The Obama regime caught in yet another massive lie

[Kazan]

True.

I like how he didnt have time for the U.N but found time to appear on the view. No defending that

Well that is the point, how can anyone justify voting for a guy who is ducking his duties as POTUS, but finds time to fund raise and appear on TV shows. Staying in power seems to be Obama's only real concern at this time, and that in itself should scare the hell out of Americans

[Soul Crusher]

WND EXCLUSIVE

This scandal could dwarf 'Fast and Furious'

Did White House arm al-Qaida operatives who killed U.S. ambassador?
Published: 21 hours ago
 by Aaron KleinEmail | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.More ↓





JERUSALEM – While echoes of the “Fast and Furious” scandal still resound in the White House, another administration decision at the heart of Obama’s Mideast policy may prove even more explosive.
 
Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.






Ads by Google

Part Time CFO ServicesAffordable, Experienced CFO to Help Your Business Grow and Profit. www.thecfoconnection.com
Business Boot CampWhat makes a good business plan? Get Help from the Experts at SCORE www.scorewestchester.com/

 
After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.
 
The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.
 
King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.
 
During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
 
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
 
Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
 
At the time, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
 
The arming of the Libyan rebels may have aided in the attacks on our consulate in Libya. One witness to those attacks said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.
 
The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.
 
Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels, reported Egyptian security officials speaking to WND. Those officials claimed Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
 
The officials further claimed Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.
 
The Egyptian security officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
 
Regardless of Stevens’ alleged role, the Obama administration now continues to support the Syrian rebels, including the Free Syrian Army, despite widespread reports that al-Qaida is prominent among their ranks.
 
In addition to a reported $450 million in emergency cash for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday announced $45 million in additional aid for Syrian the opposition after nearly $100 million was provided to the Syrian rebels this year.
 
The problem? Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.
 
Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.
 
WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida, as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.
 
The military official said that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:
 
Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
 
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
 
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
 
U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels, while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

[whork]

Well that is the point, how can anyone justify voting for a guy who is ducking his duties as POTUS, but finds time to fund raise and appear on TV shows. Staying in power seems to be Obama's only real concern at this time, and that in itself should scare the hell out of Americans

You cant. He sucks.

Reality is though that its him or Romney. And i like Obamas results better.

But he still sucks

[whork]

And fundraising w Jay Z and Beyonce, and fundraising at the waldorf, and going to Ohio to raise $$$$, and appearing on Letterman, etc etc. 

This is where we differ.

You jump on any wagon that supports your cause. If he wants to be president he needs cash he is playing the game.
If he didnt you would call him a loser who couldnt raise the $$ needed.

Hit him on the issues (and there are plenty) instead of falling for the temptation of just spewing BS.
It works on the people who need a team to cheer but it doesnt work on people with above average I.Q.

[Soul Crusher]

Stephens: Benghazi Was Obama's 3 a.m. Call

Libya was a failure of policy and worldview, not intelligence..

 


Why won't the Libya story go away? Why can't the memory of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff be consigned to the same sad-and-sealed file of Americans killed abroad in dangerous line of duty? How has an episode that seemed at first to have been mishandled by the Romney camp become an emblem of a feckless and deluded foreign policy?
 
The story-switching and stonewalling haven't helped. But let's start a little earlier.
 
The hour is 5 p.m., Sept. 11, Washington time, and the scene is an Oval Office meeting among President Obama, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi has been under assault for roughly 90 minutes. Some 30 U.S. citizens are at mortal risk. The whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens are unknown.

What is uppermost on the minds of the president and his advisers? The safety of Americans, no doubt. So what are they prepared to do about it? Here is The Wall Street Journal's account of the meeting:
 
"There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya's permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene."
 
So it did. Yet the attack was far from over. After leaving the principal U.S. compound, the Americans retreated to a second, supposedly secret facility, which soon came under deadly mortar fire. Time to call in the troops?


"Some officials said the U.S. could also have sent aircraft to the scene as a 'show of force' to scare off the attackers," the Journal reported, noting that there's a U.S. air base just 450 miles away in Sicily. "State Department officials dismissed the suggestions as unrealistic. 'They would not have gotten there in two hours, four hours or six hours.'"

