Benghazi review slams State Department on security

stevensBreitbart:

By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
The leaders of an independent panel that blamed systematic State Department management and leadership failures for gross security lapses in the deadly Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya will explain their findings to Congress on Wednesday.

The two most senior members of the Accountability Review Board are set to testify behind closed doors before the House and Senate foreign affairs committees on the classified findings of their harshly critical report.

An unclassified version released late Tuesday said serious bureaucratic mismanagement was responsible for the inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the panel said.

Despite those deficiencies, the board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action. But it also said poor performance by senior managers should be grounds for disciplinary recommendations in the future.

Wednesday’s classified testimony from the review board _ retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen _ will set the stage for open hearings the next day with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who is in charge of policy, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, who is in charge of management.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was to have appeared at Thursday’s hearing but canceled after fainting and sustaining a concussion last week while recovering from a stomach virus that dehydrated her. Clinton is under doctors’ orders to rest.

In a letter that accompanied the transmission of the report to Capitol Hill, Clinton thanked the board for its “clear-eyed, serious look at serious systemic challenges” and said she accepted all of its 29 recommendations to improve security at high-threat embassies and consulates.

She said the department had already begun to implement some of the recommendations. They include increasing by several hundred the number of Marine guards stationed at diplomatic missions throughout the world; relying less on local security forces for protection at embassies, consulates and other offices; and increasing hiring and deployment of highly trained Diplomatic Security agents at at-risk posts.

Clinton agreed with the panel’s finding that Congress must fully fund the State Department’s security initiatives. The panel found that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security, including rejecting numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and the embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

It singled out the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs for criticism, saying there appeared to be a lack of cooperation and confusion over protection at the mission in Benghazi, a city in Eastern Libya that was relatively lawless after the revolution that toppled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

But it appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods _ who were contractors working for the CIA _ were killed. Stevens’ slaying was the first of a U.S. ambassador since 1988.

The board determined that there had been no immediate, specific tactical warning of a potential attack on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. However, the report said there had been several worrisome incidents in the run-up to the attack that should have set off warning bells.

It did confirm, though, that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate. It said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests that had begun in Cairo earlier that day over an American-made, anti-Islamic film. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack.

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film. An ensuing brouhaha in the heat of the presidential campaign eventually led her to withdraw her name from consideration to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state in President Barack Obama’s second term.

While criticizing State Department management in Washington along with the local militia force and contract guards that the mission depended on for protection, the report said U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi “performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues in a near-impossible situation.”

It said the response by Diplomatic Security agents on the scene and CIA operatives at a nearby compound that later came under attack itself had been “timely and appropriate” and absolved the military from any blame. “There was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference,” it said.

The report also discounted speculation that officials in Washington had refused appeals for additional help after the attack had begun.

“The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders,” it said. To the contrary, the report said the evacuation of the dead and wounded 12 hours after the initial attack was due to “exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response” that helped save the lives of two seriously wounded Americans.

Analysis Of Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up

By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)

A List Of The National Security Issues Involved In Obama’s Benghazigate Cover-up
1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.
2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.
3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.
4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.
5. The State Department’s security planning failures preceding the Benghazi attack.
6. The failure of the Obama regime to react to the seven-hour attack to protect U.S. Government personnel.
7. The Obama regime’s continuing dishonesty in deceiving the American people about what actually occurred at Benghazi and why.

Analysis Of The Issues

1. The failure of President Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy.

The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack exposes the failure of Obama’s Arab Spring-Foreign Policy that includes his unauthorized war of intervention to depose Gaddafi, a U.S. ally. Obama’s ill-conceived policy has enabled Islamic jihadist groups that are al-Qaeda-affiliated, like Ansar al-Sharia, to completely control the jihadist safe-haven in Eastern Libya. But this Arab Spring-Foreign Policy failure spreads far beyond Libya to include the Muslim Brotherhood’s dictatorial take-over of Egypt, the green light to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas jihadists to conduct missile terror attacks on Israel, the unimpeded progress of the Iranian mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons, the Iranian domination of Iraq following Obama’s precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops, the impending take-over of Syria by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the imminent defeat of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the hands of Taliban/al-Qaeda forces.

