Posts Tagged ‘ambassador’

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

April 2, 2014

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Advertisements

When It Was 3 AM And The US Consulate In Benghazi Was Being Attacked, Where Was Barack Obama???

November 3, 2012

I thought this needed to be framed and took a screen shot. The last picture has a GIF animation that makes the picture worth clicking on to take you to the original.  Just hit the back button to come back here:

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 AFTER referencing 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.

The fact of the matter is that Ambassador Chris Stevens had begged for more security from Obama.  And he got his security REDUCED in violent and chaotic Libya while his Svengali stand-in Valerie Jarrett got to enjoy the status of being the first political advisor EVER to get a full Secret Service detail when she was on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

The fact of the matter is that the intelligence and security professionals were warning Obama for MONTHS that sovereign US territory in Libya was under threat and that the United States Ambassador’s life was at riskAND OBAMA DID NOTHING that wasn’t incredibly stupid and even more incredibly wrong-headed during those months.

The fact of the matter is that we further learn that in fact Obama had THREE FULL WEEKS OF WARNING that the very attack by the very terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was going to happenAND HE DID NOTHING.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has attempted a cover-up that is FAR worse than anything Nixon did during Watergate.

And the fact of the matter is that this will be God damn America until Obama is exorcised out of the American people’s White House.

Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

October 20, 2012

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF – not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

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.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper

.

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

October 19, 2012

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.

After 230 ‘Security Incidents’ In Libya, An Ambassador About To Be Murdered BEGGING For Security, And That Security CUT, The Truth Is Coming Out

October 10, 2012

Obama’s “It was the video’s fault” lie may now officially rest in hell where the lie originated in the first place.  Contrary to the Obama administration’s lie that was repeatedly stated at the very top levels of his administration, THERE WAS NO “SPONTANEOUS UPRISING.”  THERE WERE NO CROWDS.  THERE WAS NO PROTEST.  And THE COMPOUND WAS QUIET UNTIL INTERRUPTED BY THE LOUD NOISES OF THE ATTACK ITSELF.  It was a lie from the devil all along.

Let’s look at a transcript posted by the Associated Press:

New details of Sept. 11 consulate attack in Libya
By Bradley Klapper, The Associated Press
October 9, 2012
Updated: 8:10 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) Senior State Department officials provided a more detailed picture Tuesday of the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. A look at how they say the attack took place:

Sept. 10-11, 2012

Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya’s government to provide added security.

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.

It’s not enough to say that Obama administration officials such as Susan Rice, Jay Carney and yes, even Hillary Clinton, were incompetent.  They lied to the American people, and they lied over and over again.  And for what it’s worth, I do not believe that Barack Hussein Obama has YET publicly acknowledged that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans was a TERRORIST attack.  And when Obama gave his speech at the United Nations fully TWO WEEKS after the attack, he not only refused to use the word “terrorist,” but AGAIN deceitfully referred to the stupid video.  And referred to it SIX TIMES in his damn speech.

Which is to say it is now a documented fact that the Obama administration from Obama on down lied to the American people.  And are now trying to cover up their lies.

We now know that Ambassador Chris Stevens was begging for more security.  We know that Ambassador Stevens’ personally recorded his fears and his recognition that he needed more security in his personal journal (that was found after his murder):

The channel said in the story online that it took “newsworthy tips” from Stevens’ diary and confirmed them with other sources. Citing an unidentified source “familiar with Stevens’ thinking,” CNN said that the ambassador was concerned about security threats in Benghazi and a “rise in Islamic extremism.” […]

The public has a right to know what CNN learned from “multiple sources” about fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack, the channel said, “which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn’t do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel.” […]

The diary was first mentioned on-air Friday by Anderson Cooper, following previous CNN reports that Stevens feared he was on an “al Qaeda hit list” but did not mention the journal. Cooper said that some of the information in the reports was based on Stevens’ personal journal, which he said CNN came across in its reporting.

In its online story, CNN said it found the journal on the “floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.”

We now know that Consulate officials in Benghazi made REPEATED requests for more security that were ignored (see also here):

An investigation by a House committee into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 found 13 instances of alarming events in the months before the attack that killed four Americans, prompting diplomats to make repeated requests for heightened security.

Those incidents were outlined in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, with a request that the State Dept. reveal whether or not it was aware of these attacks and explain what steps were taken to beef up security.

