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.

The Poisonous Presidency

By Alan Caruba via Canada Free Press

When the leaders of the United States, the President, his Vice President, his Secretary of State and others deliberately lie to its citizens, knowing full well that the facts about the tragic killing of an American ambassador and three of his staff are widely known, the nation has reached a point where it is paramount that he be removed from office.

The forthcoming election is the instrument and current indicators are that President Obama will be defeated. It is to be hoped that power in the Senate will be returned to the Republican Party and retainedl in the House of Representatives. This is the only way steps can be taken to avoid the financial collapse that faces the nation and achieve the repeal of Obamacare that Mitt Romney has promised if elected.

What worries me most, however, is the utter disdain for the truth that has marked the presidency of Barack Obama. It has been nearly four years of sustained lies about the steps that were taken to respond to the financial crisis facing the nation when he took office. The so-called “stimulus” wasted billions, becoming little more than a slush fund for Democratic fund-raisers, unions, and other connected parties to the administration. Instead the administration literally seized control of General Motors and Chrysler, then in the normal process of bankruptcy, claiming to save the jobs of auto workers. What they did was shunt aside the legitimate creditors and investors in GM. They arbitrarily discontinued its often long relationship with several hundred auto dealerships, adding their employees to the unemployment lines. They then insisted that GM invest millions in the creation of an electric car that cost $47,000 to purchase and ended up purchasing them for government use with taxpayer’s money.

Obamacare, more than 2,700 pages in length and incorporating more than twenty new taxes, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress with little evidence that any of those who voted for it had even read it. Arguing initially that he was not a tax, when challenged in the Supreme Court, the administration then said it was a tax. For some inexplicable reason, the Court permitted it to stand despite its clear over-ride of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that forbids the government from requiring a citizen to purchase anything.

Under Obama, the foreign policy of the nation has now seriously weakened its position in the world and combined with cuts to defense spending, put its ability to protect the homeland and project power abroad at risk. The administration failed to negotiate an agreement with Iraq that would permit U.S. troops to remain in place, as they do at the invitation of many nations around the world, leaving Iraq vulnerable to al Qaeda. Setting a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan only emboldened the Taliban.

The so-called Arab Spring has mutated, not into the establishment of democratic institutions in nations like Egypt or Libya, but an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to at least ascend to positions of power in opposition to America’s interests in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

We now know that President Obama skipped some sixty percent of the daily CIA briefings that presidents long have made a part of their duties and this no doubt led to its ignorance of the impending tragedy in Libya, but the fault lies, too, with the State Department that ignored the slain ambassador’s pleas for increased security for the embassy and consulate. This is a president who has been missing in action as the Islamic jihad began to heat up across the face of the globe.

The hostility of President Obama’s administration to the vital energy sector of the nation has denied access to oil extraction on the vast acreage of federal lands. It has denied permits for offshore drilling to a far larger degree than previous administrations. It has mercilessly attacked the coal industry, responsible for nearly fifty percent of all electricity generation in the nation. Plants for electricity have closed down under the pressure of costly EPA regulations. Only the natural gas sector has grown, thanks to the technology of fracking, but both oil and gas is being extracted mostly on private land.

Read the rest here.

Obama’s Lies Unravel in Congressional Hearing on Libya 9/11 Attack

By Joel B. Pollak via Breitbart

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

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

The White House, meanwhile, finally discarded the “video” narrative to which it had clung for weeks, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary–but not before the filmmaker had been arrested in the dead of night at his home on the pretext of a parole violation, and not before President Obama devoted the bulk of his September address to the United Nations to condemning the video and defamation of Islam and Muhammad.

The new White House line is that poor intelligence led it to an erroneous conclusion about the video–even though that claim is contradicted by the State Department’s own claims about what it knew about the attacks.

Both the White House and the State Department were adamant in their criticism of the video in the hours after demonstrators scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, as well as in the weeks thereafter, though the White House claimed–through an unnamed source in Politico–to have denounced the embassy’s apologies.

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

Read the rest here.

State Department Denies Security to Libya but Authorizes Chevy Volts in Austria

Remember when Joe Biden told Paul Ryan that Congress denied funding for additional security in Libya?  Even though State Dept. Bureaucrat, Charlene Lamb, told Congressman Dana Rohrabacher that budget had nothing to do with security decisions in Benghazi?

 

 

Now we find out that the State Department’s budgetary priorities lies with green energy cars in Vienna, Austria rather than security for Americans in the Middle East.  According to Rep. Mike Kelly via the Washington Times:

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.

Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, two at the U.S. diplomatic compound and scene of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks.

This first attack on the Benghazi compound occurred on April 6, 2012, when two Libyans threw a crude improvised explosive device over the compound wall. Two months later, another IED exploded at the compound, wounding one person and leaving a hole in the perimeter wall large enough for 40 people to run through.

The second attack was linked to the “Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman,” a jihadist, pro-al Qaeda group named after the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The same group was responsible for subsequent attacks on the British ambassador to Libya and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both of which took place in Benghazi just months before the September attack.

While these steady and increasingly violent attacks on western interests mounted, the U.S. State Department repeatedly rejected requests for additional protection measures for our security teams in Libya.

According to Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer of the U.S. Mission to Libya from September 2011 to July 2012, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Ironically, as the State Department withdrew security resources, it increased hazard pay for its employees based in Libya by 5 percent.

Mr. Nordstrom’s concerns regarding the escalating violence and inadequate security provisions, especially at the Benghazi compound, were shared by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, commander of the 16-member Security Support Team (SST) in Libya from February to August 2012. Lt. Col. Wood, who left Libya shortly before Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, believed that the SST presence needed to be extended, an idea Mr. Nordstrom said was shot down by the State Department in early July.

When Lt. Col. Wood and Mr. Nordstrom surveyed the Benghazi compound’s physical security in March 2012, they said the security provisions were “inappropriately low,” with just one DSS agent available to supervise the 24-hour security. In addition to the DSS agent, the compound was protected by four armed members of the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade and unarmed Libyan contractors employed by the British-based Blue Mountain Group.

According to an employment contract recovered at the Benghazi compound by the Washington Post shortly after the September attacks, those unarmed Libyan contractors were making roughly $4 dollars an hour.

If that was indeed the case, the State Department, using the funds provided to the U.S. embassy in Austria for an electric vehicle charger, could have provided Ambassador Stevens with three additional guards, 24 hours a day, for 365 days, with some money left over.

This is not to argue that having more guards, extending the SST presence, or authorizing the continued use of the DC-3 plane would have prevented Ambassador Stevens’ death, which marked the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since the 1970s. It does, however, raise a question about the State Department’s spending priorities.

Should the money directed toward other State Department initiatives, such as the “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe,” have gone toward efforts to secure highly vulnerable State Department personnel in areas like Libya?

In terms of securing the U.S. mission in Libya, it’s hard to argue that the money wasn’t there.

What seemed to be lacking was the common sense to know where to spend it.

Europe’s green energy sweep should have been Libya’s security sweep. Instead, the very real threats to the U.S. mission in Libya were swept under the rug.

 Another diversion tactic by the Obama administration:  Blame the other guy for your collosal failures.  However, we are awake Mr. President and shame on you!!!  How many more innocent brave Americans will die under your watch?!?

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.

 

FBI still refused access to Benghazi – Why? Instead of answering questions, Obama admin creating them…

It has been more than two weeks since the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the FBI is still unable to access the US Consulate. Why? There was inadequate or no security to protect Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. Why? The White House lied about the murders being an act of terrorism. Why?  And why is the FBI being denied access to the crime scene?  Instead of answering questions, the Obama administration is creating them.

The Obama administration has continually lied to us.  They have either outright lied or withheld information on the Ft. Hood shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center shooting, the shameless security leaks, Fast and Furious,  and now the Benghazi massacre.  Nixon was forced to resign for lying to us – so should Obama!  If he won’t resign (which we know the narcissist would never do), he needs to be fired – before he destroys us all.

In a CNN interview Former Bush advisor Fran Townsend tells us:

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,’” Townsend said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in custody was denied.

 

And this from Hot Air:

Former CIA analyst Bob Baer also thinks the Libyans are being uncooperative, and says he can’t remember a case where the FBI’s been barred from the scene of an attack since Iran 1979. Why the Libyan government would refuse to let the feds in to look around, I have no idea, but it’s highly suspicious given that they’re potentially risking U.S. foreign aid by refusing the request. The alternative explanation, that they want to let the feds in but simply can’t reliably secure the area with so many militias running around, is actually worse because it underscores just how perilous the situation was for Chris Stevens and the consulate without a serious American security detail. That’s what ABC says is happening: Benghazi’s just too dangerous for a U.S. government agency to be picking through the rubble, even though CNN and other media have found ways to gain access to the site. And yet, apparently, Stevens’s superiors decided he’d be better off with less security, not more. Huh.

The coverup continues – worse than Watergate?  You decide – in November!  Your security, and that of your family and country depend on it.