Editor’s point of view: Here are more clippings about the American Ambassador and What happened in Benghazi, I haven’t finished collecting all the clippings but I will be adding them in the following days.
Knowing the situation in Libya Lets make something clear, in Benghazi there is no Consulate and no Embassy i.e No Security in the American standard that exists only in Tripoli. Where Mr. Stevens was killed was in a compound of houses which was rented by the American government which is a bunch of villas rented from a Benghazi businessman!
As the guards of the ambassador where very well trained and also later on SEAL GUARDS ARRIVED to his rescue only one team can kill them with one SHOT ON THE HEAD! THE ONLY ONES ARE THE MOSSAD , CIA AND THE KGB WHICH THEY DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE, as you will ask why, well the answer is to push America to enter the war with Israel against Iran.
I would love to say that it was the Green Resistance, I hope it was, But they have not come out to claim such a thing so my conclusion and knowing that in Misurata all the Jews from Israel have come back its very easy to assume that this was the plan and that is why Obama said to stand down!
The Nightmare. Four more years!
A secret document obtained by former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat suggests the Obama administration approved assigning a member of al-Qaida to handle security at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
According to a report published today by Shoebat, a letter dated Aug. 30, 2011, informed the al-Qaida member he had responsibility for security in Tripoli “to include all international embassies.”
The letter was to Abdel Hakim al-Khowailidi Belhaj and signed by Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil on behalf of the National Transitional Council, with which the U.S. was working after Moammar Gaddafi fell from power in Libya.
Belhaj previously has been described by al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri as “the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast [Belhaj].”
Shoebat, who was joined by talk-show host Ben Barrack in the investigation of the document, said the letter was from “a treasure trove of secret documents” obtained by a Libyan source.
“It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to al-Qaida in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012,” they wrote.
The letter, translated by Shoebat, said: “We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.”
Shoebat explained that al-Zawahiri’s endorsement of Belhaj came in a 2007 interview that was replayed by ABC.
The report also said Belhaj had been identified as “a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect,” but Shoebat noted the source of that statement was “a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood” – Al-Amin Belhaj.
Also, Ali Sulaiman Aujali appeared at a convention for the Islamic Society of North America, widely considered a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood in America, and then vouched for Belhaj, Shoebat reported.
The Libyan ambassador to the U.S. said at one point that Belhaj “should be accept[ed] for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis.”
The Benghazi controversy has been developing since Sept. 11 when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an organized terror attack.
While evidence now indicates the White House knew almost immediately it was an organized, planned terrorist attack, for weeks officials blamed the deaths on Muslim anger over a trailer of an on-line movie critical of Muhammad.
Reports now have emerged that there were orders for the U.S. military to stand down and not respond to calls for help from Benghazi.
According to Shoebat’s report, the documents from Libya suggest secularists there increasingly want to see Mitt Romney defeat Obama.
Shoebat is the grandson of the Muslim Mukhtar, or village head, of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem, who was a friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Ameen al-Husseni, an ally of Adolf Hitler.
After serving as a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and participating in acts of terror against Israel, Shoebat studied the Tanach, the Jewish Bible, in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam.
Six month later, he says, he realized that everything he “had been taught about Jews was a lie.”
Convinced he had been on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. (**** here is where you start laughing)
BENGHAZIGATE (Libya): The family of a Navy Seals accuses Obama assassination.
The father and mother of a Navy Seals, Smith, killed in Benghazi have used the word “murder” by indicting President Barack Obama. The brother of slain about him that he does not question the decisions taken during the attack.
The events in Benghazi give all families of three Americans except that of Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed in the attack September 11, 2012 at the American consulate in Benghazi (CIA headquarters), Libya, reactions very different. Recent reports attest course, the staff of the United States had issued several occasions, requests for assistance have been denied.
Patricia Smith, the mother of the employee of the State Department Sean Patrick Smith, did not hesitate to blame severely President Barack Obama, whom she accuses of being behind the death of her son. In crude language from her home, she said: “I think Obama has murdered my son.” She added: “I firmly believe.”
Patricia Smith, would have voted for Obama in 2008, at the insistence of her son. Today, she has the belief that Barack Obama is ultimately responsible for the death of her son. She said her son, who was his high school in Mission Bay but spent most of his time abroad, was a staunch supporter of President Obama.
The father of Tyrone Woods, Charles Woods, former Marine also died 41 years to Benghazi, he denounced the decisions taken by the U.S. authorities during the attack Benghazi in terms equally violent. “I am a retired lawyer, and I know that these actions are not legally an act akin to murder. But in my mind, the people of the White House, all those who have the power, would send reinforcements to prevent the death of my son. “
Elder brother Glen Doherty, another former Navy SEAL killed during the attack on the headquarters of the secret CIA in Benghazi, he simply said Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods was part of the force that responded to the attack against the consulate and therefore they wanted to defend America attacked …
CIA Agents Confirm Obama Told Them Not To Aid Ambassador Chris Stevens – The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya
UPDATE 4.: TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – Libya–The Real Story
UPDATE 3.: SEAL’s father Charles Woods on Hannity: WH officials “murdered” my son…
The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack “are murderers of my son.” Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault. “They refused to pull the trigger,” Woods said. “Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son.” Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to “stand up.” Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
Charles Woods said his son’s action “does not surprise me.”
“I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed,” he said.
UPDATE 2.: BREAKING NEWS!!! Obama a Hit-man or Terrorist Arms Dealer??? Why He Hid the Truth of Benghazi…
Published on Oct 29, 2012
Was Obama finished with our Ambassador to Libya where the Arms Trading was concerned???? Did he believe Chris Stevens was going to go public with what he knew about this administration’s illegal trading of weapons to the enemy??? Was this like the dreadful murderous collateral damage of ‘Fast and Furious’ ???
The Turkish leader left the meeting he was having with our Ambassador 1 hour before the attack without being touched, while the building was being watched by the attackers, according to the reports coming from onsite officials at the time, to the white house and to the internet.
The white house WATCHED THE ATTACK on Benghazi go down, via drone recon. They were told as it went down it was a terrorist attack and while it happened THE WHITE HOUSE WATCHED OUR PEOPLE DIE FROM THE SITUATION ROOM!!! And then lied about it!!!
Hillary Clinton said the buck stopped with her, taking the fall after the lies were being outed and blame had to be placed. I have always said,it is a deadly dangerous business to be one of Hillary Clinton’s ‘friends!!!’ Any ‘friend’ of hers involved with the Whitewater Scandal could tell you that, if any of them were alive today! Every last one of them, even the ones who went to prison, died mysteriously! Remember Vincent Foster… Foster’s death became part of a broad investigation of President and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s financial dealings in Arkansas when Whitewater records were discovered to have been in his office six months after his death. He was found sitting up – dead – in Virginia State Park. Some theorized he died elsewhere, was wrapped in a carpet and brought to the park. Strangely, his death was ruled a suicide.
I said it on the day this took place, and I will say it again. This is a false flag. It had nothing to do with a 13 minute YouTube video. But for the public to know who the terrorist was who did it, would point the finger at the person who sold the terrorist the weapons to do it with!!! And that would be inconvenient just now. As he is trying to win a presidential election!
UPDATE 1.: CIA agents confirm Obama told them not to Aid Ambassador Chris Stevens
Published on Oct 29, 2012
CIA operatives have now confirmed that they were told by the Obama Administration to hold back and not come to the rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens or the other 3 USA officials butchered in Benghazi Sept 11,2012.rescue.
John Christopher Stevens was an American diplomat and lawyer who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 11, 2012.
After American diplomatic facilities in Libya came under sustained assault by militia forces, the Obama administration – including the president and Secretary of State themselves – spent days insisting that the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an obscure YouTube video that insulted the Muslim prophet Muhammed.
The intelligence community was incensed at what some called a “cover up” of the administration’s mishandling of the situation.
As more information trickled out, the administration was eventually forced to admit that the attacks that claimed the lives of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans were acts of terrorism. But the “cover up” hasn’t stopped there. Information continues to emerge suggesting poor preparation for the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and potential disregard for the safety of personnel there. Stevens requested a prolonged stay for a 16-member security detail there, for instance, but that request was denied.
The Obama administration owes the American people a full, honest explanation for its actions in Libya. Its rhetoric does not match reality, as Heritage’s new video indisputably shows.
An Incriminating Timeline: Obama Administration and Libya
The latest incriminating information on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya indicates that the State Department turned down a request for additional security from concerned U.S. embassy staff.
New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.
And when the terrorist attack did take place, the Obama Administration peddled the ridiculous story that an offensive, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube video was to blame in order to avoid characterizing the murders of four Americans as terrorism.
On October 2, a letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R–CA) and Jason Chaffetz (R–UT), Chairman of the National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The letter detailed 13 known security threats against U.S. facilities in Libya in the six months prior to September 11.
On October 10, the committee will hold a hearing on events in Libya and seek answers from the State Department. Also on October 10, The Heritage Foundation will host a public panel discussion on the events in Libya titled, “Intelligence and Security Failure: Attacks in Benghazi and Across the Middle East Reveal Ongoing Threat of Terrorism.”
To help our readers follow the path to tragedy on September 11 and its aftermath, below is a chronology of key events:
April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi…
April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.
April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.
May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is car-jacked beaten, and detained by armed youth.
May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.
May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.
May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.
June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”
June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.
August 6: Armed assailants car-jack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.
September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.
September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.
September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.
September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.
September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.
September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.
September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.
September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.
September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”
September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nul and refuses to call attacks an act of terror.
September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.
September 19: Director of the National Counter terrorism Centre Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”
September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.
September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”
September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a pre planned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”
September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.
September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”
September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.
October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.
Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/ http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/10/cia-agents-confirm-obama-told-them-not-to-aid-ambassador-chris-stevens-the-white-house-disinformation-campaign-on-libya-2445322.html
W.H. Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story
The Obama administration appears to be mounting yet another version of its campaign to push back on claims that it misled on the intelligence related to the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12. But the new offensive by the administration, which contradicts many of its earlier claims and simply disregards intelligence that complicates its case, is raising fresh questions in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill about the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes. Obama-head-down
The administration’s new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that “the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official.”
If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defence they’re in trouble. The Times story is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius “scoop” isn’t a scoop at all. We’ll start there.
David Ignatius, a reporter’s columnist with excellent sources in the Obama administration and the intelligence community, reports: “Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept 11 attack on the U.S. consulate as a reaction to the Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently into its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
There are two problems with this. The CIA “talking points” don’t say that what Ignatius claims and the supposedly exculpatory documents were first reported three weeks ago.
On October 1, Newsweek’s Eli Lake reported: “For eight days after the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, government officials said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film. Now that officials have acknowledged they were a premeditated act of terrorism, the question some members of Congress are trying to answer is why it took so long for the truth to come out. Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.”
Lake continued, quoting directly from the CIA talking points, in language that may sound familiar to anyone who read the third paragraph above: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the demonstrations.” Both the Ignatius and Lake versions of the talking points note that the “assessment may change as additional information is collected” and that the “investigation is on-going.”
Note that the “talking points” do not claim that the attackers in Benghazi were directly motivated by the film, something the Obama administration claimed for nearly two weeks after 9/11. The talking points only say that the “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by Cairo.
We now know, of course, that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi. Those inside the compound heard gunfire at 9:40 p.m. local time and within minutes the compound was under siege. Surveillance photos and videos taken in the hours before the attack give no indication of a protest. And one CIA official tells Ignatius that it would have been better to substitute “opportunistic” for “spontaneous” since there was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”
Panel faults security failures in Benghazi attacks
By Paul Richter
WASHINGTON — The State Department was guilty of “systematic failures” in security that made the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Libya possible, a high-level investigative panel concluded in an unflinching examination made public late Tuesday.
The panel faulted the department for ignoring requests from U.S. diplomats in Tripoli for security assistance and for relying on ill-prepared local militias and inadequate equipment to protect the mission in Benghazi. It found that two key bureaus failed to properly coordinate their security planning, and it pointed to a failure in leadership by officials at several levels.
“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a … security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the report says.
The attacks by dozens of Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a broad reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its thousands of diplomats in dangerous parts of the world. The incident has also become the focus of a months-long battle between the Obama administration and Republican critics, who contend officials have sought to cover up their lapses.
United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was among those caught up in the political fray, eventually withdrawing her name from consideration as secretary of State after fierce criticism of her comments on television talk shows regarding the Benghazi attacks.
According to the report, which is likely to represent the government’s lasting judgment on the attacks, the assault was the calculated effort of militants and not a “spontaneous” reaction of an outraged crowd, the first explanation offered by U.S. officials.
Yet the five-member independent panel said that, despite the lapses, no officials had failed to carry out their duties in a way that required disciplinary action.
It also determined that there had been “no immediate, specific intelligence” on the threat against the mission.
The report prepared for lawmakers includes classified sections.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a letter to congressional committees that she has accepted “every one” of the Accountability Review Board’s 29 recommendations, several of which remain classified.
She praised the board, saying that it had offered “a clear-eyed look at serious, systematic challenges that we have already begun to fix.”
To begin remedying the problems, officials are planning to reallocate $1.3 billion that was to be spent in Iraq to add hundreds of Marine guards and diplomatic security personnel, and to bolster security infrastructure in dangerous locations.
The board, which was convened in September, was led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The two will meet Wednesday in closed session with the Senate and House foreign affairs committees to discuss the findings.
On Thursday, the committees will convene again in public session to discuss the report with Clinton’s deputies, William J. Burns and Thomas Nides. Clinton had agreed to appear before the committees Thursday, but asked to be excused last weekend after suffering a mild concussion in a fall. She has told the committees she would answer their questions in January.
The report criticizes officials for waiting to react to specific threats rather than anticipating the dangers that U.S. officials could face in a deteriorating security environment.
More than a year after the end of the end of a revolution that brought down Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, the nation is still overrun by rival armed groups and lacks a central authority that can guarantee security for foreign missions, as it is required to do under international agreements.
Accountability Review Boards are set up under federal law to examine failures and assign blame. This one found shortcomings in the bureaucratic system, in personnel and equipment.
The report details how the Libyan militias that were supposed to protect the compound were not capable of carrying out the assignment. It deems the mission’s fire-safety equipment and physical protections inadequate, and adds that the security arrangements were weakened by the relative inexperience and rapid turnover of personnel, despite their courage.
It also cites “diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity.”
The report says the mission security shortcomings were made clear by Stevens’ trip to Benghazi. Stevens, one of the most respected U.S. diplomats in the region, believed that he faced no special threat in his visit to Benghazi, even though the general level of risk had been on the rise for much of the year.
And the security officials assigned to protect him were not even aware of the specifics of his plans to travel outside the compound during his visit, the panel said.
The investigative panel found that although officials in the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had sought more security staffing in Benghazi, they had generally not done enough to try to improve security at the lightly protected Benghazi mission.
It said their faith in a local militia and contract security personnel was “misplaced,” noting that some militia members had stopped accompanying the mission vehicles to protest their salary and hours.
Among State Department personnel, “there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations,” the report says.
The report says certain senior officials in the State Department’s Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs bureaus, whom it didn’t identify, “demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability” in their responses. “However, the board did not find a reasonable cause to determine that any individual employee breached his or her duty,” it adds.
The report calls for a strengthening of security and for the department to “urgently review the proper balance between acceptable risk and expected outcomes in high risk, high threat areas.”
Response to Benghazi consulate attack was a CIA operation – report
The response to the US consulate attack in Benghazi, which claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens on September 11th, was predominantly an intelligence operation, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Sources claim that two out of the four people killed in the attack, and 23 out of the 30 evacuated, were under CIA command. The US administration has been repeatedly challenged about the apparent lack of security at the site, and the report claims that a mix-up between the CIA and State Department branch of the consulate enabled militants to attain easy access to the consulate.
Anti-American Autumn Follows the Arab Spring
Beyond the manipulations underlying the film “Innocence of Muslims” and the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, the emotions and violence that have rocked North Africa and the Middle East are the direct consequences of a strategy. Washington has opened a Pandora’s box and now must weather the storms it has itself unleashed. Unfortunately, being caught in its own web of contradictions, the U.S. administration is incapable of self-questioning and is sinking deeper into the chaos it wished upon others.
The more we listen to them the more distressing is the impression. The West has lost the conscience and does not even dare to recognize the fatal mistake committed to Colonel Gaddafi. A few days ago the US president speaking at the UN General Assembly repeated a terrific mantra:
We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the UN Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents; and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.
First of all there was no UN Security Council mandate for intervention in Libya. If you essay a task reading the resolution 1973 (2011) on ‘no-fly zone in Libya’, you will find out that it does not contain a single word regarding possible intervention. The flexibility of that resolution was the only reason of its fatal approval by the Security Council.
Today Libya is being torn in parts by the rivalling tribes. During Gaddafi’s rule it was a confederation of tribes mostly loyal to central authority. Now they are not. Eastern tribes have already declared factual secession and ignored the parliamentary elections. They are trying to pocket the revenues of gas and oil fields exploration on their territories. One of the most economically prosperous countries of Maghreb is rapidly turning into Afghanistan or Somalia.
Every Libyan tribe now has its own armed militias with estimated total manpower exceeding 100,000. They permanently fight each other for lands, pastures, fresh water sources, but mainly – oil fields. For example a large scale war between Misurata and Benghazi clans for Sirte basin is looming nowadays. No one has a slightest intention to concede these assets to the central authorities in Tripoli.
Alexander Mezyaev from Strategic Culture Foundation describes the daily slaughterhouse routine in Libya:
‘On the whole, there are no signs that tensions are going down in Libya, where fighting flared up non-stop over the past 5-6 months. Serious clashes between the Toubou brigades and Arab groups began in Sabha, southern Libya, in June and took hundreds of lives. Later battles raged in Kufra, south-east Libya. The traditional inter-clan dispute over border control in the western part of Libya escalated into a three-day armed conflict between Zuwara city on the one side and the cities of al-Jumail and Reghladin on the other, with around 50 people being killed. Ten people died when Arabs and Tuaregs hammered each other in Ghadames, and around 1,600 Tuaregs were forced to flee to the nearby Derg later on. In June, the Zentan and Mashashia tribes locked horns in the Nafusa mountains, leaving over 70 people dead and some 150 – wounded. Government forces were deployed between Zentan and Shagiga to keep apart two local communities warring over land. The Barki council continued to pursue “federalist” policies in the east of Libya. Violence spilled even into the premier’s premises where a guard and a “rebel fighter” were killed in a shootout last May. Government facilities, international community representatives, and the security forces come under fire in east Libya with frightening regularity.’
The administration of Barack Obama not only supported ousting Colonel Gaddafi (just refresh in memory his delighted speech on October 20, 2011), but also facilitated raising Muslim Brotherhood to the power in Egypt. Today we witness anti-American demonstrations there as well (no victims yet by sheer luck). And they also support anti-Assad insurgents in Syria. What will happen to the feeding hand in Damascus in case the guerrillas succeed we can’t even imagine.
Unfortunately the lessons of history are not learned in Washington. They have already paid a lot for distinguishing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ jihad (we are sorry to use this sacred word in ungodly militant meaning here). They consider the terror against geopolitical rivals as an admissible form of ‘national liberation’, while anti-American actions – as crimes against humanity. The price of such political schizophrenia for the US will be rising.
We shouldn’t relate these landmark events of the anti-American autumn exclusively to a movie parody released in America. The problem is much deeper. A villain global genie has already been let out of the bottle and is busy crushing the ancient mausoleum in Tripoli, demolishing Christian shrines in Kosovo, Indonesia, Nigeria, killing Egyptian Copts etc.
To understand the geopolitical solitaire on the Middle East properly we should name the winners and losers of the ‘Arab Spring’ gamble. The Gulf monarchies are certainly among the first. It is an open secret that the Gulf countries aspired to control Libyan gas for a long time. Qatar, having ambitious plans over the huge European liquefied gas market, was the main interested party in ousting the Libyan leader. As a bonus Qatar’s Emir Al-Thani has managed to get rid of his personal adversary (several harsh exchanges between them during some pan-Arab meetings were not left unnoticed) and a penultimate powerful secular leader of the Arabic world (the last one is Syria’s president Bashar Assad). Today the influence of pro-Salafi Islamists is seriously strengthened in Libya. The former military governor of Tripoli Abdelhakim Belhadj, the Qatar protégé, is considered one the most influential figures there. Despite a miserable result in the recently held ‘democratic’ elections to the General National Congress, he still plays a decisive role in Libya.
The main loser is obviously Europe (to say nothing of the Libyan people who would live in a new Afghanistan). It hasn’t achieved any goal originally pursued. The attempt to show its political and military might has nearly turned fiasco and factual second Suez crisis. The idea to establish a liberal secular state in Libya has failed as well. Those taking Mahmoud Jibril for liberal are deeply mistaken: he has already called for restoration of polygamy and, according to him, would strictly act in line with Sharia principles.
Moreover the operation in Libya has created new problems for the European continent. They have lost a reliable gas supplier (no serious company would invest into what is now called Libya). They face multiplied illegal immigration from Africa. The threat of the emergence of a huge oil-rich terrorist hub on the other side of Mediterranean armed by sophisticated weapons including MAN PADS is as tangible as never before. But maybe the most dangerous is the loss of the Third World leaders’ confidence. Now they know that flirtations and secession’s to the West would not guarantee them against democratic bombings.
What should be the lessons of the tragedy in Benghazi? First of all the party of war in the UN Security Council should contain its ambitions to reshuffle the Middle East. Their irresponsible policies have already cost a lot not only to the region, but its own reputations. The clearly expressed will to make Security Council act symphonic to maintain international peace and security would be a smart first step. (Unfortunately, Mrs.Clinton gave a wrong signal earlier this week leaving Security Council conference room while her Russian colleague Sergey Lavrov was about to switch on his microphone. The role of an offended girl does not correspond to the status of the US official.) They should understand that further attempts to destabilize Syria letting alone an apparent suicidal strike against Iran would catalyse irreversible processes in a global scale. The result will be shocking for the West: they would discover that they are definitely loosing subjectivity in international politics. The most retrograde forces will be advanced to the forefront putting an end to all human achievements in science, culture, arts, democracy and humanism. The agents of decadence are powerful even inside the US establishment. Will the sane and sober elements in national elites in America and other countries be able to cope with them is an issue critically important for the survival of contemporary world.
