State Department Belatedly Releases New Clinton Benghazi Documents

Judicial Watch, April 14, 2016:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.”  The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack.

Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch.  Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.

The State Department previously told a federal court that the Kandil document wasn’t responsive to Judicial Watch’s request and resulting lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)) seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

But the State Department then produced this information last month to Judicial Watch.  The records, the State Department told the Court, were found among thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December, 2015 – again, two months after the key Kandil document was first produced to the Benghazi Committee.

Under court order, the State Department released 11 documents responsive to the Judicial Watch request with large blocks of information redacted. The documents also include phone conservations between Clinton and other foreign dignitaries and heads of state during the period of the deadly terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

At 10:08 p.m. on September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yet the next day, in her 7:49 PM September 12 conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack – not a protest.”  Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”

On September 15, in a telephone call with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr, Clinton emphatically portrayed the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence. Clinton told Amr, “I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film… But we have to exercise more self-discipline… otherwise we’ll be in a vicious downward circle against everyone who has ever felt offended, particularly on the internet….”

Clinton’s telephone call with Amr also contained a curious reference to what the former secretary referred to as a “very successful investment visit led by my deputy Tom Nides, and on the very day they left this series of incidents began to unfold.” According to the Washington Post, Nides, who was deputy secretary for management and resources at the State Department, was at the same time responsible for “communications with donors” to the Clinton Foundation. Nides was also involved in the scandal involving Clinton’s efforts to provide special access to State Department officials for hedge fund clients of her son-in-law, Marc Mezinsky.

In a September 12 call with the Afghan President Hamid Kharzi, Clinton says at some point they need to talk about “about religious feelings and insults and defamation.”  Islamists seeks to criminalize criticism (“defamation”) of Islam.  The Obama administration worked closely with advocates for restrictions on free speech as part of their Benghazi video pr campaign.

The documents also show that Clinton referenced the “actions of a mob” to Tunisian Prime Minister Jebali on September 14.  Jebali responded that he condemned “these terrorist actions.”

“There are two scandals here.  The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The second is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents.  The State Department is forcing Judicial Watch to play ‘whack-a-mole’ with Clinton and Benghazi documents.  It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.”

The New York Times’ Cover-Up of Hillary’s Illegal Libyan War

hillary_clinton4Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 28, 2016:

More than any other paper, the New York Times has held Obama’s foreign policy line. It’s been the place where administration sources leaked stories and narratives. The New York Times ran David Kilpatrick’s desperate attempt to shore up the “YouTube Video Caused Benghazi” lie at a time when even most of the media was unwilling to keep repeating that bizarre claim any more.

So the New York Times is the natural outlet for yet another whitewash of the illegal Libyan War. This one is more about Democrats than Republicans. Jim Webb, and in his own clumsy way, Bernie Sanders have raised the Libya issue. Tulsi Gabbard quit the DNC and endorsed Bernie Sanders in part over Libya. The New York Times’ multipart Hillary Libya series is about making that war palatable to liberals.

Excuse #1 is that Hillary Clinton just has a bias for action.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be “caught trying.” In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.

“She’s very careful and reflective,” Ms. Slaughter said. “But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you’ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, she’d rather be caught trying.”

That’s probably the worst excuse imaginable. It’s also flagrantly dishonest. Hillary Clinton didn’t have a bias for action in Sudan. She had a bias for action when it came to overthrowing regimes on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Excuse #2 the Genocide Lie

The piece only indirectly addresses this. But it’s the reason Obama gave for intervention. He claimed that massacres were about to happen in Benghazi. He suggested that much of the city might be wiped out. None of this was real or true.

“Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s top foreign-policy aide at State and now in her campaign, said her view was that “we have to live in a world of risks.” In assessing the situation in Libya, he said, “she didn’t know for certain at the time, nor did any of us, what would happen — only that it passed a risk threshold that demanded that we look very hard at the response.”

What was the basis for this risk threshold? Why did genocide in Africa fail to meet this imaginary threshold?

The left spent a decade howling about Iraq. It has still failed to address the simple fact that Obama lied about the basis for the war in Libya. And Hillary Clinton handfed him that lie.

Excuse #3 Regime Change, Not Protecting Civilians

The No Fly Zone was a hoax. No such zone was needed. Nor was it about protecting civilians, but aiding Muslim terrorists.

“We basically destroyed Qaddafi’s air defenses and stopped the advance of his forces within three days,” recalled Mr. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser.

But the mission quickly evolved from protecting civilians in Benghazi to protecting civilians wherever they were. As the rebellion swelled and bystanders became combatants, the endgame became ever more murky. The United States and its allies were increasingly drawn to one side of the fighting, without extended debate over what that shift portended.

Not only is this a ridiculous lie, but it’s contradicted early on in the same article as it mentions a covert program of transferring weapons to the terrorists. This wasn’t even about protecting the terrorists, though it began that way, it was about destroying Gaddafi’s forces.

It’s 2016 and the media is still maintaining the same tired lie.

“I can’t recall any specific decision that said, ‘Well, let’s just take him out,’” Mr. Gates said. Publicly, he said, “the fiction was maintained” that the goal was limited to disabling Colonel Qaddafi’s command and control. In fact, the former defense secretary said, “I don’t think there was a day that passed that people didn’t hope he would be in one of those command and control centers.”

That’s regime change. It’s invasion and assassination. Gaddafi was a bad guy. He got what he deserved. But let’s stop playing this game in which there was never a war or an invasion. Or it was about protecting “civilians”.

By April, the president had authorized the use of drones, and, according to a senior rebel commander, C.I.A. operatives began visiting rebel camps and “providing us with intercepts of Qaddafi’s troop movements.”

To “protect civilians”.

“There was a moment, around about June or July,” recalled Mr. Shapiro, the State Department’s Libya policy adviser, “when the situation on the ground seemed to settle into a stalemate and we weren’t sure we were winning, or at least winning quickly enough.”

So we’ve gone from the ‘protecting civilians’ myth to straight up trying to win a war.

Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving a covert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.

“Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,” one State Department official recalled. “We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We’d crossed that line.”

How many of those weapons have been used against us since then?

