Benghazi-gate and the Lies


Benghazi-gate Dwarfed by

Intrigue and a National Soap Opera

Honey Pot?

In fiction or reality, a honeypot refers to illicit sex for the sake of national security and is referred to as a honey pot. Spy agencies  may recruit a person to get romantically involved with their target.  Espionage in this manner  often includes sexual seduction by the spy, aka honey.  Compromising of security secrets via pillow talk is the objective.   A honeypot is “a trap that uses sex to lure an enemy agent into disclosing classified information or, in some cases, to capture or kill them.”

What began as an attack on our consulate (or mission)  in Benghazi, Libya by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2012, killing four Americans was largely ignored by the MSM except for FOX.   For two months prior to the election, the propaganda networks were mum for fear of revealing any information or news that could prove damaging to their presidential choice.   Like good Pravda journOlists, they toed the Progressive/Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Ismista line and did not investigate the Benghazi attack or the multiple lies emanating from the different government officials about the attack.

But now, with a highly decorated general’s admission of an affair, they are willing to investigate every titillating detail of the sordid affair.  There won’t be a rock left unturned to destroy the reputation  of  General Petraeus or anyone close to him.   They will focus on the lascivious or salacious details and attribute their findings to anonymous friends or officials who “don’t want to be involved.”   We know how the Left operates.  They will publish information as fact.  Then later,  long after the information has been accepted by the public, they will publish a hidden retraction with no apologies.

There is a media frenzy covering the illicit affair of  recently resigned  CIA Director, General David Howell Petraeus.    He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011 until last Friday, November 9, 2012.  The esteemed general was caught with his pants down by FBI agents who were allegedly investigating  ten or eleven menacing emails sent to a woman who was a friend of the general and his wife.

The information uncovered in the last five days has more twists and turns than a sappy romantic spy novel.  The FBI’s criminal case opened against General Petraeus was completed.  Their investigation concluded that national security was not compromised and his loyalty is not in question.  Was the investigation compromising the general’s judgment?   Was the fear of his affair becoming public the reason that Petraeus came out three days after the attack and told a closed congressional committee meeting that protests and a video were the reason for the attack when he knew that an off-shoot of Al Qaeda was responsible?   What made him parrot the White House lies?  Did the White House hold his undisclosed affair over his head as leverage?  Did he sell out to the Obama administration to keep his job or to avoid publicity?  Either one would be understandable, but not honorable.    Why weren’t the head of the intelligence committees informed about the investigation of Petraeus?  Eric Holder was informed, yet he didn’t take action? Did Holder keep it secret for political reasons?   The White House denies knowing anything until Petraeus turned in his resignation.  Does anyone believe that Eric Holder didn’t tell Obama?  Was the investigation of Petraeus originated by the Left when they thought he might be chosen by Romney as his vice president?

The case against Petraeus is closed, but the case against his paramour may still be in question.  CNN reported last night that the FBI was at her home in North Carolina, taking photos and walking out with boxes and her computer. Broadwell is a journalist so it is expected that many people send documents or information to her. It is unclear what the FBI is now investigating.

The plot thickens. Alleged emails count in the thousands depending on which party is being investigated.  The saga involves military officers of the  highest caliber.  Just today, it appears the FBI  broadened their investigation.  Apparently,   General John Allen, Commander, International Security Assistance Force, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, who succeeded Petraeus,  was also a friend of  Jill Kelley.   The FBI says there were 20,000 – 30,000 emails sent between  Allen and Jill Kelley – many flirtatious.  Both are married. Jill seems to have the personality that men are drawn to.

Interestingly, Jill  refers to herself as a Honorary Counsel General. Somehow she thinks that gives her real diplomatic immunity. According to FOX, the military gives that innocuous title to people who give parties for them.  Her husband is a surgeon, yet she gives parties for the military?  She is of Lebanese background, so what is her draw to the top brass in the U.S.  military?  Is the honey in this pot, named Jill Kelley?  She is the common denominator between General Petraeus, Paula Broadwell, General Allen and the FBI agent.

There are affairs, hints of  affairs, concerns about espionage, blackmail, and national security breaches.  As an aside, there were  divorces and  custody suits where top brass went to bat for a friend, questionable charities, financial difficulties, and twin sisters.    There are lies and coverups that involve the White House, State Department, CIA, as well as the attorney general.  We have two 4 star generals, two or three women, and the FBI all involved in who knows what.

The unnamed FBI agent involved was responsible for the initial investigation after reading “threatening” emails sent to a woman “friend”,  Jill Kelley.  After reading those, the agent  elevated his concerns to the FBI’s cyber-security unit.   His relationship with the victim of the emails, is peculiar because it was found that he sent shirtless photos of himself to his friend, so he is now under investigation by his own agency. (ala so Weiner like! ).   His obsession with the case (jealously?) was observed by his superiors,  and he was removed from the investigation.

This FBI agent was the person who uncovered the affair between Director Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell while investigating the harassing emails sent to his friend, Jill.    After he found the links to Director Petaeus’s affair something occurred at the FBI to make him think that the affair would be swept under the proverbial Obama rug.   So he notified a member of Congress, Eric Cantor (R – Virginia).   According to ABC News, Rep. Cantor asked his chief of staff,  Steve Strombres, to inform FBI Director Robert Mueller.   On October 31, Strombres then notified Mueller of the call.

The questions remain as to why these emails were of such importance that they were seriously considered an FBI matter instead of one that would be reported to local authorities.   These emails originated from an anonymous person (later traced to Paula Broadwell) who was telling another woman, Jill,  to stay away from “her man”.   Was the FBI agent acting out of his own jealousy?  Did  he want to know who the accuser was that was insinuating an affair with his “friend” was someone other than himself?  Was he operating outside of the FBI’s  authority?   Did the FBI get the required lawful documentation to search through personal emails?   There was something that tipped them off.  What was it?  When they found it was Paula Broadwell who was sending the emails what excuse did they give a judge for a search of her personal email accounts?   Who at the FBI signed on and off of this investigation?

All of the details of the personalities are certainly captivating but we must get back to reality of the situation that began on September 11.  These distractions may be fall out or are being used to cover other situations from being widely reported.  Is this news of an affair being used as a  distraction from the election results and accusations of election fraud?   Is this cover for the thousands of regulations that the Obama administration is secretly expecting to put in place?  Was the Petraeus affair finally leaked to stop the media from reporting on the fate of those involved in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy? Was this affair reporting supposed to taint the general’s reputation when he testifies at the Congressional hearings on Benghazi?

A video showed that Obama lied when he said he called it a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden speech.  He  intentionally lied during the debate.  Obama, Hillary,  Ambassador Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and Petraeus all used a story about a sloppy homemade video and a protest  as the reason for the attacks.  Most knew the truth within hours.  Outrageously, Obama and Hillary lied to the parents and family of those brave Americans at their memorial.

