CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???

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.

The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):

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.”

Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.

An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:

In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.

We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack.  And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people.  We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary.  We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead.  We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security.  We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.”  And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.

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:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

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 NOT the 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???”

  1. Dog Walker Says:

    I hate Democrats.

    This is why we have the right to bear arms.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    You sure know how to rub it in, Dog Walker…

    That un-American turd Raul Ruiz is running for Congress IN MY DISTRICT. HE’S GOING TO BE “REPRESENTING” ME IF WE DON’T RE-ELECT MARY BONO.

    This is just one of the many reasons why I often say, “It’s hard to be me.”

  3. Dog Walker Says:

    Oops, Sorry.

  4. Dog Walker Says:

    Does this ring true? Or is this just weird ass conspiracy crap?

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    I’M the one who’s sorry. This vile little weasel that is so damn infamous may very well actually win.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    Some of the scariest stuff such as the massive ammunition purchases is TRUE. I’ve been following that one with a WTF sense of bewilderment and growing concern. It sounds pretty damn crazy to anybody who ISN’T a liberal (and therefore a fascist who will one day worship the beast and take his mark) when somebody puts it all together like that, doesn’t it?

    When Obama gave us THIS sort of “worship big brother!” mindset –

    – what is his big brother ideology NOT capable of?

  7. Dog Walker Says:

    I wonder about that “taking the mark.” I haven’t been much of a really literal interpreter of such thing that seem to have come from a dream. I hesitate to say this in any kind of public forum. I ain’t got no tattoos. If I did have one it might say something like “Semper Fi” or some such. I get to looking at the tats people are sporting. They seem incredibly dark and macabre. It is like an extension of this mistique of “I am bad.” Make it indelible and wear it for the world to see. Guys showing each other their tats and verifying that they are in the same club?

    Man o man! Maybe there is something to it.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    I wrote an article on the mark of the beast and answer objections and questions.

    As part of one of those replies I point out the following:

    There’s a very good reason why Christians like me believe the mark will be a physical thing: BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IT WILL BE.

    The word “mark” is the Greek word “charagma” (Strong 5480) which means “to sharpen, to engrave, stamp, impress.” There is simply no question that this is a physical “mark” that is literally physically ON your body.

    There is a reason the mark is “engraved” or “stamped” or “impressed” on your right hand or forehead. And that is because it is a specific act of obescience to the Antichrist. When we swear an oath we raise our right hands, or place our right hand on the Bible. And of course the “head” is the symbol of authority. When we take this mark on our right hand or on our forehead, we are publicly affirming Antichrist’s superior role in our lives and declaring our allegiance to him. We’re placing our faith in him and not in Jesus (there’s that word “in” again).

    The mark is a real thing. It is very LIKELY a computer chip or “barcode” of some kind simply because 1) that dovetails with what Scripture says it will be; and 2) the technology underlying a computer chip makes possible what the Bible teaches the mark of the beast will do: keep those who don’t have it from being able to buy or sell.

    If currency becomes digital – as it very nearly is now given the fact that over 99% of all financial transactions in America today are digital and “cash” does not change hands – then if you don’t have this mark, you don’t have and can’t have money. Further, with a computer chip mark of this nature, bartering will be easily stopped as monitors will be able to see that a given person is for example buying more food than they have been allotted. We may end cash currency as early as 2014 with even checks going into the trash bin along with cash and coins.

    Paper money is going the way of the dinosaur. For one thing, it is too easy to counterfeit. Cash is also the easiest thing to “money launder.” And as we move increasingly to a one-world economy (which the Bible also predicts), currencies become more of a hassle. There is a move away from paper money. At the same time, it is way, WAAAAY to easy to do “identity theft” and steal somebody’s credit card or credit card number.

    So just imagine the scenario the Bible predicts: a cashless society in which nothing can be bought or sold without the “mark of the beast.” How would that work? Well, the mark is almost certainly an implanted microchip that can safely store your personal data. If a world dictator (that’s what the Antichrist is) is able to exploit the already available technology (we can ALREADY DO THIS), what would happen?

    You couldn’t use paper money any more. That would be done away with. You would literally have to have this microchip in order to buy or sell. And the Antichrist would control the government monitoring system so that he can keep track of everything that anybody does buy or sell. In this way, a person wouldn’t even be able to barter; because if someone is bartering for food, the government will know that a given family is purchasing more food than it needs. This system called “the mark of the beast” will be packaged to make it seem liberating and better and the future, but when the Antichrist gets through with it it will be a way to control every single human being on earth.

