Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
If and when we get the transcript of the Benghazi hearings, we will see Hillary Clinton explaining to a Democrat that the embassy security budget had been cut every single year but one since 2007.
Who was in charge of the Congress in 2007? That was the year that Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid began presiding over Democrat majorities of both the House and the Senate, that’s who. The same Democrats were also in charge in 2008 – when they voted to cut the embassy security budget again. And the same Democrats were in charge in 2009, when yes, they voted to cut the embassy security budget still again.
And yet why are the Republicans to blame for the Benghazi disaster, in which the first US ambassador was brutally murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s? Because they voted to cut the embassy security budget. Just like the Democrats (that’s the people who have been blaming the Republicans for cutting the embassy security budget) had done before them.
Every Democrat in both the Senate and House hearings demagogued the fact that Republicans had voted to cut the embassy security budget. Both before and after Hillary Clinton pointed out that cutting the embassy security budget was hardly a partisan issue against Republicans given how many times Democrats had done it.
But that seems to have gotten lost somehow.
Republicans seemed fixated on the fact that a number of key Democrats in various State Department and intelligence positions had stated under oath that the budget cuts had absolutely no impact on the security situation in Benghazi. They never seemed to comprehend the fact that if they didn’t know that Democrats had been the first ones to “gut” the embassy security budget, Hillary Clinton had just stated it as a fact. Republicans are so used to being demagogued and demonized that they just go into defense mode rather than understand that Hillary Clinton had just given them the perfect response to Democrats’ demagoguery: “Why on earth are you blaming us for doing the exact same thing that you just got through doing year after year just a short time ago?”
“With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans?! What difference, at this point, does it make?! It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
Well, for one thing, Secretary Clinton, there’s something called “the truth” and there are still a few people who believe that the truth makes a difference. But to be more specific, you completely omitted the ONE possibility in your statement above that turned out to BE that truth: that the murder of our ambassador and the three Americans who tried heroically to save America’s honor WAS A PLANNED, COORDINATED TERRORST ATTACK like conservatives said it was from the very getgo and what liberals denied from the very getgo. Do you notice that? Hillary Clinton says it was either a protest or a group of guys that just randomly decided to kill Americans in an attack that just completely coincidentally occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. How on earth, madam secretary, can we ever “figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again” when you steadfastly refuse to even consider the truth as so much as a possibility?
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
Not one single word of what she said was true. We now know that it in fact was a planned, coordinated, premeditated attack by an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization. Every single thing Obama’s White House told us was completely false. So how the hell are we supposed to “figure out what happened” when that is our “truth”???
The fact that the ONLY person who has been punished or disciplined in any way, shape or form over this murder of our ambassador was the guy who exercised his First Amendment right to make a video that everybody now knows had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that attack. And nobody has been captured or killed because there is no possible way that we can “figure out what happened” thanks to Obama’s and Clinton’s rampant deceit to cover up their gross incompetence.
But that isn’t all, of course. There’s also the fact that Obama had been campaigning as the guy who had al Qaeda on the run and was on the verge of destroying it. It was a completely bogus narrative, as the 9/11 attack that murdered our ambassador and as the meltdown in Algeria clearly prove. The thing was, an al Qaeda-affiliated attack undermined Obama’s bogus political narrative. So he forced the intelligence narrative to support his bogus political narrative by covering up the truth about what happened in Benghazi.
Obama produced a narrative of complete, abject lies as a cover-story for his cover-up in Benghazi. And reacts with outrage to the suggestion that maybe the lies had a political motive even though they very clearly had a political motive.
What Obama did - altering the intelligence to conform to a politically convenient narrative – is an impeachable offense. That’s what difference it makes, Hillary, you liar.
What does it matter? Well, the truth does NOT matter to this wicked administration.
Tragically, Ambassador Christopher Stevens would be alive today had we had a Secretary of State, who had been more informed, who had been more available, who had bothered to read Ambassador Steven’s desperate pleas for security.
But “what difference, at this point,” does it make now? Apprently none.
That’s what happens when you surrender/cut and run. It’s the chutzpah of the cutter-and-runner in chief to decree a humiliation as a great victory.
A decade of war is now ending. Unfortunately a new century of war has been started against us.
“A decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun,” Obama says.
And war is peace, and freedom is slavery, and just so you know, ignorance is strength, too.
