Thread: BENGHAZI – BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY? – BENGHAZI CIA GUN-RUNNING

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

By News Staff
Published: May 9, 2013 | 13 Comments



LibertyNEWS.com – Editorial Team Special Report

It’s never fun to admit you’ve been lied to and duped. There is no comfort in realizing a high-level group in government has conned you. The wound created from such a realization would be deep and painful when paired with extraordinary insult when you realize the cons are people you not only trusted, but people who are tasked with protecting your rights, your liberty, your life.

When these people betray you, you’re in trouble – big trouble. Unfortunately, we believe America is being betrayed by powerful individuals tasked with our protection. These people are found in the White House, the Congress, the CIA and other government entities – and they’re lying to you. Then they’re covering it up on an epic scale, in a never-before-seen manner.

Here are the basics of what the schemers in government and the complicit media would like for us all to focus on and buy into:

• Why wasn’t there better security at the consulate (keep this misleading word in mind) in Benghazi?
• Why didn’t authorization come to move special forces in for protection and rescue?
• Why was an obscure video blamed when everyone knew the video had nothing to do with it?
• Did Obama’s administration cover-up the true nature of the attacks to win an election?

Truth is, as we’re starting to believe, the above questions are convenient, tactical distractions. And truth is, answers to these questions, if they ever come, will never lead to revelations of the REAL TRUTH and meaningful punishment of anyone found responsible.

Rep. Darrell Issa knows this, members of the House Committee investigating the Benghazi attacks know this, the White House knows this, and much of the big corporate media infrastructure knows it, too. How do they know it? Because they know the truth. They know the truth, but cannot and/or will not discuss it in public.

Here are the basics that we (America, in general) should be focusing on, but aren’t:

• Why do media outlets continue to refer to the “Special Mission Benghazi Compound” as a consulate?
• Where are the so-called “terrorist” attackers/murderers? Have we stopped looking for them?
• Who and where are the rest of the survivors and those evacuated after the attack?
• Why did the attackers know they should target the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, and what was their true intention – what did they really want?
• Why is there now so little discussion of the role the CIA played in the facilities that were attacked?
• Why were 23 of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi active within the CIA? Only 7 of the 30 worked for the State Department? Yet the media continue to characterize the Benghazi facility as a State Department installation?
• Was the CIA Annex a facility used in a secret gun-running operation, and was Ambassador Chris Stevens involved?
• Was the CIA Annex used to facilitate the flow of arms to (Muslim Brotherhood) insurgents fighting in Syria and possibly beyond?
• Why are there two versions of the ARB (Accountability Review Board) Report? One is unclassified for public view, the other is highly classified, and while Congress can view it, they are legally forbidden to discuss it in public hearings or in news interviews.

We obviously don’t have answers to all of these questions, but we will provide you with an overview, some context and our reasoning for each of them.

THE “SPECIAL MISSION BENGHAZI COMPOUND”

According to public documents the State Department made available to Congress, Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10th, 2012. The first order of business for Stevens was an urgent meeting at the CIA annex (We’ll discuss possibilities for this meeting later). Stevens was then escorted to the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, which had a villa that would be utilized for Stevens and his staff during their stay. The Special Mission Benghazi Compound did house a handful of State Department officials, but was also host to CIA operatives and officials. The Special Mission Benghazi Compound was not an actual embassy or consulate office and was not actually used as such.

The constant reference to the Special Mission Benghazi Compound as a “consulate” leads the casual news reader to believe the Ambassador may have worked out of this office as a facility made available for traditional, more public type of diplomatic operations. This was likely not the case in Benghazi. Stevens was not “stationed” at this facility. If you believe this to be an actual embassy type consulate office, you can also easily accept that the attack on September 11th was an attack meant simply for the purpose of projecting terror.

If you accept the premise this is an act of terror on the anniversary of 9/11, you’ll likely also accept the premise this is not the fault of the U.S. government. Questions will become fewer, those responsible will quietly slip away.

THE WELL ARMED MURDERERS – WHERE ARE THEY?

This question has no answers. Only a maze of peculiar dead ends. As a reminder, a United States Ambassador was brutally murdered. Where are the calls for those who killed him? Where are the hearings demanding that intelligence agencies give us an idea of where the investigation stands? Have we walked away from an aggressive pursuit of the killers? Have we concluded it was an “angry mob” who committed an act of terror and thus closed the books?

