Thread: US launches military action against Libya

Shattered Lies: “You’d have to be Helen Keller not to see this was a full-fledged cover-up…”
By drillanwr, on October 10, 2012, at 8:40 pm

(Title quote, Mark Levin from tonight's radio broadcast.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodAr...layer_embedded


When CYA surpasses truth, and national security...

Today's congressional hearing on the Sep. 11, 2012 attacks across the Middle East, that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in Benghazi, have destroyed the Obama administration's lies about the event. There was not enough security in Benghazi, despite repeated requests; there was no preparation for the attacks, despite intelligence and warning signs; and the assault in Libya had nothing to do with an anti-Islamic video, as President Barack Obama and his appointees had claimed for weeks.

On the eve of the hearings, the State Department claimed not to have linked the Libya attack to an anti-Islamic video made in the United States--although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did so in television advertisements the State Department produced for Pakistani television, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice told the media over and over again that the attacks had been part of a spontaneous demonstration of outrage across the region. Numerous requests for additional security in Benghazi had been ignored by the diplomats at Foggy Bottom.

[...]

In one of today's hearing's more memorable--and ignoble--exchanges, Rep. Darrell Issa took umbrage at State Department Official for Embassy Security Charlene Lamb's assertion that “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.” Issa retorted that her claim "doesn’t seem to ring true to the American people.” Nor, indeed, did it comport with other evidence presented to the hearing, including Lt. Col, Andrew Wood, who once headed U.S. security in Libya and testified that there had been serious deficiencies in embassy security, and that it had never been protected with the necessary resources.

What is clear is that the attacks on the anniversary 9/11 took the Obama administration by surprise; that the administration placed too much confidence in the removal of Osama bin Laden, as well as the President's own personal popularity, in declaring that Al Qaeda was in retreat; that the first impulse of the administration was to attack freedom of expression in the U.S., as well as the political opposition; that the administration never lived up to its most basic security responsibilities in Libya; that it lied for weeks about the most serious terror attack against the United States in years; and that it is lying still, in an attempt to minimize political fallout.

The entire cover-up is falling apart--and today's congressional hearings are likely just the beginning.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...ya-9-11-Attack

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence (DNI), is in full spin cycle. He is a bit upset with everyone questioning his department on this matter and exclaims, "Enough already!". But then, you recall James Clapper and his sharp intel capabilities (December 2010), right? http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...bomb-plot.html


So then, Jay, Obama acted stupidly, huh? And by the way, so did you... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dta9b...layer_embedded


Ex-Security Officer at the Embassy in Lybia : "The Taliban is on the inside of the building" of the State Department" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjO3_...layer_embedded


http://babalublog.com/2012/10/shatte...dged-cover-up/

“Mother of Slain State Dept. Official Tired of Being Lied To and Stonewalled by Obama Administration”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ldy...layer_embedded

As you watch this, note that not a single Democrat who testified yesterday condemned the Administration’s response — which was less a “response” than it was an horrific scapegoating meant to buy time to produce a hastily constructed cover up. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_654163.html


And what was the senior GOP leadership response back in September?

Timidity disguised as faux sober righteousness. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103.html

It’s not enough to win the Senate, hold the House, and take the White House. We have to insist on a change of Congressional leadership, as well. Otherwise, we’ll be using a weepy orange lance to continue tilting at windmills — and, I suspect, largely by design.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=44333


Listen to this “after the show” show (the second video) for the profound dishonesty Mara Liasson correctly represents as to Obama’s “clever” plan (political plan only, we stress — it has had nothing to do with achieving national strategic advantage in Afghanistan save being perfectly counter to national strategic advantage in Afghanistan. Namely, make the American people hate the war in Afghanistan! And Obama has succeeded in spades.).

