CEO of a firm doesnt know what every department does neither does the president


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 22, 2012, 05:13:44 AM
The POTUS appoints people that appoints people that hires people to handle this shit.

The US government is pretty big to think one man can fix it all is not realistic.

Just like a CEO of a firm doesnt know what every department does neither does the president

One of the constitutional duties of the POTUS is foreign policy, he doesn't get off the hook on this one no matter how you or anyone else tries to spin it


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 22, 2012, 05:15:27 AM
One of the constitutional duties of the POTUS is foreign policy, he doesn't get off the hook on this one no matter how you or anyone else tries to spin it

You have already reached a conclusion.

You are not here to debate only to let out anger and be affirmed in your belief.

Good luck with that.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Kazan on October 22, 2012, 05:18:01 AM
You have already reached a conclusion.

You are not here to debate only to let out anger and be affirmed in your belief.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with what? The FACT that foreign policy is a constitutional duty of the POTUS? You claim that Obama gets a pass on this, I have provided evidence that he does not.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: blacken700 on October 22, 2012, 05:21:30 AM
obama said he takes full responsibility for this so why are you going on


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: whork on October 22, 2012, 05:22:54 AM
Good luck with what? The FACT that foreign policy is a constitutional duty of the POTUS? You claim that Obama gets a pass on this, I have provided evidence that he does not.


It is a duty of the POTUS but he is only a man not a god. He could not have prevented the attack.
Do you know how many embassies the US has? Do you think he in person is in charge of security?


Read my post again:

The POTUS appoints people that appoints people that hires people to handle this shit.

The US government is pretty big to think one man can fix it all is not realistic.

Just like a CEO of a firm doesnt know what every department does neither does the president.





Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 24, 2013, 08:41:37 AM
bump


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: AbrahamG on January 27, 2013, 10:31:13 PM
Benghazi needed downsizing.


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: quadzilla456 on January 27, 2013, 11:40:54 PM
anything that comes from the criminal Darrell Issa you have to take with a grain of salt
And anything coming from criminals Obama and Clinton should not??!


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 08, 2013, 12:39:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajmNFLEserY


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 08, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/08/Live-Updates-Benghazi-Hearing


Unreal. 

Obama is the biggest fraud and lying piece of trash EVER to hold office


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 08, 2013, 01:03:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n679r1IAiT8

Hillary lied at the funeral 




Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 10, 2013, 06:49:21 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references



Busted


Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 10, 2013, 07:25:03 AM
Father Of Slain Navy SEAL: I Knew Hillary Clinton Was Lying To Me When She Said It Was The Video


Michael Miller
On May 9, 2013
http://mikesright.wordpress.com/


The Father of one of the ex-Navy SEALS killed in Benghazi says yesterday’s hearing offered him “encouragement.” He also says he knew Hillary Clinton was lying when she told him a video was responsible for his son’s death.
 
Charles Woods, whose son Tyrone was killed the attack, told Sean Hannity last night: “There are good men on both sides who are trying to find out exactly what the facts were so this will not happen again.” Woods said he even shook hands with Ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings to thank him for his “spirit of cooperation.”
 
As to the conversation Woods had with Hillary Clinton shortly after his son’s death, he said:
 

“When I was approached by Hillary Clinton at the coming-home ceremony of the bodies at Andrews Air Force Base, and she said, ‘We’re going to go out and we’re going to prosecute that person that made the video,’ I knew that she wasn’t telling the truth, and I think the whole world knows that now. She’s smarter than I am; she probably knew that well.”
 
Of course, Mr. Woods, being the gentleman he is, said “she wasn’t telling the truth,” when he knows in his heart she looked him straight in the eye and told him a bald-faced lie about the death of his son. “Smarter” than you are, Mr. Woods? I doubt it. And not a tenth of your integrity.







Holy shit.  What an evil bitch she is. 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/51050-father-of-slain-navy-seal-i-knew-hillary-clinton-was-lying-to-me-when-she-said-it-was-the-video



Title: Re: Obama / Hillary lies blown to smitherines on BenghaziGate - YOU LIE!
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 10, 2013, 07:34:27 AM
Blood on Their Hands

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On May 10, 2013 @ 12:54 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 18 Comments



Lady Macbeth may have been one of literature’s most famous villains, but at least she had the guilty conscience to eventually try and wash the blood off her hands.
 
It is doubtful that Hillary Rodham Clinton will start hallucinating bloody spots on her palms during the book tour for her upcoming 14-million-dollar tome or compulsively washing her hands during the 2016 campaign.
 
If she does make it into the White House, it is even more doubtful that she will wander it in a nightgown crying out for the blood that can never be washed away. Real life villains are more likely to ask what difference it makes; the solipsistic query of the sociopath to whom the feelings of others are abstract things.
 
At the Benghazi hearings, Congressman Elijah Cummings informed witnesses that “death is a part of a life.” His colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton asked, “What’s the big deal here?”
 
“We had Benghazi I with Susan Rice, now we’re having Benghazi II with Hillary Clinton. Enough Benghazi,”  Norton declared. It’s not quite “What, will these hands ne’er be clean?” and more “What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”
 
The latter is a timeless villain’s truth, whether in a fictional 11th century Scottish castle or in the all too real 21st century Capitol Hill. The arrogance of an Obama, a Clinton or a Norton comes from their confidence that none can call their power to account.
 