Excuse #4: Hillary 2016

Mrs. Clinton’s old friend and political adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, who regularly emailed her political advice and vaguely sourced intelligence reports on Libya, urged her to capitalize on the dictator’s fall.

“Brava!” Mr. Blumenthal exclaimed. As always, he was thinking about Mrs. Clinton’s presidential ambitions. “You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment.” She should be sure to use the phrase “successful strategy,” he wrote. “You are vindicated.”

This is the first mention of Blumenthal even though it’s clear from her emails that he was far more influential and had his own interests in Libya.

Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a “ticktock” that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: “HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,” it read.

Hillary Clinton had wrecked Libya and was using it to run for office.

“The president was like, ‘We are not looking to do another Iraq,’” said Derek Chollet, then handling Libya for the National Security Council.

Too late.

Still, in her last months at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton rode a wave of popularity, bolstered by an Internet meme called “Texts From Hillary.” Its emblem was a photograph of the secretary of state gazing through dark glasses at her BlackBerry. Few knew that it had been taken aboard the military transport plane taking her to Libya in those heady days after the dictator’s fall.

***

Confirmed: Obama Sent Weapons to Muslim Terrorists in Benghazi

One of the few interesting items in the New York Times’ whitewash of Hillary and Obama’s illegal Libyan war is the confirmation of weapons shipments.

Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving a covert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.

“Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,” one State Department official recalled. “We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We’d crossed that line.”

The story blames the problem on Qatar aiding Jihadists and Obama’s unwillingness to defy the terror oil state. But the claim that we had to arm terrorists to fight Qatar’s arming of terrorists doesn’t hold up too well. Furthermore we already know that US forces were told to turn a blind eye to Qatar’s weapons shipments. We could have blocked them instead.

The story mentions a competition between Qatar and the UAE over arming the locals, but fails to clarify that Qatar was arming straight Jihadists, while the UAE had taken an anti-Islamist line.

It also fails to clarify that Qatar was backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Just like Hillary and Obama.

Salvaging Mrs. Clinton’s Legacy in a Shattered Libya

timthumb

AIM, by Roger Arnoff, February 25, 2016:

The Washington Post seems unable to grasp the irony of its support for President Obama’s latest military intervention into Libya at the same time that it seeks to salvage Hillary Clinton’s reputation on this issue. Libya remains a failed state, and no amount of reporting can change the facts of this debacle.

“With respect to Libya, I have been clear from the outset that we will go after ISIS wherever it appears, the same way that we went after al Qaeda wherever they appeared,” President Obama told the press on February 16.  “And the testament to the fact that we are doing that already is that we took out…one of ISIS’s most prominent leaders in Libya.”

Obama’s words came out just days before the House Select Committee on Benghazi signaled that its report on the events in Benghazi, Libya will be issued “as soon as possible,” now that it has gained access to most of the necessary witnesses and documents.

According to The Military Times, “Many experts note that the current chaos in Libya stems from the power vacuum caused by the American-led air campaign to oust Gaddafi.” Yet reporters at the Post continue to dramatize the issue of Libya as if it were Mrs. Clinton, or President Obama, who faced the tough choices in 2011.

“The stakes Clinton faced were high,” reported Kevin Sullivan for the Post on February 3. “Introducing U.S. military force could have easily led to a much-longer-than-expected and bloodier operation, at a time when Americans were already weary of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

“But failing to act could have led to a massacre that the world would have blamed on Washington,” adds Sullivan. “It also could have solidified Gaddafi’s grip on power as other dictators were falling across the region.”

These fairy tale justifications have been exposed again and again, yet the mainstream media continue to use them in defense of their favorite Democratic presidential candidate. Reporters such as Sullivan aren’t interested in reporting facts that could damage Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy reputation. And Libya is one of Mrs. Clinton’s weakest points, for which she takes full ownership. Her aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote in a 2011 internal email while she was Secretary of State that Mrs. Clinton has “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s [L]ibya policy from start to finish.”

Sullivan is now the top foreign policy adviser for Clinton’s campaign.

As we have reported, Qaddafi was actually an American ally in the war on terror before he was ousted. Our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) interim report demonstrates how the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, decided to back al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya instead of holding truce talks with Qaddafi, which could have ended with his abdication and a peaceful transition of power.

The Washington Times also reported that it was Mrs. Clinton who told a Pentagon general to stop communicating with Qaddafi’s son, Saif, and other Qaddafi loyalists seeking a truce after the UN resolution calling for military intervention in Libya was passed on March 17, 2011.

Now conflict-ridden Libya has devolved into an Islamic State stronghold with warring militias. And the Post is pushing President Obama to intercede. “Mr. Obama has tried waiting on the sidelines in Iraq and Syria,” argued the Post’s Editorial Board on February 17. “He should not make the same mistake in Libya.”

An American warplane killed 49 and wounded six at an ISIS training camp in Libya, reported CNN on February 20. In response, ISIS recently beheaded 12 menat the security headquarters in Sabratha, according to the Atlantic on February 24. “American intelligence officials estimate that the group’s [ISIS] ranks in Libya have grown to 6,500 fighters, more than doubling since the fall,” it reports. “The group is now thought to control 150 miles of Libyan coastline.”

The administration’s mistakes in Libya have already been made, and there have been many. The narrative that somehow the Obama administration’s multilateral intervention into Libya was necessary is false. There was no humanitarian crisis to resolve. “Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted,” wrote University of Texas at Austin professor Alan Kuperman for Foreign Affairs last year. “As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him,” he writes.

According to a column by Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the CCB, “Libya devolved into a failed state when NATO assisted Qaddafi’s radical jihadist opponents in killing him and then promptly abandoned the country. Left in the wake were two rival governments competing for power, which created space for Islamists to turn Libya into a cesspool of extremism.” He added that “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to call the debacle American ‘smart power at its best.’”

“How will the West ever learn anything,” asks Hoekstra, “if it can’t identify its most obvious failures?”

Now it seems that the U.S. must again commit additional blood and sweat to fix the situation that Hillary Clinton and President Obama helped create in the first place.

It is no wonder that Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy reputation needs rehabilitation under such circumstances. The Post’s Sullivan admits that Hillary Clinton’s choice to back the Libyan intervention was the “most significant—and risky—[decision] of her career,” a choice which still haunts her record. However, he takes it upon himself to dispel any doubts about her potential.