We now know also know that Obama himself was AWARE that Stevens’ requests for more security had been denied BY his administration:

The letter to Secretary Clinton states that, “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.” They added, “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

There is the smoking gun and the reason for the coverup, the Obama White House knew Ambassador Stevens had been DENIED requests of additional security due to multiple smaller attacks on the consulate. The public finding out this information would be devastating to Obama’s reelection bid, so they conjured up the “spontaneous protest from the video” ruse knowing the corrupt media would go along with their version of the tragedy. This is why Democrat Pat Caddell stated last week ”the media is the enemy of the American people,” if we had a real press they would have investigated Benghazi and reported truth, not just dictated everything Jay Carney said as fact.

We know that not only did Obama NOT give Ambassador Chris Stevens more security as he had repeatedly asked for, but that he actually CUT Steven’s security prior to the attack on the compound which led to his murder and to the murders of three other Americans:

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.” “They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

And we know that the security team commander whom Obama ordered to abandon Ambassador Chris Stevens prior to his murder has testified that Ambassador Stevens wanted his team to stay.

Are you getting this?  Do you understand how truly despicable and reckless Barack Hussein Obama’s conduct was?

There’s more.  Obama did all of this in spite of crystal clear warnings about what was very likely to happen.

Two-hundred and thirty documented security incidents in Libya.  That’s right: 230 documented security incidents prior to Obama pulling out the security team that could have saved Ambassador Stevens’ and the other Americans lives:

Records show calls for more protection in Libya, 230 ‘security incidents’ before strike
Published October 09, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. mission in Libya recorded 230 “security incidents” over a one-year  period between 2011 and 2012, according to a State Department document that  provides the most expansive view yet of the concerns on the ground in the run-up  to the deadly Sept. 11 consulate attack.

The document was obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform  Committee, which is preparing to hold a high-profile hearing on Wednesday  featuring security officers who served in Libya.

One of them, Eric Nordstrom, claimed in an Oct. 1 email — obtained by Fox  News — that he had argued for additional security, citing the “number of  incidents that targeted diplomatic missions.”

However, Nordstrom suggested the U.S. government was eager to give the  impression that Libya was safer than it was and declined.

“These incidents paint a clear picture that the environment in Libya was  fragile at best and could degrade quickly,” he wrote. “Certainly, not an  environment where post should be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce  security resources in accordance with an artificial time table.”

The account is similar to that of Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a  Special Forces security team who has also agreed to testify. He has given  similar accounts in the media of being rebuffed in calling for more  security.

The testimony is sure to fuel the firestorm on Capitol Hill over the  administration’s handling of the attack — both in terms of security before the  attack and the public explanation afterward of what happened.

Pushed on whether security was pulled back before the Sept. 11 strike, State  Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to get into specifics.

“I’m not going to go into all of these kinds of timeline details as to what  we had when and where,” she said.

Nuland said that in advance of the Sept. 11 anniversary, the department  evaluated the “threat stream” and determined “security at Benghazi was  appropriate for what we knew.”

The document on the 230 incidents, which spans June 2011 to July 2012, goes  well beyond high-profile attacks, like the attempted assassination of the  British ambassador in June, to include gunfights, the murder of foreign  nationals and an explosives attack on the Benghazi consulate on June  6.

In one June 26 attack, the Tunisian consulate was targeted by a “crude IED,”  though no one was injured, the report said. A border security officer was  assassinated in Benghazi on July 4. The report detailed a string of kidnappings  later that month.

A “general assessment” at the end of the document then states: “The risk of  U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens, and businesspersons encountering  an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is  HIGH.”

A senior Republican with the House oversight committee says there’s a pattern  — one where help was requested by teams in Libya and consistently  denied.

“It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State  Department,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who visited Libya over the  weekend.

“They wanted the appearance of … ‘normalization’ there in Libya,” he said.  “And building up of an infrastructure, putting up barbed wire on our …  facility would lead to the wrong impression.”

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats were accusing Republicans of  exploiting the situation for political purposes.

A memo by Democrats on the oversight committee reportedly accused Republican  leaders of keeping them largely out of the loop on “unverified allegations,” as  well as the fact-finding trip.

One Democratic aide also stressed “GOP cuts in spending for embassy security”  ahead of the attack.

Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed in the  attack.

An independent investigation launched by the State Department is under way —  it presumably will examine why the administration at first claimed the attack  was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film  despite evidence of terrorism.

A law enforcement investigation is also underway.

New details, confirmed by Fox News, show the attack on the consulate and  nearby annex used by the CIA unfolded over five hours. In addition to  rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s and assault rifles, the terrorists used gun  trucks and mortars.

After Republican Sen. Bob Corker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations  Committee who traveled to Libya, confirmed to The Washington Post that U.S.  agents were analyzing security camera video from the consulate, Attorney General  Eric Holder suggested lawmakers pull back on their public discussion of the  investigation.