The dilemma Obama has created is where the US is now on Afghanistan: we’re leaving, whether we like it or not, whether it injures us or not — there simply isn’t sufficient public support to stay and I don’t think Romney has the capacity to change this stance: it would take a monumental statesmanship to change. And he hasn’t shown any such capacity so far as I can see. In this regard, he’s reduced to being a follower.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...al_654178.html

The chair really is empty

Really and truly. Nothing like this should surprise us at this point. We already knew that President Eye-candy believes himself too brilliant for daily national security briefings, even on the day after our ambassador and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi, but it appears he didn't manage to touch base with any members of his national security team on Sept. 12. His Vegas fundraiser took priority

Axelrod Refuses to Say Whether Obama Met with Nat’l Security Team Before Heading to Las Vegas http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...as-eliana-john

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

Wow. Empty Chair can't even be bothered to go through the motions. He went to bed on September 11, 2012, knowing our ambassador to Libya was missing, and chose a campaign event over his real responsibilities the next day.

http://www.punditandpundette.com/201...-is-empty.html

Powerline: What Happened in Benghazi This is a transcript of a State Department briefing given to reporters on October 9. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...n-benghazi.php

Recommended by McCarthy, this from Stephen Hayes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...al_654410.html

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

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

Audio from Mark Steyn talking with Hugh Hewitt: Hillary Clinton used Libyan ambassador’s dead body ‘as prop to peddle a false narrative’ http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/13/ma...lse-narrative/

“If I were a Democrat — I don’t care what party this is,” Steyn said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re Republicans, if they’re Democrats or the Socialist Workers’ Party or the Raving Green Looney Party, if you support that party, you should be ashamed of a shriveled definition of politics, that it consumes even those who you claim are your friends, like Chris Stevens. He’s a real person. Sean Smith is a real person. Tyrone Woods is a real person. Glen Doherty — these are real people, not just props in Obama’s attempt to swing 1,200 soccer moms in southern Ohio.”

If he'd gone security briefings, he wouldn't have been able to blame the attack on the alleged movie protest.

And going to Vegas is so much more subtle than running around the White House with his fingers in his ears, yelling "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

10/15/2012

Hillary Not Content Under Bus; UPDATE: Throws Herself Right Under It!
Patterico @ 7:57 am

The nonsense about the YouTube video causing the Benghazi attack? Yeah, that wasn’t the State Department, says Hillary. It was the White House: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz29NaVBXd9

The State Department has said that it never believed the September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie – directly contracting the rest of the Obama administration.

By trying to distance her department from the inept and deceptive handling of the Benghazi attack, which left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead, Hillary Clinton could help herself politically for a 2016 presidential run.

Mitt had better make this an issue tomorrow night.

UPDATE: Hillary is throwing her own self under the bus!
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/1...-for-benghazi/

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the bucks stops with her when it comes to who is blame for a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

OK, tell us what you did wrong and how, Hil.

UPDATE x2: Second question: did you tell Susan Rice to go out and lie about all this?

Comments

I’m tired of everything being politicized.

Our ambassador died. We suffered a substantial loss of aircraft. We look weak in a part of the world where that matters the most.

And the administration is doing all it can to work the issue politically. To some extent, I think Romney’s campaign has tried not to make too much political hay over this, which I appreciate. But I do think when the President and the Secretary of State are pointing the finger at eachother, after a string of other blamegame disasters (like Fast and Furious) that it’s a legitimate campaign issue.

But I remember all those creeps who cheerfully pointed out that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. This terrorist attack is ultimately the fault of the terrorists… not Obama. Lessons need to be learned, and the handling of the story is an important story, but I hope Romney can do what Obama promised and then didn’t deliver: find some way to make some of these issues post partisan.

We’re going to be in this conflict with the Middle East for a long time.

..

4.There are two issues:

1) How much security was there in Benghazi, and did anyone realize the danger (even if nobody was proposing something taht would ahve been enough to have saved the lkives of the people killed)

2) Where did this idea that the attack on the Benghazi compound started with a demonstration against a video come from? (and why was this pushed in the public arena so much the following weekend?)

The State Department pleads not guilty on Count 2.

They never said anything like that.

On Count 1, the Administration blames Congress.

Biden seems have blamed the State Department for not saying more personnel = money -was needed.

But, of course they could have asked for more money, or they could have reassigned the money – doing less, let’s say, in Turkey and Jordan or Malaysia or the Phillipines, and more in Libya, or they could have used some of the $2 billion or so in extra money that is appropriated by Congress for unplanned needs every year.