“The [Post] story doesn’t come off as uniformly flattering,” writes Cato’s Christopher A. Preble for The National Interest. “The headline calls it ‘a tough call’ that supposedly ‘still haunts’ Clinton, and the subhead references Clinton’s ill-considered support for the war in Iraq in 2002.”

However, Preble writes, “all of the people quoted by name in the story are Clinton supporters or advocates for the operation that ousted Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi from power, and eventually resulted in his death.”

Sullivan’s article contains quotes from an anonymous former official involved in the Libyan negotiations effusively championing Clinton’s decision-making style and leadership. “She consults widely and intensively. She talks to more people, takes more phone calls, travels more miles,” says the supporter. “She’s more disciplined than her husband…Hillary Clinton came into the Situation Room for every meeting thoroughly prepared,” that supporter continues. “She’s a disciplined decision-maker.”

The Washington Post is clearly attempting to pave the way for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy by casting the intervention into Libya as a necessary evil with an unfortunate ending, and by excusing Obama’s intervention in the same country twice. The truth is, however, that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama spearheaded a policy that ended in abject failure and continues to result in death and danger abroad. The fact that this policy, which the Post now seeks to sell to the public, resulted in the Benghazi scandal and the resulting death of four Americans—and many more Libyans—cannot be overlooked no matter how much Sullivan or other reporters try to spin Libya positively.

Also see:

13 Hours in Benghazi, and the Still-Missing White House Timeline

shutterstock_114757342.sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Claudia Rosett, Jan. 24, 2016:

It’s almost two weeks since the release of “13 Hours,” the movie about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. In the modern news cycle, that’s time enough for the importance of this movie to be buried by news of the blizzard from which the East Coast is now digging out. But I found this movie so good that I went to see it twice.

Both times, I came away wondering the same thing. What, precisely, was President Obama doing during the hours — all those many hours — in which the Americans in Benghazi, abandoned by their leaders in Washington, fought for their lives?

What was Obama doing, amid the comforts and command centers of the White House, while State Department officer Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens were choking on the smoke of a diesel-fueled inferno at the poorly secured U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi? What was Obama doing during the hours in which the assault targeted the CIA annex near the compound? What was he doing when al Qaeda-linked terrorists fired mortars at the Americans defending the annex, killing former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods?

Benghazi in that season was six hours ahead of Washington. The attacks began about 9:45 P.M. in Benghazi, and went on intermittently all night, with the deadly mortar assault coming at about 5:15 A.M. It took another five hours, and then some, before the last of the survivors, assembled at the airport, along with the bodies of the four dead Americans, were flown out of Benghazi — not by American forces, but aboard a Libyan C-130 military cargo plane. Thus the roughly 13 hours referred to in the title of the movie, from approximately 9:45 PM on the evening of Sept. 11, until about 10:30 A.M on the morning of Sept. 12.

In Washington, six hours behind, that timing corresponded to roughly 3:45 P.M. on Sept. 11 until 4:30 A.M., Sept. 12, with Americans killed during the first eight hours of this terrible span. When mortar fire killed Doherty and Woods, about 5:15 A.M. in Libya, it was about 11:15 P.M., Sept. 11, in Washington. In other words, on the White House clock, the assault in Benghazi began mid-afternoon, Washington time, and went on for the rest of the afternoon and the entire evening. It was close to midnight, Washington time, when the mortar onslaught killed Woods, who was based in Benghazi, and Doherty, who had flown in that night from Tripoli as part of a small rescue squad. They died as part of a small group of warriors defending the other Americans under attack.

What was America’s president doing, during all those hours? No one expects the U.S. president to involve himself directly in every firefight that might endanger Americans in far away places. But he is the commander-in-chief, the executive at whose desk the buck is supposed to stop. And there was nothing ordinary about what happened in Benghazi. The symbolically loaded date was Sept. 11. The first target was an American diplomatic compound, which was hit with AK-47 fire and rocket propelled grenades, invaded, plundered and torched with diesel fuel — killing the ambassador and one of his staff. The next target was a nearby “secret” CIA annex, housing Americans. While far from U.S. shores, what took place in Benghazi was a brazen, heavily armed, terrorist assault on America and its citizens. It was the first time in 33 years that an American ambassador had been murdered.

From the Americans under attack, there were desperate calls for help. It was the president who had the authority to dispatch American forces in the region to race to Libya, to help. Whatever the debate over how quickly such help could have arrived, or how effective it might have been, this much is clear: No such help came.

Nor have we ever learned the full timeline of what Obama himself did that evening. Plenty hasbeen asked. Too little has been answered. Various observers, myself included, have tried to fill in the gaps, piecing together whatever could be discerned from afar, or urging that more be doneto find out.

But there are still big gaps. We know that when the assault began in Benghazi, Obama was making his Sept 11 official rounds at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington. We know that after after leaving Walter Reed, Obama had a 5 P.M. meeting already scheduled at the White House with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, at which Obama was certainly informed of the attack.

And, as I outlined on PJ Media more than three years ago, in “Benghazi and the Missing Obama 9/11 Timeline,” we know from the sole press release put out by the White House that evening, Sept. 11, 2012 (which made no mention of Benghazi), that sometime before about 8 P.M. Obama phoned Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (well after midnight in Israel). To judge by the contents of the ensuing White House press release, Obama made this apparently urgent evening call not to talk about Benghazi — where his ambassador to Libya had just been killed, and the assault was far from over  — but to quash a story gaining legs that day in the media, and damaging to Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, that Obama had snubbed Netanyahu’s request for a meeting at the United Nations General Assembly opening later that month.

We know that at about 10 P.M., Obama spoke by phone with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Shortly after that call, the State Department put out a press release under Clinton’s name, implying that “inflammatory material posted on the internet” (or, as Clinton later described it, a “hateful” video) had provoked the Benghazi attacks. As far as I’m aware, we’ve heard nothing further about Obama’s activities after that phone call with Clinton. The next time he turns up on the radar is the following morning, more than 12 hours later, at 10:43 A.M., making public remarks about the American deaths in Benghazi from the White House Rose Garden (in which he, like Clinton, implied that the video, not terrorism, was to blame: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”).