Our economy is going nowhere. Obama believes that if he taxes growth and prosperity he’ll somehow get more growth and more prosperity when in non-insane reality we’ll get less of both. Obama has spent the last four – going on five – years blaming everybody and everything else but himself and his failed policies.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says that a decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun.
America’s possibilities are limitless, the president said in his inaugural address. He said we will seize this moment if we seize it together.
Obama said that America can’t succeed when only a few at the top do well and a growing many can barely make it. The country’s prosperity must rest on a rising middle class, he said.
Obama spoke after taking the public oath of office Monday for his second term.
George W. Bush won the war in Iraq and settled the status of forces agreement before leaving office. Obama demonized George Bush’s successful war-winning surge strategy only to copy it in a war that George Bush had the sense to know America couldn’t win – which was why he kept it a largely special forces mission.
I’ve made this point a number of times before (see here for one back in October 2009 when I predicted Obama would fail just as he is in fact failing): for all the hate Democrats poured on Bush for taking out Saddam Hussein after the dictator had done about 20,000 stupid and confrontational things too many, Iraq was a perfect place for America to take its stand against the war on terror. The country was largely flat, allowing our full military arsenal to maneuver and dominate. The people were educated, allowing us to establish a viable government. And the country of Iraq was secular, allowing us to at least have a damn chance to hand power over to Arabs who actually WEREN’T jihadist terrorists.
What was that phrase I used back in 2009? Oh, yes, here it is:
In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.
Barack Obama thought all that victory stuff was bad, apparently because the man has a genuine problem with America actually winning something. So let’s massively escalate a war that we can’t win, humiliate ourselves by cutting and running and declare it a job well done for mass political consumption.
Instead, Obama determined to launch a crusade in a mountainous and cave-ridden hellhole of utterly ignorant religious fanatics. Obama said, “Let’s go to the graveyard of empires, instead. Because yes we can!”
And within six months of “the war ending” the Taliban will have made all the sacrifices of American lives and treasure absolutely worthless. Because they will move right back in and take over. Just as the people who had a freaking clue told you would happen.
So the Iraq War that we won is evil but the Afghanistan War that Obama lost is good. Because we held George W. Bush to a standard higher than victory and under Obama a withdrawal is terrific because “a decade of war is ending,” after all.
Why did I allude to the infamous statement, “We have peace in our time”???
Neville Chamberlain almost ended Western Civilization with his secular humanist liberal progressive cowardice. He gave up Europe to Hitler the same way Obama is now giving up the Middle East to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The thing that the two miserable turds of history have in common was that each was a fascist dictator in domestic matters, but an appeasing weakling on foreign affairs. Chamberlain thought he could appease his way to peace. Obama, even more stupidly, believes he can withdraw his way to peace. He’s already withdrawn out of Egypt and given the best Arab friend of both Israel and America away to terrorists. He’s already given Libya (Benghazi) over to terrorists after causing the first ambassador to be murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s. He’s given up in Yemen. He’s given up in Algeria where all the hostages the terrorists took were all murdered. He’s given up throughout North Africa. He’s already giving up damn near anywhere where there’s a crisis. Including Iran, where Democrats went from mocking George W. Bush for believing that Iran was becoming a nuclear threat to Iran becoming a nuclear power under Obama’s watch.
The reelection of Barack Obama was the single greatest guarantee that Antichrist would appear.
If you voted for Barack Obama, you voted for Antichrist to come. And you will very likely worship him and take his mark when he arrives now that you have made his coming a certainty.
Yes, now Syria IS mixing weapons and preparing the capability of launching chemical weapons (a lot of which they got from Saddam Hussein via Iraq, fwiw). You’ve simply got to be beyond insane to believe that things were worse across the Arab world under Bush. It is nothing more than a doctrine of your frankly bizarre religious liberal fanaticism.
In the Pax Obama, the state of affairs is defined by two things: growing chaos and the massively growing influence of Islamist radicalism and terrorism. You voted for those things, too, for what it’s worth.
I have repeatedly stated that Barack Obama is NOT the Antichrist; because the Antichrist will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (see Daniel 9:27) - and it was the ROMANS who did that back in 70 AD. And the last time I checked, Barack Obama was not a Roman or in any way related to the Roman world.