Holder urged “people in Congress” to be “a little mindful of the fact that  there is an ongoing investigation and not reveal anything that might compromise  our law enforcement investigation.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

The evidence is so overwhelming that this is a lie and a cover-up that far exceeds ANYTHING that ever happened in Watergate.  Obama should not only be forced out of office, he should be criminally prosecuted just as he wanted to criminally prosecute the brave CIA officials whose “crime” was doing their duty in waterboarding three terrorists (who ultimately gave us Osama bin Laden).

Mitt Romney needs to punch Obama in the face with these facts and simply keep on punching him so that the American people may know just how utterly depraved Barack Obama is in the murder of the first United States Ambassador to be murdered since Jimmy Carter held the title of “most failed president in history.”

The Incompetence, Reckless Disregard For National Security And Post-Terrorist-Attack Cover-Up By The Obama Administration Is Coming To Light.

October 9, 2012

We now know that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in an American ambassador and three other Americans was a terrorist attack.  But the administration chose to cover-up that knowledge by repeatedly pointing to a video and a “spontaneous uprising” in which people protesting the video brought heavy weapons, broke into three attack elements, coordinated their attacks with one another, and, oh, never bothered to actually even HAVE a demonstration before their “spontaneous demonstration” actually became a terrorist attack.

Fully FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack on the US Consulate and at least FOUR DAYS AFTER the administration KNEW it was in fact a terrorist attack, the Obama administration sent out US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to specifically LIE on all five major network Sunday morning political talk shows.  Again and again, on every single major network, the Obama appointee specifically and factually lied to the American people.

There is absolutely no question that the Obama administration lied and attempted a cover-up to avoid acknowledging a terrorist attack had occurred on American soil.  The only question is WHY did they lie and attempt such an idiotic cover-up?

The new developments that prove that the Obama administration was incompetent and reckless beyond belief may be a major part of this cover-up.  For instance (Note that Jake Tapper at ABC wrote a similar story):

Bombshell: US Security Teams Removed From Libya Prior to Attack, Over Stevens’ Objections
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Oct 08, 2012 01:10 PM EST

In case this recent development wasn’t egregious enough, another shoe has dropped in the Benghazi scandal — adding more fuel to the speculative fire about why the administration seemed so motivated to coordinate a dishonest cover-up (read that link) after the fact.  CBS News takes the lead on this outrageous story:

[See video from CBS News embedded at sight here]

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

“They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

ABC News has more:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News. The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel

When confronted with this damning report, a State Department official blames the lack of security on insufficient paperwork (security preferences were never “specifically requested”) and suggests that Washington believed there would be no “net” security loss on the ground.  If you believe either of those excuses, re-watch the CBS News interview above — or read this story from ABC News, which obtained a memo showing State rejecting specific security requests in Libya.  Essentially, the administration told our diplomats to do more with less and trust Libyan forces to replace the elite American security personnel.  Reporting from Newsweek’s Eli Lake highlights the problems with this strategy, which Amb. Stevens recognized and addressed in a diplomatic cable sent the very day he was assassinated:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.  The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.  The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty. The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault.

Americans must ask themselves how these appalling failures were allowed to occur, and who is responsible.  The administration peddled several false tales to the public for many days after the attack, even though intelligence reports indicate that they knew better from day one.  Why?  Not only were requests for reinforcements declined, existing defenses were scaled back, in spite of numerous threats and attacks leading up to the 9/11 massacre.  Why? I’ve pondered whether the White House wanted to maintain a “light footprint” perception in Libya at all costs, rooted in political considerations.  If so, those costs were quite high, indeed.  I’ll leave you with a devastating video of the cover-up timeline, produced by Heritage.  This is slowly growing into a national scandal, but here’s why it should already be A1, above the fold every day:

UPDATE – In his wide-ranging foreign policy address in Virginia late this morning, Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for their serial opacity and misdirection regarding the Benghazi raid:

Last month, our nation was attacked again.  A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya.  Among the dead were three veterans.  All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both.  President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America.  And he is right.  We all mourn their loss. The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.  They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia.  Our embassies have been attacked.  Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do.  These are the right questions.  And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.  The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.  They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century.  And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

This is some of Romney’s strongest rhetoric yet on this subject.  One wonders if he’ll challenge the president even more forcefully during the final foreign policy themed presidential debate.  More on Romney’s speech later.

There are now so many examples of Obama completely screwing up prior to the murder of an American ambassador on US soil that it just makes you want to barf.

But aside from his criminal incompetence, there is yet another reason why Obama chose to cover-up this terrible terrorist attack:

Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
BY: Bill Gertz
October 5, 2012 5:00 am

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.