Rep. Trey Gowdy Explodes At Libya Hearing: ‘I Want To Know Why We Were Lied To’
Petraeus Quits; Evidence of Affair Was Found by F.B.I. (has nothing to do with Benghazigate??????)
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and one of America’s most decorated four-star generals, resigned on Friday after an F.B.I. investigation uncovered evidence that he had been involved in an extramarital affair.
David H. Petraeus is said to have had an affair with Paula Broadwell, right, who wrote a biography of him.
Mr. Petraeus issued a statement acknowledging the affair after President Obama accepted his resignation and it was announced by the C.I.A. The disclosure ended a triumphant re-election week for the president with an unfolding scandal.
Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a“potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation.
(***Again it has nothing to do with the Benghazi Gate (Ambassador) issues!!! really do these people think we are idiots!!!!)
Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus. Her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” was published this year. Ms. Broadwell could not be reached for comment.
Ms. Broadwell, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, spent 15 years in the military, according to a biography that had appeared on her Web site. She spent extended periods of time with Mr. Petraeus in Afghanistan, interviewing him for her book, which grew out of a two-year research project for her doctoral dissertation and which she promoted on a high-profile tour that included an appearance on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”
Married with two children, she has described Mr. Petraeus as her mentor.
Senior members of Congress were alerted to Mr. Petraeus’s impending resignation by intelligence officials about six hours before the C.I.A. announced it. One Congressional official who was briefed on the matter said that Mr. Petraeus had been encouraged “to get out in front of the issue” and resign, and that he agreed.
As for how the affair came to light, the Congressional official said that“it was portrayed to us that the F.B.I. was investigating something else and came upon him. My impression is that the F.B.I. stumbled across this.” (****My my they were just investigating, they just stumbled across this and Petraeus is an idiot to leave anything to chance I mean yeah! please!!! his the escape goat for Clinton and Obama mishaps with the American Ambassador in Benghazi so that the matter will close but WE THE LIBYANS WE WILL NOT LET IT CLOSE.)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the inquiry until this week, according to Congressional officials, who noted that by law the panels — and especially their chairmen and ranking members — are supposed to be told about significant developments in the intelligence arena. The Senate committee plans to pursue the question of why it was not told, one official said.
The revelation of a secret inquiry into the head of the nation’s premier spy agency raised urgent questions about Mr. Petraeus’s 14-month tenure at the C.I.A. and the decision by Mr. Obama to elevate him to head the agency after leading the country’s war effort in Afghanistan. White House officials said they did not know about the affair until this week, when Mr. Petraeus informed them.
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Mr. Petraeus said in his statement, expressing regret for his abrupt departure. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”
Mr. Petraeus’s admission and resignation represent a remarkable fall from grace for one of the most prominent figures in America’s modern military and intelligence community, a commander who helped lead the nation’s wartime activities in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and was credited with turning around the failing war effort in Iraq.
Mr. Petraeus almost single-handedly forced a profound evolution in the country’s military thinking and doctrine with his philosophy of counterinsurgency, focused more on protecting the civilian population than on killing enemies. More than most of his flag officer peers, he understood how to navigate Washington politics and news media, helping him rise through the ranks and obtain resources he needed, although fellow Army leaders often resented what they saw as a grasping careerism.
“To an important degree, a generation of officers tried to pattern themselves after Petraeus,” said Stephen Biddle, a military scholar at George Washington University who advised Mr. Petraeus at times. “He was controversial; a lot of people didn’t like him. But everybody looked at him as the model of what a modern general was to be.”
At the C.I.A., Mr. Petraeus maintained a low profile, in contrast to the celebrity that surrounded him as a general. But since the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans two months ago, critics had increasingly pressured him to give the agency’s account of the chaotic night. Mr. Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a closed Congressional hearing next week. (****see what I mean!!!)
White House officials say they were informed on Wednesday night that Mr. Petraeus was considering resigning because of an extramarital affair. Intelligence officials notified the president’s national security staff. Mr. Obama at the time was on his way back to Washington from Chicago, where he had gone to receive election returns.
On Thursday morning, just before a staff meeting at the White House, Mr. Obama was told. “He was surprised, and he was disappointed,”one senior administration official said. “You don’t expect to hear that the Thursday after you were re-elected.”
The president was in the White House all day on Thursday, getting back to his old routine after months on the campaign trail. That afternoon, Mr. Petraeus came in to see him, and informed him that he strongly believed he had to resign.
Mr. Obama did not accept his resignation right away. “He told him, ‘I’ll think about it overnight,’ ” the administration official said. After months on the road, the disclosure of a career-killing extramarital affair from his larger-than-life C.I.A. director was the last thing that Mr. Obama was expecting, the official said.
The president, officials said, did not want Mr. Petraeus to leave. But he ultimately decided that he would not lean heavily on him to stay. On Friday, he called Mr. Petraeus and accepted the resignation, “agreeing with Petraeus’s judgment that he couldn’t continue to lead the agency,” a White House official said.
The White House had hoped to keep the news under wraps until after the daily briefing for the news media, but as it was reported on MSNBC, reporters checking their e-mail confronted Jay Carney, the press secretary, who tried to duck the questions.
“I think I’ll let General Petraeus address this,” Mr. Carney said. Shortly after the news broke, Mr. Obama released a statement praising Mr. Petraeus for his “extraordinary service” to the country and expressing support for him and his wife, Holly.
“By any measure, through his lifetime of service, David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger,” the president said. Without directly addressing the affair, Mr. Obama added, “Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work.”
A favorite of President George W. Bush and once the subject of intense speculation about his future as a possible presidential candidate, Mr. Petraeus managed the awkward move from a Republican administration to a Democratic one. He was one of the most telegenic faces of the military during his tenure, testifying frequently in Congress about the country’s difficult battles overseas.
Mr. Petraeus clashed with Mr. Obama in 2008 during a campaign visit to Iraq, having what David Plouffe, his campaign manager, called in his book a “healthy debate” over troop levels in the country.
But the president’s decision to tap Mr. Petraeus to command the war in Afghanistan, and later picking him to lead the C.I.A., effectively ended lingering concerns among Obama political advisers that the popular general might challenge his commander in chief during the election.
Mr. Petraeus and his wife met when he was a cadet at West Point; she was the daughter of the academy’s superintendent and a student at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania.
Holly Petraeus works for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, running a branch dedicated to educating military families about financial matters and monitoring their consumer complaints.
Mr. Petraeus’s resignation and the circumstances surrounding it stunned military officers who have served alongside him in war zones over the past two decades and the national security establishment he later served.
“It was a punch in the gut for those of us who know him,” said Col. Michael J. Meese, a professor at West Point who has known Mr. Petraeus for a decade and served as one of his top aides in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Dave’s decision to step down represents the loss of one of our nation’s most respected public servants.” James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement.
By acknowledging an extramarital affair, Mr. Petraeus, 60, was confronting a sensitive issue for a spy chief. Intelligence agencies are often concerned about the possibility that agents who engage in such behavior could be blackmailed for information.
Mr. Petraeus praised his colleagues at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va., calling them “truly exceptional in every regard” and thanking them for their service to the country. He made it clear that his departure was not how he had envisioned ending a storied career in the military and in intelligence.
“Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life’s greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing,” he said. “I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you, and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.”
Under Mr. Bush, Mr. Petraeus was credited for helping to develop and put in place the “surge” in troops in Iraq that helped wind down the war there. Mr. Petraeus was moved to Afghanistan in 2010 after Mr. Obama fired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal over comments he made to a reporter.
In his statement on Friday, Mr. Obama said that Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A., would take over once again as acting director, as he did briefly after Leon E. Panetta left the agency last year.
Among those who might succeed Mr. Petraeus permanently is John O. Brennan, the president’s adviser for domestic security and counter terrorism Mr. Brennan was considered for C.I.A. director before Mr. Obama’s term began but withdrew amid criticism from some of the president’s liberal supporters. Another possibility is Michael G. Vickers, the top Pentagon intelligence policy official and a former C.I.A. paramilitary officer.
Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Resign? Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?
The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation
While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.
Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.
But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.
Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya
The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Qaddafi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:
Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)
CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.
The Real Story At Benghazi
This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens and the sudden resignation of CIA boss David Petraeus.
The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.
They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission.
Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.
Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:
There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”
And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”
And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.
In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.
Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.
Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.
Why Did CIA Chief David Petraeus Suddenly Resign?
CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. This could be the real explanation, given that affairs of high-level intelligence chiefs could compromise national security.
But the timing of Petraeus’ resignation becomes more interesting once one learns that that he was scheduled to testify under oath next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate.
Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.
The Big Picture
Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.
For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.
The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.
Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.
And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country.
Americans should ask ourselves if that’s what we want …
source: By Washington’s Blog Global Research,
By Bridget Johnson
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has turned down an invitation to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Thursday on the Benghazi attack.
A committee update this evening indicated that Michael Courts, acting director of International Affairs and Trade for the Government Accountability Office, will be testifying followed by a RAND Corp. analyst.
The committee indicated further witnesses could be added, but the State Department confirmed that Clinton won’t be one of them.
“She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal.
“The Committee plans to hold the second segment of this hearing the week of November 26, 2012 and will request Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before the Committee at that time,” the Foreign Affairs Committee said in an advisory.
Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) wrote Clinton on Tuesday to demand that the State Department respond to the panel’s requests for information on Benghazi.
“It is disappointing that we have yet to receive any response from your Department and that we are receiving more information from the press than from the Administration,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote.
On Sept. 12 and Sept. 14, the chairwoman requested State Department witnesses for both an open hearing and closed-door members’ briefing. On Sept. 25, committee members requested information on intelligence leading up to the attack and the role former Guantanamo detainees may have played. On Oct. 15, fresh requests were sent from Ros-Lehtinen directly to Clinton. No responses have been received.
“While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote.“Accordingly, I respectfully request access, in accordance with standard procedures for classification information, to all cables regarding embassy security in Benghazi before, during, and after the September 11th attack and all memoranda establishing security protocols, including agreements with other agencies.”
“Moreover, I continue to have concerns more broadly about embassy post security in front-line countries and I request an expeditious response to the questions raised in my October 15th letter,” the chairwoman added. “Finally, please be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.”
Confirmed : US Was Holding and Interrogating “Prisoners” at Benghazi Annex
Jennifer Griffen at FOX News today confirmed that the US was holding and interrogating Libyan, Arab and African prisoners at the Benghazi annex near the consulate compound. at the Benghazi annex near the consulate compound. US agents handed three prisoners over to Libyan authorities on their way out of the city on September 12. The prisoners may have been held in the compound for several days.
Posted November 13, 2012
Secret prisons or secret lovers – what’s more important?
A major story has broken in the US.
Though the following story had started to break, the gathering storm is no longer this: The CIA, under the leadership of General David Patraeus, may have defied a directive from President Obama to close down secret prisons, opting instead to maintain the practice and extending it to Benghazi, Libya.
The suggestion of the secret prison operation’s continuation has come from someone not easily dismissed as uninformed. The source, Paula Broadwell, has more than an intimate familiarity with outgoing CIA Chief, General Patraeus. Broadwell, in addition to writing Patraeus’ “official biography” has, it has subsequently transpired, been liaising as his secret lover too.
Speaking at the University of Denver, Broadwell ignited an epic furor with this claim:
“I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back,”
Explosive stuff. And yet tuning in to this evening’s cable news shows I find the building furor has disappeared – or rather been displaced by another altogether more intoxicating brouhaha.
What story, I trust you’ll ask, could possibly be more compelling, shocking and potentially devastating for many senior players in Washington than the alleged existence of secret CIA prisons, including one in – of all places – Benghazi, Libya; one that may provide the most relevant explanation for the Sept 11, 2012 attack that ended with the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans before dominating days of the US Presidential election with the question “what happened?”?
What story can have supplanted the suggestion that General Patraeus may be been operating secret prisons, in defiance of a Presidential directive, and doing so in Benghazi, Libya?
Here’s tonight’s headline from MSNBC’s “Hardball”
Epic Scandal: General Patraeus implicated in secret Libyan prison operation.
Yeah right. Here’s the actual headline on the questionably-named Hardball:
“The Young and the Shirtless”
…a convoluted Daily Mail-style wallowing in the ‘he said-she said’ gossip usefully surrounding CIA Chief General Petraeus’ apparent marital affair with (prison story source) Broadwell.
With an intrepid, un-distractible, fearless media like this, is it any wonder that:
(a) the CIA’s monumental blunders and failures over (just) the last ten years, including failures around 9/11, failures relating to non-existent WMDs in Iraq, or failures concerning the organization having not the vaguest inkling that almost the entire Middle East was on the verge of full-on revolution, state by state, regime by regime, is not more of a cause of investigation, accountability and national discussion.
And (b) That the MSM is drowning in a credibility crisis while losing out with increasing frequency to “new media”.
While the MSM is content to report on Patraeus this week as though the ‘scandal’ is who he’s shagging rather than who he’s shackling, surely it must be almost as implicated by the existence, if proven true, of illegal and secret prisons as Patraeus himself.
Ruarai, Strategic Communications Consultant, located Washington DC
See Also The Somali Connection : If the CIA was running a detention facility at Benghazi, it’s possible it was a rogue operation, or it’s possible the president secretly authorized an exception to Executive Order 13491. Either way, there would be extraordinary political pressure to keep it quiet. That might explain why, as Jennifer Griffin reported, the CIA repeatedly refused requests for military backup during the 9/11 attacks on the consulate and the nearby CIA annex.
source:Information Clearing House
American Blackmail: Petraeus Affair Used to Cloud Obama’s “Benghazigate”?
The mistress of General Petraeus – Paula Broadwell, was no ordinary fling, and is said to be pivotal in his resignation.
As a result, the CIA head won’t be testifying in the upcoming Congressional hearings on Obama’s cock-up in Benghazi. The FBI raided Broadwell’s residence immediately following the disclosure.
Paula Broadwell is a top-line US intelligence operative, and has links to arms dealer Jan Henrik Jebsen, who set up her position at Tufts University where she ran the Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies at Tufts Fletcher School. Jebsen also has ties to arch-neocons Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen through his board position with the pro-Israeli Hudson Institute. The Hudson is directly tied to Likud in Israel, and works to cultivate the idea of radical Islam as the chief threat to the west. Paula Broadwell is in the middle of this matrix, and she herself has also worked extensively in Israel and Jordan, as one could image.
Paula Broadwell may well have been a kind of elite “honey trap”. It’s a complex web, and the American media would do itself a favor by looking into it properly.
Enter the spoiler…
One can’t ignore the obvious overtones of possible foreign operatives working within the Washington circle, and we should also look into Mrs Jill Kelley, her maiden name is ‘Khawam’ and is apparently the daughter of a Lebanese immigrant. It’s Jill Kelley who kicked off when Paula Broadwell sent her harassing emails telling her to ‘back off’ Petraeus.
Why is Mrs Kelley an ‘unpaid social liaison’ to U.S. CENTCOM working out of the military headquarters based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, a base which overseas oversees operations in the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan? ‘Unpaid’ is often a status used for spies working as informants. If that’s the case, then Jill Kelley’s cover is blown. The White House will want to bury this one as deep as possible.
Then there’s the problem of Broadwell out on the speaking circuit claiming the US CIA safe house in Benghazi run by Christopher Stevens was being used as a ‘secret prison’. There are also allegations that Stevens was organizing the gun-running of ex-Gaddafi stockpiles into Syria for the American and British-backed FSA terrorists.
Where there’s affairs and blackmail in Washington, you will find the term ‘national security’ nearby. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Notice how all this has unfolded after the election – proof at how the Obama Administration’s dark arts are as cunning and dirty as anything Nixon could have cobbled together. James Corbett attempts to piece it together here…
Petraeus mistress reveals real motive behind Benghazi attack (VIDEO)
Paula Broadwell.(Screenshot from YouTube by Tomthunkit)
The fallout from former CIA head David Petraeus’ resignation might be more significant than first thought: as all eyes turn to the ex-intelligence chief’s mistress, it’s apparent that she may have been privy to what really happened in Benghazi.
Two months after the storming of an US consulate in Benghazi, questions remain largely unanswered about both how and why insurgents entered the facility on September 11 and executed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The discussion became a heated issue on the campaign trail leading up to Election Day, and conflicting accounts from the White House, State Department and Congress all led to a mess of confusion that has only further spun out of control following the unexpected stepping down of Petraeus on Friday.
In the immediate aftermath of the CIA chief’s resignation, skeptics quickly suggested that there was more to the story, especially given Petraeus’ role as head of the country’s intelligence agency and the relatively unscathing extramarital affair that he rightfully admitted to in citing his departure from office. As journalists and investigators tried to dig deep for info on the alleged mistress, Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell, as expected the story took a drastic turn by Sunday when it was revealed that she may have been briefed on the truth of the Benghazi scandal while the rest of the country claws for answers.
A speech given by Broadwell only last month at her Alma matter suggests that she was given information about the terrorist attack that never made it to the American public.
“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner,” Broadwell told a crowd at the University of Denver alumni symposium on October 26. “And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
Broadwell’s address was publicly available on YouTube until this weekend; it has since been removed, although mirrors have surfaced.
Until then, and even today, the CIA denies Broadwell’s claims that the CIA was holding anyone prisoner at what has long been described as a consulate building in Benghazi. Should her account prove true, however, it could mean that the agency had a secret black site prison in Libya, a fact long denied by Washington. If true, it could also mean that not only was the security of United States’ top intelligence office breached, but also may for once provide an impetus for the Sept. 11 attack.
The FBI has officially confirmed searching Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, North Carolina. The agency did not say why it performed the search, but it’s clear that Broadwell’s potential access to any sensitive material is being taken seriously.
In the initial aftermath of the assault, the Obama administration considered an anti-Islamic filmed produced in America, ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ as the catalyst for the Benghazi attack and similar strikes in the region. After days of pressing, however, the White House eventually admitted that the assassination of Ambassador Stevens was being blamed by Washington on terrorists, 11 years to the day after al-Qaeda operatives brought down the Twin Towers.
According to last month’s address in Denver, Broadwell also said a group of Delta Force operators, “the most talented guys we have in the military,” could have been dispatched to provide reinforcement for the Americans in Benghazi but were not. Instead, the US packed up and left immediately, not securing the scene until days later, by which point much of the facility, and presumably all evidence, had been looted or destroyed.
On late Sunday, Greg Miller of The Washington Post wrote on Twitter that the “CIA adamant that Broadwell claims about agency holding prisoners at Benghazi are not true.” On Sunday, a spokesperson for the CIA told The Daily Beast that the agency “has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
Broadwell has yet to make any statements to the press since she made international headlines on Friday following Petraeus’ resignation. On his part, the former CIA chief has yet to publicly discuss the Benghazi massacre, and will no longer testify before Congress as originally scheduled to do as such this Thursday. Instead, acting CIA Director Michael Morell is expected to field questions to lawmakers in Washington.
David Petraeus claims CIA knew all along that Benghazi attack was orchestrated by terrorists
By George Grant.
(**** Editors note this is a clip from a newspaper which is published in Libya controlled by England and of course by MI6 so its very Bias the news about Petraeus and he would put the blame on the TERRORISTS really!!!! sniff!! sniff!!)
General Petraeus paid a secret visit to Libya to assess the CIA presence here in October.
Tripoli, 17 November:
United States General David Petraeus has claimed that the Central Intelligence Agency knew all along that the 11 September attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was terrorist attack orchestrated by Al-Qaeda(**CIA) linked militants.
During two appearances before Congressional committees yesterday, Petraeus, who resigned as CIA director on 9 November following revelations of an extramarital affair, said the public explanation had been edited to prevent alerting groups under suspicion.
Four Americans were killed in the attack, including the US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
Controversy has raged for months in the US over the White House’s initial version of events, in which it was stated that the assault was a spontaneous protest and not premeditated. (***no protests were there that is a fact and proof is available)
That claim was made five days after the strike by US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. “Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what 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”, Rice said on 16 September, in reference to the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims, which denigrates the Prophet Mohammed.
Rice subsequently admitted that this version of events was false, but claimed her account was based on intelligence she had received at the time, effectively placing the blame publicly on the CIA.
Rancour over who said what and when over Benghazi became one of the major hot buttons of the recent US presidential election, with Republican challenger Mitt Romney repeatedly calling into question the Obama administration’s competence in its handling of the affair.
Doubt still remains as to whether Rice was provided with a CIA briefing for her early statement or not, but Petraeus’s remarks are certain to place further pressure on the White House, and may even threaten Rice’s prospects as the potential successor to Hillary Clinton as US secretary of state.
Last week it emerged that Petraeus had himself paid a secret visit to Libya in October, ostensibly to examine what remained of the CIA’s presence in the country after the US abandoned the agency’s base along with the Benghazi mission following the 11 September assault.
Throughout this affair, National Congress President Mohamed Magarief (****a CIA agent)has maintained that the strike was indeed “a planned attack, meticulously executed”. Magarief has also consistently claimed that the incident involved foreigners and that investigations could turn up “a link to Al-Qaeda (***CIA/MOSSAD)”.
The prime suspect in the case has long been the Ansar Al-Sharia brigade, the militant Islamist group subsequently broken up and driven out of its Benghazi headquarters by anti-extremism demonstrators.
For its part, Ansar Al-Sharia denied having anything to do with the assault, demanding instead that “Western intelligence agencies” be taken to task for undermining Islamic law in the country.
In spite of investigations by both the Libyan authorities and the FBI, however, not a single person has been charged with involvement to date, although a handful of people were arrested in the days immediately following the assault.
The Libya Herald’s account of what happened on 11 September can be found here.
Obama’s Libya lies and how the United States ambassador really died
Critics of the Libya intervention warned that dropping bombs in a country and killing civilians, would produce blow-back in the form of those who would then want to attack the US.
By Glenn Greenwald The Guardian
After gunmen attacked the US consulate in Benghazi with bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, the White House insisted it was a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam video.
ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden, top government officials, including then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and top terrorism adviser John Brennan, made numerous false statements about what took place.
That included the claim that Bin Laden was killed after he engaged in a “firefight”, that he used his wife as a human shield to protect himself, and that he was living in luxury in a $1m mansion.