2. The fallacious foundation of Obama’s national security policy toward Islam, concealing the true aggressive, imperialistic character of Islam.

The following Obama quotes attempt to vindicate Islam and distance the religion from its almost 1400-year history of hate, violence, aggression, and barbarity:

  • “Islam has always been part of America”
  • “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”
  • “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
  • America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
  • So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”
  • “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”
  • “As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.”
  • “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”
  • “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
  • “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

Except for the above expressions of Obama’s personal feelings, it doesn’t get any more dishonest than this. To borrow Mary McCarthy’s pithy description of a rival’s work, “every word . . . is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.” When the above Obama quotes about Islam are combined with Obama’s words at the UN, which were, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” it becomes an inescapable but to conclude that Obama is actually attempting to get the West to adopt the Islamic Sharia’s blasphemy law against any criticism of Islam. In view of Obama’s many pronouncements, it is impossible to dismiss Obama’s unnatural mania for Islam. To say that Obama is a pandering Islamophile does not begin to adequately describe Obama’s obsession.

3. The blatant, dishonest effort to mislead the American people about the cause of the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and the death of four Americans.

The failed Arab Spring-Foreign Policy of the Obama regime is constructed on a brazen deception that conceals Sharia-mandated Islamic jihad; therefore, every jihadist attack must be made to appear to have been provoked by non-Muslims, hence the Obama regime manufactured the false narrative that an unknown video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

The American people have been subjected to a transparently conspiratorial attempt at blaming a fictional, spontaneous mob reaction to some obscure Internet video, which mocked Muhammad, for the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack and death of four Americans. This deception is an integral part of the Obama regime’s national security fabrication to conceal the existence and adversarial nature of Islamic Sharia-mandated jihad. Consequently, the entire Team Obama has engaged in manic attempts to deceive the American people about the attack-causal role of the Internet video, including when the president shamefully lied to the world before the UN in alleging that the anti-Muhammad video motivated the U.S. ambassador’s murder by an outraged Muslim flash mob! Obama clearly put the blame on video-attack-causation with these words:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

This bold-faced lie was foisted on a global audience two weeks after it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack was conducted by terrorists, according to Obama’s own public relations flack, Jay Carney. But Obama’s video-attack-causation lie to the UN is apparently exposed as mendacity by Obama himself in the second presidential debate with Mitt Romney on October 16th when he asserted:

Obama: “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened — that this was an act of terror — and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”Romney: “I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.” Obama: “That’s what I said.” Romney: “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?”Obama: “Please proceed, governor.” Romney: “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.”

There is no reconciling Obama’s claim that he said it was a “terror attack” in a speech to the nation on September 12th with his asserting the pernicious video-attack-causation lie to the UN on September 25th! So, was Obama lying on the 12th or on the 25th! Actually he was lying on both dates as well as on October 16th at the second presidential debate! When one takes Obama’s instruction and gets the September 12th Rose Garden transcript, one finds these words from Obama, “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans . . . While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. . . .” In Obama’s statement that, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” it is obvious that he is propounding the video-attack-causation lie which lays the blame on an anti-Islamic, provocative action committed by an American, and he is not referring Islamic terror.

But the UN debacle was not the only international calumny committed by Obama. Again, after it was indisputably clear to U.S. Intelligence that the Internet video played no part in inspiring the Benghazi attack, Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, disgracefully paid U.S. taxpayer dollars to appear on Pakistani television to perpetuate the video-attack-causation lie, unnecessarily provoking even more hostility in the Islamic world against the U.S. in the commission of this mendacity!

And then, two weeks after the Benghazi attack when the preplanned terrorist involvement was beyond question, there were the ludicrous TV performances of the U.S. UN Ambassador, Susan Rice. Obama called on Rice to robotically repeat the mindless video-attack-causation lie on five different Sunday morning TV talk shows, disgracing herself, her office, the Obama regime, and the United States in the process!

4. The Obama regime’s continuing effort to stifle honest discussion of the U.S. national security implications of the Islamic Quran’s and Sharia’s clearly hostile contents.

