Scandalpalooza! Your Daley Gator Benghazi-gate Document Dump

………….

• State Department Leaking False Information To Smear Whistleblower Gregory Hicks
• Ex-Diplomats: Stevens’ Benghazi Mission Was To Buy Back Missiles Issued To Terrorists By State Department
• Benghazi Bombshell: CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack
• White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi
• President Asshat Caught In Yet Another Benghazi-gate Lie
• Benghazi’s Smoking Guns (Jonah Goldberg)
• Washington Post Factchecker Destroys Obama’s Claim He Called Libya ‘Terrorism’
• Ben Rhodes: Obama’s Fixer Behind The Benghazi Cover-Up
• Geraldo: My Sources Tell Me They Were In Benghazi To Round Up Missiles To Send To Syrian Rebels Via Turkey
• *VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Regime Over Benghazi Lies
• The Benghazi Scandal Grows (Stephen Hayes)
• Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up In American History’
• Top Obama Official’s Brother Is President Of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage
• *VIDEO* Benghazi Calling – By Edward L. Daley
• House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman: More Benghazi Hearings Coming
• Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References
• Blow-By-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans To Die (Arnold Ahlert)
• *AUDIO* Mark Levin Berates Obama Lackeys In The News Media Over Their Lack Of Benghazi Coverage
• Obama Used Taxpayer Money In Benghazi Cover-Up (Video)
• 7 Things We Learned From The Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing
• Benghazi Continues: Hillary De Medici (Roger L. Simon)
• *VIDEO* Complete Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing
• *VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Mother Of Benghazi Victim: I Blame Hillary
• Thanks Barack… Terrorist Group Linked To 9/11 Benghazi Attack Operates Freely In City
• Hillary Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counterterrorism Bureau On Night Of Benghazi Attack
• How Obama Betrayed America (David Horowitz)
• Benghazi Whistleblower Says U.S. Has Identified Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attack But Refuses To Capture Him
• *VIDEO* Lawyer For Benghazi Whistleblower: Obama State Department Breaking Federal Law
• Obama On Benghazi Whistleblowers Scandal: I Know Nothing… Nothing!
• Benghazi Whistleblower Says Obama Regime Is Lying, Multiple Assets Could Have Been Used To Save Our People
• Obama State Department Blocking Lawyers From Representing Benghazi Whistleblowers (Audio)
• Congressman Gowdy: Explosive Benghazi Hearings Coming (Video)
• Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security
• *VIDEO* Benghazi: Unaware, Unresponsive, Unaccountable – OPSEC
• 700 Retired Military Special Ops Tell Congress To Form Select Committee On Benghazi
• Benghazi’s Silenced Witnesses Hidden In Plain Sight?
• Obama Regime’s Benghazi Cover-Up Continues
• *VIDEO* Afterburner With Bill Whittle: What Difference Does It Make?
• *VIDEO* Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony Was “Flat Out Bullshit”
• *VIDEOS* Republican Lawmakers Grill Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• *VIDEO* Congressman Duncan Lays Into Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• *VIDEOS* Senators Paul And McCain Slam Secretary Of State Clinton During Benghazi Hearing
• Benghazi Terrorists, Skating Free
• Senate Republicans Refuse To Confirm Kerry Until Hillary Testifies About Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Glenn Beck: Obama May Go To Prison For Arming America’s Enemies, Cover-Up Of Treason
• Hillary Clinton’s Head Fake
• BenghaziGate: Obama Regime Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons
• *VIDEO* John Bolton: Susan Rice’s Meeting With GOP Senators A Disaster For Her
• Another Laughable Benghazi Lie
• Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi
• Report: Petraeus Agrees To Testify Before Congressional Committees About Libya Attacks
• *VIDEO* Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Petraeus Resignation: “Timing Is Just Too Perfect”
• Proof: Obama Refused To Call Benghazi ‘Terror,’ CBS Covered Up (Video)
• Criminal Negligence: Benghazi Gave 1-Month Warning
• Benghazi Blunder: Obama Unworthy Commander-In-Chief
• Congress Wants Answers On Newly Found Benghazi Documents
• Benghazi Culpability: Walls Closing In On Administration
• ABC And CBS Ignore Their Own Reporters As Benghazi Blackout Reaches 7 Days
• Scandal Deepens With New Benghazi Documents: At A Minimum, Hillary Clinton Must Go
• Report: Obama Never Convened Counterterrorism Task Force During Benghazi Attack
• Documents: Consulate Warned Of ‘No Police Support’
• Obama ‘Has Not Participated In The Investigation’ Of Benghazi
• *VIDEO* Security Insider Explains What Happens In Intelligence, Military & Diplomatic Communities During Consulate Attacks
• Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was In The Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen (Video)
• Top AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham Was Never Ordered To Save U.S. Men In Benghazi (Video)
• Early Briefings On Benghazi Focused On Al Qaeda, Not Video
• If Reelected, Obama Should Be Impeached Over Benghazi (Roger L. Simon)
• Father Of Fallen Benghazi SEAL: Obama Regime Sat And Watched, Did Nothing While My Son Died (Videos)
• *VIDEO* Benghazi-gate: Obama’s Lying Cronies
• Emails: White House Told Two Hours Into Benghazi Attack That Islamic Terrorist Group Claimed Responsibility
• Obama Camp: Benghazi Attack Was Not A ‘Foreign Policy Failure’ (Video)
• Former CIA Officials Say No Way WH Didn’t Know Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack, Even During The Attack (Video)
• *VIDEO* Special Report With Bret Baier: ‘Death And Deceit In Benghazi’
• ‘My Son Is Not Very Optimal, He Is Very Dead’: Mother Of Diplomat Killed In Benghazi Attack Slams Obama’s Comment On Raid
• Obama On Benghazi Attack: ‘If Four Americans Get Killed, It’s Not Optimal’ (Video)
• Obama Regime Used Unarmed Guards At Benghazi Consulate Despite Previous Terror Attacks
• Obama Regime Didn’t Reach Benghazi For 17 Days Because They Were Waiting On Visas
• Stunning Incompetence: Up To 20,000 Shoulder-Fired, Surface-To-Air Missiles Are Missing In Libya
• Rep. Trey Gowdy Explodes At Libya Hearing: ‘I Want To Know Why We Were Lied To’ (Videos)
• *VIDEO* Mother Of Benghazi Victim Angry At Being Stonewalled By Obama Regime
• *VIDEO* Ex-Benghazi Security Officer Frustrated By Cuts In Security
• *VIDEO* American Crossroads: “Intelligence”
• There Was No Protest Outside Libyan Consulate; Everything The Obama Regime Told Us Was A Lie
• Intelligence Officials Angered By Obama Regime Cover-Up Of Intelligence On Iranian, Al Qaeda Surge In Egypt And Libya
• President Asshat Rejected Military Intervention In Benghazi DURING The Attack
• Reuters: “Within Hours” Obama Admin Had A Dozen Intel Reports Al-Qaeda Behind Benghazi Attack
• Obama Regime Ignored Requests For Increased Security In Libya Prior To 9/11 Anniversary Attack
• Report: FBI Still Hasn’t Arrived In Benghazi To Begin Investigation Into Consulate Attack
• The White House’s Scandalous Lies About Libya (Stephen Hayes)
• The World Burns: Will The GOP Investigate?
• Suspected Killer Of U.S. Ambassador Was Leader Of U.S.-Backed Libyan Rebel Forces And Former Gitmo Detainee
• Rodeo Clown Media Frantically Distract From Obama’s Foreign Policy Disaster
• U.S. Intelligence: Benghazi Attack Wasn’t Spontaneous
• Video Proof Of Obama’s Embassy Attack Lies… (Warning: Graphic Content)
• No Protest Before Benghazi Attack, Wounded Libyan Guard Says
• *VIDEO* Rep. Allen West Calls Ambassador Rice ‘Asinine, Naive, Inept, Incompetent And Borderline Ignorant’
• Al-Qaeda Says Attack On U.S. Consulate In Benghazi “Revenge” For Recent Drone Killing Of Abu Yahya Al-Libi
• Despite Four Previous Benghazi Attacks, State Department Refused Even “Standard Security” At Consulate (Video)
• Why Barack Obama Should Resign
• Former Secret Service Agent Says Obama Administration Has Shown ‘Sheer Incompetence’ In Handling Libya Attack (Video)
• Press Endangers Private Citizen To Hide Obama’s Middle East Failures
• *AUDIO* Mark Steyn: Every American Should Be Ashamed Of Buffoon Obama
• Obama State Department Ignored Warnings About U.S. Embassy Attack In Libya
• Leftist Media Wrong Again: Looks Like The Libyan Consulate Attack Wasn’t About Some YouTube Video After All
• UPenn Professor Doubles Down, Writes USA Today Op-Ed Calling For Arrest Of Mohammed Movie Filmmakers
• GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert Hammers Obama In Scathing House Floor Speech (Video)
• Obama Calls Libyan President To Thank Him For Support After U.S. Ambassador Murdered (Video)
• Romney Is Right: In Embassy Incidents, Obama Administration’s First Instinct Was To Sympathize With Attackers
• Romney: U.S. Response To Consulate Attack In Libya Disgraceful
• Radical Islamists Chant “We Are All Osama!” At U.S. Embassy In Egypt On 9-11
• Obama State Department: Egypt Attack Doesn’t Necessarily Reflect Growing Anti-American Sentiment
• Former Deputy National Security Adviser: U.S. Response To Embassy Attack ‘Bizarre And Unacceptable’
• Obama Camp Condemns Romney Before Condemning Attacks In Egypt, Libya
• MSNBC Panel Actually Debates If DOJ Should Prosecute Anti-Islam Pastor Terry Jones For Libya Deaths
• House Conservatives Call For Stripping Aid To Libya, Egypt From Spending Bill Following Attacks Ob U.S. Embassies
• Corrupt News Media Caught On Tape Conspiring Against Romney Over Embassy Attack Response
• *VIDEO* Mitt Romney Remarks And Q&A On Libya And Egypt Embassy Attacks
• After U.S. Consulate Torched And Ambassador Murdered, President Asshat Delivers A ‘Strongly Worded’ Speech
• *VIDEO* Raw Footage: Consulate In Benghazi On Fire, Ambassador To Libya Reported Killed

