TRR: Is a General losing his job over Benghazi?

e also the update that General Ham is retiring from the force.
(Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.
On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force.” News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.
However on October 26, “Ambassador” posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):
I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below. 
quote:

---

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

---

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. 

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command. 

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom. 
This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply said the wrong thing to the wrong people. Perhaps he gave whomever he was talking to up the chain a piece of his mind about leaving Americans to die when there was a chance of saving them. At the very least U.S. forces might have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene. The Obama White House is famously vindictive against perceived disloyalty – the administration would not let Ham get away with scolding them for failing to show the leadership necessary to save American lives. The Army’s ethos is to leave no man behind, but that is not shared by a president accustomed to leading from that location.
The question remains why the repeated requests – which is to say desperate pleas – to send a relief force were refused. Perhaps Mr. Obama and his national security brain trust thought the terrorist assault would be a minor skirmish and quickly blow over. When it became clear that the attack was something more serious, they may have had visions of the rescue team getting involved in a Mogadishu-like firefight, a “Blackhawk Down 2.” This would have been too much for the risk-averse Mr. Obama, particularly in a Muslim country, and less than two months before the election. Instead they simply watched the live video hoped for the best. If there were American fatalities, they felt they could shift blame for the circumstance to the supposed Youtube video which they had already blamed for the riot at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier. In fact the Embassy had sent out its “apology” tweets even before the Cairo riot commenced.
Hillary Clinton’s freakishly bizarre statement on September 14 is also worth noting. At a memorial service to the fallen she told Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that “we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed Tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened.
But since when does the Secretary of State feel it is her duty to promise to have an American filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? For all the bowing and scraping to Islam that has gone on in the last four years, blasphemy against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. The First Amendment still exists. It is strange that Mrs. Clinton believed that the parents of the slain Americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing. But as Mr. Woods said, he “could tell that she was not telling me the truth.” Indeed the truth has been the fifth casualty in this entire tragic affair.

UPDATE: On Sunday October 28 I received the following communique from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little:
“The insinuations in your story are flat wrong.  General Ham is an outstanding leader of AFRICOM.  Future leadership changes at this important command have absolutely nothing to do with the attack on American personnel in Benghazi.  The leadership changes have been long planned.” 
Of course I never suggested that General Ham was anything other than an outstanding leader of AFRICOM and in fact said as much. But why is an outstanding leader of this important command leaving after less than two years when all other combatant commanders have longer tenures? General Ham’s predecessor stayed in the job much longer and was generally less well regarded. Further discussion of these issues may help begin to restore the administration’s credibility on the Benghazi issue.

UPDATE 2: On Monday October 29 General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, released the following statement:
“The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/print/#ixzz2fOvhY6xS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, PART IV: The Politics

September 30th, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

[Translate]

---

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

86 Votes

09.30.2012 original publish date
10.28.2012 update (there were NO protests before Benghazi attack – ABC News Video)

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speak at the White House Rose Garden about U.S Embassy attacks and American deaths in Libya (09-12-2012 Image Credit: Evan Vucci/ AP).

U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, Part IV: The Politics

original article written by Net Advisor™

Excerpt: This is Part IV of our 5-part series report on not just recent, but numerous terrorists attacks on U.S. Embassies and staff covering especially the last four years. The Obama Administration has blamed a “video” for recent terrorists attacks against U.S. Embassies and staff in Libya. The Administration claims they didn’t know the recent attacks were coming. We have found that the Administration has done very little to keep U.S. Embassies and staff safe from ongoing attacks.
Part IV discusses the defensiveness of the Administration, who knew what and when; the politics in how the Administration changed their story on what really happened on September 11, 2012 in Libya.

[1] U.S. Libya Foreign Policy Fiasco Turns Ugly from Inside the State Department
Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s  “longtime aide and personal spokesman at the State Department,” Philippe Reines called reporter an “unmitigated a**hole” and told him to  “F*** off” over Libya questions (Source: DailyMail.UK).
White House Re-framer (officially, “press secretary”) Jay Carney (video above) said that the recent attacks against U.S. Embassies (all over the world) have nothing to do with U.S. policy, “obviously” the Obama Administration, or the people of the United States.

“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people…”
— Source: Mediate.com

Obviously?
So the attacks against other U.S. Embassies and staff by radical religious groups who use the exact same or similar tactics as they did in Libya on September 11, 2012, have nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Middle-East? It’s all random and coincidental? There is no way that terrorists can organize and commit massive murder or destruction? Hint 9/11/2001. And 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Middle-East either?

[2] White House says ‘Libya Was Not a Planned Attack?’ (9-14-2012 Video)

[3] Who Knew What and When?
The Obama Administration denies knowing anything about upcoming U.S. attack that was published in a British newspaper prior to the attack (PDF);
The U.S. government knew in advance of potential harm to Americans and U.S. Embassies in the Middle-east [Sources: Reuters, The Independent.UK (PDF)];
[4] President Obama Skipping Daily Intelligence Briefings?
A report indicated that President Obama has only kept up with 536 daily intelligence briefings in his 1,225 days in office (or 56%) (PDF); and apparently skipped intelligence briefing since September 5th, canceled a scheduled intelligence meeting to “comfort” State Department workers, and instead of rescheduling the meeting, goes to a Vegas political campaign fundraiser.

“According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli.
The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should.
But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.”
— Source: Washington Post (PDF)

The American killings took place on the 11th Anniversary of September 11th WTC terrorist attacks (PDF – highlight added);
The initial U.S. government reaction to the murdered Americans was to issue an apology to the Muslim religion for ‘hurting their feelings’ (PDF);
Instead of immediately securing U.S. Embassies and Americans in current high risk areas, President Obama went on a radio show with a radio DJ named “Pimp with the Limp” (PDF), then went on a (per-recorded) show for David Letterman (PDF), went to a Washington DC fundraiser (Fri 09-14-2012) to collect $1.4 million for the 2012 campaign & Democrat party (PDF); took just 1 hour out of his busy campaign schedule at the State Department (PDF) before heading on over to La Vegas and Colorado to campaign (PDF.) Obama told Americans to avoid Las Vegas in 2010 (PDF).
President Obama also blew off Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who asked to schedule a meeting about Iranian nuke developments. The White House said he could not meet because the Israeli Prime Minister because of Obama’s (above) “busy schedule” (PDF – highlight added).
What we know is contrary to the Obama Administration’s view that they didn’t know anything about these events in advance, the U.S. Embassy in Egypt sent most everyone home because of an “upcoming protest.”

