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

Don’t Get Excited About White House Benghazi Email Dump, The First 67 Hours Are Missing

MAY 16, 2013 12:51 PM 0 COMMENTS VIEWS: 1832

Before you go getting all excited about the nearly 100 pages of emails released by the White House in regards to the Benghazi Libya terrorist attack that killed 4 people including the first American Ambassador in 34 years, you need to know the first, critical 67 hours of those email were not included. In the Obama administration's attempt to be transparent, they have just created more controversy.

So, for a two and a half day period from right after the attack when emails were probably furiously flying around the State Department, the Pentagon, the White House and from diplomats in Tripoli and Benghazi itself, we, and more importantly Congress, does not get to see that conversation.

But, one important revelation in the emails released was that the was no mention whatsoever as to the YouTube video that supposedly started the whole non-existent protest which lead to the storming of the consulate. Curious.

Read more about the White House Benghazi email dump from TheDailyCaller.com below:

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.

“Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence “talking points” that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.

“This release is long overdue [but] there are relevant documents the Administration has still refused to produce,” said a May 15 statement from Brendan Buck, press secretary to House Majority Leader John Boehner.

“We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come,” he added.

The two-day gap — the first released email was sent 67 hours after the attack began — plus the Petraeus comment, undermines the White House’s explanation for the rewrite.

Officials, including spokesman Jay Carney, say CIA officials — not White House and State Department officials — rewrote a quick-reaction CIA report that had attributed the attack to an al-Qaeda affiliate.

“Even the smallest amount of scrutiny [shows the emails don’t] support their explanation,” said a May 15 tweet from Buck.

“The White House’s explanation appears NOWHERE in the actual [email] documents. Nowhere. Not even a hint of it,” Buck added.

After the attack, White House officials used the edited talking points to bolster repeated claims that the organized attack was an unpredictable, spontaneous violent riot by Libyans who were angry about a California-made YouTube video.

The little-known video was sharply critical of Mohammad, the central prophet in Islam.

The video was repeatedly cited by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the crisis, which began only eight weeks before the 2012 election.

GOP legislators plan to continue investigating the September cover-up of al-Qaeda’s role, and the current cover-up over the White House’s role in rewriting the CIA report.

Related Posts For You:

• HELL FREEZES OVER – MSNBC Says Benghazi Cover Up Looks ‘Clintonian’ – Risk of ‘Impeachment’ (VIDEO)
• Watch LIVE: Benghazi Attack Hearings
• Charles Krauthammer Blasts Obama For Not Admitting Radical Islam Is Cause Of Terrorism
• 16 Arrested In UK as Thousands Of Leftists Shamefully Celebrate Margaret Thatcher’s Death
• SHOCKING Michelle Obama Letter Calls Partial Birth Abortion, ‘Legitimate Medical Procedure’

http://www.isthatbaloney.com/dont-ge...s-are-missing/

Retired Marine Officer Steve Klein Says: Benghazi Cover-up Began at the Top

by JIM KOURI on MAY 16, 2013

As U.S. lawmakers continue to peel away layers of the Benghazi cover up, the partisan politics involved during the Congressional probes that have been twisted and maligned by members of the news media appear to be the only stories most news organizations are covering.

For example, little attention is being paid to the mysterious filmmaker who created the motion picture, “Innocence of Muslims,” which President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration minions blamed for the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, according to a former U.S. Marine, who worked on the now famous motion picture, in an exclusive interview with NewsWithViews.com.

While the filmmaker was first identified as Sam Bacile immediately following the terrorist attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, it was later learned, through court documents from a 2009 indictment and conviction for bank fraud, that the filmmaker’s real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Sam Bacile is a pseudonym and he uses aliases — Mark Basseley Youssef, Yousseff M. Basseley, Nicola Bacily and Malid Ahlawi — to avoid being victimized by Muslims from his homeland, which many believe is Egypt, according to former Marine Captain Steve Klein in an exclusive interview with NewsWithViews.

Klein said he was the military consultant for the movie project and that he and Bacile the filmmaker wished to make a film that would expose the truth about the Prophet Mohammed to radical Muslims throughout the world. See Coach Dave Daubenmire interview Steve Klein in the clip below.