None of those claims, central to the story the White House told the world, turned out to be true. Bin Laden was unarmed and nobody in the house where Bin Laden was found ever fired a single shot (a courier in an adjacent guest house was the only one to shoot, at the very beginning of the operation).
Bin Laden never used his wife or anyone else as a shield. And the house was dilapidated, showed little sign of luxury, and was worth one-quarter of what it was claimed.
Gruesome photo-opportunity: Obama watches live at the White House the assassination of Osama bin Laden, along with vice president Joe Biden, defense secretary Robert Gates, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and counter-terrorism chief John Brennan.
Numerous other claims made by the administration about the raid remain unanswered because of its steadfast insistence on secrecy and non-disclosure (except when it concerns Hollywood filmmakers).
Would it have mattered had the White House been truthful about the Bin Laden raid from the start? It would have undoubtedly made no difference for many people, who simply craved Osama bin Laden’s death without regard to how it was done.
But it certainly would have made a difference for at least some people around the world in terms of how they perceived of these actions and whether they approved – which is presumably why the White House was so eager to insist on these falsehoods and to ensure that the world’s perception was shaped by them.
(Please spare me the “fog of war” excuse: when the so-called “fog of war” causes the US government to make inaccurate claims that undermine its interests, rather than bolster them – as always happens – then that excuse will be plausible.)
There’s obviously an enormous difference between killing someone in a firefight and shooting him in cold blood while he’s unarmed. The morning after the Bin Laden killing was announced, I wrote that although I’d have preferred he be captured and tried, “if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the US military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture.”
At least one legal scholar has changed his mind about the legality of the killing, in the wake of evidence that Bin Laden was killed while lying on the ground, unarmed and severely wounded.
But no matter. The White House’s initial statements about what happened, false though they turned out to be, forever shaped perceptions of that event. Many people are unwilling to change their minds even in the wake of new evidence, while many others hear only of the initial claims made when news coverage is at its peak and never become aware of subsequent corrections.
Combine that with the generalized “Look Forward, Not Backward” mentality popularized by President Obama – as embodied by John Kerry’s “shut up and move on” decree to those asking questions about what really happened in the Bin Laden raid – and those initial White House falsehoods did the trick.
We now see exactly the same pattern emerging with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of the US ambassador. For a full week now, administration officials have categorically insisted that the prime, if not only, cause of the attack was spontaneous anger over the anti-Muhammad film, The Innocence of Muslims.
Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that “these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” On Friday, he claimed:
“‘This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to US 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, write large, or at US policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.'”
On Sunday, UN ambassador Susan Rice, when asked about the impetus for the attack, said that “this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” and added: “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.” In other interviews, she insisted that the Benghazi violence was a “spontaneous” reaction to the film.
Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing.
Said NPR on 12 September: “The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.” The Daily Beast reported that the ambassador “died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam.” To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador “because they were angry about a film”.
As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]:
“The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week’s assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a ‘terrorist attack’ apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida’s leadership or regional allies.
“‘I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,’ said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
“It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week.‘The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,’ Olsen said.” [My emphasis]
Worse, it isn’t as though there had been no evidence of more accurate information before Wednesday. To the contrary,most evidence from the start strongly suggested that the White House’s claims – that this attack was motivated by anger over a film – were false. From McClatchy:
“The head of Libya’s interim government, key US lawmakers and experts contend that the attack appeared long-planned, complex and well-coordinated, matching descriptions given to McClatchy last week by the consulate’s landlord and a wounded security guard, who denied there was a protest at the time and said the attackers carried the banner of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia.”
Indeed, Libya’s president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is “no doubt” the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video.
CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, “that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack.” That, noted the network, “is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.” The report concluded: “What’s clear is that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”
The Obama White House’s interest in spreading this falsehood is multi-fold and obvious:
For one, the claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it.
After all, if the violence that erupted in that region is driven only by anger over some independent film about Muhammad, then no rational person would blame the US government for it, and there could be no suggestion that its actions in the region – things like this, and this, and this, and this – had any role to play.
The White House capitalized on the strong desire to believe this falsehood: it’s deeply satisfying to point over there at those Muslims and scorn their primitive religious violence, while ignoring the massive amounts of violence to which one’s own country continuously subjects them. It’s much more fun and self-affirming to scoff: “can you believe those Muslims are so primitive that they killed our ambassador over a film?” than it is to acknowledge: “our country and its allies have continually bombed, killed, invaded, and occupied their countries and supported their tyrants.”
It is always more enjoyable to scorn the acts of the Other Side than it is to acknowledge the bad acts of one’s own. That’s the self-loving mindset that enables the New York Times to write an entire editorial today purporting to analyze Muslim rage without once mentioning the numerous acts of American violence aimed at them (much of which the Times editorial page supports). Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.
Then, there are the implications for the intervention in Libya, which Obama’s defenders relentlessly tout as one of his great victories. But the fact that the Benghazi attack was likely premeditated and carried out by anti-American factions vindicates many of the criticisms of that intervention.
Critics of the war in Libya warned that the US was siding with (and arming and empowering) violent extremists, including al-Qaida elements, that would eventually cause the US to claim it had to return to Libya to fight against them – just as its funding and arming of Saddam in Iraq and the mujahideen in Afghanistan subsequently justified new wars against those one-time allies.
War critics also argued that the intervention would bring massive instability and suffering to the people of Libya; today, the Washington Post reports that – just as the “president of Afghanistan” is really the mayor of Kabul and the “Iraqi government” long exercised sovereignty only in Baghdad’s Green Zone – the central Libyan government exercises little authority outside of Tripoli. And intervention critics also warned that dropping bombs in a country and killing civilians, no matter how noble the intent supposedly is, would produce blow-back in the form of those who would then want to attack the US.
When the White House succeeded in falsely blaming the consulate attacks on anger over this video, all of those facts were obscured. The truth, now that it is emerging, underscores how unstable, lawless and dangerous Libya has become – far from the grand success story war proponents like to tell. As McClatchy noted in Thursday’s report:
“Libya remains plagued by armed groups nearly a year after the US-backed ouster of the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Yet the facility was primarily defended by local guards who may have been complicit …
“Since the fall of Gaddafi last year, Libya’s security has been dependent on a group of armed militias, including Ansar al-Shariah, that represent a wide variety of political strains and interests and remain heavily armed with weapons looted from Gaddafi storehouses. Interior Ministry forces and the Supreme Security Committee have been accused of complicity in recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on mosques and shrines affiliated with the moderate Sufi strain of Islam.”
Then, there are the garden-variety political harms to the White House from the truth about these attacks. If the killing of the ambassador were premeditated and unrelated to the film, then it vests credibility in the criticism that the consulate should have been much better-protected, particularly on 9/11. And in general, the last thing a president running for re-election wants is an appearance that he is unable to protect America’s diplomats from a terrorist group his supporters love to claim that he has heroically vanquished.
The falsehood told by the White House – this was just a spontaneous attack prompted by this video that we could not have anticipated and had nothing to do with – fixed all of those problems. Critical attention was thus directed to Muslims (what kind of people kill an ambassador over a film?) and away from the White House and its policies.
The independent journalist IF Stone famously noted that the number one rule of good journalism, even of good citizenship, is to remember that “all governments lie.” Yet, no matter how many times we see this axiom proven true, over and over, there is still a tendency, a desire, to believe that the US government’s claims are truthful and reliable.
The Obama administration’s claims about the Benghazi attack are but the latest in a long line of falsehoods it has spouted on crucial issues, all in order to serve its interests and advance its agenda. Perhaps it is time to subject those claims to intense skepticism and to demand evidence before believing they are true.
Libya and the supreme crime of killing Americans
It is hard not to notice, and be disturbed by, the vastly different reactions whenever innocent Americans are killed, as opposed to when Americans are doing the killing of innocents.
By Glenn Greenwald The Guardian
PROTESTERS attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Tuesday night and killed four Americans, including the US ambassador, Chris Stevens.
The attacks were triggered by rage over an amateurish and deeply hateful film about Islam that depicted the Prophet Muhammad as, among other things, a child molester advocate, a bloodthirsty goon, a bumbling idiot, and a promiscuous, philandering leech. A 13-minute trailer was uploaded to YouTube and then quickly circulated in the Muslim world, sparking widespread anger (the US embassy in Cairo was also attacked).
The anti-Islam film was written, directed and produced by an Israeli real estate developer living in California, Sam Bacile. He claimed, in an interview with Haaretz, that the film “cost $5m to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors”. Its purpose, as described by the Israeli newspaper, wazzz`s to show that “Islam is a cancer” and to provide a “provocative political statement condemning the religion”.
It’s hard to believe that the film – which is barely at the level of a poorly rehearsed high-school play – required $5m to make, but the intent seems clear: to provoke Muslims into exactly the sort of violent rage that we are now witnessing.
Events like this one are difficult to write about when they first happen because the raw emotion they produce often makes rational discussion impossible. A script quickly emerges from which All Decent People must recite, and any deviations are quickly detected and denounced. But given the magnitude of this event and the important points it raises, it is nonetheless worthwhile to examine it:
1) The deaths of Ambassador Stevens, a former Peace Corps volunteer and a dedicated Arabic-speaking career diplomat, and the other three American staff, are both a tragedy and a senseless outrage. Indiscriminately murdering people over a film, no matter how offensive it is, is an unmitigated wrong. The blame lies fully and completely with those who committed these murders.
2) Sam Bacile and his cowardly anonymous donors are repellent cretins for producing this bottom-feeding, bigoted, hateful “film” that has no apparent purpose but to spread anti-Islamic hatred and provoke violent reactions. But just as was true of the Qur’an burnings by Pastor Terry Jones (who, unsurprisingly, has a prominent role in promoting this film), or the Danish Muhammad cartoons before that, it is – and it should be – an absolute, unfettered free speech right to produce films no matter how offensive their content might be.
The US has steadily eroded free speech rights in the name of fighting terrorism by criminalizing pure political speech it deems dangerous and prosecuting Muslims who express those prohibited ideas. Attempts to constrain the rights of individuals to produce anti-Muslim films like the trash produced by Bacile and friends are just as dangerous and wrong as all other efforts to constrain free speech. Free speech is a vital liberty – arguably, the central one – and what it means, at its core, is that the right to express even the most repellent and inflammatory ideas is just as inviolable as the right to express inoffensive or conventional ones.
3) It is hard not to notice, and be disturbed by, the vastly different reactions whenever innocent Americans are killed, as opposed to when Americans are doing the killing of innocents. All the rage and denunciations of these murders in Benghazi are fully justified, but one wishes that even a fraction of that rage would be expressed when the US kills innocent men, women and children in the Muslim world, as it frequently does. Typically, though, those deaths are ignored, or at best justified with amoral bureaucratic phrases (“collateral damage”) or self-justifying cliches (“war is hell”), which Americans have been trained to recite.
It is understandable that the senseless killing of an ambassador is bigger news than the senseless killing of an unknown, obscure Yemeni or Pakistani child. But it’s anything but understandable to regard the former as more tragic than the latter. Yet there’s no denying that the same people today most vocally condemning the Benghazi killings are quick and eager to find justification when the killing of innocents is done by their government, rather than aimed at it.
It’s as though there are two types of crimes: killing, and then the killing of Americans. The way in which that latter phrase is so often invoked, with such intensity, emotion and scorn, reveals that it is viewed as the supreme crime: this is not just the tragic deaths of individuals, but a blow against the Empire; it therefore sparks particular offense. It is redolent of those in conquered lands being told they will be severely punished because they have raised their hand against a citizen of Rome.
Just compare the way in which the deaths of Americans on 9/11, even more than a decade later, are commemorated with borderline religious solemnity, as opposed to the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of foreign Muslims caused by the US, which are barely ever acknowledged. There is a clear hierarchy of human life being constantly reinforced by this mentality, and it is deeply consequential.
This is a vital process for enabling and justifying endless aggression. It is a way of dehumanizing those who are killed by the US while venerating American lives above all others. As the media watchdog group Media Lens put it today:
“A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It’s the foundation of all mass violence.”
The death of Ambassador Stevens and the three Americans who died with him is as tragic as the constant killing of innocent people by the US, but not more so.
4) The two political parties in the US wasted no time in displaying their vulgar attributes by rushing to squeeze these events for political gain. Democratic partisans immediately announced that “exploiting US deaths” – by which they mean criticizing President Obama – “is ugly, unwise”.
That standard is as ludicrous as it is hypocritical. Democrats routinely “exploited US deaths” – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and from 9/11 – in order to attack President Bush and the Republican party, and they were perfectly within their rights to do so. When bad things happen involving US foreign policy, it is perfectly legitimate to speak out against the president and to identify his actions or inaction that one believes are to blame for those outcomes. These are political events, and they are inherently and necessarily “politicized”.
It’s one thing to object to specific criticisms of Obama here as illegitimate and ugly, as some of those criticisms undoubtedly were (see below). But trying to impose some sort of general prohibition on criticizing Obama – on the ground that Americans have died and this is a crisis – smacks of the worst debate-suppressing tactics of the GOP circa 2003. (To his credit, one of the Democrats making those claims today subsequently acknowledged his error and wrote: “Obviously there’s nothing wrong with criticizing the president, even during a crisis.”)
But in this case, what the GOP and Mitt Romney did is substantially worse. As the attacks unfolded, Romney quickly issued a statement, based on the response of the US embassy in Egypt, accusing Obama of “sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks” (the Obama White House repudiated the statement from the embassy in Cairo). The chairman of the GOP, Reince Preibus, unloaded on the world this disgusting tweet: “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic”.
These accusations were all pure fiction and self-evidently ugly; they prompted incredulous condemnations even from media figures who pride themselves on their own neutrality.
But this is the story of the GOP. Faced with a president whose record is inept and horrible in many key respects, they somehow find a way to be even more inept and horrible themselves. Here, they had a real political opportunity to attack Obama – if US diplomats are killed and embassies stormed, it makes the president appear weak and ineffectual – but they are so drowning in their own blinding extremism and hate-driven bile, so wedded to their tired and moronic political attacks (unpatriotic Democrats love America’s Muslim enemies!), that they cannot avoid instantly self-destructing. Within a matter of hours, they managed to turn a politically dangerous situation for Obama into yet more evidence of their unhinged, undisciplined radicalism.
5) Drawing conclusions about Libya, and the US intervention there, from this situation would be unfair and far too premature. This does, however, highlight the rampant violence, lawlessness, militia thuggery, and general instability that has plagued that country since Gadaffi’s removal from power. Moreover, given all the questions, largely ignored, about who it was exactly whom the US was arming and empowering in that country during the intervention, and what the unexpected consequences of doing that might be, it is vital to know how the attackers came into possession of rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weaponry.
This event also serves as a crucial reminder, yet again, that merely removing a heinous dictator is not proof that the intervention was successful, just or worthwhile. To assess that question, one must know what will follow in that country, for its people, once the intervening powers have removed the government. Declarations of victory and vindication over the intervention in Libya have always been premature, self-serving and baseless – precisely because that crucial fact is yet unknown. We can only hope that Tuesday’s events do not presage a depressing answer to that question.
In sum, one should by all means condemn and mourn the tragic deaths of these Americans in Benghazi. But the deaths would not be in vain if they caused us to pause and reflect much more than we normally do on the impact of the deaths of innocents which America itself routinely causes.
UPDATE: There are two developments in this story which, though they do not affect any of the observations I made, should be noted as they are at odds with some of the earlier reports: (1) although the Haaretz report was (and remains) quite definitive that the filmmaker is an Israeli named Sam Bacile, doubts have now been raised about the identity of the actual filmmaker, and (2) an anonymous US official claims that the attack was preplanned to coincide with 9/11, and the attackers exploited the protests over the film as a diversion. Neither of those claims is proven.
Removing Gaddafi was easy: now the west has started a fire in Libya it cannot extinguish
The Libyan revolution, fanned and fuelled by bogus ‘liberators’ David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy, is in danger of degenerating into a chaotic, violent free-for-all.
By Simon Tisdall The Guardian
“Western intervention is the root cause of the turmoil in the Middle East region that led to this killing.”
THE assassination in Benghazi of the American ambassador to Libya is an appalling act – and one foreseen by his employers.
On 27 August, the state department warned US citizens against all but essential travel to Libya, painting a picture of a country beset by increasing instability and fraught with danger.
“The incidence of violent crime, especially carjacking and robbery, has become a serious problem… Political violence, including car bombings in Tripoli and assassinations of military officers and alleged former regime officials in Benghazi, has increased. Inter-militia conflict can erupt at any time or any place in the country,” the state department said.
Exactly who is responsible for the death of Christopher Stevens and three embassy staff is unclear. Libyan officials blamed pro-Gaddafi loyalists linked to the bombings in Tripoli. Salafists, ultra-conservative Muslims who besieged the Benghazi consulate overnight, seem to be the more likely culprits. They have mounted a string of recent attacks on Sufi shrines and are said to have been enraged by clips of a film on the internet that defames the prophet Muhammad.
Any number of other Libyan armed groups might have had a hand in the killings. But in truth, responsibility may also be traced back, directly or indirectly, to those in London, Paris, Brussels and Washington who launched last year’s Nato intervention in Libya with insouciant disregard for the consequences. It was clear then, or should have been, that toppling Muammar Gaddafi was the easy bit. Preventing an Iraq-style implosion, or some form of Afghan anarchy, would be much harder.
Yet this is exactly what Stevens’s death may presage. Once again, the western powers have started a fire they cannot extinguish. A year after David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy jointly travelled to Libya to lay claim to a liberator’s bogus laurels, the Libyan revolution they fanned and fuelled is in danger of degenerating into a chaotic, violent free-for-all.
Do not be misled by the fig leaf of this summer’s national assembly polls. Post-Gaddafi Libya lacks viable national political leadership, a constitution, functioning institutions, and most importantly, security. Nationwide parliamentary elections are still a year away. The east-west divide is as problematic as ever. Political factions fight over the bones of the former regime, symbolised by the forthcoming trials of Gaddafi’s son, Saif, and his intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi.
Effective central control, meanwhile, is largely absent. And into this vacuum have stepped armed groups – whether politically, religiously or financially inspired matters little – all claiming sectional suzerainty over the multitude of fractured fiefdoms that was, until NATO barged in, a unified state.
Research published in June by the Small Arms Survey suggested that the emergence and influence of armed groups challenging national government and army was accelerating rapidly. The survey identified four distinct types including experienced revolutionary brigades accounting for up to 85% of all weapons not controlled by the state and myriad militias – loosely defined as armed gangs, criminal networks and religious extremists bent on exploiting post-revolution weakness.
A power struggle is now under way between the Libyan army and these various groups, and while some play a constructive role, others threaten the future of the Libyan state, the survey said. In Misurata, for example, in addition to about 30,000 small arms, revolutionary brigades “control more than 820 tanks, dozens of heavy artillery pieces, and more than 2,300 vehicles equipped with machine-guns and anti-aircraft weapons.” Misurata, scene of some of the worst fighting last year, has become a state within a state.
In its weakened condition, politically and economically, Libya appears especially vulnerable to extremist ideology and foreign influence. In an echo of Taliban depredations, the Salafists who besieged the Benghazi consulate have also been involved in a wave of attacks on historic Sufi mosques and libraries and attempts to intimidate female university students who eschew the hijab.
In this they are reportedly encouraged by a Saudi-based scholar, Sheik Mohamed Al-Madkhalee, who issued a fatwa praising the desecration of Sufi graves and urging Libyan Salafists to do more to clear the country of the taint of Sufi worship. According to author Jamie Dettmer writing in the Daily Beast, the Libyan government has complained to Riyadh about al-Madkhalee, but to no avail.
Christopher Stevens was a respected diplomat who was helping hold Libya together in the wake of last year’s upheavals. Maybe it was always an impossible task. But it was rendered all the harder by western politicians who, just as in Iraq, jumped feet first into a complex situation without sufficient care or thought for the future.
The why behind the Benghazi attack
MELVIN A GOODMAN
Nearly two months ago, on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, a group of militants attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
The Romney campaign has accused the Obama administration with a cover-up of the details of the attack, and various pundits have sown great confusion over a tragic event that points to a failure of intelligence analysis and operational trade-craft at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.
CIA Director Daivd Petraeus has stayed in the background regarding the Sept 11, 2012 security failure at the CIA-dominated Benghazi consulate, in contrast to his high-profile role as a US general in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unwillingness of the White House’s senior adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, to play a public role in the aftermath of this tragedy left the Obama administration without an authoritative voice on the event.
It’s now apparent that the US consulate in Benghazi was no ordinary consulate; in fact, it probably was no consulate at all. The consulate’s primary mission was to provide an intelligence platform that would allow the CIA to maintain an operational and analytical role in eastern Libya. The region is home to myriad militant and terrorist organisations that threaten Western interests in North Africa and, more importantly, the creation of a stable state in Libya. In other words, the consulate was the diplomatic cover for an intelligence platform and whatever diplomatic functions took place in Benghazi also served as cover for an important CIA base. Both the State Department and the CIA share responsibility for seriously underestimating the security threat in Libya, particularly in Benghazi.
Any CIA component in the Middle East or North Africa is a likely target of the wrath of militant and terrorist organisations because of the Agency’s key role in the global war on terror waged by the Bush administration and the increasingly widespread covert campaign of drone aircraft of the Obama administration.
US programs that included the use of secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, and torture and abuse involved CIA collaboration with despotic Arab regimes, including Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The US campaign to overthrow Gaddafi didn’t clean the slate of these abuses; it merely opened up the opportunity for militants to avenge US actions over the past ten years.
At home, Americans are devoting far too much attention to whether a so-called proper level of security in Benghazi could have prevented the attack, instead of trying to learn the motives and anticipate the actions of these militant organisations.
The CIA failure to provide adequate security for its personnel stems from degradation in the operational tradecraft capabilities of the CIA since the so-called intelligence reforms that followed the 9/11 attacks. Nearly three years ago, nine CIA operatives and contractors were killed by a suicide bomber at their base in Khost in eastern Afghanistan in the deadliest attack on CIA personnel in decades.
Virtually every aspect of sound trade-craft was ignored in this episode as an unvetted Jordanian double agent was allowed to enter a sensitive CIA facility (instead of a CIA safe house), where he was met by the entire base leadership (a breach of long-standing trade-craft). The base commander in Khost had insufficient training and experience for the posting and had been promoted regularly by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations despite having been cited in a CIA internal review on 9/11, according to the Washington Post, for failing to warn the FBI about two al-Qaeda operatives who had entered the country in 2000. No reprimands were assessed in the aftermath of the 2009 bombing, although high-level Agency officials had to approve the assignment of the base commander as well as the entry of the Jordanian double agent onto the Agency’s most sensitive facility in eastern Afghanistan.
The security situation in Libya, particularly Benghazi, was obviously deteriorating; the consulate was a target of a bomb in June and the British consulate closed its doors in the summer, leaving the US consulate as the last official foreign presence in the city.
Overall security for the consulate had been in the hands of a small British security firm that placed unarmed Libyans on the perimeter of the building complex. The CIA contributed to the problem with its reliance on Libyan militias and a new Libyan intelligence organisation to maintain security for its personnel in Benghazi.
On the night of the attack, the CIA security team was slow to respond to the consulate’s call for help, spending more than 20 minutes trying to garner additional support from militias and the Libyan intelligence service that never responded.
Although nearly 30 Americans were airlifted out of Libya in less than ten hours, there is no indication that these individuals were debriefed in order to get a better understanding of the militia attacks. The lack of such essential information from those who had been under attack contributed to the confused assessments in the wake of the attacks. There were other complications as well. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was an extremely successful and popular ambassador in Libya, but he had become too relaxed about security in a country that had become a war zone.
UN Ambassador Susan Rice was too quick to pronounce judgements on the Benghazi attack before the facts were known, which could be attributed to her interest in assuming a public role in order to buttress her case for becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama administration.
The public role belonged to Brennan, but he had previously mishandled duties in the wake of the attempt of a young Nigerian to board a commercial airliner with explosives in December 2009 as well as in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
The systemic failures surrounding the Nigerian bomber involved the entire intelligence community, including the CIA, the National Counter-Terrorism Centre, and the National Security Agency. The Benghazi tragedy points to continued systemic failures in the intelligence community as well as within the State Department. A failure to conduct proper threat assessments will predictably lead to security failures. The Benghazi failure is one more reminder of the unfortunate militarisation of the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, in the wake of 9/11 that finds our major civilian intelligence service becoming a paramilitary centre in support of the war-fighter. Last year’s appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as CIA director; the CIA’s increased role in drone attacks in Southwest Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa; and the insufficient attention to providing strategic intelligence for the policy-maker have weakened the Agency’s central missions.
The success of the Bush and Obama administrations in compromising the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General has ensured that the Agency’s flaws have gone uncorrected. The politicization of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003 was the worst intelligence scandal in the CIA’s history, but there were no penalties for those who shared CIA Director George Tenet’s willingness to make phony intelligence a “slam dunk.” If more attention is not given to the biblical inscription at the entrance to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, that only “the truth will set you free,” the decline of the intelligence community will continue. –Counterpunch
She tried Everything but she will have to…. Clinton to testify about Benghazi before resigning!!!!
Photo by: Kevin Lamarque
By Guy Taylor
-The Washington Times
The State Department said Monday that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will testify before Congress about security failures in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
“She will testify while she is still sitting secretary of state,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said of Mrs. Clinton, who is slated to step down in the coming weeks, pending Senate confirmation of Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, as her replacement.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Mr. Kerry currently chairs, has not yet set dates for his confirmation hearing, which is expected to proceed smoothly.
Mrs. Nuland said that Mrs. Clinton has been speaking on the telephone with Mr. Kerry “virtually non-stop” lately.
“She is 100 percent committed to having the smoothest possible transition, to helping him as much as possible, and she’ll be available as much as he needs her,” Mrs. Nuland said, adding that when Mrs. Clinton will testify on Benghazi is being arranged as the newly elected 113th Congress is just gearing up.
“We have a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” she said. “So we’re working now with the committee on scheduling of both the Benghazi hearing [and] the confirmation hearing, getting the sequence agreed with them.”
She said the committee would not return to session until after President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies on Jan. 21.
Mrs. Clinton was discharged last week from New York-Presbyterian Hospital, where she spent four days under treatment for a blood clot inside her skull, discovered after a fall at her New York home. Doctors have said that the clot did not result in a stroke or neurological damage and that they expect her to recover fully.
The Benghazi testimony announcement came on the day Mrs. Clinton officially returned to work at the State Department after a month away to deal with a string of medical issues.
The Associated Press reported that a crowd of about 75 State Department officials greeted Mrs. Clinton with a standing ovation as she walked into the first senior staff meeting she has convened since early December, according to those present. Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides, noting that life in Washington is often a “contact sport, sometimes even in your own home” then presented Mrs. Clinton with a gift — a regulation white Riddell football helmet emblazoned with the State Department seal, officials said.
She was also given a blue football jersey with “Clinton” and the number 112 — the record-breaking number of countries she has visited since becoming secretary of state — printed on the back.
Mrs. Clinton was slated to testify on Capitol Hill in late December after the release of an internal State Department report on the Benghazi attack that concluded senior department officials ignored intelligence and security warnings that might have prevented the attack.
She cancelled the testimony after dehydration from a stomach virus, the virus that caused her to faint and hit her head, which subsequently led to the blood clot.
Mrs. Clinton has accepted blame for failures regarding the Benghazi attack, but the report prompted several Republican lawmakers to demand that she reschedule her testimony and answer more questions.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department official Sean Smith and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.
At Monday’s staff meeting, Mrs. Clinton stressed the need for the State Department to implement a review board’s recommendations for improving the security at high-threat diplomatic posts. Mrs. Clinton said she wanted to see all 29 of the recommendations from the independent Accountability Review Board in place by the time her successor takes over.
• This article was based in part on wire service reports.
Hillary Clinton’s career ruined in Libya
The committee investigating the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya revealed serious violations in the work of the U.S. State Department, which caused the death of the diplomat. Three officers have already been dismissed, as well as Under-secretary of State for Diplomatic Security. Rumour has it that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will resign in early 2013.
The U.S. State Department may see a major reshuffle of personnel. Hillary Clinton’s assistant has already lost his job. According to independent analysts, the reason for that is the report from the special commission, which investigates the murder of the American ambassador to Benghazi, as well as attacks against U.S. diplomats in Libya. The report said that there were serious shortcomings and even failures in the activities of the Department of State.
The news of the death of the American ambassador Christopher Stevens and his three colleagues came as a shock to the world. The U.S. ambassador was killed on September 11th during the attack of Libyan rebels of the United States consulate office in Benghazi. The attack on the U.S. office was arranged by terrorist group “Brigade of the Followers of Sharia” and “February 17 Brigade.” At first it was thought that the attack was provoked by controversial film “The Innocence of Muslims.” The victim’s diary found some time later. Stevens wrote in the diary that extremism in Libya was gaining momentum, and that it was not safe to stay in the country. In addition, he was worried about his own safety in Libya, thinking that Al Qaeda had already included him in its “hit list.” (****yeah right!!!!! Al Qaeda had him in their hit list!!!! It was the Ambassador who gave the orders to Al Qaeda who to kill and whom to let live….please this only little kids believe fairy tails!)
As noted in the report of the special committee, shortly before the attack, Stevens and his colleagues asked to strengthen security at the American consulate. However, the State Department did not pay attention to the requests of the diplomats, which eventually resulted in their death. ( *****why should they????? when the ambassador believed that he was loved in Benghazi and he was relaxed there actually if you check somewhere above the articles it states that the ambassador was very relaxed and was not worried) In addition, the experts noted, the death of American diplomats was caused by disunity and poor coordination of work inside the U.S. State Department.
The commission’s report states that it was local power structures that were responsible for the security of American consulate officials. Their skills have not been tested in practice. The diplomats’ requests to increase the number of guards and strengthen security systems were simply ignored by the State Department, as there was no specific information about possible threats.
The investigation revealed that many State Department employees treated their duties negligently. Following the report from the commission, three officers have been dismissed, several others have received reprimands. Some publications claim that the next one to leave the big picture will be Assistant Secretary for Security of Embassies, Charlene Lamb. Another candidacy is an employee of the Bureau for the Middle East. It also became known that Deputy Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell has been dismissed.
Some of world’s leading media companies confirm the rumours saying that Hillary Clinton might also leave her post. The U.S. Secretary of State has not attended the public hearings for health reasons. The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, said that Ms. Clinton would be able to make a public appearance in January 2013. According to him, by that time, she will most likely leave the post of the Secretary of State. The top contender for the position is John Kerry himself.
Many politicians are at a loss. If State Department officials were aware of the danger for the U.S. diplomats in Libya, what prevented them from taking action? Republican Senator Bob Crocker noted that U.S. officials could not but know how dangerous it was to stay in Libya during the period of massive unrest. The protection of consulate offices from attacks conducted by Libyan extremists was the number one task, which officials successfully failed. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Thomas Nides, stressed that the government must find those responsible and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
In an attempt to justify themselves, some State Department officials say that the United States has always relied on the host states in ensuring the security of their embassies and consulates. Almost all countries of the world adhere to this practice. However, Nides noted, when every new day brings a new threat now, the United States can no longer rely on other countries in such issues.
The basic information on the activities of the commission, the circumstances of the ambassador’s death remains secret. However, according to Thomas Nides, Hillary Clinton agreed with all conclusions that were made during the reading of the report.
Reportedly, Hillary Clinton has already given her staff the task to eliminate the shortcomings. She stressed that it was especially important for the Safety Bureau and the Office for the Middle East.
Hundreds of U.S. marines were hastily deployed in the countries with unstable political environment, where U.S. embassies are located to carry out the additional protection of embassies and consulates. The chairman of the commission to investigate the events in Benghazi, Thomas Pickering, said that State Department officials had received instructions before to strengthen security of U.S. embassies in troubled countries, although it led to nothing.
Two warships of the United States have recently arrived to the shores of Libya. Pentagon officials say that the ships have no specific mission, although some experts believe that the move is connected with the death of the American ambassador.
Either way, it is clear that the U.S. State Department experiences a serious crisis, although there are no positive predictions being made. Some believe that a new person on Mrs. Clinton’s position will change the situation for the better.
EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus was brought down after betrayal by vengeful CIA agents and his own bodyguards who made sure his affair was exposed, claims new book
Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report’
Petraeus was humiliated after a ‘palace coup’ by high-level intelligence officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA, authors say
The book also claims that Petraeus and Ambassador Chris Stevens were caught off guard by Benghazi consulate attack because they weren’t briefed about on-going U.S. military operations in Libya
Webb and Murphy say Benghazi attack was a retaliation for secret raids authorized by Obama security adviser John Brennan
David Petraeus was betrayed by his own bodyguards and vengeful high-ranking enemies in the CIA, who made sure his affair with his biographer was exposed to the public, a new book claims.
MailOnline can reveal a new angle on the story that rocked Washington last fall. It comes from two retired special operations commandos – a Navy SEAL and a Green Beret – who say they discovered a plot against the former CIA director while doing research about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Senior CIA officers targeted Petraeus because they didn’t like the way he was running the agency – focusing more on paramilitary operations than intelligence analysis. They used their political clout and their connections to force an FBI investigation of his affair with Paul Broadwell and make it public, according to ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report.’
‘It was high-level career officers on the CIA who got the ball rolling on the investigation. It was basically a palace coupe to get Petraeus out of there,’ Jack Murphy, one of the authors, told MailOnline.
Intimate knowledge: A new book claims CIA Director David Petraeus was betrayed by his bodyguards, who leaked in affair with Paula Broadwell to his enemies in the agency. Betrayed: Petraeus worked hard to keep his affair with Broadwell secret, but his personal security officers knew the truth
Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.
The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had ‘kicked a hornet’s nest’ among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing ‘unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,’ according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama’s pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.
‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report,’ published by William Morrow and Company, is due out in e-book on Tuesday. The authors, Webb and Murphy, are editors of SOFREP.com, a site devoted to news and stories written by current and former special operations commandos.
Perhaps the most startling accusation in the book is that Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was leaked by the members of his personal protection detail.
The authors say that senior intelligence officers working on the 7th floor of Central Intelligence headquarters in Langley, Virginia, used their political clout to ensure that the FBI investigated the former Army general’s personal life.
Palace coup: Petraeus, seen here with wife Holly as Broadwell looks on, fell victim to his powerful enemies inside the CIA, the authors claim
Disgraced: Petraeus was publicly humiliated when he admitted the affair with his biographer. The scandal ended his career in public life, at least for the time being.
They then told Petraeus that they would publicly humiliate him if he didn’t admit the affair and resign.
‘It was well known to Petraeus’s Personal Security Detachment (bodyguards) that he and Broadwell were having an affair. He wasn’t the only high-ranking Agency head or general engaged in extramarital relations, but when the 7th floor wanted Petraeus out, they cashed in their chips,’ Webb and Murphy write.
The book continues: ‘The reality of the situation is that high-ranking CIA officers had already discovered the affair by consulting with Petraeus’s PSD and then found a way to initiate an FBI investigation in order to create a string of evidence and an investigative trail that led to the information they already had—in other words, an official investigation that could be used to force Petraeus to resign.’
Webb and Murphy said the CIA bureaucracy wanted Petraeus out of the CIA. Senior officials were furious over the way he had been running the agency since he was appointed in September 2011.
He was turning the agency’s focus from intelligence gathering and analysis to paramilitary operations, including drone strikes.
Additionally, he ran the CIA like a four-star general, instead of treating it like a political institution, the authors say. His management style made countless powerful enemies within the CIA.
On November 9, three days after Obama’s re-election Petraeus shocked the nation by resigning as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and admitting that he had been sleeping with Broadwell – whom he had met while she was researching her biography of him, ‘All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.’
Before he was publicly castigated, Petraeus was the most high-profile and highly-respected commander in the military. His counter-insurgency strategy was credited with turning the tide in the Iraq War and securing the country so U.S. troops could withdraw. He also commanded a surge of American forces in Afghanistan.
Shocking: The September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate shocked killed four Americans. It also became sparked a political fire-storm that distorted the facts of what really happened, the authors say.
Covert operations: The book claims that the attack was a retaliation for U.S. military raids on Libyan militants ordered by John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser
Comprehensive: The eBook, ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report’ will be released on Tuesday
Petraeus, 60, earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University and was hailed as a ‘warrior scholar.’ Before his resignation, he was mentioned as a possible vice presidential nominee for Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
Petraeus’ public image is in shambles after the affair went public.
‘It’s almost like they wanted him not just to resign but that they wanted him kicked out of the political game for at least a number of years,’ Murphy told MailOnline.
Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus’ affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.
The authors say that Kelley’s report may have started in the FBI investigation – but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.
Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus’ affair.
Murphy said he learned of the ‘palace coup’ from current and former members of the CIA.
The authors claim that Petraeus was already on his way out when the scandal broke. They learned weeks before that he was interviewing for teaching jobs at Princeton University.
Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.
Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.
Escalation: The authors pointed a build-up of attacks on western targets in Benghazi before the assault on the consulate. This is the battered wreckage of a British diplomatic security vehicle that was ambushed by militants
Friends: Glen Doherty, left, was the best friend of author Brandon Webb. Both Doherty and Ty Woods, right, were former Navy SEALS who died defending an attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi.
The central premise of ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report’ is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamists group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 May have been the final straw.
Heavily-armed militants with Ansar al-Sharia attacked the consulate on September 11 as retaliation, the book claims. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation when insurgents set fire to the consulate.
After the raid, the militants launched a second attack against a CIA annex across town. It was there that CIA security contractors Ty Woods and Glen Doherty – both former U.S. Navy SEALs – were killed when their position took a direct hit from an enemy mortar.
Webb and Murphy said they wrote the book to reveal ‘the truth’ behind the attack. They say news accounts of the incident have often been inaccurate because journalists have not had inside access to the people who were on the ground at the time.
The authors have been frustrated, they say, by politicians who have attempted to twist the facts of the case to suit their own ends. Conservatives sought to use the attack as an election issue and place the blame on Obama.
Democrats and the Obama administration have worked to deflect responsibility and downplay the warning signs that were present before the consulate was raided.
Murdered: Christopher Stevens was the first U.S. Ambassador murdered in the line of duty since 1979. He and Foreign Officer Sean Smith both died of smoke inhalation after militants set fire to the consulate.
Webb and Murphy claim that the ‘inside’ story of the attack – as told by their connections in the CIA and special operations units of the military – show that Brennan never warned the CIA or Stevens about ongoing U.S. military operations in the country.
Had the State Department and the intelligence community known about what was happening, they would have stepped up security in Benghazi and could have prevented the tragedy.
Webb counts Doherty, 42, as one of his best friends and he is furious that the real story of what happened has not yet surfaced.
He said Doherty and a team of CIA security officers chartered a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi when the consulate came under attack – despite initial resistance from the CIA – to rush to the aid of the Americans who were in danger.
Both authors are well-positioned to access classified insider information about the attack. They run SOFREP.com, a news site written and edited by current and former members of the special operations community.
Webb served as an Navy SEAL for ten years and deployed overseas five times. He left the Navy in 2006. Murphy served eight years in the U.S. Army, including as an Army Ranger and a Special Forces Green Beret. He deployed overseas three times before retiring in 2010. He is currently studying political science at Columbia University.
Calls to the White House were not returned on Saturday. The CIA could not be reached on Saturday.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: AUTHORS SAY BOOK IS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF THE BENGHAZI ATTACK
‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report’ is a short read at just 83 pages. However, it is packed with little-known details and exclusive information and background about the consulate attack. Here are a few key excerpts from the book:
(Deputy National Security Advisor) John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.
During the rebellion against Gaddafi and in the aftermath of his death, Libya and North Africa became a staging ground for a dizzying array of operations by SpecOps, paramilitary forces, and international private military contractors working for everyone from European nations to multibillion-dollar oil corporations.
What we do know is that the British Special Air Service (SAS) landed in Libya at some point—probably the secretive intelligence gathering component of the SAS called ‘The Increment,’ which works alongside MI-6.
Elite counter-terrorist operators from America’s Delta Force were deployed to Libya as ‘analysts,’ which allowed President Obama to declare that America did not have any boots on the ground but was simply providing air support for the rebels. The reality was that Delta Force had a small contingent instructing the rebels in the finer points of weapons and tactics.
Behind closed doors, President Obama had given his counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, carte blanche to run operations in North Africa and the Middle East, provided he didn’t do anything that ended up becoming an exposé in The New York Times and embarrassing the administration. In 2012, a secret war across North Africa was well under-way.
With JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), Brennan waged his own unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure. These Direct Action (DA) operations, unlike the traditional ISR missions mentioned above, were ‘off the books’ in the sense that they were not coordinated through the Pentagon or other governmental agencies, including the CIA. With Obama more than likely providing a rubber stamp, the chain of command went from Brennan to McRaven, who would then mobilize the men of ISA (Intelligence Support Activity), SEAL Team Six, or Delta Force to conduct these missions.
With a small element launching from an airfield in a European nation, JSOC operations targeted Al Qaeda personalities within Libyan militia organizations. In the weeks before the Benghazi tragedy, they most likely hit a known associate of Al-Suri in order to get him to “up periscope” and increase his visibility, which would then make it possible for JSOC to run a targeted operation to kill or capture him.
The aftermath of one of these secret raids into Libya would have grave consequences for all of them, including former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty. SOFREP believes the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12 was blow-back from the late-summer JSOC operations that were threatening the Al Qaeda-aligned militant groups (including Ansar Al-Sharia) in Libya and North Africa, now a leading base of operations for Islamic extremism.
Libya and Lies
It was a little much when President Barrack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?
Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.
Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an Obama Care bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.
Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?
As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.
The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.
The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known.
But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.
The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barrack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.
To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.
Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamo to planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.
Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.
Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?
That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.
This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.
source: frontpagemag.com/2012/thomas-sowell/libya-and-lies/ “Generals, STAND DOWN !” Cynthia McKinney – on air – PT 3 –
Clinton Directed False Flag in Benghazi to Instigate WW III in Middle East
US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is trying to buy time after having been questioned about the planned attack and coordinated US-sponsored al-Qaeda use to facilitate the murder of the late US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Except, there was no US Embassy in Benghazi. There was a “diplomatic office” or CIA-compound which was burned to the ground. The nearest US Embassy to the area is in Tripoli.
Stevens, hardly being a US Ambassador, but rather a gunrunner for the behind the scenes terroristic attacks by the Saudi Arabian nation on the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia adheres to Salafism, an extremist form of Islam that want all other forms of the religion wiped off the map. Stevens was ultimately killed by the same group he had provided guns and other armory for when they were employed by the US to commit the false flag attack on the CIA-compound in Benghazi.
The Government Accountability Office has threatened in a recent report to evaluate Clinton’s role in the attack. Diplomatic Security, which is the responsibility of the US State Department, is compromised if Clinton will allow coerced attacks using US-operatives masquerading as Islamic terrorists for the purpose of committing a flase flag to instigate war with Middle Eastern nations.
Clinton, trying to appear to be concerned about the event, vowed publicly to “find those responsible for the attack.” She said: “There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. We will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people.”
However, Clinton had connections to the orchestrated bombing that occurred on the anniversary of September 11th terrorist attacks where al-Qaeda was used as a scapegoat for the deaths of thousands of American citizens in one of the biggest state-sponsored false flags in US history.
Coinciding with Stevens’ death multiple waves of manufactured Muslim uprisings seemed to validate the terrorist attack. A US-funded film was created with the assistance of an FBI-informant who just happened to be an Israeli citizen. Over 100 Jewish donors gave money to have this “wag the dog” trailer produced so that the Islamic riots would have a purpose.
Creating spin to further convolute the issue, Clinton remarked: “We have a lot of work to do to give complete and accurate responses to all the questions and statements that are swirling out there. Let’s establish all the facts before we jump to any conclusions.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was deployed to Tripoli, where the actual US Embassy is located. The crime scene in Benghazi was left to be destroyed by CIA-operatives dressed up as rioters to contaminate the evidence.
The State Department claims that cryptic warnings of an impending attack on Benghazi was relayed, yet devoid of a time frame and therefore ignored. In response, Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Jason Chaffetz, House Representative of Utah are demanding an investigation and that Clinton explain the actions of the State Department in the time up and until the coordinated attack.
According to the letter from Issa to Clinton: “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. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “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.”
Stevens, having no idea that he was about to be sacrificed by the US government for the sake of a false flag attack, was not concerned about utilizing security in the days before the bombing. In fact, Clinton authorized the security to be lessened in Benghazi and the US Marines guarding the US Embassy in Tripoli to be disarmed.
Clinton wrote back to Issa, saying: “I appreciate that you and your committee are deeply interested in finding out what happened leading up to and during the attacks in Benghazi, and are looking for ways to prevent it from happening again. I share that commitment.” She asked Issa to allow that any summations of the event at Benghazi be held off until November, after the elections, or perhaps into 2013 because witnesses were being questioned at the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs. This must be a request to defer the issue until Clinton and their lackeys can get their stories straight.
To keep the truth that the attack on Benghazi was a US-backed false flag, documents at the compound were destroyed just prior to the attack. This act mirrors the sudden shredding of documents at the US Embassy in Beirut that destroyed classified information. These documents showed the names of Libyans who were working with the US as well as oil contracts and information regarding the coordinated attack. Clinton was in contact with the al-Qaeda operatives who attacked the compound in Benghazi and murdered Stevens just 48 hours before the event was enacted.
Publicly, the US State Department denies this fact by refusing to comment. The compound in Benghazi that was burned by al-Qaeda operatives was looted to make sure all evidence was removed before the press, residents of Libya or any official could gain access to the buildings. The compound in Benghazi was a safe-house that Stevens would have fled to during an emergency situation. Knowing this, Clinton combined fake revolutionaries with CIA-operatives to create a situation that could be spun to serve the purpose of the US and Israel in destroying the sovereign nations in the Middle East. (***If you go to the beginning of the page you will see that I am saying its not from the Green Resistance or from the rioters who killed the ambassador but it was organised either from Mossad or KGB well I was partly wrong I left the CIA out of it and especially Mrs. Clinton who is devoted to the Zionists.)
Last month Clinton admitted that al-Qaeda was used in the attack in Benghazi. Speaking to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Clinton stated that al-Qaeda was employed to facilitate a manufactured threat of Islamic extremism in the region. Clinton explains: “Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”
In line with the US version of the story, Israeli “intelligence” reported that “This attack , along with the one in Egypt, is a reminder of the Iranian invasion of a U.S. embassy in Tehran that led to a lengthy hostage crisis which brought down the [President Jimmy] Carter administration.”
Elite Intrigues and Military Purges: how can fool you with morons scandals
(****Editors Note… I think the following article hits it on the nail for what happened in Benghazi or at least gives another perspective.)
The headline stories claim that CIA Director General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA because of an adulterous relation with his young biographer and that General John Allen, Supreme Commander of US troops in Afghanistan, was under investigation and his promotion to top commander of US troops in Europe was on hold, because, we are told, of his ‘inappropriate’ comments in the exchange of e-mails with a civilian female friend.
We are told that a ‘hard-charging’ local FBI agent, Frederick Humphries, Jr., had uncovered amorous e-mails sent by General Petraeus to his girlfriend-biographer in the course of investigating a complaint of ‘cyber-stalking’. Out of concern that the General’s ‘adulterous behavior’ posed a risk to US national security, Florida-based FBI Agent Humphries handed the evidence over to one of Washington, DC’s most powerful Republican, Congressman Eric Cantor, who in turn passed them on to the Director of the FBI… leading to Petraeus resignation.
In other words, we are asked to believe that a single, low-ranking, zealous FBI agent has toppled the careers of two top US Generals: one in charge of the principle global intelligence agency, the CIA, and the other in command of the US and allied combat forces in the principle theater of military engagement – on the basis of infidelity and flirtatious banter!
Nothing could be more far-fetched simply on prima facie evidence.
In the sphere of tight hierarchical organizations, like the military or the CIA, where the activity and behavior of subordinate functionaries is centrally directed and any investigation is subject to authorization by senior officials (most especially regarding prying into the private correspondences of the heads of the CIA and of strategic military operations), the idea that a lone agent might operate free-lance is preposterous. A ‘cowboy’ agent could not simply initiate investigation into such ‘sensitive’ targets as the head of the CIA and a General in an active combat zone without the highest level authorization or a network of political operatives with a much bigger agenda. This has much deeper political implications than uncovering a banal sexual affair between two consenting security-cleared adults despite the agent’s claim that fornication constitutes a threat to the United States .
Clearly we are in deep waters here: This involves political intrigue at the highest level and has profound national security implications, involving the directorship of the CIA and clandestine operations, intelligence reports, multi-billion dollar expenditures and US efforts to stabilize client regimes and destabilize target regimes. CIA intelligence reports identifying allies and enemies are critical to shaping global US foreign policy. Any shift at the top of the US empire’s operational command can and does have strategic importance.
The ‘outing’ of General Allen, the military commander in charge of Afghanistan, the US main zone of military operations occurs at a crucial time, with the scheduled forced withdrawal of US combat troops and when the Afghan ‘sepoys’, the soldiers and officers of the puppet Karzai regime, are showing major signs of disaffection, is clearly a political move of the highest order.
What are the political issues behind the beheading of these two generals? Who benefits and who loses?
At the global level, both Generals have been unflinching supporters of the US Empire, most especially the military-driven components of empire building. Both continue to carry out and support the serial wars launched by Presidents Bush and Obama against Afghanistan and Iraq , as well as, the numerous proxy wars against Libya , Syria , Yemen , Somalia , etc. But both Generals were known to have publicly taken positions unpopular with certain key factions of the US power elite.
CIA Director, General Petraeus has been a major supporter of the proxy wars in Libya and Syria . In those efforts he has promoted a policy of collaboration with rightwing Islamist regimes and Islamist opposition movements, including training and arming Islamist fundamentalists in order to topple targeted, mostly secular, regimes in the Middle East . In pursuit of this policy – Petraeus has had the backing of nearly the entire US political spectrum. However, Petraeus was well aware that this ‘grand alliance’ between the US and the rightwing Islamist regimes and movements to secure imperial hegemony, would require re-calibrating US relations with Israel . Petraeus viewed Netanyahu’s proposed war with Iran, his bloody land grabs in the Occupied Territories of Palestine and the bombing, dispossession and assassination of scores of Palestinians each month, were a liability as Washington sought support from the Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Gulf States, Iraq and Yemen.
Petraeus implied this in public statements and behind closed doors he advocated the withdrawal of US support for Israel ’s violent settler expansion into Palestine , even urging the Obama regime to pressure Netanyahu to reach some settlement with the pliable US client Abbas leadership. Above all, Petraeus backed the violent jihadists in Libya and Syria while opposing an Israel-initiated war against Iran, which he implied, would polarize the entire Moslem world against the Washington-Tel Aviv alliance and ‘provoke the US-proxy supplied Islamist fundamentalists to turn their arms against their CIA patrons. The imperial policy, according to General Petraeus world view, was in conflict with Israel ’s strategy of fomenting hostility among Islamist regimes and movements against the US and, especially, the Jewish state’s promotion of regional conflicts in order to mask and intensify its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Central to Israeli strategy and what posed the most immediate threat to the implementation of a Petraeus’ doctrine was the influence of the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in and out of the US government.
As soon as General Petraeus’ report naming Israel as a ‘strategic liability’ became known, the ZPC sprang into action and forced Petraeus to retract his statements – at least publicly. But once, he became head of the CIA, Petraeus continued the policy of working with rightwing Islamist regimes and arming and providing intelligence to jihadi fundamentalists in order to topple independent secular regimes, first in Libya, then on to Syria. This policy was placed under the spotlight in Benghazi with the killing of the US ambassador to Libya and several CIA/Special Forces operatives by CIA-backed terrorists leading to a domestic political crisis, as key Republican Congress people sought to exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic failure. They especially targeted the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, whose maladroit efforts to obscure the real source of the attacks in Benghazi , have undermined her nomination to replace Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State.
General Petraeus, faced with mounting pressure from all sides: from the ZPC over his criticism of Israel and overtures to Islamist regimes, from the Republicans over the Benghazi debacle and from the FBI, over the personal investigation into his girlfriend and hyped up media smear, gave in. He ‘fessed up’ to a ‘sexual affair’, saluted and resigned. In so doing, he ‘sacrificed’ himself in order to ‘save the CIA’ and his strategy of long-term alliance-building with ‘moderate’ Islamist regimes while forming short-term tactical alliances with the jihadists to overthrow secular Arab regimes.
The key political operative behind the high-level FBI operation against Petraeus has been House Majority leader Eric Cantor, who cynically claims that the General’s romantic epistles represent a national security threat. We are told that Congressman Cantor gravely passed the e-mails and reports he had received from the ‘Lone Ranger’ FBI agent Humphries to FBI Director Mueller ordering Mueller to act on the investigation or else face his own Congressional inquiry.
Washington-based Representative Cantor is a zealous lifetime Israel-firster and has been hostile to the Petraeus report and the General’s assessment of the Middle East . Florida-based, Agent Humphries was not just any old conscientious gum-shoe: He was a notorious Islamaphobe engaged in finding terrorists under every bed. His claim to fame (or infamy) was that he had arrested two Muslims, one of whom, he claimed, was preparing to bomb the Los Angeles airport while the other allegedly planned a separate bombing. In a judicial twist, unusual in this era of FBI sting operations, both men were acquitted of the plots for lack of evidence, although one was convicted for publishing an account of how to detonate a bomb with a child’s toy! Agent Humphries was transferred from Washington State to Tampa , Florida – home of the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM).
Despite their clear differences in station and location, there are ideological affinities between House Majority Whip Cantor and Agent Humphries – and possibly a common dislike of General Petraeus. Concerns over his Islamophobic and ideological zealotry may explain why the FBI quickly yanked Agent Humphries out from his mission of ‘obsessive’ prying into CIA Director Petraeus and General Allan’s e-mails. Undeterred by orders from his superiors in the FBI, Agent Humphries went directly to fellow zealot Congressman Cantor.
Who would have benefited from Petraeus ouster? One of the top three candidates to replace him as head of the CIA is Jane Harmon, former California Congresswomen and Zionist uber-zealot. In another twist of justice, in 2005 the Congresswoman had been captured on tape by the National Security Agency telling Israeli Embassy personnel that she would use her influence to aid two AIPAC officials who had confessed to handing classified US documents to the Israeli Mossad, if the AIPAC could round up enough Congressional votes to make her Chairwoman of the US House Committee on Intelligence, an act bordering on treason, for which she was never held to account. If she were to take his position, the ousting of CIA Director Petraeus could represent to the greatest ‘constitutional coup’ in US history: the appointment of a foreign agent to control the world’s biggest, deadliest and richest spy agency. Who would benefit from the fall of Petraeus? – first and foremost – the State of Israel.
The innuendos, smears and leaked investigation into the private e-mails of General Allen revolve around his raising questions over the US policy of prolonged military presence in Afghanistan . From his own practical experience General Allen has recognized that the puppet Afghan army is unreliable: hundreds of US and other NATO troops have been killed or wounded by their Afghan counterparts, from lowest foot soldiers to the highest Afghan security officials, ‘native’ troops and officers that the US had supposedly trained for a much ballyhooed ‘transfer of command’ in 2014. General Allen’s change of heart over the Afghan occupation was in response to the growing influence of the Taliban and other Islamist resistance supporters who had infiltrated the Afghan armed forces and now had near total control of the countryside and urban districts right up to the US and NATO bases. Allen did not believe that a ‘residual force’ of US military trainers could survive, once the bulk of US troops pulled out. In a word, he favored, after over a decade of a losing war, a policy of cutting the US ’ losses, declaring ‘victory’ and leaving to regroup on more favorable terrain.
Civilian militarists and neo-conservatives in the Executive and Congress refuse to acknowledge their shameful defeat with a full US retreat and a likely surrender to a Taliban regime. On the other hand, they cannot openly reject the painfully realistic assessment of General Allen, and they certainly cannot dismiss the experience of the supreme commander of US ground forces in Afghanistan .
When, in this charged political context, the rabidly Islamaphobic FBI agent Humphries ‘stumbled upon’ the affectionate personal correspondences between General Allen and ‘socialite’ femme fatale Jill Kelly, the Neocons and civilian militarists whipped up a smear campaign through the yellow journalists at the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal implying another ‘sex’ scandal – this time involving General Allen. The neo-con– militarist-mass media clamor forced the spineless President Obama and the military high command to announce an investigation of General Allen and postpone Congressional hearings on his appointment to head the US forces in Europe . While the General quietly retains his supreme command of US forces in Afghanistan , he has become a defeated and disgraced officer and his expertise and professional views regarding the future of US operations in Afghanistan will no longer be taken seriously.
Key Unanswered Questions Surrounding Elite Intrigues and Military Purges
Given that the public version of a lone-wolf, low ranking, zealously Islamophobic and incompetent FBI agent who just happened to ‘discover’ a sex scandal leading to the discrediting or resignation of two of the US highest military and intelligence officials is absurd to any thinking American, several key political questions with profound implications for the US political system need to be addressed. These include:
1. What political officials, if any, authorized the FBI, a domestic security agency to investigate and force the resignation of the Director of the CIA?
2. Have the current police state structures, with their procedures for widespread and arbitrary spying led to our spy agencies spying on each other in order to purge each other’s top personnel? Is this like the sow devouring her own offspring?
3. What were the real priorities of the political power-brokers who protected the insubordinate FBI agent Humphries after he defied top FBI officials’ orders to stop meddling in the investigation of the CIA Director?
4. What were FBI Agent Humphries ties, if any, to the neo-con, Zionist or Islamophobic politicians and other intelligence operatives, including the Israeli Mossad?
5. Despite Obama’s effusive praise of his brilliant ‘warrior-scholar’ General Petraeus in the past, why did he immediately ‘accept’ (aka ‘force’) the CIA Director’s resignation after the revelation of something as banal in civilian life as adultery? What are the deeper political issues that led to the pre-emptive purge?
6. Why are critical political issues and policy disputes resolved under the guise of blackmail, smears and character assassination, rather than through open debates and discussions, especially on matters pertaining to the nation’s choice of strategic and tactical ‘allies’ and the conduct of overseas wars?
7. Has the purge and public humiliation of top US military officers become an acceptable form of “punishment by example”, a signal from civilian militarists that when it comes to dealing with politics toward the Middle East, the role of the military is not to question but to follow their (and Israel’s) directives?
8. How could a proven collaborator with the Israeli-Mossad and Zionist zealot like Jane Harmon emerge as a ‘leading candidate’ to replace General Petraeus, as Director of the CIA, within days of his resignation? What are the political links, past and present between Congressman Eric Cantor, (the fanatical leader of the pro-Israel power bloc in the US Congress, who handed Agent Humphries’ unauthorized files on Petraeus over to the FBI Director Muellar) and Zionist power broker Jane Harmon, a prominent candidate to replace Petraeus?
9. How will the ouster of Director Petraeus and Jane Harman’s possible appointment to head the CIA deepen Israeli influence and control of US Middle East policy and the US overtures to Islamist countries?
10. How will the humiliation of General Allen affect the US ‘withdrawal’ from the disaster in Afghanistan ?
The purge of top-level generals and officials from powerful US foreign policy and military posts reflects a further decay of our constitutional rights and residual democratic procedures: it is powerful proof of the inability of leadership at the highest level to resolve internecine conflicts without drawing out the ‘long knives’. The advance of the police state, where spy agencies have vastly expanded their political power over the citizens, has now evolved into the policing and purging of each other’s leadership: the FBI, CIA , Homeland Security, the NSA and the military all reach out and build alliances with the mass media, civilian executive and congressional officials as well as powerful foreign interest ‘lobbies’ to gain power and leverage in pursuit of their own visions of empire building.
The purge of General Petraeus and humiliation of General Allen is a victory for the civilian militarists who are unconditional supporters of Israel and therefore oppose any opening to ‘moderate’ Islamist regimes. They want a long-term and expanded US military presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The real precipitating factor for this ugly ‘fight at the top’ is the crumbling of the US empire and how to deal with its new challenges. Signs of decay are everywhere: Military immorality is rampant; the be-medaled generals sodomize their subordinates and amass wealth via pillage of the public treasury and military contracts; politicians are bought and sold by millionaire financial donors, including agents of foreign powers, and foreign interests determine critical US foreign policy.
The disrepute of the US Congress is almost universal – over 87% of US citizen condemn ‘the House and Senate’ as harmful to public welfare, servants of their own self-enrichment and slaves of corruption. The economic elites are repeatedly involved in massive swindles of retail investors, mortgage holders and each other. Multi-national corporations and the fabulously wealthy engage in capital flight, fattening their overseas accounts. The Executive himself (the ever-smiling President Obama) sends clandestine death squads and mercenary-terrorists to assassinate adversaries in an effort to compensate for his incapacity to defend the empire with diplomacy or traditional military ground forces or to prop-up new client-states. Cronyism is rife: there is a revolving door between Wall Street and US Treasury and Pentagon officials. Public apathy and cynicism is rife; nearly 50% of the electorate doesn’t even vote in Presidential elections and, among those who do vote, over 80% don’t expect their elected officials to honor their promises.
Aggressive civilian militarists have gained control of key posts and are increasingly free of any constitutional constraints. Meanwhile the costs of military failures and burgeoning spy, security and military budgets soar while the fiscal and trade deficit grows. Faction fights among rival imperial cliques intensify; purges, blackmail, sex scandals and immorality in high places have become the norm. Democratic discourses are hollowed out: democratic state ideology has lost credibility. No sensible American believes in it anymore.
Is there a broom large enough to clean this filthy Augean stable? Will a ‘collective Hercules’ emerge from all this intrigue and corruption with the strength of character and commitment to lead the revolutionary charge? Surely the sell-out and crude humiliation of American military officials on behalf of the ‘chicken-hawk’ civilian militarists and their foreign interests should make many an officer re-think his own career, loyalty and commitment to the Constitution.
The Petraeus Affair vs. the CIA’s Long Criminal History
The Petraeus Affair has demonstrated yet again how a sex scandal story can be fed into the U.S. media to serve both as a trigger for “political assassination” and as “the tree hiding the forest.” Even though what lies behind the salacious smoke screen is still the object of speculation, most of those speculations are more credible than a simple extramarital affair.
One of the possible explanations of Petraeus’ departure is his stance on Israel which he saw as a liability to US interests in the Middle East:
“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.” (Ali Abunimah, When Former CIA Chief David Petraeus Enraged the Israel Lobby, Electronic Intifada, November 12, 2012.)
As Stephen Lendman observes, sex scandals don’t necessarily lead to resignations unless state secrets are at stake:
Forget resignation over extramarital sex nonsense unless state secrets were compromised. Lots of elected and appointed Washington officials had affairs. Many likely have current ones. Resignations don’t generally follow. Newt Gingrich survived sex and ethics scandals. He resigned as House Speaker after the Republicans faired poorly in 1998 off-year elections […]
Overlooked are secret CIA Benghazi operations. Involved are heavy weapons sent to Syrian opposition fighters. Petraeus left days before his scheduled congressional testimony […] The Benghazi operation is erroneously called a US consulate. It’s “a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.”
Tasks performed include “collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”Consulate designation provides cover. Obama and Clinton call the post a “US mission.” The State Department lists no consulate in Benghazi. (Stephen Lendman, Petraeus: Resignation or Sacking?, Global Research, November 12, 2012.)
Knowing the CIA’s shadow history, the cover-up of a secret CIA operation supporting terrorists used as proxy warriors to overthrow a foreign government seems the most likely explanation for Petraeus’ departure as Washington’s Blog explains:
Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.
For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.
The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.
Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.
And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country. (Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Resign? Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?, Washington’s Blog, November 10, 2012.)
Regime change through terrorism is not the sole vocation of the CIA. Over the years it has proven to be very efficient in money laundering, arms and drug trafficking. Was the drug/arms trade called “The Enterprise” in the Iran-Contragate just an isolated misdeed? Several testimonies of former CIA, DEA and police officials, in addition to numerous books, articles and documentaries on the CIA indicate it was just business as usual.
At a very turbulent town hall meeting November 15, 1996 former LAPD Narcotics Detective Michael Ruppert told then CIA Director John Deutch quite bluntly: “I will tell you Director Deutch as a former Los Angeles Police Narcotics Detective that the Agency has dealt drugs throughout this country for a long time.” The crowd started cheering loudly. A crack cocaine epidemic had been ravaging LA’s poor neighbourhoods since the early 80’s and had devastating effects on the black community. (Watch the video: Former LA Police Officer Mike Ruppert Confronts CIA Director John Deutch on Drug Trafficking)
Michael Ruppert was recruited to protect the Agency’s drug operations in the US. He had the evidence to prove it. He got shot at and was kicked out of LAPD because of it.
Earlier that year, San Jose Mercury News journalist Gary Webb published a series of articles about the L.A. crack explosion titled The Dark Alliance. The story behind the crack explosion:
For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found. This drug network opened the first pipeline between Colombia’s cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles, a city now known as the crack capital of the world. (The Dark Alliance. The story behind the crack explosion, San Jose Mercury News.)
While he was working for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Michael Levine witnessed how the CIA AND the State Department were protecting the drug trade:
The Chang Mai factory the CIA prevented me from destroying was the source of massive amounts of heroin being smuggled into the US in the bodies and body bags of GIs killed in Vietnam. (p. 165)
My unit, the Hard Narcotics Smuggling Squad, was charged with investigating all heroin and cocaine smuggling through the Port of New York. My unit became involved in investigating every major smuggling operation known to law enforcement. We could not avoid witnessing the CIA protecting major drug dealers. Not a single important source in Southeast Asia was ever indicted by US law enforcement. This was no accident. Case after case was killed by CIA and State Department intervention and there wasn’t a damned thing we could do about it. CIA-owned airlines like Air America were being used to ferry drugs throughout Southeast Asia, allegedly to support our “allies.” CIA banking operations were used to launder drug money. (pp. 165, 166) (Michael Levine, America’s “War on Drugs”: CIA- Recruited Mercenaries and Drug-Traffickers, want to know.info, January 13, 2011.)
The Jamaican Shower Posse is another criminal organization which thrived with the help of the CIA and the American governement:
With the recent violence in Jamaica and the controversy over alleged drug lord, Christopher “Dudus” Coke, many people are talking about the infamous Jamaican Shower Posse and the neighborhood of Tivoli Gardens, where they have their base. What is being ignored largely by the media, is the role that the American government and the CIA had in training, arming and giving power to the Shower Posse.