.

State Department Leaking False Information To Smear Whistleblower Gregory Hicks

State Dept. ‘Leaking False Info To Smear Whistleblower’ – WorldNetDaily

The State Department has been leaking to reporters false information to discredit Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, charged his legal counsel, Victoria Toensing, in an interview with WND.

.

Hicks, who testified May 8 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is the former State Department deputy chief of mission who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attack.

Toensing told WND the State Department has been telling reporters that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens could not reach Hicks by telephone on the night he was killed in the terrorist attack, Sept. 11, 2012, because Hicks was relaxing, watching television, and did not have his telephone with him.

“This is a total fabrication,” Toensing charged. “Telephone reception in Libya is notoriously unreliable. Sometimes you just don’t get your calls. And besides, the record will show Hicks reached Stevens by telephone within five or 10 minutes at the most after Stevens first telephoned him.”

Toensing said several reporters, whom she declined to identify, have called her to ask if the story about Hicks being AWOL at the time of the Benghazi attack was true.

“I have reason to believe the reporters calling me got their information from sources within the State Department,” Toensing added.

At WND’s urging, Toensing identified one reporter she believed had been leaking false information about her client.

“The State Department correspondent from CBS, Margaret Brennan, called me and asked if it was true my client had a history of ‘yelling at people’ within the State Department,” Toensing explained.

“Mr. Hicks is so mild-mannered I cannot imagine him yelling at anyone,” Toensing said she explained to Manning, adding that any such information the reporter obtained from State Department insiders speaking off the record should be disregarded.

After leaving voice mail messages, WND was unable to contact Brennan for comment.

Toensing told WND she believes the State Department’s motivation for spreading false information about her client is not only to discredit him but to deter others.

“The State Department is spreading this malicious information not only because they want to ruin my client’s career, but also because they want to make to make Mr. Hicks an example so no one else comes forward,” she said.

“The State Department goal is to show what they can do to people, how easy it is to ruin their careers by spreading false information.”

‘Hicks responded promptly’

According to the testimony Hicks gave the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he was in his villa relaxing, watching a television show, at 9:45 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, 2012, but he had his telephone with him.

He noted the time because Regional Security Officer John Martinec came into his villa yelling that the consulate was under attack.

“And I stood up and reached for my phone because I had an inkling or thought that perhaps the ambassador had tried to call me to relay the same message,” Hicks testified. “And I found two missed calls on the phone, one from the ambassador’s phone and one from a phone number I didn’t recognize.”

Hicks told the House committee that he punched the phone number he did not recognize and immediately got the ambassador on the other end. That is when Hicks testified Ambassador Stevens told him, “Greg we’re under attack.”

Toensing told WND Hicks reached Stevens by phone at approximately 9:50 p.m. local time, less than 10 minutes after he missed the call from Stevens.

Hicks continued his testimony to note that after reaching Stevens by phone, he walked to the Tactical Operations Center, where he tried both of the numbers, the unknown number and the ambassador’s number, only to get no response.

That’s when John Martinec was on the phone in Benghazi with Alec Henderson, the regional security officer at the Benghazi compound.

Hicks said Martinec explained the unknown number belonged to Scott Wickland, Stevens’ personal escort for the night.

At approximately 10 p.m., Hicks called the operations center at the State Department in Washington, D.C., to report the attack, according to his testimony to the House committee.

According to the State Department background briefing on the Benghazi attack issued Oct. 9, 2012, the first indication the U.S. personnel at the Benghazi compound had that they were under attack was at 9:40 p.m. local time, when the agent in the Tactical Operations Center and the agents in Building C of the Benghazi compound heard loud noises from the front gate, as well as gunfire and an explosion.

The State Department timeline indicates that there was only 15 minutes between the start of the Benghazi attack at 9:45 p.m. local time and the time Hicks called the State Department in Washington, to inform the D.C. staff that the Benghazi compound was under attack.

The timeline is consistent with Toensing’s insistence that, at most, five to 10 minutes passed between the phone call from Stevens that Hicks missed and the phone call Hicks made to Stevens, connecting with the ambassador when Hicks left his villa and went to the Tactical Operation Center at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ex-Diplomats: Stevens’ Benghazi Mission Was To Buy Back Missiles Issued To Terrorists By State Department

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers With Info Devastating To Clinton And Obama – Pajamas Media

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas – what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Jihad Experts Decry White House Terror Training Guidelines

Jihad Experts Decry White House Terror Training Guidelines – Daily Caller

Experts on Islam and terrorism are decrying the Department of Homeland Security’s recently revealed anti-terrorism training guidelines, which pressure cops to ignore Islamic beliefs when investigating terror crimes.

.

The Boston bombings demonstrated the impact of such training, Andrew McCarthy, a former New York prosecutor, told The Daily Caller.