Obama is not the Antichrist; he is merely one of the many false christs whom Jesus said would come in the last days:
Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many (Matthew 24:4-5)
He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them (Luke 21:8)
Obama’s followers in the mainstream media have crowned him with the halo of righteousness and messiahship:
Because Barack Hussein Obama is the messiah of Democrat Party, and the ONLY messiah with whom they will have to do. Barack Obama represented the moment when every single Democrat chose to side with the devil.
At the core of every liberal beats the heart of a fascist. It is in their soul to want to create a giant mega-state and then worship their Führer, or their Dear Leader, or their Chairman Mao, or their “Red God” Joseph Stalin. They erect a government as God - and then they proceed to worship the dictator of their government as God. Because to them he clearly ISGod.
You have to wonder how a man who has presided over such astounding and staggering failure at every level and at every turn can be so worshiped. Obama’s economy is a shambles. What did he do the last four years? He spent them blaming Bush. And as he slams the Republicans who control the House of Representatives with absurd demands (such as: DOUBLING his demand of an $800 billion tax hike to a $1.6 trillion tax hike; demanding the ability to be able to hike the debt ceiling as his regime requires; changing the Senate rules to allow what previous Democrats came absolutely unglued over and crush the minority), you already see how he will explain his next four years of catastrophic economic failure: by blaming the Republicans. Because if he doesn’t get all this the Republicans are to blame for rebelling against his fascist-dictator takeover of the government. Meanwhile, the Middle East and the world are melting down all around America as we prepare for the war of Gog and Magog and finally Armageddon. Directly because of what Obama has already done in just his first four years.
As we face the increasingly real prospect of going over the fiscal cliff and creating a new recession which may lead to the catastrophic depression I see coming, we do NOT have two parties realizing a national crisis and striving to come together for the good of the people; we see the lowest kind of political posturing and demagoguing. And no one – NO ONE – is doing that more than Barack Obama. Obama has successfully divided America more than it has ever been divided since the Civil War; and now he is trying to “break the Republican Party” even as he falsely campaigns himself as some messianic unifier. And that level of deception is satanic in origin and demonic in result.
Just as Obama has wildly failed in everything but deceiving and demonizing, so also will the true Antichrist wildly fail – but still be worshiped by a people whose souls are owned by Satan. You see that throughout the Book of Revelation; the worse things get, the more the people cling to their false messiah while shaking their fists in hate at the Real Messiah Jesus Christ.
And here’s the answer that is also the harbinger of the true Antichrist who is to come: it is the nature of antichrist to deceive with false words, just as Obama has so successfully done. Only the unrighteous will believe these deceivers, but when a nation turns the corner of wickedness that will assure the antichrist leader of political domination.
We have already received a picture of what is to come in the lies and slanders and deceptions of the false christ Obama; the true Antichrist to come will be able to lie and slander and twist truth on a completely different level, but ultimately it will be more of the same that we have already seen in the false christs whom liberals/socialists have already worshiped before.
It’s that word “ἔθνος” that stands out. The direct English translation is “ethnic group” or “race”: race shall rise against race and kingdom against kingdom.
You can see this race hatred developing all over the world; surely the Holocaust of the Jews in the 1940s was a form of “race rising against race.” During the Clinton years we saw two incredibly ugly examples: in Bosnia with its “ethnic cleansing” and of course in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa as the Hutu race murdered some 1 million Tutsis in an ogre of blood and violence. We know that through the 1980s and 1990s Saddam Hussein was using genocide against the Kurds. God only knows how many have perished in Darfur. And we see it today all across the world in example after example.
WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
As I document, Obama never once EVER tried to live up to his cynical lies. He never tried to reach out or reconcile and he certainly never made any successful attempt to EVER accomplish any bipartisan legislation. Rather, he demagogued and demonized and slandered his opponents.
Obama raged to an audience of Hispanics that they should “punish your enemies” – referring to white people and Republicans. Because that’s the way Obama views the world.
During the campaign Obama sent his vice president out to threaten blacks that if they didn’t vote for him Mitt Romney and Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.”
Obama’s successful message: race, race race. Rise up. Punish your enemies. And if you DON’Tvote race white people will put you back in the chains of slavery.
Many have pointed out that Obama had a unique opportunity after his election in 2008 to actually try to do what he promised. But he never once so much as TRIED. And many have said that Obama would have an opportunity now to soften his race-baiting, class-warfare, war against women, fearmongering style of endless campaigning in the name of governance. But you can already pretty clearly see that he won’t do any such thing any more than he did after falsely promising it in 2008.