On September 11,  the Benghazi reality played out at the White House in the Situation Room while  Obama and Panetta and whoever else was there, DID NOTHING!  THEY WATCHED IN REAL TIME AS FOUR AMERICANS DIED!  Who sent the order to the men saying to “stand down”?   The Navy Seals  disobeyed orders and  went in and tried to save their fellow Americans.  They lost their lives instead. They are heroes.   Why didn’t the military intervene?  Did Obama tell them to stand down also?

Questions will be answered as to what the CIA and Ambassador Stevens were really doing there.  Was the CIA holding prisoners there? Were there armed sales being negotiated that would go into the hands of Al Qaida?   The questions should address Stevens meeting with the prime minister of Turkey an hour before the attack and how he left unscathed.  Why were unarmed drones circling?  Why was the military not notified?  Why was General Ham dismissed from his post?  Selling weapons and arming our enemies is treason, Obama.  Therein begins the real story.

The more  distraction the Obama Administration can generate, the happier they are.  They “never let a crisis go to waste”… especially if they can generate or manufacture one.   Benghazi-gate may be the Obama Administration’s real crisis.  The congressional investigation of specific individuals begins this week;  and we may learn the answers to many of the questions, and then again we may not.   Let this is the beginning of their end.   Truth wins out.   Well,  we used to believe that it did.  But that was then,  and this is now,  the Obamanation.

Truth will ultimately prevail.  It Must.


254 responses to “Benghazi-gate and the Lies

  1. Broadwell .. VOWED on email to Jill to “make you go away” ..
    check out the video… also

    • Two thoughts: The friend said anybody would call the police if they got those messages, so why didn’t Jill immediately call the POLICE and not (1) this friend and (2) an FBI agent instead of the local police? The friend said Jill “read them” to her, so did she SEE them or not? Jill could say that they said ANYTHING. If they were as the friend described, then they do indeed sound threatening, so why didn’t Broadwell get charged? Oh, I can’t wait! Allred is going to tell us who Natalie really is. Do you think either of them could also tell us who Barry really is, while they’re at it?

  2. Interesting dump the night before Thanksgiving. From the UN too.

    Rice says Benghazi comments based on preliminary intelligence
    Reuters – 7 hrs ago [7pm CST]

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, broke her silence on Wednesday and defended her remarks on a September attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to the North African nation. “I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community,” said Rice, who is seen as a possible nominee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I made clear that the information provided to me was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers,” Rice told reporters at the United Nations in her first comments on the controversy.
    “Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith, to provide the best assessment based on the information available,” Rice said. “None of us will rest … until we have the answer and the terrorists responsible for this attack will be brought to the justice.” [Yeah, don’t lose any sleep over it Rice – 4 Americans died and you lied.]
    Senator Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday the criticism of Rice was “one of the most unfair attacks I’ve ever seen in Washington in 34 years. Susan Rice was using the unclassified talking points which were provided by the intelligence community.” [Oh sure Sandy, you are to be believed.” What a crock. Think of the attacks on Pres. Bush from your side.”]

    • Think of their attacks on Michele Bachmann (a woman) and Allen West (a black veteran). I expect that if we go back in time, we’ll find plenty of attacks by them on Condi Rice (a black woman, former Secretary of State) and Colin Powell (a black veteran, four-star general, former Secretary of State). I would say that the absolutely WORST UNFAIR ATTACK EVER IN THE HISTORY OF DC WAS THE DEMONCRAT DEMONIZATION OF CLARENCE THOMAS (a black man, Justice of the Supreme Court).


    That’s a long interview with a Congressman who lays it out how this is totally a lie told by all the appointees in the Obama administration, INCLUDING Petraeus and that’s so disappointing–to see that man fall so low as to parse and dance and obfuscate exactly the way Barry does. Just a sample; too much there to copy and paste:

    “Jeffrey: Alright congressman, in the early morning hours of the 12th, the initial intelligence assessment you get says this is a terrorist attack, says nothing about a demonstration. 48 hours later, Gen. Petraeus is in your committee, talking about a spontaneous demonstration and the YouTube video. How did those talking points get developed between the first assessment that says no spontaneous demonstration and Petraeus telling you two days later there was one? How did that get developed?

    Nunes: Well, therein lies the question that we’re trying to get to the bottom of. So, it’s been kind of out there that somehow this went to the deputies committee on the National Security Council. That’s one story. Could have been changed by the Principal’s Committee? We don’t know. Could it have come from someone higher up in the White House? We just don’t know that. That’s one of the things we have to get to the bottom of.”

    • “Jeffrey: Now congressman, from public reporting we know that the State Department did not say there was a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi. They in fact sent an email to the White House about an hour and a half after the attack started saying that Ansar al Sharia had taken credit for the attack on its Facebook.

      The CIA did not say it was a spontaneous response to the YouTube video. Do we have any idea of the genesis of the claim that there was a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi?

      Nunes: No.

      Jeffrey: We don’t know that. Now, this obviously is a target of the investigation of your committee to find out where in fact the genesis is?

      Nunes: That’s correct.”

      Let’s hope they DO manage to get to the genesis of that LIE.

      • So here I am copying and pasting! But this is interesting. Nunes said that the CIA FLAT OUT DENIED any prisoners at the annex, held a short time, held indefinitely, or held for rendition. NONE. He says they WILL get to the truth on that, too. It is obvious to me that this administration does not believe they have to share ANYTHING with the representatives of the People. For that reason alone, he should be impeached or at least not inaugurated again.

        “Jeffrey: There’s an interesting point, it seems you were suggesting there a moment ago congressman: The President has at least projected the public perception that under his administration, the CIA does not detain people.

        Yet the New York Times, in its reporting about the president’s executive order on that policy, just flatly said they retain the ability to temporarily detain people. Is there a little bit of a conflict there, do you think?

        Nunes: Oh, there is. It goes back to the whole problem with Guantanamo. This is a president who ran on Guantanamo: ‘We apologize.’ He did a world tour apologizing for the treatment of these terrorists in Guantanamo.

        And look, Guantanamo is something that we need. It’s in our national security interest. And, in fact, people in New York City, when they found out that the terrorists were going to be tried there, even the liberals in New York City went crazy and you had liberals like Chuck Schumer say no way are we going to try these people here.

        So, Guantanamo is important to our national intelligence. It’s important to our national security. But this is a president whose rhetoric oftentimes has not matched his deeds. But this is all part of the unraveling of Obama’s national security posture in the globe.

        It all goes back to Guantanamo. It goes back to apologizing for America. It goes back to the use of drones, which is probably not a good way to gather intelligence. And I can go on and on here, but the bottom line here is we have a kind of a discombobulation going on throughout our national security apparatus.”