Barack Obama wanted to show people what a big budget cutter he was when it came to demostic discretionary spending. And he wanted to show the siutuation in Libya was now stable and improving.

Darrel Issa said yesterday on face teh Nation that as Republican, he maybe shouldn’t really say that (well close to those words) but this was like Bush and “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

..

Darrel Issa said yesterday on Face the Nation that as Republican, he maybe shouldn’t really say that…

Here’s the transcript:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-3460_162...in;contentBody

REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA: Okay. What the Democrats are saying and Mister Cummings will say in a minute is that we quote, “Cut three hundred million.”

The vote that reduced what the President had asked for, which would have been an increase was a hundred and forty-nine Democrats to a hundred and forty-seven Republicans, and quite frankly, it was, in fact, sufficient. We’ve been told that.

You can’t always look to money when there is money sitting there. There’s 2.2 billion in discretionary reprogrammable money that wasn’t used.

The fact is they are making a decision not to put security in because they don’t want the presence of security. In our hearing, and in testimony, we were told they removed their diplomatic plates because they wanted to be invisible. They didn’t put any markings on this building that was attacked because they didn’t want to have people know they were. That is not how you do security.

After there was a twelve-foot hole blown in the wall of this compound, all they did was rebuild the wall, no new reinforcement, no kind of capability to protect somebody inside. Now, it happened to be an ambassador that was killed, along with three others. It could have been any federal employee, any contract employee that was killed. And it still would have been the warning signs were there, and they weren’t heeded.

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): What do you–

REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA: The money was there– yes.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What do you think the reason for all this was when you come down to it? Was it simply incompetence?

REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA: This is not very Republican, if you will, but when President George W. Bush went aboard an aircraft carrier and said, “mission accomplished” I listened rightfully so to people saying, look, but there’s still problems, and they’re still dying, and quite frankly, things got worse in many ways after that famous statement.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA: We’re going through a mission accomplished moment. Eleven years after September 11th, Americans were attacked on September 11th by terrorists who preplanned to kill Americans. That happened and we can’t be in denial. Particularly, when there are– there are compounds all over the Middle East that need to be legitimately protected at a level that security professionals ask for it.

MSNBC's Bashir: Conservatives 'Shamelessly Exploit' Benghazi Attack;
Yet Bashir Covers Up Key Facts in Process
By Ken Shepherd | October 15, 2012 | 17:01


In an interview segment with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on his October 15 program, MSNBC's Martin Bashir alleged that conservatives are "shamelessly exploit[ing]" the deaths of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans who were killed in the September 11 terrorist strike on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Bashir insisted that the family members of the slain are "all" tired of politicians trying to make hay out of the matter, citing the reaction of Amb. Chris Stevens's father as evidence that the families of the are all peeved at Republicans and generally trusting of the Obama administration.

Perhaps Bashir just disregards the sentiments of Ms. Pat Smith, whose son was killed in the 9/11 anniversary attack. Smith has been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, where she complained that she believes that the Obama administration has NOT been forthcoming with answers to her questions. Reported the Huffington Post (emphasis mine): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1957715.html

On the eve of the one-month mark since her son's death in a terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate Libya, Pat Smith demanded the answers she said she'd been promised by President Barack Obama and other top administration officials.

Sean Smith, a computer specialist, was one of four Americans killed during the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. compound in Benghazi. Days after the attack, Smith's mother attended a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where she cried on the shoulder of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as they honored her son and vowed to give her information on his final hours.

In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, however, Smith claimed these promises hadn't been kept.

"I told them, 'Please don't give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff. I don't want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth -- what happened,'" she said. "They haven't told me anything. They're still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies."

Smith said that the pride and comfort she felt at the reception has faded in the month since her son's death, as she continues to look for a more detailed accounting of how and why the attacks took place. She also told Cooper that she'd confronted the president directly on that day, explaining to him how upset she was.

"I told Obama personally, I said, 'Look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him,'" she recounted. "I said 'You screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son.'

And they said, 'We'll get back to you. We -- I promise, I promise you. I will get back to you.'"