As Republicans criticize U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, some members of Congress are suggesting that racism and sexism may be behind the attack.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Point on Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.
“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”
A Republican was the first to appoint African-Americans to the office of secretary of State — the highest-ranking appointed position in a presidential administration. President George W. Bush named Colin Powell to the job, followed by Condoleezza Rice.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have attacked Rice in recent weeks for her Sunday show appearances in the days following the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans, criticizing her for not going further to label the assault a terrorist act. On Monday, 97 House Republicans sent a letter to President Obama saying that Rice is unfit to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The administration has said that Rice was simply using talking points supplied by the intelligence community during her television appearances.
Last week, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the new chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also suggested that the attacks on Rice go beyond her job performance.
“It is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. I have a real issue with that,” Fudge said. “For you who are haters, as the young people say, your hate is going nowhere. Just go on and hate on, but look in the mirror and hate yourself, not the people that do this work.”
I want you to notice that Republicans were IMMEDIATELY FULLY AWAREthat what Susan Rice said was simply factually untrue. I certainly was – as I documented by the link to my own article above. But a lie was her line and it was Obama’s line. It was already obvious that she was saying things that were lies the moment she said them. Conservatives erupted the very moment she spoke and they were right and she and those who took the Obama position were wrong.
We know that Susan Rice participated in that lie. If she willingly participated, she is morally unfit for ANY job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State. If she unwillingly was duped, then we can similarly know that her judgment is so piss poor that she is unqualified for any job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.
But Obama and his thugs have a “narrative”: if you criticize a black person for any reason under the sun, YOU ARE A RACIST. If you criticize a woman for any reason under the sun, no matter how much documentation you have to support your criticism, you are a misogynist. And of course if said woman happens to be black, you are a racist misogynist, aren’t you? And it frankly doesn’t matter that the last Republicans to hold executive power appointed the first black person to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State and the first black woman as the Secretary of State. And it frankly doesn’t matter how many black people Republicans appoint; they will ALWAYS be racist by definition because Obama WANTS them to be racist by definition and that is how he operates through his race-baiting thugs.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Barack Obama and James Clyburn have Martin Luther King’s words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” embossed in gold lettering on their urinals. Because they piss on those words every single day.
It is impossible to offer any criticism of the content of a black person’s character today. Why? Because of the color of their skin. THAT’S all that matters to the Obamas and the Clyburns of the world and the content of character be damned.
Obama won politically with that garbage, just as the Antichrist will win politically one day very soon and just as Adolf Hitler won politically. Like Obama in the present, the Antichrist of the future and the Hitler of the past win politically because they were skilled at exploiting lies and concealing truth.
We’re going to see America collapse. We’re going to see that within a very few years from now. And we will immediately see racial violence in the streets of America unlike anything that we have ever seen before. Why will that happen? because black people will believe Obama’s lies that they must “punish their enemies” lest said “enemies” put them back in chains; and because whites will realize that neither right nor reason have anything to do with political debate anymore, and they must fight and kill to save the lives of their children. And if they depend on reason they will be destroyed by rhetoric in a world that is very clearly dead-set on worshiping the coming beast.
Jesus’ last days prophecy is going to come to pass. Just as Jesus said. And all you have to do is see the rhetoric that is being applied today to understand how America will melt down tomorrow.
The beast is coming.
What I want you to be able to understand is that the very-soon-to-be-history presented in Bible prophecy is directly related to what we are shaping TODAY. The leader that the American people have chosen is sowing the wind and he will reap the whirlwind to the mass suffering of the people who put him in power.
The guy that just nailed Obama right to the wall with this did one of those GIF animation jobs to provide priceless animation of Hillary Clinton furiously scrubbing the wall to clean the famous bloody handprints on the column:
The al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya began at 9:40 p.m. local time. The battle that ultimately killed an American ambassador, two incredibly heroic former SEALs and one other American went on for an agonizing seven hours during which time the CIA support site nearby repeatedly begged for permission to go in and help their fellow Americans under attack and were ordered to stand down. So it was 3 AM in Benghazi, and Obama was sound asleep and continued to sleep contentedly through the night while Americans died during an enemy attack on foreign soil.