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

“The Obama administration is using “Innocence of Muslims” as a smokescreen to hide the fact that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are as strong as ever. Obama, Clinton, Panetta and the rest knew the film was not responsible for the deaths of four Americans,” said the decorated Marine veteran.

Klein said he had promised to help Bacile produce the feature film but cautioned him that “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.” Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

“We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen,” Klein said.

In trailers posted on YouTube in July 2012, there were scenes of the Prophet Mohammed portrayed as a womanizer, ruthless killer and child molester. While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said the film was “disgusting,” most Americans are aware of its truthfulness, said former police detective Mike Snopes.

“The facts are that Mohammed married a nine-year old girl which makes him a pedophile and rapist if he consummated that marriage with the child. He took part in the slaughter of infidels — non-believers — which makes him a ruthless killer. And during his era, what Arab leader had only one wife?” asks Snopes.

While intelligence officials and others working in the field of counterterrorism were aware almost immediately that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with Bacile’s film, here’s how CNN reported the story two days after the Benghazi attack.

Protesters aired their anti-American anger in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories. Violent mobs attacked the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi leaving the ambassador and three other Americans dead.

As outrage spread, the film’s origins still remained murky. Whose idea was it? Who financed it?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7ds1nnJ3t14

During the NewsWithViews interview, Klein reiterated what many have been saying about the Muslim film: That it did not spark rioting in Libya which news reports have blamed for the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats in Libya.

Steven Klein said, “Sam Bacile and the movie “Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with Banghazi. If anyone is responsible for the deaths of four Americans it was — and still is — Obama and Clinton. They are using the film and anything else they can find to cover up their culpability.”

“Hillary and Obama tried to hide behind Sam, they promised to punish him. I am convinced that Hillary and Obama demanded he be prosecuted as far as possible – still trying to shift blame from them to Sam,” Klein stated.

According to Klein, following the attack on Sept. 12, 2012, federal agents arrested Bacile saying he violated his probation. After that arrest, FBI agents were dispatched to provide protection for Klein – protection that basically lasted about six months.

“They confided in me that I was the bait and if any Islamists attempted to kill or harm me, they’d be able to swoop in and nail them,” Klein noted during the telephone interview with NewsWithViews.

Klein believes Muslim extremists control most of the mosques across the United States and that his intention is only to tell the truth.

In fact, The American Muslim Online (TAM) calls Klein an extremist and then attempts to paint a picture of conspiracy between the Marine veteran and well-known terrorism experts Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims on their web site that they have been tracking Klein for several years and have labeled two organizations with which he is affiliated as “hate groups.”

“Hillary and Obama used and [continue to] use the Southern Poverty Law Center to set the pack of Main Stream Press, ‘dogs’ loose on me,” said Klein.

And according to former detective and intelligence officer Mike Snopes, The American Muslim is an extremist publication funded by radical Islamist groups and individuals.

“I put TAM in the same class as the Southern Poverty Law Center — an anti-American group that views Christians as evil and counterterrorists as radicals,” said Snopes.

Take Action! Demand Congress to PASS H. RES. 36 to INVESTIGATE BENGHAZI through a special Joint Select Committee! Send Faxes and Sign the Petition.

Tagged as: benghazi coverup, benghazi libya terror, benghazi scandal, steve klein


About Jim Kouri

Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. He’s formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member, of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for Conservative Base, and a columnist for the Examiner.

View all posts by Jim Kouri →


http://www.conservativeactionalerts....an-at-the-top/

May 14, 2013 by Pamela Geller

White House Email Bombshell: “Messaging Ramifications” Reflect Fear Of Obama’s Benghazi Lies

202 Comments

Obama is calling Benghazi a “sideshow.” Dead Americans and an attack on our consulate on September 11, 2012 is a “sideshow“? On that alone, he shows how unqualified, incompetent, dangerous and unconcerned he is/was with American lives and national security — not to mention that he has, yet again, been exposed as a vicious, bold-faced liar.
Dck Cheney said on Hannity: “I think it’s one of the worst incidents frankly that I can recall in my career.” He said that officials would not allow Americans to know the truth about the attack because it would challenge the basis for President Obama’s re-election campaign. “If they told the truth about Benghazi — that it was a terrorist attack by an al-Qaida affiliated group — it would destroy the false image of competence that was the basis of his campaign for re-election,” Cheney insisted. “Well they lied.”