In Egypt (BEFORE U.S. Embassy in Cairo and Libya came under attack:
“Almost all the staff had left before the embassy was breached, a US official said. Only a few staff members were still inside, as embassy security had sent most staff home early after learning of the upcoming protest.”
— Source: Guardian.UK (PDF) (share link)

So we know that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt knew in advance that major demonstrations against the U.S. were coming.
[5] Other U.S. Embassies Issue Advisement
The U.S. Embassy in Algiers advised Americans in the region that “unspecified groups are using online social networks to organize demonstrations in front of the embassy “to protest a range of issues” (Source: Boston.com). U.S. Embassies in other countries also advised Americans in the region to be cautious (Source: Fox News).
[6] Intelligence Agencies Warned U.S. Embassy
A report suggested an intelligence agency issued a cable, warning the U.S. Embassy in Egypt of potential violence – before the violence protest occurred (Source: Reuters).
[7] U.S. Knew of Video Did Not Consider Risk
The Obama Administration claimed (video above) it has no prior knowledge of the attacks. Yet, the United States knew that this controversial video trailer was aired on a talk show in the Middle-East (Source: Reuters). The Administration did not have the insight to consider that this hot bed region could be a potential security risk to U.S. or Western assets.
An unnamed U.S. officials believed that the attack on the Ambassador and the Embassy was planned in advance.

“US officials said last night they believed the attack in Benghazi may have been planned some time ago and the protests over the film used as a cover.”
— Source: The Independent.UK, 09-13-2012 (PDF – highlight added)

The only problems with this, is that we now know that there were NO PROTESTS in Benghazi, Libya before the attack on the U.S. Embassy on or just before 09-11-2012.
Video:
The Obama government had intelligence in advance that such Mideast violence could happen to U.S. Embassies in advance.

“The cable, dispatched from Washington on September 10, the day before protests erupted, advised the embassy the broadcasts could provoke violence.”
— Source: Reuters

So we know that the Obama Administration had advance notice of risk of upcoming organized “protests” against U.S. Embassies in the region. We also know that the 11th anniversary of September 11 was coming the next day. The Administration did not bother to increase security for Americans or for U.S. Embassies?
We know that on September 3, 2012, eight days before the U.S. Embassy attacks in Egypt and Libya, two Pakistani employees working for the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan were killed by a suicide bomber who rammed a U.S. consulate vehicle. Over a dozen other people were wounded including two Americans stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Peshawar (Source: Reuters).
We also know that just two days before the 11th anniversary of September 11th (2001), some 58 people were killed throughout Iraq including a car bomb near the French Embassy (Source: Reuters PDF).

Despite these recent terrorists attacks just two and eight days prior to the attacks in Libya and other U.S. Embassies, the Obama Administration did not bother to increase security to Embassies in the region.

Then, suddenly the Obama Administration claims they were “caught by surprise” of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya where the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed (Source: Army Times).
This Libya attack seems to have been deliberately timed with the 11th anniversary of September 11 (2001):

“Wanis al-Sharef, eastern Libya’s deputy interior minister, said on Thursday the attacks were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action.”
— Source: Fox News, 09-13-2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

[8] Not Likely a “Small Savage Group” Madam Secretary
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the attackers on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya was a “small and savage group” (Source: Washington Post (PDF) – highlight added).
I studied behavioral psychology and spent part of my senior year in college doing a research report of the history of terrorism and terrorist behavior. The report focused on international terrorism and the challenges it presented at the time to U.S. intelligence. The report included analyzing communications from a speech by then Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), William Casey who served under President Ronald Reagan.
My initial reaction was that this wasn’t a flash mob. It was more likely a a radical armed religious faction with anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli belief systems. It doesn’t take an expert to know that these groups have existed for decades, have acted violently toward western targets (9/11/2001, Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, U.S. Embassy in Beirut (1983), both U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania (1998), etc. This is not new, this is the world we live in.
How the Obama Administration or the State Department can say they were “surprised” by the U.S. Embassy attacks questions how close are they really paying attention to the region, and are their policies realistic? The reason why I say this is because the U.S. has been subject to on-going terrorist attacks on U.S. Embassies and staff especially over the last four years (report).
Apparently the Obama Administration either does not see the reality of the threat and thus has failed to keep America’s Embassies and staff safe when in hostile and unstable nations. One has to ask the question: When will the Obama Administration stop apologizing for America, stand up to terrorism and to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Contrary to the Obama Administration’s view, the Libyan president has repeatedly said that he has “no doubt” that the 9/11 attacks in Libya was “Pre-Planned” (Source: DailyMail.UK PDF).
We know that the group responsible for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo is also part of the jihadist movement.

Egyptian Radical Militants (politically correct words: “protestors” and “Religious Incitement”). Also may be phrased, “defending religious feelings with guns and rocket attacks on those who share a religion not of their own, and who are minding their own business”) Photo Credit: AP.

According to a published report there were two attacks. A second group of “about 20″ people armed with assault weapons and rocket-propelled grenades who starting the shooting at the Embassy and subsequently stormed the U.S. compound. The Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif concurred.

“Libyan Deputy Interior Minister of the Eastern Region Wanis al-Sharif told a news conference today that about 20 gun-wielding attackers fire automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.
By 10:15 p.m., the attackers had stormed the grounds and begun firing on the main building.
…by midnight the U.S. official said today, a second assault began as the annex started taking fire. Libya’s al-Sharif said today that a separate group was involved in that firefight…”
— Source: ABC News (HTML)(PDF)

[9] By Definition, Middle-East Attacks on U.S. Embassy’s Were Terrorist Attacks
The events in the Middle-East against the United States are deemed ‘terrorist attack’ that the meet this definition:

U.S. Official Definition of International Terrorism (Quote):
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve 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) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
— Source: Title 18 United States Code § 2331 (page 2, PDF – highlight added) (Easier read of the statute: Cornell University Law School)

[10] Unable to Hide From the Facts, Obama Changes Story
President Obama also having a difficult time to re-frame fantasy from reality also changed his story. Initially Obama denied that the attacks were conducted by trained military-style terrorists. Nine days after the fact, on 09-20-2012, Obama finally came to terms with reality and admitted that the Libyan attack was the work of terrorist, but fell short of that it was tied to al Qaeda or al Qaeda sympathizers. Obama also still blame the anti-Muslim video trailer for the cause for all the recent attacks on U.S. Embassies in the Middle-east, North and East Africa (Source: Daily Mail.UK, PDF).