“The Boston Marathon was bombed by a jihadist who had been investigated by the FBI… [and was confirmed in 2011 to be] an Islamist, which would have been hard not to do since he does not appear to have made any secret of it,” said McCarthy, who persuaded a New York jury in 1995 to convict “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman for his use of Islamic teaching to spur jihad attacks, including the 1993 attack against the Twin Towers.

But before the bombing, “the FBI closed its file [on Tamerlan Tsarnaev] because it found this did not constitute ‘derogatory information,’” McCarthy said.

McCarthy and other security experts, and even members of the American Islamic community, indicate that a culture of excessive concern for the sensibilities of Muslims supremacists is preventing law enforcement agencies from pursuing jihadists.

The 2011 guidelines unveiled Thursday by The Daily Caller are part of this pattern of deferring to Islamist chauvinism.

Under the federal guidelines, “agents are admonished to discount the possibility that an Islamist’s constitutionally protected abhorrence of the United States might possibly lead to violence,” McCarthy told TheDC.

Even if FBI officials had learned about Tsarnaev’s 2012 trip to a part of southern Russia that is embroiled in a jihadi war, they would not have restarted their 2011 investigation, a government official told the Washington Post in April.

“The FBI investigation into the individual in question had been closed six months prior to his departure from the United States and more than a year before his return. …Since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted,” the official said in April.

On his six-month trip, starting in January 2012, Tsarnaev visited several militant Islamic leaders and mosques in Dagestan, where jihadis are fighting the Russian government, according to several U.S. and Russian media sources.

“The fiasco regarding Boston is a prime example” of how bad training degrades security, said Robert Spencer, an authority on Islamic doctrine who is heavily criticized by Islamic groups in the United States. He noted that even though FBI agents had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI was unable to identify Tsarnaev in crowd photographs taken before and after the bomb strike.

After the attack, FBI officials also did not ask the main mosque in Boston for help in identifying the suspects, said Nichole Mossalam, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of Boston.

“We were the ones who reached out to them… on Friday” once the picture were released, Mossalam told TheDC.

Under the federal guideline, the FBI officials had “no reason to go to the mosque since the [Tsarnaev] brothers don’t show any outward signs in the [street] photos of being Muslims,” said McCarthy.

Because of the guidelines, it would be “a ‘profiling’ scandal to show the pictures at the mosque just because it was a bombing with… no other evidence of connection to Muslims,” he said.

The guidelines, titled “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts,” don’t merely promote respect for free expression but actively promote extremist views by telling officials to sideline experts who “venture too deep into the weeds of [Islamic] religious doctrines and history… [T]hese topics are not necessary in order to understand the [Muslim] community.”

The DHS also actively discourages engagement with moderate Muslims. “Don’t use trainers… who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’… [or who] equate radical thought [or] religious expressions… with criminal activity,” say the training guidelines.

The guidelines also advise cops, “Don’t use a trainer or training that has received repeated external negative feedback… don’t use training that treats the American Muslim community as a problem rather than as a partner… don’t use training that relies on fear [for example, by citing convictions that show] mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.”

The training guidelines go so far as to urge federal officials to rely on a political report by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), a Los Angeles, California-based Islamic advocacy group with extensive ties to jihadists and Islamist groups, including the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

The group’s spokeswoman, Miriam Baja, declined to comment on the controversy. The group’s leader, Salam Al-Marayati, is on vacation, she said.

TheDC asked whether cops should consider religious observance and dress when considering people’s future behavior. “That doesn’t necessarily mean anything,” Baja replied.

MPAC’s report [pdf], titled “Building Bridges,” downplays Islam’s role in spurring terrorism. “Despite the fact that only 8% of Muslims believe suicide bombing against civilians is ‘often/sometimes’ justified, some biased commentators have voiced doubt over the loyalty of Muslim Americans and argue they constitute a domestic security threat,” the report reads.

Security officials, the report claims, should delegate many anti-terror activities to local Islamist political groups. “This report argues the most effective way to deal with the challenge of radicalization and violent extremism is for law enforcement and Muslim American community leaders to partner together,” the report says.

The report’s recommendations were implemented by an August 2011 White House policy signed by President Barack.

“Communities – especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by al-Qaida – are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best,” said the directive [pdf], titled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.”

McCarthy called MPAC “an Islamist organization whose founders openly admired the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, and whose director [Salam al-Marayati] suggested that the state of Israel should be a top suspect in the 9/11 attacks. I don’t find any of that particularly trustworthy.”

Marayati, however, claims he offered his services to law enforcement officials after the Boston Marathon attacks. “I then called the FBI to speak with the counterterrorism chief and asked him if there was any information we could share with our community leaders in Boston and what they should do if they had seen anything suspicious leading up to the bombing,” he wrote in an April 23 article for the Washington Post.

“I asked him if there was anything I could do to help. Like all Americans, I did not know the background of the culprits, and it did not matter. I offered my assistance as my civic duty to the country, no matter what others may think,” he wrote.

The article did not say how the FBI reacted to al-Marayati’s offer, or what he offered.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi Bombshell: CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack

Bombshell In The Benghazi E-mails: The CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack – World Tribune

The White House recently released more than 100 pages of e-mails between the CIA, State Department and the White House regarding the now infamous talking points.

.

President Barack Obama insists “there is no there, there,” as he stated during a May 13 press conference. Yet, the opposite is true. There is a bombshell there.

The CIA had warned on Sept. 10, 2012, one day before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, of the possibility of a jihadist attack on an American embassy.

We now know that on Sept. 15, 2012, when then-CIA Director David Petraeus read the final version of the talking points, he wrote in an e-mail: “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s (National Security Staff) call to be sure…”

At that point, all references to the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan Al Qaida affiliate, had been redacted. The cable to Cairo contained a warning that Al Qaida-linked jihadists might strike the American embassy there, according to The Weekly Standard.

As an earlier version of the talking points put it: “On September 10 we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy Cairo and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

In other words, America’s intelligence community feared there was danger in Cairo even before the rally occurred the following day. On September 11, there was no “spontaneous demonstration” protesting an anti-Muslim video in Egypt (or in Benghazi for that matter), as the administration would later claim, especially by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice who misled the public Sept.16 on five Sunday talk shows.

Instead, there was a rally in Cairo organized by five well-known Al Qaida-linked jihadists who had previously been jailed for terrorist activity, according to an Oct. 26 report by Thomas Joscelyn in The Long War Journal. This rally was an Al Qaida love-fest. Flags floated in the crowd honoring Al Qaida and the crowd chanted: “Obama, Obama! We are all Osama!” The five senior jihadist organizers were simply using the anti-Muslim video to gin up even more outrage and anti-American sentiment. The video was merely an appendage in their greater quest to proclaim, loudly and boldly that “Al Qaida’s ideology lives,” according to the detailed report.

Thus, Mr. Petraeus expressed his dismay on Sept.15 that a key piece of information – the essential context – was omitted. Without this, the talking points were one giant mess.

Yet, if this key piece of information were indeed revealed, the Obama administration would be exposed as having lied about the receding Al Qaida threat around the world. They would also appear to be incompetent in preventing another attack on sovereign American soil, right after having been warned that it might occur.

It was precisely this that Mr. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were determined to conceal amidst the heated and closely contested 2012 presidential campaign. If they could convince the American people that both the Cairo and Benghazi events were spontaneous, then they could not be accused of failing to prevent the violent outbreaks that occurred.

The truth is now simple, stark and a scathing indictment of the Obama administration: On Sept. 10, the CIA knew that Al Qaida-linked jihadists posed a threat; they were stirring animosity, possibly endangering the American embassy in Cairo.

The Obama administration did not heed the warning of the intelligence community, nor have the good sense to fortify defenses in a “high-risk” outpost such as the consulate in Benghazi. Hence, when jihadists struck in Libya and four Americans died, Mr. Obama and his entourage grasped immediately that if the public understood the correct sequence of events, the Obama team would be lampooned out of office.

Every part of this story reveals the glaring failures of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy: The pro-jihadist rally in Cairo exposed the president as having badly miscalculated from the start of his term. There, in the very place where on June 4, 2009, he had proclaimed “a new beginning” for America and the Muslim world, terrorists now spewed hatred on the United States and celebrated Osama bin Laden as their champion and hero. And they also continued to threaten imminent violence.

In addition, the emails and cables the intelligence community had sent, warning of danger to a U.S. embassy on Sept. 11, 2012 (even if it was that in Cairo) should have put every security team in every American outpost on high alert for a possible strike, with contingency plans in place to counterattack and rescue Americans who might be in harm’s way. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s staff was caught completely flat-footed when jihadists struck in Benghazi.

When terrorists attacked in Libya, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens called his second-in-command, Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and said, “Greg, we are under attack.” Mr. Hicks, as he testified in a May 8 congressional hearing, then called Mrs. Clinton and relayed that the U.S. diplomatic mission was besieged. And somewhere, somehow, as the horror unfolded, in the middle of that fateful night, an evil order to “stand down” was issued. A military rescue would not even be attempted. For the dark secret had to be preserved at all costs. If Americans had to die, so be it. In other words, the plot to conceal Mr. Obama’s glaring failures was concocted.

Thus, Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty became four casualties in the glorious cause of the re-election of the very man whose entire foreign policy had just gone up in smoke.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi – The Blaze

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday it’s an “irrelevant fact” where exactly President Barack Obama was while the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday” that Obama was “kept up to date on this as it was happening” last September, “from the moment it started until the very end.”

But host Chris Wallace, who had asked what specifically Obama did during the night of the deadly assault, said Pfeiffer didn’t answer his question.

Pfeiffer said Obama “was in constant touch that night with his national security team” and repeated that he “was kept up to date with the events that were happening.”

Wallace asked whether Obama was in the White House Situation Room.

“I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night. That’s a largely an irrelevant fact,” Pfeiffer replied. “The premise of your question is that somehow there was something that could have been done differently and would have changed the outcome here. The accountability review board has looked at this, people have looked at it. It’s a horrible tragedy what happened and what we have to do is make sure it never happens again.”

Continuing to press the point, Wallace said “no one knows where he was or how he was involved.”

“The suggestion of your question that somehow the president – ” Pfeiffer began.

“I just want to know what the answer is,” Wallace said.

“The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen or didn’t take action is offensive,” Pfeiffer said. “It is absolutely offensive. And there’s no evidence to support it.”

“I’m simply asking a question,” Wallace said. “Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond – who told him you can’t deploy forces and what was his response to that?”

Pfeiffer repeated, “The president was in the White House that day, he was kept up to date by his national security team, he spoke to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs earlier, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Homeland Security Guidelines: Target Conservatives, Legitimize Pro-Shariah Muslim Supremacists

Homeland Security Guidelines Advise Deference To Pro-Shariah Muslim Supremacists – Daily Caller

The Department of Homeland Security, which under Secretary Janet Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free speech rights of pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists.

In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts” the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.

This policy stands in stark contrast to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis’ 2009 memo “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [pdf], which warned of the dangers posed by pro-life advocates, critics of same-sex marriage and groups concerned with abiding by the U.S. Constitution, among others.

The advice of the Dos and Don’ts list is far more conciliatory. “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent,” the manual’s authors write in a section on training being “sensitive to constitutional values.”

The manual, which was produced by an inter-agency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, advises, “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

DHS CRCL CVE Training – Dos and Donts

.

The checklist also advised against using moderate Muslim “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’” because they “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”

The Homeland Security document also seems to discount evidence unearthed by the Justice Department about the aims of some mainstream Muslim organizations, warning law enforcement not to rely on “unsubstantiated theories” and “conspiracies,” such as the belief that “many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties” or are “fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America.”

The manual advises trainees not to assume Muslim Americans are “using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.”

In fact, the Justice Department proved that some very prominent Muslim organizations do have terror ties in a 2009 case and that they share the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of Shariah law. “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations], ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], NAIT [North American Islamic Trust], with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas,” U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009 ruling.

Tim Clemente, a former FBI agent who hunted Anwar Al-Awlaki and who has worked with Muslims to help stop terrorist plots, told The Daily Caller the government overdoes its sensitivity. Clemente says that the Muslim community “needs a realization, not necessarily a reformation,” that only it can stop terrorist attacks.

“Muslims are the ones that should notice this and should nip it in the bud,” Clemente told TheDC. “When you see the guy radicalizing and yelling at an imam, do more. Take it to the next level. Don’t go turning a blind eye.”

“While it is true that the vast majority of Muslims, especially in America, will never ever be radicalized, the greatest percentage of those that will commit terrorist acts happen to Muslim,” continued Clemente, who was critical of DHS’s 2009 report on rightwing groups.

Although the two reports originated from different wings of Napolitano’s vast Homeland Security bureaucracy, the contrast in their deference to constitutional rights and presumption of innocence is striking.

The “Rightwing Extremism” report warned that the economic recession, Barack Obama’s election, and the “return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating” might lead to a rise in white-power domestic terrorist activity — a threat that, unlike the threat posted by radical Islam, has failed to materialize in the four years since the report was issued.

The 2009 report also defined “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also those who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority and who “are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The 2009 report’s authors conceded that DHS “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

7 Pakistanis, Saudis and Singaporeans Caught Trespassing At Massachusetts’ Largest Freshwater Reservoir

7 Caught Trespassing At Quabbin Reservoir In Belchertown, Mass.; Patrols Increased Across State – International Business Times

Seven people were detained on Tuesday after being caught trespassing at the Quabbin Reservoir in Belchertown, Mass., state police have revealed.

Authorities say that the seven trespassers, consisting of five men and two women, are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, CBS Boston reports. Massachusetts State Police claim that each trespasser “cited their education and career interests” as their reason for being in the restricted area.

.

According to CBS Boston, the men told police that they were recent college graduates and chemical engineers.

State police spokesman David Procopio said in a statement that a trooper noticed two cars parked near a reservoir park entrance around 12:30 a.m. Tuesday. Five men and two women were then spotted walking toward the vehicles from the direction of the Quabbin Reservoir.

The Quabbin Reservoir, located in Belchertown, Mass., is one of the nation’s largest manmade public water supplies, CBS Boston reports. The Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs provide drinking water for the city of Boston.

While the seven trespassers were questioned, state police said that there were no warrants or advisories pertaining to the individuals. Authorities added that “there was no evidence that the seven were committing any crime beyond the trespassing,” CBS Boston reports.

Each of the seven people were allowed to leave after being issued a summons for trespassing. However, the FBI is investigating the matter, and precautionary inspections of nearby public water supplies have been increased, CBS Boston reports.

The seven trespassers currently reside in the Massachusetts towns of Amherst, Cambridge, Sunderland and Northampton, and New York City. State police have yet to release their names, as a court date has not been set.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi’s Smoking Guns (Jonah Goldberg)

Benghazi’s Smoking Guns – Jonah Goldberg

President Obama was asked about the metastasizing Benghazi scandal in a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday. Referring to the Americans who died in Benghazi, the president said, “We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus.” He added that “the whole issue of talking points, throughout this process, frankly, has been a sideshow… There’s no there there.”

.

.
He’s half right. The talking points drafted by the State Department, the CIA and the White House and given to congressional Republicans and, most famously, to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are not the center of this story.

I think there was a lot of mischief behind those talking points, which we now know were sanitized, folded, spindled and mutilated to fit a political agenda.

But it’s worth remembering that Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t get their information from the talking points. They got their information earlier and from much higher authorities, like then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus. The CIA believed the attacks were terrorist-driven early on. According to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, when Petraeus saw the talking points, he thought they were useless.

More central are the talking points – written or unwritten – that Obama and Clinton used for weeks after the attacks. The president said Monday that he immediately referred to the Benghazi attacks as “terrorism.” This is at best a brutal bending of the truth. He used the word “terror” generically in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. And then for the next two weeks, he went on a media blitz blaming a video, including in an interview recorded that day with “60 Minutes.” In a segment that “60 Minutes” helpfully sat on for almost two months, Obama told Steve Kroft that “it’s too early to know” whether the attack was terrorism. He then went on “The View,” Univision and David Letterman pushing the idea that it was all about a video. At the United Nations, he condemned a “crude and disgusting” video but didn’t mention terrorism.

Clinton followed suit. She told grieving family members of the fallen that the U.S. would track down the makers of the video. And, so far, the only person connected with the whole incident who has been punished is the filmmaker, who continues to languish in jail, admittedly on unrelated charges.

If you assume they knew the truth about the nature of the attack, how are those statements not proof of a coverup? The talking points are incidental.

But in a very serious way, so is the coverup.

As Washington Examiner columnist Byron York notes, the Republican obsession with the smoking gun stems from the fact that “they are captive to the Washington mind-set that the coverup is always worse than the crime.”

This Washington cliche isn’t an iron law of the universe. The media like it, I think, because the coverup invariably involves them. When the story is about how the media have been misled, the media can always be counted on to perk up, as we saw last Friday when White House spokesman Jay Carney was eaten alive on C-SPAN.

But the true core of this story has nothing to do with media vanity or talking points – or a political circus. The real issue is that for reasons yet to be determined – politics? ideology? incompetence? all three? – the administration was unprepared for an attack on Sept. 11, of all dates. When the attack came, they essentially did nothing as our own people were begging for help – other than to tell those begging to help that they must “stand down.”

Again, there’s an arsenal worth of smoking guns, from uncontested sworn testimony at the Benghazi hearings to the State Department’s flawed internal review to the four dead Americans, including a U.S. ambassador sent to Benghazi on Clinton’s orders. That’s the there there — regardless of what happened with the talking points. There is, from what we know so far, at best circumstantial evidence pointing to why they pushed this video story so hard. Though, as Thoreau once said, “some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Washington Post Factchecker Destroys Obama’s Claim He Called Libya ‘Terrorism’ – Big Journalism

Monday, during his appearance before the media with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama was again caught lying to coverup his lying and covering-up in the aftermath of a successful terror attack in Libya that cost four American lives. Obama actually claimed before the world that, “The day after [Libya] happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

That is a bald-faced lie. In fact it is such a bald-faced lie that Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler awarded the President the full-boat of four Pinnochios:

[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time – and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

[T]he president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time – and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Extortion 17: Complete SEAL Team 6 National Press Club Event – 05/09/13

.
H/T Green Eyed Lady

.

Ben Rhodes: Obama’s Fixer Behind The Benghazi Cover-Up

Ben Rhodes: Obama’s Fixer Behind The Benghazi Cover-Up – American Thinker

Barack Obama’s “Tower of Fabrications,” as Peter Wehner describes the Benghazi scandal, is beginning to crack. And that crack will soon reveal a central figure behind the cover-up, a man close to Barack Obama for years but generally unknown to the public: Ben Rhodes.

.

Rhodes has risen from being an obscure and failed fiction writer to formulating foreign and national security policy for Obama precisely because he is willing to his superiors’ bidding regardless of facts. He has a history of using whatever talents he has with the pen to do so.

A few years ago he had drafted the Iraq Study Group report on the causes and mishaps of the Iraq War to focus on Israel – despite the fact that Israel was not part of the scope of the mission the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group was given. Witnesses and experts called by the Committee were appalled. Why did Rhodes distort the record? He seemingly was doing the bidding of his masters who have a history of animus towards Israel. Rhodes had attended Rice University, where the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy is housed; it was headed by Edward Djerejian. Both Baker and his friend Djerejian (a former Ambassador to Syria) have pro-Arab records; criticism of and pressure towards Israel have been hallmarks of their careers. Both Baker and Djerejian played key roles in choosing whom to hire for the Iraq Study Group and how the work was done.

Rhodes may also just be indulging his own pro-Muslim sympathies. He wrote Obama’s infamous Cairo Speech. That paean to the Muslim world was filled with fulsome praise of Islam that were factually incorrect (Rhodes’ post-graduate education, after all, was in fiction-writing and under Obama he seems to have finally found someone who will pay him for writing fiction). The speech avoided references to radical Islam and was filled with platitudes about Islam. The speech highlighted a tougher line towards Israel and “credited” that nation’s founding as due to European guilt over the Holocaust (ignoring 5000 years of history).

Rhodes has gone from writing reports and drafting speeches to playing a key role in formulating foreign and national security policy, according to the New York Times. His closeness to Obama – a man known for his aloofness (“he doesn’t like people” says a former aide) has become well-known.

There is a reason Rhodes is close to Obama.

Everyone in power needs a fixer and, according to the latest revelations, Ben Rhodes is Obama’s fixer.

.

Rhodes seems to be proud of his role. Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller notes that Rhodes “identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda” whose, quoting Rhodes, “main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues”

When State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland requested changes to the original CIA talking points to eliminate reports regarding warnings of the upcoming attacks who responded positively to her wishes? Ben Rhodes.

Stephen Hayes writes at the Weekly Standard (The Benghazi Scandal Grows:

The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning.

As Charles Krauthammer noted, Rhodes had written in an email he wanted the revisions to reflect all the “equities” of the various departments involved in the Benghazi story – not reflect the truth but the “equities” (a Washington euphemism for reputations). Truth ended up on the cutting room floor.

This report was backed up by other journalists.

As Kevin Robillard wrote at Politico,”Terror References removed from Benghazi talking points”:

Nuland was backed up by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

After the meeting Rhodes mentioned, all references to Al Qaeda were deleted.

Hayes outlines what happened next:

Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

It is highly doubtful that Morell, the deputy director of the CIA, a career official (not an Obama appointee), found this work comfortable or rewarding.

After all, he was being “asked” to distort the CIA’s original report – to eliminate references to Islamic terrorism, to delete warnings of an organized attack to come, to shield the Obama administration and cover-up the Benghazi disaster, a problem that would have plagued Barack Obama in the run-up to the election.

Then CIA-director David Petraeus was reportedly appalled at the revisions forced upon them by Team Obama (recall the constant references during the Bush era about the “politicizing of intelligence”?). He was particularly frustrated over the deleted references to terrorism.

So who pushed for such a radical alteration of the CIA talking points, who has a history of writing reports, drafting speeches, doing his bosses bidding regardless of ethics and fealty to facts, and who has a record of indulging in pro-Islam messaging? None other than Ben Rhodes.

Journalists have just begun to focus on his role.

James Rosen, the Fox News Washington correspondent, reported Friday night on the Bret Baier show, that the Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes at the White House was an early participant in the process of rewriting the CIA talking points and he lined up with State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a “way that served to accelerate the scrubbing of the talking points”.