And what did Obama do the next day (September 12)? He climbed aboard Air Force One and took a trip to Las Vegas so he could do a fundraiser. He really was in Las Vegas on September 12, all right. Meanwhile his crew of Chicago thugs was already lying up one side and down the other that what happened was NOT a terrorist attack or any kind of preplanned act of war against the United States on United States soil. Nope. It was just a bunch of unfortunately-violence-prone Muslims going as nuts as a bunch of monkeys because they saw a video that had been made in America which proved that our First Amendment needs to be abolished. And of course it was just out of the blue, and couldn’t be foreseen, and the fact that it happened on the VERY significant day of “9/11″ clearly didn’t have anything at all to do with anything. All their information, they claimed, said that’s all it was and they had absolutely zero information that terrorists had anything to do with it.
It turns out that the “spontaneous protest” that top White House spokespeople in fact never occurred. It was a lie. It never happened. As history now records in Benghazi, Libya at the US Consulate according to the Associated Press:
Around 8:30 p.m.
Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.
Around 9:40 p.m.
Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.
Obama’s people lied. There was no spontaneous protest that went bad. There was no protest at all, in fact. And no stupid video that they kept talking about had anything to do with anything when it came to that attack in Benghazi where the first United States Ambassador since 1979 was murdered at his post.
Obama claimed in his third debate with Mitt Romney that he was claiming that he referred to the Benghazi attack was what he described as “acts of terror” in a brief statement he gave just before jetting off to fundraise in Las Vegas. But a couple of “buts”: first he referred to “acts of terror” immediately AFTERreferencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Isn’t it kind of possible that he was referring to THAT attack? And second when he gave his address to the United Nations on September 25 (two full weeks AFTER the attack on Benghazi), Obama clearly pooh-poohed ”terrorism” as the cause of the Benghazi attack. He never ONCE used words like “terrorist” or “terrorism” but SIX TIMES decried the Youtube video that was filmed by an American as being responsible for the attack that tragically killed an American ambassador. So bullcrap to Obama claiming that he says that he clearly meant that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. He’s a lying weasel doing what lying weasels do.
Where was Obama as the former SEALs who had violated their “stand down” orders to save the lives of thirty Americans at the ultimate cost of their own? Yeah, probably on a golf course in Las Vegas talking crony-capitalist grease-my-palm shop-talk with some rich liberal bigwigs. Just as the collage picture above says.
When we find out that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team were BEGGING for increased security in a Libya that was in the process of INCREASINGLY falling to al Qaeda, the Obama administration was deciding to FURTHER REDUCE the security staff. Why? Because Obama wanted to sell the bogus delusion that Obama was the man who killed bin Laden (based on intelligence developed by George W. Bush), and that in killing bin Laden Obama had destroyed al Qaeda. And in destroying al Qaeda Obama the messiah had won the war on terror. And that meant “normalizing” relations with Libya and pulling our armed security guys out no matter that the country was falling apart and there were literally hundreds of “incidents” to prove it was falling apart. That was the cynical political delusion that Obama was pimping.
The fact of the matter is that Obama keeps saying “no one gets left behind” when it comes to giving more people more socialism, but he was all too ready to let those Americans who perished in Libya get “left behind” as the orders from the Obama administration were to “stand down” and not help the Americans at the besieged US Consulate.
“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.
Smoking gun. This story amounts to a HUGE smoking gun. Liberals looked and looked for evidence that George Bush knew or should have known about the original 9/11 attack but did nothing to prevent it. They never found it because it never existed; and the fact is that Osama bin Laden declared America a “weak … paper tiger” and vowed to attack America as a result of Bill Clinton’s policies and COMPLETELY under Clinton’s watch, planned the 9/11 attack entirely under Clinton’s watch,brought in all the terrorists who attacked us entirely under Clinton’s watch, financed the operation entirely under Clinton’s watch, and completed virtually ALL of the necessary training for the attack under Bill Clinton’s watch. It was never anything but vile to blame the attack on George Bush – whose only crime was being blindsided by the extent of the failure of the Clinton national security shambles that he left behind for Bush to inherit.