It is interesting that the USA is indicting Christopher “Dudus” Coke, the current leader of the Shower Posse for drug and gun trafficking, given that the CIA was accused of smuggling guns into Jamaica and facilitating the cocaine trade from Jamaica to America in the 70s and 80s. In many ways Dudus was only carrying on a tradition of political corruption, drug running, guns and violence that was started with the help of the CIA […]
Former CIA agent, Philip Agee, said “the CIA was using the JLP as its instrument in the campaign against the Michael Manley government, I’d say most of the violence was coming from the JLP, and behind them was the CIA in terms of getting weapons in and getting money in.” Casey Gane-McCalla, Jamaica’s Shower Posse: How The CIA Created “The Most Notorious Criminal Organization” Newsone, June 3, 2010.)
Back in 1995, Philip Agee also warned:
[O]ther targets which are coming up all the time in terms of the intelligence community are the rogue states – the so-called rogue states: Iraq, Libya, Iran, North Korea and, for some, Syria. (Video: Philip Agee – Inside the CIA (the Intelligence Community)(1995)(1-9)(MODERN GOVERNMENT series))
Iraq and Libya have been dealt with. Syria is the current victim and Iran and North Korea are being threatened regularly by the US. Forget WMDs, and the Arab Spring. Those, just as the Petraeus Affair, are only smoke screens and mirrors.
And most of all, forget the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”.
Afghanistan’s opium production, which had been virtually eradicated under the Taliban, has been booming under US occupation and US troops admitted they were protecting poppy fields. (Washington’s Blog, Are American Troops Protecting Afghan Opium?, October 28, 2012.)
The CIA, the US military as well as other governmental agencies are allegedly linked to the Mexican drug war and their goal is said to be far from their stated objective:
A high-ranking Mexican drug cartel operative [Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla] currently in U.S. custody is making startling allegations that the failed federal gun-walking operation known as “Fast and Furious” isn’t what you think it is.
It wasn’t about tracking guns, it was about supplying them — all part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. government and Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels […]
Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gun-running operations — as long as the intel kept coming. (Jason Howerton, Mexican Drug Cartel was working alongside the Government, The Blaze 9 August 2012.)
Compared to all these crimes, an extramarital affair is quite insignificant.
source: Global Research brings to its readers a list of selected articles on Petraeus’ resignation and serious crimes committed by the CIA over the years which deserve far more attention from the media.
Posted By J. Dana Stuster
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on that killed four American citizens, including the ambassador to Libya. Her remarks came after four months of controversy and finger-pointing about security lapses, intelligence failures, about and the administration’s response to the attack, with critics accusing the White House and State Department of misleading the public (a charge that may have scuttled U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s chances for a nomination to succeed Clinton in Foggy Bottom).
After months of reporting on the attack, there was little new information to be gleaned from Clinton’s testimony, but it did provide an opportunity for both the secretary and her congressional critics to air their perspectives and grievances. Clinton’s testimony turned emotional early on, as she choked up in her opening statements describing standing with President Obama as the bodies of the Americans killed in Benghazi arrived at Andrews Air Force Base. She also reiterated that, “as I have said many times since Sept. 11, I take responsibility.”
The hearing also turned heated at times. Sen. Ronald Johnson (R-Wis.) expressed his vehement disbelief that the State Department could not determine whether the attack was a planned terrorist action or grew out of a protest in response to the incendiary film Innocence of Muslims, which had provoked rioting at other U.S. facilities throughout the Muslim world that week.
“Madam Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees [from the Benghazi consulate] would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?” Sen. Johnson asked. “I mean, that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained,” he continued, before dismissing Clinton’s comment that she did not want to interfere with the processes at work on the ground as an “excuse.”
The secretary told Johnson “to read the ARB [Accountability Review Board report] and the classified ARB because even today there are questions being raised” about the attackers’ interests and allegiance. (Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) wrote about the ARB for Foreign Policy last month.) When pressed again, a visibly exasperated Clinton responded, “With all due respect, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) were visibly frustrated by Clinton’s answers. After the secretary told the committee that she had not personally read all the cables from the diplomatic mission in Libya, including those requesting increased security measures, Sen. Paul remarked that this represented “a failure in leadership,” a charge that has been leveled by FP’s own Shadow Government as well. “Had I been president at the time,” he told Clinton, “and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Amb. Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”. McCain again voiced his doubts about the veracity of administration messaging about the attack in the early weeks afterwards. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) compared the administration’s response to the faulty intelligence behind claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. Clinton said of the talking points, “The fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information.”
McCain also “strongly disagreed” with Clinton’s characterization of U.S. policy towards Libya after Muammar al-Qaddafi’s fall, concluding by saying that the State Department’s choice of a “soft footprint” for security contributed to the deaths at Benghazi. Clinton pointed out that Congress had placed holds on funding requests aid and security projects like those McCain cited. “We’ve got to get our act together between the administration and the Congress. If this is a priority, trying to help this government stand up security and deal with what is a very dangerous environment from east to west, then we have to work together,” Clinton replied.
One of the few substantive clarifications was the role of the Marine personnel stationed with the diplomatic mission — a point of confusion among many policymakers. “Historically, Marine guards do not protect personnel,” said Clinton. “Their job is to protect classified material and destroy it if necessary.” Several senators suggested that this should change.
Regarding that classified material, Clinton told the committee that no classified documents were left at Benghazi, “although some unclassified material was unfortunately left behind.” Foreign Policy reported about this oversight in September when documents found at the razed compound suggested that there had been warning signs an attack was imminent.
Interestingly, one of the most interesting moments in the hearing wasn’t about the Benghazi attack at all. Clinton spoke briefly about the hostages taken at the In Amenas gas field in Algeria, observing that the same proliferation of weapons that helped arm the terrorists in Benghazi also helped arm the terrorists in southern Algeria. “The vast majority of weapons came out of Qaddafi warehouses,” she said, characterizing the spread of small arms and shoulder-fired missiles as a “Pandora’s box.” As to whether the attacks in Benghazi and at In Amenas were directly related, she said there was insufficient intelligence.
The testimony made for a strange coda to Clinton’s otherwise well-regarded term as secretary of state. Her imminent departure was mentioned as a matter of accountability by both her critics and herself. Paul remarked that he saw her decision to step down now as accepting “culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11.” Clinton saw things differently. “Nobody is more committed to getting this right,” she told the committee in her opening remarks. “I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”
Obama & Clinton’s Benghazi Lies Exposed
A searing new Interim Progress Report released by the GOP chairmen of five House committees reveals the disturbing extent of the Obama administration’s deceit and manipulation over the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As the 43-page document details, not only was gross incompetence to blame for the success of the attack that cost four Americans their lives, but a concerted effort at the highest levels of government was undertaking to cover up the debacle, deceive the public and shield officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, from responsibility.
Ranking Democrats on the same five committees, who said they were not included in writing the report, dismissed it as politically motivated. “You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” they said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
Hardly. Dividing the timeline into three sections — before, during and after the attack — the report paints a damning picture of the Hillary Clinton-led State Department, which knew “the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.”
The smoking gun revealed in the report — contrary to Hillary Clinton’s congressional testimony that requests for additional security in Benghazi never reached her — was that “an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.” A Senate report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” released on December 31, confirmed the lack of security, citing ”extremely poor security in a threat environment that was ‘flashing red.’”
President Obama was blamed for the lack of security as well, in that he “failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.” The report noted that the Intelligence Community was not to blame for anything, in that they “collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.”
The 2013 report’s most scathing assessments concern the post-attack response by the Obama administration that “willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video.” The report excoriated the administration’s so-called “talking points,” revealing that
after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks… removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.
Furthermore, the report states, “Senior State Department officials requested–and the White House approved–that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed.”
The timeline following the attack reveals a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign that began with the president, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice peddling the YouTube video story, even as government emails surfacing six weeks later revealed that both the State Department and the White House were told during the attack that terror group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for it. The video charade continued until September 19, when Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first administration official to label Benghazi a terrorist attack, even as Obama continued to push the video lie a day later. On September 24, during a taping of “The View,” the president still refused to label Benghazi a terrorist attack. “We’re still doing an investigation,” he said.
As the facts became known, Clinton blamed ”the fog of war” for her initial lies, while White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed the White House was giving out the best information it had at the time, but the information had “evolved.”
Other lies by the administration are also forcefully rebutted in the 2013 report, including claims that the talking points were altered to protect classified information of the FBI investigation, noting that the FBI itself “approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested,” and that even “limited due diligence” of an Intelligence Committee (IC) report would have made it clear that “the situation was more complex than the narrative provided by Ambassador Susan Rice and others in the Administration.”
The final post-attack conclusions noted that the administration’s decision to conduct an FBI investigation, as opposed to one by military or other intelligence sources, “contributed to the government’s lack of candor” and “significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner. ”
That delay was underscored by the reality that 15 days after that attack, it was reported by CNN that the FBI was still waiting to get access to the area. That would be the same CNN that found ambassador Christopher Stevens’ journal on the floor of the unsecured compound — three days after the attack.
Unsurprisingly, the White House pushed back Wednesday, accusing Republicans of creating a political distraction. White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden claimed that the report goes over old ground and that some of its conclusions conflict with those reached during an internal investigation conducted by the State Department itself. “The State Department’s Accountability Review Board–the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response–released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.
Hayden is, unfortunately for the Obama administration, misrepresenting reality. The thrust of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board’s report was completely different. “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department … resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” it said.
Hillary Clinton supposedly took ”full responsibility” for those deficiencies –responsibility best described by Clinton herself in a testy exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, when he accused her of blaming non-existent protests for the deaths of four Americans. “What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked.
Furthermore, the four officials ostensibly terminated because of their mistakes leading up to the attack remained on the State Department payroll. And while spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Clinton “has accepted [Assistant Secretary of State] Eric Boswell’s decision to resign as assistant secretary for diplomatic security, effective immediately,” she neglected to mention that Boswell gave up only the presidential appointment as assistant secretary, not his other assignments. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) illuminated reality. “State Department officials proclaimed …that heads would roll…Now we see that the discipline is a lie and all that has happened is the shuffling of the deck chairs.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney defended Clinton, contending that her signature on the damning cable mentioned above was standard procedure for all diplomatic cables, essentially meaning that any State Department cable has the head of the Department’s signature on it. ”In this way, Secretary Clinton and others before her signed hundreds of thousands of cables” as secretary, he said. “Efforts to politicize this have failed in the past and they are not helpful to the broad national security interests we share.” Neither is the fact that Carney is apparently suggesting that Clinton signed something she didn’t read, despite the deadly consequences that occurred as a result.
Regardless, the Republican chairmen weren’t buying it. ”An April 19, 2012, cable bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature acknowledged requests for additional security, but nevertheless ordered the withdrawal of security assets to proceed as planned,” they said in a letter to the White House. “Given the gravity of this issue, we request that you immediately make the April 19, 2012, State Department cable public.” So far the White House has not responded.
Despite the stonewalling, House Republicans will press on. On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced that the investigation into Benghazi will continue next month. This part of the investigation is likely to become compelling, because it will include testimony from whistleblowers within the administration. “Next month, the Oversight Committee will convene a hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attacks to examine evidence that Obama Administration officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments,” said Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA). “The American people still don’t have the full truth about what happened both before and after the murders of four brave Americans.”
Adding fuel to Issa’s fire are the allegations made by former special ops forces that the revelations contained in the current report don’t go far enough, especially regarding why the administration seemingly abandoned its responsibility to protect those who came under attack. “As a former soldier it pains me to think that for hours upon hours and more hours they waited in vain for someone to come to their rescue,” retired Special Forces Col. Jamie Williamson told the Washington Free Beacon.
Williamson is the cofounder of OPSEC, a non-profit organization that protects US special ops forces and intelligence operatives from “political exploitation and policies, and the misuse of classified information, that unnecessarily exposes them and their families to greater risk and reduces their effectiveness in keeping Americans safe.” The group is asking critical questions that remain unanswered, such as “why were no U.S. military assets immediately deployed in response?” and “why did the commander of Africom tell a member of Congress that he had available assets but was never given order to deploy them?”
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey insisted assets could not have reached the scene in time. Yet Panetta and Dempsey were not alerted about the attack until almost an hour after it began, and they didn’t raise the issue with Obama until their previously scheduled 5 p.m meeting, one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began. Moreover, Africom commander Carter Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz he was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi. And according to Fox News, neither was a Special Operations team in Sigonella, Italy, despite being only two hours from Benghazi.
OPSEC also illuminated another potential hazard for the administration, claiming that the 20-30 survivors of the attack have been intimidated into remaining silent. “They’re afraid and reasonably so,” said Williamson, who says his group has had direct contact with them. “It appears there has been overt or subtle intimidation and they’re afraid to come forward with their stories.”
A March 1 letter sent to Secretary of State John Kerry by Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) demanded the names and contact information for “as many as 30” Americans that were injured in the attack “so that we can make appropriate arrangements.”
OPSEC and other like-minded organizations are calling for a Watergate-like select committee to investigate. Rep. Wolf has been the primary advocate for such a committee, and has garnered the support of 120 lawmakers who believe that such a committee, which would have the power to issue subpoenas compelling key officials to testify, is vitally necessary.
Four dead Americans, 20-30 survivors, and every other American frustrated with the media-abetted lying perpetrated by the Obama administration deserve nothing less. Those on the left who deride the effort to get to the bottom of this scandal have certainly demanded much more for far less serious transgressions. That they would reject the same effort here reveals a level of ideological bankruptcy and hypocrisy that is nothing short of appalling.
Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed
New evidence reveals the Obama administration’s version of the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was based on a tissue of lies. The Weekly Standard’s Steven Hayes has obtained a timeline and a series of emails revealing the self-serving efforts made by administration officials, who heavily edited CIA talking points about the attack that cost four Americans, including ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, their lives. Also revealed is who made the changes and why they made them.
The revelations are part of a report published by the five Republican Committee chairmen that has been largely dismissed by a calculatingly indifferent media, despite the reality that it includes direct quotes from administration officials, along with footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. Although the names of some officials have been omitted in some places, the Weekly Standard has confirmed the identity of two administration officials who authored two critical emails: one illuminating the reason for the editing itself and the other announcing a September 15 meeting of top administration officials, where the ultimate draft of the talking points would be finalized.
The two officials are State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland and White House national security official Ben Rhodes.
What they sought to obscure is the reality that while the initial attack was still taking place, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts, at 4:05 p.m and 6:08 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The former indicated an attack was taking place. The latter alert revealed that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, was claiming credit for it. According to the House report, these alerts were widely circulated among administration officials, including those at the highest levels of government. Another cable sent by the CIA station chief in Libya the following day reveals that eyewitnesses confirmed that a terrorist attack involving the participation of Islamic jihadists had occurred.
It was exactly that reality the administration sought to obscure.
The Standard reveals the three versions of the edited talking points. Version 1 was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14. Key points include:
–The initial theory that the Benghazi attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo”;
–”Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida participated”;
–Members of Ansar al Sharia “were involved”;
–”Wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks”;
–”Five other attacks against foreign interests” had taken place since April, leading to the possibility that the consulate had been “previously surveilled”;
–The U.S. is “working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners” to bring those responsible to justice.
After this draft’s initial distribution, the CIA amended it, adding two more points. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” and “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” They also changed two talking points: the reference to “al Qa’ida” was removed, and Benghazi “attacks” became “demonstrations.”
An hour into the vetting process, the official confirmed by the Standard to be Victoria Nuland raised “serious concerns”–about the political impact, fearing that Congress would hammer the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” Minor revisions followed, but they weren’t good enough for Nuland, who said the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” further warning that State Department officials would directly contact National Security Council (NSC) officials as a result. In a matter of moments, the House report noted, that “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” It was then that Ben Rhodes notified the various groups working on the points that a meeting would take place on September 15 to resolve their issues.
Version two of the report was put together at 9:45 a.m. on Saturday. According to officials with knowledge of what occurred at this meeting of the Deputies Committee, CIA deputy director Mike Morrel heavily edited this version, removing 148 of its 248 words. The entirety of the previous report was reduced to the “spontaneous attack” theory, followed by the idea that “this assessment may change as additional information is made available,” and that the “investigation is ongoing to help bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”
Less than two hours later, those three points became the bullet points in Version three, which became the final version of the administration’s talking points.
On Sunday, September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out by the administration to pitch the Muslim video canard. The following day, Nuland rose to Rice’s defense. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
Yet even the redacted version of the talking points never mentioned anything about a video. Despite that reality, the administration, led by Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continued to pitch that mendacious version of the events, inaugurating the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to mislead the American public in the weeks leading up to the presidential election — weeks during which we were assured that al Qa’ida and terror were “on the run.”
At a press briefing last Friday, State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declined to comment regarding Nuland’s involvement, and why critical details were edited out of the final draft. “We regularly discuss our public messaging with our interagency counterparts, that’s part of what happens in the interagency,” said Ventrell. “ We’re not going to get into the details…of our internal deliberative process on these. We continue to be transparent with the congress, and have been, and shared thousands of documents. Talking points is something that they’ve looked into.”
Yet the “most transparent administration in history” provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the stipulation that they would only be available for a limited time, and not turned over to the committees. That agreement was part of a political deal whereby Senate Republicans would not hold up the nomination of current CIA Director John Brennan.
As damning as these revelations are, they are far from the only problems the Obama administration faces in a scandal that can no longer be contained. Last Thursday, it was revealed that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General will be conducting an investigation of the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) report, an outrageous whitewash whose central conclusion was the idea that “the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.” According to well-placed sources, the IG wants to determine if the ARB declined to interview critical witnesses, who wanted to provide their accounts of Benghazi to the panel whose conclusions insulated top officials–including Hillary Clinton–for the “inadequate security” at the consulate.
Two of those whistleblowers, now revealed to be Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, are being represented by Washington attorneys Victoria Toensing and her husband Joseph DiGenova, respectively. Appearing on “Geraldo” Saturday night, Toensing told Rivera that “the things that her client will be saying will be contradictory to what the administration’s scenario was.” DiGenova promised that “what will come out of the hearing is that the Accountability Review Board conducted by General Pickering and Admiral Mullen will be proven to have been a cover-up–one of the worst jobs ever done in the history of governmental reporting…”
DiGenova further noted that neither Pickering or Mullen ever interviewed Hillary Clinton during their investigation, and that when Pickering was told he would have to deal with it, he became physically ill.
The third witness expected to testify is Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya. Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until two months before the attack, is the security officer who twice requested additional security in Benghazi before the attack. Nordstrom cited a chronology that included 200 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, including 48 that occurred in Benghazi.
An equally explosive revelation emerged a week ago, when an anonymous U.S. special operator told Fox News the administration’s contention that no forces were available to get to Benghazi in time was also a lie. “I know for a fact that C 110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise, not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond,” he contended. The C 110 is a 40-man special ops force reportedly capable of conducting rapid response and deployment. They were located only three-and-a-half hours away in Croatia on Sept. 11.
The operator revealed there were other members of special ops and other officials aware and involved, but that they would be “decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.” The Fox source added that members of the special ops community feel betrayed, and believe that betrayal goes to the highest levels of the administration.
The administration apparently couldn’t care less. Last Tuesday at his press conference, President Obama claimed he was “unaware” of any effort to prevent whistleblowers from testifying. On the same day, Secretary of State John Kerry contended that there is “an enormous amount of misinformation out there.” ”We have to demythologize this issue and certainly depoliticize it,” Kerry told reporters at the State Department. “The American people deserve answers. I’m determined that this will be an accountable and open State Department as it has been in the past, and we will continue to do that, and we will provide answers.”
Kerry had previously expressed frustration with Republicans for refusing to accept the conclusions of the ARB. “Let’s get this done with, folks,” Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in testimony last month. “Let’s figure out what it is that’s missing, if it’s legitimate or isn’t. I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”
Last Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney echoed Kerry’s indifference. “Let’s be clear,” he said. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”
On Saturday, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, praised the State Department officials who have agreed to testify at the hearings. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points [from the administration,]” Issa said in a statement. “Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” he added. “In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers,” Issa said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell took issue with that characterization. “The State Department would never tolerate or sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue, including this one,” Ventrell contended. “That’s an obligation we take very seriously, full stop.”
The country will find out exactly how seriously beginning Wednesday, when the House Oversight Committee resumes its hearings. It remains to be seen how mainstream media outlets, many of which have been more than willing to dismiss the investigation into the deaths of four Americans as a Republican conspiracy theory, will handle what is likely to be some of the most explosive testimony on the attack to date history. Benghazi may have happened “a long time ago,” but it is not going away anytime soon.
Benghazi Hearing: Trey Gowdy – “I don’t give a damn whose careers are ruined”
CrossTalk: Benghazi Cover-up
Published on May 17, 2013
The Benghazi scandal is gaining momentum. What is at the heart of it? Is it about lapses of security? A false flag operation gone wrong run by the CIA? Or is it all about local American politics? CrossTalking with Raymond Tanter, Raymond McGovern and Jay Bookman.
Obama Was in the Situation Room Watching Benghazi Attack!
Benghazi: Obama watched them die, then lied about it
Benghazi Whistleblowers Threatened by Obama Administration
Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping to Trade Blind Sheik
Benghazi Gate – New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya – Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin
Benghazi Gate -Part 2 New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya – Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin
Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing part 1
Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing part 2
Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing part 3
Benghazi Terrorists: ‘Dr. Morsi Sent Us’
The terrorist attack in Benghazi is far more disturbing than previously thought. Although it has not been reported in the U.S. media, the possibility exists that the Egyptian government may have played an operational role in the attack. YouTube videos of the terrorist strike raise a serious problem that only an Arabic speaker would detect: some of the terrorists are speaking in the Egyptian dialect of the Arabic language.
Indeed, one of the videos shot with a cell phone of one of the attackers emerged around the time four Americans were killed. It shows a mob approaching the American compound under siege, clearly telling the terrorists in the dialect of Upper Egypt: “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba`atna” —which translates to: “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”
The words “Mahadesh yermi” for “don’t shoot” are characteristically spoken in Egyptian Arabic, while Libyans from Benghazi would say, “Matermey” for “don’t shoot.”