The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.

Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials “with direct knowledge of events in Libya” revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10.

Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is “reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the [intelligence community], as would be expected of the oversight committee.”

But she noted: “At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure.”

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.

A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration coverup said: “Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads.”

“When there isn’t definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious,” the official said. “There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations—and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces—is part of the intelligence business.”

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.

After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.

The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.

“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.

That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.

The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.

The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” an assertion contradicted by the group’s rise in the region.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Recent intelligence reports show that Egypt’s Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities.

The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Iran’s support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria.

However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obama’s culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology.

Intelligence officials said in Egypt—currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in Marchafter having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt.

In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime.

In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Iran’s Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region.

The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obama’s decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month.

Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism.

The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others.

Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported.

A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

So we know that Obama lied and attempted a cover-up, and we pretty much know WHY Obama lied and attempted a cover-up.  The reason was basically to try to hide Obama’s incredible incompetence and the failure of his entire Middle East policy in general.

The thing we DON’T know yet is whether the American people, along with the Democrat Party, are so despicable that they frankly don’t care about the lies and frankly the treason that we have seen accompanying the incredible incompetence that resulted in the death of America’s top official in Libya and the abject humiliation of the United States as a result of the attacks against America from Muslim countries across the world.

Update, October 9, 2012: Let me add a P.S. here.

Remember Lara Logan, the CBS journalist who was raped and beaten in Egypt?  Well, they define neo-conservatives as those who have been “mugged by reality.”  Lara was raped by the reality that Muslim fundamentalists are godawful evil people.  Yeah, she just came out and said that absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING Obama is saying about foreign policy is a complete lie:

CBS’ Lara Logan Slams US Government And Says The Taliban Is As Strong As EverTiffany Gabbay, The Blaze

Blaze readers are likely familiar with CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, the wartime journalist who endured a horrific ordeal in Egypt last  summer when she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of angry  Egyptian men during their Arab Spring “celebrations.” Now, Logan has a  message for the public: “they” (the Taliban and other Islamic  operatives) are as strong as ever.

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics,  media, and the legal and corporate arenas. She explained that the  Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact  re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd  that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a  major lie being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S.  military has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two  years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who  claim ”they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

The Sun Times continues:

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The  audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents,  and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan;  Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by  al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new  terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports. […] She made a  passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our  enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.

Logan went on to say that people have been duped into believing that  the threat of radical Islam is merely a thing of the past, saying:

“You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say  about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

The CBS foreign correspondent, who broke with her traditional  journalist’s role and actually shared her personal opinion with the  group, also called for retribution for the slaying of U.S. Ambassador  Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and one additional U.S. civil  servant in Libya.

According to the Sun Times, Logan hopes America will “exact revenge  and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on  its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the  United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

While the Sun Times article appeared to question Logan for delving  into opinion and “being” the story rather than “reporting” the story, it is difficult to imagine that someone who experienced atrocities in the  Middle East first hand and was in fact physically assaulted could  refrain from speaking from personal experience. After all, who better  than one who lived it is qualified to judge?

We’re now learning that Obama betrayed the Americans in Libya who were screaming for more security and begging for fortifications to protect their buildings.  And instead Obama gave them LESS security.  And why?  Because Obama wanted to create the false impression that he was normalizing relations with Libya so he could claim credit for it politically.  He’s done the same thing in Afghanistan with the Taliban, deliberately creating the false dichotomy between good Taliban and bad Taliban so he could negotiate with the good Taliban and then cut and run from Afghanistan.  And decent Americans and particularly Americans who have suffered the results of Obama’s stupidity won’t have any of it.

If Obama had represented himself honestly and told the truth, he NEVER would have been elected in 2008.  And in the same manner, the only way he stands to be reelected now is to lie and lie outrageously to the American people.

Obama To Release One-Third Of Gitmo Detainees AFTER Learning That Terrorist Who Led Attack That Murdered US Ambassador Had Been A Gitmo Detainee

September 24, 2012

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned very much (read: not at all anywhere but on Fox News), but the terrorist attack on American soil in Libya that Obama repeatedly denied for more than a week did not merely occur timed with the anniversary of 9/11; it also occurred along with Obama announcing that he was reversing the surge that he began and that all 33,000 American troops in that surge were now out of the country.

Not only did the Obama administration and many of its top officials – including US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) explicitly deny that the terrorist attack which they now admit was “self-evidently” a terrorist attack had been a terrorist attack for well over a week, but now we find that in fact the United States Ambassador to Libya had been left without any armed security prior to his murder:

American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a “low profile,” the administration didn’t even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the “no bullets” Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. 
 
