Budget plan would slash Army by 100,000 soldiers

but obama can give billions to the terrorist and weapons tanks and guns 

Posted on Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 9:45 pm. by: Thomas Jefferson

The Army and other services have been fighting over shrinking resources for the future.
This fall, Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond Odierno warned top Pentagon officials in a briefing that a force of 450,000 soldiers would be “too small” and at “high risk to meet one major war,” according to documents obtained by USA TODAY. The Army could not adequately protect the country and fight abroad at 420,000 soldiers, the documents stated.
Since then, the chiefs of the services have been told to list the missions they won’t be able to accomplish with diminished budgets, a senior Pentagon official said on condition of anonymity because the budget will not be released for weeks.
For the Army, a force of 420,000 means that it could respond to a conflict, such as one on the Korean Peninsula, but won’t be able to keep up the fight for long without a significant call up of Reserve forces, said another senior military officer who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the plans.
The other services will be reduced in size as well. The Navy will be able to continue to shift its focus to the Pacific but with far fewer ships, and its presence in the Persian Gulf will be lessened.
Even at the reduced numbers, the U.S. military is more than a match for any potential foe, said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University and a budget official in the Clinton administration.
“Who else that we are going to fight in a ground war has 420,000 soldiers?” Adams said in an e-mail. “Silly, really. Of course, we can.” If long-term budget cuts are rolled back, the services won’t have to cut so deeply into their troop levels. The Pentagon forecasts significant shortfall in its budgets for the next several years. In the current fiscal year, it sought $526 billion for costs that did not include the war in Afghanistan. The budget cuts known as “sequestration” would have lowered that to $475 billion. A budget deal in Congress restored some funds, giving the Pentagon $496 billion.
The shrinking budget has resulted in jockeying by the services to secure the most funding. Last month, for example, a National Guard leader said the Army could be cut to 420,000 soldiers if the Guard was allowed to expand. That touched off squabbling among Army and Guard leaders and prompted top Pentagon officials to tell them to keep their dispute quiet as the budget deliberations continue, according to a senior defense official who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Army, according to a senior officer, is struggling to find a “narrative” that persuades policymakers of its relevance in a new White House and military strategy that is shifting focus to the Pacific, where the Navy and Air Force are better suited to operating.
The Army grew to a force of about 570,000 soldiers at the height of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was strained greatly in 2007 when President Bush ordered the surge of troops in Iraq. Deployments that had been a year long were extended for some soldiers to 15 months.
The White House strategy assumes that the U.S. military will no longer be engaged in long-term operations that are troop intensive. Instead, it envisions smaller, nimbler forces that deploy for short periods.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/18/army-budget-cuts-national-guard-sequestration/4635369/

Queen hands over the reigns to Prince Charles - historic step closer to a new king

• Jan 20, 2014 00:04
• By Andy Lines
• 21 Comments

• Share
• Share
• Tweet
• +1
• Email

Her Majesty to hand duties over to Prince Charles in an historic job share which experts say marks a gentle succession

Next in line: Prince Charles and Camilla

It is being dubbed the “gentle succession” – as the Queen gradually begins to relinquish some of her traditional duties as monarch.
As she approaches her 88th birthday in April after almost 62 years on the throne, she has agreed to hand over part of her workload in a historic “job-share” arrangement with Prince Charles.
In a royal first, he will be taking on more head of state-style responsibilities as
the Palace starts to make tentative plans for his eventual succession.
Courtiers yesterday described the softly-softly move as “wise” – and “just plain common sense”.
The first sign of the partial power transfer will be the merging this week of the Queen and Charles’s press offices.
In future any announcements concerning the monarch and her 65-year-old
eldest son will now come from the same source. Palace sources insist the switch will be entirely seamless.
Princes William and Harry will also play their part in the new set-up, with both assuming far more responsibility since they relinquished their military roles.