I can’t believe that CNN broke this. I wonder how long Tapper will last there, desecrating the holiest of O-liest.

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks Updated 12:15 PM EDT, Tue May 14, 2013 By Jake Tapper, CNN

CNN has obtained an email sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama, in which the aide discusses the Obama administration reaction to the attack on the U.S. posts in Benghazi, Libya. The actual email differs from how sources inaccurately quoted and paraphrased it in previous accounts to different media organizations.

The significance of the email seems to be that whomever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s desire to remove mentions to specific terrorist groups and warnings about these groups so as to not bring criticism to the Department than Rhodes’ email actually stated.

More on Tapper’s report:

The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.
Rhodes, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and White House press secretary Jay Carney, could not be reached for comment.

In the email sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:

“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

You can read the email HERE.

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes “responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning.”

Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated.

The email was sent to former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, CIA spokeswoman Cynthia Rapp, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, State Department official Jake Sullivan, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Shawn Turner and others whose names have been redacted from the copy of the email obtained by CNN. The subject line of the email is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/wh...ramifications/

WINNING 'HEARTS & MINDS'?

AFGHANISTAN'S BENGHAZI: GRIEVING FAMILIES WANT ANSWERS

Diana West highlights lack of investigation into Extortion 17 shoot-down of SEALs

Published: 3 hours ago
DIANA WEST

Grief and politics don’t mix. When raw, aching grief and the dirtiest kind of politics meet, a hot volcano of pain and outrage erupts that is unstoppable. But it is necessary. It is the only way things might ever be clean again.

I am thinking of recent casket transfer ceremonies that have taken place at Dover Air Force Base, where senior administration officials have used the solemn occasions – Benghazi, the shoot-down of Extortion 17 – less to comfort grieving families than to lay blame, to establish a narrative, to lie.

Think of Sean Smith’s mother. Think of Tyrone Woods’ father. After the Obama administration’s hugs came the Obama administration’s stonewalling. They still don’t have answers about what happened in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

We don’t either.

We still don’t know who in the U.S. government gave the order not to rescue Americans under fire for eight and a half hours, and how and why such an unconscionable order was given. We still don’t know who convinced senior White House officials to tell grieving parents meeting their children’s caskets that a video-maker, not jihad against the West, was to blame for the assault that took four American lives – or what the political motivation was.

This is a national disgrace.

But before Benghazi, there was Extortion 17, the call sign of a Special Operations mission in Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011. Three months after the strike on Osama bin Laden, 30 Americans – including 15 from the bin Laden strike-team unit, Navy SEAL Team 6, and two other SEALs – were killed in the costliest single-day loss for the U.S. military in the Afghanistan war, and the largest SEAL loss ever. A “lucky shot” in the dark brought down the old CH-47 Chinook helicopter attempting to land them in the middle of an ongoing battle in Wardak Province. Or so the U.S. military claims. The families are not so sure.

Then again, they’re not sure about anything. The runaround, the lies, the callous disregard they have received at the hands of the government and military is similar to Benghazi, maybe worse.

“We go to Dover to see bodies, and we’re all in the hangar down there,” Charles Strange, father of slain SEAL Michael Strange, recalled last week before a rapt audience at the National Press Club, where several Extortion 17 families gathered to call on Congress to investigate. “And President Obama comes up to me and he says, ‘Mr. Strange’ – and he grabs me by the shoulders – ‘Michael changed the way America lives.’ I grabbed Mr. President by the shoulders and I said: ‘I don’t need to know about my son, I need to know what happened, Mr. President.’

