Thread: [Watch] Benghazi Hearing – Known Attack, No US Response Due to Waiting For State Dept

[Watch] Benghazi Hearing – Known Attack, No US Response Due to Waiting For State Dept

Posted on 1 May, 2014 by Rick Wells



Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) questions Retired USAF Brigadier Gen. Robert Lovell, in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chaffetz asked Gen. Lovell what he believed the attacks were attributable to at the time and how quickly did they come to that conclusion.

Lovell’s response was that they were attributable to an Islamic extremist group, most likely Ansar Al Sharia. He said they came to that conclusion “very, very soon, when we were still in the very early hours of this activity.
Chaffetz asks, “Was it a video?” Lovell quickly responded “no sir.” He followed up, “Was it a video that sparked a protest?” Again, Lovell replied, “no sir.”

Chaffetz reminded Chairman Issa that the administration keeps saying they want to get to the “facts at the time,” so that is what he is trying to decipher.



Chaffetz proceeds to build a case that everybody involved, responding and investigating knew it was not a video that sparked the incident. He asserts that only White House partisans were pushing the video protest narrative.

Brig. Gen. Lovell’s testimony also indicates the U.S. response effort was negatively impacted by a bureaucratic delay, waiting for State Department input.

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...or-state-dept/

Mark Levin

McCarthy spells it out



Andrew C. McCarthy - Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi

The e-mail revelations and the Obama administration’s lies
National Review

May 1, 2014 4:00 AM

Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi

The e-mail revelations and the Obama administration’s lies

By Andrew C. McCarthy





Jay Carney and Barack Obama (Pete Souza/White House)

Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly (see here and here), the Obama administration’s “Blame the Video” story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.
We’ll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration’s derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see. But let’s begin with Jay Carney’s performance in Wednesday’s exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released e-mails that corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along: “Blame the Video” was an Obama-administration–crafted lie, through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the president’s foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the president’s reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success — and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being “decimated,” as the president repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al-Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries — indeed, they had been strengthened by the president’s pro-Islamist policies.
The explosive e-mails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long been obvious: Susan Rice, the president’s confidant and ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle the administration’s “Blame the Video” fairy tale to the American people in appearances on five different national television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was coached about what to say by other members of the president’s inner circle.One of the e-mails refers expressly to a “prep call” that Ambassador Rice had with several administration officials on late Saturday afternoon right before her Sunday-show appearances. The tangled web of deception spun by the administration has previously included an effort to distance the White House (i.e., the president) from Rice’s mendacious TV performances. Thus, Carney was in the unenviable position Wednesday of trying to explain the “prep call” e-mail, as well as other messages that illuminate the Obama White House’s deep involvement in coaching Rice. The e-mails manifest that Rice’s performances were campaign appearances, not the good-faith effort of a public official to inform the American people about an act of war against our country. Her instructions were “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”; and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges” (emphasis added).
Carney risibly claimed that the “prep call” was “not about Benghazi.” Instead, according to him, it was “about the protests around the Muslim world.”
Two points must be made about this.
The first involves the administration’s blatant lying. Benghazi was the only reason Rice was going on the Sunday shows. If the massacre had not happened, there would not have been an extraordinary administration offering of one top Obama official to five different national television networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before.
Moreover, as is well known to anyone who has ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to Congress, to courts, and to other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a “murder board” preparation process. This is a freewheeling session in which the questions likely to be asked at the presentation are posed, and potential answers — especially to tough questions — are proposed, discussed, and massaged. The suggestion that Rice, less than 24 hours before being grilled by high-profile media figures, was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was the sole reason for her appearance is so farfetched it is amazing that Carney thought he could make it fly.
The second point brings us full circle to Egypt.
Why would Carney claim, with a straight face, that Rice was being prepped “about protests around the Muslim world”? Because, other than Benghazi, the “protest around the Muslim world” that Americans know about is the rioting (not “protest,” rioting) at the U.S. embassy in Cairo a few hours before the Benghazi siege. When Benghazi comes up, the administration — President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al. — loves to talk about the Cairo “protests.” Why? Because the media, and thus the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. Obama & Co. shrewdly calculate that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will accept “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi — or, at the very least, you will give Obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
You see, the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud. If you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former.
But “Blame the Video” is every bit as much a deception when it comes to Cairo.Thanks to President Obama’s policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al-Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama’at al-Islamia (the Islamic Group), the terrorist organization led by the Blind Sheikh — Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks.
In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”
The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.
The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.
Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood–governed Egypt, the continuing demand for the Blind Sheikh’s release (which underscored the jihadists’ influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al-Qaeda was anything but “decimated”).
The transparent purpose of the State Department’s shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere “protests”) were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama’s policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda.
Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion — a false notion — that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration’s “Blame the Video” farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.
At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11 — after they knew our ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged — Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud’s Benghazi phase — the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn’t the beginning of the fraud.
Secretary Clinton’s minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier, in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the president’s Benghazi cover-up.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rew-c-mccarthy

