Author Topic: The Benghazi Testamonies  (Read 11384 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #200 on: May 22, 2013, 10:43:51 AM »
try to stay on topic...

do you not see the retarded title fail?
"refuses justice, seeks trial"

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #201 on: May 22, 2013, 10:57:47 AM »
so thats a no


you are a complete dumbass

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #202 on: May 22, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »
Hey 333 - didn't you just claim a few pages earlier that Obama was a ruthless dictator who  has "complete power" and  "forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism" and  "regiments all industry, commerce, etc.,

please try to make up your mind and stick with one or the other

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #203 on: May 22, 2013, 11:45:10 AM »


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/11/wow-cbs-news-president-and-wh-official-tied-to-benghazi-scandal-are-brothers-n1593081


One of the mainstream media journalists whose pursuit of the truth has been truly tenacious and nonpartisan is CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson.  Her tough reporting has made life difficult for everyone from Hillary Clinton to the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans.  She's also been relentless on the Obama administration's Fast & Furious gun-running scandal -- and, of course, Benghazi.  As we mentioned this week, Attkisson's tough investigative journalism is starting to bother unnamed CBS News executives.  Here's Politico's scoop, in case you missed it:
 


But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile. The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. Farhi mentions "internal conflicts" in the final paragraph, though he seems to dismiss them. The "internal conflicts" are indeed real -- Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources -- and provide important context for today's piece.
 

My analysis of this report was highly critical of CBS News.  The network appears to be penalizing one of its best correspondents because she's doing her job too aggressively.  Conservatives quickly imputed a political motive to CBS News' internal drama, but the Daily Caller has uncovered a connection that suggests there's a striking personal angle to this controversy, as well:
 


The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively. CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year...On Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.


 

Well then.  "CBS News executives" are wringing their hands that Sharyl Attkisson maybe "wading dangerously close" to advocacy on Benghazi.  It's now entirely reasonable to ask if the top executive at the network may be "wading dangerously close" to a massive conflict of interest.  Is David Rhodes trying to protect his brother -- who's just been revealed to be knee-deep in the Benghazi cover-up -- by muzzling and marginalizing a problematic journalist within his news division?  Kudos to the Caller for shining the spotlight on that relationship, but it's amazing that no one connected those dots sooner.  How many people in the elite MSM orbit are aware that Ben and David Rhodes are brothers?  And they definitely are brothers, by the way; The New York Times confirmed that fact in a glowing profile of the younger Rhodes in March:
 


The son of a conservative-leaning Episcopalian father from Texas and a more liberal Jewish mother from New York, Mr. Rhodes grew up in a home where even sports loyalties were divided: he and his mother are ardent Mets fans; his father and his older brother, David, root for the Yankees. “No one in that house agreed on anything,” said David Rhodes, who is now the president of CBS News.
 
If Sharyl Attkisson continues to be relegated to the sidelines, or is even shown the door, at CBS News over her Benghazi coverage, the public must demand full disclosure about David Rhodes' role in that decision-making process.  The Rhodes brothers' familial tie may be a bizarre, irrelevant coincidence.  It's possible.  But it's not a leap to suggest that this reeks of corruption and collusion.
 
UPDATE - The great Brit Hume weighs in on Twitter with an interesting piece of context:
 


@guypbenson Yes CBS News head @davidgrayrhodes is WH Ben Rhodes's brother, but in his decade+ at Fox News, he was hardly thought a liberal.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) May 11, 2013

So if David Rhodes is a down-the-middle guy, or even has conservative leanings, that changes the calculus a bit. If Politico is right and Attkisson is being targeted by CBS News higher-ups, there are a few possibilities worth considering, given this additional information from Hume: (1) If Attkisson is being punished for politically-motivated reasons, perhaps Rhodes isn't involved. (2) If he is involved, Rhodes' interests may be personal, not political. (3) Attkisson's conduct has crossed some line of professionalism, although I've seen zero evidence that even hints at that conclusion.  Finally, there's option (4), wherein Politico got the story wrong, and this is all much ado about nothing.  I notice that David Rhodes has just followed me on Twitter, so I will reach out to him and see if we can get to the bottom of this.  As I mentioned in the original post, we don't know what the truth is here, but questions abound.
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #204 on: May 23, 2013, 09:05:12 AM »
Why The White House is Dragging Their Feet Re: Benghazi Suspects
 
by Jack Murphy · May 23, 2013 · Posted In: Special Operations

 



Some frustrated voices are starting to come out with information about how the FBI has positively identified a number of suspects who are thought to be behind the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th of last year.  Fox News cites an anonymous Special Operations soldier voicing his frustration, in many ways the frustration of much of America, about the Obama administration’s inaction.  The problem is, we don’t know what we don’t know.
 