Maybe there’s information out there that I’ve missed. If anyone knows anything more, please write in. But as far as I’m aware, there has been no full accounting, no timeline, that gives us anything close to a full picture of what the president did that long evening, or the extent to which, as the assault went on and on in Benghazi, he concerned himself with doing everything in his power to help. Or, as the available information suggests, he didn’t.

Of course, to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” The behavior of Clinton herself still matters, for the obvious reason that she is running to be the next president. But Obama is wrapping up his final year in office, and shows no interest in changing his ways. Does it really matter, by now, what he did or did not do on Sept. 11, 2012?

That brings me back to the matter of the film, “13 Hours,” and why it is so good. It is good because it depicts, in ways that any audience can understand, the hell that was unleashed against those Americans in Benghazi. It is good because it it clarifies, graphically, that what took place was a planned terrorist assault (viewers can decide for themselves how that squared with Obama’s claims of a receding tide of war, and al Qaeda on the run). It is good because it shows the folly of pitting wishful diplomacy against murderous realities.

At core, “13 Hours” is a movie about the vital human business of keeping faith, of doing what’s right — who did, and who did not. This film shows how, in the face of folly from on high, and the deadly results on the ground, a small band of American warriors saw what had to be done, and did it. They stepped up to keep faith with themselves and their fellow Americans — while back in Washington, their leaders, including America’s commander-in-chief, did no such thing. For all the American military might that was standing by that night, “spinning up” beyond Libya’s borders, no help was sent into Libya. All that arrived, courtesy of orders from above, was an unmanned drone, a vehicle in this case for bearing witness — a microcosm of President Obama’s foreign policy.

That betrayal was the essential horror of the Benghazi story (a betrayal compounded by the U.S. administration’s negligence that preceded the attack, and amplified by the official obfuscations that followed). That failure at the top, along with the heroism of the warriors on the ground, is what comes across in this film. Obama himself is not shown in the movie, neither is Clinton. Obama is a distant voice, leading from behind, speaking briefly in the background, lauding the prospects for Libya, at the opening. The film shows us, up close, the Americans who were abandoned by their leaders back in Washington, and left fighting for their lives.

When it ends, you sit there in silence. This movie does not preach. But there are lessons to be drawn, and they pertain not only to Libya, but to America. The more we grasp of what happened in Benghazi, the bigger the questions ought to loom about what we expect of our leaders — and the missing piece, the timeline yet to be filled in, the full story of what America’s president was doing, or not doing, on the evening of Sept, 11, 2012, as this battle played out, hour after hour, in Benghazi.

***

Published on Jan 25, 2016 by theunitedwest

The President Obama/Hillary Clinton Benghazi disaster is, in the words of Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, “a dereliction of duty” by the Obama Administration and the Pentagon. Check out this in-depth analysis by Tom Trento and Admiral Lyons in the context of the powerful Hollywood feature film, “13 Hours, the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.”

STEPHEN COUGHLIN MOMENT: 13 HOURS – SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI

hgThis special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, focusing on a few crucial things not covered in the film.

And make sure to watch The Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveiled how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror.

Report: U.S. Rescue Team Was on Its Way to Benghazi, But Was Turned Back

Col. Andrew Wood

Col. Andrew Wood

PJ MEDIA, BY DEBRA HEINE, JANUARY 15, 2016:

The evidence is overwhelming that the United States had several rescue teams ready to go during the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but someone — possibly the president himself — prevented them from acting. So said Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson to talk show host Steve Malzberg in an interview on Wednesday.

This week on her show, “Full Measure,” Attkisson looked into the aborted rescue mission in an in-depth two-part report, “Rescue Interrupted,” which you can watch here and here. She spoke with a Green Beret commander who told her that there were actually Special Forces on their way to Benghazi who were turned back.

Col. Andrew Wood had once commanded a Special Forces anti-terrorism team protecting Ambassador Chis Stevens and other diplomats in Libya. In October of 2012, Woods told Congress that one month before the attacks in Benghazi, his team had been removed from Libya by the Obama administration, despite the numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks. Wood told Attkisson that Special Forces (the ones mentioned in the “spinning up” email from Jeremy Bash) were on their way to Benghazi, but were ordered to turn back.

“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood explained.  “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”

Attkisson told Malzberg, “This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway.”

“They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died,” Attkisson noted. “Those attacks went on for eight hours.”

The email from Jeremy Bash to Jacob Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, came at 7:19 pm Washington time.

Attkisson notes in Part One of “Rescue Interrupted” that “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack on foreign soil.”

On November 9, 2012, Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney if and when the White House was going to put out a detailed “tick-tock” surrounding its response to the Benghazi attacks. Instead of answering the question, Carney blathered on about the State Department investigation: “Nobody is more interested than the president in making sure the facts are collected, we find out exactly what happened, that we bring to justice those who killed four Americans and that we take measures to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again.”

“We’re never going to get a tick-tock,”  one of the reporters complained at the time. As Attkisson notes, Obama “virtually disappears from the public narrative.” All we know is he had a fundraiser to attend the next day in Las Vegas. Incredibly, in light of what happened in Benghazi, he didn’t cancel the trip.

At a conference in Maryland last weekend, Benghazi security officer Kris “Tanto” Paronto revealed that two AC-130H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” that night, both within range of Benghazi.

One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti. The other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. “That’s a 45-minute flight,” Paronto said.The Spectre gunship with its 25mm rapid-fire Gatling guns, its 40mm precision Bofors gun, and its 105mm canon is “good in urban warfare because you have little collateral damage,” Paronto explained.

In fact, it was just what the beleaguered security team needed. They could see the jihadis advancing on the Annex compound throughout the night and lit them up with lasers, which the airborne crew could have used for precision targeting purposes. On-line videos of the Spectre gunship in operation show that it can walk its cannons up narrow streets, killing fighters while leaving the surrounding buildings intact and people inside them unharmed.

“I asked for the Spectre and ISR [an armed Predator drone] at 9:37 pm,” Paronto said, certain that the attacks actually started at 9:32 pm local time, not 9:42 pm as previously reported. “At midnight, they told us they were still working on getting us that Spectre gunship. Not that it was not available, but that they were still working on it.”