        Nunes goes on to say that all covert action MUST BE approved by Barry and there’s a paper trail. BY LAW, they must also keep the intelligence committees apprised of ALL covert activity. But he also says that he cannot “believe or trust” ANYBODY who’s been appointed by this president and so he’s not sure that the law is being followed. Amazing.

  4. Congressman Dares Obama
    November 23, 2012

    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) challenged President Obama Wednesday morning on America’s Newsroom: “Instead of taking up for Susan Rice, you come in her place and testify before Congress.”

  5. Most Transparent Administration Ever Declines Benghazi Photo Request from CBS
    On November 23, 2012

    The White House Photo Office has declined CBS News requests to release images taken of US officials during the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.
    A White House official referred our request regarding the Benghazi attacks to the White House Photo Office. On Nov. 1, an official there indicated she would process our request quickly, but then did not respond further. Finally, this week, the White House Photo Office told CBS News it would not release any images without approval of Josh Earnest in the White House Press Office. Earnest did not respond to our telephone calls and emails.

    At a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 President Obama stated that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

    Obviously not.

  6. Benghazi-Gate Enters New Phase: The Cover Up of the Cover Up

    It now looks as though the White House’s excuse for the pre-election Libya cover-up is itself a cover up. Last week we were told by the Administration (and the compliant media) that during her now-infamous round robin of five Sunday news shows, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was only telling us what she was told by the intelligence community. We were also told that references to al-Qaeda were edited out of the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the attackers that we were on to them. According to a number of CBS News’ sources, this simply isn’t true.
    DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told CBS News, “The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He added that this classified information was shared with the White House. CBS News then quite correctly concludes that, as a member of Obama’s cabinet, Susan Rice would would’ve known this. All cabinet members are given classified briefings.

    The bottom line, then, is that during her Sunday show appearances, Rice knew the information she was spreading was false.

    In reference to the edited talking points, another source told CBS News that… [emphasis added] “The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” the official tells CBS News…

    • So, if what CBS is reporting is true, this is what we know now:

      1. At the time, Susan Rice knew the information she repeated five times on five Sunday shows wasn’t true.

      2. The edited talking points were never meant to deceive and conceal the fact that what happened in Libya was a terror attack. And yet, that’s exactly what Rice and the White House did for nearly two weeks.

      3. Contrary to what the White House and media told us, the talking points were not edited to keep the group responsible for the attack from knowing we were on to them. Therefore…

      4. We were lied to for reasons that had nothing to do with national security.

      5. The media’s going to allow the Obama Administration to get away with this. (Why else would CBS play down its own story the way they did this one?)

      Everything goes back to the motive for this cover up, which, apparently, was to run out the clock to Election Day with a Narrative meant to hide the fact that on Obama’s watch there was a successful terror attack that resulted in the murder of an American ambassador and three other Americans.

  7. Red Blooded Americans in BENGHAZI… & Brian Terry should STILL
    be alive. Lies & race GAMES…. does not bring them HOME…SORRY!

    • Speaking of race, an obot who will never make it through moderation recently sent us this gem: “I hope you have all changed your tune but chances are you all still think that in order for a non completly [sic] white person to be president something has to be insanely wrong .”

      What a subtle change for them! Now if we disagree with Obama or suspect that his biography is all a pack of lies, then we’re racist because he’s partially black (if he is).

      Nevermind that (1) he admits in his book that it’s a pack of lies; (2) his official biographer now states unequivocally that it’s full of lies; (3) much fact checking via independent sources proves that there are multiple lies in his “official” version of his life story; (4) for no logical reason, he continues to refuse to show any official, authenticated, contemporaneously-created, circa-1961-1995 PAPER documents backing up his claims about his life history; and (5) his own official biography vetted yearly by himself and disseminated yearly by his publisher stated that he was “born in Kenya.” Therefore, he’s INELIGBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. And then there’s the FACT that most Americans, if they truly knew what his policies are and what he plans to do to our Republic, would also oppose him vehemently, if he were white, green, blue, purple, or pink. (He’s RED, btw.)

  8. Obama Trafficking Guns To Al-Qaeda
    November 19, 2012
    Christopher Greene of AMTV – Alternative TV

    Barack Hussein Obama is arming the “rebels” in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, which just happens to be led by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The source of these weapons? Libya. And that is why the attack on the Benghazi consulate needed to be swept under the rug. Arming our enemies? Isn’t that treason?

  9. I don’t think this was linked yet. It is an excellent article by one of the most honest and ethical reporters in this country–Greta Van Susteren. She’s calling out the Obama administration for their thuggish behavior towards FOX, which is because they are just about the only media group trying to get to the bottom of Benghazi-gate. This is disgraceful. There was a time that the rest of the media objected when Obama tried this crap early in the first term. Now they must all be sufficiently cowed, so there’s no objection when FOX is treated like a pariah.

    “The Obama Administration has done everything but give us the straight story and they are fighting us on getting the facts.

    And why do I say the Obama Administration should grow up? Because the Obama Administration is trying to punish Fox for trying to get the facts from the Administration (do I need to remind anyone that 4 Americans were murdered?) The Administration in what looks like a coordinated effort is denying Fox access to information that they are handing out to other news organizations. Why exclude Fox? That is simple – to punish — to try to teach us a lesson not to pry, not to look further for facts. … [She documents three latest incidents where FOX was deliberately kept out of the loop.]

    You know why Fox is left out 3 out of 3. We at Fox are not simply accepting what they say, what they dish out. We are looking for facts and corroboration when there are inconsistencies and discrepancies. To the extent we get anything wrong is because the Administration is doing whatever it can to thwart us from getting the facts.

    They are trying to punish us into going away — hoping we get their message that we will never have access to them as long as we dare to challenge what they put out. And guess what? What they have put out and what we have challenged shows they are cagey and not giving the straight story.”

    • As usual, they don’t link to their source. It would certainly help if they did.


      SUBJECT: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

      This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

      The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

      The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.”

      Thinking of Petraeus here and theories that military heads rolled on account of fear of a coup. Actually, I’m going to rephrase that. Fear of a setting of things right and LEGAL and constitutional. In other words, enforcement of the laws and the Constitution and removal of a true threat to national security. I wonder if this means that the State Dept. might actually look into the potential espionage pointed out by Michele Bachmann.

    • They should meet with her only under oath. I read in the Wall Street Journal that the Republicans are “moderating” their criticism of her and plan to “talk” to her. This is BS. And they’re caving on raising taxes on the “rich”, too.