Meanwhile in Libya, many associated with the late Gaddafi regime have been dropping like flies.  The media has been chalking it up to tribal violence, even as non-Gaddafi regime Libyans are targeted, most of them seeming to be killed while inside their vehicles.  Even Ben Qumu, the former Gitmo inmate in charge of Ansar Al-Sharia, the militia primarily behind the Benghazi attack has a bulls eye painted on the back of his head as he dodged an assassination attempt about a month ago.  His right hand man, Yahya Abdel Sayed ate it in Sitre just prior to that.
 
The leaking of the FBI’s five Benghazi suspects is problematic for the Obama administration in a number of ways.  For one thing, it puts the suspects within the frame of reference of law enforcement, making it essentially impossible to vector in on the suspects for “targeted killings” or even a low-visibility snatch and grab operation which would deliver them to Gitmo.  With the spotlight on them, the only recourse left may be to have them arrested.
 
But there is another good reason why the Obama administration would prefer to kill those behind Benghazi with a drone strike or by sending in JSOC shooters.  As I’ve written previously, the United States had to kill Osama Bin Laden.  Bringing him to trial was out of the question because of the things he would begin to talk about when put on the stand.  There is no need for conspiracy theory here, just talking about any US support he may have received while fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980′s would have been a massive embarrassment for America and American foreign policy.  This is why the Benghazi suspects need to be eliminated from the administration’s perspective, one suspect in particular.
 
You know where this is going.  One of them received covert US support not long after the Libyan Civil War.  Apparently he had a fairly cordial relationship with the US government, a quid pro quo arrangement.  If the FBI manages to arrest him and bring him to trial it will look like Iran-Contra part two for the Obama administration.  That’s why the suspects, along with Ben Qumu will more than likely quietly disappear.
 
And everyone knows that a post-conflict environment, filled with tribal violence, and an extremely weak transitional government sets the perfect stage for hiding an assassination.


Read more: http://sofrep.com/21072/why-the-white-house-is-dragging-their-feet-re-benghazi-suspects/#ixzz2U8GT8jhg


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #205 on: May 23, 2013, 09:24:47 AM »


The Next Benghazi Scandal
 
By David Weigel
 
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013, at 9:37 AM
 

Slate.com

 









Members of the Libyan rapid intervention force unit patrol at a checkpoint on May 16, 2013 in Benghazi following the attack of a police station. Photo by ABDULLAH DOMA/AFP/Getty Images
 

It's been burbling up from the conservative media for nearly six months, starting with Fox News. Last year, the network's reporter Catherine Herridge reported on a ship that had arrived to Turkey from Libya laden with weapons. Ordnance left unsecured after the fall of Gaddafi was being taken to Syria to overthrow another dictator.
 

This isn't in much dispute. The dispute, and the theory, is that the weapons used to kill Americans in Benghazi were made available by bungling American gun-runners. That's the theory floated by Roger Simon, who talks to two "Benghazi whistleblowers" (multiplying like rabbits now).
 


[Chris] Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
 

It's a nearly perfect scandal—Fast and Furious plus Benghazi, a sort of Neapolitan sundae of outrage and disgrace. If the anonymous accusers are wrong, we have plenty of other ways to explain the loose weapons in Benghazi and the transfer to Syria. And making it possible for the stray weapons to get to Syria is the sort of thing both parties in Congress largely favor. But the darkest version of the theory is gaining ground on the right.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #206 on: May 23, 2013, 09:32:26 AM »
Senators: 'What We Do Not Know' About Benghazi
 The Weekly Standard ^ | May 23, 2013 | Daniel Halper


Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:07:52 PM by don-o

Three U.S. senators have identified the missing parts of the response to the Benghazi terror attack. In a statement, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain list "What We Do Not Know" about Benghazi:

· We do not know whether the President was made aware of the classified cable that, according to published media reports, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent in August 2012, stating that the U.S. Mission in Benghazi could not survive a sustained assault from one or more of the threatening militia groups that were operating in eastern Libya.

· We do not know whether the President’s national security staff made him aware of the attacks on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi that occurred in April and June of last year and the assassination attempt on the British Ambassador in Benghazi around the same time.

· If the President was informed, we do not know what actions, if any, he ordered.

· We do not know who within U.S. Special Operations Command, Africa ordered a U.S. special forces detachment in Tripoli not to go to Benghazi to assist the Americans under attack, and why that “stand down” order was given, as the former Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli, Gregory Hicks, testified to Congress.


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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #207 on: May 24, 2013, 08:20:18 AM »

Obama Gives State Dept. Talking Points Editor a Promotion
 
by Keith Koffler on May 24, 2013, 9:48 am
 

The  State Department spokeswoman who played a pivotal role in deleting portions of the Benghazi talking points has been tapped by President Obama for a plum new post, bagging a nomination to become assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
 
Nuland is a career foreign service officer who had held many high-level positions, including under George W. Bush. But her nomination to handle the European portfolio will likely be seen by Republicans as an example of the president flipping the bird their way.
 