Getty Images

Passing the baton: The Queen

 One aide said: “This is about passing the baton to the next generation.
“The Prince of Wales’s diary is chock-full. Even he realises with the best will in the world he can’t go on like that.
“This is not going to be a sudden shift. It is a gradual process which will be borne out over the next few years.
“It’s a gentle succession.
“It’s important to note that the Queen is still working very hard. Every day you see her with the red box of Government papers and giving audiences.
“Charles will be doing less of his campaigning and the things he likes to do and more of the head of state role.
“While the Queen is still in excellent health, she is inevitably becoming a little more frail because of her age. Charles and Camilla will be doing much more of the public work on her behalf.”
Her Majesty is already the oldest ever British monarch and will soon overtake Queen Victoria’s longest-serving record of 63 years.
But it was stressed yesterday that the changes do not mean she is planning to take a back seat.
The Mirror can exclusively reveal she and Prince Philip will go to Rome later this
year for a visit that was postponed in 2013.
They will also visit Normandy, along with Charles, this summer to commemorate the
70th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
The merger of Palace press offices is likely to see Charles’s new spin doctor, the
highly respected former tabloid reporter and BBC Head of Communications Sally Osman at the helm of the new operation
A senior insider said: “It is expected that she will be Press Secretary for both main players – The Queen and the Prince of Wales.”
The fact that the Queen’s age is being widely discussed in senior circles was made clear in an award made in the New Year’s Honours List.
There was a second knighthood for her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt – for “a new approach to constitutional matters... [and] the preparation for the transition to a change of reign”.
Charles, who swore to be his mother’s “liege man in life and limb” just like his dad Prince Philip, is being her back-up should she need him.
But there is one area where the prince will not be joining in – her weekly
briefings with the Prime Minister.

Heir and spare: Wills and Harry

 One former member of the Royal Household believes this would be a step too far. He said: “Those meetings have to be strictly private. A change for the PM to unburden himself without fear of favour. No notes are taken, there are no minutes. It is strictly off limits.”
The source added: “The problem for Charles is, unlike with the Queen, some ministers could see fit to leak the contents of these meetings and suggest that the prince is becoming ‘too political’.
“However that is not the case, he is within constitutional rights. His role as heir to the throne is today purely formal – although he maintains the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ Her Majesty’s ministers via regular audiences with the PM and the ministers themselves.”
Another royal source said it was widely expected that the Queen would no longer be going on long-haul flights to distant lands on diplomatic missions.
But he said she would not be giving up on key royal engagements altogether – even if they did involve a fair bit of travelling.
The involvement of other royals in the revamped system is also being seen as an important factor.
In the modern media world they – the younger generation of William, Kate and Harry – naturally steal most of the headlines.
But it is no accident both William and Harry have quit their roles as helicopter pilots to focus more on their royal duties – although Harry has, of course maintained his position as a captain in the Household Cavalry.
The source said: “What you are seeing, albeit very subtly, is a monarchy in transition. The participation of all the players, particularly Charles and William, is crucial in making things work.”
He revealed: “There are a few noses out of joint – particularly the Queen’s other children, most of all Prince Andrew – who all think they have a part to play.
“But Charles has always believed that a slimmed-down, more cost-effective Royal Family is the best way forward for the 21st century and beyond.”

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t bull shit you and your terrorist need to be deteaned

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 1, 2012
As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.
Second, signing statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the intent/character of the chief executive. However, the statement itself does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written and signed.
From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.
Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy– not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by “executive fiat.” Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow– or expand upon.
Further, Barack Obama has continued to backslide on his campaign promise not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law. RELATED (Feb. 2010): Obama Breaks Yet Another Key Campaign Promise on Executive Orders, Signing Statements
After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States (see video).
Below is the signing statement issued by the White House in full:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

This article was posted: Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 10:46 am

Joel Osteen Rebukes Apostles Paul, Peter, and John

Joel Osteen Rebukes Apostles Paul, Peter, and John
United for Awakening ^ | 8/27/13 | Peter Michael Martinez

Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:22:54 PM by Sopater
According to Joel Osteen – Pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, these first century apostles are wrong and outdated and he has come out boldly to infer indirectly that Apostles Paul, Peter, and John whom wrote much of the New Testament were wrong and need to be corrected and rebuked.
When asked directly if people whom are openly practicing homosexuals are accepted into the Kingdom, Joel Osteen responded with “Absolutely, anybody is.”
We all need to listen carefully to the words that this “man of God” speaks as he goes on interviews so we too can find the errors in the preaching of the first century apostles.
Joel does acknowledge that some things are “sin” but says, “I don’t address these things from the pulpit. They only come up in interviews.” When asked if openly practicing gay/homosexual people will be accepted into heaven, Joel Osteen responded, “I believe they will.”
He makes no mention of the need for repentance.

Joel Osteen Brings Us Universalism

The doctrine of universalism is the belief that all people are “saved” no matter who you are or what you’ve done.
This is a new version of the “good news” that is MUCH BETTER than the message the Jesus and the Apostles preached 2,ooo years ago which was far too narrow according to the way Joel Osteen explains his “message.”
“I’m for everybody” says Joel Osteen, “I’m not into excluding people. Jesus can reveal himself to anybody.”
The idea is that since no one would be accepted if we are called to be “holy” then all have to be accepted. So goes this logic. This doctrine also believes that all roads lead to heaven so there is no one “way, truth, and life that leads to the father.”
According to Joel, “sin means to miss the mark” which, while technically correct, stands in contrast to the teachings of many writers of the Bible that teach that sin is violation of God’s Holy Laws so if by missing the mark Joel means violating God’s ways, then yes, sin is missing the mark.
According to the out of date writers of the Bible, the “wages of sin is death” for which blood is required and for which a sacrifice was presented.
It sounds a lot more harsh to say SIN is TREASON punishable by death than to say it is “missing the mark” which is a bit incomplete. Sin is also “to incur guilt, incur penalty” which according to the scripture is death.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