The following is an account of how far Obama and his regime have gone to flush the fact of Islamic jihadist imperialism down the “Orwellian Memory Hole”:

“ . . . in order to continue on the irresponsible course of being ‘Islam-ignorant,’ the Obama National Security Council removed terms like ‘militant Islamic radicalism’ from the 2010 National Security Strategy and substituted ‘violent extremism’ and (undefined) ‘terrorism’ in an effort to deny and conceal the cause of the on-going war against America, and that cause is, the ‘theo-political-military imperialist doctrine’ laid out in the Quran and Islamic Sharia. From there the Obama administration’s obstructive effort becomes even more serious when Islamist and militant Arabic groups, representing the jihadist Hamas and Hezbollah terror organizations, demanded that the FBI purge its training materials of all information which the Islamists found offensive to their ‘religious sensibilities.’ To his ever-lasting disgrace, FBI Director Mueller complied with these Islamic demands, undoubtedly carrying out with his superiors’ policy.

“But it is at this point that the U.S. national security establishment descends to its all-time nadir when President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, acquiesced to the stipulations in a October 19, 2011 letter to the White House, signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials not meeting their approval be “purged” from the curricula of U.S. military schools and that instructors ‘guilty’ of teaching the Islamic Sharia to U.S. military officers be ‘effectively disciplined.’ Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, Joint Forces Staff College instructor, was selected as the ‘guilty’ scapegoat to meet the Islamists’ punishment demand. Here is where it gets beyond outrageous. General Martin Dempsey proved himself to be the U.S. lackey-equivalent of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command under Fuhrer Adolph Hitler, when he ‘personally attacked’ Lt. Col. Dooley on C-Span television, May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon News Conference. Obviously Dempsey was subserviently executing ‘his leader’s’ orders to suppress the truth about Islam. Lt. Col. Dooley’s ‘crime’ in Obama’s and Dempsey’s eyes was to present Islam in an accurate way that displeased Islamists in his Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism course. When America’s top ranking military officer publically rebukes a much junior officer on live television, which is absolutely unprecedented, it sends the unmistakable message to all officers in every military service that to be a truth-teller about Islam is a career-ending offense in the Obama military.”

Read more at Right Side News


Left To Die!

by Justin O Smith:

More than negligence and incompetence, the murders of four Americans at Benghazi
on 9/11 were the direct result of dereliction of duty by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Panetta, and this case will
immortalize forever in the annals of infamy the feckless, ineffectual, weak and
cowardly example of “leadership” that Americans yoked themselves with in 2008;
twice after the initial “critic”/ Critical Incident Flash, the White House
received requests for military assistance during the attack, and twice they
denied those requests. A full explanation is owed America concerning these
decisions, especially in light of the fact that the Obama administration viewed
the attack through a drone camera in real time.

The intricacy of the Ansar terrorist attack proves that this entire tragic episode was a pre-planned attack. They had positioned blocking and kill or capture teams between the CIA Annex and the U.S. Consulate. They had even thought ahead and positioned an
ambush to surprise any U.S. “quick response” teams that might arrive, and they
had strategically positioned mortars within range of the Annex. Something this
intricate is not built from a “spontaneous protest”.

Twenty minutes into the attack on the U.S. Consulate at 4:05pm Washington time – 10:05pm Benghazi time, the State Department’s regional office reported that the Consulate was under attack and that Ambassador Stevens was supposedly safe with the 17th of February militia providing security support, but we now know they deserted once the battle escalated; “Update 1″ at 4:54 Washington time reported the firing had
stopped and a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

The “response team” consisted of Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty who disobeyed their superior’s orders to “stand down” when they heard the first shots at 9:40pm. They made approximately a one mile run from the CIA Annex to the Consulate, and upon arriving the firing lull rapidly turned into a fierce firefight to evacuate approximately 35 employees to the CIA Annex and simply survive. They eventually did arrive at the Annex with the body of Sean Smith, killed early in the attack, but Ambassador Stevens had been separated from them; these men were in Libya under CIA contract to track down surface to air missiles used by the islamofascist groups, and they were under no obligation to assist, defend or protect Ambassador Stevens, and yet, they ran headlong into danger!