REPORT: Obama Directly Armed the Benghazi Terrorists

A year and a half later, we’re still looking for answers on Benghazi, and we’re not getting them from the Obama administration. They continue, with the help of the media, to cover up exactly what happened and who in the administration knew what and when regarding the attack.
The Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi is a group of ex-CIA officers, former top military officials, and policy experts who are searching for answers about the attack, and the report they just released on why Benghazi happened is just disturbing.
They allege that Obama was actually arming the affiliates of Al Qaeda in Libya during their attempt to overthrow Gaddafi, and the attack could’ve been prevented had the US not “switched sides in the War on Terror.”

Via Dailymail:

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

The report claims that Gaddafi was willing to step down from his position of power and offer a truce with the rebels, but Obama would not allow the Pentagon to pursue a peace deal.

‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’ [...]
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.

The report calls out Hillary for her negligence and betrayal of our personnel in Benghazi, and says that the claim that armed forces couldn’t have made it in time is patently false:

Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.
‘I’m going to tell you that’s not true,’ he said. ‘We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.’
‘The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.’ [...]
‘They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren’t,’ Simmons said of the four Americans who died.
‘I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, “What difference does it make?” – should be an alarm bell for all Americans.
‘It haunts me,’ Simmons said. ‘I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.’

It’s important that we not take any of this information for granted, as these claims do go pretty far beyond what we know for sure up to this point and what Congress has been able to uncover about the attack. What’s clear is that Obama and Hillary were negligent in securing the embassy and responding promptly with force, and they lied for weeks about the nature of the attack, saying that it wasn’t an act of terrorism. Those are impeachable offenses.
If anything, this report should cause us to ask more questions and demand more answers from Obama. If the media would do its job and seriously investigate Benghazi, we might get to the bottom of this thing once and for all. We need a full select congressional committee with subpoena power to force administration officials to give us answers.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you think Obama and Hillary need to finally answer for what happened in Benghazi.

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-armed-al-qaeda/

Greta: Obama Tried to Stop Fox News From Reporting Benghazi

As more and more truth is discovered about the Benghazi terror attack on 9/11/2012, the more that the Benghazi coverup spun by the White House is collapsing. Even liberal bastions like MSNBC and the New York Times have reluctantly admitted there is a coverup.
The vast majority of Americans want the truth about Benghazi, and are demanding a special investigation to uncover it.
The American people are beyond tired of the stalling and uncooperative attitude displayed by the White House towards Congress and certain members of the media.

It now appears that Obama’s administration went beyond just stalling or being uncooperative, and were actively trying to silence the coverage of the attack by Fox News. Greta Van Susteren wrote about it on her blog.
(H/T: Newsbusters)

“After Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the Obama administration tried very hard to discourage Fox News Channel from reporting on it. The effort was obstruction – pure and simple.”
“They tried to prevent the truth from coming out and the Administration tried just about everything to discourage Fox from investigating and reporting,” she continued. “All the American people wanted, and all I ever wanted, was just the facts – why did 4 Americans die? What happened?”
“The Obama Administration put out that phony video story — but who could not have been suspicious of the Administration after hearing that?” Van Susteren asked. “Frankly, if they had been candid on day 1, the Benghazi story would have been over in short order. It would not be to the point we are now: with a Senate Bi Partisan Intelligence Committee report with the very painful conclusion that the murders at Benghazi could have been prevented.”