When asked about people who live in open sin, Joel smilingly said, “I’m not going to bash those people. I’m not going to be against those people. They’re good people.”
So by contrast, Apostle Jude is “bashing people” when he said:

Jude 1:14-16 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”

Joel’s wife recently said to Piers Morgan. “It’s the people that we’re after. We’re not trying to judge their sin. We want to encourage them and love them. You’re only going to win people by reaching out to them.”
Isn’t that so awesome! They are all about the people! They want you and I be accepted without having to discuss anything like repentance or righteousness. These are “judgmental” subjects that we just don’t need.
These modern day ministry giants have gone on national television to essentially correct Apostles Peter, John, and Paul to say … they are wrong … if you listen to Joel Osteen. So many across the nation are so proud of this Pastor and his courage in confronting the church fathers!
According to Joel Osteen, Apostle Paul erroneously stated to the Corinthians …

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 “Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

In saying this, according to Joel Osteen, Apostle Paul is being “exclusionary” and should be rebuked and corrected. He is obviously wrong and should never have said these things to the Corinthian church.
Corinth was known for its sexual openness and promiscuity so for Paul to “condemn” all these “good people” was completely out of order and he needs to be rebuked.
When Paul wrote to the Romans he also was in complete error in stating the following in the first chapter of his letter, according to Joel Osteen.

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

According to Joel Osteen, Paul was absolutely incorrect and to state that being a homosexual is a sin is being “judgmental” and should not be tolerated. It is just wrong according to Joel Osteen. Many people agree with Joel Osteen today and so, Apostle Paul is apparently misguided and incorrect in his letter.
Joel goes on to point out the additional errors in the words Apostle Paul wrote.
“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Paul went on to write in the first chapter of Romans, which according to the words of Joel Osteen, he is deeply misguided and mistaken.
Apostle Paul should repent for saying such things according to Joel Osteen. A growing number of people in America agree with Joel that Apostle Paul should be rebuked for ever saying such things because Paul isn’t accepting of people like Joel Osteen is.
Equally misguided and incorrect according to Joel Osteen is Paul’s words to the Galatian church. In his writings, Apostle Paul made stunning comments that were clearly exclusionary statements concerning the Kingdom and those whom are accepted, and in so doing has made grave error according to Joel Osteen.
See if you can detect the absolutely false statements that Apostle Paul made to the Galatian church according to the stated doctrine of Joel Osteen.

Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.“

You can clearly see what has Joel Osteen so unhappy that he’s gone on national television to correct this! It is this type of rhetoric, according to Joel Osteen, that is completely false and misrepresents the God he serves.
Joel Osteen’s God loves everybody and there are no exclusions because then, according to Joel, “none of us would be saved.” So again, Apostle Paul was completely incorrect and should never have written such harsh and insensitive words to the Galatian church according to Joel.
I imagine Joel Osteen would say “shame on Apostle Paul for ever writing such hateful words!”
Now, not only is Joel out to correct the misguided Apostle Paul, but Apostle Peter was also brought into serious question for clearly being exclusionary when he wrote these words.

1 Peter 1:14-16 “As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

According to the doctrine Joel Osteen has now shared with us all as “his message,” being clearly more evolved and enlightened than the archaic Apostle Peter, no one can be holy. We are left to conclude that Peter is misguided and is being judgmental. What a terrible yoke and condemnation Apostle Peter is trying to put on the good people he is writing to.
Additionally, Apostle Peter goes on to say things that are completely against the Lakewood Church Pastor’s God when he stated the following.

2 Peter 2:6-8 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)”

According to Joel Osteen’s public comments, one could conclude that Apostle Peter was in complete error and deceived when he wrote such things. What a terrible condemnation. He clearly did not know the doctrine that Joel Osteen preaches or he would never have said such awful and critical things.
Joel Osteen indirectly implies (subtly) that these apostles were false and were critical and judgmental and should NOT be listened to in America today. We all need to listen instead to Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey.
Now Apostle John made even greater errors if the benchmark is Joel Osteen’s “message” when he stated some of the thing that he wrote which, according to Joel Osteen, is just plain and simply not true.
It takes a lot of courage for Joel to stand against these writings but he believes strongly in his “uplifting and encouraging” doctrine that does not endorse such harsh and judgmental statements as written by these ancient Apostles.

