Friday, May 2, 2014

PLEASE APPLAUD THE EFFORTS OF Congressman Frank Wolf for getting the 190+ signatures for ‪#‎Benghazi‬ Special Committee NOT Speaker John Boehner

PLEASE APPLAUD THE EFFORTS OF Congressman Frank Wolf for getting the 190+ signatures for ‪#‎Benghazi‬ Special Committee NOT Speaker John Boehner
CLICK HIS NAME AND GO TO HIS PAGE TO HELP COMBAT THE LIBERALS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH HIM! GO SAY THANKS

US State-Sponsored Terrorism

US State-Sponsored Terrorism

 8
 15  3
 
 43
terrorism-ok-when-gov-does-it
Washington notoriously points fingers the wrong way. It whitewashes its own crimes.
Its latest Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 omits the world’s leading sponsor. More on it below.
Terrorism is what they do, not us, it’s claimed. Reasons why imperial wars are waged are suppressed.
Might justifies right. Nations are destroyed to free them. Lives and freedoms lost don’t matter. They’re small prices to pay.
Mind manipulation turns truth on its head. People are convinced wrongs are right. Wars are glorified in the name of peace.
Peaceful countries become cauldrons of violence. Instability rocks them. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and others are US imperial victims.
So is Ukraine. It’s a global flashpoint. Potentially it’s worst of all. It threatens to spin out-of-control. It risks regional conflict. Possible East/West confrontation looms.
Washington bears full responsibility for numerous world hot spots. Imperialism works this way. It instigates violence. It fosters instability.
It promotes state-sponsored terrorism. It’s what we do, not them. More on this below.
On April 30, the State Department issued its “annual assessment of trends and events in international terrorism…” It covers the period January 1 – December 31, 2013.
“It includes a strategic assessment, country-by-country breakdowns of counterterrorism efforts, and sections on state sponsors of terrorism, terrorist safe havens, and foreign terrorist organizations.”
It bears repeating. The world’s top sponsor by far is omitted. None in human history compare.
Washington uses Al Qaeda and similar groups strategically. They’re allies and enemies at the same time. They’re core elements of American imperial wars.
Tina Kaidanow is US ambassador-at-large and coordinator for counterterrorism. In 2013, terrorism evolved rapidly, she said.
“The international community’s successful efforts to degrade al-Qaida, or AQ, senior leadership in Pakistan, coupled with weak governance and instability in the Middle East and Northwest Africa have accelerated the decentralization of what we refer to as al-Qaida core,” she added.
“This has led to the affiliates in the AQ network becoming more operationally autonomous from AQ core and increasingly focused on local and regional objectives.”
“The past several years have seen the emergence of a more aggressive set of AQ affiliates and likeminded groups, most notably in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Northwest Africa, and Somalia.”
“Iran’s state-sponsorship of terrorism and Hezbollah’s activities are also of significant concern,” she claimed.
“Interdictions in the past year have found Iran attempting to smuggle arms and Iranian explosives to Syria, to Yemen, and also to arm Shia opposition groups in Bahrain.”
“And the IRGC Qods Force, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia militant groups have all been providing a broad range of critical support to the Assad regime since the start of the conflict.”
Fake Washington-hyped terror threats persist. It’s done to generate fear. America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Demagogic duplicity claims otherwise. It turns truth on its head.
Inconvenient truths are buried. Michael Parenti exposed the terrorism trap. He did so post-9/11. Wars are waged “to keep the world safe for the Fortune 500,” he said.
“To make sure that the transnational corporations and international global finance capital continues to control the land, labor, resources, and markets of most of the world, and ultimately, all of the world on terms that are extremely favorable to them.”
“The goal is to destroy, to obliterate, to thwart any social movement or national leader who is trying for an alternative way of using the land, the labor, the natural resources, the markets, the capital of his or her country.”
To institute a homeland police state apparatus. To destroy freedom in the name of stability. To lose both at the same time. To continue waging war on humanity.
To claim it’s about spreading democracy. To tolerate it nowhere. To crush it wherever it emerges. To institute Washington rules. To enforce hardline rule.
To demand absolute obedience. To tolerate no outliers. To ravage humanity in the name of saving it. To make planet earth unfit to live on.
State-sponsored terrorism defines US policy. Demagogic duplicity conceals it.
US law calls “international terrorism” activities involving:
(A) “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;”
(B) are intended to -
(i) “intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States….”
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984) called it “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature….through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.”
Merriam-Webster calls it “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”
The Oxford Dictionary calls it “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”