An hour after the attack, Obama, Panetta and VP Biden met in the Oval Office, and soon after military assets were being moved: Eight from Special Operations were sent from Tripoli, a Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) of Marines from Rota, Spain was sent to guard the Tripoli U.S. Embassy, F-16s and Apache helicopters never left Aviano Airbase in Italy, and two U.S. Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean were positioned off the Libyan coast but left dormant.

Pathetic is the only way to describe the administration’s assertion that they needed the Libyan government’s permission to enter Libya’s airspace. What government?… the militias were still running everything… And the U.S. doesn’t ask “mother, may I” before crossing a border to save their own. What bravery our fighting men showed during WWII, Korea and Vietnam when the code was “leave no man behind,” and now what cowardice is apparent within this despicable Obama administration!

Lt Col Tony Schaffer (Retired Army) explains that the U.S. planned the invasion of Grenada in 1983 in six hours, and he added, “We could have had a strike team on the ground in Benghazi in thirty minutes or less to protect, assist and extract our personnel under attack … the video (from Benghazi) is damning, and it needs to get out for the public to see.”

Former CIA Officer Gary Burston asserted, “President Obama is a master of trying to deflect and change the subject… personnel in Benghazi must have been screaming for help. There were options for the administration to help and intervene. They could have sent an AC 130 Talon with computerized machine guns. All it would have taken is one pass. It would have beaten the attackers back. Then they could have sent in a Quick Reaction Force.” Several Teier 1 teams were within an hour of the attack site, and they would have made an enormous difference in the fighting that spanned eight hours.

Incredible heroism was displayed by Woods and Dogherty as they fought to save the Consulate staff members during a second wave of attacks. Between the initial firefight at the Consulate and the assault on the Annex, they fought for over six hours, and,
along with others, they were able to withstand against over 200 Ansar al-Shariah/ Islamic Maghreb terrorists, while also taking heavy fire from RPGs, mortars and a 23mm anti-aircraft weapon!

At 4:00am… six hours and twenty minutes after the initial attack… former Navy SEALs Glenn A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed at the CIA Annex by a mortar round. Their machine gun was covered in blood, and gives testimony that they fought on after being wounded.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham stated, “It is disappointing to hear that our national command authorities failed to reinforce the Consulate with timely air assets, and that a consulate located in one of the most dangerous regions in the world was so unsecured.”

Just think how different the outcome would have been had the Consulate been protected by just one platoon of Marines, all sniper trained. Obama had actionable intelligence explicitly showing a high probability of an imminent attack, but a year ago he failed to devote resources to secure the facility. He had no plan for such a
situation as this, when our people were depending on a rapid response. And…
Obama’s failures and dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief caused four good,
decent American Patriots to lose their lives!

Through the lens of the enigma of war the truth has manifested itself through the ugliness, stupidity and cowardice of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and others in the administration who had real time images of Americans facing slaughter: and, with numerous military assets nearby, they decided to sit safely in the White House Situation Room and leave these fine Americans in the lurch, while revealing their strength of
conviction and principles, Glenn A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods’ distinguished
and brilliant actions illustrated the best of  military tradition and the American spirit, as they defended U.S. interests, placed America ahead of self and died with honor so others would live! We will not let their courage be hidden or their sacrifice diminished… We will not forget!

Former head of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence urges Obama to answer Benghazi questions

Published on Nov  2, 2012 by

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren regarding his letter to President Obama asking him to set the record straight on Benghazi attacks.

Fox News: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

This is outrageous! It is time to let the mainstream media know how we feel about their lack of coverage on this scandal! Use the contact info supplied in this link: FAIR’s Media Contact List

By :

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an  urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the  U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S.  officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than  help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in  Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA  annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and  his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they  informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and  requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to  “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they  were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the  Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick  reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate  and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find  the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they  were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There  were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the  compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In  fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a  heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security  officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested  back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special  Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground  involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more  than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just  480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One  Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force  operators.