Coincidentally (or not) Ben Rhodes’s brother, David Rhodes, is the head of CBS News. One of the most dogged journalists trying to peel away the covers behind the Benghazi scandal has been CBS journalist Sharyl Atkinson. She has had to endure pressure from liberal journalistic colleagues to stop digging. Politico reports that “network sources” say that she “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

The coercion may be going into overdrive as the investigations gets closer to fingering Ben Rhodes as the key player behind the Benghazi cover-up. According to Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller, CBS News may be on the verge of firing Atkinson.

Furthermore, Ben Rhodes is married to Ann Norris, senior foreign and defense advisor to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California). One might with some justification expect Sen. Boxer to run interference for Ben Rhodes should investigations begin to focus on his role in the Benghazi scandal.

Congress, or rather the Republican-held House since Harry Reid would never permit any truth-finding by the Democrat Senate, needs to step up the pace of their investigations, issue subpoenas, and call witnesses. America (and the wounded and dead victims and the family and friends who survive them) deserves to know the truth behind Benghazi.

And among those witnesses should be Ben Rhodes. Perhaps being forced to swear he will tell the truth will finally cause him to abandon fiction.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
CBS, ABC, CNN Execs Have Family Ties To Obama Aides – Centennial Institute

This you can hardly believe.

David Rhodes, president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser.

Ben Sherwood, president of ABC News, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Obama’s special assistant.

Ciaire Shipman, national correspondent for ABC’s “Good Morning America,” is married to Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary.

Virginia Moseley, deputy bureau chief for CNN in Washington, is married to Tom Nides, deputy security state for management and resources (under Secretary Clinton and now under Secretary Kerry).

So how aggressively can we expect CBS, ABC, and CNN to pursue the truth about Benghazi?

If Cheryl Atkisson, the CBS reporter who seems to want to pursue the truth, is muzzled or let go, would the David Rhodes – Ben Rhodes brother team (covering for the latter’s key role in changing the talking points) possibly have something to do with it?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Geraldo: My Sources Tell Me They Were In Benghazi To Round Up Missiles To Send To Syrian Rebels Via Turkey – Right Scoop

How many layers of scandal will there end up being in Benghazi? First, we have the talking points being altered to cover up the ineptitude of the Obama administration. Then we have stand down orders that were issues to prevent any military aid from helping our people in harms way. We have the State Dept. demoting Greg Hicks for questioning the misinformation being given by the administration.

And then there is this piece that hasn’t really gotten much attention at all, that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to help facilitate the transfer of Libyan arms to the Syrian rebels by way of Turkey.

Well just yesterday morning, Geraldo revealed that he has sources telling him the same thing, that indeed Stevens was in Benghazi to help round up shoulder-to-air missiles to send to the Syrian rebels via Turkey (h/t: The Blaze):

.

.
I’m surprised this hasn’t gotten more attention. Fox News covered this back in Oct of last year and did an excellent report on it:

.
.…………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Glenn Beck also covered it in great detail back in October as well:

.

.
If we were running weapons, as it seems we were, then it makes sense why Obama was so gung ho about going into Libya in the first place to help overthrow Qaddafi. Those weapons were needed to help further the so-called Arab Spring happening in Syria. And it was done all in the name of democracy.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Parents Of Slain SEAL Team 6 Member: Obama Allowed Heroes’ Bodies To Be Desecrated

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Regime Over Benghazi Lies

.

The Benghazi Scandal Grows (Stephen Hayes)

The Benghazi Scandal Grows – Stephen Hayes

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version ​- produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​ – ​was a shadow of the original.

.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “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.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​ – ​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate… no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.

The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​ – including State, Defense, and the CIA​ – ​as well as senior White House national security staffers.

The Deputies Committee convened the next morning, Saturday the 15th. Some participants met in person, while others joined via a Secure Video Teleconference System (abbreviated SVTS and pronounced “siv-its”).

The proceedings were summarized in an email to U.N. ambassador Rice shortly after the meeting ended. The subject line read: “SVTS on Movie/Protests/violence.” The name of the sender is redacted, but whoever it was had an email address suggesting a job working for the United States at the United Nations.

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan.

The email to Rice reported that Sullivan would work with a small group of individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which had originated the request for talking points.

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows. The sender told Sullivan the name of the staffer (redacted in the email) who would be running Rice’s prep session and encouraged the team to keep Rice in the loop.

At 2:44 p.m., the author of the email to Rice followed up directly with Sullivan, asking for a copy of the talking points to help with Rice’s preparation for TV. Sullivan promised to provide them.

A senior Obama administration official did not challenge the accuracy of the email to Rice, but disputed any implication that Sullivan was responsible for rewriting the talking points. “The CIA circulated revised talking points to the interagency after the Deputies Committee meeting and Jake Sullivan did not comment substantively on those points.”

This official pointed to Jay Carney’s comments this week. “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”

But Carney’s claim raises an obvious question: Why would intelligence community officials want to redraft talking points they’d already finalized?

The major substantive changes came Friday evening, after a State Department official expressed concerns about criticism from members of Congress, and Saturday morning, following the Deputies Committee meeting, where, according to internal Obama administration emails, officials further revised the talking points.

What’s clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.

Hicks testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had happened in Benghazi. “I was stunned,” he said. “My jaw dropped.”

The hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.

On May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First, Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she’d had with Libya’s ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff and longtime confidante.

Second, Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points. Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to “move on” from Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that Benghazi had happened “a long time ago.”

But it’s increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are answered.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up In American History’ – The Blaze

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said President Barack Obama could possibly be impeached over what happened in Benghazi.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a radio interview Thursday that “of all the great cover-ups in history” – including the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra and Watergate – Benghazi “is going to go down as most serious, most egregious cover-up in American history.”

“We may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said on the Las Vegas-based “Rusty Humphries Show.”

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe confirmed.

When Humphries questioned the likelihood of impeachment, Inhofe said it wouldn’t be immediate.

“I’m not talking about it now, this is something that could endure until after the ’14 election – this is not a short story, this is something that was re-discovered after eight months… this is clearly an orchestrated coverup,” he said.

Listen to the full interview here.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Top Obama Official’s Brother Is President Of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage – Daily Caller

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes – brother of CBS News president David Rhodes – was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Ben Rhodes, a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria, as well.

But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda.

“My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,” Rhodes said in March.

David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.

Neither the White House nor CBS News responded to requests for comment for this report.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Benghazi Calling – By Edward L. Daley

.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman: More Benghazi Hearings Coming

Exclusive: House Foreign Affairs Chair: More Benghazi Hearings Coming – Big Peace

.

The day after the House Oversight Committee’s blockbuster hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, House Foreign Relations Committee chair Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) told Breitbart News that the Oversight Committee would hold more hearings:

The Committee continues its examination of the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks so we can ensure that the bureaucratic failures that left State Department personnel vulnerable are not repeated. The Committee will continue to review the responsibility of senior State Department officials for the failure to provide proper security prior to the Benghazi attacks and needed improvements in embassy security.

Based on testimony in Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing that contradicted the rosy findings of the Obama-appointed Accountability Review Board, Royce has also introduced the Accountability Review Board Reform Act of 2013. He penned a letter to other House members on Thursday encouraging such reforms to the Accountability Review Board process. “Yesterday,” Royce wrote, “the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing that reaffirmed the flaws in the Benghazi ARB’s review. Specifically, the ARB found that the responsibility for the ‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within the State Department stopped at the Assistant Secretary level. As we heard throughout the hearing, this was simply not the case.”