Greta shares some specific proof that validates her claims of White House obstruction.

In the early days after Benghazi, the State Department omitted only Fox News Channel from its conference call to all the media when it claimed to be answering questions about Benghazi for the media. Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was accident and not intentional.
And then shortly thereafter, there was the CIA briefing about Benghazi at the CIA for all the networks – except one: Fox News Channel. The CIA would not let Fox News Channel attend. [...]
And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

Even more specifically, Greta says that she was warned by a friend in the administration about Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin, and was told to rein her in, as she was asking too many questions and digging too deep.

[M]y friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?
In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first.

Told by her friend that Griffin was wrong in her assessments of Benghazi, Van Susteren demanded proof that her colleague Griffin was wrong.

I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

This news doesn’t really come as a shock to anybody. A vast majority of Americans believe that Obama is covering up the truth of Benghazi. It is not a stretch to think his administration would warn and shun certain reporters and news organizations that posed a danger to their cover story.
Th Obama administration has gone to great lengths to disguise the true events of Benghazi, from changing the original talking points for the media, to changing the names of survivors to prevent their stories from reaching the public. It is time for a special select committee to fully investigate Benghazi and hold whoever is responsible to full account for their actions.

Please share on Facebook and Twitter if you are unsurprised that Obama’s White House tried to prevent Fox News from covering the Benghazi terror attack.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/o...ping-fox-news/

General: We Never Thought Benghazi Was Because Of A Video

May 1, 2014 by UPI - United Press International, Inc.

WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) — Military and intelligence officials in Africa during the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya said they quickly ruled out that the attack had been sparked by a controversial YouTube video, a general who was in Africa at the time of the attack said Thursday.
Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, testifying before the House Oversight Committee’s fourth hearing on the attack, said he and others at U.S. Armed Forces headquarters in Africa quickly came to the conclusion the attack was unrelated to the video, which had sparked a protest in Cairo earlier that day.
“As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above,” Lovell said.
New documents released by court order Wednesday provided an opening for renewed criticism of the White House from Republicans, who repeatedly asked whether the State Department had shirked its responsibility to protect Americans abroad.
“The military could have made a response,” said Representative John Mica (R-Fla.), “See, I believe we had the capability” to save at least the two Navy SEALs who died several hours after the beginning of the attack.
But Lovell said he agreed with the conclusion of Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who said last month he believed “that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did.”
And yet, Lovell said, he felt the military could still have tried.
“We should have continued to move forward with whatever forces we had to move forward with,” he testified.
Lovell’s testimony comes in direct contradiction to that of then-Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell, who last month testified his analysts considered for several days the possibility of the attack having been brought on by extremists who took advantage of a protest over the video.
Thursday’s hearing comes just hours after the release of 41 documents of State Department communications, declassified by court order Wednesday. Included among them was an email from then-White House aide Ben Rhodes, now a deputy national security advisor, outlining a communication strategy for then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s television appearances for the Sunday after the attack.
The goals, Rhodes wrote, were “to convey that the United States is doing everything we can do to protect our people and facilities abroad; to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy; to show that we will be resolute in brining people who harm Americans to Justice, and stand steadfast through these protests; to reenforce the president and administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Republicans pounced on the documents, calling them proof that the White House “orchestrated an effort to deflect attention away from their failed Libya policy and the resurgence of al Qaeda another other terrorists.”
“The emails provide additional evidence that senior officials knew the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a complex attack and not a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement Wednesday.
But the White House denied the emails were the smoking gun Republicans have been looking for, saying that Rhodes’ email was actually addressing the larger situation of unrest, including the protests in Cairo and fears others might break out.
“In the e-mail, Ben Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”

http://personalliberty.com/general-w...se-of-a-video/

Conservative Daily

Now America knows where Obama wasn't during Benghazi...