THE SURVIVORS AND OFFICIALS EVACUATED

Here we are eight months down the road from the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi. We still have yet to discover the true identities of the many people evacuated. We keep saying they should be called up for hearings and questioned, yet they all seem to have vanished. Perhaps – and this is just something to consider, the government is not hiding them so they won’t speak… these people do not wish to speak because they know full well what was happening and what the consequences of disclosure could be. In fact, it’s very likely they were an integral part of what was being orchestrated from the Benghazi facilities, whatever that might be.

The calls for these individuals to be brought forward assume we accept the premise of an active, traditional consulate. In that, we think of it as an office where interns and passport staff may be working. Of course, interns and standard office staff would indeed be of great value in gathering intelligence to figure out what happened. But the Benghazi facilities were staffed by a few State Department personnel and many CIA operatives – not interns and standard consulate administration staffers.

These individuals didn’t want to go public with classified information before the attack, so why would they after the attack?

With regards to the whistleblowers who just testified to Congress, these guys were, for the most part, involved in security and/or related assignments. We see no reason to think the whistleblowers would have detailed knowledge of the CIA operations we believe were underway in Benghazi. Perhaps they were aware of CIA presence in Benghazi, but there is no doubt a strong CIA presence all over the Middle East.

WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON FOR THE CHOSEN TARGET OF ATTACK?

A Wall Street Journal article published before the classified government report/gag order was issued (one of only a few such articles in existence about the facilities) claims the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was set up for no purpose other than to function as a diplomatic front for the CIA. It’s possible the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was not only a front, but was actually a CIA facility operating under the cover of a State Department facility. This is not certain, however, but we do believe the information and activities at this facility were far less sensitive than that of the CIA annex. We believe this to be the case based on the actions taken by the CIA in the days following the attack on the compound.

The CIA immediately jumped into action, scrubbing the annex facility of any trace of CIA operations. All documents, files, traces of a clandestine presence in general, were completely removed and/or destroyed. Yet, the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was left unguarded and wide open for “looters”. And remember how long it took (weeks) for FBI investigators to be allowed in? Investigators who stayed a surprisingly short time and apparently came away with little or nothing?

There are other questions surrounding what then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew. You may recall that in the days following the attack, Hillary Clinton was oddly silent. Clinton was essentially hidden from the media, from Congress and/or anyone else with questions about the State Department’s role (or knowledge) in/of the attacks. The WSJ said “at 5:41 PM Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.” It’s entirely possible the State Department was fuzzy on what had actually happened and why. This lends even more credibility to the idea the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was simply a front for the broader CIA operations.

We do not assert the attackers went after the wrong facility, but certainly propose it be considered a possibility. Or, at the very least, might have assumed the facility had more significance. (It’s also possible they were searching for Stevens himself.)
Which brings us to the dirtiest of all possibilities. What we’re about to discuss could certainly be all coincidence, but the algorithm required for it to all be coincidence seems outside the realm of reality. Let’s get back to the arrival of Stevens in Benghazi.

WHY DID STEVENS ARRIVE IN BENGHAZI ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2012?

We mentioned Stevens arrived in Benghazi, Libya on September 10th, 2012, one day before the attack. Stevens immediately attended a classified meeting at the CIA annex before checking in at the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, where he would be staying while in Benghazi. According to the documents obtained by Congress, Stevens later met with an official from an outfit called Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services as well as an individual from the Arabian Gulf Oil Co. The final meeting of the evening took place with Ali Sait Akin, Turkey’s Consulate General to Benghazi.

Please keep this sequence of meetings at the front of your mind: CIA, Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime, Arabian Gulf Oil and Turkey.

The visit by Stevens came just 8 days after General David Petraeus, who was then head of the CIA, made a surprise visit to Ankara on September 2nd, 2012. The time of the General’s arrival in Ankara jives with the timeline mentioned in an article published by the Times of London. The article, published on September 14th, 2012, discusses the arrival of a certain ship at the Turkish Port of Iskenderun. Fox News had more (But, strangely, Fox News dropped the investigation and no longer mentions the discovery).

Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

The ship, which was coming from Libya, had curious cargo on board. From the same Fox News story.

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

“This is the Libyan ship … which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

The following part is extremely important and is what may connect the Petraeus visit to that of Stevens.

The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

This wasn’t just any fight. The Times of London said “the scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey.” Reports suggest a large portion of the shipment was indeed smuggled across the Syrian border, but much of the weapons were caught up in infighting amongst the Syrian insurgents. The Muslim Brotherhood had significant ties with Turkey and, from what we see in reports, were able to secure the ship and its cargo.

THE TIMELINE THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON

So we’ve established a solid timeline here.

• SEPT 2, 2012 – General Petraeus, head of CIA, arrives in Turkey on September 2nd and meets with Turkey’s President and top Turkish government officials.
• SEPT 6, 2012 – On September 6th, a ship carrying 400 tons of cargo (much of it being arms), arrives from Libya. The ship is secured by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, due to connections with Turkish government. Other Syrian insurgent groups are furious and want control of the weapons.
• SEPT 10, 2012 – Ambassador Stevens arrives in Benghazi, has meetings with CIA, the shipping company and a government official from Turkey.

From what we can tell, the attacks on the compound where Stevens was located began around an hour after the meeting with a Turkish official ended. On September 11th, 2012, Stevens was killed (very early morning hours).

THE POSSIBLE CHRISTOPHER STEVENS CIA/GUN-RUNNING CONNECTION

The unclassified version of the ARB report provides some fascinating and under-reported details about Christopher Stevens. The September situation was in no way his first experience with Benghazi. In fact, Stevens had a presence at the CIA annex before the Special Mission Benghazi Compound was created. Stevens was at the CIA annex in the summer of 2011, shortly before the CIA created the Special Mission Benghazi Compound, the facility that eventually became the diplomatic front for the CIA’s operations in Benghazi. Stevens was not, at the time, Ambassador to Libya. At the time Stevens was the Special Representative to the Libyan Rebel-Alliance.

According to the New York Times, Stevens had even dealt with applications coming from U.S. weapons dealers requesting licenses to sell arms to Libyan insurgents.

There is a history of Stevens’ involvement in weapons used by Libyan fighters. There is also history of Stevens’ involvement in CIA operations. There appears to be massive movement of Libya-based arms, through Turkish territory, into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood fighters opposing the Assad government in Syria. There was controversy over a shipment of arms involving the Muslim Brotherhood and other Syrian insurgent groups, and an hour after a day of meetings ended, the compound in Libya came under attack.

Meanwhile, virtually all of the narratives circulating here in America surround the failed response to the attacks, the lack of security and the fact it was all blamed on a YouTube video.

WHY IS CONGRESS REFUSING TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS?

The most likely answer here is that members of Congress know the answers and they understand how extremely risky their disclosure would be. That said, because of the level of classification involved, Congress cannot legally answer the questions, or even ask the questions of someone who may know the answers. Especially in a public hearing or in a media interview.

This would explain why current Congressional hearings focus on the response, or lack thereof, not the true reason the attacks happened in the first place.

THE LIES AND THE COVER-UP

We don’t like having to say this, but we’re all very likely being lied to, repeatedly and recklessly. Very little, if anything, we’re being told about why Benghazi happened is true or relevant. Are we alleging the above is 100 percent accurate? Not at all. We do believe it all plays a part, either directly or indirectly, in the attack, in the murders that took place in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, and in the deceitful cover-up orchestrated by the government and thrust on the American people. Yet, not a single person who is elected to protect our lives and our rights is, so far, willing to say it.

Not one.

This story does not provide all the answers, but hopefully it provokes the correct kind of questions.

We ALL need to be asking them.


http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/b...ting-in-syria/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKFGs...layer_embedded

DEM STRATEGIST BLASTS LIBERALS WHO DEFEND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR BENGHAZI COVER-UP (VIDEO)

By Eric Odom
Published: May 9, 2013 | 8 Comments

Kirsten Powers unloaded both barrels at fellow Democrats during a segment of the O’Reilly Factor last night. Powers rejected Democrat attempts to defend the cover-up and lies currently happening within the Obama Administration, and joined the growing number of Americans calling for more light to shine in seeking the real truth.