    As I said, we can already do this right now today for the first time in history. No tattoo could EVER have controlled every single thing that every single person could buy or sell the way a financial system based on implanted microchips will be able to do. Get it?

  9. Dog Walker Says:

    Mr. Eden,

    Man o man! You got 84 responses to that article. So it looks like a topic with some real interest. I am not all that strong or committed to faith, so I don’t really read Revelation with a real literal mind. I know a guy who memorized that whole book. I heard him recite it more than once. I think those guys (the author) were using wild and crazy metaphor in those days because of persecution. But I don’t mean to start a church fight, cuz I ain’t no scholar.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    I think those guys (the author) were using wild and crazy metaphor in those days because of persecution

    Dog Walker,

    A couple of things: one of them is that the Bible repeatedly tells us that God knows the future and tells it in advance to his prophets. And since in particular the Old Testament is FILLED with literal fulfillment of prophecy (including the coming of Messiah and virtually every single detail of His ministry in advance), why should it be such a surprise that the God who did that in the Old Testament would do it in the New Testament???

    Here’s an interesting article on 101 fulfilled Bible prophecies:

    Some of the things that Revelation says would happen was that one day an army of 200 MILLION (Rev 9:16) would cross over the Euphrates River (Rev 16:12). Well, first of all, when John wrote the book of Revelation, THERE WERE NOT 200 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE WORLD at that time. And rather amazingly we had Mao Tse Tung himself specifically boast of being able to field an army of PRECISELY 200 million back in the 1960s and that estimate reported as fact in the US major media:

    “The documents make clear that the Red Chinese leaders believe that they cannot be defeated by long-range nuclear weapons – such as U.S. missles – and if they were invaded they would rely on their vast military manpower. One estimate is that in April, 1961, there were supposed to be 200 million armed and organized militiamen.” — John H. Hightower, Associated Press, Washington DC, April, 28, 1964

    Equally amazing is that this army crossed a Euphrates River which was presented as being “dried up.” Let me also therefore point out the fact that the Euphrates is one of the great rivers of the world. It does NOT “dry up.” This prophecy was impossible until a massive damning project began in Turkey (also in the 1960s). Today one could literally “dry up” the Euphrates so that an army could cross it.

    I won’t bitch at you for not believing, but it’s not like the confirming evidence of Bible prophecy isn’t all over the place.

    So let me explain the language:

    Imagine YOU were a first century AD man who had NEVER SEEN an engine, let alone attack helicopters, tanks, and nuclear bombs. HOW THE HECK WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS STUFF THAT YOU HAD JUST SEEN HAD YOU SEEN IT??? Go ahead and describe a nuclear bomb blast from your first century perspective. Go ahead and describe an attack helicopter. Go ahead and describe a modern mechanized army on the move. You’ll find it’s kind of hard.

    Now, you might say, “Well, God could do it, couldn’t He?” But here’s the thing: the book of Revelation was NOT just intended for 21st century man: it was made for first century man, second century man, etc. etc. all the way up until today’s man. And so the language allowed every single generation of Christians in every single century to have SOME understanding of the events that were being described.

    And today, for example, we can look at the passage on the mark of the beast and we can know EXACTLY what John was talking about nearly 2,000 years ago.

    There’s abundant evidence to believe that “God knows the end from the beginning” and declared it to His prophets. What you choose to do with that is your own business. But me, I look at the world, see America under an absolutely staggering $222 trillion in debt, see Europe and China on the verge of collapse, see a global economic collapse coming, see famine and war and death coming just as Revalation chapter 6 describes, and see a world dictator a.k.a. the Antichrist or the beast who will take over the world thanks to the United Nations and a lot of dumbass socialist liberals.

  11. Dog Walker Says:

    Mr Eden,

    I am appreciative of the trouble you go to in making your point. I am back to scratching my head on this. … and I am going to reread something I ain’t read in a while.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Dog Walker,

    It’s an area I feel very strongly about.

    When I look at the world, I see everything the Bible said would happen coming upon us very soon. I simply do not see America escaping financial catastrophe as the house of cards we call our fiscal policy falls aprt. I see dozens of key events that are corresponding to precisely what the Bible said would happen. And I see the future shaping up precisely as the Bible said it would in the last days.

    I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next few years, but in the nect fifteen to twenty years, there is simply no escaping the fiscal black hole that the United States and Europe have created for themselves. If we’re not headed for the last days the way the Bible says, then we’re headed for the last days the way the Mayan calender says. ‘Cause the world is about to go down hard one way or another.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: