VIDEO: Classified Cable Identified 10 Islamist/Al Qaeda Groups in Benghazi in August – Clinton and Obama Denied Pleas for Help!

An August 16th cable requested additional security and reported there were ten Islamist militias and Al Qaeda groups in Benghazi and they could not sustain an organized attack.  This information reportedly went directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Ambassador Stevens.  Stevens also informed Clinton that he feared an attack on the consulate would be next.

Fox News also reports: “It was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more  security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four  Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by  Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.”

 

 

As Catherine Herridge said, “This may be the smoking gun.”  I fervently hope it is enough evidence to fire and prosecute those in charge!

Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

PJ Media:

By Roger L Simon

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell [2] noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends [3] at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times [4],

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein [5] states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez [6] article at RadicalIslam.org,

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field.

Many questions remain to be answered — some of which are listed here [7]. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.

Los Angeles-based Roger L. Simon is the author of ten novels, including the prize-winning Moses Wine detective series, and six screenplays, including Enemies: A Love Story for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. He served as president of the West Coast branch of PEN and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America. Mr. Simon was on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the Yale School of Drama. In February 2009, he published his first non-fiction book – Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown. Mr. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of PJ Media.

Obama’s Taqqiya Unravels

Barack Hussein Obama at the UN: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  No, Mr. President, the future must not belong to jihadists who want to kill us nor to those who continue to lie to us about ‘the religion of peace’!

 

 

By Nonie Darwish Via The American Thinker

I  have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he  was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam  has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview — a  combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

Having  been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed  socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially  amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have  managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to  full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including  the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One  major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while  socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such  as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard  government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by  God and not by government or the code of Sharia.

Both  Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and  socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was  a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to  fit the goals of both creeds.

Obama  became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that,  Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words  have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner  speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his  middle name Mitt and “I wish I could use my middle name.” Obama was referring,  of course, to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama’s mind, he was not  ashamed for having deceived America — he blamed America for putting him in the  position of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.

That  brings us to an important discovery by WND in an article by Jerome Corsi titled:  “Obama’s Ring: ‘There is no God But  Allah’.” The article featured close-up photos of a ring  still worn by Obama today in the White House, one that he has worn since his  visit to Pakistan as a young man. The ring, which later also became his wedding  ring, has very tiny and discrete Arabic calligraphy that means nothing to  Americans, but to Arabic-speaking people like myself and Dr. Mark Gabriel, means  quite a lot. Such Islamic calligraphy is commonly found throughout the gold markets of the Muslim world. I am not a  writing expert, but I can clearly see on the ring the word ‘La Ilaha IllaAllah.  (“There is no god but god.”)’ Such a sentence in Arabic has a lot of the letters  A and L which in Arabic are simply a straight line like the number  one.

The  only explanation for Obama’s exciting ring secret is that he is a closet Muslim  and feels that he can serve Islam best if he denies his being a Muslim for the  purpose of a higher aspiration to serve the Muslim world from the White House,  in Islamic terms the “higher jihad.” Obama has no problem whatsoever in lying  for the sake of “Hope and Change” since lying about being a Muslim in a majority  non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam. Lying for the purpose of jihad (known  as “taqqiya”) is not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and even  serves as a reason to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law  states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have  no problem in lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim  masses, since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims  together in harmony and friendship.

That  brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we  grasp Obama’s worldviews as regards the “Muslim World.” Like the so-called  ‘moderate’ Muslims, Obama insists Islam in and of itself has nothing to do with  terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy (along with Israel), for  Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to Al Qaeda while  embracing other Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate. In  the process, Obama dismissed the Brotherhood’s long history of terror, which in  fact gave birth to Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in  Obama’s world is the fault of Islam, which is why he ordered the Fort Hood  massacre to be classified as “workplace  violence” and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama  believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring about a  new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are  strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister,  he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would assist the Islamic  cause in America after he passes the Health Care Bill.

But  as president of the United States, Obama was caught in a quagmire between  protecting American lives and appearing loyal to Islam. Placing American Marines  at US consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries created the  possibility of a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists.  That would discredit Obama’s attempt to separate Islam from terrorism. Also, if Obama confronted  militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his entire claim to opening a  new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart. He would then be no  different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That  explains why the demands for American security by U.S. ambassador Stevens went  unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American  Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers in order to save American  lives.