      • You know, now that I think about it, maybe this is a ploy. A political game to ensure that Obama does nominate her so they CAN get her under oath. It’s still a crime to lie to Congress. In a confirmation hearing, which will be televised, she will be under oath and will have to answer questions, which I HOPE some senator will have the guts to ask her. But then again, maybe this is the old Chicago way. She asked for the meeting. Will this be like the behind-the-scenes meetings with the media, where they’re warned about how difficult the government can make their lives if they don’t suppress all news that puts Barry in a bad light? Will the senators be lied to in private and will she “explain” herself in private, so that NONE of this is discussed in public during confirmation hearings? This woman was very public with her lies, so she owes it to US, to the PEOPLE, to explain herself in full where we can hear and judge for ourselves.

        • I had the same thought, Miri, that the sudden turnaround might mean they really want to have Susan Rice on the hot seat. This excerpt from the latest “Republican Insider” entry on Ulsterman is interesting:
          “One last thing because I know you are waiting for some kind of news on Benghazi. There is a lot of talk but nothing concrete that I feel comfortable sharing with you specifically on that. I’ve been keeping my ear to the ground on news from the McCain office, but I was told this morning that it’s McConnell who has been doing some heavy lifting behind the scenes. I can say this for sure, the word back is that anyone and everyone from the Obama White House is telling people they don’t care. They are so confident in being able to shrug off any challenge, any accusation, basically anything and anyone who tries to hold them accountable. Apparently one recent meeting over proposed Benghazi hearings between a person from the DoS and Republicans ended with a promise by DoS that if needed, the whole thing would just get buried under Executive Privilege – “just like the gunrunning.” Now I have to think that I’m not the only one whose ears perked up when I heard about that comment. First it shows how arrogant the Obama administration has become. Second, it seems to tie in the Department of State with Fast and Furious, which was something a lot of people were whispering about back at the time, but no real concrete proof was given. It was all just DoJ related. But it also made me wonder about something you and some others in the alternative media talked about and that is the possibility that it was gunrunning going on between the Obama government and the Libyan militants that was being covered up in Benghazi. I don’t think it is a too far gone notion to at least consider the possibility that Barack Obama was handing over military grade weapons to known terrorist militants, and that some of those weapons were then used to kill those four Americans. That’s just me speculating here, but I plan on asking that question of a few others around here and get back to you with what they think. I asked that you give me a few weeks to try and get something rolling with Benghazi. This week will be devoted to doing that.”

          • I sort of hope it’s true, although I’d prefer that they not even put her name in the hat and that, instead, the committees just call her to testify under oath. Except he probably will then just claim executive privilege and keep her from speaking. Although, if she wasn’t speaking officially, then there’s no executive privilege. Certainly they are hiding the truth, which is whatever the CIA was really doing in Benghazi. I’m convinced it had to do with running weapons to Syria, via Libya and Turkey. To al-Qaeda-affiliates. It’s no coincidence that right after Benghazi, the Syrian opposition had to shuffle players and put up a (nominal) Christian and a more moderate leadership, unaffiliated (they say) with al Qaeda. And then they cry out for weapons. Coincidence? I think not. They were waiting on those weapons but Benghazi ruined the delivery, so on to plan B. I also believe there were prisoners there at the annex. Rendition or whatever. Barry has no qualms about pretending to have one policy while doing the opposite. I wrote a post about Susan Rice that was in the making for a few days, but I rushed it because of today’s events and because somebody sent us a good tip. Something I had inkling of already but hadn’t found a link to yet.

    • On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain says he’ll sit down face to face in a secure room at the Capital with Susan Rice, the woman he had previously vowed to oppose if she’s nominated as the next secretary of state. In an interview, McCain told The Daily Beast that Rice herself requested the meeting after McCain made several statements suggesting she misled the American people about the Benghazi attacks …

      It will be interesting to see where this pow wow leads. McCain speaking to the Daily Beast – the leftist of the left?

    • S Korea: US socialite to lose honorary consul title
      Nov.27 Snips

      SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea will revoke an honorary title given to an American socialite tied to a scandal involving former CIA director David Petraeus, officials said Tuesday.

      Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Florida, socialite, misused her title as South Korean honorary consul by raising it in unspecified personal business dealings, a Foreign Ministry official in Seoul said. The official, who declined to be named because the matter is still being discussed, wouldn’t elaborate and said it’s not clear when the title will be revoked.

      Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kyou-hyun told South Korean reporters during a visit to Washington that Kelley inappropriately used her title for personal gain.“It’s not suitable to the status of honorary consul that (she) sought to be involved in commercial projects and peddle influence,” Kim said, according to Yonhap news agency.
      The South Korean official who made it possible for Jill Kelley to be appointed honorary consul was Han Duk-soo, currently head of the Korea International Trade Association (KITA) and South Korean ambassador to the United States until February.

  10. Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up
    Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider” [Part I]
    Doug Hagmann
    November 28, 2012 Snip

    DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.

    II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons – gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.

    What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.

    The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.

    From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.
    The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.

    Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.

    • I suspected as much. His King. The one he bows to.

    • Part II:
      “We’ve heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened?

      First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location.

      The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner time, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness.

      It’s also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don’t know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation.

      Now I’ll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination. …”

      Rest at link. Are we good at speculating or what?

    • Part II
      Now there are questions that are not being asked. The two well-armed ‘hit teams’ had the capability to reduce the compound and annex to rubble quickly. Why a protracted firefight? There are a couple of reasons. First, what was the makeup of the ‘hit teams,’ or who were the attackers?

      We have verified that the attackers were a combination of members of Ansar al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), but they were operating under the flag of Ansar al Sharia. Who is Ansar al Sharia? Iranian terrorists. They are a terrorist group that receives their training by and funding from Iran. Now think about this. Carefully consider the implications here. IRAN. It’s the elephant in the room no one wants to mention or talk about.

      The attack on our ambassador and our people – Americans – was an attack by Iran. It was an attack at a nation-state level.

      AQIM also assisted. They are indigenous to Africa and are extremely dangerous. AQIM is a very ‘elite’ and extremely well-funded group, and very limited in number. Our last assessment suggests that there are only 400 or so members, but they are very influential across Africa and into South and Central America and Western Europe. Their importance and relevance will become evident shortly.

      The reason that they did not just take out the compound and everything and everyone in it is that they were looking for their spies. Remember the Red Crescent workers? The Iranian spies? They suspected that they might be held at the annex. As such, they wanted to free them and did not want to risk killing them.
      Now regarding AQIM, this has a direct connection not only to South America, but also to Mexico and Mexican drug gangs. You think that what’s going on in Libya is just ‘over there,’ and far away from the U.S. and has nothing to do with our safety and security?