Strange continued. “The Secret Service guys grabbed me. I’m crying. He went to give me a hug. I whispered in his ear: ‘Mr. President, Is there going to be a congressional inquiry?’ And Mr. President whispered in my ear – and I could feel his lips touch – and he said, ‘Mr. Strange, we’re going to look into this very, very, very deep.’ Well, I haven’t heard nothing.”

Nothing that makes sense, anyway. A military investigation led by then-Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt (since promoted to major general) tells us there was no “eye in the sky” that night. Why not? No forces had been sent in to prepare the area. Why not?

More sickening was the fact that rules of engagement prevented suppressive fire from being aimed at the tower firing on the Chinook. Billy Vaughn, father of slain SEAL Aaron Vaughn, recalled how a three-star admiral explained this breach to the grieving families: U.S. forces couldn’t fire back, the admiral said, because “we want to win hearts and minds.” As Mr. Strange later put it: “What about my heart? What about my mind?”

American hearts and minds don’t count with this U.S. government – and that is our national tragedy until we change the government.

What commander is responsible for assembling so many SEALs in one inadequate aircraft, for this particular landing site, for a mission many believe was in fact unnecessary? Extortion 17 took off three months after the strike on bin Laden, three months after the Obama administration blew SEAL Team 6′s cover in the bin Laden raid, three months after intelligence indicated the Taliban were out for revenge. “The chain of command” was responsible, the families were told. Who were they? No answer.

Why was there no gunship escort that night? What happened in the final minutes of Extortion 17? The black box was never recovered, the military insists. Really? What about the seven Afghan soldiers who joined the mission at the last minute, replacing Afghans previously scheduled to fly? No one knows the identities of this last-minute group, or why they flew that day. More troubling still, military investigators didn’t interview Afghan commanders to find out.

Why not? To win their “hearts and minds,” too? The word for that is “submission.” Such submission also explains the appalling inclusion of an imam at the casket transfer ceremony in Afghanistan – a ceremony preceding the transport of the dead bodies, American and Afghan, to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where they would finally be identified. (This makes families wonder whether American sons lay in caskets draped with the Afghan flag.) There, in the midst of an otherwise ecumenical ceremony (devoid of any mention of Jesus Christ), the imam invoked Allah, while establishing that Muslims reside in heaven and non-Muslims reside in hell.

Standard Islamic fare, to be sure, but this is the same supremacist basis of the jihad that killed the men of Extortion 17. No wonder the families are doubly outraged.

As should we all be. Congress must investigate Extortion 17 and find out exactly what happened, and who bears responsibility. It is the very least we can do for our people.


http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/afghanist...-want-answers/

Retired 4 Star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi [EXACTLY!]

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 21:57
(Before It's News)

Charlite



This was published in January. The question now is: Why haven’t any of our ‘splendid’ GOPers in Congress invited Admiral Lyons to provide a full, complete testimony to them and to the American people? Surely they know exactly what Admiral Lyons has said – that this was what I’ve been contending since September 12, 2012……………that this was a kidnapping plot that went awry. We must demand that Boehner convene a special hearing for Admiral Lyons as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, put concentric rings of 24/7 security around this good man to protect him from the régime’s Breitbart boomerang effect.

You only have to ask yourself two questions: ONE: Why was an entirely vulnerable Chris Stevens an essential element to Hillary’s kidnapping plan? [Answer: Because she had guaranteed Morsi that his goon squad on the ground wouldn't have any opposition; that their mission would be an easy 5 minute 'smash-and-grab' operation.

TWO: Why did Muhammad Morsi (and also Ayman Al-Zawahiri) suddenly begin loudly and repeatedlydemanding the release of the blind sheik only 10 days to 2 weeks before 9-11-12? (Answer: They were setting the stage for Stevens' kidnapping and the anticipated 'magnanimous hostage swap' on the part of THE ONE in our White House - Olympus bestriding the earth, spreading international good will.............]

Read the column, then pass it around as widely as you can. This MUST reach millions of still befuddled Americans! Many thanks to Suze for sharing this with our group.

EXCERPT:

BY Doc Vega

According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.

In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.

This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.