“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters traveling with President Barack Obama. “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
— Source: Reuters

The White House did not comment or acknowledge nor deny that any other recent U.S. Embassy attacks were “terrorist attacks”.
Thus by definition, and the White House’s own admission 9 days after the fact, the attack on at least the U.S. Embassy was not a “small and savage group” (PDF – highlight added) as Madam Secretary Clinton portrayed; it was an act of terrorism against the people of the United States.
[11] Unable to Hide From the Facts, State Department Changes Story
Now, 15 days after the fact, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is now hinting that the 9/11 attacks in Libya had an “explicit link” to al Qaeda. This is a complete reversal of Secretary Clinton’s early claims of a “small savage group.” Madam Secretary, all “protestors” carry AK-47′s, mortar fire and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) right? It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure out that this was a military-style attack.
[12] A Duck is a Duck: Government Re-Defining Labels
The label given to the people who have killed Americans using grenade launchers, home-made fire bombs, and machine guns, damaged or destroyed U.S. sovereign property are improperly called “Protestors.” There is a slight difference between demonstrations of disagreement with chant and signs, than with guns, explosives and committing murder. These are acts of war against the United States. Anytime a sovereign land or property or people are attacked regardless of location, regardless of the underline events or reason, they are acts of war.
This is not to suggest that the U.S. should start a new war. We are already at war! We are just not defending ourselves or our Embassies. We rely on foreign governments for our own security? What should be reflected is calling a duck a duck. If someone kills another person in the United States it is still murder. They are not called a “protestor.”
The Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh was not a protestor. He was a murder, and would be defined today as domestic terrorist. Apparently the Obama Administration is so hypersensitive about accidentally be seen as offending other people’s religion despite decades of factions who have committed terrorism against France, Germany, Israel, U.K., USA, etc., we now call those people “Protestors” and “misguided individuals.”
[13] Justice?
President Obama said, ‘‘Make no mistake. Justice will be done,’ and that the United States would ‘‘work with the Libyan government to bring to justice’’ (Source: Boston.com). Have any of the other Embassy attacks over the last four years been brought to justice?
[14] A Little Too Late
Only AFTER high media and social network attention was given to these recent events in Libya and Egypt did the Obama Administration decide to up security at embassies world-wide. Like typically government response, they act after a crisis has already occurred (Source: CNN).
It is a bit late to saves the lives of the four Americans killed in the 9/11 (2012) U.S. Embassy attack in Libya. Granted working in an embassy in an unstable country with hostiles is a big risk. They knew what they were getting into, but at the same time, it is the U.S. government’s jobs to provide internal security for its own embassies.
This Report is Continued Here: U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, PART V: Foreign Policy Fantasy
__________________________________________________________________________
Credits: Images/ videos may be copyright of their respective entity where noted if known.
Original content copyright © 2012 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

Additional information about the author:
Author has long followed global events, and developed military strategy games. While attending a major private University, author initiated a senior project where in 1993, wrote a research report titled: “International Terrorism: Challenge to U.S. Intelligence.” Net Advisor’s™ bio.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
______________________________________________________________________

White House Cover Up Benghazi Attack (emails)

White House Cover Up Benghazi Attack (emails)

October 24th, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

[Translate]

---

14

82 Votes

10.24.2012 original publish date
10.28.2012 various updates: Help Requests Denied, Army General Removed, new videos
10.29.2012 expanded article with more details
11.15.2012 minor updates

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blame a video and protests as the cause of 4 American deaths in Libya. We know now there were no protests at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, and the video had nothing to do with 4 American deaths. E-mails now show that the White House and at least 40 others knew of the Benghazi terrorists attacks within 2 hours of the event. U.S. officials also had live video of the attacks from U.S. drone planes over the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

White House Cover Up Benghazi Attack (emails)

original article written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON DC. U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Press Secretary James Carney, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN – Susan Rice, and many others have apparently been in an active cover-up regarding the 9/11/2012 events in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.
[1] New information shows the White House was advised within TWO hours that the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was under attack (Source: Reuters). The attack continued for 7 hours (CBS PDF).
Who Knew?
Although the exact people’s names have been blacked out, domain addresses still indicate who got copied to emails regarding the 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack.

U.S. Government emails show 41 top U.S. officials including the FBI (@ic.fbi.gov), the State Department (@State.gov), the Pentagon (@pentagon.mil), U.S. Military (@mail.mil), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (@dni.gov) and the “Executive Office of the President” (@nss.eop.gov) all were copied on the Benghazi, Libya attack on September 11, 2012.
— READ the e-mails (Dated: September 11, 2012 4:05PM, 4:54PM and 6:07PM):
the emails: (PDF)
share this link: (link to government emails)

[2] Technology Linking Who Knew?
The domain address EOP.gov is directly associated to all key personal at the White House according to WhiteHouse.gov (Who is EOP.gov PDF). The domain address in the above e-mails also show that Office of the Director of National Intelligence was copied under @dni.gov (PDF). A Who is technical search for IP Address and domains all point directly to the U.S. Government – and specifically, The White House (PDF1) (PDF2).
The physical address associated to the e-mail domains are located at: “Executive Office Of The President USA Room NEOB 4208, 725 17th Street NW Washington DC 20503, USA (PDF). This address is a federal building, and is associated to the “Executive Branch” of government. The Executive Branch of government is tied directly to the President (PDF). Who else is located at this address? Note the address on the following PDF documents.

• Office of Administration — FOIA – The White House (PDF – highlight added to show address)

• Office of the President, OMB Organizational Chart (PDF)

[3] Despite the Facts, the Obama Administration Blames a Video
President Obama announced six times (PDF) before the United Nations that the Benghazi attack was due to a internet-based “video”.
[4] Despite the Facts, Clinton Blamed a “Small Savage group”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the attack was a “small and savage group” [Article, Point #8].

The 9-11-2012 anti-Muslim film “protests” occurred at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and in other areas in the the world. However we now know that there were NO PROTESTS of any kind in Benghazi, Libya that came under military style assault for 7 hours. The Obama Administration did nothing to protect Americans under attack (Image Credit: MCT).