Watch “Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi” on  Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on  Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis  Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they  too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism  rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence  sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less  than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent  from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations  community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on  the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan  mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in  coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday  that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in  Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said  Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into  harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the  fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials  to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones  redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They  were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve  the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real  time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or  agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room,  State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real  time on their computers.

This is stunning new information…read more at Fox News with video

Obama’s Jihad Alliance

The flag of Ansar al-Sharia, which reportedly led the Benghazi attack

 The flag of Libya Shield, which reportedly provided security to US Marines in
Benghazi.

By Diana West:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column addressing the national scandal that investigation into the security failures and lies surrounding Benghazi-gate must also expose. This even larger scandal concerns the fact that throughout the revolutionary cycle known as Arab Spring, the Obama administration threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with the bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy and Shariah-ruling crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. In so doing, Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.”

We are continuing this same treacherous policy in Syria, something I hope Mitt Romney (as president, I also hope) comes to understand quickly. In Libya, Obama’s Arab Spring policy – supported by U.N.-niks, Republicans and media alike – meant making common cause with al-Qaida forces and other jihadists, including Libyan veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who fought and killed Americans. It was if the whole world had gone mad.

Take the Libya Shield Brigade, an eastern Libyan militia aligned with the Libyan government. Libya Shield members met the eight U.S. Marines who arrived in Benghazi from Tripoli in the wee hours of Sept. 12, 2012. Libya Shield escorted our Marines to the secret annex – relying on GPS coordinates the Marines brought with them – where the survivors of the consulate attack had successfully taken cover. This annex did not come under mortar attack until soon after Libya Shield and the Marines arrived. Coincidence? It was in this barrage, by the way, that ex-SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

John Rosenthal has reported at WND.com that the Libya Shield Brigade fought in the anti-Gadhafi revolution – which Uncle Sam, of course, supported – under the black flag of al-Qaida. Rosenthal further notes that in October 2011, Libya Shield’s leader, Wissam Bin Hamid, issued a statement to Arabic jihadist websites stating: “The Islamic Shariah is a red line, we will not cede one rule of it, and Islam is the only law-giver and not (merely) the foundation (of the law).”

Bin Hamid, not at all incidentally, is also described on an online jihadist forum as a veteran of jihad in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I mean by Libyan “allies” who have fought and killed Americans from the other side. Now, they’re escorting Marines to secret American annexes, and doing so as a matter of Obama administration policy.

This is a crucial piece of the Benghazi story. The U.S. wasn’t relying on Libya Shield and, as I’ve written before, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade in some ad hoc security arrangement. This is all part of continuing Arab Spring policy.

A U.S. embassy cable made public by congressional investigators makes this patently clear. While requesting more security on March 28, 2012, Eric Nordstrom, then U.S. regional security officer in Libya, notes that “rebuilding and expanding” the “local” guard force is one of his “core objectives.” This objective directly relates to what he describes as the State Department’s recommendation for “developing plans to transition our security staffing … to (a model) that incorporates more locally based and nonemergency assets.”

Naturally, these “plans” weren’t working. Hence, Nordstrom’s request for more American security. And hence the denial from State for reasons, Nordstrom told Congress this month, that came down to the fact “there was going to be too much political cost.” It is these “politics” – this Obama policy of outreach to jihadists – that must be exposed and stopped.

The final diplomatic cable to go out under the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ name is dated Sept. 11, 2012. It recounts events of the previous week in Benghazi, including a Sept. 9 meeting between an unnamed U.S. diplomat and, whaddya know, Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of Libya Shield. A second Libya Shield commander, Muhammad al-Gharabi, was also present. During a fractious-sounding meeting, the Libyans declared their support for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate then running to become Libyan prime minister and threatened to withdraw security from the U.S. in Benghazi if another candidate won in upcoming elections.

Read more

Diana West is the author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested  Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization” and blogs at dianawest.net.