We should all pray for Joel Osteen because he needs our prayers if he’s going to continue to champion the cause of those oppressed and condemned by the writings and statements of Apostles like Paul, Peter and John.

Revelation 21:8 “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

You see, according to Joel Osteen in a recent interview, “God doesn’t see any sin as worse than another” and all are going to heaven. Apparently in Joel Osteen’s bible, he has redacted the unpardonable sin. So if you’re a follower of Joel Osteen’s then this statement by Apostle John must seem just plain wrong.
Apostle John doesn’t know what he’s talking about and we need to listen to the wisdom of Joel Osteen. Apostle John clearly was in error and should be rebuked for suggesting that people who tell lies are going to have their part in the lake of fire.
What was Apostle John thinking writing such judgmental things???
That’s a terrible thing to say and no one, certainly not Apostle John, should be allowed to say such things. As Joel says, “there’s enough condemnation in the world” and we don’t need anymore.
Additionally, in his letter, Apostle John says things like …

1 John 3:8-10 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”

Now according to Joel Osteen and the thousands that agree with his “message,” this entire passage should be removed from the pages of the bible and no one should be saying such things. In fact, Joel goes on to share that it is this exact kind of preaching that will hinder “church growth.”
Apostles Paul, Peter, and John listen up. Joel Osteen rebukes you all.
Now listen, Joel Osteen and his ministry in Houston are all about people. He is standing up for your rights! He is taking a REALLY BIG RISK because … if he’s wrong, and Apostle Paul is right … then he stands to be cursed! So he needs your support in prayer NOW!

Galatians 1:9 “As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Instead, you all need to listen to his message of universal acceptance and lawless living without any condemnation so we can all “lift our spirits” and be “encouraging and loving” to all people no matter what lifestyle or choices they make. After all, according to Joel, God loves us all and everyone is going to heaven so lighten up!
There is no exclusive path to the Kingdom. According to Joel Osteen, we need to hear this message because it’s the right message and anyone that says that there is an exclusive path to God is wrong.
Joel would know, look at the size of his church! He is clearly telling you the truth more than anyone in history.

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Exactly how much error is too much?

Sources:

• Overview of Joel Osteen/Oprah deceptions:http://youtu.be/weEWl52wevI
• Joel Osteen meets with Larry King … Here’s the link: http://youtu.be/KwL1DThtxYg
• Joel Osteen meets with Piers Morgan … Here’s the link: http://youtu.be/tgCpRNfBzys
  • To his credit, in this interview Joel does call out sin, however, he softens it and backs away from talking about repentance … and when he is asked “what would you say” his comment is that he doesn’t understand. You’re leading the largest church in America and you don’t understand REPENTANCE?

The quotes are taken right from what Joel himself has spoken. He positions himself on his own without being told how to answer. On the one hand he wants to appease his Christian followers by saying “the bible says” but on the other he clearly fellowships with darkness and facilitates those whom deny the power thereof.
2 Timothy 3:1-7 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

---

TOPICS: Ecumenism; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: apostacy; apostles; bible; evangelists; homosexualagenda; john; osteen; pastors; paul; peter; religiousleft; sin; theology; unitarianism; ybpdln

---

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-129 next last

---

I imagine that Paul, Peter, and John would do the same to Mr. Osteen.

The Apostle Paul: But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2Co 11:3-4)

As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. (Gal 1:9-10)

1 posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:22:54 PM by Sopater

*BENGHAZI – THE BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?* – *WAS BENGHAZI A CIA GUN-RUNNING OPERATION FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD & OTHER INSURGENTS FIGHTING IN SYRIA?*