In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.
 
As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

You want to talk about an administration being COMPLETELY and CRIMINALLY UNPREPARED for a threat that any FOOL should have seen coming (unless “9/11” is merely a date on a calendar)???

But now you find it’s far worse than that; Obama clearly doesn’t even CARE about American foreign policy.  After all, he’s the guy who got bin Laden (gag me); he’s invulnerable to criticism of his foreign policy.  It doesn’t matter if Iran is just about to get a nuclear bomb under his watch (and if Obama is reelected, there is ABSOLUTELY no question Iran WILL get nuclear weapons because of Obama’s weakness); it doesn’t matter if Vladimer Putin – very contrary to Obama’s ill-fated “reset” – is telling America to go to hell as Russia restores itself to its former Stalinist glory; it doesn’t matter if China is more aggressive under Obama’s weak foreign policy than it had been at any time since the Chosin Reservoir surprise attack of US forces during the Korean War; and it doesn’t matter if fully 33 Muslim nations – more than EVER in history – have burned America’s flag in their streets and attacked sovereign American territory.

Name just ONE Muslim country that the US has better relations with than the day Bush left office.  There ISN’T one.  You could have at least said “Libya” a few weeks ago (and that would have been the ONLY possibility); but then again a few weeks ago Libya had NEVER MURDERED AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR PRIOR TO THAT, HAD IT?

Maybe you could say Egpt – but only because Obama is far more sypatico with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood than he ever could have been with the Egypt that had been a staunch American ally until Obama helped topple that regime:

And now what do we have under this demon-possessed turd who has worked mightily to bring the world ever closer to that day the Bible described as “Armageddon”???

Obama to Release One Third of Gitmo Inmates
by AWR Hawkins22 Sep 2012

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
 
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
 
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
 
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
 
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
 
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”

[CBS News video about former Gitmo detainee leading Libyan attack at site]

That and cutting the funding of the security for American embassies have got to be the two stupidest things that one can possibly imagine in light of the murder of a US Ambassador – the first since the failed Jimmy Carter days of 1979.

We’re showing the Muslim world all the weakness that Obama and Democrats falsely and stupidly promised the American people would make the Muslim world love us: we’re pulling out of Afghanistan; we’re refusing to protect our ambassadors lest we create some sort of “profile” that will somehow anger Muslims; we’re apologizing for our 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as some sort of tragic mistake that Obama will surely remedy if he is reelected; and we’re releasing all the terrorist monsters who we’ve been holding at Gitmo.

What Obama has demonstrated is that he is the most nakedly cynical political weasel who has ever so much as VISITED the White House let alone lived in it.  He will exploit ANYTHING no matter how vital to America and no matter who has to die for him to get reelected.

As Israel faces a very urgent decision as to whether to attack Iran as its only hope of national survival, Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then lied about refusing to meet with him.  Of course, he’s got plenty of time to meet with Pimp with a Limp and the cast of the view in lieu of doing any interviews where he might get asked questions about why his presidency has been such an abject failure.

You get the essence of this coward in two snapshots: snapshot one is where Obama goes before the United Nations to denounce the man who made that stupid practically homemade Youtube video attacking Muhammad; snapshot two is when “Piss Christ” comes back to New York with Obama’s complete silence.  And of course it was liberals just like Obama who forced Christians to not only accept a Crucifix of Jesus being placed in a jar of urine and calling it “art” but to subsidize it with their tax dollars in the name of free speech, just as it is liberals who are now desperate to denounce that same free speech to protect a hateful and murderous fascist political system masquerading as a “religion.”

The beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  Democrats will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And someday very soon hell will swallow and devour them all.

Yet Another American Ambassador Attacked And Threatened In Obama’s God Damn America

September 20, 2012

Why not attack our ambassadors?  We are a nation led by a weak, gutless, pathetic, failed little turd masquerading behind lies and arrogance.

Obama’s not going to do anything about it. That would take courage and resolve.  Obama would have to take personal responsibility for something for the first time in his life.

I’m past sick of Obama claiming credit for killing Osama bin Laden.  If you listen to the left, Obama’s giving the order was the most courageous act since Thermopylae.  Obama’s idiot Joe Biden said it was the most audacious plan in 500 years.  The men who waded ashore as their buddies were torn apart by machine guns at Omaha Beach didn’t have the courage that Obama has in his pinky finger.

It’s such pure distilled bullcrap that I’m amazed every single time going on the 16th trillion time that I’ve heard it.  The Democrats demonized Bush as a warmonger from hell up one side and down the other, but now Bush is suddenly the president who wouldn’t have DARED to send a SEAL Team into Pakistan to take out the psychopath who murdered 3,000 Americans.