Royce’s proposed legislation would help sever the bond between the ARB and the State Department – currently, the Secretary of State “appoints four out of the ARB’s five members – a clear majority that could influence the outcome of any investigation.” It would change the ARB staffing so that it isn’t as reliant on the State Department. Board members with conflicts of interest would be banned. The Secretary of State would have to hand over a list of staffers to Congress. And the ARB report would have to go to Congress, not merely the Secretary of State.

“These improvements seek to strengthen future ARB investigations to help avoid disasters like Benghazi,” Royce wrote. “Please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill To Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws

Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill To Nullify Federal Gun Control Laws – Fox News

The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.

.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

Supporters argue the measure protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and it includes language condemning the theft and illegal use of firearms. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Funderburk, said his aim is to ensure Missouri is the only regulator when it comes to firearms.

“We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods,” said Funderburk, R-St. Peters.

Opposition came mostly from House Democrats who said the measure would increase access to guns and make schools less safe. They argued the measure doesn’t address gun violence in urban areas.

“I don’t understand why this body continues to turn their back and ignore gun violence in order to increase access to weapons,” said Rep. Stacey Newman, D-University City.

In addition to declaring federal gun laws unenforceable, the bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by designated school personnel in school buildings. It would allow appointed “protection officers” to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety. The officers would also be required to complete a training course.

The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms.

Privacy rights of gun owners have been a hot topic this legislative session after lawmakers learned the state Highway Patrol shared the list of concealed weapons permit holders with a federal agent in the Social Security Administration.

The legislation passed Wednesday would prevent people from publishing any identifying information on gun owners. A person who publishes such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. It also would prevent doctors or nurses from being required to ask patients about firearm ownership.

The measure would also lower the minimum age required to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19.

Even if Gov. Jay Nixon signs the legislation, it may face legal hurdles that will prevent its implementation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas last month saying the federal government would challenge its recent gun law. The Kansas legislation would prohibit federal regulation of guns that are manufactured and remain in the state. It would also criminalize the enforcement of federal gun control laws.

Missouri lawmakers are also considering a constitutional amendment that would declare gun rights “inalienable.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References

ABC Releases Big Benghazi Report: Talking Points Changed 12 Times, ‘Dramatically Edited By Administration,’ And Scrubbed Of Terror References – The Blaze

The talking points used by Amb. Susan Rice on the Sunday shows on the weekend after the 9/11/12 terror attack in Benghazi underwent at least 12 edits – including revisions by the Obama administration’s State Department – new emails obtained by ABC News show. Those revisions included scrubbing all references to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group and all references to previous CIA warnings about a terror threat.

.

From ABC:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl said on Friday morning that the talking points were “dramatically edited by the administration” and that State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland played a major role in them.

From the report:

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned…”

Karl explained the new information:

.

.
In a addition, a new report by the Weekly Standard says then-CIA director David Petraeus “was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15″:

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “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.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​ – ​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

All of the information doesn’t seem to bode well for Press Secretary Jay Carney, who said back in November that only a “single adjustment” had been made.

.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney said on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Still, Carney is standing by the remarks, and now seems to be carefully clarifying the difference between the White House and the “administration” and noting the CIA still signed off on them.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney told ABC. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Regime Allowed Radical Cleric To Curse U.S. Navy SEAL Heroes At Funeral Services (Video)

Outrage! Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric To Curse U.S. Navy SEAL Heroes At Funeral Services (Video & Transcript) – Gateway Pundit

.

This combo shows the 30 troops killed in a helicopter downing in Afghanistan on Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. The Pentagon on Thursday, Aug. 11, 2011 identified the Americans as 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs, five Naval Special Warfare personnel who support the SEALs, three Air Force Special Operations personnel and an Army helicopter crew of five. (AP Photo)

Today three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. This was just months after the successful raid on the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan.

At the press conference today the families released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation.

This will break your heart.

From the funeral services at Bagram Air Force Base

.

.
Here is the radical cleric’s curse on our fallen SEALs.

Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones.
In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver.
The companions of “THE FIRE”
(The sinners and infidels who are fodder for the hell fire)
ARE NOT EQUAL WITH the companions of heaven.
The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the WINNERS.
Had he sent this Koran to the mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.
(Mocking the GOD of Moses)
Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think.
(repent and convert to Islam)
Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory and what they describe.
And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).

For the record – Political correctness killed these heroes.

Are there any courageous Christians left in this country?

Are there any Christians willing to stand up for their faith?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Blow-By-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans To Die (Arnold Ahlert)

Blow-By-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans To Die – Arnold Ahlert

Wednesday on Capitol Hill, three impeccable witnesses offered the clearest evidence to date that the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, was a deadly combination of ineptitude, political calculations, and outright lying.

.

Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.

Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who offered the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn’t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.

Later, when it became clear that Stevens was missing, the first concern was that he had been taken by terrorists. “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.” As this information was coming in, a “response team” from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport, one that Hicks thought might become involved in a “hostage rescue” operation, even as officials worried they were being “baited into a trap.”

Hicks then spoke of the mortars that landed on the compound shortly after a group of Americans fleeing the consulate arrived at the annex. The first mortar landed among a group of Libyans who had helped bring the Americans to safety. “The next was short,” he said. “The next three landed on the roof.”

Those were the mortars that killed Doherty and Woods.

Hicks was visibly choked up when he recounted learning about Stevens’ death from the Libyan prime minister. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said.

In one of the most stunning portions of the hearing, Hicks confirmed the chilling refusal of the Obama administration to send in readily available U.S. assets to stop the consulate slaughter. This order to “stand down” was given not once, but at least twice. Hicks also revealed that an explicit order from the chain of command prevented a four-man special forces rescue team in Tripoli from getting to the Americans trapped at the annex. He noted the order came from “either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA” and that the team was “furious” when they were told to stand down. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” said Hicks, referring to the officer on the receiving end of that command. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’” Hicks’ testimony on this point directly contradicts recent statements from the Obama-run Pentagon. “There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody,” said Maj. Robert Furman, Pentagon spokesman, on Monday.

Yet Mark Thompson also testified that he tried to get a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) comprised of special ops and intelligence personnel deployed, and he, too, was told to stand down. According to a source interviewed by Breitbart.com, only President Obama, or someone acting on his authority, could have given the stand down order. As we know from testimony provided by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama met with the two officials on September 11 at 5 p.m. EDT for 30 minutes – less than an hour-and-a-half into the attack – and was supposedly never heard from him again for the rest of the evening. The very next day, Obama headed to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

The Obama administration undoubtedly understood that its decision to leave defenseless Americans, including our ambassador, to needlessly die at the hands of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists would not go over well for a commander-in-chief in the throes of a presidential election and a secretary of state angling for the Oval Office in 2016. Hicks’ testimony affirmed suspicions that administration officials conspired to conceal the nature of the attack by concocting an absolutely fictitious account of events involving a “spontaneous” attack prompted by an anti-Islam YouTube video. Hicks testified that he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack at 2 a.m. that same night. He recounted that “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go,” a reality echoed by Libyan President Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.” Magariaf made this assertion the very day before UN ambassador Susan Rice went out to peddle the lie that a “spontaneous demonstration” had gotten out of hand due to an Internet video.

When Hicks heard Rice, he was appalled. “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

Rice was a willing mouthpiece for the two biggest promoters of the Internet video lie: President Obama and Hillary Clinton

In reality, Rice was a willing mouthpiece for the two biggest promoters of the Internet video lie: President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, the State Department spent $70,000 to run advertisements in Pakistan featuring the two of them rejecting the contents of the video, and promoting tolerance for all religions. Even more remarkable, despite committee Democrats implying that a thorough investigation was conducted internally by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), Hillary Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB.