Will the words of Kirsten Powers break through to her friends on the left, both in politics and media?

We’re guessing probably not. But it’s good to see some common sense and logic sneak into a few minds of the left.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eRQmYXI9Uv4


http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/d...over-up-video/

Benghazi Investigation - Frm VP Tells GOP To Subpoena Clinton - Megyn Kelly



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ML8001_GMHk

Did Anyone Answer The 3Am Call In The White House On 9-11-2012

Clinton: What diference At This Point Does It Make!

Benghazi Investigation - Frm VP Tells GOP To Subpoena Clinton - Megyn Kelly

Where's Barack and Hillary's Benghazi scapegoat now?
None other than Barack Obama himself blamed this man's anti-Islam video for the deadly attack in Benghazi.

Guess where the scapegoated filmmaker is today.

Here's a hint. You'll need a visitor's pass to see him.

WND

Video maker blamed for Benghazi remains jailed

But term has nothing to do with sparking Muslims to demonstrate

Published: 1 day ago Dave Tombers

1st Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

It was no less than President Obama who blamed the Benghazi terror attack on an obscure video trailer posted on the Internet called “Innocence of Muslims.”

And it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who promised the father of one of the Americans killed that she would see to it that the person who made the video was arrested and prosecuted.


That claim came from Joe Woods, the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who spoke with Clinton when the body of his son arrived in the U.S. from Benghazi.

Woods said Obama also spoke with him at the ceremony but was “totally insincere.”

“His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder,” he said, “like he could not look me in the eye. … totally insincere … more of a whining type of ‘I’m sorry.’”
He said Clinton also came over to talk.

“She did not appear to be one bit sincere at all. She mentioned that thing about we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted who did the video.”

So what about that filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?

He’s been in jail since the controversy erupted, officially for reasons unrelated to his “offense” against Islam.

A lawyer for the filmmaker told WND his client was serving time for a probation violation and is scheduled to be released this fall from a prison in Latoona, Texas.

The issue was all over Twitter, where one person commented, “It’s crystal clear that the terrorists who killed four Americans in Benghazi weren’t spurred on by an anti-Islam video, despite what administration officials wanted the public to believe. But nearly eight months after the attacks, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker Makoula Basseley Nakoula still languishes in prison.”

Critics of the Obama administration point out that a year in jail for a probation violation appears out of the ordinary.

Find out why the left behaves as it does, in “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.”

The Associated Press has reported the man behind the video had violated a probation order and acquired a driver’s license under a false name.

He had been on probation in a bank fraud case.

The plea agreement accepted by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder last fall put Nakoula behind bars, but none of the offenses was related to “Innocence of Muslims,” which portrays the founder of Islam as a religious fraud and pedophile.

2nd Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99
The New York Times called the video “crude” and said it depicted Muhammad as “a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.”

The newspaper described Nakoula, 55, as “a Coptic Christian born in Egypt.”

The Obama administration clung for weeks to the story that it was Muslims upset over the video who spontaneously rioted in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the claim on five morning news shows the Sunday after the attack.

3rd Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99
But the claim was contradicted by Mohammed Magariaf, president of Libya’s National Assembly, who said it had “nothing to do” with the attack. Evidence has mounted ever since that it was an organized attack on the U.S. by a group affiliated with al-Qaida.

A witness at today’s House panel hearing on Benghazi, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said his jaw dropped when he heard Rice blame the video.

4th Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

Hicks said the YouTube video was a “non-event” in Libya.

5th Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

The New York Times said, “Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention.”

The video was described as an “amateurish project” that might have “disappeared quietly.”

WND has reported that a sub-plot to the issue is that the CIA, under Gen. David Petraeus, purportedly was using the Benghazi mission to coordinate U.S. aid to Syrian opposition groups.

WND reported that the U.S. facility in Benghazi was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one, according to informed Middle East security officials.

Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, the security officials said.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Furthering the story, WND reported claims that Paula Broadwell, the alleged mistress of Petraeus, revealed a secret CIA detention center in Benghazi in a public speech she gave just weeks after the attack.

Broadwell, a former counter-terrorism operative, co-authored a bestselling biography of Petraeus. She discussed the book in a keynote speech Oct. 26 at a University of Denver alumni symposium.