If Obama had refused to give the order to take out bin Laden after our intelligence and special operations community had dedicated their lives to kill the sonofabitch, you don’t think some seriously pissed off intelligence professional would have leaked that disgrace the way pretty much every OTHER secret has been leaked during the Obama regime???  And just what to you think would have happened to Obama’s reelection chances by running as “the president who refused to get bin Laden”???  I don’t just think he would have kissed his reelection chances bye-bye if he hadn’t made that “audacious call,” I think he would have been impeached and Democrats would have voted his skinny little weasel ass out of office.

Other than giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, just what the hell else has Obama done that hasn’t been an abject disaster???

If the Chinese militaristic regime did not want this protest that threatened an American ambassador WITHIN EIGHT DAYS of one of our ambassadors being humiliated and murdered to happen, it wouldn’t have happened.  They wanted to send a message, and they sent it.

Crowd Attacks The US Ambassador In Beijing
Malcolm Moore, The Telegraph|Sep. 19, 2012, 6:19 AM

A crowd of around 50 Chinese protesters surrounded the official car of the United States ambassador in Beijing, who escaped unharmed, a State department spokesman said.

The melee occurred outside the gates of the US embassy on Tuesday and security guards had to intervene to protect Gary Locke, 62. The protesters caused minor damage to the vehicle, a statement from the embassy said.

“Embassy officials have registered their concern regarding today’s incident with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and urged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to protect American facilities and personnel,” the statement said.

The incident happened on Tuesday, while large crowds of protesters were massed outside the Japanese embassy nearby, to demand that Japan relinquish control of an island chain claimed by China in the waters between the two countries.

The statement gave no details about the demonstrators who blocked Mr Locke’s car, or what angered them.

However the Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei tweeted a photograph of the protest on Tuesday afternoon, and said the crowd had chanted: “Down with US imperialism” and “Pay us back our money!” referring to the trillion dollars or so of US government debt that China holds.

Some Chinese observers have blamed the US for standing behind the Japanese on their claim, and suggested that the US is attempting to foment unrest in the region as a pretext for “pivoting” its naval forces back to the Pacific.

The incident came as the US Defence secretary, Leon Panetta, was meeting with senior Chinese leaders to reassure them that the US does not intend to “contain” China by building up a military presence in Asia.

On Wednesday, Mr Panetta met with Xi Jinping, the 59-year-old Chinese president-in-waiting who recently disappeared for two weeks without explanation, cancelling a scheduled engagement with Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, the protests against Japan have now evaporated. The road outside the Japanese embassy in Beijing has reopened and there was no sign of any discord.

“It seems the protests in front of our embassy have subsided,” the Japanese embassy said in an email to Japanese citizens.

Beijing police sent out a mass text message telling the public not to stage any more protests, according to the Japanese embassy.

Mass protests across China over the weekend, and running into Tuesday, forced many Japanese businesses to shut their doors or close down factories. However, most, if not all of these businesses are now returning to normal.

Did some American film a homemade Youtube movie about Chairman Mao?

I don’t know about you, but I am waxing in my enormous power (according to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, etc. etc.) that I can send the entire planet into a frothing, violent rage merely by gluing a fake beard on my face and making a video that insults Muhammad.

According to the Obama regime, if I or any of the other 315 million Americans in this country used his or her cell phone camera to make an anti-Islam Youtube video, the entire Muslim world would erupt in violence.  It’s a heady feeling, having this kind of power.  I can create a Youtube account and have the command of one billion Muslims at my instant disposal!!!

Obama says the other villain is free speech.  Because that damned stupid 1st Amendment means that Americans aren’t forced to live under Sharia law and we foolishly have the right to express our views.  Not to worry, though; because if you vote for Obama he’ll make sure that mistake is corrected.

Do you think the White House has received an extortion letter threatening to make a Youtube video unless somebody gets paid off?

So, you can see why it would be nice for me to have this same power Obama says I have because of that cursed 1st Amendement over one billion Chinese that I enjoy over one billion Muslims who will all riot any time I want them to.

Have I mocked the stupidity of the idiocy of the Obama White House yet?  Because I could blather on if I had to.

But if you read this article, you will see the ample documentation that the Obama regime says some stupid cheap homemade movie did exactly what I’m laughing my ass off about:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/fact-obama-regime-completely-lied-about-the-riots-burning-the-muslim-world-that-prove-the-obama-foreign-policy-a-catastrophic-failure/

America is such a laughing stock under this failed fool president.

Obama took his oath as Messiah and promised that he would lower the level of the oceans and heal the planet and create worldwide peace and a new beginning for the human species.