Senate confirmation in the current environment would seem unlikely, at best.
 
During the process of whittling the original CIA talking points down, a reference to participation in the Benghazi attack by al Qaeda-linked elements was deleted. Nuland had expressed “serious concerns” about mentioning the terrorists. And she also asserted that including references to previous attacks against foreigners in Benghazi “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
 
Nuland was particularly aggressive, pursuing the matter until the concerns of her superiors were satisfied.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #208 on: May 24, 2013, 01:27:14 PM »
Another crony and hack failing her way to the top

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #209 on: May 24, 2013, 03:10:06 PM »
Skip to comments.
The Stingers of Benghazi: Was the U.S. engaged in gun-running?
 National Review ^ | 05/24/2013 | Jim Geraghty

Posted on Friday, May 24, 2013 5:47:52 PM by SeekAndFind

Earlier this week, Roger L. Simon of PJ Media broke a story with shocking revelations, contending that slain U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11 to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups that had been originally provided to them by the U.S. State Department.

Simon cited two former U.S. diplomats:

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow [Qaddafi] on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda — indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

A careful review of reports from Libya over the past few years corroborates some parts of that account, but contradicts others:

Some Libyan rebel leaders, including at least one who had spent time in a training camp in Afghanistan and who was in that country in September 2001, specifically asked Western countries to send Stinger missiles.

Qaddafi’s intelligence services believed that the rebels were having the missiles smuggled in over the country’s southern border — but they believed the French were supplying the missiles.

There is no evidence that the U.S. supplied the weapons, but it appears they gave their blessing to a secret Qatari effort to ship arms across Libya’s southern border in violation of a United Nations arms embargo.

Anti-Qaddafi forces also obtained a significant number of anti-aircraft missiles from the regime’s bunkers early in the conflict.

Enough Stinger missiles disappeared from regime stockpiles during the civil war to become a high priority and serious worry for the administration.

(Note that in much of the coverage of Libya, “Stinger” has turned into a catch-all term for any shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missile.)

To save Eric Holder and the Department of Justice the trouble of reading my e-mail or collecting my phone records, all of the information in this report is gathered from public and open sources, both in the U.S. and overseas, and none of it can be considered classified or sensitive.

Before the war, Qaddafi’s regime in Libya possessed more of these kinds of missiles than did any other country except where they’re produced. On April 7, 2011, General Carter Ham, then recently promoted to head of U.S. Africa Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “we do estimate that there were as many as 20,000 of these types of weapons in Libya before the conflict began.”

In March 2011, Ambassador Chris Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition. He first entered Benghazi on April 5, 2011, joined by a USAID team, while the war was still raging, to meet with rebel leaders.

On March 2, 2011, Mike Elkin of Wired reported as rebel forces cleaned out the Salmani weapons-maintenance depot in Benghazi, and mentioned “30-year-old rockets” and “anti-aircraft weapons.”

Ben Knight, a foreign correspondent with the Australian Broadcasting Company, said on a program a few days later (March 7, 2011) that the rebels had shown him Stinger missiles:

TONY EASTLEY: And I guess on top of that, Ben, the rebels really are not as well armed as the government forces?

BEN KNIGHT: Well, clearly not. . . . What they do have we saw some Stinger missiles today, which are missiles that are capable of locking onto a jet fighter and shooting it down. In fact, they are claiming to have shot down another jet fighter today as well as another helicopter.

By July 2011, C. J. Chivers of the New York Times reported on more anti-aircraft missiles’ being removed from storage bunkers in Ga’a, Libya: On a recent day, 43 emptied wooden crates — long, thin and painted in dark green — had been left behind on the sand inside the entrance. The boxes had not been there during a visit to the same spot a few days before, and the weapons were gone.

The stenciled markings showed each crate had contained a pair of lightweight missiles called SA-7s — early Soviet versions of the same class of weapon as the better known American-made Stingers, which were used by Afghan fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was not clear who had taken them. The rebel guards variously blamed Qaddafi forces and misinformed opposition fighters.

Interviews with anti-Qaddafi leaders at the time indicated that one of their top priorities was obtaining anti-aircraft missiles. In light of the PJ Media report’s claims, one of the most intriguing reports from this time period is a March 11, 2011, Canadian Globe and Mail article that interviewed insurgent leader Abdul Hakim Al-Hasadi:

“We need Stingers,” he said, referring to shoulder-mounted missiles. “We don’t need your stupid words.” . . .

Abdul Hakim Al-Hasadi, 45, [was] recently appointed chief of security in the rebel-controlled town of Darnah. Al-Hasadi says he taught history and geography at a local high school until 1995, when he escaped Libya and spent a few years travelling. He finally settled in Afghanistan in 1999. He acknowledged that he lived in a camp and received training in guerrilla warfare, but would not say who controlled the facility.