Bombshell: NSA Spokesman Says Obama Never Entered The Situation Room During Benghazi Attack

Glad to know Americans dying didn't bother the president's pleasant evening.
ijreview.com

Bombshell: NSA Spokesman Says Obama Never Entered The Situation Room During Benghazi Attack

By Soopermexican 3 hours ago

Video at the Page Link:

In a contentious interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vietor admitted that Barack Obama never even entered the situation room even as the attack continued at the Benghazi consulate.

Ironically, he was trying to defend the president when he made this comments, by criticizing Fox News for airing reports that Obama watched the attack unfold from the Situation Room. Is it any better that he never bothered to check in and see what was going on?

h/t Gateway Pundit

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/1347...nghazi-attack/

The Shocking FACTS About Benghazi No One is Talking About

Susanne Posel 3 hours ago
1 Comment

Recent emails from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Judicial Watch which indicates that Ben Rhodes, speech writer for President Obama, "conducted meetings with" former UN Ambassador Susan Rice to collaborate on her now infamous "Benghazi comments."
Journalist Jennifer Rubin asserts: "The Rhodes memo certainly seems to confirm the allegations Republicans have been making for more than a year: the White House was intentionally spinning after the attack so as not to damage their reelection prospects. The White House denied this, and now there is evidence the critics were right. Isn't the mainstream media the least bit curious about what happened? You'd think their new-found independence and critical analysis of Obama foreign policy would provoke some rumination about Benghazi. Or perhaps, they are simply unwilling to recognize that they missed the boat all along and concede that conservative media scooped them again and again."

In defense of the FOIA emails released, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council (NSC) said: "In the email Ben Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time."
Meehan continued: "Unlike those who insist on politicizing the events in Benghazi, our focus remains on ensuring that a tragedy like this isn't repeated in Libya or anywhere else in the world. In our view, these documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time."

Last December, the The New York Times (NYT) reported that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi.
This information was attributed to "extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context."
This past January, the US State Department (SD) stated that Ansar al-Shari'a were the group responsible for the attacks in Benghazi.
The SD explained: "Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya."
This information was obtained by Guantanamo Bay detainees Sufian bin Qumu and Ahmed Abu Khattalah who are alleged the heads of the Darnah and Benghazi branches of Ansar al-Shari'a.
In 2012, David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was planning on informing the House and Senate committees that Ansar al-Shari'a was identified as "a prime suspect" at Benghazi from the beginning.
However, facts surrounding the attack have been ignored by the majority of media outlets because they do not fit into the "official" narrative that has become the Benghazi scandal.
Mohammad al-Bishari, landlord of the gated-villa rented out by the SD and the actual "compound" where the attack occurred confirmed that the men who attacked the villa, threw grenades over the walls, shoot and killed the US Marines who tried to defend Stevens; then looted and stole sensitive documents containing the names of Libyans working with the US and the Saudi Arabian government in terroristic operations, as well as oil contracts tying the US and Saudi Arabia, and burned it to the ground after murdering US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
The assailants were armed with American assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and carried the black flag of the Ansar al-Sharia.
Petraeus' testimony may have been publically censored because of a little known fact that has been kept from the general public about US Ambassador Stevens "other mission" in Benghazi.
Stevens was conducting surveillance missions for the CIA on the National Transitional Council (NTC), the defacto-government installed by the US after the assassination of Gaddafi, and their Salafi extremist ties which lead to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In truth, Stevens was conducting arms deals with the NTC while simultaneously spying on the NTC for the CIA. This was a true nature of Stevens' diplomatic missions which were sanctioned by the SD.
Some of Stevens' deals for arms can be realized in the artillery and weapons being funneled to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria who are fighting the proxy war for the US.
Stevens became the "liaison" between US-sponsored terrorist factions and the movement of arms to Syria to assist the FSA. And this is the reason Stevens was murdered.
Shipments to the FSA have come from Saudi Arabia where the Salafi terrorists originated and the Ansar al-Shari'a is used to further subversive interests.
Thanks to the US, the Saudi government and Stevens, the FSA are the most heavily armed state-sponsored jihadist group in the Middle East.
This leads into Hillary Clinton's involvement as then Secretary of State.
Clinton, was responsible for diplomatic security, and denied Stevens' request.
And in response, there was an order from the US government to disarm the US Marine Security by refusing them live ammo while allowing them to keep their guns.
Clinton, not wanting the Saudi connection to become common knowledge, and knowing that Stevens was directly involved in arms trade deals between the NTC and the Saudi government to arm the FSA in Syria paved the way for Stevens to be murdered.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/sh...i-one-talking/