In Benghazi, four Americans were abandoned. In Afghanistan, over 1500 soldiers were killed and nearly 15,000 wounded, many of them denied air support and the ability to fight back under rules of engagement that likely also played a part in the betrayal at Benghazi.
 
Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin said that a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. The four deaths in Benghazi are a tragedy. Afghanistan however is just a statistic.
 
The day after Benghazi, the parents of Navy SEALs from Seal Team Six, along with former military officials, appeared at the National Press Club to demand a congressional investigation. The media responded with a collective shrug and resumed providing non-stop coverage of the Jodi Arias case. Some Lady Macbeths go to prison. Others are meant to go to the White House.
 
“Why was there no pre-assault fire?” Karen Vaughn, the mother of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn, asked. “We were told as families that pre-assault fire damages our efforts to win the hearts and minds of our enemy. So in other words, the hearts and minds of our enemy are more valuable to this government than my son’s blood.”
 
“Why didn’t they take them out with a drone,” Charles Strange, the father of Michael Strange asked. “The Admiral told me, to win the hearts and minds. I says, to win the hearts and minds? How about my heart? How about my mind?”
 
But not all hearts and minds are created equal. And not all blood is valued the same.
 
If Lady Macbeth had wandered through her Foggy Bottom castle or the Westchester mansion, complete with wine cellar, artist’s studio and outdoor fireplace, mourning for a Muslim terrorist killed in a drone strike or a Muslim protester during the September 11 embassy attacks, that would have been a socially acceptable act of regret for a lost mind and heart that could have yet been turned to a moderate appreciation of a country where you can hate it, bomb it and still get an academic posting at Columbia University.
 
But why bother mourning for one of the expendable human drones who are expected to give their lives to remind Muslims of our respect for their culture and religion?
 
When a Muslim is killed by a drone, the media gathers its outrage, but when one of our soldiers or diplomats dies in the hopes of softening a Muslim’s heart, then the men and women who sent him to die with his hands tied and a target painted on his back cannot see the red spots on their soft palms.
 
Muslim hearts and minds are the obsession of the policymakers, but who cares about the hearts and minds of the men and women who ride Chinooks into danger zones, run marathons in cities where aspiring Chechen boxers feel marginalized and work in skyscrapers that Muslim students fly past on the way from Boston?
 
“Under the current Rules of Engagement, if the enemy fires on you then runs behind a rock,” Karen Vaughn said, “when he pops his head out from behind the rock, you’re not allowed to engage him unless you can verify that he has not laid his gun down… in other words you must be fired on twice.”
 
Today it’s twice. Tomorrow it may be three times. And then four. The angrier they get, the more free shots we have to give them to improve their self-esteem and soothe their hearts and minds.
 
The press release for Hillary Clinton’s 14-million-dollar book declares that she “has redefined the meaning of ‘trailblazer’ in every phase of her career on the world stage.” The unnamed book will offer “dramatic moments,” “vivid personal anecdotes” and “memories of her collaboration with President Obama and his National Security team.”
 
But those who have already endured “Living History” with her and “It Takes a Village,” not to mention “Dear Socks: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets,” are unlikely to learn anything new.
 
There will be no book titled, “Dear Hillary, I’m In a Burning Diplomatic Mission with no Security and Can’t Breathe: Dying Ambassador’s Letters to Former First Ladies” and no, “It Takes a State Department to Spend Money on Art in Embassies Instead of on Embassy Security” book either. Those books would be the bloody handprints on the wall and that would distract us from the Jodi Arias 2016 campaign.
 
The families of Navy SEALS demanding answers will not receive a fraction of the coverage that Cindy Sheehan did for burping in Bush’s direction. Soldiers will go on fighting and dying with their hands tied behind their backs. Embassies will go on being attacked. And nothing will be done about it because fighting back is insensitive and hurts our chances of winning Muslim hearts and minds.
 
Lady Macbeth only wanted power, but she lacked an ideology that would allow her to believe that she was doing the right thing.  There was no Wellesley College senior thesis about Saul Alinsky on her shelf and she was left unequipped to believe that the ends justified the means and that rivers of blood could be spilled in a good cause.
 
“If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution,” Hillary Clinton wrote in her conclusion.
 
The social revolution of her 1969 thesis is once again here. Social values are under attack while soldiers die overseas without being allowed to fight back. The radicals care for nothing for the blood that they spill for their revolutions. Not the blood of a single man or of a thousand men.
 
“What is a traitor?” Lady Macduff’s son asks his mother, before being murdered by Macbeth’s assassins. “Why, one that swears and lies,” his mother replies. “Who must hang them?” her son asks. “Why, the honest men,” she answers. “Then the liars and swearers are fools,” he says, “for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men and hang up them.”
 
The liars and swearers have hung up the honest men from Benghazi to Kabul to Capitol Hill. And the traitors walk through the night with blood on their hands and do not even see.
 
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/our-soldiers-blood-on-hillary-obamas-hands