And there were more forces immediately available for a rescue effort, in particular, the European Command (EUCOM) Commander’s In-Extremis Force, which was then on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, a three-hour flight from Benghazi.

Paronto knew people in that unit, and remembers calling them after he and his security team got back to the CIA Annex from the diplomatic compound, where they had just rescued the surviving U.S. personnel. “They were loading their gear into their aircraft and ready to go,” he recalled. Later, his friends in the unit told him they had been shut down sometime after midnight.

Author and former Navy Seal Matt Bracken first made the point here at PJ Media in November of 2012.  All forces needed to enter Libya was a “cross-border Authority” from the commander in chief. Unfortunately for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, Obama had probably gone to bed early so he could get his beauty sleep for the big fundraiser the next day.

If the White House doesn’t like that unflattering perception, maybe it should — at long last — pony up that tick-tock.

***

Also see:

The United West: Clinton-Obama Benghazi Gun Running Operation Exposed

benghazi-obama-hillaryBreitbart, Jan. 13, 2016:

(THE UNITED WEST) Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy, a member of the Benghazi Citizen’s Commission and former CIA intelligence officer, exposes Benghazi as a complete national security disaster resulting from the lack of leadership from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In part one, Lopez explains in simple detail exactly how the United States,  led by Clinton, aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a way that defies common sense and basic principles of foreign policy. The United West presents this three-part series as a national security context to better understand the blockbuster Hollywood movie, 13 Hours, the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

In part two, Clare explains in simple detail exactly how the United States, lead by Hillary Clinton, aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a way that defies common sense and basic principles of foreign policy when she blamed a You Tube video for the massacre in Benghazi:

Part 3 of 3: CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI & CLINTON & BLUMENTHALS!
Clare Lopez chronicles how Hillary Clinton created and plotted the video narrative to deflect attention away from the State Department’s illegal gun running operation in Benghazi. This segment examines emails from Sidney Blumenthal, a personal confidant of the Clinton’s, which are designed to place the blame of the Benghazi attack NOT of the Obama/Clinton Administration but on the foolish video “Innocence of Muslims.” In an almost unbelievable disinformation moment, Sidney leads Hillary to use his son Max’s article about the video as the cause of the attack. Do not miss this segment of the Benghazi series, “What Difference Does it Make,” where Clare Lopez and Tom Trento deconstruct the Blumenthal/Clinton act of treason.

Hillary’s Benghazi Stand-Down Order Exposed

secret-soldiersFrontpage, by  Kenneth R. Timmerman, January 13, 2016:

A preview by Benghazi security officer Kris “Tanto” Paronto of 13 Hours, the block-buster Michael Bay film that premieres on Thursday, raises dramatic new questions about the refusal by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to authorize a military rescue of the besieged U.S. diplomatic facility and the nearby CIA Annex on Sept 11-12, 2012.

In a presentation at a conference organized by the Maryland Citizen Action Network last weekend, Paronto revealed that two AC-130H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” that night, both within range of Benghazi.

One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti.

The other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. “That’s a 45-minute flight,” Paronto said.

The Spectre gunship with its 25mm rapid-fire gatling guns, its 40 mm precision Bofors gun, and its 105mm canon is “good in urban warfare because you have little collateral damage,” Paronto explained.

In fact, it was just what the beleaguered security team needed. They could see the jihadis advancing on the Annex compound throughout the night and lit them up with lasers, which the airborne crew could have used for precision targeting purposes. On-line videos of the Spectre gunship in operation show that it can walk its cannons up narrow streets, killing fighters while leaving the surrounding buildings intact and people inside them unharmed.

“I asked for the Spectre and ISR [an armed Predator drone] at 9:37 pm,” Paronto said, certain that the attacks actually started at 9:32 pm local time, not 9:42 pm as previously reported. “At midnight, they told us they were still working on getting us that Spectre gunship. Not that it was not available, but that they were still working on it.”

And there were more forces immediately available for a rescue effort, in particular, the European Command (EUCOM) Commander’s In-Extremis Force, which was then on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, a 3 hour flight from Benghazi.

Paronto knew people in that unit, and remembers calling them after he and his security team got back to the CIA Annex from the diplomatic compound, where they had just rescued the surviving U.S. personnel. “They were loading their gear into their aircraft and ready to go,” he recalled.

Later, his friends in the unit told him they had been shut down sometime after midnight.

All evidence now points to a specific stand-down order issued by Secretary Clinton, since the Libyan facilities came under her direct authority. Without a specific request for assistance from the State Department, the Pentagon was powerless to act.

Last month, the State Department released a critical email, sent at 7:09 pm Washington time (1:09 am Benghazi time) from Jeremy Bash, a top aide to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, informing Mrs. Clinton’s office of various military assets that were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi.

Among those assets were C-110 in Croatia, two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons based in Rota, Spain, the Spectre gunships, armed Predator drones, and possibly elements of Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

In preparation for deploying C-110 directly to Benghazi from Croatia, General Carter Ham, commander-in-chief of Africa Command (AFRICOM), issued orders transferring authority for C-110 to him from European Command (EUCOM).

General Ham was doing what any smart U.S. military officer would have done, by laying the ground work for a formal order he expected to come down an hour or two later.

“Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to secure the approval from host nation,” Bash wrote. “Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us.”

When Bash sent that email, Paronto and his team-mates had just fought off an assault on the Annex by twenty or more well-armed jihadis. They would continue to fight throughout the night, as larger and increasingly brazen groups of jihadis gathered in dark areas beyond the Annex the security officers referred to as “Zombiland.”

They certainly could have used the support from the Spectre gunship, or the arrival of forty or so well-armed Special Operations combat specialists from C-110.

To date, the State Department has not released any reply from Mrs. Clinton’s office to Bash’s 7:09 PM request. However, we know from the testimony of the top U.S. diplomat in Tripoli at the time, Greg Hicks, that the State Department never requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.

And when the orders finally went out from Panetta’s office an hour later, they included a retransfer of C-110 from AFRICOM back to EUCOM, along with orders for the unit to move to Sigonella the next day and hold in place, instead of flying to Benghazi.

In other words, because Mrs. Clinton refused to authorize those forces to deploy into Libya to assist State Department personnel and State Department facilities, Panetta had no other choice but to put them on hold.