And now we know what that “new beginning” looks like: sodomized murdered ambassadors, American flags adding ten degrees to the global temperature due to all the burning of them, and Muslims chanting, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!”

Now China is looking at our chump-in-chief and deciding its their turn to humiliate America.

FACT: Obama Regime Completely LIED About The Riots Burning The Muslim World That Prove The Obama Foreign Policy A Catastrophic Failure

September 20, 2012

As I easily document below, the official Obama position was that the violent anti-American riots that began across the Middle East (and which have now spread to 33 Islamic countries) were “spontaneous” outbursts that were – and this was what the Obama White House said – “in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video.”

We now know that that was an outright lie.  And it is a lie that was spawned not because of any inability to understand the facts, but rather because Obama’s reelection has resulted in EVERYTHING – including American foreign policy – to be cynically and deceitfully politicized.  Obama could not face these attacks having been in any way preplanned or coordinated, because then he would have to answer for his administration’s abject failure to be able to see such attacks coming and prevent them or at least limit the damage.  Obama failed in his most basic duty to protect America and protect her territory and her interests at home and abroad.  But as a political weasel, he demanded his appointees fabricate and conflate his political interests with American foreign policy concerns.

We now know for a FACT that the very first protest (read “riot” given that they overran the walls of our American embassy and not only destroyed the grounds but took down the American flag and put up a sharia/al Qaeda flag in it’s place ON UNITED STATES TERRITORY) had absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie/video that Obama’s goons repeatedly cited:

Report: Riots Actually About Release of Blind Sheik
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 09.12.2012 – 2:20 PM

USA Today reports that the riot at the U.S. embassy in Cairo appears to have been planned well before the Egyptian media reported on the anti-Islam YouTube film that was blamed for sparking the protest. The protest was reportedly announced on August 30 by Gamaa Islamiyya, an Egyptian terrorist group, to call for the release of its leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman — aka the blind sheik, who is serving a life sentence for the first World Trade Center bombing:

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others. …

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Based on the report, it sounds like the anti-Islam YouTube video was a secondary issue — a way for Islamist leaders to stoke anger and draw more bodies out to the embassy protest. If the storming of the embassy was organized by Gamaa Islamiyya — as opposed to a spontaneous uprising — why hasn’t the State Department’s response reflected that? It’s hard to imagine they’re not aware of the group’s activities. In June, the State Department actually issued a visa to a member of Gamaa Islamiyya — again, this is a designated terrorist organization — and met with him in Washington, as part of a delegation of Egyptian leaders. During the meeting, he reportedly asked White House officials to release the blind sheik. Here was the State Department’s defense at the time, which is even more astonishing in light of the latest news:

“We neither had then, nor do we have now, any reason to believe that this particular individual — who at the time of his application was a member of parliament — would pose a threat to the United States,” [State Department spokesperson Victoria] Nuland told reporters.

Nuland pointed to rapid changes in the Middle East, where an Islamist was declared the winner Sunday of Egypt’s first democratic presidential elections a year and a half after street protests toppled strongman Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s a new day in Egypt; it’s a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. So new political personalities are coming to light,” Nuland said.

“We have more folks who want to come here, want to know us, want to learn about the US, want to develop relationships with us. We have the same interest with regard to them,” she said.

Apparently State miscalculated on that “develop relationships” part.

It was previously documented that the worst attack which resulted in the murder of a US ambassador (the first time since the pathetic CARTER was president) had nothing to do with the movie/video.  I wrote on September 18:

Obama White House, State Department LIE Exposed: There Were NO Demonstrations Over Movie Clip Prior To Terrorist Attack On Consulate In Libya

An article ran on Yahoo News cuts right to the gist of the crucial issue about this story:

The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.

Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.

But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)

It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless. White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:

JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

More from Jay Carney:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”

Obama’s handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had this to say:

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.”

The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.

There were NO demonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe. Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack. Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
Published September 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”

The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”

The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”

The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”

Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

And if that isn’t clear enough:

On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.

“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.

Anti-Obama? Yep. The mobs of demonstrators in Cairo, Egupt chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still one billion Osamas.”

And they burned pictures of Barack Obama in effigy in cities like Karachi, Pakistan. While Obama watched lots of football. And tweeted about Beyonce and Jay-Z, you know, to show “he was in touch.”

In fact, they burned American flags and pictures of Obama pretty much all over everywhere.

It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z. He did more than that.

He also squeezed in an interview with a radio host who calls himself “Pimp with a Limp” (although he had to skip some more of those silly Daily Intelligence Briefings) to do so.

As was the phrase, “Death to America!”