The rebel commander said he witnessed the awe-inspiring power of U.S. air strikes when bombs hit Taliban and al-Qaeda positions in 2001. “We felt extreme rage,” he said. “They were killing women and children. It made us hate the United States.”

Hasadi was detained as a hostile combatant by U.S. forces in 2002, according to an interview he gave with an Italian newspaper: “I’ve never been in Guantanamo. I was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan, while returning from Afghanistan where I fought against foreign invasion. I was handed over to the Americans, held a few months in Islamabad, delivered to Libya, and released in 2008.”

Hasadi was not the only rebel leader imploring the West for Stinger missiles. A March 23, 2011, Reuters report quoted Fawzi Buktif, described as “an oil project engineer” then running “a training base outside Benghazi,” as saying, “We need Kalashnikovs, stingers, anti-tanks, all types of anti-tanks.”

Despite all the focus on anti-aircraft missiles, the Libyan Air Force ceased to be a significant factor in the war in March 2011. The United Kingdom’s Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell declared March 23 that the Libyan Air Force “no longer exists as a fighting force” and that NATO forces now flew over Libyan airspace “with impunity.”

Despite Libya being awash in anti-aircraft missiles, not many were fired at NATO aircraft:

A senior U.S. military officer who follows Libya closely said it was puzzling that there had been so few documented instances in which Libyan loyalist troops launched shoulder-fired missiles at NATO aircraft.

“I’m not sure what that means,” the officer said. “Fewer systems than we thought? Systems are inoperable? Few in Libya know how to operate them?”

Throughout the war, Qaddafi’s regime believed some outside force was supplying the rebels with anti-aircraft weapons. On September 2, 2011, the Wall Street Journal’s Charles Levinson and Margaret Coker managed to obtain the regime’s intelligence files about the rebellion, recovered from the office of Libya’s spy chief and two other security agencies.

By April, the war was expanding and so was the sense of panic inside Tripoli. Mr. Senussi’s [the Libyan spy chief] office did get apparently credible information, but the news was ominous. The reports suggested that the rebels were exploiting the country’s porous southern borders to receive arms and aid.

One memo contained intercepted phone calls between military commanders in Chad who reported Qatari weapons convoys approaching Libya’s southern border with Sudan, apparently intended for anti-[Qaddafi] forces. Another intelligence memo, dated April 4, warned that French weapons, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles and Milan antitank rockets, were making their way to Libyan rebels via Sudan.

French officials declined to comment on the document’s claims. Qatari officials didn’t return email requests for comment.

These Qatari weapons convoys were, in fact approved by the Obama administration, according to the New York Times:

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats. . . .

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

The Times article stated that “no evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris to the Benghazi attack,” although it’s not clear how anyone could determine that for certain without precise, accurate accounts of the Qatari weapons and the weapons used in the Benghazi attack.

The Obama administration’s approval of these arms shipments almost certainly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, adopted February 26, 2011, which required all member states to “prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer” of weapons to any party in Libya.

Qaddafi’s forces sought to restock their supply of these missiles during the conflict. In mid July 2011, his regime met with Chinese officials, seeking to purchase $200 million worth of sophisticated weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles.

Some number of the missiles, perhaps a significant portion, left the country. At least one foreign-intelligence source stated that branches of al-Qaeda were obtaining surface-to-air missiles in Libya. In April 2011, Reuters quoted an Algerian security official who claimed that al-Qaeda was smuggling missiles out of Libya:

The official said a convoy of eight Toyota pick-up trucks left eastern Libya, crossed into Chad and then guy, and from there into northern Mali where in the past few days it delivered a cargo of weapons . . . al Qaeda’s north African wing, known as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), had acquired from Libya Russian-made shoulder-fired Strela surface-to-air missiles known by the NATO designation SAM-7.

In October 2011, a Turkish journalist reported that Egyptian security forces had impeded an effort to smuggle Libyan SA-7 missiles through tunnels leading to the Gaza Strip, and expressed fears that the Kurdish separatist group was attempting to obtain them. Shoulder-mounted missiles were also leaving Libya and ending up in the hands of Somali pirates, according to an April 2012 report:

“We found that Libyan weapons are being sold in what is the world’s biggest black market for illegal gun smugglers, and Somali pirates are among those buying from sellers in Sierra Leone, Liberia and other countries,” said Judith van der Merwe, of the Algiers-based African Centre for the Study and Research on Terrorism.

“We believe our information is credible and know that some of the pirates have acquired ship mines, as well as Stinger and other shoulder-held missile launchers,” Van der Merwe told Reuters on the sidelines of an Indian Ocean naval conference.

By early September 2011, experts on the ground were concluding that “hundreds, if not thousands of surface-to-air missiles were missing,” and Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch’s emergencies director, was telling foreign correspondents that “if these weapons fall into the wrong hands, all of North Africa will be a no-fly zone.”