In his book “Terrorism, Theirs and Ours,” the late Eqbal Ahmad called state-sponsored terrorism most important of all.
It includes “torture, burning of villages, destruction of entire peoples, (and) genocide” on a massive scale.
It’s called “self-defense,” protecting “national security,” and/or “promoting democracy.” Doing so conceals America’s dark side. War on humanity follows.
“Who will define the parameters of terrorism, or decide where terrorists lurk,” asked Ahmad?
“Why none other than the United States, which can from the rooftops of the world set out its claim to be sheriff, judge and hangman, all at one and the same time.”
Martin Luther King called America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He did so for good reason.
It’s more menacing than ever. At stake is humanity’s survival. Aggression is called humanitarian intervention. Freedom is crushed for our own good.
Big Lies substitute for truth. They proliferate to advance America’s imperium. Mind manipulation convinces people to go along.
Eastern Ukrainian freedom fighters are called terrorists. US-led NATO takes full advantage.
Eastern European deployments continue. Doing so encroaches provocatively closer to Russia’s borders.
Georgia and Russia share a common one. Its Defense Minister Irakli Alasania wants more NATO troops deployed internally.
He calls them “defensive actions,” saying:
“(T)his is something we need to put in Georgia and Russians will understand that you are serious.”
Americans and Europeans must work together, he stressed. It’s “important for the United States to show leadership…to make sure (NATO’s) next steps will be an adequate response to what’s happening in Ukraine.”
“We are talking about the Membership Action Plan, but we don’t really know how these discussions will end up, while, honestly, in fact after (developments in) Ukraine we should be talking about accession talks of Georgia and other aspirants to NATO.”
According to NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow:
“We need to step up our support for defense reforms and military modernization of Russia’s neighbors, and not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.”
On April 27, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined“Russian and Ukrainian armies shaping up for initial military clash over Slavyansk,” saying:
“The outcome will determine who controls the Donetsk region and possibly all of East of Ukraine…”
“(I)t might be the last straw that undermines (Kiev’s) shaky rule.” Ukraine’s military is no match against Russia’s.
“Its threat to blockade the more than a dozen towns where separatists are entrenched in official buildings is unconvincing.”
DF sees no broad international coalition for a “strong stand” against Russia forthcoming. Obama may be largely on his own.
On April 30, the Wall Street Journal headlined ”Americans Want to Pull Back From World Stage, Poll Finds.”
“Nearly Half Surveyed in WSJ/NBC Poll Back Anti-Interventionist Stance That Sweeps Across Party Lines.”
Only 38% of Americans approve how Obama handles foreign policy. It’s the low water mark of his presidency.
According to Democrat pollster Fred Yang:
“The juxtaposition of an America that wants to turn inward and away from world affairs, and a strong feeling of powerlessness domestically, is a powerful current that so far has eluded the grasp of Democrats and Republicans.”
“The message from the American public to their leaders in this poll seems to be: You need to take care of business here at home.”
Public support for Obama’s handling Ukrainian crisis conditions dropped to 37%. In March it was 43%.
On April 30, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Washington isn’t “concerned (about) the fate of Ukraine…but (has) a strong desire to prove (it) decides how things should be – always and everywhere.”
Lavrov wants US officials to “discipline” putschists it elevated to power. Do it instead of sanctioning Russia, he stressed.
Moscow urges constructive dialogue, he added. “US and EU representatives have blocked this initiative,” he said.
“We’ll continue to call for the full implementation of the Geneva Declaration, which our partners are trying to distance themselves from.”
“But we cannot decide for the self-defense forces. Those people live under a constant threat coming from Kiev that the military and armored vehicles will be used against them; under constant threat from the extremists.”
At the same time, Russia bashing persists. Eight Republican senators introduced hostile legislation.
If enacted, it’ll strengthen NATO, enhance missile defense for offense, provide military aide to Ukraine, and sanction Russia’s banking and energy sectors.
On Wednesday, coup-appointed president Oleksandr Turchynov said Ukraine’s military went on full alert.
“Special tactical exercises” were held. Military forces were deployed on Kiev streets.
On Tuesday, Moscow’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said Kiev, “encouraged by Western ‘friends,’ is persistently pushing the country towards a catastrophe.”
US imperialism bears full responsibility. State terrorism defines it. War on humanity persists.
Ukraine is in the eye of the storm. Flashpoint conditions risk spreading things out-of-control.
Obama’s latest imperial adventurism risks global war. He’s mindless about what’s potentially unfolding.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Report says Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi

Report says Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi

See also

A post at the Conservative Report Online made the shocking claim that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 terror attack that saw four Americans killed, citing only unnamed "confidential sources." The report was discussed by Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday and an editorial at the Investor's Business Daily said Wednesday that it would not have been the first time Jarrett issued such an order.
"The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President's Advisor, Valerie Jarrett," Chip Jones wrote.
Limbaugh said that if the story is true, it would explain "all of the serial lies and the cover-ups and the obfuscation and all of the efforts that were made to distract people's attention from this."
"Somebody had to give the order, and Obama was off the grid. That has always, to me, been one of the most interesting aspects of Benghazi. Five o'clock he tells Panetta and whoever else -- we were originally told that Hillary, secretary of state, was there, too," he added.
Naturally, the ultra-left wing Media Matters weighed in, attacking Limbaugh for mentioning the story.
Others also reported on Jones' account, but did not get scrutinized by Media Matters.
The Blaze said the allegations are worth noting for two main reasons:
  1. The White House hasn’t been forthcoming with details about the deadly terror attack. In fact, the administration has gone out of its way to craft blatantly false narratives involving a YouTube video; and
  2. It’s been widely reported that Jarrett’s influence has shaped our management of international crises, specifically her role in convincing President Obama to call off the planned raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout three separate times.
Meredith Jessup said she is taking the report with a grain of salt, but added that the burden of proof is on the White House, since it "has worked overtime to muddy the water and obfuscate the truth."
Now the administration is claiming the entire scandal is "phony," a mere distraction cooked up by Republicans to keep Congress from acting on Obama's economic plans.
"Until the Obama administration is forthright and truthful with the American people, the rumor mill will continue churning out reports from unnamed sources," Jessup added.
Video of Limbaugh's on-air segment can be seen here.
Related:

WARNING -- Rogue Mexican Army troops cross border, attack Americans...

WARNING -- Rogue Mexican Army troops cross border, attack Americans...


SASABE, SONORA - Has a unit of Mexican Army soldiers who patrol right on the Arizona border gone rogue?
This small group has attacked U.S. citizens, and even challenged U.S. federal agents within the U.S. A News 4 Tucson investigation into the dangerous world of rogue soldiers in mexico's military.
In January, soldiers from this lonely outpost of the Mexican Army drew their guns on U.S. Border Patrol agents just 50 yards into the United States. Then in March, they opened fire on Javier Jose Rodriguez, a young Tucson man visiting family in Sásabe when he was driving around the town early on a Saturday morning after drinking beers with friends. Rodriguez was shot in the arm and in the side, he spent three weeks at University of Arizona Medical Center.
The United States' reaction has been tepid, angering people who live and patrol along the Arizona border.
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) revealed details of the January encounter between soldiers from this base and the Border Patrol. In a letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Coburn said a lone agent encountered two Mexican soldiers 50 yards inside the U.S. The agent and the soldiers drew their weapons; the soldiers carried G-3 rifles.
"From what I understand, this has happened hundreds of times before," says Sylvia Longmire, a border security analyst whose recent book, Border Insecurity, details the challenges and failings of some Homeland Security operations along the Arizona-Sonora border. The soldiers told the agent they'd gotten lost while pursuing a drug smuggler.
"However, I believe there was some confusion as to whether that's what the Mexican Army was doing because there was no evidence found by the Border Patrol of any drug smugglers in the area," Longmire said.
Reports obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act show that members of Mexico's Army have crossed into the U.S. at least 300 times over the past 18 years.
On a Tuesday morning, KVOA's Lupita Murillo spoke with the commander of the base. He said the last unit rotated out and that an entirely new unit took its place.
But reports show that across the entire border, soldiers have driven into Texas, landed helicopters in Texas' Rio Grande Valley and encountered Border Patrol agents within the United States.