      There’s also another reason. The hit teams fully expected rescue teams from the U.S. to be dispatched to the compound. Certainly, calls for help went out. By waiting for the back-up or rescue forces, a surprise assault by the other ‘hit team’ team would have exposed our forces to possible causalities and turned the event into a much bigger event where the actual nature of the operation could be exposed to the world. Instead of being a cover-up for which they have yet to be held accountable, it would have been an international incident that would have exposed the entire affair. So the Ansar al Sharia attack groups deliberately conducted a protracted assault on the compound. Just imagine, our men and even the bad guys never expected team Obama would leave our people twisting in the wind,fighting for their lives. That alone should speak volumes to every American.
      In my opinion, Rice took on the temporary job of propaganda minister for a day in exchange for a shot at Secretary of State in the future.

    • I ask you, What is the point of this agenda if this person is correct? What would WWIII prove and what is their final goal?

      Part II Benghazi is a moving target of little lies that serve as cover for the big lie
      Benghazi explained: Behind the lies
      Doug Hagmann Monday, December 3, 2012 Snip

      So one of the very first lies was to deliberate misidentify or improperly characterize the compound in Benghazi as a consulate. Was there an American flag flying outside of this compound? No. Was any diplomatic legitimate business being conducted at this compound? No. But they called it a consulate to draw attention away from the fact this was a CIA base of operations.
      So the very first thing everyone must understand is that the administration, including Barack Obama and others in the executive branch, and the State Department, including Hillary Clinton (her official statement identified the compound as a mission, suggesting a ‘diplomatic mission’) knew that this compound served no legitimate diplomatic purpose. That’s the first lie.

      DH: We now know that it was a CIA compound located in a somewhat rural area and not identifiable as U.S. owned or operated.

      II: Correct. So think about this. The compound was unmarked, operationally discreet, located in a rural area and difficult to find. How did a few hundred protesters suddenly gather at this location on the evening of 9/11? How did they know where to go, if this was not an embassy or consulate? More to the point, how is it possible that anyone in any official capacity in this administration could realistically describe the attack in terms of a protest gone bad, even at the first reports of trouble? They could not. This was a deliberate lie to the American people.

      DH: They have since publicly reclassified the description of the location.

      II: They had to because they could not continue to call the CIA operations center an embassy or consulate.

      ~They are only lying to the American people. All other governments know what’s going on. And most importantly, the reason they are continuing to lie is to cover up their plans as they are moving forward with their agenda. Everyone must understand how important this is. The Obama plan continues. No one is stopping them or this agenda. And in case you have any questions about what this agenda is, let me explain it clearly and concisely.

      Obama, Clinton, their foreign policy advisors and the people involved in this agenda intend to start a war that will make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a small police action by comparison. They are going to start a war that will likely grow from a regional war to a global war, or WW III. Afghanistan ‘imploded’ when attacked, as did Iraq. Syria will not, it will explode. Do the American people understand this?

      When Assad falls and U.S. troops are called in for ground support, who will they be fighting? The Syrian army? No, they will be fighting the Iranian army, the Russian army and the Chinese army. Why? Because Iran, Russia and China all have a stake in the region. Putin called Syria his red line in the sand, and stated that WW III will start in Syria, not Iran.

      • If I remember correctly, this is the person who wrote about the probable black flag operation which is to use chemical weapons and blame it on Assad, as the excuse to go into Syria or at least arm the “rebels”, which today, for some inexplicable reason, were actually identified in the lamestream media as LIKELY connected to al Qaeda. This afternoon, on radio news, I kept hearing “news” commentary discussing the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons, which he denies, and how that would be a “game changer” for the USA. So this person’s predictions may be coming true, but WHY? Why would Obama, who seems nearly like a puppet OF Russia, be trying to start a war WITH Russia? Or Iran, for that matter? Both he AND Valerie Jarrett love Iran. After all, she’s IRANIAN! The theory is that they want to topple Assad for Saudi Arabia. Now Barry sure loves that King of Saud, too, so who knows? Speaking of Valerie, I heard that she and Rice are long time, good friends. No surprise there.

        Now whats up with this? The SENATE has passed a bill to tighten sanctions on Iran (which Barry did NOT want) AND they voted to keep him from detaining U.S. citizens who he suspects of terrorism indefinitely without trial!–politics.html AND they stood up to Barry about him wanting to bring terrorists here from Guantanamo! Now explain to me WHY the HOUSE would oppose protections for US citizens from indefinite detainment?

        “A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans backed an amendment that said the government cannot detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident indefinitely without charge or trial even with the authorization to use military force or a declaration of war.

        The Senate voted 67-29 in support of the measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The strong bipartisan approval sets up a fight with the House, which rejected efforts to bar indefinite detention when it passed its bill in May.

        Ignoring a White House veto threat, the Senate also voted Thursday to add to its restrictions on Obama’s authority in dealing with terror suspects.

        Lawmakers approved an amendment that would prevent the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to prisons in the United States. The vote was 54-41, with several Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 elections voting with Republicans.”

        The world is turning upside down. But Dick Durbin is going ahead with getting the prison in IL. They want to close Guantanamo and put the thugs in IL.

  11. Obama’s memo on “insider threats”
    By Douglas J. Hagmann
    Tuesday, November 27, 2012 Snip

    26 November 2012: On the day before Thanksgiving, Barack Hussein Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum, or an unofficial directive to the heads of departments and agencies under the executive branch. This Presidential Memorandum, the text of which is only 183 words, directs agency and department heads to establish a program “to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”

    There is, however, a more important aspect to this memorandum that will be undoubtedly missed by many who report on it. It is reflected by a word that appears toward the end of the directive and should be considered the “key” to understanding the intent and action of Barack Hussein Obama. The word is “centrally,” and when it is considered in the context of Obama’s agenda we’ve seen being implemented over the last four years, it is chilling.

    The key to understanding this memorandum is to understand that we are witnessing the greatest consolidation of power and control under the Executive branch of the government in recent U.S. history. This consolidation of power makes it possible for a select number of highly political “czars” and appointed officials to observe, control and report on the activities of people within their various departments to the Executive branch. This process creates a closed system of surveillance that cannot be easily penetrated by other branches of our government.

    Accordingly, it becomes a self-policing network that has the ability to silence critics and individuals opposing a particular agenda or activity, even if such dissent is lawful.

    • Presidential Memorandum — National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
      November 21, 2012

      SUBJECT: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

      This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

      The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

      The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.


  12. Real close “buddy” who would reveal and share a “private” email from Petraeus to himself, and a he’s a Brig Gen. too. So Holly stands by her man -for better or worse.

    David Petraeus says he ‘screwed up royally’ in letter to old Army buddy
    November 29, 2012 Snips

    Ex-CIA chief David Petraeus took the blame for the extramarital affair that torpedoed his career, but his forgiving wife, Holly, is sticking by him, according to a newly revealed private letter.