According to Sharia, it is a capital crime for  a Muslim individual or leader to shoot at fellow Muslims — even Islamists –  for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of  Sharia and an apostate. If Obama considers himself a Muslim and wears an Islamic  ring, then he must have had a very hard time deciding on how to protect the  consulate without killing Muslim attackers. His solution? Settling for the  lesser of two evils: getting Muslims, in the form of Libyan security, to guard  the property and in this way, forcing Muslims to shoot other Muslims in order to  defend the consulate. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards  had to follow Sharia, and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather  than violate Sharia themselves by killing other Muslims. Obama gambled with the  lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial  lambs rather than violate the dictates of sharia.

Read the rest here.

BENGHAZI—WAS THIS A UNITED STATES GUNRUNNING OPERATION TO AL QAEDA JIHADIS?

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

Former 20 year CIA veteran, Clare Lopez: “Jordan is targeted! Saudi Arabia is targeted!”

Questions:

■Could the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation to the Mexican drug cartels be simply a dress rehearsal for a much larger gunrunning operation to al Qaeda-linked and other Jihadist groups in Libya and, more ominously, Syria?
■Is the Obama Administration running guns into other Jihadist hot spots?
■Does the United States of America have troops in Jordan?
■Was Ambassador Stevens our operational officer in a gunrunning operation to al Qaeda linked groups that had “gone wrong?”
■Did the Obama Administration set Stevens up and leave him (with former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods and computer expert, Sean Smith) to die?
■Did President, Secretary Clinton, General Petraeus and others have fore-knowledge?
■Others?
■Who else knows now?
■Does Governor Romney know now?

These and other questions and more were raised yesterday in a conversation between Glen Beck and former CIA agent Clair Lopez.

Beck: “Why is the media not asking these questions?” And, “What happens if we let the President off and nobody pursues this?”

Lopez: “Then we have failed in our duty—as citizens, as journalists. This has to be brought up this has to be made known to the public that this is going on and that our Administration not only was working with the bad guys—was working with al Qaeda linked militias and Jihadis to overthrow Assad in Syria. But that they let out mission go down, they let our Ambassador and others die—in real time, watching it happen and they didn’t do anything about it.”

. . . . Beck, “While this was going down—the President went to bed!”

The 13 minute interview is in two segments on You Tube. It is so full of explosive information, I strongly urge you to watch it all at least twice. Here is part I followed part II:

Glenn Beck uses his signature visual aides to sort it all out:

And Frank Gaffney speaks: Obama’s Middle East Fast & Furious?

Obama Administration Leaks News of a Retaliatory Attack But Doesn’t Know on Who or Where?

Via White House 2012

Administration officials have stated that the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa in advance of  a an attempt to strike back at the al-Qaeda connected terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three Americans assigned to his detail in Benghazi, Libya last month.   Strangely, reports indicate that Administration officials stipulate that the retaliatory attack will occur only if US investigators can find the al-Qaeda-linked group responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate.

The odd stipulation seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is acting more on the intelligence coming from the Obama reelection campaign than it is on any actionable intelligence from Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Under normal circumstances, no responsible Administration would warn their military target that they are about to be blown up by drones or slaughtered by members of the Special Forces by transmitting to the public that such attacks are be prepared for.  Furthermore; no responsible Administration would see any logic in claiming they were about to launch an attack and then essentially state but they don’t who the attack is against or will it take place.  But such is what the Obama Administration communicated to the world when  they admitted that US investigators have not yet found out who our target is or where they are.

This advanced warning from the Administration about the use of military muscle regarding the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama reelection campaign to change the current narrative surrounding the Benghazi attacks.  That narrative is one which continues to point to an Administration which was incompetent and irresponsible in the days leading up to the Benghazi terrorist attack and in the days following the attack.

Since the attacks took place on September 11, 2012, the Administration has been offering what are at best misleading statements surrounding the attacks and in  the days after the attack, the Administration has acted in a way which has signaled an attempted coverup of the facts.  Some of the biggest questions still going unanswered includes, why the Administration failed to heighten security at our consulate on September 11th, a day which traditionally does bring the need for additional security?  Another question is why pleas for additional security from Ambassador Chris Stevens were not fulfilled?

Now as this tragic incident slowly boils up in to a political scandal, the Administration suddenly makes it clear that they are preparing for a retaliatory attack on  the people behind the act of terrorism on Americans in Libya but at the same time admit they have no knowledge of who they retaliate against.

Furthermore; according to the Associated Press officials say the Administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile up other governments in the region.

So the question becomes why did members of the Obama Administration leak this information about a pending retaliatory attack?  If there is no target and no action for it, obviously it is not about to happen?