But we now have the same smoking gun proving that Obama either knew or should have known about this NEW9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on United States soil and that resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador since 1979:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
“An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi,” Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. “Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
We most certainly know that there was NO “spontaneous protest” prior to the well-coordinated and preplanned terrorist attack that featured multiple phases/waves as well as both direct AND indirect fire, and that all Obama did for the first three full weeks PLUS was offer nothing but deceitful fabrications intended to stave off scrutiny until AFTER Obama was elected and there was no longer any way to throw his weasel ass out of office.
We now know that Obama had to have been briefed on the deteriorating conditions and potential 9/11 attacks at least the day before the attack. And given that we KNOW that Obama knew this, and given that we KNOW that Obama repeatedly brought up “spontaneous protests” and “the video” when he KNEW FOR A FACT that he was lying to the American people and to the entire world. There is NO question that Obama fabricated a linkage to a protest that never even happened and to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. And he cynically and deceitfully lied and slandered our First Amendment freedoms to give himself political cover to try to conceal his massive failure to govern and to lead. And what has been unfolding ever since was an incompetent cover-up to try to obfuscate incompetent presidential leadership.
And yes, now we know that the Obama administration had three weeks of credible and specific warning describing exactly who was going to attack the consulate and exactly how they were going to do it. And Obama decided to go campaign instead of dealing with it both before and immediately after the disaster.
Obama has now thoroughly demonstrated that he will NOT come clean with the facts. Because he knows the American people would vote him out if they knew just how terribly and despicably he had failed.
The best way to judge Obama is to judge him by his own party’s attacks against George W. Bush. And Obama fails wildly by that metric in a way that Bush did not.
“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it,” Obama said in a taped interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
“But,” he added, “I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.”
That is simply a lie. It is a documented lie. We now know that the Obama administration was lying from the very beginning in characterizing as a “spontaneous act” motivated by a “video” was a complete fabrication of the facts. And Obama has absolutely refused to come clean in a strategy that realizes that the American people would vote him out if they knew the truth.
It is time to come clean so the American people can know whether their president is an adequate commander-in-chief or whether we need to urgently replace him with somebody who can get the job done:
The Benghazi debacle has three parts: how we neglected security while al-Qaeda was building a presence in Libya; whether the administration tried to mislead the public as to the nature of the attack; and now whether the administration denied pleas for help from operatives on the ground at the consulate.
Now, presumably at the behest of Gen. David Petraeus — who has been remarkably tight-lipped and not defended his agency against White House accusations that senior officials’ misstatements were the fault of the CIA — the CIA threw the hot potato right back in the politicians’ laps.
“We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood told Fox News. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
So how about it, Mr. President — who called off a rescue and why? President Obama, a little more than a week before the election, won’t tell Americans what happened. Well, why should he — the press doesn’t hound him, the liberal elite still rushes to his defense, and his White House attack dogs bark “Politics!” whenever legitimate questions are asked.
Meanwhile, the father of slain SEAL Tyrone Woods is furious with the administration, demanding to know why his son wasn’t saved when “apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call — you know, ‘Come save our lives.’”
Did Defense Secretary Leon Panetta take it upon himself to call off any rescue effort? (He told the press on Thursday that the Pentagon lacked clear information as to what was going on.) Where was the president and did he or some other official take it upon himself to deny help to the trapped Americans?
This is an appalling tale of, at the very least, gross incompetency and utter lack of transparency. The media, including those who continue to carry Obama’s political water, should be demanding Obama answer questions, before the election.
As for Mitt Romney, he’s not exactly been a profile in courage on this one. He, too, should be demanding answers and telling voters how he would conduct himself under similar circumstances. Sure, he got burned last time when the press freaked out over his remarks on the Cairo Embassy assault. But he’s going to face far worse as president if elected, so maybe it is time he, too, started pressuring the president to give some answers. That is what leaders do — speak up even when it is not easy.
Fox’s Jennifer Griffin deserves a Pulitzer for the work she is doing to uncover what really happened during and after the assault at Benghazi. In her latest blockbuster, she reports on how American personnel were left without aid during the battle.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”
Who gave those stand-down orders? Was the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, aware of them? Did he approve them? Who specifically took any part on this decision?
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”
“Monday morning quarterbacking”? They had a laser on the target. An F-18 could have reached the scene from Sigonella in about an hour and destroyed it.
The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.
The notion that there was nothing they could have done is absurd. The military has binders and binders — note that word — of contingency plans to deal with breaking security issues and attacks. But our troops, according to Sen. John McCain, were not even put on alert, and field operators on the scene were ordered to stand down.