Gunmen attack security headquarters in Benghazi killing 9 police, soldiers

Gunmen attack security headquarters in Benghazi killing 9 police, soldiers

Gunmen attacked a security forces headquarters in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi early Friday, killing nine people and wounding 24, authorities said, blaming an Islamic extremist group allegedly behind the attack of a U.S. diplomatic post there.
A security official said the attack started when dozens of gunmen opened fire with machine guns and mortars. The onslaught lasted for an hour, with the fighting heard miles away.
Libyan commandos later arrived and fought the attackers, though the official said they suffered heavy casualties. A statement issued by the interim government and read by Cabinet spokesman Ahmed al-Amin put the death toll at nine people. Milad al-Zowi, a commando spokesman, said the dead were six army commandos and three police officers. Al-Zowe said that three soldiers and a police officer were missing after the battle.
A local hospital official said some of the slain troops were badly butchered, with some corpses burned.
The official said his hospital treated 24 people wounded in the fighting, with most suffering gunshot wounds to the chest and the abdomen. Some were in critical condition, he said.
The government said a number of militants were killed, while others were wounded and arrested. The statement did not elaborate.
Attackers likely tried to get their hands on a car loaded with weapons and ammunition that the security forces had confiscated the previous night, authorities added.  A security official at the Benghazi headquarters, Gamal al-Amami, said the driver of the vehicle belonged to the Libya Shield militia.
The hospital official and security official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists.
The government's statement blamed Ansar al-Shariah, a hard-line Islamist militia, for Friday's attack, along with other "criminal groups."
The government condemned the attack and said they will not accept "the presence of armed and illegal terrorist groups."
Ansar al-Shariah is blamed for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11, 2012.
In January, the U.S. State Department designated the two branches of the Ansar al-Shariah in Libya and a third branch in Tunisia as foreign terrorist organizations.
Benghazi, the birthplace of the 2011 uprising that led to the downfall of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, has witnessed a series of attacks, targeted killings and bombings, mostly striking soldiers and police officers who served under the ousted ruler.
Libya has seen a severe deterioration in security and the government has depended on unruly militias in the absence of a strong police force or a unified military.
On Tuesday, a car bomb exploded in front of a military compound in Benghazi, killing two soldiers and wounding two. Later Friday, a car bomb killed a soldier driving his vehicle in Benghazi, officials said.

Time's Joe Klein Says CNN has 'Gone in the Toilet'

Hillary Clinton: Source of the Benghazi Video Lie

Hillary Clinton: Source of the Benghazi Video Lie

benghazi hillary

Yesterday we reported on the revelation that the White House made a conscious decision to blame the sacking of our Benghazi consulate on a silly and sparsely distributed internet video called Innocence of Muslims. In an email distributed by Ben Rhodes, senior policy makers, among them Susan Rice, are told to 1) blame the internet video for the violence, 2) deflect attention from greater policy failures (one presumes he’s talking about everything the Obama regime had touched), and 3) emphasize Obama’s cool and collected leadership.
[It was noted in the post yesterday that Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News David Rhodes and this might explain some of the difficulty former CBS reporter Sharly Atkisson had in getting Benghazi stories aired on CBS.]
Now that we know that the White House was actively involved in pushing a blatant lie about the genesis of the Benghazi attack in order to deflect blame it is only fair to ask who came up with the story to begin with.

What we know

A two minute clip of the Innocence of Muslims video was shown on Egyptian television on September 9.
On September 11, an Egyptian mob (actual or astroturf, no one knows because astroturf mobs were the norm in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood) demonstrated outside, and on, the US Embassy in Cairo.
From a timeline produced by Factcheck.org, we know that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi on September 11, the day of the attack.
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
The attack began at around 4pm, EDT, by 8:30pm our ambassador was dead, at 10pm Hillary Clinton issued this statement:
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.
This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet [my emphasis]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.
On September 14, Ben Rhodes drafted the talking points for Susan Rice and others.
While Rhodes was helping the lie get its trousers on for its ride around the world, Hillary Clinton was at Dover AFB to witness the return of the coffins of the Americans killed in Benghazi. She had this to say:
This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.
On September 15, the man who produced Innocence of Muslims, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was arrested on parole violations.