“Dr. Morsi” refers, of course, to president Mohamed Morsi of Egypt. The name Morsi is Egyptian and does not exist in any other Arabic speaking country.
The Egyptian regime’s connection to Benghazi also helps explain why it denied U.S. the ability to interrogate Abo Ahmed, an Egyptian suspect in the terrorist attack.
According to a Fox News report, Abo Ahmed had contacted Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri in late 2012, asking to establish a base in Libya “to take advantage of the conditions in Libya after the revolution in order to buy weapons and attract foreign fighters.”
Egyptian media demanded an explanation from the Egyptian regime on why Morsi’s name was mentioned by jihadists during the attack. This question went unanswered, and until now there has been no word of this issue in English-language media.
This incident fits a larger context: On the same day that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was attacked, so too was the U.S. Embassy in Cairo under attack, resulting in al-Qaeda flags flying above the embassy in the place of American flags. According to friends living two blocks away from the U.S. embassy, Egyptian security was withdrawn from protecting the embassy a month prior to the attack – a development without precedent.
Reports from numerous Egyptian dissidents at that time, which included prominent Egyptian dissident Wael Abbas on his twitter account, stated that the people surrounding the U.S. embassy in Cairo were not protesters but “regime-hired thugs.”
Anyone who has lived in Egypt knows that Egyptian citizens don’t have access to enter the neighborhood where the U.S. embassy is located without passing through at least two check points where they are required to show personal ID, state the reason for entering the neighborhood and provide proof of this purpose. I know because I personally had to do this numerous times for decades.
The Egypt connection might explain the curious statement by President Obama three days after the attack, when he said, “Egypt is not an ally.”
It should not come as a surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) would engage in attacks against the United States. The MB’s ideology incorporates war tactics and supports terrorism against the U.S. as one of its major objectives.
The current MB leadership isn’t ashamed of announcing its support for al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden’s attack against America. The MB member and Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) Vice Chairman Essam El-Erian stated in May 2011: “The assassination of the leader Osama Bin Laden doesn’t mean the end in the war against the enemies of Allah. The way he was killed reveals the ugly face of American civilization.”
Yet after El-Erian’s announcement of his support for Bin Laden, State Department officials welcomed him in December 2012 in the U.S..
According to the MB and Sunni doctrine, it’s only permissible for Islamist leaders to maintain a ten-year duration of hodna (Islamic truce) with an infidel nation. This raises the question of whether breaking the truce was the root of the Sep. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi. That attack against America was, according to Islamist doctrine, the only way the MB would be allowed to renew a truce. The MB also might have possibly needed to legitimize their Islamic rule among their jihadist followers through exercising jihad.
The MB’s duality and hypocrisy remain major war tactics. While dealing with the U.S., Morsi himself practices deceit when he, for instance, calls President Obama a liar in Arabic, and a friend in English. The MB war is fueled and encouraged by the submissive and self-loathing suicidal foreign policy of the Obama administration, which elevates U.S. enemies above U.S. interests.
Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian political activist, writer, researcher and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Betrayal in Benghazi
The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wing-men. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. Among America’s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.
The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.
It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi. The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog press” has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming. The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle.
It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference… mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin *** and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.
Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):
When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.” At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down.”
By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various Command and Control Agencies… and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.
At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.
So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really was not available… what about this:
· When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.
· By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours.
· While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.
· The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM… which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.
· Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.
· Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport, only one-half hour away.
· As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act… screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America’s interests first.
The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive.
Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”… and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug on Superman’s cape.”
Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief who was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rest for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone… and he didn’t understand the tactical situation? YGBSM!
Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to “stand down?” Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.
(**** Well Colonel Handley maybe right but he thinks like a cowboy and not like a diplomat)
Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley, USAF (Ret.) is credited with the highest speed air-to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.
Why Obama is Being Shaken Down about Benghazi
Al Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed by lethal injection
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Free Beacon
Group sought to kidnap Stevens for exchange of imprisoned terrorists
An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.
The veracity of the claim by Abdallah Dhu–al-Bajadin, who was identified by U.S. officials as a weapons expert for al Qaeda, could not be determined. However, U.S. officials have not dismissed the terrorist’s assertion.
An FBI spokeswoman indicated that the bureau is aware of the claim but declined to comment because of the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi attacks.
“While there is a great deal of information in the media and on the Internet about the attack in Benghazi, the FBI is not in a position at this time to comment on anything specific with regard to the investigation,” spokeswoman Kathy Wright said.
A State Department spokesman had no comment.
The FBI is investigating the deaths of Stevens, State Department information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. They were killed in attacks that U.S. officials say were carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group known as Ansar al-Sharia.
A State Department Accountability Review Board report and an interim House Republican report on the attacks gave no cause of death for Stevens, whose body was recovered by Libyans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
The House report, “Interim Progress Report for the House Republican Conference,” said that “Libyan doctors tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival at the hospital.”
To date, no official cause of death for Stevens has been made public, although it was reported that a Libyan doctor who examined Stevens said he died from apparent smoke inhalation and related asphyxiation.
Video and photos of Stevens being handled by a mob in Benghazi were posted on the Internet. It is not clear from the images whether he was dead or alive at the time.
According to a March 14 posting on an al Qaeda-linked website, Dhu–al-Bajadin stated that Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during the autopsy.
The “plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners,” the terrorist wrote on the prominent jihadist Web forum Ansar al-Mujahideen Network. “However, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B.”
Dhu–al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination also was copied to the Ansar al-Mujahidin website from the al Qaeda-accredited website Shumukh al-Islam. That site is open only to members, and the claim initially was posted for Dhu–al-Bajadin by a member identified as Adnan Shukri.
The reference to Shumukh al-Islam has boosted the credibility of the claim among some U.S. intelligence analysts. A Western intelligence official said Dhu–al-Bajadin is a well-known jihadist and a key figure behind a magazine called Al Qaeda Airlines.
According to this official, intelligence analysts believe Dhu–al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination by lethal injection appears aimed, in part, at pressuring the U.S. government on its handling of the Benghazi attacks.
The article did not say what substance was used in the lethal injection. It also stated that the State Department had come under criticism for not providing adequate security in Benghazi before the attacks.
Dhu–al-Bajadin said he had more details about the attacks and the assassination, but would not reveal them in the posting.
The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the translation of Dhu–al-Bajadin’s posting in Arabic.
The article stated that lethal injections are done in “more than one place in the human body that autopsy doctors ignore when they see that the symptoms are similar to another specific and common illness.”
“Anyone who studied the art of silent assassination that spies applied during the Cold War would easily identify these parts of the body,” the article stated.
Dhu–al-Bajadin has said the Al Qaeda Airlines publication is not solely focused on aviation but was chosen as a way to instill fear in the enemy.
• Bill Gertz is the senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon.
Evidence Obama Allowed Americans In Libya To Die To Cover Up Arms Shipment To Syrian Islamist Groups
Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama
CIA’s Petraeus Falls on his sword, Bob Gates, DoD, Clinton, Libya Benghazi Link, Arab News
The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned
CNBC: BENGAHZI IS NOT ABOUT LIBYA! “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”
BREAKING NEWS!!! Obama a Hitman or Terrorist Arms Dealer? Why He Hid the Truth of Benghazi..
Benghazi False Flag Exposed, Obama – Clinton Staged Kidnapping Plot Foiled? Conspiracy
Obama’s Treason in Benghazi
David Harris on Benghazi_ Obama _ Hillary watched while Chris Stevens was sodomized and murdered
Latest News Bulletin – Goldberg_ W.H. Will ‘Never’ Admit Truth on Benghazi at this
Benghazi Cover up New Revelations About Benghazi Col Hunt Shaffer O Reilly Talking Point
Murder Of Chris Stevens In Benghazi Attack Ordered By American Military Leadership_ Possibly Obama
Political fallout from Benghazi attack
As investigation into the death of US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans last September carries on, the CNN reported on Thursday that dozens of CIA spies were working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels.
The details of US government activities in Benghazi have since the incident been the issue of controversy with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging probe into the attack and the secret operations of the CIA in the African city.
“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” CNN reported.
Sources say more Americans were injured in the attack than what had previously been reported.
The CIA says it has been clear and open about its operations in Benghazi.
“The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi,” a CIA statement said.
This is while the CNN says the spy agency has made a huge effort to keep the secrets of its activities in Benghazi from leaking out.
“I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way,” Rep. Frank Wolf said.
Flashback: Clinton told Rand Paul she ‘didn’t know’ if US was smuggling arms from Benghazi- Really???
In a January 23, 2013 Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the United States was smuggling arms from Benghazi into other countries.
Paul specifically asked if the U.S. was involved in procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying or selling any weapons to Turkey out of Libya.
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, before admitting she would have to take the question for the record.
“What I’d like to know is – the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying or selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries – Turkey included,” Paul clarified.
Clinton told Paul that he would have to ask the question of the “agency that ran the annex.”
“You are saying you don’t know,” Paul clarified.
“I do not know,” Clinton affirmed.
According to a report from CNN, there were “dozens” of Central Intelligence agents in Benghazi at the time of the attack. The report also notes that many members of Congress are speculating that the CIA was operating in Benghazi for the purpose of transferring weapons to Syria from Turkey.
Is Muslim Brotherhood working together with Amb. Chris Stevens’ assassin?
Ahmed Moussa, a prominent Egyptian television personality on the Tahrir TV channel as well as a former officer in Egyptian State Security Intelligence (SSI), went public on July 30 with a remarkable piece of information.
Moussa said, addressing U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson (in absentia) on his show:
Ambassador Stevens was killed in Benghazi, and you know who killed him, the U.S. administration knows who killed him, and you know how he was killed and it was a major strike against the U.S. administration, and all of you.
The assassin is now present at Rabia Al-Adawiya [mosque protest] His name is, do you know it or you would like me to inform you? He’s affiliated with Al Qaeda in Libya, his name is Mohsen Al-Azazi, his passport was found in the house of Khairat El-Shater.
That killer is in Rabia Al-Adawiya now, with Safwat Hegazy and Mohammed El-Beltagy, whom you and your administration support and aid. Your administration aids terrorism.
In the course of this statement, Moussa announced three facts:
2. Azizi associates with Mohammed El-Beltagy, the general secretary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and with Safwat Hegazy, a leading MB cleric.
3. The police found Azizi’s passport in the house of leading MB strategist Khairat El-Shater, presumbably when Shater was arrested on July 5.
If true, this is sensational news, for it directly ties the MB to anti-American terrorism and repudiates the Obama administration policy of trying to work with the MB. It also further confirms that the MB is a terrorist organization.
It might explain why the Obama administration is mediating in talks with Egypt’s interim government for a “reconciliation process” that would permit a safe exist for Morsi and other MB leaders outside Egypt without a trial that likely would disclose more embarrassing details about Benghazi.
But is the news that Moussa announced true? Several indications point to its veracity.
First, Moussa is a well-regarded source who often interviews intelligence agents and high-ranking military personnel on his show and is renowned for breaking intelligence-related news.
In March, for example, he broke the news that Egyptian intelligence stopped sending Mohammed Morsi written briefings and limited its reports to verbal communication, a reflection of its fear that his affiliation to an international Islamist organization (with over seventy branches worldwide) would compromise the information. As well as revealing some of the details of the meeting that took place on 30 July between Morsi and Catherine Ashton, British Labour politician and diplomat.
Second, as I reported in March, in a video shot during the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Egyptian jihadists approaching the U.S. installations said in Egyptian colloquial Arabic, “Don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”
Moussa further went on to say, still addressing Patterson on this TV show:
Ask the Muslim Brotherhood to hand Azizi to U.S. authorities. — And of course they will not, as he is there to wage terrorist attacks against Egyptian citizens, as he hides there in the protection in Rabia, among killers with massive amounts of weapons … Why doesn’t the MB, which you often praise, hand him to you?
That question has yet to be answered by either Amb. Patterson, President Obama or the U.S. government.
Report: 400 US Surface-to-Air Missiles Went Missing in Benghazi
A lawyer representing one of the whistle blowers with knowledge of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi last September says 400 surface-to-air missiles were “diverted to Libya” during the attack and fell into “the hands of some very ugly people.”
In an interview with Washington, D.C., radio station WMAL on Monday, Beltway lawyer Joe diGenova said he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles,” Breitbart.com reported.
Saying his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community,” diGenova said the U.S. intelligence community is terrified the missiles might be used to shoot down airliners — and that fear, in part, fueled the closing of embassies in the Middle East last week.
“They were afraid that there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies,” he said, The Daily Mail reported.
“Remember, you can take a shoulder-held missile and shoot it into an embassy. Not just into the sky.
“That’s what this was all about,” diGenova insisted. “That’s why they’re so worried. That’s why they have lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi, because they are now responsible for all of the stepchildren of violence that happens as a result of this. This is a very serious matter.”
DiGenova’s wife, Victoria Toensing — a former deputy assistant attorney general — also represents Benghazi witnesses and others with knowledge of the terror attack, according to the Mail.
“A lot of people have come forward to share information with us,” he said during the radio station’s “Mornings On The Mall” program.
“We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned” is that “there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are … in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner,” diGenova said, adding that his sources have told him the missiles are in the hands of al-Qaida operatives.
“And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people,” he said.
DiGenova was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for four years beginning in 1983, and later was an independent counsel appointed to investigate a State Department official who ordered politically embarrassing searches of the passport files of Bill Clinton, Clinton’s mother, and Ross Perot before the 1992 presidential election.
In 2007, the New York state Senate retained him to investigate then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer over allegations that he ordered the State Police to track the whereabouts of Republican State Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno when he used police escorts to travel to and around New York City.
Now, diGenova and Toensing, a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee, represent Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attacks; and Mark Thompson, a former Marine who serves as deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counter-terrorism section, the Mail reported.
The lawyers say Hicks’ and Thompson’s superiors subjected them to an intimidation campaign after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Accountability Review Board ignored their accounts of the Benghazi attack.
Toensing told Fox News in April one of the two men was warned about the impact on his career if he cooperated with Republican investigators in Congress.
“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” Toensing said, the Mail reported.
“Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
President Obama has said he is unaware of any witnesses from Benghazi who have been prohibited from working with Congress. Secretary of State John Kerry has attributed such stories to “an enormous amount of misinformation.”
In a May 30 letter, CIA Director John Brennan told personnel stationed in Benghazi that they were free to speak with Congress, but that they should involve their chain of command and follow specific procedures, the Mail reported, adding the measure was seen by some as a subtle warning that CIA agents must not approach lawmakers on their own.
Valerie Jarrett’s Stand Down Order
Obama’s ‘Impeachable Offense’ Over New Benghazi Revelations
Allen West Calls for Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi
Ret. Lt. Col. Allen West called for a select committee to investigate the events in Libya surrounding the bombing last September of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
“We’ve got a lot of questions. This is why I believe we have to have that select committee to get to the bottom of these incidents,” the former Florida Republican Congressman said Wednesday on “Fox & Friends.”
“Right now we have had this investigation across five different committees in the House of Representatives. We have not gotten anywhere,” he said.
“If we have one focused committee with subpoena powers that can get the survivors from Benghazi, get some of these CIA agents and operatives. And I think you need to depose Hillary Clinton and bring her back and talk about why Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of September 11,” he said.
West’s newest appeal comes in light of a report Monday from an attorney representing whistleblowers claiming that four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were ‘taken from Libya’ during the Benghazi attack.
“Where did these surface-to-air missiles come from? Were they part of (former dictator Moammar) Gaddafi’s stash? Or somehow were we trying to funnel weapons through Libya to Turkey, into Syria?” West questioned.
“The president needs to tell us why his direct representative in a foreign country was in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton needs to come clean about why was the ambassador there,” he said.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger: Clinton lied to Congress about Benghazi attacks
A Republican congressman says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied when she told members of Congress last year that the deadly attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, weren’t terrorist-related.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who attended the closed-door meeting two days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, said Clinton deliberately deceived lawmakers when she insisted the attacks were a spontaneous response to a YouTube video.
“Yeah, absolutely” she lied, Kinzinger told Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” program on Friday. “If you even look at the emails that were exchanged during this, they called it basically a terrorist attack. They knew what was going on.”
The lawmaker said Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, “yelled” at another lawmaker who suggested that terrorists planned well in advance the attacks, which killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“In a very loud, angry voice [she] says it’s irresponsible to even suggest this is a terror attack — this is a YouTube video,” he said.
“I actually sat there in that meeting and believed, well, the secretary actually believes this is a YouTube video because of how passionately she’s arguing it. … But we find out that they knew it the whole time that this was a terror attack, including when it was happening.”
Kinzinger declined to say who Clinton shouted at, saying it’s up to him or her to come forward.
In the days following the attacks, former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice said intelligence showed they were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video circulating on the Internet. The administration later clarified her statements, saying that — after reviewing more intelligence reports — the event was terrorism.
CIA Gun-running, Qatar-Libya-Syria.
A report from CNN’s Jake Tapper has reintroduced “Benghazi-Gate” to the US media spotlight. The report claims that “dozens” of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi on the night of the attack, and the CIA is going to great lengths to suppress details of them and their whereabouts being released. The report alleges that the CIA is engaged in “unprecedented” attempts to stifle employee leaks, and “intimidation” to keep the secrets of Benghazi hidden, allegedly going as far as changing the names of CIA operatives and “dispersing” them around the country.
One suspects this has a single and defined purpose – to hide the CIA’s culpability in supplying arms to known extremists in Libya and Syria. Moreover, the CNN report alludes to the CIA supplying “surface-to-air missiles” from Benghazi to rebels in Syria, but this may only be the tip of the iceberg. The report goes on to state: (my emphasis)
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations,according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
Although Saudi Arabia have recently been kindly given “the Syrian card” by the United States – with Prince Bandar once again becoming “Prince of the Jihad”; it has become common knowledge that since the onset of the Syrian crisis, it was Qatar at the forefront of supplying arms and funds to both the political and militant elements of the so-called “opposition”. This has undoubtedly included tacit support of the dominant radical elements among the plethora of brigades on the ground in Syria; with Jabhat al Nusra being the most obvious beneficiary of Qatari largesse. Earlier this year it wasreported that the CIA had been in direct “consultation” with the Qatari Monarchys’ network of arms smugglers – run primarily from the Emir’s palace in Doha. Accordingly, it seems certain that both the CIA and Qatari intelligence were involved in an operation to ship arms stockpiles from “rebels” in Libya; to the “rebels” in Syria: both varieties of which are inextricably linked to Al Qaeda affiliates and radical Salafi-Jihadi militants.
A New York Times report from 30th March 2011 reveals that the CIA had been active in Libya “for weeks”, to “gather information for [NATO] airstrikes, and to contact and ‘vet’ the rebels battling “Gaddafi’s forces”. The New York Times report also states that Obama had signed a presidential finding in the weeks previous, which gave authority to the CIA to arm and fund the rebels. Furthermore, the Independent revealed in March 2011 that Obama had requested Saudi Arabia supply arms to the Libyan militants. Obama had also given his blessing for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to ship arms into Benghazi, urging them to supply non-US manufactured arms to avert suspicion – in violation of the No-Fly Zone and arms embargo he helped to enforce, and all in total violation of the US Constitution and International Law.
The current Libyan authorities have made little effort to disassociate themselves from reports of large-scale arms shipments bound for Syria, leaving from the port of Benghazi. As stated in a UN Security Council report; the sheer size, monetary and logistical requirement to organise such delivery would almost certainly require at least some local government knowledge and assistance, one Libyan congress-member has openly admitted as such. Moreover, in a Telegraph report from November 2011, it is noted that the post-Gaddafi Libyan military commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj – widely regarded as the former leader of Al Qaeda affiliate: the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and a lead figure in the militant uprising against Gaddafi – visited members of the Syrian opposition “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) in Turkey to discuss sending “money and weapons”, and also discussed “Libyan fighters to train troops”.
In a Fox News report from December 2012 an “International Cargo-Shipper” candidly revealed that arms shipments from Libya to Syria commenced “almost immediately after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi” (Oct 2011) and had continued on a weekly basis from multiple ports including Misrata and Benghazi. Some of the “sources” shipments were reported to be in excess of 600 tons. The report goes on to quote anonymous “sources” on the ground in Benghazi as alleging that: “Weapons and fighters were absolutely going to Syria, and the U.S. absolutely knew all about it – though most shipments have stopped since the attack on the American Consulate,”
Furthermore, an extensive UN report from the Security Council group of experts, from April 2013, also highlights the rife lawless proliferation of arms throughout Libya, and seeping beyond its borders. The report stated that arms were fueling conflicts from Syria to Mali, and arms were spreading from Libya at an “alarming rate”. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were singled out in the UN report for blatant violations of the arms embargo during the 2011 “uprising” against Gaddafi; the report revealed that multiple Qatari arms shipments had been allowed to flow into Libya with the full knowledge and acquiescence of NATO – in much the same way they have been allowed to flow into Turkey from Qatar, with Syria being the final destination.
Elements of the Libyan “military” leadership undoubtedly have strong links to former Al Qaeda affiliates, and were brought to power via Qatari largesse and special forces, CIA coordination, and a NATO airforce. Considering this, it is not hard to imagine the same actors would be willing to at least “turn a blind eye” to what has become an overt and unabated Libyan arms-smuggling route into Syria, as is once again demonstrated in this June 18th 2013 report from Reuters, titled: “The adventures of a Libyan weapons dealer in Syria:
Abdul Basit Haroun (former comander of “February 17th brigade”) says he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria, which he delivers on chartered flights to neighboring countries and then smuggles over the border…. A Reuters reporter was taken to an undisclosed location in Benghazi to see a container of weapons being prepared for delivery to Syria. It was stacked with boxes of ammunition, rocket launchers and various types of light and medium weapons.
Haroun says he can collect weapons from around the country and arrange for them to be delivered to the Syrian rebels because of his contacts in Libya and abroad. “They know we are sending guns to Syria,” Haroun said. “Everyone knows.” His weapon dealing activities appear to be well-known, at least in Libya’s east. Senior officials in Libya’s army and government told Reuters they backed supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition, while a member of Libya’s congress said Haroun was doing a great job of helping the Syrian rebels.