“The State Department was concerned that an overt U.S. military presence in Libya could topple the government,” a senior AFRICOM commander involved in that night’s events told me. “They were in denial. They wanted a narrative that al Qaeda was on the run. Instead, four Americans died.”

With the release of the Bash email and 13 Hours, Mrs. Clinton’s cover has been blown.

I also asked Paronto last weekend if he had heard reports of an Iranian Quds Force presence in Benghazi, as I had been hearing from numerous U.S. military intelligence sources, including senior AFRICOM commanders.

“Everyone knew the Iranians were there,” he replied. “Especially once the Red Cross [Red Crescent] team from Iran was ‘kidnapped’ in Benghazi [on July 31] by Ansar al-Sharia, we knew about them and were tracking them.”

As I reported in Dark Forces: the Truth About What Happened in Benghazi, U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies produced between 50 to 60 reports on the Iranian presence in Benghazi and Derna in 2012, and Iran’s deep involvement with Ansar al-Sharia, the group that claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attacks. Multiple FOIA requests seeking copies of these reports from the National Director of Intelligence and from AFRICOM have gone without response.

It’s time to remove the wraps of secrecy from those reports as well, so the American public can finally learn the truth about who plotted, organized and paid for the Benghazi attacks.

Kenneth Timmerman is the New York Times best-selling author of “Dark Forces: the Truth About What Happened in Benghazi,” and other books.

Also see:

Heroes of Benghazi to Megyn Kelly: ‘We Were Told to Stand Down’

13-hours-poster-image-2015Fox News Insider, Jan. 4, 2016:

Ahead of the release of the film “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” Megyn Kelly spoke to three of the heroes who fought on the night of the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

In a powerful “Kelly File” exclusive, Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paronto and John “Tig” Tiegen reflected on the 2012 attack and reacted to Michael Bay’s much-anticipated film.

Paronto said that the movie left him drained, because it brought him right back to the besieged American diplomatic compound and nearby CIA annex.

“It was a part of me that I relived on the screen, and I realized how much I’d been missing,” Paronto said. “It’s amazing being with your brothers and fighting … being there and being with them and having the faith that you’re going to defeat all the obstacles.”

Tiegen told Megyn that he was surprised during the attack that they were given a “stand-down” order and offered no help, even after Amb. Chris Stevens had been missing for hours.

“13 hours. Nobody comes. That’s the big deal,” Tanto added.

Megyn noted that Hillary Clinton and the White House have relied on Congressional investigations that concluded there was no “stand-down” order given at the annex.

Paronto said it’s “just silly” and Tiegen pointed out that investigators believed everything else the men testified about.

“It’s kind of funny. Everything we testified to, they agreed with us 100 percent. Pretty much from us eating a candy bar to shooting all our ammo, but for some reason they don’t want to believe that we were told to stand down,” said Tiegen.

Geist said that despite the lack of help from the U.S. military, he was confident that their team, which had nearly 100 combined years of experience in counter-insurgency operations, would overcome the odds.

Paronto concluded that the film is important because it helps honor the sacrifice and service of those who lost their lives at Benghazi and those who selflessly risked their lives to save others.

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

ISIS-fires-rockets-FlickrAmir-Farshad-Ebraham-640x480Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Nov. 30, 2015:

The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.

In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.

The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.

In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.

“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”

To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.

“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”

Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.

Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.

“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”

Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.

Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.

“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people — where we are going with this Republic of ours.”

“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”

The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.

Clinton was asked about the gun running operation when testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.

Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”

Members of the 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report included: then-House Speaker Rep. John Boehner, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then- Rep. Mike Rogers , Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger , then-Sen. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, then-Sen. Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnellSen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss .

Lopez is the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and the Canadian Meighen Institute.

The Center for Security Policy’s Middle East and North Africa Briefing

1818501052

Center for Security Policy, Nov.13, 2015:

The Middle East and North Africa: National Security and a Secure Freedom Strategy to respond to the threats posed by the Islamic State and the Global Jihad Movement.

  • Pete Hoekstra, Shillman Senior Fellow, Investigative Project on Terrorism; Former Chairman, U.S. House Intelligence Committee; Author, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya (2015)
  • Elliot Chodoff, Major in the IDF Reserves; Counter terrorism expertPartner, Lecturer, and Political and Military Analyst at Hamartzim Educational Services
  • Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President, Center for Security Policy, Author, Cut Down The Black Flag: A Plan To Defeat The Islamic State (2015)

Moderator: Frank Gaffney, President & CEO, Center for Security Policy.

State Dept Watch Logs Show Hillary, Obama MIA During Benghazi Attack

2015-10-28T170156Z_1_LYNXNPEB9R102_RTROPTP_3_USA-ELECTION-DINNER-DEMOCRATS

Townhall, by Jim Hanson, Nov. 9, 2015:

Hillary Clinton failed to provide proper security to the US Consular facility in Benghazi, Libya before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 and she failed to secure any rescue operations for the four Americans who eventually died there. Recentlyreleased watch logs from the State Department operations center show she made no official inquiries from 10:30 p.m. that night through 7:15 a.m. the following morning. That is a long time to be missing when a U.S. diplomatic facility is under attack.

Why was no rescue effort mounted? That is the question that has been driving good people crazy since this happened. Every American manning a post anywhere on this entire planet has a right to believe the cavalry will ride to their rescue, or at least be launched toward them. That didn’t happen in this case and the blame lies with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama directly. The horrifying thing is official government records show no involvement from either one after an initial consultation.

Hillary had an obligation to fight for all the support she could get for her people once she heard they were under attack. The State Department watch logs should be full of notations like, “Secretary connected w/ DoD ref lack of relief forces” and “Secretary connected w/ POTUS ref Benghazi rescue” but instead there is blank space. She could not order the military to act, but she could damn sure have been lighting them up for failing to do so. That is leadership and she couldn’t even be bothered to answer that 3 a.m. call.

President Obama, however, could order the military to act and if you listen to the apologists he did so through Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The officer responsible for Libya was AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and he confirmed that Secretary Panetta gave him orders.

“The Secretary of Defense gave me clear direction at the outset, you know, to deploy forces again in anticipation that the first mission was a potential hostage rescue of the U.S. Ambassador, recovering evacuation of the wounded, and other persons from Benghazi.”