By late September, the highest levels of the U.S. government began focusing on the disappearing missiles and the threat they presented. Brian Ross of ABC News:

The White House announced today it planned to expand a program to secure and destroy Libya’s huge stockpile of dangerous surface-to-air missiles, following an ABC News report that large numbers of them continue to be stolen from unguarded military warehouses.

Currently the U.S. State Department has one official on the ground in Libya, as well as five contractors who specialize in “explosive ordinance disposal”, all working with the rebel Transitional National Council to find the looted missiles, White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters.

On October 23, 2011, Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reported that the Central Intelligence Agency was on the ground in Libya in the effort to recover the missiles:

Since [Qaddafi]’s regime fell in late August teams of CIA officers, supported by other intelligence services such as Britain’s MI6, have been scouring Libya in search of the missing missiles. Their main target is the thousands of shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles [Qaddafi] bought from Moscow during the past decade which, were they to fall into the wrong hands, would pose a massive security risk.

We now know that a significant portion of the U.S. presence in Benghazi was CIA employees. Reuters quoted unidentified government officials who said the annex’s mission was “collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles.”

In February 2012, Andrew Shapiro, then assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, declared in a speech that the U.S. and the new Libyan government had recovered and secured “approximately 5,000” anti-aircraft missiles. In May 2012, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius detailed the claims of two former CIA counterterrorism officers that about 800 of the missiles were in guy, which borders Libya to the southwest, in the hands of an African jihadist group called Boko Haram that’s based in Nigeria.

There is significant reason to believe that both Stevens and the CIA personnel in Benghazi were focused on recovering the missiles in the days leading up to his death on September 11.

After the Benghazi attack, there were public reports of Libyan arms, including these types of anti-aircraft missiles, being smuggled to the Syrian resistance fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

On September 14, 2012, three days after Stevens was killed, Sheera Frenkel, a correspondent for the Times of London, reported from Antakya, Turkey:

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.

Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

Frenkel’s report identified the ship’s captain as “Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.” This was not the first attempt to ship arms from Libya to the Syrian rebels, apparently: In late April, Lebanese authorities seized a large consignment of Libyan weapons, including RPGs and heavy ammunition, from a ship intercepted in the Mediterranean. The ship was attempting to reach the Lebanese port city of Tripoli, a largely Sunni city seen as supportive of the Syrian rebellion against President Assad.

In October 17, 2012, about one month after the ship docked in Turkey, Reuters reported, “Amateur footage of rebels using shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles have emerged in recent days.” About a week later, Russia’s top military officer, accused the United States of providing American-made Stinger missiles to the Syrian rebels, a charge the Pentagon and State Department denied.

The American government may not have directed the smuggling of weapons from Libya to Syria through Turkey — but there is evidence to suggest they were aware of it. In June 2012, the New York Times’ Eric Schmitt reported that the CIA had personnel in Syria monitoring, and perhaps assisting, the Syrian rebels’ efforts to obtain weapons in Turkey:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said.

A March 2013 follow-up report by Schmitt and C. J. Chivers detailed the CIA’s assistance to Arab governments’ efforts to help Syria’s rebels: “The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year.” The vast majority of the cargo flights of arms and equipment went through Esenboga Airport near Ankara, Turkey.

Was Chris Stevens’s “mission in Benghazi” to buy back weapons? Stevens’s planned agenda for his scheduled five-day stay in Benghazi, according to GQ, included plans to “rechristen the U.S.-managed compound ‘an American Space,’ offering local Libyans English lessons and Internet access and show films and stock a library.”

But his final act as ambassador, on the early evening of September 11, 2012, was a meeting with Ali Sait Akin, the Turkish consul general in Benghazi.

For what it’s worth, the Turkish diplomat denies that he discussed arms transfers with Stevens. He told syndicated columnist Diana West that they didn’t talk about “weaponry from the [Qaddafi] stockpiles and where they might be going; the Libyan flagged vessel al-Entisaar which was received in the port of Iskenderun on September 6, 2012; the conflict in Syria and how the opposition to President Assad could be supported by the US and Turkey.”

During former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Rand Paul asked her if the U.S. was involved in any way in the transfer of weapons from Libya to Turkey.

“To Turkey? . . . Nobody’s ever raised that with me,” Clinton responded. When Paul asked whether the annex, the installation to which Americans fled on the night of the Benghazi attack, was involved, she said, “Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I do not know.”

Since last autumn, Syria’s rebels have grown bolder in their use of anti-aircraft weapons in that country’s civil war. In late March, Syrian rebels claimed they shot down an Iranian plane landing at Damascus airport that was suspected of carrying weapons and ammunition for the Syrian government. In late April, Russia’s Interfax news agency claimed that two rockets were fired at a Russian charter plane as it flew over Syria. The plane flew from the resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to Kazan in Tartarstan, Russia, with 200 passengers on board. On May 8, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the rebels had shot down a fighter jet.

These published reports indicate a sequence of events less incendiary than the one described by Simon’s sources, but still troubling:

During the Libyan civil war, the United States government at least tacitly supported the Qatari effort to arm the rebels, in violation of a U.N. arms embargo. The Obama administration later learned that the weapons were going to Islamists, and acknowledged that the postwar situation of unguarded stockpiles presented an enormous security threat to the region. The CIA was the centerpiece of an effort to recover these weapons, and that was indeed a major component of what the agency was doing in Benghazi in September 2012, in part using the State Department’s facilities. During this time, a large number of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, were leaving Libya and arriving in Turkey en route to Syrian rebels — and the CIA had personnel in both countries assigned to monitor and assist the arms shipments.

In his February 2012 speech discussing the effort to recover the anti-aircraft missiles in Libya, Assistant Secretary Shapiro made an unnerving concession: “How many are still missing? The frank answer is we don’t know and probably never will.”

That frank answer probably applies to the weapons flowing into Syria, too.

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #210 on: May 31, 2013, 05:25:27 AM »

U.S. officials gave instructions for Benghazi Medical Center to use a "John Doe" pseudonym on the death certificate of Ambassador Christopher Stevens after he died of asphyxiation in the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. That's according to a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity because the official isn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The reason for the pseudonym, says the official, was to avoid drawing undue attention to the importance of the victim as Americans rushed to figure out how to recover Stevens' body and return it to the U.S.


The official provided the most complete accounting yet of Stevens' whereabouts and passing in the eight and a half months since his death.


According to the official, U.S. officials aren't certain to this day whether Stevens was still alive when local Libyans made cell phone video recordings of his body being carried or dragged from the U.S. mission, possibly by looters. And they still don't know exactly who transported him to the Benghazi Medical Center where they say medical personnel attempted resuscitation, unsuccessfully, for about 40 minutes (90 minutes, according to published accounts from a Libyan doctor). When pieced together with previously provided information, this is how the search for Stevens is said to have unfolded, according to the official:
House Oversight chairman subpoenas Benghazi documents
Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum
Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded
Full coverage: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi

On Tuesday, Sept. 11, around the 10 p.m. hour (4 p.m. ET), State Department Information Officer Sean Smith's body had been pulled from the burned out U.S. mission, but nobody was able to locate Stevens in the smoky building. In the 11 p.m. hour (5 p.m. ET), a group of Libyans, possibly looters, found Stevens and pulled him out of the U.S. mission. Somebody transported him to Benghazi Medical Center where CPR was attempted. Initially, it's believed that doctors did not know who Stevens was. An unidentified man speaking Arabic used a cell phone Stevens had in his possession to call the U.S. embassy in Tripoli (the number was programmed into the phone). He seemed to want Americans to come to the hospital to retrieve Stevens, but U.S. officials were suspicious. The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport.


A familiar local to whom Americans refer as "Babakar" sent word to the U.S. embassy that Stevens had, indeed, passed away. Babakar sent some of his associates to recover Stevens' body at the hospital. When hospital officials asked what name should be entered on the death certificate, U.S. officials relayed the message to use "John Doe." Babakar's associates eventually transported Stevens' body to the airport where it was turned over to Americans.


Stevens' body was flown from Benghazi to Tripoli, Libya's capital the morning of Wednesday, Sept. 12 and President Obama was informed of the Ambassador's death. That night, a C-17 military aircraft carrying Stevens' body and three other American victims arrived in Ramstein, Germany. On Friday, Sept. 14, the victims' bodies arrived in the U.S. at Andrews Air Force base for a ceremony. Stevens' body was then taken to an FBI facility in Dover, Del., for an autopsy which revealed he died of asphyxia, presumably from smoke inhalation. Officials found no internal damage, no indication of assault and no mistreatment of his body. Stevens was then transported to a funeral home on Saturday, Sept. 15 and cremated, at his family's request.

 © 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #211 on: May 31, 2013, 08:05:04 AM »
State Dept. Report Lists 6 Terror Attacks Last Year in Benghazi Before 9/11 Attack
9:28 AM, May 31, 2013 • By JERYL BIER



The State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism 2012 survey on Thursday. The section on the Middle East and North Africa includes a report on terror attacks in Libya.  All told, there were eleven terrorism-related attacks last year in Libya prior to the 9/11 attack in Benghazi that took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. Six of those eleven attacks took place in Benghazi:


• On May 22, assailants launched a rocket-propelled grenade at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)’s building in Benghazi. The violent Islamist extremist group Brigades of Captive Omar Abdul Rahman claimed responsibility for the attack. The ICRC evacuated Benghazi in mid-July.

• On June 6, violent extremists attacked the U.S. facilities in Benghazi with an improvised explosive device (IED). The group claimed that the attack was in retaliation for the assassination of Abu-Yahya al-Libi, the second highest ranking leader of al-Qa’ida.

• On June 11, a convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya was attacked in Benghazi.