[5] Despite the Facts, Susan Rice Blamed a Video, then Blames U.S. Intelligence
Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations first blamed the video for “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film. Rice later blamed the intelligence community for giving her faulty talking points (Source: Fox News).
Ambassador Rice went on the political talk-show circuit trying to convince the American public about what took place in Libya on 09-11-2012. The only problem is, Ms. Rice (arguably knowing) put out a false story.
No one can correctly blame that an “anti-Muslim video” sparked the attack in Benghazi because as we now know there were NO protests in Benghazi on 9-11-2012 (Source: ABC News Video, under this article, Point #7).
Ms. Rice later changes her story and blames U.S. intelligence gave her wrong information. Rice fails to state who or what agency told her exactly what. The facts are that the CIA requested military help as the attacks began on 9-11-2012 [Point #10 below]. Again, the 9/11/2012 emails show that U.S. intelligence, the State Department, the FBI, the Pentagon, U.S. Military, the Office of the President – 41 key U.S. officials – were all copied on exactly what happened within two hours of the attack. Thus, Ms. Rice’ characterization of the events in Benghazi on 9-11-2012 would be completely false.
The only way Ms. Rice can get herself out of that mess is to say she was not copied on said emails; had no knowledge of them at any time, and she would have to name exactly who told her what to say. The only persons who would have ultimately approved of her talking points on U.S. National Security matters would have been the top people in the White House, including but not limited to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Chief of Staff, and President Obama.
It is evident now that American public has been mislead by the Obama Administration. The President, Madam Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice and other collaborators all have provided false information about what exactly happened on 9/11/2012 in Libya.

[6] U.S. Drone Captured Live Video of Attack
Not only did the White House have emails being advised on the attack within two hours, we also had live video. The U.S. just happened to have a Predator drone over the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya sending live video DURING the 9/11/2012 attack, and the Obama Administration did nothing in response (Source: New York Post PDF).
[7] Video: (Courtesy CBS)
[8] Commentary re: CBS Video (above). The President doesn’t need (Libya’s) permission to fly in their country when your own people are being shot at on U.S. sovereign territory – the U.S. Embassy. A leader can request permission as you are about to make entry if they want. A leader can tell the host country that you are sending in temporary forces to defend and rescue personal whom the host country has failed to do. Use whatever semantics you like. The point is, a leader doesn’t sit down and do nothing while innocent Americans are under attack. That is what happened.
I pointed out that the U.S. had the authority to act and what they could have done [Article, Points #5 and 6].
[9] Obama Administration Ignores Security Requests
The U.S. was lacking security at the U.S. Embassy at Benghazi (Sources: CBS PDF and Daily Mail On-line.UK PDF).
During a Congressional hearing, it was found that the Obama Administration declined to increase security at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya (Sources: Fox News PDF and Los Angeles Times PDF).

“(there was) a complete and total absence of planning” to improve security. “When I requested assets, I was criticized…”
— Eric Nordstrom, FMR State Department Regional Security Officer, Libya (Source: Los Angeles Times)

[10] CIA (Allegedly) Requested Help THREE TIMES DURING Live Benghazi Attack
According to a new report, CIA officials were on the ground in Benghazi, Libya and made three requests for U.S. military support, and were ordered to “stand down” meaning do not get involved.
Mr. Obama said (in the following video) “…the American people can take to the bank…my Administration plays this stuff straight. We don’t play politics when it comes to American National Security.”
Video: (Courtesy Fox News)

The CIA stated they helped evacuate who they could at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi on 09-11-2012. In fact, former Navy Seals reportedly disobeyed orders to “stand down.” Former Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were working security for Ambassador Stevens. Despite for repeated requests for military backup, help was denied.
Honoring their duty to protect Americans from harm’s way, Doherty and Woods gave up their lives in order to save the lives of an unknown number civilians at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi on 09-11-2012 (Source: Los Angeles Times).

“Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The (CIA’s) request (for help) was denied.”
— Source: Fox News, 10-26-2012

General Carter F. Ham (DOD Photo 2011)

[11] U.S. Army General Highly Likely Copied on e-mails of Live Benghazi Attack
General Carter Ham was allegedly copied on the 9/11 Benghazi emails. Since it was General Ham’s job to be the commander in this region, it would be prudent to follow the chain of command and notify the senior officer(s) of the live attack in Benghazi.
[12] U.S. Army General Ordered to “Stand Down” in Libya?
A report suggested that after General Carter Ham learned of the live attacks in Benghazi, he had a “rapid response” team ready. Ham was allegedly ordered to stand down and NOT send an emergency military team into Benghazi, Libya to protect Americans at the Embassy. The General apparently refused to stand down, and planned to send a military team in anyway.
[13] Obama Relieves General of His Command
The White House has apparently relived U.S. (Four Star) General Carter F. Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command (PDF).
One might ask, how do you know that President Obama relived General Carter Ham of his duty? General Ham is the highest-ranking U.S. Army general one can obtain in service (four stars). The only higher rank is a five star general and that is reserved during war-time (Source: Department of Defense).
The Commander of Chief has authority over the military. Yes, so does Congress, but no one member of Congress can act over the authority of the President; and Congress held no vote in attempt to remove this general. Therefore, the only person with the authority who could relieve a four star general of their command, would be the President.
According to the official military publication, Stars and Stripes, President Obama nominated General Ham’s replacement (PDF), General David Rodriguez.
A military officer defying a presidential order will get you ‘fired’ every time. If anyone can come up with a canned response who else had higher authority to relive an active-duty commanding four-star general, please email us or place in comment box below, and we will have it reviewed by a military lawyer for an independent legal opinion.
The only logical conclusion is that the army general defied a direct order to stand down, and got relived of his command. The fact that President Obama since nominated a replacement for the exact same position, suggests a White House admission to support such conclusion.

Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (DOD Photo 2011)

[14] The ‘We Had No Clue’ Excuse?
According to the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly said,

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
— Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, (Source: Washington Times, 10-28-2012

The only problem with Panetta’s quote is that the Administration KNEW exactly what was going on.
As said earlier, 41 (FORTY-ONE) top U.S. officials including the FBI, the military, the Office of the President (Mr. Obama), the State Department (Hillary Clinton) all were copied within 2 hours of the attacks via emails stating how many people where attacking (about 20), where the attacks were talking place (U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya), and even who claimed responsibility (Ansar al-Shari).
Also stated earlier (PDF), U.S. officials had live (real-time) video feed of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi via a military drone plane(s) that just so happened to be circling over the Embassy DURING – when? – DURING – the 9-11-2012 attacks. What does the Secretary of Defense mean; we don’t know what was going on?
[15] Analysis on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s Statement
General Carter Ham was relieved of his duty by order of the President (Obama) because he was ready to send in a special team to support the CIA / Ambassador Security Detail in effort to rescue Americans under attack in Benghazi.
So why then is Defense Secretary Panetta making a statement that “Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
Leon Panetta’s statement seems to contradict what General Carter Ham had in mind – protect Americans under a live attack.
For a Defense Secretary or any Army general to suggest that “we could not put forces at risk in that situation” questions the ability to make military strategy decisions. The military are trained to go into high risk situations. That is why we have Navy Seals, Special Forces, Army Rangers, CIA, etc., to do complex tactics. These people are trained to go into hot, hostile “situations.”
We knew exactly what the situation was. The Obama government had emails and real-time video of what exactly what was going on. The Obama government choose to ignore this problem, and Americans got killed as a result. Then the cover up story came out trying to tell us it was due to a video, protestors, etc., all which have been proven false.
We have troops in Afghanistan among other places. Is that a less risk “situation” for troops? Was Iraq a less risk situation too? Was storming the beaches at Normandy too risky? The U.S. would have lost World War II with this kind of command thinking.
[16] About the Secretary of Defense
Before serving as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta’s served 2 years as CIA Director (DCI) under Obama, had only 2 years of military service (ending back in 1966); has been a long-time politician, lawyer, a budget director and was once a California professor (full bio).
One might question, what was the criterion used to say Panetta was qualified to be Defense Secretary, let alone head of the CIA? Perhaps if Panetta was charge of budgeting, that might be more suited with his experience.

Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Martin Dempsey at the Pentagon (Image Credit : C-SPAN).

[17] Army General Asks Pastor to Keep Quite Over Video
As for General Martin Dempsey’s statement about Libya seems to mirror the Obama Administration’s statements on 9-12-2012 – blaming an anti-Muslim video for inciting violence.

“General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests.
Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” Dempsey’s spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan.”
— Source: Reuters, 09-12-2012

With all due respect to an Army General, please be reminded that we now know that there were NO protests in Benghazi, on 09-11-2012. Please also be reminded that we now know the “anti-Muslim video” had NOTHING to do with the assault on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi either.
We would argue that General Dempsey is out of order asking a civilian to restrict his 1st Amendment right – freedom of speech. When the military asks you not to speak, you have to ask what kind of country am I living in?
[18] A ‘General’ Disagreement?
It seems that we had two Army Generals with different views. General Ham had an immediate plan to send in special team to assist the CIA in saving Americans under attack in Libya. General Ham was ordered to stand down. After Ham ignored the order, General Ham was relieved of his command.
General Dempsey fell in-line with whatever the Obama Administration told him to say and do. General Dempsey still has his job.
Last April 2012, Dempsey’s airplane was on the ground and hit by rocket fire on a visit to Afghanistan. The General was reportedly not near the plane, but the plane was damaged in the attack (Source: Toledo Times via the Associated Press PDF). The Taliban, who the Obama Administration has said ‘are not our enemy per se’ (Report), claimed responsibility for the attack.
[19] Obama: “Trust Me?”
Mr. Obama said after the 3rd presidential debate that this election comes down to “trust” (Source: Reuters). Although presidential contender Mitt Romney has not implemented a single national policy yet, Mr. Obama said it is ‘Romney’ who can’t be trusted.

“Everything he’s doing right now is trying to hide his real positions in order to win this election.”
— Barack Obama said to 11,000 Floridians on 10-23-2012 (Source: Reuters)

This was a stark reminder of various studies I read when doing research reports in behavioral psychology in college. This is called “Projection” (PDF). Projection is a defense mechanism to mask one’s own insecurities and blame their faults or “project” on to others (Source: Projection Study, Kawada, et al NYU 2003). We have seen this during the entire last 4 years in this presidency (outlined here).
It seems that somebody, or really a number of key government officials are hiding or trying to hide the truth about what really happened in Benghazi. The data tells a striking different story of what was fed to the public (report).
The question is. Is there anything this President takes responsibility for? Blaming everyone is not leadership and does not solve any domestic or foreign policy issues. This obvious cover up in Libya begs the question, can we trust our current leadership to be honest with Americans?
__________________________________________________________________________
Credits: U.S. government emails obtained from CBS.com. First image credit: Evan Vucci/ AP, 09-12-2012. Modified Image: NetAdvisior.org Staff. Additional image credit where noted. Video Credit: Courtesy CBS and Fox News.
Read our 47-page, 5-part report on Libya and other U.S. Embassy attacks HERE
original content copyright © 2012 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
_______________________________________________________________________

HASC Fact Sheet and Overview of Benghazi Attack

• HASC Fact Sheet – Oversight of Benghazi Attack

  (HASC Fact Sheet Oversight of Benghazi Attack.docx.pdf - 215.2 KBs)

Hearings and Briefings

Hearings

The Posture of the U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa CommandFull Comittee
March 15 2013

Briefings

U.S. Force Posture and Planning Before, During and After the AttackSubcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Press Release read out
June 26, 2013

Update on the Attack in Benghazi, Libya
Full Committee
November 29, 2012

Press Releases

Readout of House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Classified Briefing on Benghazi
June 26, 2013
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations received testimony in a classified briefing from three key figures involved in the response to the attack on Americans in Benghazi. General Carter Ham (ret), LTC S.E. Gibson, and Rear Admiral Brian Losey offered accounts of U.S. force posture and planning ahead of the attack, and actions taken during and after the attack.

McKeon Continues Benghazi Oversight
May 15, 2013
Chairman McKeon requested additional information to continue HASC oversight of the attack on U.S. Facilities and personnel in Benghazi, Libya. Specifically requesting additional information on how the military was postured to respond to a crisis on September 11 2012, Chairman McKeon asked that the commanding officer of the Site Security Team for Tripoli during the Benghazi attack be made available.
McKeon Statement on DoD Denial of Vital Benghazi Oversight Information
May 8 2013
The Honorable Elizabeth King, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs responded to Chairman McKeon's April 17th request to Secretary Hagel, that the DOD provide a classified timeline of the events that transpired on September 11-12, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Assistant Secretary King denied the Chairman's request, pointed out that an unclassified timeline has been released, and asserted that no formal classified timeline exists.
McKeon Letter to Secretary Hagel on Benghazi
April 25, 2013
Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon sent the following letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel requesting the classified version of the Defense Department's Benghazi timeline.
McKeon Presses White House on Response to Terrorist Attack in Libya
October 31 2012
Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote a letter to President Obama in response to White House assertions about the military response to the September 11, 2012 attack in Libya.
Chairmen Demand Answers from President on Libya Terrorist Attack 
September 26, 2012
Eight senior members author letter seeking additional information.