The U.S. security detail only left Washington at 8 a.m. on Sept. 12, more than 10 hours after the attacks began. A commercial jet liner can fly from D.C. to Benghazi in about the same time.
 
All this is noted with the benefit of hindsight, and the administration deserves to be judged accordingly. But it also deserves to be judged in light of what it knew prior to the attack, including an attack on the mission in June and heightened threat warnings throughout the summer.

So how did the administration do on that count? "That the local security did so well back in June probably gave us a false sense of security," an unnamed American official who has served in Libya told the New York Times last week.
 
The logic here is akin to supposing that because the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center failed to bring down the towers, nobody need have been concerned thereafter. But let's still make allowances for the kind of bureaucratic ineptitude that knows neither administration nor political party.
 
The more serious question is why the administration alighted on the idea that the attack wasn't a terrorist act at all. Also, what did the White House think it had to gain by adopting the jihadist narrative that a supposedly inflammatory video clip was at the root of the trouble?
 
Nobody can say. All the administration will acknowledge is that it has "revised [its] initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack."
 
That's from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. It suggests that our intelligence agencies are either much dumber than previously supposed (always a strong possibility) or much more politicized (equally plausible).
 
No doubt the administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper. But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season.
 
Let's review:
 
The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan "sovereignty" and the need for "permission." After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.
 
It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.
 
Write to bstephens@wsj.com

[Soul Crusher]

Editorial: Shifting Libya attack story raises red flags

For the sake of Americans in other foreign outposts, it calls for much closer scrutiny than the administration has been willing to allow.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/01/editorial-shifting-libya-attack-story-raises-red-flags-/1607543




9:55PM EST October 1. 2012 - Three weeks after an attack in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, we now know that it did not spring from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video, as the Obama administration originally described it. In fact, every aspect of the early account — peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — has unraveled.

OPPOSING VIEW: Our understanding is evolving

Spontaneous? Hardly. The administration acknowledges that Ambassador Chris Stevens died in an organized terrorist attack, likely mounted by an Islamic extremist group and an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Without warning? Not exactly. Violence against Westerners had been escalating for months in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. In June, an improvised explosive device damaged a perimeter wall at the Benghazi compound. On Aug. 27, the State Department issued a travel warning, citing the threat of assassinations and bombings in both Benghazi and Tripoli. According to a journal found and described by CNN, Stevens himself was worried about safety.

Despite all those signals, the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi relied for protection on the young Libyan government and a small band of mostly private contract guards, according to news accounts. Fewer than 10 armed men, both Americans and Libyans, were in the compound when the attack began with gunfire and grenades on the 9/11 anniversary.

This, then, was not one of those failures that is only visible in retrospect. It was a predictable vulnerability that the State Department failed to protect against. And for the sake of Americans in other foreign outposts, that calls for much closer scrutiny than the administration has been willing to allow.

Facing skepticism from members of Congress, including Democrats, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta finally called the assault what it was: terrorism. But the administration has said little else, other than that its initial misinterpretation resulted from faulty intelligence.

Among the most significant unanswered questions: Did U.S intelligence fail to get warnings of a plot? Or were warnings ignored? Why weren't Marines stationed at such a dangerous post? Did Stevens seek more security only to be denied, or did the ambassador fail to act on the concerns expressed in his diary? And, most urgently, does the success of the attack suggest that other foreign outposts could be inadequately fortified?

No doubt the administration wants to be sure that it has the facts straight before risking a second blunder. But the longer it waits, the worse it looks, and the longer other facilities will have to wait for beefed up protection.

A decade ago, the U.S. generally closed missions in dangerous spots, but the Obama administration has continued a push, started by President George W. Bush, to keep missions open in such hot spots as Iraq and Afghanistan to pursue American interests.

Security budgets have grown tenfold, from less than $200 million in 1998 to $2.2 billion in 2008, but it is not always clear what all that money is buying.

Much of the increased security since attacks in 1998 on U.S. embassies in Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania has been reactive and not strategically planned, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. That needs to change.