But on February 7th, 2013, when Sec. Panetta testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee he had this exchange:

“Senator Lindsey Graham: My question is, did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya, before the attack ended?

Secretary Leon Panetta: No, because the attack ended before they could get off the ground.”

This makes no sense since the attack lasted more than eight hours and the order to deploy forces was given not long after it began. Are we to believe that no US forces anywhere could have been sent toward the sound of gunfire? And it doesn’t matter if they could have gotten there in time, because no one knew how long this situation would last. The one thing you cannot recover is time, so the first thing to do is get people moving toward the fight. And yet, that is the one thing that did not happen.

Let’s try to reconcile that. There are a lot of things that have to happen for a military unit to respond to an emergency in a foreign land. The initial order from Panetta was to deploy forces in anticipation of a mission to rescue the folks in Benghazi. In his testimony Gen. Ham confirmed that Sec. Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave him operational control and authority to employ the units required. They were alerted and staged but never went wheels up en route to Libya.

We have heard there was no transport available or they weren’t ready until the battle was over, but if the closest units couldn’t launch, the next closest should have. The cavalry was called, but never sent out the gates to ride to the rescue. Why? If he really was told to do what was necessary to save our people, Gen. Ham would have had some unit from somewhere moving. So either he didn’t want to do that, or was not authorized to do more than alert and stage the units.

Does anyone really believe that President Obama would have left the decision to launch an armed attack into a foreign country to a lone General? He held six months worth of meetings before making the gutsy call to approve a raid on bin Laden.

Gen. Ham didn’t launch those units toward Libya because he needed approval from up the food chain to do so. That order never came.

It is the dog than didn’t bark. Hillary made no strident calls for someone, anyone to rescue her people and Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned. Then, while they both slept, our people in Benghazi died.

Pete Hoekstra at The Heritage Foundation discussing his new book ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya’

architects-of-disasterIPT, by Pete Hoekstra
The Heritage Foundation
November 2, 2015

In his new book, Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra offers a thorough analysis of how a disastrous foreign policy led to Libya becoming a failed state on the shores of the Mediterranean.

Now serving as the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Hoekstra details how America’s tragic intervention in the North African country turned an island of relative stability into a nexus of radical Islamist terrorist training, ideology, and weapons transfers; sowed the seeds of ISIS in Syria and Iraq; and led to the humanitarian crisis in Europe.

Hoekstra reflects on the truth behind former Secretary of State Clinton’s shifting claims before the House Select Committee on Benghazi about whether a spontaneous anti-Muslim video or well-coordinated al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. facility. Drawing upon insider sources and a depth of experience, Hoekstra offers a penetrating look at how a naïve foreign policy resulted in catastrophe.

When will our leaders understand that it’s Morning in America for jihadists?

19638753

U.S. leadership needs to recognize that jihadists hate us, they want to destroy our way of life, and that they have developed dozens of front groups in the United States such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations to provide cover for their activities.

Fox News, by Pete Hoekstra, Nov. 2, 2015:

Jihadists awoke to a new dawn on the day that the Obama administration began implementing a new and uncharted foreign policy seven years ago.

In his 2009 inaugural speech the new president declared that America “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” when discussing “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.”

The result? Today Egypt is rebuilding its government following the disastrous Islamist Muslim Brotherhood regime. Libya is a malignant tumor in north Africa that spreads the cancer of weapons, training and ideology throughout the broader region. Syria and Iraq are nearly ungovernable with ISIS on its murderous rampage. Israel is under siege by Palestinian terrorists.

This is not to say that Obama and his advisors caused the chaos by themselves, yet the common thread starts from when it fundamentally reversed longstanding bipartisan U.S. foreign policy. For the first time in decades, the government embraced such bad actors as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Hamas – jihadist groups with American blood on their hands – without prejudice.

Previous Republican and Democratic administrations did not overtly engage with radical Islamists because their philosophy is inconsistent with Western values. Their goal is not to reach an accommodation with the West, but to destroy it.

Obama’s rhetoric became policy, and the full nature of the dramatic shift revealed itself. He threw President Hosni Mubarak – our ally in Egypt – under the bus as the U.S. subtly signaled that it was comfortable working with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Director of National Intelligence General James R. Clapper reinforced the change in direction with his unfounded prediction to a congressional committee in 2012 that al Qaida would “find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values.”

In Libya, Muammar Qaddafi’s son, Seif, begged for peace negotiations, but the administration allied with the salafi-jihadist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to overthrow and kill his father.

The resulting failed state in Libya allowed significant weapons caches – Gaddafi’s leftover stockpiles, NATO-supplied arms and those shipped in from the UAE and Qatar — to make their way into the hands of those who murdered four Americans in Benghazi, as well as to the ‘rebels’ in Syria that would metastasize into ISIS.

Jihadi organizations around the world saw a new America with the Obama administration that they had repeatedly fooled into believing that they could now be trusted and managed.

In the same manner the Obama administration provided unprecedented access by individuals and groups with radical Islamist ties to the highest levels of the executive branch. Such access offers unique opportunities to influence public policy and to gain credibility, which they in turn exploit to discredit other organizations and add authority to their messages.

Such a sweeping policy change by Obama resulted in much of the world seeing U.S. weakness and taking advantage of it. America has experienced the failure of this engagement policy through aggression by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; radical Islamists operating unmolested in Libya; ISIS expanding its reach and genocidal campaign in Syria and Iraq; as well as Hamas and Palestinian mercenaries attacking Israel, which current Secretary of State John Kerry dismisses as “random acts of violence.”

Despite the turmoil, former Secretary of State and presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently claimed that the U.S. is safer and that this is the best example of an exercise in American smart power.

It’s not.

U.S. leadership needs to recognize that jihadists hate us, they want to destroy our way of life, and that they have developed dozens of front groups in the United States such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations to provide cover for their activities.

We are at war and the sooner we recognize, confront and defeat the enemy, the safer we will become.

Republican Pete Hoekstra represented Michigan’s 2nd congressional district from 1993 to 2011 in the House of Representatives. He is the former House Intelligence Committee chairman and author of the upcoming book “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.”