Chairman McKeon letters to:

• **Secretary of Defense Hagel Requesting Classified Information

  April 24, 2013 (Hagel 4 17 13 HPM.pdf - 231.2 KBs)

• President Obama

  (HPM to Obama 10.29.12.pdf - 120.2 KBs)

• Admiral McRaven

  (HPM to ADM McRaven 10.18.12.pdf - 312.4 KBs)

• General Carter Ham

  (HPM to General Ham 10.18.12.pdf - 308.3 KBs)

• Lieutenant General Flynn

  (HPM to LTG Flynn 10.18.12.pdf - 394.0 KBs)

• Vice Admiral Tidd

  (HPM to VADM Tidd 10.18.12.pdf - 308.6 KBs)

Response letters to the Chairman from:

• White House

  (2012.11.21_Letter from the White House Counsel.pdf - 152.5 KBs)

• SOCOM (McRaven)

  (SOCOM Cdr letter 26 Oct 12.pdf - 346.1 KBs)

• AFRICOM (Ham)

  (AFRICOM Response to HPM (Benghazi).pdf - 224.4 KBs)

• DIA (Flynn)

  (DIA Director Flynn response to HPM.pdf - 340.9 KBs)

• Vice Admiral Tidd

  (VADM Tidd response to HPM.PDF - 40.0 KBs)

Developing: FEMA Readies 100,000 Person National Disaster Medical System Mobilization For 1,000 Locations… Posted on | September 18, 2013 | 12 Comments Developing: FEMA Readies 100,000 Person National Disaster Medical System Mobilization For 1,000 Locations... Developing: FEMA Readies 100,000 Person National Disaster Medical System Mobilization For 1,000 Locations… Share

Developing: FEMA Readies 100,000 Person National Disaster Medical System Mobilization For 1,000 Locations…

Posted on | September 18, 2013 | 12 Comments

Developing: FEMA Readies 100,000 Person National Disaster Medical System Mobilization For 1,000 Locations…                 

DEMOCRATS WALK OUT DURING TESTIMONY FROM FAMILIES OF BENGHAZI VICTIMS.. We need to make sure all the scoundrels who walked out will never walk back, meaning they are thrown out of Congress Posted on | September 19, 2013 | No Comments DEMOCRATS WALK OUT DURING TESTIMONY FROM FAMILIES OF BENGHAZI VICTIMS... DEMOCRATS WALK OUT DURING TESTIMONY FROM FAMILIES OF BENGHAZI VICTIMS…

DEMOCRATS WALK OUT DURING TESTIMONY FROM FAMILIES OF BENGHAZI VICTIMS.. We need to make sure all the scoundrels who walked out will never walk back, meaning they are thrown out of Congress

Posted on | September 19, 2013 | No Comments

DEMOCRATS WALK OUT DURING TESTIMONY FROM FAMILIES OF BENGHAZI VICTIMS…

US Sponsored Rebel Forces Have Taken Control of Maalula: Snipers Haunt Syrian Christian Town

US Sponsored Rebel Forces Have Taken Control of Maalula: Snipers Haunt Syrian Christian Town

By Global Research News

Global Research, September 19, 2013

Daily Star (Lebanon)

MAALULA, Syria: “Maalula, city of culture and history, welcomes you,” reads a sign at the entrance to Syria’s best known Christian town. But any semblance of welcome evaporates once inside Maalula.
The army is fighting an invisible enemy, and an AFP team narrowly escaped sniper fire.
“We never see them, but we hear the shots fired by their Dragunovs,” the Russians’ favourite sniper rifle, said a soldier holding his weapon as he sheltered behind a wall.
A car is parked at the roadside, its windscreen has exploded and its driver looks dead. His belongings lie strewn on the pavement of this ghost town.
After an AFP photographer crossed one of Maalula’s streets, a sniper opened fire at the journalist. Bullets landed just metres (yards) away.
The journalist was forced to lie on the ground and hide behind a wall to escape the shots.
Every time he tried to move, the sniper opened fire immediately.
It was only as loyalist soldiers fired their own guns in the sniper’s direction that the journalist managed to escape.
An armoured vehicle arrived at the scene and opened fire, allowing the journalist to escape.
The soldier said: “It’s like this every day. We can only move without fear of sniping during the evenings.”
Maalula is nestled under a large cliff, whose summit is controlled by the rebels, making it difficult for the army to secure its grip there.
The town is strategically important for rebels, who are trying to tighten their grip on Damascus and already have bases circling the capital.
The army has “reclaimed most of the town, but the terrorists use their snipers to stop us from bringing it totally under control”, said a colonel who leads the loyalists’ operations in the historic town.
“We are continuing to make slow progress. But it is very difficult because we cannot bombard it, there are historic treasures,” the colonel told AFP.
Maalula’s population of up to 5,000 fluctuates throughout the year, with Christian families flocking there each summer from Damascus and abroad.
While the majority of its winter residents are Muslim, the town is majority Christian in summer.
Rebel forces, among them Al-Qaeda-linked jihadists, took control of Maalula on September 9. Three days later, the army entered the town.
Maalula lies some 55 kilometres (35 miles) north of Damascus. It is considered a symbol of the ancient Christian presence in Syria.
Its people are among the world’s last remaining speakers of Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ.
The town’s name comes from the word “maala”, which in Aramaic means “the entrance”.
On September 14, for the first time, the town known across the Middle East for its “Exaltation of the Cross” feast day was not decorated with lights, nor did it host Christian and Muslim visitors dining and celebrating together.
The archway at the town’s entrance has been damaged by a suicide attacker who detonated a car bomb at the start of the battle for the town.
But much of the rest of Maalula has been unscathed, as the army has refrained from shelling it.
Only the Saint Elias church dome has been punctured.
“This battle may be long because they (the rebels) are hiding in the hills and in the Safir hotel,” perched above the town, said the colonel.
“But I think we will win in the end.”
Copyright The Star, 2013