Hillary as Ground Zero for the Internet video lie

The State Department was keenly aware of the Innocence of Muslims video, its airing on Egyptian television, and the demonstrations at the US Embassy in Cairo. One presumes Susan Rice might have known about the video, if staff communications between State and its Ambassador the UN, Susan Rice, existed, however, that presumption might be a stretch:
Rice has been consistently silent on other important issues and ineffective when she does engage. She skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident.
Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab Spring revolution last year.  Rice stayed silent when Iran was elected to the U.N. women’s committee, she didn’t call out Libya when it was elected to the Human Rights Council, she was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood.  When she actually does show up, she is a miserable failure.
We also know that the State Department was aware that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi and all had been calm when the mission there closed for the day.
The attack on Benghazi occurred around 4pm, Washington time. This means that Hillary, Rice, and all of State and the NSC were at their desks receiving reports in near real time. The statement Hillary released was not something cobbled together in the middle of the night. It was drafted with the full complement of staff at their desks and represents a deliberate distortion of the facts known to Hillary at the time she released the statement. At the time, the Obama regime was under a lot of criticism for turning what had been a friendly nation, Egypt, over to our enemies. The sugar high of overthrowing the hapless and frightened Muammar Qaddafi and seeing him replaced by al Qaeda along with Obama’s incomprehensible Syrian strategy was calling into question the competence of the regime. Hillary had to have known how damaging it would be for al Qaeda franchises, enabled by Obama’s policy to carve out training areas in Libya, to be blamed for the attack. Hence the original statement issued shortly after our ambassador was killed.
Sometime after 10:30 pm on September 11, the official policy of the United States became the lie of the internet video. It was repeated when Clinton went to Dover to welcome home the remains of the slain Americans. Now, though, the gravity of the lie seems to have been weighing on Clinton. If you were alive during the Clinton regime, you learned to carefully parse each and every word uttered by both Bill and Hillary. Their parsimony with the truth became encapsulated in the statement “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Here you will note that while Hillary seems to blame Innocence of Muslims video… but does she?
 We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.
In the context of what was being said and the occasion, the listener could not help but understand her as blaming the video for the deaths. In reality, her statement shows she made two disconnected statements, both of which were factually true. There was an attack on Benghazi. There was rage and violence directed against at least one embassy. She doesn’t link them as she did the night of September 11.

Conclusion

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton knew there were no protests in Benghazi. When the consulate was attacked a decision was made, ultimately okayed by Hillary, to blame Innocence of Muslims for the attack. She did this because the regime’s foreign policy in the Arab world was in shambles and the attack in Benghazi was made possible by that foreign policy. She knew that as Secretary of State she couldn’t blame anyone else and this would kill her chances of winning the presidency in 2016. Despite having time to think about it and walk the statement back as something drafted based on incomplete information, she pushed the lie forward. The regime had adopted this lie as its version of events by September 14 and sent it out in talking points.
There is no other conclusion to reach other than Hillary Clinton was the author of the lie about what caused the attack in Benghazi and she must be held accountable for that.