#IndictObama #IndictHillary #IndictHolder   #Benghazigate
*benghazi libya cover up obama whitehouse hillary clinton chris stevens*
*BENGHAZI – THE BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?* – *WAS BENGHAZI A CIA GUN-RUNNING OPERATION FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD & OTHER INSURGENTS FIGHTING IN SYRIA?*
Posted by Darla Dawald, National Director on May 10, 2013 at 10:39pm in Patriot Action Alerts   View Discussions
From PAN's sister site LibertyNEWS.com
– Editorial Team Special Report
It’s never fun to admit you’ve been lied to and duped. There is no comfort in realizing a high-level group in government has conned you. The wound created from such a realization would be deep and painful when paired with extraordinary insult when you realize the cons are people you not only trusted, but people who are tasked with protecting your rights, your liberty, your life.
When these people betray you, you’re in trouble – big trouble. Unfortunately, we believe America is being betrayed by powerful individuals tasked with our protection. These people are found in the White House, the Congress, the CIA and other government entities – and they’re lying to you. Then they’re covering it up on an epic scale, in a never-before-seen manner.
Here are the basics of what the schemers in government and the complicit media would like for us all to focus on and buy into:
Why wasn’t there better security at the consulate (keep this misleading word in mind) in Benghazi?
Why didn’t authorization come to move special forces in for protection and rescue?
Why was an obscure video blamed when everyone knew the video had nothing to do with it?
Did Obama’s administration cover-up the true nature of the attacks to win an election?
Truth is, as we’re starting to believe, the above questions are convenient, tactical distractions. And truth is, answers to these questions, if they ever come, will never lead to revelations of the REAL TRUTH and meaningful punishment of anyone found responsible.
Rep. Darrell Issa knows this, members of the House Committee investigating the Benghazi attacks know this, the White House knows this, and much of the big corporate media infrastructure knows it, too. How do they know it? Because they know the truth. They know the truth, but cannot and/or will not discuss it in public.
Here are the basics that we (America, in general) should be focusing on, but aren’t:
Why do media outlets continue to refer to the “Special Mission Benghazi Compound” as a consulate?
Where are the so-called “terrorist” attackers/murderers? Have we stopped looking for them?
Who and where are the rest of the survivors and those evacuated after the attack?
Why did the attackers know they should target the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, and what was their true intention – what did they really want?
Why is there now so little discussion of the role the CIA played in the facilities that were attacked?
Why were 23 of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi active within the CIA? Only 7 of the 30 worked for the State Department? Yet the media continue to characterize the Benghazi facility as a State Department installation?
Was the CIA Annex a facility used in a secret gun-running operation, and was Ambassador Chris Stevens involved?
Was the CIA Annex used to facilitate the flow of arms to (Muslim Brotherhood) insurgents fighting in Syria and possibly beyond?
Why are there two versions of the ARB (Accountability Review Board) Report? One is unclassified for public view, the other is highly classified, and while Congress can view it, they are legally forbidden to discuss it in public hearings or in news interviews.
We obviously don’t have answers to all of these questions, but we will provide you with an overview, some context and our reasoning for each of them.
THE “SPECIAL MISSION BENGHAZI COMPOUND”
According to public documents the State Department made available to Congress, Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10th, 2012. The first order of business for Stevens was an urgent meeting at the CIA annex (We’ll discuss possibilities for this meeting later). Stevens was then escorted to the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, which had a villa that would be utilized for Stevens and his staff during their stay. The Special Mission Benghazi Compound did house a handful of State Department officials, but was also host to CIA operatives and officials. The Special Mission Benghazi Compound was not an actual embassy or consulate office and was not actually used as such.
The constant reference to the Special Mission Benghazi Compound as a “consulate” leads the casual news reader to believe the Ambassador may have worked out of this office as a facility made available for traditional, more public type of diplomatic operations. This was likely not the case in Benghazi. Stevens was not “stationed” at this facility. If you believe this to be an actual embassy type consulate office, you can also easily accept that the attack on September 11th was an attack meant simply for the purpose of projecting terror.
If you accept the premise this is an act of terror on the anniversary of 9/11, you’ll likely also accept the premise this is not the fault of the U.S. government. Questions will become fewer, those responsible will quietly slip away.
THE WELL ARMED MURDERERS – WHERE ARE THEY?
This question has no answers. Only a maze of peculiar dead ends. As a reminder, a United States Ambassador was brutally murdered. Where are the calls for those who killed him? Where are the hearings demanding that intelligence agencies give us an idea of where the investigation stands? Have we walked away from an aggressive pursuit of the killers? Have we concluded it was an “angry mob” who committed an act of terror and thus closed the books?