A plot of pure deception

With what should have been only a staged kidnapping of Ambassador J. Christian Stevens, instead, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty refused a stand down order and began doing their job of protecting the ambassador using force. Immediately the well-trained Seals began inflicting heavy casualties upon the terrorists who thought they were merely in a cake walk to abduct Ambassador Stevens without mishap. As a result of the plan going awry, a massive attack arose from the anger of the terrorists who felt they had been betrayed by President Obama. In the aftermath of the battle which saw Navy Seal Glen Doherty was killed after the embassy had been overrun along with the ambassador’s staff. Ambassador Steven’s whose body showed up 5 hours later at a Benghazi hospital supposedly overcome by smoke as the initial press reports indicated was, in fact, raped, tortured, and dragged around Benghazi in retaliation for the botched Obama White House plan.

SEE COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE:

Retired 4 star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi new Evidence – Politisite | Politisite

http://www.politisite.com/2013/01/17/retired-4-star-admiral-blows-whistle-on-benghazi-new-evidence/#.UZLPwCh5mc0


http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2...y-2446534.html

Benghazi Unravelled: Has This Mysterious Commentor Put The Puzzle Together?

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 21:11
(Before It's News)

As a regular user of Before It’s News I see all kinds of comments. They come in all types; smart, stupid, questioning and sometimes just outright spam. Yet this this one caught my eye. This guy makes waaaaaay to much sense. The pieces all seem to fit just right in the synopsis. Does this guy have some inside info? What do you think-make sense to you?

Jacksdad

The Obama admin was running Libyan weapons to Syria, thru Turkey, via Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar. Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the “consulate” front gate one hour before the assault began. The attack happened because Libyan jihadists who fought for the Obama admin found out their newly acquired arsenal was gonna be stolen out from under them so they attacked the “consulate”.

Why the media is ignoring these facts isn’t a surprise, it was Fast & Syrious. Why conservative politicians haven’t exposed this crime goes beyond all rational logic. Everyone saying anything hasn’t even got the story right.

Not to mention the fact the CIA agents with Stevens were in direct communication with the Obama situation room, CIA hq, FBI hq and Hillary’s state dept.

A diplomat reports to the Sec of State and the president, Stevens was the highest ranking American in Libya and he doesn’t talk to mid level bureaucrats. Standard protocol is he speaks to the Obama admin first and foremost on everything, he was a political appointee.

Obama failed to protect Americans from foreign enemies because he was 2 months outside of an election and his admin was running guns to al Qaeda linked jihadists in Syria.
If this isn’t treason then treason isn’t a word any longer.




http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/...r-2451016.html

Friday, 17 May 2013 11:32

Amid Political Posturing, Real Benghazi Scandals Ignored

Written by Alex Newman



As numerous Benghazi-related scandals and even talk of impeachment swirl around the Obama administration with increasing ferocity — fiddling with talking points, deliberate lies, failing to defend U.S. personnel, and more — analysts and lawmakers say the real issues in “Benghazigate” that should have the American people outraged are largely being kept out of the discussion. Questions about U.S. government gun-running to radical Islamists from Libya to Syria, for example, or the wisdom and constitutionality of overthrowing foreign governments, have yet to be seriously addressed by the White House or Congress.

Of course, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., claim to be up in arms about the Benghazi attack — especially Republicans, who have been all over the media promising to find out what happened. "The goal here is to get to the truth," House Speaker John Boehner claimed at a press conference last week. "Four Americans lost their lives. Their families want to know the truth. The American people want to know the truth. And I believe it is Congress’ obligation to get to the truth."

The truth Rep. Boehner is talking about, however, seems to be mostly focused on whether the administration lied in the aftermath of the attack; it did, and everybody knows that now. But while public pressure is growing for Congress to create a select committee to investigate all angles of the attacks, the top Republican in the House has steadfastly refused to create such a group, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Nonetheless, GOP lawmakers seem to be fixated on finding out how the administration changed its now-debunked talking points after the attack — hardly the real issue, according to critics.