In a question-and-answer session, Broadwell was asked about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

She stated: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

Is the Benghazi scandal worse than Watergate?

• No, of course not. Watergate reached the highest level of the White House. Benghazi was a mishandling by the state department
• No, Watergate was clearly a premeditated crime, and Benghazi was a combination of ineptitude and cover-up
• No, Republicans will put '-gate' at the end of any Obama issue
• No, I'm confident the Obama administration made the right call in Benghazi
• No, and at this point, what difference does it make?!
• No, this is a political witch hunt to weaken Democrats before the 2014 election
• No, this is a ridiculous attempt by nutty right-wingers to advocate for Obama's impeachment
• Yes, the cover-up in Benghazi is at least as disgraceful and documented as Watergate
• Yes, it's as least as bad, and Watergate produced jail terms
• Yes, of course it is. But the left-leaning media will not hold this president accountable as they did with Nixon
• Yes, the cold-hearted response to the crisis and the outrageous, ongoing cover-up far exceed Watergate
• Yes, the Watergate burglars didn’t result in deaths, let alone the killings of an ambassador and 3 American heroes
• Yes, and the consequences for the president and those who enabled Benghazi-gate should be more severe than those of Watergate
• Yes, Benghazi-gate was infinitely worse than the Watergate break-in. It's truly in a league of its own
• Other

View Results

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

Is the Benghazi scandal worse than Watergate?

• Yes, and the consequences for the president and those who enabled Benghazi-gate should be more severe than those of Watergate (45%, 1,478 Votes)
• Yes, Benghazi-gate was infinitely worse than the Watergate break-in. It's truly in a league of its own (28%, 916 Votes)
• Yes, the Watergate burglars didn’t result in deaths, let alone the killings of an ambassador and 3 American heroes (10%, 335 Votes)
• Yes, the cold-hearted response to the crisis and the outrageous, ongoing cover-up far exceed Watergate (8%, 253 Votes)
• Yes, of course it is. But the left-leaning media will not hold this president accountable as they did with Nixon (7%, 224 Votes)
• Yes, the cover-up in Benghazi is at least as disgraceful and documented as Watergate (less than 1%, 14 Votes)
• Yes, it's as least as bad, and Watergate produced jail terms (less than 1%, 9 Votes)
• No, this is a ridiculous attempt by nutty right-wingers to advocate for Obama's impeachment (less than 1%, 6 Votes)
• No, of course not. Watergate reached the highest level of the White House. Benghazi was a mishandling by the state department (less than 1%, 5 Votes)
• No, Watergate was clearly a premeditated crime, and Benghazi was a combination of ineptitude and cover-up (less than 1%, 5 Votes)
• Other (less than 1%, 2 Votes)
• No, this is a political witch hunt to weaken Democrats before the 2014 election (less than 1%, 1 Votes)
• No, Republicans will put '-gate' at the end of any Obama issue (less than 1%, 1 Votes)
• No, and at this point, what difference does it make?! (0%, 0 Votes)
• No, I'm confident the Obama administration made the right call in Benghazi (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 3,249

Vote

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/video-mak...TfHoXgaUQVt.99

Bombshell Benghazi Testimony: Beyond Incompetence

By Bobby Eberle May 9, 2013 7:13 am

On Wednesday, the famed Benghazi "whistle blowers" testified before The House Oversight and Reform Committee, and what they had to say should have every single media outlet burning the midnight oil to get the story out. The testimony was detailed, emotional, and riveting. More importantly, the testimony painted a picture of a series of events that goes beyond incompetence. What we are looking at is political corruption that led to the death of four Americans.

One of the key witnesses was Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Greg Hicks. Greg was there. He was in the middle of it all, and he became the highest ranking representative of the U.S. in Libya when his boss, Ambassador Chris Stevens, was murdered.

Hicks noted that there was absolutely no public uprising going on during the night of September 11, 2012. Hicks also noted that it was crystal clear, almost immediately, that the attack was a terrorist attack. There was no "fog of war." There was no Internet video. There was only an Islamic extremist group hell bent on killing Americans. The State Department knew this. The White House knew this. Everyone knew this.