THE SURVIVORS AND OFFICIALS EVACUATED
Here we are eight months down the road from the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi. We still have yet to discover the true identities of the many people evacuated. We keep saying they should be called up for hearings and questioned, yet they all seem to have vanished. Perhaps – and this is just something to consider, the government is not hiding them so they won’t speak… these people do not wish to speak because they know full well what was happening and what the consequences of disclosure could be. In fact, it’s very likely they were an integral part of what was being orchestrated from the Benghazi facilities, whatever that might be.
The calls for these individuals to be brought forward assume we accept the premise of an active, traditional consulate. In that, we think of it as an office where interns and passport staff may be working. Of course, interns and standard office staff would indeed be of great value in gathering intelligence to figure out what happened. But the Benghazi facilities were staffed by a few State Department personnel and many CIA operatives – not interns and standard consulate administration staffers.
These individuals didn’t want to go public with classified information before the attack, so why would they after the attack?
With regards to the whistleblowers who just testified to Congress, these guys were, for the most part, involved in security and/or related assignments. We see no reason to think the whistleblowers would have detailed knowledge of the CIA operations we believe were underway in Benghazi. Perhaps they were aware of CIA presence in Benghazi, but there is no doubt a strong CIA presence all over the Middle East.
WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON FOR THE CHOSEN TARGET OF ATTACK?
A Wall Street Journal article published before the classified government report/gag order was issued (one of only a few such articles in existence about the facilities) claims the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was set up for no purpose other than to function as a diplomatic front for the CIA. It’s possible the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was not only a front, but was actually a CIA facility operating under the cover of a State Department facility. This is not certain, however, but we do believe the information and activities at this facility were far less sensitive than that of the CIA annex. We believe this to be the case based on the actions taken by the CIA in the days following the attack on the compound.
The CIA immediately jumped into action, scrubbing the annex facility of any trace of CIA operations. All documents, files, traces of a clandestine presence in general, were completely removed and/or destroyed. Yet, the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was left unguarded and wide open for “looters”. And remember how long it took (weeks) for FBI investigators to be allowed in? Investigators who stayed a surprisingly short time and apparently came away with little or nothing?
There are other questions surrounding what then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew. You may recall that in the days following the attack, Hillary Clinton was oddly silent. Clinton was essentially hidden from the media, from Congress and/or anyone else with questions about the State Department’s role (or knowledge) in/of the attacks. The WSJ said “at 5:41 PM Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.” It’s entirely possible the State Department was fuzzy on what had actually happened and why. This lends even more credibility to the idea the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was simply a front for the broader CIA operations.
We do not assert the attackers went after the wrong facility, but certainly propose it be considered a possibility. Or, at the very least, might have assumed the facility had more significance. (It’s also possible they were searching for Stevens himself.)
Which brings us to the dirtiest of all possibilities. What we’re about to discuss could certainly be all coincidence, but the algorithm required for it to all be coincidence seems outside the realm of reality. Let’s get back to the arrival of Stevens in Benghazi.


WHY DID STEVENS ARRIVE IN BENGHAZI ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2012?
We mentioned Stevens arrived in Benghazi, Libya on September 10th, 2012, one day before the attack. Stevens immediately attended a classified meeting at the CIA annex before checking in at the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, where he would be staying while in Benghazi. According to the documents obtained by Congress, Stevens later met with an official from an outfit called Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services as well as an individual from the Arabian Gulf Oil Co. The final meeting of the evening took place with Ali Sait Akin, Turkey’s Consulate General to Benghazi.
Please keep this sequence of meetings at the front of your mind: CIA, Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime, Arabian Gulf Oil and Turkey.
The visit by Stevens came just 8 days after General David Petraeus, who was then head of the CIA, made a surprise visit to Ankara on September 2nd, 2012. The time of the General’s arrival in Ankara jives with the timeline mentioned in an article published by the Times of London. The article, published on September 14th, 2012, discusses the arrival of a certain ship at the Turkish Port of Iskenderun. Fox News had more (But, strangely, Fox News dropped the investigation and no longer mentions the discovery).
Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.
The ship, which was coming from Libya, had curious cargo on board. From the same Fox News story.
According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.
“This is the Libyan ship … which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”
The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
The following part is extremely important and is what may connect the Petraeus visit to that of Stevens.
The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
This wasn’t just any fight. The Times of London said “the scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey.” Reports suggest a large portion of the shipment was indeed smuggled across the Syrian border, but much of the weapons were caught up in infighting amongst the Syrian insurgents. The Muslim Brotherhood had significant ties with Turkey and, from what we see in reports, were able to secure the ship and its cargo.