The conclusion is this.  The Obama Administration which is trying to deny it had intelligence information regarding the threats on our consulate or regarding what was behind the attack, is now allowing the the Obama campaign to drive their foreign policy and national security agenda.  Only this time, the Administration is openly admitting that they have no intelligence regarding the actions they are saying they are preparing for.  Makes sense right?  Not really.

Read the rest here.

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech – How a President SHOULD Sound! (Video)

After four years of watching and listening to a President who has done nothing but apologize to our enemies for our exceptionalism, future President Mitt Romney nailed it!  And he gets it!  “Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the
Middle East.”  Listen to how a real President should and will sound:

 

 

Romney has laid out his plans for the United States, our allies and our enemies. Not only will he NOT lead from behind, he will lead by strength.  Romney repeated his initial comment that the violent attacks on our embassies and personnel, including the murder of Ambassador Stevens, was not due to 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.”   Unlike the Obama administration he actually used the term “extremists.”

“I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and
the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those
who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President
to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving
our destiny at the mercy of events …. Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region.”

As Romney said, hope is not strategy and he gets it. It is time for a real leader, a real Commander-in-Chief, and a real President – one who will serve and protect America, not our enemies.

 

Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away

President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’.  In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

Shame on him!  A CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda
hit list. This was no isolated incident!

The PJ Tatler reported the US received threats earlier than that claimed by the administration:

Terrorists demanding the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman threatened the Cairo embassy on Sept 8. We posted an English translation of that threat on Sept 10. The jihadist threat to burn the US embassy in Cairo to the ground turned out to be very similar to what the jihadists in Benghazi actually did to the consulate there. That similarity points to a possible connection between the attacks.

One possible motivation for the administration to paint over the possible connection between the Cairo and Benghazi attacks, is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Cairo attack. The Brotherhood was initially supportive of the “demonstration” and Egyptian President Morsi lent his personal support in the early going. The US embassy even caught the Brotherhood tweeting peace in English while exhorting the “demonstrators” in Arabic. If, it turns out, the Egyptian government had anything to do with the attack in Cairo, the probability that it had something to do with the attack in Benghazi as well has to be looked into. Our government might prefer to lie about that, though, than acknowledge that the new Egypt has perpetrated an act of war on the United States, on the anniversary        of 9-11.

Not only would the entire Arab Spring idea finally and deservedly unravel, but the administration would then have a major foreign policy crisis very much of its own making on its hands. The similarity between how Jimmy Carter lost Iran, and how Barack Obama would have lost Egypt, would be impossible to ignore.

Everyone in the administration seem to be tripping over their words and themselves.  According to Alexander Higgins:

From day one, the Obama administration was aware that the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, despite offering up conflicting explanations in the weeks since.

  Unnamed officials confirm to Fox News that the White House knew that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the murder of four Americans in Libya, but only today did US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledge the truth.

Secretary Panetta now admits that the Pentagon knew within hours of the assault on America’s Benghazi consulate that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead that it was an act of terrorism.

The Obama administration has altered their explanation repeatedly in the weeks since Mr. Stevens and three others were killed on September 11, 2012 while on assignment in Libya. On Thursday, the Defense Department confirmed the attack as having been hatched by terrorists, despite earlier statements made by the White House that suggested an anti-American film produced in the US had triggered a spontaneous assault.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier in the week that the attack in Benghazi may have been hatched by an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet another drastic change of heart from an Obama appointee this week.

In New York City on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton told attendees at a special United Nations meeting that the September 11 assault first thought by the White House to be a spontaneous response to an Anti-Islam film made in America could have been orchestrated by extremists in North Africa, specifically those subscribed to an off-shoot of al-Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported a timeline of the ever-changing lies and cover-up.  I have included a few of them:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14

“Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

— Rice, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 16

(Note: the U.S. post was not a consulate and its precise role is still a mystery.)

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

— Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libya’s General National Congress, Sept. 16

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17

Suddenly, a shift to a ‘terrorist attack’

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

“We are focused on who was responsible for this attack. At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area, as well. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

— Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testimony before Congress, Sept. 19, after being asked a direct question.

CNN reports on Sept. 19 that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been worried by the security threats in Benghazi. CNN later acknowledged the information came from Steven’s journal.

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self- evident. “He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

CBS News reports there never was anti-American protest.

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

— Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

— Clinton, statement at a  meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21, 2012

Read the full timeline here.

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

As President Obama and VP Joe Biden continue to tout the success of killing Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda continues to demonstrate they are still strong and still hell-bent on killing us!  “Sources say intelligence agencies knew within a day that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attacks in Benghazi, Libya—they even knew where one of the attackers lived.”