Mark Levin

Another clown who needs to be put under oath

http://therightscoop.com/former-nsc-...back-Thursday/

Krauthammer on Benghazi Emails: “The Equivalent of What Was Discovered With The Nixon Tapes”

Posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2014 at 11:14 pm.
by: Thomas Jefferson


Video at the Page Link:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I think what’s really happened here is what Mara says, this e-mail has sort of reopened this in the same way that in Watergate it was this sort of quiet, private discovery that there were tapes in the White House. It also died down, and I think Richard Nixon would still be president of the United States today, still hook or by crook, had the tapes not been discovered. And that’s what restarted this. And this e-mail from the White House, that’s what everybody had said, is there a way to — is there any involvement here of the White House which makes it obviously a political issue, the reelection of the president overriding the truth. And that’s why I think it is all reopened.
And watching Carney today, I have to say again, they don’t pay him enough. On the first question, if this was a release of information for a request on Benghazi, how can you tell us it isn’t about Benghazi? He simply says, I have no idea, ask the State Department. But then when you point out the fact that this is the only time — well, it isn’t the only. It’s one of the rare times when you get a high administration official going on all five shows. It happened only once in the Bush administration. It never happened in the Clinton administration. And if they had not been about Benghazi, does anybody imagine she would have been on the five shows because of a demonstration in Cairo? That’s ridiculous.
The briefing, the appearances, it was all about Benghazi. Of course everything in the memo is about Benghazi. And when Carney denies it, he simply looks foolish.
BRET BAIER: I didn’t pull the sound bite, but a few weeks ago you said right here on this panel that Republicans should move on, that they should kind of leave benghazi alone, that it was a dead end. Have you changed your perspective?
KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, because of the appearance of this memo. To me, it’s the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes. The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed. It was not orgdanized. If they had appointed a special committee a long time ago, the way it was done in Watergate, we would have had answers on this and the country wouldn’t be tired.
But what I did say was the reason it would not go anywhere is because the lack of interest of the other media. And what’s changed now, and we saw it in the briefing room, is I think the other media are somewhat embarrassed by the fact that, unlike FOX, they allowed themselves to be stoned and spun and rolled for a year and a half and now the memo appears and it’s obvious that they missed this story.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...xon_tapes.html


http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/u...d-nixon-tapes/

[Watch] Judge Napolitano, Time for Special Prosecutor, House Needs a Lawyer

Posted on 1 May, 2014 by Rick Wells



Judge Andrew Napolitano is interviewed by Brian Kilmeade on the Benghazi emails and where the investigation goes from here. Kilmeade plays the recent Carney denial video clip and shows the email excerpts from former White House advisor Ben Rhodes which said, “[the goal is] to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure or policy.”

Kilmeade then asks the questions “Is it time for the Justice Dept. to appoint a special counsel to investigate what really happened and should Congress be doing more?”

The Judge says the answer to both questions is the same, “Profoundly, Yes.”

Napolitano raises a point that Karl Rove had reminded him of that Federal Law prohibits employees except for the president and the vice-president from engaging in politics.

He says that if the email that Ben Rhodes sent made its way to the political campaign, it could well be a violation of the Hatch Act and a felony. That would need to be investigated by a special counsel. The Justice Department will never dig deep enough on one of its own for that.



Napolitano is then asked “How do we get to the bottom of this?” His answer is that if Attorney General Holder will not appoint a special prosecutor, he recommends the House hire a criminal trial lawyer with great cross examination experience. He names former DHS Secretary Chertoff as an example but says there are many.

He says, “Believe me Brian, Hillary Clinton is not going to be able to make speeches when Mike Chertoff is cross-examining her.”

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...eeds-a-lawyer/