EXCLUSIVE! Benghazi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commander in Chief
Confidential sources close to
Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key
decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.
The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:
At approximately 5 PM Washington time,
reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi
was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the
President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.
Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.
After supper, Barack Obama had a
telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present
for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was
having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.
The telephone call between Obama and
Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of
respect between the two world leaders.
As that meeting drew to a close, Ms.
Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public
Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters
to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was
being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.
Whether she was instructed by the
President to go there, or if she went of her own volition, is only
known by the President and herself.
A critical question that needed to be
answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched
offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks
on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.
As was reported earlier by Conservative Report, Cross Border Authority was denied.
Two revelations are deeply troubling:
First, it is reported that an Army
Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spooky (also known as a
Spectre Gunship) on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. The
Spooky is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated
by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.
It operates under the overall Special
Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which
is reportedly in charge of all military special operations units,
including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine
units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and “stealth Blackhawks,” used in
the Bin Laden raid.
The
AC-130U Spooky is equipped with weapons that sync with
laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above
the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar
targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and
Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. Had the AC-130U been on
station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar
rounds were fired, instead of "awaiting further instructions," the
entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.
Add to that, a team of Green Berets on
the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would
have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.
The second, and most troubling aspect of the refusal to issue Cross Border Authority is, who issued the refusal. Rather than the President, the Commander In Chief, making critical decisions, granting or denying the authority to initiate offensive-actions in support of our valiant fighting men, the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect, nor did the Congress have confirmation power over.
The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President's Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.
And this is a “phony” scandal?
No comments:
Post a Comment