Ten years from now, a State Department official told us, the department might look back at Benghazi as the "unprecedented attack that led to the reassessment" of security at missions around the world. You'd think that the 1998 attacks — not to mention the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, when 52 Americans were held at the embassy in Tehran for 444 days — would have been sufficient wake-up calls.

Obviously, they were not, and the reasons why need a full airing.

[Soul Crusher]

[Soul Crusher]

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary
Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT



Jihadists twice set off explosives at the consulate prior to the incident that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, and announced threats on Facebook about escalating attacks on Western targets in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary, according to whistleblowers reaching out to House Republicans.

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi. 
 
Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.
 

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.
 

The new information disclosed in the letter obtained by The Daily Beast strongly suggests the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens were known by U.S. security personnel to be targets for terrorists. Indeed, the terrorists made their threats openly on Facebook.
 

For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.
 

In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that “after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.” 
 

A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff. But this official also acknowledged that the ambassador was “an old-school diplomat” and strongly desired to have as few barriers between himself and the Libyan people.
 
A picture shows broken furniture outside the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi on September 13, 2012, following an attack on the building late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other US nationals were killed. (Gianluigi Guercia, AFP / Getty Images)
 

The letter also discloses for the first time a bombing at the U.S. consulate that occurred on April 6, 2012. It says that on that day, two former security guards for the consulate in Benghazi threw homemade improvised explosives over the consulate fence. That incident resulted in no casualties. The Wall Street Journal first reported last month that on June 6 militants detonated an explosive at the perimeter gate of the consulate, blowing a hole through the barrier. The letter to Clinton quotes one source who described the crater as “big enough for forty men to go through.”
 

Obama administration officials have said there was no specific intelligence predicting the 9/11 anniversary assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. A senior State Department official acknowledged that there were five serious attacks on Western targets since the spring in the lead-up to the attack on the 9/11 anniversary. Speaking of the June 6 attack at the consulate’s perimeter gate, this official said, “The IED attack caused no loss of life and no injury. The wall acted as designed. It absorbed it.” This official said that compared with the 9/11 anniversary assault, the earlier attacks in Benghazi were mild. “We faced a coordinated, military-style assault. We’ve never seen that kind of attack before,” this official added.
 

Until Sept. 19, eight days after the consulate attack, senior administration officials had said it resulted spontaneously from riots at the U.S. embassy in Cairo against an Internet video denigrating the Muslim prophet. Spokesmen for the State Department and the National Security Council did not return emails late Monday evening.
 

Rep. Chaffetz told The Daily Beast Monday that the allegations detailed in the letter were based on whistleblowers he described as “people who have firsthand knowledge of the incidents themselves.” Chaffetz declined to provide more details about the whistleblowers other than to say they were U.S. government employees and there were fewer than 10 of them.
 

A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff.



In some cases the incidents against U.S. personnel or Libyans working to protect U.S. personnel were mild. In April a U.S. foreign-service officer stationed in Benghazi was attending a “trade-related event” at the International Medical University when the security forces of the university got into a fistfight and then a gunfight with the security detail for the trade delegation. Eventually the American officer had to be evacuated by the local Libyan militia that provided security for the consulate, known as the February 17 Brigade. 
 

On May 1 at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the deputy commander of the embassy’s local security force was “carjacked, beaten, and detained by a group of armed youth.” Eventually the man escaped his captors and phoned the embassy. “Libyan security forces fought a gun battle with the assailants in order to recover a number of stolen vehicles and release other detainees,” the letter says.
 

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.
 

“This was not a safe country on its way to a normalized situation. It was a very volatile situation,” Chaffetz told The Daily Beast.
 

The House Oversight Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Oct. 10 on the threats leading up to the attack.
 


Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
 


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
 

[Soul Crusher]

•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."

[Kazan]

You cant. He sucks.

Reality is though that its him or Romney. And i like Obamas results better.

But he still sucks

You know I'm going to ask, what results?

[whork]

You know I'm going to ask, what results?

I could but you will call it BS anyway

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html


Busted 

BUMP