Furthermore, according to a recent New York Times report from June 29th 2013, Qatar have been carrying out arms shipments to “rebels” in Syria from Libya, since at least the same time they “stepped up efforts” to oust Colonel Gaddafi. Consequently, this can only be interpreted as Qatar commencing shipments of arms to Syria – from Benghazi – before Gaddafi had been killed, which means before October 2011.
It is highly plausible that Benghazi was indeed a CIA-run, arms “buy-back” program – with the further “possible” intent of forwarding those arms to Syria. As the State Department has confirmed, it allocated $40 million dollars for the purchase and “collection” of arms used during the conflict in Libya, including a “missing” stockpile of up to 20,000 MANPADS – which at least 15,000 are still unaccounted for. A report written by former US special forces operatives who served in Libya titled “Benghazi: the definitive report”, alleges that the “consulate” and weapons stockpile program was entirely run by John Brennan – Obama’s National Security Advisor at the time and now Director of the CIA – and outside the usual CIA chain of command with the sole purpose of “moving the stockpiled weapons to the another conflict – possibly Syria”. Furthermore, it should also be noted that several prominent US government figures (Clinton, Brennan, Patreaus, et al) were openly lobbying for that precise policy; this adds the possiblity that certain players within the government or the many factions of the Military Industrial Complex may have been acting outside of the Obama administrations specific consent – or building the logistics to fulfill such policy in the future. Thus, a possible explanation of the attack on the “consulate” – which we can now assume was a CIA operated arms cache – was the Obama administrations’ public reluctance to supply MANPADS or other specific heavy weaponry to the rebels fighting in Syria. Moreover, the authors of “Benghazi: the definitive report” claim that John Brennnan was targetting hardline Islamist militia in Libya via drone strikes and special operations, which may provide another pretext for the attack. Certain rebel factions, their regional donors, or their Libyan affiliates may have felt aggrieved and decided to act against the CIA and attempt to seize the weapons under their own volition.
The Libyan weapons route to Syria has quite possibly been ongoing since Qatari (and Western) special forces and their Libyan Al Qaeda affiliated proxies took a hold of Benghazi. In turn the shipments to Syria have gradually increased as Gaddafi’s stockpiles became available and the lawless possibilities inside Libya expanded. These developments could also explain fighters of Libyan origin representing a large percentage of foreign fighters within the oppositions ranks; with a recent study finding Libyan fighters making up over twenty percent of foreign fatalities. If Qatar were indeed coordinating arms shipments from Libya to Syria during the early stages of the Syrian crisis in 2011, and the CIA have also been “consulting” the Qatari shipments and their follow-on transit points through Turkey; then the simplistic mainstream narrative and timeline of the conflict in Syria merely erupting from the suppression of peaceful protesters, and in turn spiralling into full-blown civil-war, is again brought into doubt.
Uncovering the chain of events that led to the attack on the US “consulate”, and the variety of militia the US and its allies were arming in Libya; could in turn reveal the full extent of the Obama administrations’ support of extremist proxy-forces in Syria. Which may explain the administrations’ zealous attempts to stifle any debate or serious questioning of the events that surround Benghazi.
Obama Bankrolled Attack on the Benghazi Consulate
Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack
By W. Paul Smith
An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire at the US facility in Benghazi late on September 11, 2012 (Getty Images)
The September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead has been the source of much controversy and speculation. Many critics have gone so far as to characterize the Obama administration’s response to the attack as worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra. And some have even called for the commencement of impeachment proceedings. The truth is that attacks on U.S. diplomats and diplomatic missions are an unfortunate reality that have occurred with frightening regularity over the years, but, in fact, have been on the decline since the mid-’90s. During the George W. Bush years, there were 13 attacks on embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions around the world, killing around 100 people. And throughout the ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s, attacks were even worse.
An official investigation into the Benghazi attack by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board released a report, concluding, “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department … resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” While there is no doubt that much criticism is deserved surrounding this tragic incident, many of the popular claims about the attack range from inaccurate hyperbole to outright falsities.
Myth No. 1: The ‘Consulate’ Was a Diplomatic Mission
Aftermath of the attack (Getty Images)
The Obama administration, as well as most of the media and punditry, have consistently referred to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi as a “consulate” housing a U.S. diplomatic mission. But you’ll notice here on the State Department’s website that, while there is an American embassy in Tripoli, Benghazi is not listed as one of the U.S. embassies, consulates, or diplomatic missions around the world.
The reality is that the facility was a U.S. intelligence outpost operating under State Department cover and that most of the 30-plus people working there were employed by the CIA.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal back in November of last year, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.” Gregory Hicks, who was deputy chief of mission in Tripoli and the so-called whistleblower who spoke before Congress recently, testified that the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, as opposed to Tripoli, was because he was hoping the State Department would soon announce a permanent diplomatic mission there. But it is still unclear what exactly the CIA was up to there.
Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video
Protesters rip apart the US flag during a protest against the anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims,” in front of the U.S. embassy in Malaysia, part of the protests that occurred in dozens of countries against the film. (Getty Images)
While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.
As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”
The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”
The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”
This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.
Myth No. 3: The Attack Was Pre-Planned and Not Spontaneous
A picture shows the interior of the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi (Getty Images)
A reporter from Foreign Policy arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 13, spoke with locals, surveyed the facility site and concluded that the “attack was haphazard, poorly planned, and badly executed,” and points out that most of the Americans were able to get away by simply using an armored jeep to escape through the front gate and take off down the road which was not blocked—not exactly the hallmarks of a carefully planned assault.
Bloomberg reported that “accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.”
And the Washington Post quoted an intelligence source, saying, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” adding, “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”
In fact, the official position of the U.S. intelligence community today is still that the attack wasn’t pre-planned. As State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell recently said of UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s much-maligned comments after the attack that she was simply giving the “best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment.”
Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’
The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.
In the emails it is clear that the CIA insisted the attack be referred to as spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo and following a protest outside the facility. The State Department wanted references to “Al Qaeda” and “Ansar al Sharia” removed. However, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained the reason for this in the emails, stating, “Why do we want [Congress] to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results?”
Ben Rhodes, who was then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, also stated in the emails, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”
While there certainly may have been some politics at play here, all of the evidence in the emails suggest that this was the best assessment of the intelligence available at the time and that the State Department and White House were concerned about saying too much before the facts of the investigation were available, while also expressing some concern over Republicans in Congress making political hay out of the attack. All of this is totally not indicative of a cover-up, but simply politics as usual.
In fact, when Rice spoke on the Sunday shows, she prefaced her comments with the statement, “First of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.”
And, “So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.”
So, in hindsight, perhaps it would have been prudent had Rice not said anything at all, but her comments are not indicative of a cover-up. And it now seems the only thing Rice stated that was incorrect concerned the notion that a protest precipitated the attack. Everything else she said, from the attack being inspired by the video to the attack being spontaneous and not pre-planned, is still supported by the evidence.
Also, it was the administration itself that called for the FBI investigation into the attack and released the complete unclassified findings of the Accountability Review Board’s critical report — not exactly the actions of people wanting to engage in a coverup.
Myth No. 5: There Were Military Response Teams That Could Have Reached Benghazi in Time to Save Those Who Were Killed
Transfer cases are carried into a hangar during the Transfer of Remains Ceremony for the return of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three Americans at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, after they were killed in the attack on the Benghazi facility. (Photo by Molly Riley-Pool/Getty Images)
Some have claimed that a response team was at the-the-ready to respond to the Benghazi attack while Americans were being killed but were told to stand down, implying that perhaps the stand-down order was politically motivated—though to what end is unclear.
Gregory Hicks testified that a four-person team was ready to fly to Benghazi but was unable to get the proper clearance for the mission. However, even Hicks acknowledges that the team would not have reached the attack site in time, and Stevens and the other three Americans were already dead at that point.
In fact, according to the ARB report, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli immediately began to mobilize a response once they received word of the attack and did send a seven-person team to Benghazi. Unfortunately the team arrived just as the second attack began at the nearby CIA annex, as mortar rounds struck the roof and killed Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
The four-person team to which Hicks was referring was a second team that would have arrived hours after the first, at a time when the four Americans had already been killed. Hicks believes the second team could have helped with the wounded and prevent any further attacks, which is perhaps true.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates under both Presidents George W. Bush and Obama also recently admitted that, had he been in charge at the time, the response would have been the same, saying, “Frankly, had I been in the job at the time I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East.
“Despite all the turmoil that’s going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment’s notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way – would have been very difficult, if not impossible … The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”
The administration may deserve criticism for the inefficient response, but the notion that the second team could have saved the Americans who died or were told to stand down for political reasons is not supported by the evidence.
Bonus Myth: The Attack Was Carried Out by al-Qaeda
Armed masked men stand guard as Osama bin-Laden (center) and Ayman Al-Zawahiri (left) address a news conference in Afghanistan in 1998. (Photo by Getty Images)
The reporting on this issue is varied, but most agree that the attack was carried out primarily by members of the Ansar al-Sharia militant group, which is a Libyan organization made up of former anti-Gaddafi rebels with limited, tangential connections to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Part of the confusion here perhaps stems from the fact that there are two organizations that go by the name “Ansar al-Sharia”, and the other one operates out of Yemen and has direct connections to AQAP.
CNN reported that at least 3 attackers of the 150 men who stormed the facility were AQAP members, though how exactly they were involved has not been determined. The article reads, “Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.”
Another CNN report provides vague details of a phone call placed shortly after the attack from the area near the facility to members of AQIM offering congratulations. Although, the article concedes, “There is no proof that the call was specifically about the attack.”
However, it is not true to say that al-Qaeda carried out the attack. Al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, is now an organization operating out of Pakistan and led by Ayman al-Zawahiri. There is zero evidence whatsoever that this organization had anything to do with the Benghazi attack. And even though Ansar al Sharia’s connections to so-called al-Qaeda “franchise” or affiliated organizations, such as AQAP and AQIM, are tenuous, there is little evidence to suggest such “franchise” groups take their marching orders from al-Zawahiri.
As Steve Coll points out in a recent New Yorker piece, “A franchise is a business that typically operates under strict rules laid down by a parent corporation; to apply that label to Al Qaeda’s derivative groups today is false.”
SOURCE: CIA Was Smuggling Weapons to Syrian Rebels During Benghazi Embassy Attack
By Brad Michelson
U.S. President Barack Obama makes a statement about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Getty Images)
According to the report, a nearly unheard of slew of polygraph testing has been conducted against CIA employees and on-ground assets with information regarding the attack, which resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Typically, the agency will only conduct one test over three or four years. Right now they’re subjecting these people to the tests one or twice a month. This rate of polygraph testing is rare, to say the least.
CNN’s source claims that this is a trend of intimidation that the agency is carrying out. In an exclusive communications in the CNN report, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.” Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”
A new source told CNN that there were “dozens of people working for the CIA […] on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.”
The source said that the number of assets was 35, and as many as seven were wounded. Some of those were injured seriously. Although the source did not specify how many of them were CIA, he or she did say that 21 American were working in a building called the “annex,” which is believed to be run by the CIA.
This lack of transparency has begun to concern members of Congress. This list includes Frank Wolf, whose distract includes Langley, Virginia, which houses the CIA headquarters. He has gone as far as alleging the government is involved in a “cover-up.”
“I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way. We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn’t any national security issue involved with regards to that.”
U.S Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) (Getty Images)
Wolf attempted to contact people were had close ties with people who had information about the event and wanted to talk. Then they stopped taking his calls.
“Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you’re subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you’re forced to come before Congress.
Now that’s all changed.” Other reports of cover-ups and conspiracy theories have been emerging since the event last September. In May, Dick Cheney said that Obama is involved in a Benghazi cover-up. Also in May, Slate reported a “smoking gun” indicating a systemic administration cover-up. Some outlets have even claimed and presented evidence that Ambassador Stevens died in the attack “because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered him there,” supposedly on purpose with prior knowledge of the attack.
Mastermind Behind Benghazi Attack Trained in the U.S.
White House Unserious About Getting Benghazi Suspects
Benghazi-Gate: The president is pulling out the U.S. team in Libya charged with tracking down the terrorists responsible for killing four Americans. Why not? Benghazi is just a “phony scandal.”
Why would the U.S. — knowing since last November who the terrorists are that murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans last Sept. 11, its own Justice Dept. having just charged them this month — not take out these jihadists before they kill more Americans?
Special operators in the region told Fox News last week that U.S. special forces personnel have spent many months “sitting in de facto standby,” waiting for the order to capture or kill the suspect Benghazi terrorists, while also training Libyans to fight al-Qaida.
But the order never came, and now they’re being extracted from the country permanently.
The Justice Department early this month filed sealed criminal charges against the Benghazi suspects, among them militia leader Ahmed Khattalah, who has been giving TV interviews. So he can’t be that hard to find.
One special ops source told Fox, “We put American special operations in harm’s way to develop a picture of these suspects and to seek justice, and instead of acting, we stalled.”
Noting that 1,200 prisoners escaped two weeks ago, he added, “It’s already blowing up. Daily assassinations, biweekly prison escapes, we waited way too long.”
Former U.S. Africa Command commander Gen. Carter Ham reportedly told former Libya Chief of Mission Laurence Pope that “politics and fallout kept us from acting” against the now-charged suspects. The State Department is also apparently worried about a repeat of Blackhawk Down, in which 18 U.S. forces were killed in a humiliating 1993 episode in Somalia.
Let’s place this in the context of Hillary Clinton’s ill-tempered Senate testimony in January. “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” she asked.
“It is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it, than to find them and bring them to justice.”
Well, the families of the Americans murdered in Benghazi are still waiting for the order to “bring them to justice.” That is yet another reminder that there is nothing “phony” about this scandal.
CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.
The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group, September 11, 2012. Photo: REUTERS
The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the
consulate (there is no consulate) on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out.
So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress.
“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” CNN reported.
Frank Wolf, a US congressman who represents the district that contains CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, is one of 150 members of Congress for a new investigation into the failures in Benghazi.
“I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way,” he said. “We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn’t any national security issue involved with regards to that.”
A CIA spokesman said it had been open about its activities in Benghazi.
“The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi,” a CIA statement said. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” the statement continued. “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”
U.S. intelligence set back when Libya base abandoned
Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the U.S. Department of State displays a map of the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, as she testifies about the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate, on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. October 10, 2012.
Credit: Reuters/Jose Luis Magana
By Mark Hosenball
(Reuters) – U.S. intelligence efforts in Libya have suffered a significant setback due to the abandonment and exposure of a facility in Benghazi, Libya identified by a newspaper as a “CIA base” following a congressional hearing this week, according to U.S. government sources.
The intelligence post, located 1.2 miles (2 km) from the U.S. mission that was targeted by militants in a September 11 attack, was evacuated of Americans after the assault that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Three other Americans died in the attacks on U.S.-occupied buildings, including two who were hit in a mortar blast at the secret compound.
The publication of satellite photos showing the site’s location and layout have made it difficult, if not impossible, for intelligence agencies to reoccupy the site, according to government sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The post had been a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles, the sources said. Its security features, including some fortifications, sensors and cameras, were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died, they said.
The sources said intelligence agencies will find other ways to collect information in Libya in the aftermath of last year’s toppling of long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi.
“Benghazi played a critical role in the emergence of the new Libya and will continue to do so. It makes sense that we would return there to continue to build relationships,” one U.S. official said.
Public discussion of the top-secret location began with a contentious Wednesday hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which was investigating whether security lapses put Americans at risk.
The State Department displayed a satellite photograph showing two locations – the rented villa that served as a special diplomatic mission and the compound that officials had cryptically described as an “annex” or “safe house” for diplomatic personnel.
Both compounds were attacked by militants believed to be tied to al Qaeda. After the diplomatic complex was overrun, U.S. and Libyan personnel rushed by car to the second site, where they fought off two more waves of assaults, officials said.
Charlene Lamb, a top official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, told lawmakers that the secret compound took “as many as three direct hits.”
Two U.S. security officials, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed there in what U.S. officials described as an unlucky mortar strike. As many as 37 people eventually escaped to Benghazi’s airport.
When the satellite photo was displayed, a senior committee Republican, Representative Jason Chaffetz, complained that the discussion was drifting into “classified issues that deal with sources and methods,” and the photo was removed from public display. No one at the hearing used the term “CIA base” to describe the facility.
The next morning, Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, wrote that the committee’s “boneheaded questioning” of State Department witnesses left little doubt that the compound in the pictures was a “CIA base.”
The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with ties to the Obama White House, followed up with a blog post accusing Republicans of revealing the “Location Of Secret CIA Base.”
On Friday, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused Republicans of mishandling secret information.
Spokespeople for the State Department and White House had no comment. The CIA also had no comment.
Oversight committee spokesman Frederick Hill said committee Democrats made matters worse by asking questions about the satellite photos. “Even after Republicans objected, Democrats continued to ask questions that led State officials to put even more sensitive information about who worked there into the public realm,” Hill said.
The dispute over who was responsible for identifying the base is the latest case in which intelligence agencies – particularly the CIA – have been dragged into a political fray over the Benghazi attack.
The Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks has become fodder for criticism from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan ahead of the November 6 election.
Intelligence officials are not happy at being drawn into the political battle. Paul Pillar, one of the CIA’s former most senior analysts, said the agency is sure to be dismayed at how its sensitive work has been dragged into the debate.
“They’re trying to do the best they can with fragmentary and incomplete information. No doubt they are very unhappy that this issue is now being exploited for political purposes,” Pillar said.
(Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson and Will Dunham)
More evidence of slain U.S. ambassador’s secret activities
by AARON KLEIN
JERUSALEM – A Libyan weapons dealer from a group hired to provide security to the U.S. mission in Benghazi told Reuters he has helped ship weapons from Benghazi to the rebels fighting in Syria.
The detailed account may provide more circumstantial evidence the U.S. Benghazi mission was secretly involved in procuring and shipping weapons to the Syrian opposition before the deadly attack last September that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
According to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND on multiple occasions, the Benghazi mission was a planning headquarters for coordinating aid, including weapons distribution, to the jihadist-led rebels.
After the fall of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, the arming efforts shifted focus to aiding the insurgency targeting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
Two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in arming rebels and recruiting jihadists to fight Assad, according to Egyptian security officials.
In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels, which was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.
The information may help determine what motivated the deadly attacks in Benghazi.
In an interview with Reuters published Tuesday, Libyan warlord Abdul Basit Haroun declared he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria. Most of the weapons were sent to Turkey, where they were then smuggled into neighboring Syria, he said.
Haroun explained he sent a massive weapons shipment from the port in Benghazi in August 2012, days before the attack on the U.S. compound. The weapons were smuggled into Syria aboard a Libyan ship that landed in Turkey purportedly to deliver humanitarian aid.
Ismail Salabi, a commander of the February 17 Brigade, told Reuters that Haroun was a member of the Brigade until he quit to form his own brigade.
The February 17 Brigade provided external security to the attacked Benghazi U.S. compound, including the villa where Stevens lived when he was in Benghazi. Stevens held his last meeting with a Turkish diplomat in the compound and ultimately died there in the attack.
The February 17 Brigade is part of the al-Qaida-linked Ansar Al-Sharia, a militia that advocates the strict implementation of Islamic law in Libya and elsewhere.
Ansar al-Sharia initially used Internet forums and social media to claim responsibility for the Benghazi attack. Later, a spokesman for the group denied it was behind the attack.
Witnesses told reporters they saw vehicles with the group’s logo at the scene of the Sept. 11 attack and that gunmen fighting at the compound had stated they were part of Ansar al-Sharia.
Some witnesses said they saw Ahmed Abu Khattala, a commander of Ansar al-Sharia, leading the attack. Contacted by news media, Khattala denied that he was at the scene.
Meanwhile, a Libyan official speaking to Reuters said he had allowed weapons to leave the port of Benghazi for Syria.
Haroun told Reuters he runs the weapons smuggling operation with an associate, who helps him coordinate about a dozen people in Libyan cities collecting weapons for Syria.
Last month, WND reported the U.S. Benghazi compound was involved in weapons collection efforts.
In a largely unnoticed speech to a think tank seven months before the Benghazi attack, a top State Department official described an unprecedented multi-million-dollar U.S. effort to secure anti-aircraft weapons in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi’s regime.
The official, Andrew J. Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, said U.S. experts were fully coordinating the collection efforts with the Libyan opposition.
He said the efforts were taking place in Benghazi, where a leading U.S. expert was deployed.
In January, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed the efforts when she told Congress the CIA was leading a “concerted effort to try to track down and find and recover … MANPADS” looted from Gadhafi’s stockpiles.
Haroun did not mention any U.S. involvement in his weapons dealings.
However, last March the New York Times reported the CIA had worked with rebel commanders to coordinate the shipment of arms to the Syrian rebels since early 2012.
Last year, Business Insider alleged a connection between Stevens and a reported September shipment of SA-7 MANPADS and rocket-propelled grenades from Benghazi to Syria through Turkey.
Syrian rebels then reportedly began shooting down Syrian military helicopters with SA-7s.
Stevens’ last meeting on the night of the Benghazi attack was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin.
One source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi “to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”
‘Largest weapons shipment’
Fox News may find another one of its exclusive reports vindicated.
In October 2012, Fox News reported the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, 35 miles from the Syrian border, just five days before Stevens was killed.
The shipment, disguised as humanitarian aid, was described as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels.
Fox News reported the shipment “may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”
That shipment seems to be the one described by Haroun in his Reuters article.
Both Haroun and his associate described an August 2012 shipment with weapons hidden among about 460 metric tons of aid destined for Syrian refugees.
A recent U.N. report appears to confirm that weapons were hidden in the Al Entisar.
A U.N. Panel found that the loading port for the shipment was Benghazi, that the exporter was “a relief organization based in Benghazi” and the consignee was the same Islamic foundation based in Turkey that Haroun told Reuters had helped with documentation.
Meanwhile, earlier this month Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told CNN:
“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria. … Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex? I’m not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered.”
In January, in the Benghazi hearings, Paul asked Clinton about weapons shipments to Turkey, as WND reported.
Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
SOURCES: SLAIN U.S. AMBASSADOR RECRUITED JIHADISTS
by AARON KLEIN
Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador murdered in Libya, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.
The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed on Sept. 11 in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi blamed on Islamists.
One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.
The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.
Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels
As WND reported last week, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.
Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army.
During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.
Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels?
However, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.
Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army.
During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.
Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.
There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.
WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.
The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:
Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.