 

Also see:

Clinton’s Infamous Legacy

102215_uncle2

“Hillary Clinton is a serial liar.” – Michael Ingmire, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith’s uncle (October 22nd 2015)

by Justin O. Smith:

The Benghazi Committee hearing on October 22, 2015 spotlighted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s continued predilection to prevaricate and obfuscate and obstruct the truth on anything, especially regarding the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi. Between Clinton’s lies and Obama’s facilitation of the cover-up and top Democrats’ willingness to place their imprimatur on gross negligence, incompetence and treason, Americans are still far away from receiving the full, unadulterated truth on this horrible and despicable episode of the Obama/Clinton Middle East Doctrine; however, from all the available evidence, Hillary Clinton is damned and unfit for any public office, much less the Office of the President.

Three years after the attacks on our U.S. Consulate and hundreds of FOIA requests later, Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has only just now (Oct 20th) received approximately 1400 pages of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ emails. These emails verify,among other things, Clinton knew for a fact and within minutes that a terror attack was unfolding, not a “spontaneous protest.” Also bearing witness against Clinton, over 600 emails from Ambassador Stevens requesting added security were ignored and supposedly never reached Clinton’s desk, according to Clinton’s own highly questionable testimony.

A good bit of acrimony arose during the hearing over the pertinence of Clinton’s email communications with Sydney Blumenthal, a long time friend, employee and paid consultant for the Clinton Foundation, to which Rep. Trey Gowdy answered: “It’s relevant because our Ambassador [Stevens] was asked to read and respond to Sydney Blumenthal’s drivel. And yet, there was not a single response to Ambassador Stevens regarding his multiple requests for added security.”

However, when Uma Abedin emailed Clinton that the Libyan people were in dire need of food, milk, gasoline and diesel fuel, Clinton answered her within four minutes.

In incredibly ill-advised fashion, Clinton followed Blumenthal’s advice on Libya, even though he knew nothing about Libya. She did so for financial gain that Blumenthal suggested would arrive, if she helped retired Lt General Grange, the Osprey Group, a CIA agent and other partners gain entry into the Libyan economy; and, she did so in order to take credit for Blumenthal’s determination that the fall of Gaddafi would serve as a model for removing Middle Eastern dictators, blind to the bulwark that these Baathist dictators, like Saadam Hussein and Bashar Assad, provided secularists, Christians and other religious minorities against the islamofascists.

Even though Blumenthal had been refused a position at the State Department by Obama’s aides, his direct line to Hillary Clinton gave him an inordinate amount of influence that circumvented proper procedures for assessing “intelligence”, and this bled into President Obama’s policy decisions. Not only did Clinton strongly recommend military action in Libya to Obama, she also promoted regime change at NATO and played a key role in holding the entire coalition of Western nations together, according to one close advisor.

Significantly, it is apparent from emails sent to Clinton and three members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on March 18, 2011 at 7:27 EST, that Saif Gaddafi, Muammar’s son, sought a face-to-face meeting or a Skype/ teleconference in order to arrive at a peaceful solution. Clinton instructed Lt. Gen. Charles Jacoby, who was directing plans for the coalition and NATO, not to take any calls from Saif; the following day U.S. airstrikes began on Libya.

On March 11, 2011, the ‘Washington Post’ ran an op-ed by Clinton’s “old friend”, retired General Wesley Clark that warned against the Libyan intervention. Four days later, the ‘Ottawa Citizen’ published the Canadian report submitted to NATO that stated Gaddafi’s removal would create a long-term civil war, but Clinton ignored all warnings.

In the days that followed, Muammar Gaddafi was killed, and rather than a new democratic Libyan state led by “moderates”, a new Islamic hell-hole emerged. AFRICOM issued 4500 pages of intelligence between January 2012 and Sept 11, 2012 that described the increase in terrorist activity. A Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012 indicated that weapons from Libya’s military stockpile – rifles, RPGs, 125mm and 155mm howitzer ammo – were moving from the port of Benghazi to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria and into the hands of Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI, the main forces behind the insurgency in Syria.

In the District Court of Arizona on May 5th 2015, experienced CIA officer David Manners offered this sworn statement: “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.”

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. illegally armed the islamofascists of Libya and Syria (Fox News), as shown in federal court documents from May 5th 2015, by awarding contracts approaching $300 million to defense contractors, like Marc Turi, in March 2011, for the purpose of arming the Libyan Transitional National Council and the Libyan rebels, who were not formally recognized at the time. This same action makes both Clinton and Pres. Obama culpable in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, since these same weapons were used by these same Libyan “rebels”/ islamofascists approximately eighteen months later: Both Clinton and Obama should be behind bars for treason.

Clinton stated this past Thursday – Oct. 22nd – that “there was no credible, actionable threat described to our compound and our diplomatic group”, which is inaccurate and simply false. On June 10th 2011, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, emailed information of a “credible threat … against the hotel that our [diplomatic] team is using.” Chris Stevens had also requested more security for this same hotel two months before the Sullivan communique.

Seven previous Congressional investigations have failed to interview a single person who was actually on the ground at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 __ no Diplomatic Security Command Center personnel and no CIA agents or paid operatives. So, America has witnessed seven incomplete investigations, hindered by the Obama administration’s slow response to FOIA requests, which Chairman Gowdy hopes to rectify and complete through an additional twenty witnesses’ testimony.

“Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty served this country with honor. It is important to learn how these four men died … We owe them and ourselves the truth about Benghazi and Libya … There is no statute of limitations on the truth.” – Rep. Trey Gowdy

Questions linger, such as, what was happening in Libya that required a diplomatic presence despite the escalating violence?

Why were our military contractors and our diplomatic team left to defend themselves for approximately nine hours, when the 173rd Airborne Infantry was in Italy, only two hours away by C-130?

Obama and Hillary Clinton created the situation that has turned Libya and Syria into mass graves, claiming four of America’s finest early on. With characters devoid of honor and integrity, these two have left America with a memory of a despicable and treacherous act of terrorism, yet to see any retribution extracted. They leave a legacy of infamy and failure in the wake of Benghazi: A day of reckoning is certainly on its way for both, and Clinton’s reckoning should include prison, not the U.S. Presidency.

***