Hillary’s entire take on the matter can be whittled down to the infamous statement she made during the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013. After being questioned as to why the administration misled the American people, Clinton became indignant. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Eric Nordstrom, who became emotional when he described his friends and other personnel who lost their lives in the attack, provided an answer to that question. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues – to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said, his voice breaking. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11, 2012.”

Nordstrom further testified in writing that Hillary Clinton waived security requirements for the Benghazi consulate despite high and critical threat levels in the six categories of security standards established under the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The waiver can only be authorized by the Secretary of State, who cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. “If the Secretary of State did not waive these requirements, who did so by ordering occupancy of the facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli?” Nordstrom wrote.

Nordstrom also offered his take on the ARB. “I found the ARB process that I was involved in to be professional and the unclassified recommendations reasonable and positive. However, it is not what is contained within the report that I take exception to but what is left unexamined,” Nordstrom wrote. “Specifically, I’m concerned with the ARB’s decision to focus its attention at the Assistant Secretary level and below, where the ARB felt that ‘the decision-making in fact takes place,’” he wrote.

State Department actively sought to intimidate witnesses

Hicks testified that the State Department actively sought to intimidate witnesses in order to prevent facts surrounding the Benghazi attack from being leaked. He revealed that a top State Department official called him to demand a report from his meeting with a congressional delegation and expressed unhappiness that a State Department lawyer was not present for the session. “I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission – me – to be personally interviewed,” he said. Later in the hearing, Hicks noted that State seemed especially concerned with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who has done yeoman’s work tracking down the survivors of the attack, kept under wraps by the administration. “We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” said Hicks, who added that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, “demanded a report on the visit” that did take place.

The State Department was caught in another lie yesterday as well. While the hearings were getting underway, Republicans revealed that Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the ARB, refused to testify. State countered that Republicans refused to let him. Frederick Hill, spokesman for Committee chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA), produced a letter dated February 22 inviting Pickering to testify. “Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill told ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

The State Department isn’t the only entity interested in controlling the flow of information in this tragedy. House Democrats embarrassingly struggled to distract from the proceedings with absurd non sequiturs and personal attacks. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democratic at the Benghazi hearing, told one of the whistleblowers to “protect your fellow employees.” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) suggested it was unpatriotic to challenge the administration’s narrative. “I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” she said. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the State Department; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blamed Republicans and congressional budget cuts for the terror attack, even as he apparently remains oblivious to the reality that it was Democrats who insisted the lion’s share of the budget cuts induced by sequestration come from the military.

Media are also shamelessly entrenched in the campaign to suppress the facts surround the Benghazi attack

Media are also shamelessly entrenched in the campaign to suppress the facts surround the Benghazi attack. Politico reports that CBS News execs are getting “increasingly frustrated” with premiere investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s stories on Benghazi, which they consider “dangerously close to advocacy.”

Dangerously close to honesty is more like it, which is exactly what CBS is worried about. As Washington Post explains, “While other media, particularly Fox News, have been similarly skeptical about the official narrative about Benghazi, Attkisson and CBS might put the story in a different light,” the paper reports. “As a much-decorated reporter from a news outlet often derided by conservatives as a liberal beacon, Attkisson and her network flip the usual script on this highly politicized story. That is, it’s hard to peg her and her network as Republican sympathizers out to score political points against a Democratic president.” With Attkisson, a self-described “political agnostic,” questioning the administration, Bengahzi can no longer be dismissed by the left as a vast right-wing conspiracy. “People can say what they want about me, I don’t care,” Attkisson says. “I just want to get the information out there.”

Attkisson notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether the remainder of the mainstream media will now demand answers from the Obama administration on why it chose to needlessly throw American servicemen to the wolves in Benghazi and why, exactly, it was necessary to contrive a totally false account of events. The Obama administration is fighting hard to distract from the severity of the scandal. White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed that continued scrutiny of Benghazi is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to “politicize” the issue. “This is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, while in fact what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” he said, adding that the incident has been “been looked at exhaustively.” Carney further noted that the ongoing pursuit is “part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.” The entire substance, according to Carney, is the reality that the consulate was attacked, four Americans were killed, and the president will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Carney saved his most ridiculous assertion for last, claiming the administration’s editing of the talking points, in which wholesale changes and rampant deletions were made, (the details of which can be seen here) were “stylistic and not substantive.” “We’ve been very clear about the specific edits that were made at the suggestion of the White House.”

That is an utter lie. Version one of the CIA report included references to an “attack,” “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida,” the involvement of Ansar al Sharia and the fact that “wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks,” which were all completely removed. Furthermore, at no time did any of the versions mention an anti-Islamic Internet video as being the catalyst for the attack.

The Obama administration can try spin this debacle any way it likes

The Obama administration can try spin this debacle any way it likes, but it can’t spin away four dead Americans, two separate “stand down” orders and the State Department’s advanced knowledge of inadequate security. They can’t change the reality that no rescue was even attempted over the course of a seven-hour battle, that brave Americans were left to fend for themselves, or that the administration sat on the details of this story for eight months—two most crucial of which occurred prior to the 2012 election. Even now the administration continues to stonewall every effort to get to the truth.

But with the truth finally coming to the surface, the remaining question observers are left with is why the Obama administration abandoned Americans who were easily within reach. While the lies used to cover up this disaster are easy to explain, the rationale behind the unconscionable stand down orders must still be determined. As the facts stand now, the likely explanations do not bode well for President Obama. The circumstances suggest the decision was made by a callous and desperate president struggling with a re-election campaign, a central plank of which was that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was “on the run”—not something affirmed by news of al-Qaeda operatives’ murder of our ambassador and military personnel. Or perhaps our commander-in-chief was too busy being our campaigner-in-chief and simply didn’t care about the carnage unfolding on his watch, which he declined to prevent. In any case, it is incumbent on the Obama administration to provide a rationale for its disastrous decision. As persistent Americans have shown, the investigation will not cease until that occurs.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Used Taxpayer Money In Benghazi Cover-Up (Video)

Obama Used Taxpayer Funds In Benghazi Cover-Up – WorldNetDaily

.

As the House Oversight Committee hears from witnesses presenting a chronological timeline that starkly contrasts with initial statements by the Obama administration on the Benghazi attacks, it is instructive to recall how the administration spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds on an ad denouncing an anti-Muhammad film.

The ad aired on Pakistani television amid White House claims that the Benghazi attacks were caused by popular protests against an obscure Muhammad film released on YouTube.

It would later emerge that no such protests took place and that the Obama administration almost immediately had evidence the Benghazi attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The ads reportedly aired on seven Pakistani networks. They also came in response to protests in Pakistan that were reportedly a reaction to the film. However, it was the claim of popular protests in Benghazi at the time that garnered the biggest public reaction from the White House.

The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation of respect, that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Obama says in the ad, which is stamped “paid content.”

Clinton then denies any official U.S. involvement in producing the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

“We absolutely reject its contents,” she says.

.

.
The Obama administration blamed the YouTube video for what it claimed were popular protests that engulfed the Benghazi mission.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, three days before the ads were released, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.”

Still, other Obama administration officials made similar claims about the film being behind the Benghazi attacks.

Scores of news reports, video and intelligence evidence that was immediately available to the government had demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility and that the attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The claims about the anti-Muhammad film being behind the Benghazi attacks are also now called into question by a top State Department official who said he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” said Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”

Reacting to Rice’s television interviews blaming the anti-Muhammad film, Hicks stated, “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

In testimony yesterday, Hicks said he was “stunned,” his “jaw dropped” and he was “embarrassed” when Rice blamed the terror attack on an Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he stated.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.