 

Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying.

“There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address.”

The following is from Eli Lake via The Daily Beast:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. “We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”

A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”

 

Obama’s Foreign Policy Fraud Has Come Undone

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

By Daniel Greenfield:

The mass riots and attacks on embassies do not mark the moment when Obama’s foreign policy imploded. That happened a long time ago. What these attacks actually represent is the moment when the compliant media were no longer able to continue hiding that failure in bottom drawers and back pages.

The media successfully covered for Obama’s retreat from Iraq, and the weekly Al Qaeda car bombings and rush to civil war no longer make the news. The media have also done their best to cover for Obama’s disaster in Afghanistan which has cost thousands of American lives while completely failing to defeat the Taliban.

Obama had hoped to cover up his defeat in Afghanistan by cutting a deal with the “moderate” Taliban, but the Taliban, moderate or extreme, refused to help him cover his ass. Attacks in Afghanistan have escalated, but the media have avoided challenging the bizarre assertions from the Obama campaign that the mission has been accomplished and Karzai will be ready to take over security in a few years.

And then the Islamists did something that the media just couldn’t ignore. They staged a series of attacks on American embassies and foreign targets beginning on September 11. These attacks, the most devastating and public of which took place on September 11, were accompanied by Islamist black flags and chants of, “We Are All Osama” in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

The media have done their best to avoid dealing with the implications of Islamists carrying out a coordinated series of attacks on everything from foreign embassies to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, by focusing on a Mohammed movie which the Egyptian Salafists exploited for propaganda purposes, rather than on the tactical support and level of coordination required to launch such a broad series of attacks and what the attacks and their scope say about the transformation of the conflict from stray attacks by terrorist groups to armed militias taking control of entire regions.

Rather than doing their job, the media seemed to be dividing their attention between reporting on the carnage without any context and putting out talking points to prevent Mitt Romney from taking political advantage of the disaster. The media’s accusations that Mitt Romney was politicizing the conflict were absurd, especially coming after the New York Times ran an editorial on September 11 attacking George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks of that day and after five years of Obama and his media allies politicizing every suicide bombing in Iraq.

While American embassies burned, the media were determined to go on doing what they had been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They had covered for Obama in three disastrous wars, one of which he had begun and which had exploded in the faces of staffers at the Benghazi consulate. And they are still covering for him, but the conflict has moved beyond the point where it can be relegated to the back pages of the daily papers.

Obama had hoped that the Islamists would see the advantage of allowing him to save face and give them another term of the same inept appeasement disguised as diplomatic soft power. Instead the Islamists seized on his weakness and trumpeted it to the world to humiliate him and the country that he had been temporarily placed in charge of.

If Obama had really understood Muslims, the way that he claimed he did during the election, then he would have known that this was coming all along. The way of the desert raid is to catch the enemy at his weakest and most vulnerable, and to humiliate him for that weakness in the eyes of his peers. In the honor-shame culture of Islam, there is only room for honor or shame. Obama tried to cover his shame and retain his honor and his enemies tore that façade of honor away from him and left only shame.

Read more at Front Page

 

Exclusive Video: Anwar al-Awlaki’s Long-Lost U.S. Speech from September 1, 2001

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

 

111002 Al-Awlaki death deals major blow to al-...

On September 1, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki gave an infamous lecture on “tolerance” at the 2001 ISNA convention, just as some of his disciples were preparing to launch the largest terrorist attack in American history.

 

One of his co-panelists in 2001, Hamza Yusuf, is one of this year’s keynote speakers. At the 1995 ISNA convention, Yusuf told the crowd that  Judaism “is a most racist religion.”

 

Video of Awlaki’s lecture has never before been viewed by the public. PJ Media has obtained a video — watch it above in its entirety.

 

At the time of the speech, Awlaki was a media darling. The New York Times hailed him as part of “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.” NPR contrasted Awlaki with Osama bin Laden, describing Awlaki as one of the “moderates who want to solve the problems without violence” and someone who could “build bridges between Islam and the West.” Awlaki was even featured in a November 2001 Washington Post Ramadan online chat.

The recognition of Awlaki wasn’t exclusive to the media. He was also leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. Post-9/11, he was lecturing on Islam inside the executive dining room of the Pentagon, still scarred from the al-Qaeda hijackers that had crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into it.

He was, according to the Wall Street Journal, even one of the instructors that taught prospective Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military.

Read the rest at The Counter Jihad Report