THE TIMELINE THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON
So we’ve established a solid timeline here.
SEPT 2, 2012 – General Petraeus, head of CIA, arrives in Turkey on September 2nd and meets with Turkey’s President and top Turkish government officials.
SEPT 6, 2012 – On September 6th, a ship carrying 400 tons of cargo (much of it being arms), arrives from Libya. The ship is secured by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, due to connections with Turkish government. Other Syrian insurgent groups are furious and want control of the weapons.
SEPT 10, 2012 – Ambassador Stevens arrives in Benghazi, has meetings with CIA, the shipping company and a government official from Turkey.
From what we can tell, the attacks on the compound where Stevens was located began around an hour after the meeting with a Turkish official ended. On September 11th, 2012, Stevens was killed (very early morning hours).
THE POSSIBLE CHRISTOPHER STEVENS CIA/GUN-RUNNING CONNECTION
The unclassified version of the ARB report provides some fascinating and under-reported details about Christopher Stevens. The September situation was in no way his first experience with Benghazi. In fact, Stevens had a presence at the CIA annex before the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was created. Stevens was at the CIA annex in the summer of 2011, shortly before the CIA created the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, the facility that eventually became the diplomatic front for the CIA’s operations in Benghazi. Stevens was not, at the time, Ambassador to Libya. At the time Stevens was the Special Representative to the Libyan Rebel-Alliance.
According to the New York Times, Stevens had even dealt with applications coming from U.S. weapons dealers requesting licenses to sell arms to Libyan insurgents.
There is a history of Stevens’ involvement in weapons used by Libyan fighters. There is also history of Stevens’ involvement in CIA operations. There appears to be massive movement of Libya-based arms, through Turkish territory, into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood fighters opposing the Assad government in Syria. There was controversy over a shipment of arms involving the Muslim Brotherhood and other Syrian insurgent groups, and an hour after a day of meetings ended, the compound in Libya came under attack.
Meanwhile, virtually all of the narratives circulating here in America surround the failed response to the attacks, the lack of security and the fact it was all blamed on a YouTube video.
WHY IS CONGRESS REFUSING TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS?
The most likely answer here is that members of Congress know the answers and they understand how extremely risky their disclosure would be. That said, because of the level of classification involved, Congress cannot legally answer the questions, or even ask the questions of someone who may know the answers. Especially in a public hearing or in a media interview.
This would explain why current Congressional hearings focus on the response, or lack thereof, not the true reason the attacks happened in the first place.


THE LIES AND THE COVER-UP
We don’t like having to say this, but we’re all very likely being lied to, repeatedly and recklessly. Very little, if anything, we’re being told about why Benghazi happened is true or relevant. Are we alleging the above is 100 percent accurate? Not at all. We do believe it all plays a part, either directly or indirectly, in the attack, in the murders that took place in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, and in the deceitful cover-up orchestrated by the government and thrust on the American people. Yet, not a single person who is elected to protect our lives and our rights is, so far, willing to say it.
Not one.
This story does not provide all the answers, but hopefully it provokes the correct kind of questions.
We ALL need to be asking them.
Liberty News

First ACTION:
Start By Signing Our Petition:
Second ACTION:
Schedule your FAXES or we provide you with the link to FAX targets and you can FAX yourself.
Fax Congress Today and Demand Answers and Accountability in the Benghazi Cover-up!
Grassfire has set up a special FaxFire, giving team members a platform to call for an FULL INVESTIGATION into the Benghazi cover-up. Fax your members of Congress and other key members of the House and Senate to demand the truth before Wednesday's congressional hearing!
Click Here to schedule your FAX now
Third ACTION:
Join the social media
"Benghazi Blitz Campaign"

A. Look up your Senators and Reps on Facebook and hit their pages hard with We/I Demand the Truth on Benghazi!

B. Tweet/Twitter Campaign:
Click Here for the House and Senate Twitter Handles
Are you new to Twitter? Click Here for great instructions and how to advice on using Twitter: Patriot Action Network Twitter Attack
Tweet them with various messages:
Copy and paste, change the senators and reps to yours or create your own message!
Examples:
I demand truth on Benghazi @senjohnmccain @jeffflake#BenghaziTruth #benghazi #tcot #teaparty #gop #pan @senate_gops
I Demand Truth on Benghazi @RepGosar#BenghaziTruth #benghazi #tcot #teaparty @hrclinton @barackobama#whitehouse #pan
We Demand that you report Truth on Benghazi @msnbc @cnn @abcnews @nbcnews @cbsnews @usatoday#pan
Stand 4 Benghazi Truth @jeffflake @senjohnmccain @repgosar @DarrellIssa @gopwhip @speakerboehner @gopoversight  #tcot #tlot #gop #pan
Hashtags for Twitter:
#icon = Independent Conservatives
#xcot = Christian Conservatives on Twitter
#tpot = Top Patriots on Twitter
#tcot = Top Conservatives on Twitter
#tlot = Top Libertarians on Twitter
#ocra = Organized Conservative Resistance Alliance
#gop = Republican Party
#republicans
#teaparty
#right
#dnc = Democrat Party
#left
#liberals
#obama
#hillaryclinton
#BenghaziTruth
#benghazi
#obama
Other Accounts:
@patriotactionnw
@libertynews
@whitehouse
@barackObama
@HRClinton
@abcnews
@cbsnews
@cnn
@nbcnews
@msnbc
@usatoday
@DarrellIssa
@gopwhip
@speakerboehner
@gopoversight

Fourth ACTION:
Call your Rep and Senators!
Click Here for Contact Info
Follow us!
Start By Signing Our Petition:
Let us not give up or give in.
Keep the pressure on Congress with Facebook Messages, Tweets, Petitions, Faxes, and Phone Calls!
We Demand to Know the Truth!
http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6220517&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. CBS News