More: When the 3 AM crisis phone call came in, Barack Obama hatched a plot to attack American free speech rights. And then he went to bed.
Clearly we need hearings with the president and his relevant cabinet officials either testifying or submitting comments, before the election.
You need to keep understand that the CIA denying this report is bad for Obama, because what we find out is that the CIA denies the report (that officials in the CIA chain of command ordered a stand-down with Americans being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi). And we find out that CIA Director David Petraeus states, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” Given that we further learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for more security in Benghazi prior to the attack but the request was denied. The obvious question becomes, “Then who the hell DID order that stand-down? Who DID deny that request for more security?”
And there is one and ONLYone answer: Barry Hussein, the first demon-possessed president. The Predator drone video of the attack – that went on for seven damn hours – was shown to the White House. There is VERY good reason to believe that Obama himself saw it; he certainly would have been notified that an American installation was under direct attack. You have to ask yourself: how many people are authorized to go into a foreign country shooting that we are not at war with? The president and who the hell else??? That is a crucial question because only somebody who had the authority to make that decision could have made that decision. The White House is asserting that Obama didn’t make that decision not to send help to Americans under fire who desperately needed help. Okay, then who the hell DIDmake that decison??? Who the hell ELSE apart from Obama was even authorized to make that call to send in the cavlary to start shooting Libyans in Libya??? Furthermore, CIA personnel had already wisely repositioned assets to make it as quick and easy as possible for Obama to give the order to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi and have that rescue effort be successful. But no order was given. Nothing was done. And had it not been for the heroism of Tyrone Woods, the death toll would have been thirty rather than four.
Remember how much credit Obama gave himself for being in the White House Situation Room when the previously-supersecret-until-Obama-blabbermouthed-their-official-existence SEAL Team Six went in to kill Osama bin Laden??? Where the hell was THAT Obama??? Because he for damn sure won’t admit he was in that room when it mattered the most now.
From the very beginning, this White House, this administration, this president and this president’s stooges, have lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in the murders of four Americans including the first ambassador to be killed since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.
With all due respect to the truth, conservatives such as myself and such as John McCain immediately came out and pointed out what the attack was: a TERRORIST attack by al Qaeda.
Though Democratic members of the committee blamed Republicans throughout the hearing for cutting security State Department security spending, Lamb clarified for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was invited to sit on the committee for the hearing, that the staffing denial was not linked to budget shortages, just the result of evaluating conditions on the ground.
And we know that Obama did all this because he was trying to deceive the American people with a completely bogus narrative that, by killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama had won the war on terror and shattered al Qaeda:
8:21PM EDT October 19. 2012 – The Obama administration rejected requests for more security in Benghazi amid growing signs of terror threats because it wanted to portray Libya as a calm country and foreign policy success, according to leaders of the House Oversight Committee.
The administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible,” starting in November, stated a letter to President Obama from Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.
The apparent aim of this policy was to convey the impression that the situation in Libya “was getting better and not worse,” states the letter released Friday.
That policy was why State withdrew security personnel and resources from Benghazi, including a DC-3 aircraft, the letter says, citing an email from Miki Rankin, a State Department post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia.
The policy of “normalization” was described to committee members by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. And late last year, a State Department diplomat issued an “action memo” on why the Benghazi consulate should remain in place.
Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman wrote Dec. 27 that the U.S. presence in Benghazi was having “a salutary and calming effect” on people in Eastern Libya.
The normalization policy was being pursued at a time when al-Qaeda affiliated militias were becoming increasingly active in and around Benghazi, according to Issa and Chaffetz.
The committee members said the normalization policy trumped security concerns expressed by professional security officials working for State.
Obama lied and Americans died. The attack on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi went on for seven agonizing hours. Had the United States acted quickly and decisively, this horrifying and shocking disgrace to America would have been defeated.
If this had happened under George Bush’s watch, and there emerged the kind of evidence tying a cynical political policy to an abject national security and foreign policy disgrace and disaster, you can bet that the mainstream media would have been crawling all over it. You can bet that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush did an interview with ANYBODY this would have been the ONLY subject he was asked about. You can bet that all the late night talk shows would have mocked Bush for this oh, the way they mocked Bush for Abu Ghraib. You can bet that the networks would have figured out ways to include the shocking failure and debacle in Libya in their popular television dramas. Like they did with Abu Ghraib. And like they DIDN’T do with “Abu Ghraib moment” after “Abu Ghraib moment” when those moments were OBAMA MOMENTS. It would have been the goal of the mainstream media and the networks that every single American be repeatedly told that George Bush had failed America, much the same way that virtually every single American had repeatedly heard the George H.W. Bush words, “Read my lips, no new taxes” in order to guarantee Bill Clinton’s election.