Related articles

Obama’s Benghazi Investigator: An Iran Sympathizer

By Matthew Vadum:

The freshly appointed chairman of a federal investigation into the Benghazi massacre is an apologist for Islamic terrorism who has a cozy relationship with Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

And to add insult to injury, at press time Tuesday evening the chairman of this new State Department panel, former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, was poised to participate in a panel discussion at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on “what role the faith community can play in fighting Islamophobia.”

The news comes on the heels of a new report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism that found that “scores” of known radical Islamists met with senior Obama administration officials during hundreds of visits to the White House.

Pickering’s appointment as probe chairman was announced in the Federal Register on October 4. The State Department “Accountability Review Board” headed by Pickering is tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The problem is that Pickering has ties to the pro-Iran Islamist front group known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). NIAC lost an important defamation case in federal court last month in which it unsuccessfully argued the group was not a tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Pickering is a member of the advisory board of NIAC. He was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from May 1997 through the end of 2000, according to a 2009 report titled “Rise of the Iran Lobby,” by Clare M. Lopez of the Center for Security Policy. He’s also vice chairman of international consultancy, Hills & Co., and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (whose executive committee includes George Soros).

“Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran,” Lopez writes. “Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”

“U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests,” she writes. One of these groups, NIAC, is involved in “a de facto partnership” with its better known but more notorious jihadist ally “the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line.”

This network “includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world.” NIAC and its predecessor group, the American-Iranian Council, have long “functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime.”

Read more at Front Page

BENGHAZI—WAS THIS A UNITED STATES GUNRUNNING OPERATION TO AL QAIDA JIHADIS?

The Patriot’s Trumpet:

Former 20 year CIA veteran, Clare Lopez: “Jordan is targeted! Saudi Arabia is targeted!”

Questions:

  • Could the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation to the Mexican drug cartels be simply a dress rehearsal for a much larger gunrunning operation to al Qaida-linked and other Jihadist groups in Libya and, more ominously, Syria?
  • Is the Obama Administration running guns into other Jihadist hot spots?
  • Does the United States of America have troops in Jordan?
  • Was Ambassador Stevens our operational officer in a gunrunning operation to al Qaida linked groups that had “gone wrong?”
  • Did the Obama Administration set Stevens up and leave him (with former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods and computer expert, Sean Smith) to die?
  • Did President, Secretary Clinton, General Petraeus and others have fore-knowledge?
  • Others?
  • Who else knows now?
  • Does Governor Romney know now?

These and other questions and more were raised yesterday in a conversation between Glen Beck and former CIA agent Clair Lopez.

Beck: “Why is the media not asking these questions?” And, “What happens if we let the President off and nobody pursues this?”

Lopez: “Then we have failed in our duty—as citizens, as journalists. This has to be brought up this has to be made known to the public that this is going on and that our Administration not only was working with the bad guys—was working with al Qaida linked militias and Jihadis to overthrow Assad in Syria. But that they let out mission go down, they let our Ambassador and others die—in real time, watching it happen and they didn’t do anything about it.”

.  . . . Beck, “While this was going down—the President went to bed!”

The 13 minute interview is in two segments on You Tube. It is so full of explosive information, I strongly urge you to watch it all at least twice. Here is part I followed part II:

 

And Frank Gaffney speaks:  Obama’s Middle East Fast & Furious? 

The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate?

Center for Security Policy

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

President Obama’s once-seemingly-unstoppable march towards reelection hit what he might call “bumps in the road” in Benghazi, Libya late on September 11, 2012.  It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting – notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Claire Lopez at RadicalIslam.org – and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as “Benghazigate.”

The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have now taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Once Qaddafi was overthrown, Chris Stevens was appointed as the ambassador to the new Libya run by Belhadj and his friends.  Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amounts of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.

One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi.  It now appears that Amb. Stevens was there – on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now-copiously-documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates – for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.  As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Fox News has chronicled (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1913235018001/) how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on September 6th in the Turkish port of Iskenderun.  It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms – including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles – apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.

What cries out for further investigation – and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election – is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison?

Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported (http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/this-is-what-benghazi-consulate-really-was/) that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing.  He observes that, while administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Amb. Stevens and his colleagues was launched, instead they call it a “mission.”  And what Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” which lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”

We know that Stevens’ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.”  Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria.  But it may also have involved getting more jihadi fighters there.  After all, Klein reported last month (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/sources-slain-u-s-ambassador-recruited-jihadists/) that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

It gets worse.  Last week, Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed (http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/arms-flow-syria-may-be-behind-beghazi-cover) that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed.  As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed – and were known by the local jihadis to house – arms, perhaps administered by the two former SEALS killed along with Amb. Stevens.

What we do know is that the New York Times – one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country – reported on October 14, 2012 article that, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale.  The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies, as well.  That would explain his administration’s desperate, and now-failing, bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

Glenn Beck: Was Ambassador Stevens involved in gun-running to Al Qaeda?

Clare Lopez article: Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up

Daniel Greenfield has a dissenting view: Did the Syrian Weapons Pipeline Lead to Ambassador Stevens’ Death?

The Truth About Libya – Failed Foreign Policy #Benghazi-Gate

Published on Oct 20, 2012 by

A joint SecureAmericaNow.org – A RightChange.com Production. America was attacked on September 11th, 2012 by Al Qaeda at our consulate in Libya. Our consulate was burned and four Americans including our ambassador were murdered. President Obama and his administration denied it was a terrorist attack for weeks. Since then, Americans have learned that Obama and his administration knew it was an act of terror all along and chose to tell the public it was because of a Youtube video protest. It’s time for Obama to tell the truth on Libya. We can’t afford more apologies, excuses, and weakness.

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

A massacre in Libya ends in the deaths of four Americans.

In an exclusive interview, Bret Baier reveals the hidden story behind the killings.  What did Washington know and when?

Plus, Greg Palkot is on the ground with a moment-by-moment account of the attack, Catherine Herridge searches for signs of growing Al Qaeda power, and Ed Henry has the latest White House reaction.

Watch as Bret Baier hosts Special Report Investigates:

Death And Deceit In Benghazi

 

 

And here’s the latest on the media’s attempt to cover for Obama:

Spinning Benghazi by Thomas Joscelyn

Ahead of what is sure to be a contentious presidential debate focusing on foreign policy on Monday, anonymous “intelligence officials” have decided to update the Benghazi story. “No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack,” a Los Angeles Times headline reads. A Washington Post headline declares, “U.S.: Evidence doesn’t show planning in Libyan attack.”

There is just one problem: These new accounts don’t add up.

The L.A. Times says that “U.S. intelligence agencies…have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.” That is contradicted by numerous other accounts and by the Post’s latest version. The Post reports that intelligence “suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda.”

The Post adds: “The violence in Benghazi appears to have involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda in North Africa, but no evidence indicates that it was organized by al-Qaeda, or timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, officials said.”

So either the attack did involve terrorists tied to al Qaeda, or it didn’t, depending on which report you read.

More than one month after Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, “intelligence officials” cannot even provide the press with a consistent account of what happened. And keep in mind that neither account says that there was a protest before the attack, which was the original story given to the American public.

Whether the L.A. Times’s sources want to admit it or not, ties between al Qaeda-affiliated parties and the attack are already established in the record.

Read more at the Weekly Standard

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 

Obama’s Counterterror Strategy: Lie And Deny

Investors Business Daily:

National Security: Turns out al-Qaida hit not just one, but four U.S.  embassies last month. These coordinated acts of terror are not the first that  the president, who blamed the violence on a video, has downplayed.

The Weekly Standard reports that in addition to the deadly attack on the  American Consulate in Libya, al-Qaida terrorists were behind the U.S. Embassy  sieges in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. All were timed around the 11th anniversary  of 9/11 and carried out by terrorists tied to the same group that attacked our  homeland on 9/11.

A congressional probe reveals President Obama knew on Day One that al-Qaida  terrorists were behind the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three of his aides  in Benghazi. But he spun it as a “spontaneous” outbreak of violence, claiming  local Muslims were reacting to a “hateful” American-made movie on the Muslim  prophet Muhammad.