Together Bashir and Rep. Cummings, the ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, tag-teamed to offer excuses for Obama administration regarding security failures at the Benghazi compound. Cummings, for example, criticized his committee's chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for having "voted in 2009 to get rid of 300 embassy security positions." What's more, Cummings added, the "Republican Congress has cut some $500 billion from the request of the president for embassy security and for facilities."

But to borrow from Vice President Biden, that claim is sheer malarkey, says the Heritage Foundation, poring over budget line items to prove it (emphasis mine): http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/...t-responsible/

In terms of people, the budget justification reported that Worldwide Security Protection had slightly fewer positions budgeted (1,777 in FY 2011 versus 1,707 in FY 2012) and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance had the same number of positions budgeted (1,014 for both years).

In its budget request for FY 2013, the Administration requested significantly more funding for embassy security — mostly through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget—but retained the same number of positions, apparently on the assumption that security staffing was adequate. Regardless, that budget, even if approved in its entirety, would have entered into effect after the events in Libya.

It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.

Suffice it to say, Bashir did NOT raise these facts to Cummings, nor this item which was in the news from Chairman Issa on Sunday, as reported by Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politi...html?hp=r19_b3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.

"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."

Bashir doesn't have to agree with Issa's statement, but it would have been good journalism to at least ask Cummings about it, which, of course, he failed to do, because this segment was not an exercise in journalism but rather in GOP bashing. Here's just one of Bashir's partisan applause lines from the softball interview:

And to add further fuel to this fire of hypocrisy, we now have Dick Cheney complaining about a cover-up at the White House. I mean, as I said to one of my colleagues earlier today: excuse me while I throw up.

Just ten minutes before Bashir went on air today, Reuters -- no conservative rag it -- reported an exclusive that gave a fascinating look at an earlier incident at the consulate. Entitled "U.S. officials unhappy with handling of Benghazi suspects in April attack", it delved into a bombing attempt that illustrated the fragile security situation on the ground: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89E1AL20121015

(Reuters) - State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by Reuters. But the men, who had been taken into custody the day of the attack, were released after questioning by Libyan officials because of a lack of "hard evidence" that could be used to prosecute them, the State Department emails show.

"Amazing," wrote Eric Nordstrom, then the regional security officer with the U.S. Embassy in Libya, describing the obstacles in prosecuting the suspects.

The April 6 incident involving an improvised explosive device (IED) was a troubling precursor to the September 11 attack on two U.S. government compounds in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

U.S. authorities initially said last month's attack occurred spontaneously after protests in the region against a film that lampooned the Prophet Mohammad, but now say it was a pre-planned attack by local militants with possible connections to al Qaeda.

Nordstrom testified last week at a congressional hearing that a string of security concerns before September led officials on the ground in Libya to repeatedly ask for enhanced security, requests that were denied by officials in Washington.

The April attack illustrated concerns among some U.S. officials in Libya that hiring local residents for embassy guard duties could in itself raise security issues.

With episodes like today's interview with Cummings, it should be abundantly clear to MSNBC viewers that Martin Bashir is not in the least digging doggedly for the truth on the Benghazi fiasco, but rather participating in partisan spin for the Democrats and against Obama's critics.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz29Scb80Hh

comments

major assault on US sovereignty overseas results in the death of our ambassador and three other citizens. The president is responsible for U.S. security. It's the last two months in the presidential election. The initial information from the administration is contradictory and unreliable. And it can't be an important part of the election?

..

The president can use it to burnish his image, but the opposition criticizing is just politicizing it.

Got it? Good.

..

Typical clueless liberals. Criticize Romney for giving his foreign policy beliefs.

What was he supposed to do? Just say nothing?

He's running for president. The people need to know how he will handle crises both here and overseas.

It is completely appropriate to question this and if you guys had your head out of your netherregions then you would see that this is a very serious matter and clearly demonstrates how incompetent these clowns really are.

..

Oh... so it's not ok to point out a failed, inept, incompetent commander and chief that who's policies cost the lives of American military and diplomatic corps personel with the Middle East melting down while he was bumping with Beyonce and Jay-Z, in Las Vegas, on Letterman and being the eye candy man on The Bimbo's View?