Charles Woods, the father of heroic former SEAL Tyrone Woods – the one who was making those requests for help that Obama repeatedly denied - had this to say about the Disgrace-in-Chief:
The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.
“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”
“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”
This disaster – and the cover-up of this disaster that has followed – is so much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down Nixon it isn’t even funny.
The American people have a chance to hold Barack Obama responsible and accountable for this disgrace on November 6.
You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya. A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack. Here’s why:
Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades. I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime. And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.
What did Obama want to do? How did he want to posture? He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda. “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over. As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion. And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.
But it didn’t. Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership. We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world. We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives. In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate. We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.
As bad as these things are, it gets worse. Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal. And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself. In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered. But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.
Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first. Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up. And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”
Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:
WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.
The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”
The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.
Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.
But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.
“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”
“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.
“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.
Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.
But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.
Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.
Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.
How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs? How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?
This was NOTthe result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy. Period. The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed. No. You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.
I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.
What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah. Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean. And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago. And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.
The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged. And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack [Me: what KIND of attack? A coordinated terrorist attack or a spontaneous unplanned attack by an angry mob as the Obama administration kept claiming for DAYS after the attack?] on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks [Me: ah, yes, the 9/11 attack which even Barack Hussein Obama would agree would be "an act of terror."]. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation[Me: is Obama claiming that the Libya attack he mentioned nine paragraphs earlier was the "act of terror," or was he referring to the 9/11 attack that he had just referred to 2 paragraphs previously], alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
So you can see that there is NO logical reason to believe Obama was calling the attack on the US Consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack.” He had just been talking about the 9/11 attack which even OBAMA thinks is a terrorist attack. And in what universe is referring to “acts of terror” the same as calling something “a terrorist attack”? Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and most particularly US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice were correct, and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi WAS a “spontaneous act” by a protest mob enraged by a stupid Youtube video: would that NOTbe “an act of terror”??? What else would you call it if a bunch of religious fanatics who hated you and broadcasted that hatred because of their warped religion had gone nuts and murdered your whole family? “An act of happiness”?
And keep in mind, for more than two weeks after what intelligence was calling “a terrorist attack” within hours, this is the VERY STRONGEST STATEMENT Obama can now point to to claim he promptly damned as at least “terror” (but not “terrorist”).
Here’s the other thing: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama was actually calling what everyone now knows (no thanks to Obama or his administration) was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. Then WHY did Obama order his army of cockroach demon minions to repeatedly lie and say the exact opposite thing:
See the problem? Obama now says that he officially declared that the attack on the US Consulate was in fact a terrorist attack, but then he sent out high-ranking administration official after high-ranking administration official to lie for the next two weeks.
And what about Obama himself lying after his own incredibly brief moment of “truth-telling” when he supposedly said that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.
On September 20 - more than a week after Obama now says he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack – Obama said this to Univision:
OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20
On September 25 - and this is now two weeks after the attack that Obama now says he called a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech – Obama responded to a direct question with the following answer:
QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
So if you want to believe Barack Obama and that disgrace-to-journalism Candy Crowley, Obama told the American people the truth concealed in a weak statement on September 12 and then proceeded to personally repeatedly lie after that brief moment of weakly telling the truth.
And this after a parade of lies that included Obama appointee UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all fivemajor Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly specifically denying that it was a terrorist attack and repeatedly asserting something which we now know to have been a complete fabrication. Which was it?
Either way you want to slice it, Barack Obama is a documented liar (again!) and he is the president of an administration of liars who have been doing everything they could to cover-up a terrorist attack that occurred on sovereign United States territory which resulted in the deaths of four Americans including a United States Ambassador.
And the fact that Obama would falsely assert that he called something “terror” that not only that very speech he referenced but the following two weeks AFTERthat speech rather conclusively proves he didn’t is just another of a massive series of proofs just how willing Obama is to deceive.