Look With Your Own Eyes: The Videos of the Chemical Attacks in Syria Show Tampered Scenes By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research, September 19, 2013 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: Media Disinformation, Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR? syria-chemical-prepared-advance.si The videos presented by the US Intelligence Community as evidence have staged scenes. Simple observations of the videos can verify this. This is exactly what a recent and modest study did. A detailed independent report by Mother Agnes Mariam de la Croix and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS) makes some important observations about what happened in the Damascene suburb of East Ghouta on August 21, 2013. The independent ISTEAMS study contradicts the assertions of the Obama Administration and the entire US Intelligence Community—a gargantuan network of sixteen different intelligence agencies that includes the standalone Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the US Depart of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and the Pentagon’s National Security Agency (NSA)—through simple observations of the video material that has been put forward as evidence by the United States. The ISTEAMS report does not deny that chemical weapons were used or that innocent Syrians have been killed. What the study does is logically point out through its observations that that is empirical evidence that the sample of videos that the US Intelligence Community has analyzed and nominated as authentic footage has been stage-managed. This is an important finding, because it refutes the assertions of the representatives of the US Intelligence agencies who testified that the videos they authenticated provide evidence that a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government took place in East Ghouda. In turn, the Obama Administration has used mainstream media reports from unnamed sources, unnamed social media comments and a series of videos that came out of Syria to make their case for attacking Syria. The videos that the ISTEAMS report looks at are the thirteen videos that the US Intelligence Community selected or nominated as the best video evidence for the Obama Administration to make their case against the Syrian government to the Senate Committee on September 5th, 2013. The videos that are examined by the study are among the first thirty-five videos uploaded on the internet after the attack in East Ghouta. Almost all of them were uploaded between two to seven hours after the incident and the Local Coordination Committees. Key Observations and Questions The report starts by asserting that on the basis of personal observations that the most the residents in East Ghouda had been fleeing the suburb since it was was the scene of fighting been the Syrian military and the anti-government militias; as validation, it also refers to the interview of a young Syrian boy by the name of Abdullah who responds that nobody died among his family and neighbours, because most of them were already displaced from East Ghouda. Key findings are: (1) Most the footage is of children. (2) There is almost a total absence of adult corpses next to the bodies of the children (3) There is almost a total absence of parents, especially mothers, coming to claim the bodies of the dead children. (4) There is virtually an absence of the sound of ambulances in the background of the videos. (5) The testimonies being used against the Syrian government include those of individuals claiming to have smelled the chemical that was used whereas sarin is an odorless gas. (6) The testimonies that most the victims were found in their homes are at odds with the claims by the same people that most the victims could not be identified. (7) The same footage is used for videos with different scenarios. (8) There is different footage that proves that the bodies were being arranged and moved around for display and specifically for filming. (9) The same couple appears as parents looking for their children in two different videos and each time they claim a different child as theirs among the corpses. (10) The same groups that have been involved with posting and disseminating the videos that the US Intelligence Community has selected have also tried to pass pictures of Egyptian civilians killed in Cairo’s Rabaa Al-Adawiya Square as Syrian victims. (11) Children that are still breathing in Zamalka are just filmed and left alone without medical treatment. (12) In one video, where it is stated that all the bodies are those of the dead, it can bee seen that some of the corpses are being injected by syringes with an unknown liquid from. (13) There is no knowledge or evidence that public funerals took place for the large number of victims that surpasses 1,460 people. (14) In breach of all cultural norms and last rites, no public announcements about the dead or their funerals were made. (15) There is no more than 500 people in all the videos, even when all the bodies that appear in different videos are added to the count. (16) In two videos of the same location with a difference of about one hour and forty minutes the entire medical teams changes in the middle of an emergency. (17) The identities of the dead have largely been left unknown; especially by the anti-government groups archiving and disseminating their pictures; for example we see the body of a little boy in a red shirt that was filmed in Zamalka and then in filmed again among different bodies in Jobar and the inanimate bodies of at least nine of the children that filmed in Kafarbatna also oddly appear at makeshift morgue in Al-Majr a few hours later. (18) In the footage of one burial only eight people are buried and three of them are not even covered in the “compulsory” ritual shrouds. As a result these questions emerge: (1) Why such a high rate of dead children? (2) Why are the bodies of children being displayed with a virtual absence of adult corpses? (3) When adult corpses are seen, why are the unusually segregated? (4) Where were the parents? (5) If the parents died with their children, why are the bodies of adults virtually absence, especially with the bodies of the children? (6) If the parents were not killed, then where are they? Why are they not looking for their children? (7) According to the cultural norms and gender scripts of Syrian society, children are almost always found with their mothers. So why is there a relative absence of women and specifically mothers in the US Intelligence Community’s nominated videos? (8) How was it possible that all these children died alone? (9) There was virtually no outdoor movement in East Ghouda after the attack. How were all the bodies transported to the burial sites without anyone noticing? (10) What was being injected into the dead bodies? Do you need to give medication to corpses at a makeshift morgue? A lot of things do not add up in the footage presented by the US government. The same little boy in red is in two different locations At least nine of these children appear in different footage from different locations A little boy that appears in two different videos with two different scenarios Bodies being injected by the woman and man outlined in yellow A Diabolical Conclusion Even if many of the observations and premises of the study are ignored, there are some observations that are irrefutable. The same corpses of children were found in different arrangements and in different places at different times in the footage used by the US Intelligence Community. This means that corpses were being staged in arrangements for propaganda purposes. The videos nominated by the US Intelligence Community need to be carefully looked at and meticulously studied using the ISTEAM observations that have been found as a basis and then expanded upon. The revelations implicate the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States and discredit it int the same tradition as the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There are serious flaws in the US Intelligence Community that equate to either a lack of professionalism or/and its outright subordination to Washington’s political agendas that involve false analyses. To think that such a large network with so many resources could overlook the same observations that laypeople have made is embarrassing to say the least. There is an important Latakia connection that has to be addressed about these videos. There was actually a massacre carried out by the US-supported anti-government forces in that region of Syria on August 4, 2013. It went largely unreported in countries like the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Qatar, and France. Reporting on the massacre of Syrian civilians in Latakia at the hands of the anti-government forces would have been too inconvenient for the US and its allies. What is also known is that a large amount of women and children were abducted by the anti-government forces, specifically by Jabhat Al-Nusra, as hostages to be used for negotiations and trade with the Syrian government for captured insurgents. About a hundred and fifty cases are known. ISTEAMS also mentions that that Syrians from Latakia have come forward claiming that their relatives were on display in the footage that the US Intelligence Community has showcased to justify bombing Syria. The Latakia connection would explain a lot of the questions that arise about the bodies of the unaccompanied children. It also pains a disturbing picture of the bodies of innocent Syrian children being prostituted to spark a foreign attack on Syria by the United States and its allies. Regardless of any political positions or stances on Syria, everyone who is advocating for war or peace on the basis of these videos has a responsibility to take the observations of the ISTEAMS report to task and verify for themselves the nature of its claims.