During the proceedings, it was noted that not one, not two, but three separate military units were within range to help the doomed Americans. They were within range, but help was not sent. Hicks was standing next to one of the generals who wanted to help but was told to "stand down." That part of the testimony really stood out to me.

Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team -- known as a FEST team -- to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers.

Suggesting that some were hesitant to deploy because they were unsure what was happening, "One definition of a crisis is you do not know what's going to happen in two hours," he said.
Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. "They were furious," he said

Video at the Page Link:

The Democrats on the committee were absolutely pathetic. Don't they want to know why this happened?

What we've learned is that all facets of the Obama administration knew that the attack was terrorist related. So why didn't Obama order action to help save these Americans? Why was the military not allowed to act? Recall that Obama gave a speech just the week before the attack stating that al Qaeda was on the run.

Trying to save face from an obvious terrorist attack could be the reason why the story was invented that the attack was a spontaneous uprising due to an anti-islamic Internet video. The idea of politics being played with this situation and a blatant lie put forward to the American people is worthy of serious fallout within the Obama administration. They flat out lied to the American people. But that was the "after." Even more ominous is the fact that Obama and his team REFUSED to act to save American lives. They refused. For this, they should all be put in jail. Period.

The Benghazi murders go beyond incompetence. There were specific decisions made to withhold support for the Americans fighting for their lives. Then, in order to cover up these deliberate decisions, and a story... a cover-up... was concocted which Obama's team hoped with explain why they didn't act: "we didn't know for sure what was happening... we thought it was an uprising." We know this isn't true, and because it's not true, the motives behind what happened are much more chilling.

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/0.../?subscriber=1

White House sweats buckets as it responds to new Benghazi revelations.

Posted by Bill Bissell, Admin II on May 9, 2013 at 11:47pm in Patriot Action Alerts

Susan Crabtree of The Washington Times reports that the White House was still sticking with the story of Obama not knowing who attacked the Benghazi embassy of no less than four days, even though new testimonies show the terrorist group Ansar Al Sharia Brigade totally involved.

The White House on Wednesday stood by its story that the Obama administration remained unsure exactly who was responsible for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi nearly five days after it occurred even though new revelations show Ansar al-Sharia’s direct involvement.

I wonder how many packs of cigarettes Obama might have gone through May 8th as he watched Gregory Hicks the deputy chief of missions at the U.S. Embassy, and self described whistleblower testify before a Congressional committee of Ambassador J Christopher Stevens body being missing for hours after being dragged out of diplomatic post in Benghazi.

U.S.A Today reports

Hicks was the first person who was in Libya during the attack to testify publicly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the Obama's administration's handling of security in Libya and response to the attack.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=HBiE2XgmHU4

Do you wonder if Obama reacted at all to what was reported by The Washington Times regarding Hicks testifying how the Ambassador's body was taken to a hospital run by Ansar Al Sharia?

He said a Libyan official eventually called him that night to inform him Mr. Stevens had died and that his body was at a hospital run by Ansar al-Sharia. Mr. Hicks said it was the saddest phone call of his life

When the hearings continue, and the other whistleblowers testify, will it cause Obama's hair to go utterly white in one week? Will the real story force Obama to quit, or force others in his own party to really wake up and help throw this arrogant, selfish man out of the White House where Obama should not have been allowed to get close to?

Click here to see highlights of Gregory Hicks testimony

Tags: Ambassador, Ansar, Benghazi, Gregory, Hicks, J.Christpher, al-Sharia, hearing


http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic...sg_share_topic

How Obama used taxpayer funds in Benghazi cover-up

When Obama wants to go golfing, you pay.

When he wants to take the family to Hawaii, or the first lady wants to go to Paris, or the first daughters want to go to Mexico for spring break, you pay.

And when Obama is in a major pickle because he failed to anticipate a terror attack in Benghazi and -- worse -- failed to respond to it and needs to sell a cover story ... you guessed it, you pay.Here's what it cost.

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama used taxpayer funds in Benghazi cover-up

$70,000 Pakistani ad buy blamed obscure anti-Muhammad film

Published: 1 day ago Aaron Klein

Video at the Page Link: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obama-use...4RWRChcbybr.99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We absolutely reject its contents,” she says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obama-use...4RWRChcbybr.99