Benghazi probe: General tells lawmakers no one asked military to save Americans

Benghazi probe: General tells lawmakers no one asked military to save Americans

See also

A former upper-echelon military intelligence officer who was the deputy director of the U.S. African Command testified before lawmakers on Thursday that the U.S. Department of State, headed by Hillary Clinton, never once asked the U.S. military to save the lives of Americans being slaughtered at the Benghazi, Libya, United States diplomatic mission, according to a videotape from the U.S. Congress.
In response to the alleged 'smoking gun' email written by a White House staff member for then-U.S. Secretary to the United Nations Susan Rice -- which was released by the public-interest group Judicial Watch on Tuesday to Fox News and the Examiner by JW's Jill Farrell -- the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday held a special session to investigate the latest allegations of an Obama Administration cover-up.
A major witness called to testify before Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and other panel members was retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, the former Deputy Director of Intelligence for the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), claims that no one at the U.S. State Department requested a military response to attempt to save Americans under attack in Benghazi.
During his testimony, when asked about the feelings of military personnel in the AFRICOM operations room at the time of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate, Brig. Gen. Lovell said, "It was desperation there… it was desperation to gain situational awareness and to be able to do something to save people’s lives."
Upon being asked if U.S. assets in Europe went "into the sound of the guns? Did they actually go into Benghazi?" Lovell replied, "No."
He went on to say, "Basically, there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what they wanted and the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have."
Chairman Issa then stated, "We didn’t run to the sound of the guns? They were issuing press releases. We had Americans dying. We had dead people. We had wounded people. And our military didn’t try to engage in that fight. Would you disagree with that?"
To which Brig. Gen. Lovell simply replied, "Not to my knowledge, sir."
Brig. Gen. Lovell also testified that the Benghazi attack and slaughter “was not -- not an escalation [of a protest]. It was an attack.”

Devastating Benghazi Timeline: Obama Was Suspiciously Missing (PICTURE)

Devastating Benghazi Timeline: Obama Was Suspiciously Missing (PICTURE)

The events surrounding the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi have slowly come to light over the recent months, with blame being placed on everyone from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to President Barack Obama. In true political fashion, each person accused has attempted to cover up his own mistakes.
Some of the media even attempted to blame the events on Ambassador Stevens. But we know that Hillary Clinton  was the one who had security at the embassy cut by over 70 percent shortly before the attack.
We also know that Barack Obama has already threatened to destroy a reporter’s career for exposing his lies about Benghazi. He is finding it harder and harder to cover up his actions as people finally begin to catch on to his role in the events.
The real shocker has been revealed by the Government Accountability Institute’s Benghazi timeline published on Wednesday, which indicated that Obama was completely absent the day of and the days leading up to the attack:
The bottom line is that this should not have happened. Obama’s utter negligence and complete disregard for the safety of Americans should not be overlooked. He cannot simply ignore blatant security concerns, ignore his role as Commander-in-Chief, and spend his time campaigning and making speeches instead of attending crucial intelligence briefings. His priorities are clearly way out of line and resulted in a catastrophic situation that cost four American lives.
Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about President Obama’s gross inadequacies and utter failure to perform his duties as Commander in Chief.

Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/obama-missing-during-benghazi/#uFHTjM2EEeMMpcoX.99

IMPEACH: Official Says Obama NEVER Went Into Situation Room During Benghazi Attack [VIDEO]

IMPEACH: Official Says Obama NEVER Went Into Situation Room During Benghazi Attack [VIDEO]

Obama has neglected his most basic duties as Commander-in-Chief so many times that it’s actually quite frightening.
He skipped a key national security meeting right in the middle of the Ukraine crisis, then had the gall to do it AGAIN.
On Benghazi, he was suspiciously missing from the picture when we were given more details about the timeline of the attack and the response from Washington.
Now, the former NSA spokesperson admitted that Obama never even entered the situation room during the attack.  Simply amazing.
Via IJ Review:
In a contentious interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vietor admitted that Barack Obama never even entered the situation room even as the attack continued at the Benghazi consulate.
Ironically, he was trying to defend the president when he made this comments, by criticizing Fox News for airing reports that Obama watched the attack unfold from the Situation Room.
Watch the video here.
When did America become so complacent that we allowed this degree of dereliction of duty from our president go unpunished?  It’s past time for Obama to answer for his actions during the Benghazi attack and finally be investigated by a special congressional committee and then impeached.  Do you agree?
Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about Obama’s blatant neglect of his basic duties.

Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/obama-missing-situation-room/#83hFsVsJm2fpc1X9.99

IMPEACH: Official Says Obama NEVER Went Into Situation Room During Benghazi Attack [VIDEO]

Obama has neglected his most basic duties as Commander-in-Chief so many times that it’s actually quite frightening.
He skipped a key national security meeting right in the middle of the Ukraine crisis, then had the gall to do it AGAIN.
On Benghazi, he was suspiciously missing from the picture when we were given more details about the timeline of the attack and the response from Washington.
Now, the former NSA spokesperson admitted that Obama never even entered the situation room during the attack.  Simply amazing.
Via IJ Review:
In a contentious interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vietor admitted that Barack Obama never even entered the situation room even as the attack continued at the Benghazi consulate.
Ironically, he was trying to defend the president when he made this comments, by criticizing Fox News for airing reports that Obama watched the attack unfold from the Situation Room.
Watch the video here.
When did America become so complacent that we allowed this degree of dereliction of duty from our president go unpunished?  It’s past time for Obama to answer for his actions during the Benghazi attack and finally be investigated by a special congressional committee and then impeached.  Do you agree?
Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about Obama’s blatant neglect of his basic duties.

Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/obama-missing-situation-room/#83hFsVsJm2fpc1X9.99

Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?

Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?

By , Communities Digital News
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 – Can Republicans demand the truth about Benghazi?
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
wh-email-re-benghazi
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’

READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents

And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.

READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans

It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-166Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/#zJgPoRlOSy4Qh5Jc.99

Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
It is because the second building, that most Americans don’t know about not because it isn’t out there, but because the media kept the focus on the Villa where Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were killed, was in fact a CIA annex?
Charlene Lamb, an official in the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security, acknowledged that an intelligence post was located about 1.2 miles form the U.S. mission.

READ ALSO: Uncloaking the layers of the Benghazi tragedy


On September 10, 2012 al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012. The date for the attacks, September 11, was to coincide with the 10 year anniversary of the radical Islam attack on America.
The State Department, CIA and White House were all aware that attacks were imminent and it is hard to not believe that the Villa and annex were not primary targets.
That no longer secret annex took “as many” as three direct hits during the attack. Glen Doherty and Tryrone Woods, both CIA, were killed in what has been categorized as an unlikely mortar strike after they held their position.
That annex post was used, at least in part, to collect information on the looting of Libyan arsenal including surface-to-air missiles. That post was fortified including sensor and cameras, which the villa where Stevens died was not.
That both the outpost, that has been described as a safe hour for diplomatic personnel and the villas where Stevens died, were attacked by al Qaeda militants is not in dispute.

READ ALSO: The CIA that saved Dick Holm but failed Charles Wood, Chris Doherty at Benghazi


After the attack at the Villa, U.S. and Libyan personal, were sent to the annex.
CNN uncovered that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attack, and CNN reports that:
“…that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”
The rescue of Stevens and Smith at the Villa was bungled. That Woods and Doherty held their position unassisted for more than seven hours, even as Clinton and Obama watched and did nothing, is unacceptable to most Americans.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed the need to remove mentions of specific terrorists groups and CIA warning, prior to the attack. But she was not alone in wanting to protect information.  Internal disagreements at the CIA included whether the attack should be characterized as a pre-planned act of terror following the protests in Cairo over the anti-Muslim video.
Whatever the final story, the fact the the truth was avoided in favor of talking points for members of Congress and the American people is sickening.
Note that the subject line of the memo is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review” because Congress and Americans were being handled by the Administration.
The question then becomes is was that at the behest of the CIA protecting secrets or an Administration protecting Middle Eastern relationships as, if they had said it was a terrorist attack, American’s may have demanded retaliation.
.
“In the email [deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”