Look With Your Own Eyes: The Videos of the Chemical Attacks in Syria Show Tampered Scenes

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, September 19, 2013

Region: Middle East & North Africa

Theme: Media Disinformation, Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

The videos presented by the US Intelligence Community as evidence have staged scenes. Simple observations of the videos can verify this. This is exactly what a recent and modest study did.
A detailed independent  report by Mother Agnes Mariam de la Croix and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS) makes some important observations about what happened in the Damascene suburb of East Ghouta on August 21, 2013.
The independent ISTEAMS study contradicts the assertions of the Obama Administration and the entire US Intelligence Community—a gargantuan network of sixteen different intelligence agencies that includes the standalone Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the US Depart of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and the Pentagon’s National Security Agency (NSA)—through simple observations of the video material that has been put forward as evidence by the United States.
The ISTEAMS report does not deny that chemical weapons were used or that innocent Syrians have been killed. What the study does is logically point out through its observations that that is empirical evidence that the sample of videos that the US Intelligence Community has analyzed and nominated as authentic footage has been stage-managed.  This is an important finding, because it refutes the assertions of the representatives of the US Intelligence agencies who testified that the videos they authenticated provide evidence that a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government took place in East Ghouda.
In turn, the Obama Administration has used mainstream media reports from unnamed sources, unnamed social media comments and a series of videos that came out of Syria to make their case for attacking Syria. The videos that the ISTEAMS report looks at are the thirteen videos that the US Intelligence Community selected or nominated as the best video evidence for the Obama Administration to make their case against the Syrian government to the Senate Committee on September 5th, 2013.
The videos that are examined by the study are among the first thirty-five videos uploaded on the internet after the attack in East Ghouta. Almost all of them were uploaded between two to seven hours after the incident and the Local Coordination Committees.
Key Observations and Questions
The report starts by asserting that on the basis of personal observations that the most the residents in East Ghouda had been fleeing the suburb since it was was the scene of fighting been the Syrian military and the anti-government militias; as validation, it also refers to the interview of a young Syrian boy by the name of Abdullah who responds that nobody died among his family and neighbours, because most of them were already displaced from East Ghouda.
Key findings are:

(1)  Most the footage is of children.

(2)  There is almost a total absence of adult corpses next to the bodies of the children

(3)  There is almost a total absence of parents, especially mothers, coming to claim the bodies of the dead children.

(4)  There is virtually an absence of the sound of ambulances in the background of the videos.

(5)  The testimonies being used against the Syrian government include those of individuals claiming to have smelled the chemical that was used whereas sarin is an odorless gas.

(6)  The testimonies that most the victims were found in their homes are at odds with the claims by the same people that most the victims could not be identified.

(7)  The same footage is used for videos with different scenarios.

(8)  There is different footage that proves that the bodies were being arranged and moved around for display and specifically for filming.

(9)  The same couple appears as parents looking for their children in two different videos and each time they claim a different child as theirs among the corpses.

(10) The same groups that have been involved with posting and disseminating the videos that the US Intelligence Community has selected have also tried to pass pictures of Egyptian civilians killed in Cairo’s Rabaa Al-Adawiya Square as Syrian victims.

(11) Children that are still breathing in Zamalka are just filmed and left alone without medical treatment.

(12) In one video, where it is stated that all the bodies are those of the dead, it can bee seen that some of the corpses are being injected by syringes with an unknown liquid from.

(13) There is no knowledge or evidence that public funerals took place for the large number of victims that surpasses 1,460 people.

(14) In breach of all cultural norms and last rites, no public announcements about the dead or their funerals were made.

(15) There is no more than 500 people in all the videos, even when all the bodies that appear in different videos are added to the count.

(16) In two videos of the same location with a difference of about one hour and forty minutes the entire medical teams changes in the middle of an emergency.

(17) The identities of the dead have largely been left unknown; especially by the anti-government groups archiving and disseminating their pictures; for example we see the body of a little boy in a red shirt that was filmed in Zamalka and then in filmed again among different bodies in Jobar and the inanimate bodies of at least nine of the children that filmed in Kafarbatna also oddly appear at makeshift morgue in Al-Majr a few hours later.

(18) In the footage of one burial only eight people are buried and three of them are not even covered in the “compulsory” ritual shrouds.

As a result these questions emerge:

(1)  Why such a high rate of dead children?

(2)  Why are the bodies of children being displayed with a virtual absence of adult corpses?

(3)  When adult corpses are seen, why are the unusually segregated?

(4)  Where were the parents?

(5)  If the parents died with their children, why are the bodies of adults virtually absence, especially with the bodies of the children?

(6)  If the parents were not killed, then where are they? Why are they not looking for their children?

(7)  According to the cultural norms and gender scripts of Syrian society, children are almost always found with their mothers. So why is there a relative absence of women and specifically mothers in the US Intelligence Community’s nominated videos?

(8)  How was it possible that all these children died alone?

(9)  There was virtually no outdoor movement in East Ghouda after the attack. How were all the bodies transported to the burial sites without anyone noticing?

(10)  What was being injected into the dead bodies? Do you need to give medication to corpses at a makeshift morgue?

A lot of things do not add up in the footage presented by the US government.

 The same little boy in red is in two different locations

At least nine of these children appear in different footage from different locations

 A little boy that appears in two different videos with two different scenarios

 

Bodies being injected by the woman and man outlined in yellow

 A Diabolical Conclusion
Even if many of the observations and premises of the study are ignored, there are some observations that are irrefutable. The same corpses of children were found in different arrangements and in different places at different times in the footage used by the US Intelligence Community. This means that corpses were being staged in arrangements for propaganda purposes.
The videos nominated by the US Intelligence Community need to be carefully looked at and meticulously studied using the ISTEAM observations that have been found as a basis and then expanded upon. The revelations implicate the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States and discredit it int the same tradition as the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There are serious flaws in the US Intelligence Community that equate to either a lack of professionalism or/and its outright subordination to Washington’s political agendas that involve false analyses. To think that such a large network with so many resources could overlook the same observations that laypeople have made is embarrassing to say the least.
There is an important Latakia connection that has to be addressed about these videos. There was actually a massacre carried out by the US-supported anti-government forces in that region of Syria on August 4, 2013. It went largely unreported in countries like the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Qatar, and France. Reporting on the massacre of Syrian civilians in Latakia at the hands of the anti-government forces would have been too inconvenient for the US and its allies.
What is also known is that a large amount of women and children were abducted by the anti-government forces, specifically by Jabhat Al-Nusra, as hostages to be used for negotiations and trade with the Syrian government for captured insurgents.  About a hundred and fifty cases are known.
ISTEAMS also mentions that that Syrians from Latakia have come forward claiming that their relatives were on display in the footage that the US Intelligence Community has showcased to justify bombing Syria. The Latakia connection would explain a lot of the questions that arise about the bodies of the unaccompanied children. It also pains a disturbing picture of the bodies of innocent Syrian children being prostituted to spark a foreign attack on Syria by the United States and its allies.
Regardless of any political positions or stances on Syria, everyone who is advocating for war or peace on the basis of these videos has a responsibility to take the observations of the ISTEAMS report to task and verify for themselves the nature of its claims.