The imbicile hasn't attended an intelligence briefing in how long? Really? Some one needs to buy a new roll or two of intelligence the next time they order toilet paper... it looks like they completely ran out.

I see... We should just ignore all of that mundane bump in the road stuff and not even consider it in deciding whether this numb nuts should be manning the most powerful position in the world? After all... it was just the intelligence community that failed... but they will get it right when it comes to Iran lobbing nukes into Israel?

Sorry Mr. Bashir... you just continue to look the other way.... I won't

..

Yeah, like Bashir and MSNBC weren't "shamelessly exploiting" the attack when it looked like it was Romney that had erred. That was the only thing they talked about for a week.

Besides the misleading statements made about cutting the security staffing, the fact of the matter remains that the Obama Administration had an armed marine contingent protecting our ambassador in Paris, and none protecting our embassy in...Libya. That shows an inability to properly allocate resources to the places where they are most needed, and it is an implacable condemnation of the ineptitude of the Obama regime.

..

Funny how the left confuses finding the truth is political. How the failure of our State Dept. and the White House to protect 4 Americans serving in a terrorist area is considered political but a WH calling for Romney to release 20 years of tax returns as righteous action.

Wonder how long as the truth slowly and painfully out before Cummings switichws from a "witch hunt" to "Racism"? As more details comes out that Obama failed again, it probably won't be long


..

Had the WH and the Obama admin. been honest about the whole thing in the first place then they wouldn't look like a bunch of buffoons. The media started politicizing this tragedy moments after Romney made a statement and tried to pummel him on it, even though he was right and they all were wrong. The lying, covering up, backtracking, more lying, statements from the WH constantly changing and this isn't supposed to be a election issue? I'm sorry for the loss of his son, but the ambassador's father really wants his son's death to be swept under the carpet to protect this incompetent bunch of fools responsible for his death while Mr. Smith's mother is getting the runaround when all she really wants is answers????

The public deserves to know why the admin tried to blame a terrorist attack on a video few of us heard about. All the apologizing they have done for the video has only added fire to the whole situation and has further inflamed Al Quada

Tuesday, October 16, 2012
When the buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office

While visiting Peru, Hillary Clinton has said that she takes responsibility for the failure to protect our diplomats in Benghazi. I guess this is to provide political cover to Barack Obama. It's certainly a long way away from Harry Truman's desk marker announcing that the "Buck stops here." http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/cli...azi/index.html

"I take responsibility," Clinton said during a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

Notice how she slides immediately to cast blame on "specific decisions that are made by security professionals."


She is also being less than clear about why no protection was added to our folks in Libya after the attack on the consulate in Benghazi in June. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...on-on-fog-war/

"I can't speak to who knew what," she said. "We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That's something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose. ... It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments."

Ah, those "security professionals" who made the real decisions that she is now saying she takes responsibility for. Well, if she can take responsibility for decisions that she is implying she didn't make, shouldn't the President also be responsible?


And her blanket adopting the mantle of responsibility doesn't explain why the administration spent so long pushing the blame onto the video. As Paul Mirengoff writes, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...zi-sort-of.php

Does this take President Obama off the hook? No. First, he appointed Clinton as his Secretary of State, in what was probably his most important personnel decision as president.

Second, Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.

We still don't know who told Susan Rice to go on all the Sunday shows and lie about it not being a preplanned attack and being the result of anger over the video. President Obama was blaming the video despite the claim that the State Department and intelligence people knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. Jed Babbin reminds us by using the helpful Fox News timeline of who said what when how the White House had been trying to deceive the American people. A week after the attack Obama was blaming the video on the Letterman show and then 13 days after the attack he again blamed the video on The View. However, we learned that the State Department official responsible for security in Benghazi, Charlene Lamb, "was in real-time communication with the consulate during the attack."

There's more. In the 11 October vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden blamed the intelligence community for Obama's denials that it was a terrorist attack. Did the intel people know less than Charlene Lamb? That's what you have to believe in order to believe Biden.