READ ALSO: How America failed, and continues to fail, at Benghazi investigation


Those emails also includes an email from Rhodes for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now infamous talk show appearances including her Sunday, September 16 appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation:
SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
 BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
BOB SCHIEFFER: There seems to be demonstrations in more than twenty cities as far as we know yesterday. Is there any sense that this is leveling off?
SUSAN RICE: Well, on Friday, of course, I think that’s what you’re referring to– there– there were a number of places around the world in which there were protests, many of them peaceful, some of them turned violent. And our emphasis has been– and the President has been very, very clear about this, priority number one is protection of American personnel and facilities. And we have been working now very constructively with host governments around the world to provide the kind of protection we need and to condemn the violence. What happens going forward I think it would be unwise for any of us to predict with certainty. Clearly the last couple of days have seen a reduction in protests and a reduction in violence. I don’t want to predict what the next days will yield.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The Romney campaign continues to criticize the administration. Paul Ryan was on the campaign trail yesterday saying that the Obama administration has diminished America’s presence overseas and our image, a direct quote, “If we project– if we project weakness, they come. If we are strong, our adversaries will not test us and our allies will respond to us.” What’s your response to that?
SUSAN RICE: It’s two-fold. First of all, Bob, I think the American people expect in times of challenge overseas for our leaders to be unified and to come together and to be steadfast and steady and calm and responsible and that certainly what President Obama has been. With respect to what I think is a very empty and baseless charge of weakness, let’s be plain, I think American people know the record very well. President Obama said when he was running for President that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on al Qaeda. We’ve decimated al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is gone. He also said we would end the war in Iraq responsibly. We’ve done that. He has protected civilians in Libya, and Qaddafi is gone. I serve up at the United Nations and I see every day the difference in how countries around the world view the United States. They view us as a partner. They view us as somebody they want to work with. They view President Obama as somebody they trust. Our standing in the world is much stronger so this charge of weakness is really quite baseless.
In those emails Rhodes’ says Rice’s objectives would be, as the above transcript shows: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Judicial Watch announced (April 29) that they had obtained 31 new Benghazi related State Department documents as a result of their Freedom of Information Acti (FOIA) lawsuit filed agains the State Department.
In those documents is “… a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”  Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.”
We know the truth. But if the truth ever really came out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I don’t think America could handle it. They would, instead, continue to bow down to the alter of mistruths and obfuscation that are hallmarks of this administration.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/2/#pKHDuwFvPfQ50vku.99
86/#zJgPoRlOSy4Qh5Jc.99

Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?

By , Communities Digital News
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice are all part of the Benghazi question
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 – Can Republicans demand the truth about Benghazi?
House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner are announcing the formation of a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Party to that will be the subpoenaing of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Which begs the question: Do we know the truth about Benghazi? Can we handle the truth about Benghazi?
If we look back to May of 2013, questions about the September 11, 2011 attacks at Benghazi were still being asked close to two years after the attack. Nearly a year ago (May 14, 2013) a leaked White House Email sent by Benjamin Rhodes, a top aide to President Obama discusses the Administrations reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
wh-email-re-benghazi
If, as Rhodes says, there is a “ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain…” why did the President, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Jay Carney and everyone else that stood there repeating the same falsehoods, lie to us saying it was about a film?
Why has there been nearly three years of smoke screens and misdirections?
On April 30, 2014, and with unbelievable hubris, Jay Carney continues to lie about the White House’s influences on Rice’s media tour stating that Rhodes email and Rice’s talking points were not about the Benghazi attack, but the overall protests in the region including Cairo, Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.’

READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents

And that the White House did not, even though Rhodes email says differently, provide talking points to Rice saying that the video was the catalyst for the attacks.
Even when everyone knew different.
CNN (Jake Tapper/The Lead) reported in May of 2014 that 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi and that of those thirty, at least 20 were CIA employees leading to the conclusion that the mission in Benghazi was covert.
There are two known objectives for the teams in Benghazi per reports: Countering the terrorist threat from extremists pouring into the country and helping to secure the flood of weapons after the fall of Ghadafi, the fear being that they were weapons that could have gone to terrorists.
The CIA roles, particularly in their relationship to the Libyan state arsenals at risk, have escaped scrutiny as the focus has instead been turned onto the State Department and their failure to heed growing signs of terrorist threat and/or the political debate as to why the White House downplayed the terrorist attack.

READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans

It is because the White House doesn’t want us to know the truth? It is because the CIA needs to protect the truth?
It is national security, or a bungling administration that felt that the collateral damage of a few Americans were an acceptable price to pay? And pay for what? To protect secrets? To protect radical Islam? To protect the incompetence of our sitting leaders?
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama led the cheerleading cry that Benghazi was the fault of a filmmaker even as they, and the American people knew, that it was the actions of radical terrorists.
It was just one more lie told to us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They were complicit in the arrest of the filmmaker, removing him from public, and press questioning.
Read more

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/can-we-handle-the-truth-about-benghazi-16686/#zJgPoRlOSy4Qh5Jc.99