While deliberately lying to the public is certainly a major problem, former GOP Congressman and two-time Republican president candidate Ron Paul of Texas says the whole discussion on Benghazi has become a “sideshow.” According to Dr. Paul, each side in the uproar is just seeking to score political points instead of “asking the real questions” about the deadly attack on U.S. facilities and personnel in Libya — an assault that ultimately killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

In the liberty-minded icon’s weekly analysis, posted online at the recently formed Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, the longtime critic of foreign interventionism lashes out at both Republicans and Democrats. GOP politicians, he said, “smell a political opportunity” in evidence that the Obama administration edited the initial talking points to protect the president and the State Department — something Paul said was “standard operating procedure” in Washington.

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have offered an “even less convincing explanation for Benghazi” by claiming that Republicans did not appropriate enough funds for security at overseas U.S. government facilities. “With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously,” Paul wrote, demolishing Democrat talking points that almost always claim more and much more taxpayer money would solve all problems. Even the establishment media has ripped the manufactured Benghazi-security funding assertions apart.

The real scandal, Dr. Paul and others argue, is the one that is not being talked about: The fact that Obama’s decision to bomb Libya and overthrow its government ultimately led to the attack in Benghazi. Even former CIA chief Michael Hayden has now publicly stated as much. “The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the U.S.-led attack on Libya,” Paul wrote. “They were the rebels on whose behalf the U.S. overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.”

Republicans, of course, cannot talk about that scandal, because most of them either supported the administration’s lawless and unconstitutional war — or at the very least did nothing to stop it. GOP politicians also helped Obama hype wild and clearly bogus claims about Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi while backing the Islamist rebels — many of whom, even among the leadership, were openly affiliated with al-Qaeda and had previously battled U.S. troops in other countries.
“Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences,” Paul explained, blasting Republicans for focusing on talking points rather than the far-more explosive real scandals. “The U.S. attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the U.S. ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the U.S. and France.”

Dr. Paul also highlighted the other elephant in the room that has barely been discussed on Capitol Hill or by the establishment media: U.S. government arms given to Islamists in Libya, and probably to similar-minded radicals in Syria currently being supported by the Obama administration. Now that it is widely known that much of the “revolutionary” coalition in Syria is affiliated with al-Qaeda as well, “The U.S. is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government,” Paul wrote.

“The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it,” the doctor-turned-lawmaker-turned-political icon concluded. “But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.”

While most of the Republican-versus-Democrat squabbles on Benghazi focused on comparatively trivial issues, Dr. Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has been among the few openly discussing the gun-running scandal for months. During Senate hearings with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in late January, for example, Sen. Paul asked whether the U.S. government was“involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, any how transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"

Echoing well-founded suspicions that have been raised by top American military officials, analysts, journalists, Middle Eastern security officials, and others, Sen. Paul tried to get answers. He failed. Clinton acted surprised — almost as if she did not realize Sen. Paul was referring to the administration’s scheme to arm Islamist “rebels” in Syria via the Islamist Turkish government, similar to Obama’s lawless schemes in Libya.

“To Turkey?” asked Clinton incredulously, face contorted. “I will have to take that question for the record; nobody’s ever raised that with me.” She later backtracked slightly, saying the question would have to be raised with “the agency” that ran the annex in Benghazi — presumably she was referring to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Despite the lack of answers, Sen. Paul has continued to pursue the issue, talking about the alleged gun-running in TV and radio interviews. "What are they covering up?" Sen. Paul asked during a March interview on talk radio. "I have a feeling that it had something to do with the CIA annex. You know, a week before the ambassador was killed in Libya, a ship left Libya and docked in Turkey and it actually interviewed the captain of that ship who said there were arms on board and that he actually witnessed the rebels taking the arms and disputing over who got what. That there were grenade launchers; that there were significant arms being transferred." He brought the issue up again as recently as last week on CNN.

Even in the establishment press, hints of the gun-running scandal are starting to emerge. “I believe, and my sources tell me, that they were to round up those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles,” talk-show host Geraldo Rivera said during an interview on Fox and Friends last week. “They were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks, and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria. It was like Iran-Contra. It merits a gigantic investigation."