• Shares
• Tweets
• Stumble
• Email
• More +

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

Play Video

U.S. diplomat contradicts White House on Benghazi

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

• Three more officials to testify about Benghazi attacks
• Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"
• Full coverage: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi

Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

25 Photos

U.S. consulate attack in Libya

"I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.
Obama administration officials have insisted that no military resources could have made it in time. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies."
Hicks is expected to be the first ground-level eyewitness to speak publicly in the nearly eight months since the terrorist attacks that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. When Stevens went missing, Hicks became the Chief of Mission for the U.S. in Libya.
Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially indicated the attacks were not planned acts of terror, but an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islamic YouTube video. Unidentified government officials removed references to terrorism and al Qaeda from so-called "talking points" released to the public shortly after the attacks.

• FBI posts new pictures of Benghazi suspects
• Timeline: How Benghazi attack, investigation unfolded

Below are the released excerpts from Hicks' April interview with congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee.

Q: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]? A: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.
Q : The theory being, the folks on the ground that are doing these -- committing these terrorist attacks look up, see a heavy duty airplane above, and decide to hightail it?
A: I believe that if -- I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.
******
Q: I just wanted to ask, you mentioned permission from the Libyans. Why is that important? What did you mean by that?
A: Well, it's their country. And for an American military aircraft to fly over their country, we have to have permission from them to do so.
Q: So what would have been the risk of -- do you think it would have been risky for us to send someone, do you think it would have been counterproductive for us to send a fighter pilot plane over Benghazi without that permission?
A: We would have certainly wanted to obtain that permission. I believe we would have gotten it if we had asked. I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess. And, you know, they were as surprised as we were that American -- the military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of September 12. Yeah.
******
Q: So, at this point [at approximately 10:00 pm in Tripoli], you are talking to Washington, you are talking to your RSO Martinec, you are talking to RAO. Are you talking to the Defense Attache?
A: The Defense Attache is there, and he is immediately on the phone to Ministry of Defense and to chief of staff of the Libyan Armed Forces. He also notifies Joint Staff and AFRICOM. Our SOCAFRICA lead, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, connects with SOCAFRICA in Stuttgart, as well. And, obviously, RAO is also connected back home.
Q: Was there ever any thought at that time of the night to have an F-16, you know, fly over?
A: I called -- when we knew that -- I talked with the Defense Attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, "Is there anything coming?" And he said that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano.
******

A: And for the second time that night [Before 5:15 AM attack], I asked the Defense Attache, is there anything coming, is there anything out there to help our people from, you know, big military? And the answer, again, was the same as before.
Q: And what was that answer?
A: The answer was, it's too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond.
******

Q: So you had mentioned that the first team from Tripoli to Benghazi arrived at 1:15?
A: Right.
Q: And was there a second team that was organized? Could you tell us about the second team?
A: Right. The second team -- the Defense Attache worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way. Early in the morning -- sorry, after we were formally notified by the Prime Minister, who called me, that Chris had passed, the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time -- at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.
Q: So what time did the second rescue team ??
A: Well, again, they flew -- I think that flight took off sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m.
Q: At that point, you are the Chief of Mission?
A: Yeah, I'm Chief of Mission effective 3:00 a.m.
******

Q: Now, did any of the Special Forces folks, were they planning at any time to travel on that second aircraft?
A: On the second, on the C-130? Yes. We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum ...
******
A: So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight. And, of course, this meant that one of the ...
Q : They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight.
A: They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military." A nice compliment.
Q: Now, at this point, are you having communications with Washington?
A: I was in communications with Washington all night long. I was reporting all night long what was happening to Washington by telephone.
Q: When these Special Forces folks were told essentially to stand down, what was your next move? Did you have a recourse? Were you able to call Washington? Were you able to call anyone at this point to get that decision reversed?
A: No, because the flight was -- the flight was leaving. And, you know, if they missed -- you know, if the vehicles didn't leave when they leave, they would miss the flight time at the airport. And the airport -- you know, we were going all the way to Mitiga. The C-130 is at Mitiga, which is all the way on the other side of Tripoli.
Q: What was the rationale that you were given that they couldn't go, ultimately?
A: I guess they just didn't have the right authority from the right.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say

By James Rosen, Chad Pergram

Published May 06, 2013

FoxNews.com

Facebook5760 Twitter1586 LinkedIn50

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.
"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks."
Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.
The two U.S. officials -- former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering -- who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report.
"From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that's what we did," they said in a statement Monday.
The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News.
James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show "The Foxhole."

Advertisement