The initial knee-jerk denial of Islamic terrorism fits a pattern with this  presidency. Since 2009, Obama has insisted acts of terror are not terror, or  terrorists have acted alone when in fact they’ve acted in concert with al-Qaida  or the Taliban. Here’s a rundown of the other cases:

•  Fort Hood massacre: Despite reports Maj. Nidal Hasan screamed “Allahu  Akbar!” before opening fire on a roomful of fellow Army soldiers in Texas on  Nov. 5, 2009, Obama dismissed an otherwise obvious act of terrorism as the  random act of “one individual.”

Even after evidence showed Hasan was in contact with al-Qaida leader Anwar  Awlaki and had religiously justified his attack in an elaborate PowerPoint  presentation, the administration still classified his jihadi rampage as  “workplace violence.”

•  Christmas Day bomber: Within days of the Dec. 25, 2009, attack on a U.S.  airliner, Obama assured the nation that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was “an  isolated extremist.”

In fact, the so-called underwear bomber had been trained by al-Qaida in  Yemen. Obama and his national security team knew this within the first hours of  the investigation because Abdulmutallab had told the FBI as much during his  interrogation.

•  Times Square bomber: Two days after Faisal Shahzad tried on May 1, 2010,  to detonate his explosives-packed SUV in downtown New York, the White House  misled the public into thinking there was no larger terrorist conspiracy behind  the attempt.

It described it as as a “one-off” incident — a British term meaning it wasn’t  part of a series. In fact, intelligence clearly showed that the Pakistani  Taliban were behind the attack. Shahzad had been trained at a Taliban terror  camp inside Pakistan and had been funded by the terrorist group.

The president covered up what really happened in all these terror cases,  because they were embarrassing failures of security and intelligence.

Al-Qaida’s coordinated and heavily armed strike in Libya — the worst on U.S.  soil since 9/11 — also jeopardizes Obama’s carefully crafted narrative that he’s  decapitated al-Qaida and is generally tough on terrorists. Neither is true. And  judging from recent polls, voters are starting to see through the smoke  screen.

Mitt Romney now commands a 48%-42% advantage over Obama on the question of  which candidate would be tougher on terrorism, a new Bloomberg National Poll  finds. We suspect this gap will grow as more details leak out about al-Qaida’s  unfortunate — and unnecessary — resurgence on Obama’s watch.

 

Benghazi Burns and Petraeus Goes to Princeton?

David Petraeus accepting the James Madison Medal at Princeton, 2010

by: Diana West

Two weeks ago, I wondered whether CIA Director Petraeus was politicizing the intelligence after a source told Fox News  on September 27 that three days after the Benghazi assault, Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee that “Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was `shocking’ to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”

Knowing Petraeus’ sensitivities to the faux-stimulus of what he has called in Senate testimony “Arab anger,”  such politicization, or, perhaps better, such Arabizing of the intelligence would likely come naturally to him. No stranger to politicking, Petraeus as CENTCOM commander engaged in what was described as an “unprecedented” political push in early 2010 on behalf of Islam’s Israel-centered demonology in order to enhance Americas’s military standing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This dovetailed neatly with his perhaps surprising take on Gitmo — close it, its “existence has been used by the enemy against us” —  and his really shocking take on Hezbollah: “Hezbollah’s justifications for existence will become void,” Petraeus told the Al Hayat as reported in the Lebanese Daily Star, “if the Palestinian cause is resolved.” Given this Arabist sensibility (and don’t forget one of his thesis directors at Princeton was Stephen Walt of Walt & Mearsheimer), it’s no stretch to imagine the man taking up cry of Islamic video-rage as well.

Now, with so many of the adminstration’s bald lies about Benghazi being exposed, PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston is asking not whether Petraeus was politicizing the intell, but whether he is “among the sources of the Benghazi deception.”

In a post called “You Know Who Still Hasn’t Called Benghazi a Terrorist Attack?” Preston reprises some of Petraeus’ appeasement of Koran Rage back in Afghanistan. Preston also notes that several senators sent a letter on October 9 to Petraeus, DNI Clapper and White House CT advisor John Brennan asking for a specific timeline on the Benghazi intelligence They haven’t received an answer.

Read more