And the timeline goes on, showing how through spin and denials the Obama team tried to cover up the facts of the attack. If Charlene Lamb knew it was a terrorist attack in real time, Hillary Clinton knew. And so did Obama. Yet Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice told us for weeks afterward that it wasn't.
The Obama team's attempts to cover up the attack having failed, they still haven't given up on spinning the facts. On Sunday, David Axelrod told Fox News Sunday that the president had labeled it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. But as the documentation of the timeline proves, he called it a "terrible act," not a terrorist attack.
The difference is important. Obama and his team lied about the attack, the lack of any connection to the obscure video, and the pleas from Libya to bolster security. All of this was done to protect the Obama claim to greatness in propelling the "Arab spring."

So before we close the book on the murders in Benghazi, we need to find out if Barack Obama, in the midst of all his fundraisers and appearances on friendly TV shows, ever sat down with his security team and tried to get to the bottom of the supposedly conflicting stories. David Axelrod wouldn't give a straight answer to a simple question as to whether he met with his National Security Council the day after the attack before jetting off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.


No wonder Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are not satisfied. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...katrina-trinko

However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

And Hillary Clinton thought the same thing back in 2008 when she declared that "The buck stops in the Oval Office." Well, not when Barack Obama is president.

Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.

Hillary's statement that she takes the responsibility for events in Benghazi will perhaps be portrayed as a brave and mature response. It reminds me of when Janet Reno took responsibility for the disaster in Waco. That made her more popular and got Bill Clinton off the hook. It seems that now all someone has to do is say she takes responsibility and we're supposed to stop asking questions. But there are clearly more questions and a political campaign might be a good time to insist on some answers.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/...al-office.html

The Obama administration claims they are a foreign policy success and that foreign policy is their strength. No rational person believes that and the Libya attack is blowback for the victory dance over Bin Laden and the illegal war in Libya. That is just another foreign policy failure by this administration.

Guiliani did yeoman's work in keeping the city informed and leading it back from the disaster of 9/11 including walking the daughters of dead firefighters and policeman down the aisle. I cannot imagine a liberal like you doing any of those things.

You, Mark, are a prime example of everything that is wrong with liberals. You sneer at success and laud failures.

Obama spokesman: Of course he’s ultimately responsible for security in Benghazi
posted at 6:36 pm on October 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/1...y-in-benghazi/

Why Didn’t the Turkish Consul Warn Ambassador Stevens About the Amassing Jihadis Outside the Consulate on the Night of 9/11?
October, 31, 2012 — nicedeb

Clare Lopez is an intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. http://lopez.pundicity.com/ She served for 25 years as an operations officer with the CIA and now writes for RadicalIslam.org. I’ve been linking to her reports not only because they’re intelligent and informative but in some cases, like this one - breaking news. http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis...enghazi-attack I don’t know of anyone else who’s noticed that Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who had been meeting with Ambassador Stevens the evening of the attack, was able to leave the consulate without incident, even though the area outside the compound was swarming with jihadis setting up checkpoints.

If reporting from the Washington Times is accurate, it looks like the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin was in on the plot to attack the U.S. mission in Benghazi. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-attack/print/ According to an October 27, 2012 report, Libyan witnesses from the Benghazi neighborhood where the U.S. compound was located told reporters from the Associated Press (AP) that “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants began sealing off the streets” leading to the facility “around nightfall.”

The Department of State “Background Briefing on Libya,” provided by telephone to reporters on October 9, 2012 states that Ambassador Christopher Stevens held his last meeting of the day on September 11 with the Turkish diplomat from 7:30pm to 8:30pm and then escorted him out to the compound gate to bid farewell. At that point, the briefing states, “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

But the AP witnesses said that, “The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-attack/print/

That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.

Except for the Turkish Consul General, it would appear.

Keep reading. The implication here is the Turkish government is at least somewhat complicit in this attack.

And Obama, it should be noted, describes the Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan as one of the five foreign leaders with whom he is most friendly. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...r_best_buddies

Michael Rubin of Commentary made note of the oddity, last July: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/to...key-relations/

Given Erdoğan’s anti-American and anti-Semitic rants, and his repeated support for not only Hamas terrorists, but also an Al Qaeda financier, perhaps it is time for Obama to describe why he embraces Erdoğan above most others.