    “I screwed up royally,” Petraeus told his longtime Army pal, retired Brig. Gen. James Shelton in the hand-written missive. [Choice of words is interesting.]
    “I paid the price (appropriately) and I sought to do the right thing at the end of the day,” he wrote in the Nov. 20 message.
    Shelton has known Petraeus for three decades, since they first bonded over a bottle of Ballantine’s scotch in a tent with other soldiers in Erurum, eastern Turkey, during the early 1970s.

  13. rirose • 3 hours ago
    Screwed up Royally – yes – but sticking it to the American people by lying for Obama is totally unacceptable – and sad. We the People – those of us with at least 1/2 a functioning brain will be suffering through the second term of an incompetent, dangerous President – when there are people like Petraeus who could have spoken up and turned sufficient votes to put Obama in Hawaii where he belongs – away from the White House – and even gotten rid of Joe Biden – a senile old man who is one heartbeat away from the Presidency – what a sad set of circumstances – the Senate must turn Republican in 2014 if we are to salvage anything that even resembles the USA.

    • Every member of Congress could speak up and demand BHO prove his eligibility! That would get rid of him immediately and then we wouldn’t have to put up with the Marxist for 4 more years. They have the power to do something and instead are licking their wounds and cowering in their offices. Over 600 people in Congress and there isn’t one person to stand up for our country? Not one? They even have Sheriff Joe’s investigation to bring up about the forgeries and won’t do anything with it either.

    • Remember the media frenzy about those “sixteen words” in the WMD speech.

      I agree with that writer, though. These are far more important questions

      ” In the process, the most important questions about Benghazi, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, have largely gotten lost: Were requests for greater security for diplomats in Libya ignored? Even if Al Qaeda’s core in Pakistan has been decimated, what threat is posed by its affiliates and imitators in other countries where they have taken refuge? How can crucial diplomacy be conducted amid the dangerous chaos that has followed the toppling of dictators across the Arab world?

      Instead, it is the parsing of the talking points — who wrote them, altered them, recited them on television or tried to explain them — that could decide the fate of a leading candidate for secretary of state, Susan E. Rice, currently the United Nations ambassador.” [Left out these more important questions: What was Stevens doing in Benghazi? Were there prisoners in the annex, allegedly in contradiction to Obama’s so-called policy? Were they illegally running guns to Syrians associated with al-Qaeda? Why didn’t Obama really send military help to save the lives of Woods and Doherty? Why didn’t Obama give the order to fire to take out that mortar, via drone, gunship, or missile? Why did those men die?]

      … but even so, the Congress can chew gum and walk at the same time. Even if there are more important questions, it doesn’t mean anybody should let Rice off the hook for her deliberate lies to the American people and, most certainly, she should not be rewarded for her campaign activities by being handed the plum job of Secretary of State.

      • The NY Times, having led the media frenzy over Bush’s “sixteen words”, is QUITE hypocritical today to criticize Republican congresspersons and senators for focusing on the MANY LIES, MANY FALSE WORDS given to them and the American people by MULTIPLE members of Obama’s administration and also by the pResident himself, to the UN. To the World. LIES.

        That writer claims that the intelligence community “generally do not relish airing their internal deliberations.” Wow. I didn’t notice that concerning the Plame/Wilson affair. Did you? Jay Leno’s take:

        “”This week, CBS News became the first news organization besides Fox to ask President Obama ‘Who changed the Benghazi talking points?’” Leno teased.

        See, this is very dangerous to the White House if journalists should suddenly start asking real questions.”

        Indeed it is, Jay. Indeed it is.

        Just imagine how dangerous it would have been to Obama if so-called “journalists” would have asked him real questions in 2007 when he first threw his hat into the ring.”

        • There’s a story by the same reporter, speaking about those sixteen words, which he quotes: “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (Historical note: IT WAS TRUE.) Keep in mind that Susan Rice was in the thick of this, as she was at the time working for the Kerry campaign:

          “But it was only on that Sunday in July that Mr. Wilson — by then a foreign policy adviser to Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign –– really turned up the volume. His charges in two newspapers and on a television network were instantly rebroadcast around the world.

          The president’s staff moved swiftly to counter Mr. Wilson’s media trifecta, which threatened to undermine Mr. Bush’s record as a war leader just 15 months before the election.”

          This reporter spins the story totally AGAINST the Bush administration’s attempt at fighting this Wilson/Kerry/lamestream media WMD. This story goes on to blame the Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for “outing” Plame, when it was Richard Armitage who outed her to Bob Woodward. The lamestream reporters who knew the source of the “leak” (which was common knowledge in DC, anyway), apparently let Libby be prosecuted when they KNEW he was innocent. It was Bob Novak who told Rove. Novak is the one who published the information. For some reason, PATRICK FITZGERALD prosecuted and ruined the life of Scooter Libby.

          • Bill Bradlee, another reporter, was mentioned in that first article. This article, a sympathetic, semi-fawning one about the celebrity couple Wilson and Plame, mentions that Bradlee hosted the Wilsons at an “A-list” party and that they were friends. That’s by the same reporter who now seems to believe that Congress shouldn’t focus on the words spoken by Morell and Rice. How the New York times change.

  14. J. Christopher Stevens… ‘OUR’ American Ambassador to LIBYA …
    HE was ONE of the BEST of his GENERATION! … WE MISS U!

    • Perhaps so, but what was he really doing in Benghazi? Being a good little trooper for Barry or serving the best interests of our country? Following orders. Arming al Qaeda? Arming our enemies? Faster and Furiouser?

    • “Collins is curious why Rice is not angrier, if, as she insists, she was repeating what she was told. “I’d be furious at the White House and F.B.I. and intelligence community for destroying my credibility,” the senator said.”

      That’s a good point by Collins. She should be furious but she’s not. She’s banking that her quid pro quo will still pay off and she, like Biden, will get what was promised, no matter what. It seems the Republicans are finally getting smart and putting out there the kind of RINOs (Collins) that the media like. They’re listening to her where they won’t listen to McCain.

  15. Ohhh, no. What a come down. Adding insult to injury. I wonder, will she be holding a Holiday bash for the military and if so, will anyone go?

    Kelley loses lost special consul license plates

    (UPI) — The Tampa, Fla., woman at the center of the sex scandal that led David Petraeus to resign as CIA director lost her special license plate, state officials said. Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles said Jill Kelley, 37, no longer qualifies for the special-issue honorary consul plates after South Korea stripped Kelley of her honorary title for misusing it in some business dealings, the New York Post reported Friday.

    As of Thursday, her three vehicles had regular Florida plates.

  16. Kessler gives an example of a former Honey Pot, KGB operation and “why those with security clearances are not supposed to put themselves in positions where they could be compromised.” His long time buddy, Gen. Shelton is offering the information that Petraeus blames Broadwell.