Other experts, including former Pacific Fleet commander Adm. James Lyons (Ret.), have gone even further, suggesting the possibility of a massive coverup to conceal something even more incredible than arming violent Islamists. With lawmakers and much of the press focused on edited talking-point lies and scoring political points, however, the truth about Benghazi — and the real scandals behind what happened — may be swept under the rug, unless there is a massive public outcry demanding the truth.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:
Benghazigate: The Disaster That Should Have Sunk Obama — and Still Could
Intervention in Libya Led to Attack on U.S. Consulate, Ex-CIA Chief Says
Benghazi Report Ignores WH Lies, Obama Gunrunning to Jihadists
Clinton Testimony on Benghazi Leaves Real Questions Unanswered
Benghazi “Whitewash” Report Still Damaging to Obama
Obama vs. the Brass: Benghazi Cover-up, Agenda to Gut Military?
Benghazi Whistleblowers Allegedly Threatened by Obama Administration
Benghazi Backfire: Was Obama Arming Jihadists?
Sen. Rand Paul: Is Obama Administration Hiding Arms Trade to Jihadists?
Obama Scandals Around Libya Attack Keep Growing
Libya: Now What?



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...andals-ignored

Darrell Issa subpoenas Thomas Pickering for taped interview



Via Politico:
By GINGER GIBSON | 5/17/13 3:12 PM EDT

Rep. Darrell Issa issued a subpoena Friday for Ambassador Thomas Pickering to sit for a taped interview, but not to testify publicly before the full House Oversight Committee.

On Wednesday, Chairman Issa (R-Calif.) responded to a letter from Pickering volunteering to appear before the committee, saying that he needed to submit to a taped interview before he could testify.

Democratic Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.) quickly blasted the subpoena as “extreme Republican overreach.”

It’s the latest in a back-and-forth about witnesses testifying before Issa’s committee in a series of hearings on Benghazi.

Pickering and and Admiral Michael Mullen have requested the ability to respond publicly to criticism of a review the two retired officials conducted of the Benghazi attacks. Cummings has called on Issa to let the pair testify to defend their names.

But Issa is insisting that Republicans and Democratic staffers get a pre-testimony crack at the witnesses by interviewing them behind closed doors first, saying staff and members have only had access to an unclassified version of the Accountability Review Board report on Benghazi.

“While I am very much committed to having you testify publicly and appreciate your newfound willingness to do so, I was disappointed that you are attempting to limit the Committee’s understanding of the Accountability Review Board by refusing to participate in a voluntary transcribed interview prior to testifying publicly,” Issa said in a letter to Pickering.
The subpoena compels Pickering to sit for an interview in room 2157 of the Rayburn office building at 10 a.m. on May 23rd.

Cummings called the subpoena to appear in a closed-door interview an attempt by Issa to silence the response from someone shooting down the chairman’s criticism of the attacks.

“Today’s subpoena is a stark example of extreme Republican overreach and the shameful politicization of this tragedy,” Cummings said in a statement. “Chairman Issa is now imposing new conditions to keep them behind closed doors. The Chairman should reverse his decision, conduct a responsible and bipartisan investigation, and allow the American people to hear directly from these officials.”

Whether a witness sits for a taped interview can be a point of contention between committee members. Democrats frequently charged that they were not given the ability to interview Mark Thompson, who testified during the last House Oversight Committee on Benghazi.

Mullen and Pickering oversaw the Accountability Review Board’s investigation into the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 that killed four,including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. The ARB report and the panel’s investigation was a point of contention during the House hearing earlier this month.

Republicans on the committee questioned Gregory Hicks, who was in charge of the embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, about the ARB’s interviews of him. Hicks said he felt the investigation had not been properly conducted because he was unable to review his testimony after giving it and because he wasn’t allowed to read a classified version of the report.
In a letter to Issa, Pickering objected to the depiction of the ARB review and requested the ability to testify before the committee.

“We believe that such criticisms are unfounded and, if left unaddressed, undermine the essential work that the Board has done as well as the purpose of the congressionally-mandated accountability review board process,” Pickering wrote to Issa.

http://www.befirstinmedia.com/darrel...ped-interview/