Yes, indeed.


Doug Ross has more on this story: FAST AND FURIOUS IN BENGHAZI: Timing of Attack Hints at Double-Cross of White House Gun-Running Operation by Turkey:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...zi-attack.html

What was the subject of the discussion between Stevens and Akin? Malta Today offers some context that hints at some strong possibilities. http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/news...sador-20121030

A Libyan-flagged vessel which last year was used by a Malta-based humanitarian organisation in supplying a lifeline to rebels in Misurata, has been implicated in a covert US arms smuggling operation to Syrian freedom fighters, which may also be linked to murdered US ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi last month. The ship ‘Al Entisar’ which was chartered last year by I-Go Aid Libya, then run by businessman Mario Debono, has been reported to be linked to last September’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

A Fox News investigation revealed that shipping records confirmed that the Al Entisar entered the Turkish port of Iskenderun, some 35 miles from the Syrian border, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three other US officials were killed during an assault by more than 100 Islamist militants on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi. Another report, this time appearing on the Times of London, said that the Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines…

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/10...-night-of-911/

Radical Islam: Why Was Security Stripped in Benghazi?
http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis...-and-cover/#fm

Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.

As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.

Flopping Aces: Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out that he had armed the jihadists with SAMs: http://floppingaces.net/2012/10/30/w...s-reader-post/

It’s simple logic. In Libya there is only one possible threat to an AC130 gunship: surface to air missiles. Thus this is the only way Panetta wasn’t lying when he said that it was lack of information about the threat environment that kept him from sending defenders into “harm’s way” in Benghazi. He must have been afraid that the jihadists were lying in wait with surface to air missiles, and he had good reason to suspect such a ploy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...nghazi-attack/

A primary task of the Libyan mission was to round up the war materiel of the deposed and decomposing Moammar Ghadaffi and funnel it to chosen opponents of Assad in Syria.

Which part of the Syrian opposition has Obama been choosing to supply? Al Qaeda:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...a4b_story.html

“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, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.

The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”

According to Adm. James A. Lyons (retired), the Libyan arms that have been funneled to the jihadists include substantial numbers of surface to air missiles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ened-benghazi/

Rumors of General Officers Arrested, Relieved, or Resigning in Protest:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/1...-relieved.html

On back channel, there has been talk that GEN Ham is actually being relieved for another mission – one that was denied airspace access by a sovereign nation, and that GEN Ham intentionally violated airspace rules/laws in order to complete a mission (not Benghazi).

There is also talk that GEN Ham is resigning in disgust of the chain of command – literally, with the Commander in Chief – and that he is trying to do so as apolitically as possible (and Ham is seen as being one of “the President’s guys”). One would think that someone would wait for an election just days away to be over before resigning in protest (because you might have a new CinC), but who knows? On Monday, GEN Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that GEN Ham’s departure was part of a planned rotation in the works since July. Hhmmm…

Then, we have an up and coming Rear Admiral being relieved of command of the Stennis carrier group. This is significant as it is not due to conduct unbecoming, personal conduct, or for incompetence, but for “inappropriate leadership judgment“. What?!

Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/li...n-tripoli.html


The Benghazi scandal just keeps getting worse. Clearly Obama wanted to protect the illusion that the U.S. had supported a democratic uprising in Libya, but even Obama keeps saying the al-Qaeda is the enemy — and now this. “Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,” by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, October 31: http://www.shoebat.com/2012/10/31/li...sy-in-tripoli/

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last Julywhich resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment. http://globalmbreport.org/?p=6499

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it)…


Classified August Cable Signed By Ambassador Stevens Warned Benghazi Consulate Couldn’t Withstand ‘Coordinated Attack’: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...inated-attack/

A classified cable on August 15 warned the Obama Administration that the Benghazi consulate could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” The cable was signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens who was later murdered on 9-11.