    Former CIA Director Petraeus Blames His Mistress
    Friday, 30 Nov 2012 01:14 PM
    By Ronald Kessler

    Petraeus’ effort to manipulate public opinion by blaming Broadwell for his own breach of trust only confirms that he did not deserve to be CIA director.


  17. Consulate lacked requested ‘man traps’
    Senator says they might have slowed assault
    Nov. 29, 2012 Snip

    The U.S. mission in Libya where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack lacked special security barriers that the State Department’s inspector general recommended three years ago for diplomatic facilities in danger zones, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said Thursday.

    The State Department inspector general recommended in 2009 that U.S. diplomatic facilities in danger zones have special holding areas for visitors called “man traps,” but the U.S. consular facility in Benghazi did not have them, Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine told reporters after a four-hour, closed-door briefing from senior intelligence and defense officials on Capitol Hill. “While there were improvements made for security, those specific recommendations for man traps were not built in Benghazi,” she said.

    The “man traps” that the inspector general recommended were “an enclosed area for pedestrian and vehicular inspections a walled- or fenced-off area for pedestrian visitors, hence ‘man trap’,” an official in the inspector general’s office said. The official, authorized to speak only on the condition of anonymity, would not comment on the report’s recommendations. He said the report had never been released publicly because it contained details about security measures at U.S. diplomatic posts.

    • Doesn’t this all depend on whether it was a real consulate or a CIA staging area? Tripoli was supposed to be the real consulate, and the part that is missing is knowing that Amb. Stevens was really a CIA agent running guns for the U.S. and selling them to end up in the hands of terrorists in Syria.

    • Some say it’s all inapplicable because that was a CIA “mission”–a covert one and not a diplomatic consulate in the first place.


    “The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, says he learned the details of his son’s bravery not from the Obama administration, but in an email from an American whose life was saved by his son.

    Tyrone Woods, 41, was found “slumped over his machine gun, which was caked with blood,” Charles Woods, the former SEAL’s father, said during a telephone interview from his home in Hawaii.

    “He had continued to fire until he had no blood left and was unable to fire anymore,” Mr. Woods said.

    He did not identify the email’s sender but said he later spoke with the person who “told me how Ty died.” …

    For family members such as Mr. Woods, the need to know what occurred in Benghazi is as real today as it was the moment they learned that their loved ones had perished. …

    Some have voiced anger toward the Obama administration, accusing the White House of not taking their losses seriously, hiding information from them and even attempting to steer media attention from the details of the attack to dim the spotlight on any administration wrongdoing. …

    Mr. Woods, meanwhile, has gone perhaps furthest in raising questions about how the administration responded to the Benghazi attack.

    He told The Washington Times that the person who contacted him about the attack explained in detail how his son’s death was preceded by a series of mortar rounds.

    “The first one was well short of the building, the second and third landed in front of the building, and the fourth one went up and landed on the roof,” Mr. Woods said. “That’s what killed Ty.”

    The round slammed into the roof where the former SEAL was positioned, and “I was told that if it had been a heavier round, it would have gone through the roof and exploded inside the building where 30 or so Americans were being protected by Ty and by Glen,” he said.

    Noting that Tyrone Woods left behind “a newborn baby and a beautiful wife,” Mr. Woods said his son was “a hero who was willing to sacrifice his life.”

    Mr. Woods repeated assertions that he has made to other news organizations during recent weeks — that the White House is involved in a “100 percent cover-up” because “no effort whatsoever was made to rescue” his son and the other Americans who were killed.”

    And that’s the truth.

  19. Special-ops vets demand Benghazi answers
    ‘The truth has got to come out as to why we let these people die’
    Dec. 5 Snip

    With almost three months elapsed since the September terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a group of special operations veterans is tired of the delay in answers from the Obama administration and is demanding action.

    “We view the events in Libya as sort of a jigsaw puzzle that’s been dumped out of the box on to the table, and there’s a heck of a lot of pieces that need to be put together to reveal the big picture,” said retired U.S. Air Force Col. Dick Brauer, co-founder of Special Operations Speaks. “Unfortunately, this puzzle box had no picture on it so we’re trying to actually figure out what is the truth behind what really happened.”

    Special Operations Speaks is insisting that Attorney General Eric Holder choose a special prosecutor to get to the heart of the story in Benghazi – and not just any special prosecutor. The veterans want a Republican, whom they argue would provide the best chance for a full and honest investigation.“The only way we can do this is to put pressure on Congress, we feel, to get Eric Holder and the Justice Department to appoint an independent counsel – a Republican independent counsel – because I’m afraid Eric Holder might put the fox in the hen house so to speak, and we would never get the truth,” Col. Brauer told WND’s Greg Corombos. “But the truth has got to come out as to why we let these people die.”
    “All forces were readily available to go to the aid of the ambassador and his staff – Special Forces strike teams, battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, Special Forces teams in Africa, even the Navy and the Air Force fighters and AC-130 gunships,” Brauer said. ”The questions arise as to why those forces weren’t launched.”

    • I don’t think there IS a Republican who would be uncompromised. Well, we could suggest Allen West. He is, after all, a military veteran. Or perhaps Michele Bachmann. Whatever, please–no John Danforth. John Ashcroft, perhaps, or Rumsfeld.

  20. “CIA moved swiftly to scrub, abandon Libya facility after attack, source says”

    “Within eight hours of the initial attack on the United States’ diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, the CIA decided to scrub and abandon rather than protect its annex, a military intelligence source told Fox News.

    “The defensive posture was no longer sustainable,” the source told Fox News, revealing for the first time how quickly the CIA chose to secure classified material and close down the facility after it took indirect fire from two mortars at about 5:15 a.m. local time Sept. 12.

    The adjoining U.S. consulate, by contrast, has never been secured, even three months after the attack.

    The process to sanitize the CIA site began on Sept. 11 after the consulate was attacked around 9:35 p.m. local time. The initial stages of the agency’s proscribed evacuation plan kicked in as a precautionary step.

    Given the CIA Annex was designated a high-threat posting by the agency and described to Fox News as having an “expeditionary” feel, there was not a lot of classified material to dispose of. Classified communications equipment was also near minimum.

    Within two and a half hours of the decision by the CIA chief of base, the agency’s point person in Benghazi, the annex was cleared of all classified material and equipment.”

    • They didn’t do a great job at scrubbing if the diary of Amb. Stevens was found by a CNN reporter. Wouldn’t that diary be considered classified information? Within 8 hours of the attack, the CIA decided to abandon and not protect its annex….it was decided before then to not protect the Americans who were there also. Who made that decision? Was the CIA agent at base in contact with the WH or some other agency? Who went in to scrub the annex? Was it before or after all were dead? How did they get in without incident? Or was that the job of the two Seals that died?

  21. “Egyptian Authorities Arrest Al-Qaeda-Affiliated Terror Suspect Linked to Benghazi”

    Egyptian authorities have detained a suspected terror network ringleader whose operatives are believed to have carried out a deadly attack on a US mission in Libya, a report said Friday.

    Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad –– a former member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who was freed from prison in March 2011 following the ouster of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak –– was captured in the past week, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed US officials. …

    Fighters linked to one freed militant, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, took part in the Sept. 11 attack on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Libya that killed four Americans, U.S. officials believe based on initial reports. Intelligence reports suggest that some of the attackers trained at camps he established in the Libyan Desert, a former U.S. official said.

    Western officials say Mr. Ahmad has petitioned the chief of al Qaeda, to whom he has long ties, for permission to launch an al Qaeda affiliate and has secured financing from al Qaeda’s Yemeni wing.

    U.S. spy agencies have been tracking Mr. Ahmad’s activities for several months. The Benghazi attacks gave a major boost to his prominence in their eyes.”

    Just another dude we helped who turned on us and murdered our people. How’s that Arab Spring working out for ya, Barry? This guy was FREED by the overthrow of Mubarak and now he’s complicit in the murder of Stevens, Smith, Doherty, and Woods. And he was training these jihadist murderers IN LIBYA! Nice. Connections to our “friends” in Yemen, too. No wonder the “U.S. spy agencies” wanted him put away.

    In the meantime, after a phone call from Barry, Morsi suddenly declares martial law but claims that he’s rescinding his dictatorial power grab. However, the Islamist constitutional referendum will still go on, so in essence Morsi got what he wanted: A way to ram through Sharia law with no democratic input from Christians or secularists, who won’t be able to protest or else they’ll be arrested by the military, with whom Morsi has made a deal. I wonder if this plan was formulated upon Barry’s ADVICE? So much these tactics resemble how Barry operates in the U.S.

  22. Benghazi: Libyan Terrorists Got Arms From Obama Administration‏ – OpEd

    “In spite of the threat of American weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups, President Barack Obama secretly approved an arms transfer to Libyan rebels through Qatar at the height of the rebellion against Moamar Khadhafi, a knowledgeable source noted on Friday.

    However, American counterterrorists are discovering that some of those U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of radical Islamists including associates of al-Qaeda, according to a law enforcement source who trained police in the Middle East.

    Some Americans who are retired from the military, as well as intelligence and law enforcement agencies, believe there should be an investigation into possible connections between the weapons provided by the Qataris back then and the attack that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

    During the months leading up to the terrorist attacks, the Obama administration worried about its part in helping to arm the Libyan rebels who were members of terrorist organizations especially so close to Election Day.

    Experts believe that Obama’s experience with arming Libyan rebels is why his administration is nervous about arming the rebels in Syria, where money and weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries. It’s widely believed that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups are active in the Syrian rebellion.”

    The story goes on to claim that Saudi Arabia and Qatar ARE arming the Syrian rebels, but claims Obama refuses “to directly arm” them. He’s naive if he doesn’t realize that the mission in Libya was TO INDIRECTLY arm those same rebels and that’s why the coverup. What was Stevens doing there, exactly?

  23. Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider” (Part III)
    Doug Hagmann – Tuesday, December 11, 2012 Snip

    It’s a globalist agenda, using the blueprints and agenda created by Saudi Arabia for the North African and Middle East portions of the globe, to shape that area geopolitically. They are using the United States as their surrogate and their military muscle, and the Obama led U.S. “regime” is all too willing to comply.

    With regard to Libya, it was in March of 2011 when the Clinton State Department, under orders of Obama, appointed Ambassador Stevens as the point man to the al Qaeda linked Libyan opposition forces to topple Qaddafi. Remember, Osama bin Laden was reportedly killed two months later and al Qaeda was supposedly out of existence, according to Obama. But think about this. Under direct orders of Obama, Clinton appointed Stevens to work with the very same people who reportedly killed 3000-plus Americans on September 11, 2001 for the purposes of overthrowing Qaddafi. It worked, and Qaddafi was deposed and murdered in October of 2011.

    Look at what happened next. Clinton announced that the U.S. was throwing $40 million into Libya to “secure” Qaddafi’s weapon arsenals. Oh, really? That’s what was being told to the public and to congress, but it’s not reality, certainly not from the inside. As I’ve already explained, that money and our personnel were being used to collect the weapons to send them to Syria to topple Assad. Before getting to Syria, they were placed in staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, and other places, including Jordan. They were being collected and sent through northern Libya, and the CIA operations center was the headquarters for this operation. As I’ve said many times, there was no embassy or consulate in Benghazi. It was a covert CIA operations center.
    So every American understands, it is OUR tax money in part that was used to arm Islamic groups ideologically aligned with al Qaeda. Imagine that. Eleven years after 9/11, we’re funding and assisting the very same terrorists who attacked our country to topple another country.

    • The snatched Red Crescent Workers play prominently into exposing this operation.

      Yes, and here is where it gets interesting. They were released exactly 65 days after they were snatched. They were in good health and dropped off on the streets of Tripoli. But why then? This is where it get’s damning to Obama, Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett.

      What is not widely known to Americans is that Obama sent Iranian born Valerie Jarrett to Qatar for high level talks with the Iranians about coming to an agreement before the November elections. This, despite Jarrett not having the capacity as official of the U.S. government. She had no business doing what she was doing. That aside, the plan was that Jarrett would broker a deal, and Obama would announce to the world that he had succeeded in diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians where they would halt their nuclear weapons ambitions and Obama would officially live up to his title as savior of the world.

      But before the talks kicked into high gear, the Iranians told Jarrett that the Red Crescent workers had to be released before any talks could be done in earnest. Jarrett relayed that to Obama and Clinton, and then, out of nowhere, the missing workers were suddenly released.

      So now we are hearing reports of chemical weapons planned for use by Assad. What’s the real story?

      The world is being set up for a false flag operation. Obama, Clinton and every supporter of the anti-Assad initiative are either lying to the American people or are “dupes.” The objective remains taking out Assad and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.
      But if you look at the evidence, it’s the anti-Assad, Western backed forces that have taken possession of chemical storage areas.

  24. Was it here where we wondered what happened to the 30+ survivors mentioned in early reports from Benghazi?

    • Yep. I remember somebody asking about it. I think I said they’re probably disappeared by now.

      Chaffetz: State Dept Hiding Benghazi Survivors

      Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.

      “My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. “I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.”

      “This is so patently different than any other experience I’ve had. Unfortunately, people have been killed and maimed and in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq and in points beyond. It’s typically been the case that they would release those names but in this case, they won’t. My challenge is to the media. You try and figure it out. They won’t let Congress know. They won’t seem to let the media know either.””

  25. Security Insufficient at Consulate …… (could that B TRUE? )
    Bless all ARE Men & their Children this Christmas…. without them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s