• In August, there was a series of attacks against security personnel and facilities, including the bombing of the Benghazi military intelligence offices on August 1...

• On August 10, Army General Hadiya al-Feitouri was assassinated in Benghazi.

• On August 20, a car belonging to an Egyptian diplomat was blown up near his home in Benghazi.

The report then lists the most infamous attack, as well:


• On September 11, terrorists attacked the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three staff members.

Also noted are five terrorism-related attacks in Benghazi following the 9/11 attack.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #212 on: June 05, 2013, 06:44:52 AM »

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #214 on: June 05, 2013, 07:47:01 AM »
is Obama Impeached yet?

Unfortunately not - but that does not take away from his derelitction of duty and treason.

Remember - you voted for this communist turd for one reason only - skin color

Congrats asshole - just be glad it was not your family members abandoned in lybia for dead so that this waste of life could go party w jay z and Bey 

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #215 on: June 05, 2013, 07:49:46 AM »
Unfortunately not - but that does not take away from his derelitction of duty and treason.

Remember - you voted for this communist turd for one reason only - skin color

Congrats asshole - just be glad it was not your family members abandoned in lybia for dead so that this waste of life could go party w jay z and Bey 

lol... ok

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #216 on: June 05, 2013, 08:39:51 AM »
Unfortunately not - but that does not take away from his derelitction of duty and treason.

Remember - you voted for this communist turd for one reason only - skin color

Congrats asshole - just be glad it was not your family members abandoned in lybia for dead so that this waste of life could go party w jay z and Bey 


Wtf :D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #217 on: June 05, 2013, 08:54:31 AM »

Wtf :D

I have no tolerance whatsoever for racist Obama voters who voted and defend him for only one reason and one reason only - the color of his skin. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #218 on: June 05, 2013, 09:01:41 AM »

http://freebeacon.com/possible-poisoning


BY:  Bill Gertz   
June 5, 2013 5:00 am

An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi went bad.

The veracity of the claim made by Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, who was identified by U.S. officials as a known weapons experts for al Qaeda, could not be determined. However, U.S. officials have not dismissed the terrorist’s assertion.

An FBI spokeswoman indicated the bureau was aware of the claim but declined to comment because of the bureau’s ongoing investigation into the Benghazi attack.

“While there is a great deal of information in the media and on the Internet about the attack in Benghazi, the FBI is not in a position at this time to comment on anything specific with regard to the investigation,” Kathy Wright, the FBI spokeswoman, said.

A State Department spokesman also had no comment.

The FBI is investigating the death of Stevens, State Department information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. They were killed in the attack U.S. officials say was carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group known as Ansar al Sharia.

A State Department Accountability Review Board report and an interim House Republican report on the attack gave no cause of death for Stevens, whose body was recovered by local Libyans in the early morning hours of Sept. 12.

The House report, “Interim Progress Report for the House Republican Conference,” said “Libyan doctors tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival at the hospital.”

To date, no official cause of death for Stevens has been made public, although it was reported that a Libyan doctor who examined Stevens said he died from apparent smoke inhalation and related asphyxiation.

Video and photos of Stevens being handled by a mob in Benghazi were posted on the Internet. It is not clear from the images whether he was dead or alive at the time.

However, according to the March 14 posting on an al Qaeda-linked website, Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, the al Qaeda weapons expert, stated that Stevens was given a lethal injection and that the injection was overlooked during the medical autopsy.

According to Dhu-al-Bajadin, “the plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners.”

“However, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B,” he wrote on the prominent jihadist web forum Ansar al-Mujahideen Network.

Dhu-al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination also stated that it had been copied to the Ansar al-Mujahidin website from the closed and al Qaeda-accredited website Shumukh al-Islam. That site is only open to members and was initially posted by a member identified as Adnan Shukri for Dhu-al-Bajadin.

The reference to Shumukh al Islam has boosted the credibility of the claim among some U.S. intelligence analysts.

A western intelligence official said Dhu-al-Bajadin is a well-known jihadist weapons experts and a key figure behind a magazine called Al Qaeda Airlines.

According to this official, intelligence analysts believe that Dhu-al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination by lethal injection appears in part aimed at putting pressure on the U.S. government over its handling of the Benghazi attack.

The article did not say what substance was used in the lethal injection. It also stated that the State Department had come under criticism for not providing adequate security in Benghazi prior to the attack.

Dhu-al-Bajadin also said he had further details of the attack and the assassination but would not reveal them in the posting.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the translation of Dhu-al-Bajadin’s posting in Arabic.

The article stated that use of lethal injection is done “more than one place in the human body that autopsy doctors ignore when they see that the symptoms are similar to another specific and common illness.”

“Anyone who studied the art of silent assassination that spies applied during the Cold War would easily identify these parts of the body,” he said.