FOX News foreign policy analyst Catherine Herridge told Greta Van Susteren Wednesday, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...ericans-video/

“From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dGd4...layer_embedded

This is as vile an act by an American administration as can be conceived of – create a power vacuum in Libya when jihadists are known to be running rampant in Libya, systematically strip away the security for the Americans representing our interests, conduct gun running operations to al Qaeda forces in Syria, sack a 4 star General and a ranking Admiral, and stonewall any and all Congressional and press (Fox News) inquiries for 7 weeks and running. Good Lord it is likely a bad novel playing out before our eyes.


http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/10...-night-of-911/

CIA, State going to war over Benghazi?
posted at 12:25 pm on November 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In my post earlier today, I suggested that the CIA and the State may both be at war with the White House over Benghazi. The Atlantic’s John Hudson thinks they may be at war with each other over it, too — and that David Petraeus is caught in the crossfire: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...ointing/58636/

Cracks are beginning to show in the Obama administration’s united front on the Benghazi consulate as blame for security failures shifts between the State Department and the CIA. Last night, starting around 6 p.m., the CIA began circulating the most comprehensive timeline yet of its response to the September 11 attacktoreporters. The timeline showed that within 25 minutes of receiving calls for help, CIA operatives left their compound to assist the besieged consulate. But later on Thursday night, officials in the Obama administration leaked a series of damaging remarks about the CIA’s handling of Benghazi to The Wall Street Journal with a slew of grievances directed at CIA Director David Petraeus. The fast-developing story set in place a dispute over who’s responsible for the security failure, which remains unclear.

As with everything, the context here is key. According to TheJournal’s report, the security situation in Benghazi relied on a “symbiotic” relationship between the State Department and the CIA, in which the State Department in Benghazi served as a front for CIA activities while the CIA provided backup security. But on the night of Sept. 11, it became clear that the arrangement was flawed: “The CIA and State Department weren’t on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility,” reports the Journal. But here’s where things get personal. According to officials speaking with the Journal, Petraeus’s response to the crisis was less than stellar …

As this inter-agency squabble plays out it’s impossible to say who’s more culpable. However, stepping back a bit, there seems to be a hole in last night’s State Department narrative that the CIA let down State officials in their time of need. It suggests that State had taken the necessary precautions to secure its officials, but the CIA never came through. But if that were the case, how come Amb. Chris Stevens and other State personnel continued to petition State for additional security in the run-up to the attack?

Be sure to read it all, but as I see it, the White House is the actual target of this war — and the two other players are responding to the shifting narratives coming from the Obama administration in their efforts to duck responsibility for the lack of preparation and response to this terrorist attack. That all but guarantees that the flood of leaks from both State and CIA will continue.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...over-benghazi/

comments

If it weren’t for the 4 Americans that tragically gave their lives for their country, two of which trying to save others, this would be popcorn worthy entertainment.

However, THIS is pathetic!


...

My dad has made two predictions.

1. Romney will win in a landslide election.

2. Romney will have to pardon Obama.

The second one seems particularly likely as more and more of the filth of 0′s administration comes to light.

..

Who is responsible for security at a US consulate or embassy? The State Department. Where does the buck stop? Obama’s desk.

..

So everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else — Leadership.

More leading from behind by Dear Leader. He’s hiding behind someone, and a different someone every day.

..

Even if this doesn’t affect the election, if Romney wins Benghazigate could help prevent Lame Duck Barry from doing too much damage before Jan 20. The MSM may suddenly start showing an interest after a Romney win.

..

If Romney does not aggressively investigate the myriad illegal and treacherous activities of the past admin, and pardons Jugears and the rest of the liars, cheats, killers, and general neer do wells,,he will severely hurt himself among real Americans. Actions have consequences, especially when people are killed/murdered,,,,,,we are either a nation of laws or we are nothing. Investigate, prosecute, incarcerate/terminate

..

I can’t tell you how much I agree with what you stated. My fear is that libs/rinos will pressure Romney to sweep this under the rug after the election, stating in essence, “let’s move on to getting this country back on track financially”. If we Americans let this be swept away, we are no better than the ones who killed our four citizens. Evil must be purged, and in this country, it is through our court system with investigations, firings and indictments.

We must show the world and ourselves that we will not tolerate dereliction of duty or treason.