I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.” And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.

Caught in so many transparent, documented lies that its beyond belief, Obama has now instructed his State Department to play his “Fast and Furious” game and refuse to answer any more questions.

The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.

We now now that al Qaeda in a preplanned attack – not a “spontaneous mob” that erupted as the result of some stupid cheap basically homemade movie clip – was behind the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the targeted murder of an American ambassador.  We now even know the name of the al Qaeda terrorist who led the attack.

Obama and his entire administration lied like the vicious weasels they are.

This is now also out as a confirmed FACT: that the Obama administration had TWO DAYS OF WARNING PRIOR TO THESE ATTACKS AND DID NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Everything about Obama and his failed foreign policy is just lie after lie after lie.  The entire Obama administration lied and lied and lied for an entire week in an attempt to deceive the American people to cover up their pathetic ineptness.

Obama and his supporters HAVE to lie about EVERYTHING – whether it be his failed foreign policy or his failed domestic policy – because if Democrats told the truth for once in their lives, they would lose in a landslide.

Mainstream Media Pathological In Its Effort To Slant And Distort The News To Protect Their Messiah Obama And Defame Their Emmanuel Goldstein Romney

September 18, 2012

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz was driven to righteous anger yesterday:

September 17, 2012, 7:32 p.m. ET.
Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney’s criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it’s not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.

Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been “crass and tone deaf,” in the view of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd. He had committed a “slander” against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.

The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn’t have been surprising either. It’s the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.

Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney’s political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation’s armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven’t heard about it.

The governor’s offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.

For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn’t know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—”the body was missing.”

At the time of Mr. Romney’s initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens’s fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn’t prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media’s role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde’s devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama’s speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn’t heard the story about Mitt Romney’s bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama’s school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney’s tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.

Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks “millionaires and billionaires.” Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How’s that for presidential tone?

No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama’s campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to “millionaires and billionaires” are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn’t the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn’t to be found in corporate board rooms.

But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama’s class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn’t going to let them.

Mitt Romney isn’t going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama’s advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America’s stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he’ll have to do it often.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared September 18, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08.

Bias is a function that emerges from the decision as to “what is news,” what’s considered news, what’s considered a gaffe.  And this was one amazing week.

Mitt Romney’s denunciation of a statement – the ONLY official statement from the Obama regime for 15 hours after the US Embassy in Cairo issued its famous “statement” and which was FINALLY likewise denounced by the Obama White House an hour AFTER Romney showed some leadership – was considered “news” more than the fact that the entire Middle East and Muslim world was melting down all around Obama’s weak foreign policy.

A US ambassador was raped and then murdered in a preplanned attack that the White House lied about because Obama failed to provide that ambassador with anywhere near adequate security.  The entire Muslim world was in flames.  But do you want to know what the media said the “news” was?  That Romney should have waited longer before issuing a statement. 

That Barack Obama’s “soft” foreign policy has utterly failed all over the world isn’t “news.”  That a US ambassador was raped and murdered isn’t “news.”  That Obama sent a good man to die in a dangerous hellhole without bothering to give him anywhere NEAR the security that he has provided his political adviser at Martha’s Freaking Vineyard isn’t “news.”  The fact that Obama is as we speak preparing to cut $131 million from embassy security isn’t “news.”  And the fact that the Obama White House and in fact the entire Obama regime have been caught repeatedly LYING about the cause of the Middle East meltdown isn’t “news.”

What’s the capital of Israel, President Obama?  Why are people in 33 Muslim countries burning our flag and burning pictures of YOU after your famous “new beginning,” President Obama?  Are all of these people at war with us or not, President Obama?  None of those embarrassing answers that Obama has no answer for is “news” so you can count on Pimp with a Limp (the only “journalists” Obama is willing to talk to these days) won’t ask such questions.

As for “gaffes,” how on earth is it NOT a MASSIVE gaffe that a sitting president of the United States declares than a country that has been an official ALLY of the United States for 23 years is in fact NOT an ally, only to be corrected by his own State Department which says that contrary to the president Egypt IS an ally?  Given the fact that Egypt is the heart of the Middle East, how is that not an ENORMOUS gaffe?  Egypt was declared a “major non-NATO ally of the United States” in 1989.  Is this a good time to make that kind of massive foreign policy error???  But that wasn’t really “news,” either; far better to attack Mitt Romney as often and over as many things as possible.

Nope.  Journalists will not look deeply at ANY of that because it hurts Obama, and Obama is the only messiah with whom they have to do.  And as much as “journalists” love their Big Brother, they hate Big Brother’s Emmanuel Goldstein.