Dhu-al-Bajadin also stated that he was discussing the assassination of Stevens’ death months later because “the cell” behind “the infiltrative and secret operation is now completely safe from intelligence bureaus.”

The FBI last month disclosed it was searching for five men linked to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack and posted video and photos of three men wanted in connection with the attacks.

“The grainy still images, taken from surveillance video, show three men who may be able to provide information to help the FBI’s larger probe into the attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya,” the FBI said in a statement.

The FBI opened a webpage in November as part of an effort to solicit information on the attack.

Dhu-al-Bajadin did not disclose details of the “turn” in events that prompted Stevens’ assassination. However, he may have been referring to the armed security team encountered by the terrorists who went to the diplomatic compound from a nearby CIA office within 25 minutes of the start of the attack. The security team killed or wounded many of the dozens of terrorists at the diplomatic compound, U.S. officials have said.

The House report said the security team “repelled sporadic gunfire and [rocket-propelled grenade] fire and assembled all other U.S. personnel at the facility. Officers retrieved the body of Mr. Smith but did not find Ambassador Stevens.”

The Obama administration is under increasing pressure from congressional Republicans over its handling of the Benghazi attack. Several congressional committees are investigating the attack.

The White House has declined so far to answer many questions about its response to the attack, such as what was the president’s response to it, and why no military rescue operation was ordered.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Congress earlier this year that the president designated authority for handling the attack to them.

The attack took place during the final weeks of Obama’s presidential campaign and it is likely that political campaign and White House officials sought to play down the attack to avoid upsetting his reelection bid.

Both Panetta and Dempsey said there wasn’t enough time to mount a rescue operation, as military units were not close enough to respond in time.

However, critics have said the assessment by Panetta and Dempsey could not be accurate since they could not have known the full scope of the terrorist attack at the time or how long it would continue.

Dhu-al-Bajadin concluded the message by warning that “two jihad fronts” are now open in the Levant and in Africa and warned “we are preparing to open two other fronts soon.”

A U.S. official said Dhu-al-Bajadin is considered a serious threat and in earlier writings indicated he had access to inside information from al Qaeda.

Dhu-al Bajadin claimed in July 2012 in another online article that al Qaeda was behind the killing of Gareth Williams, an employee of Britain’s electronic spy service GCHQ who was working for the Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6. Williams was found dead in suspicious circumstances at a safe house in Pimlico, London, Aug. 23, 2010. His death was ruled “unnatural” and likely criminal related.

On U.S. intelligence reports and testimony that al Qaeda is severely weakened since 2001, Dhu-al-Bajadin stated “within months the world will be stunned by the opening of a new front in the global war between the Islamic ummah [Muslims worldwide] and the Zionist-Crusader campaign.”

“And if your reports state that al Qaeda is dangerous, we will strike you on your own land with operations that will awe your security experts,” he stated. “We will be more dangerous than you might expect.”

The U.S. Northern Command recently warned that terrorists were planning an attack on the United States, but details of the warning could not be learned.

The posting by Dhu-al-Bajadin also said the next issue of the Al Qaeda Airlines magazine would be published.

That issue appeared online weeks later in April and provided detailed plans on how to produce and disperse deadly concentrations of hydrogen cyanide in public places. It called the improvised cyanide-producing device “Al Mubtakar al-Farid,” Arabic for “The unique innovation.”

The instructions were issued in both English and Arabic and urged terrorists to conduct “lone wolf” attacks using the chemical weapons.

The al Qaeda publication Inspire was used by the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects in learning how to fashion the pressure-cooker explosives used in the April attack on the sporting event.

The latest Al Qaeda Airlines issue stated that the terror group once planned to use an improvised poison gas attack on the New York subway but the attack was canceled at the last minute.

The article suggested that terrorists pose as maintenance workers and release cyanide gas through the ventilation system of office buildings or by remote detonation of gas-filled bombs.

Suggested targets included nightclubs, schools, churches and youth clubs, and large office buildings.

The United States was mentioned as a prime target for the attacks. The article also included images of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Islamist shooter charged in the Fort Hood massacre.

Dhu-al-Bajadin has said the Al Qaeda Airlines publication is not solely focused on aviation but was chosen as a way to instill fear in the enemy.

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #219 on: June 05, 2013, 10:40:26 AM »
I have no tolerance whatsoever for racist Obama voters who voted and defend him for only one reason and one reason only - the color of his skin. 

lol ok

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #220 on: June 05, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »
I have no tolerance whatsoever for racist Obama voters who voted and defend him for only one reason and one reason only - the color of his skin.  

how many Obama voters do you actually know and did they all tell you they voted for Obama due to their "racism" or did you just divine that bit of info

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: The Benghazi Testamonies
« Reply #221 on: June 05, 2013, 04:06:38 PM »
I have no tolerance whatsoever for racist Obama voters who voted and defend him for only one reason and one reason only - the color of his skin. 

I dont either.

But i dont think there is as many of those that you think.