| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/22/2013 5:13:11 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Go to 2013 thread |
Posted on 01/01/2012 5:51:39 PM PST by MestaMachine
|
M
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2941802/posts
Murdered ambassador sent cable warning of threats on day of Benghazi attack
Hotair ^ | 10/08/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 10:02:12 AM by SeekAndFind
A number of media sources have fresh looks at the Obama administration’s handling of security in the weeks before the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi drove us out of eastern Libya and killed four Americans, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens. First, Fox News reported yesterday that the State Department decided to stick to its schedule of rotating out a 16-man Special Ops team assigned to diplomatic security in Benghazi, just weeks before the attack in August. They were joined in their exit by a six-man security team from the State Department itself:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
ABC News follows this up with a report this morning that Stevens himself wanted the special forces team to stay in Libya, but apparently were overruled:
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.
The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” …
Asked for comment to the memo and Wood’s comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News: “Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee’s investigation continues to seek answers about why — even as threats against Americans increased — senior State Department officials erroneously decided such security was no longer needed.”
Investigators are exploring whether anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request another extension.
The State Department responded this morning by claiming that Stevens had requested a specific level of security which matched what he already had. However, Eli Lake’s report from the Daily Beast today underscores just how fragile those security arrangements were. Thanks to Obama administration efforts in Libya, Stevens sent a cable the morning of the attack warning State that their support of a Libyan candidate for Prime Minister threatened to alienate the militias that protected the Benghazi consulate:
Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.
The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.
The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty.
The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack. Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17 militia, the cable says.
Lake notes that the overall tone of the cable was positive about improving security in Libya. However, it’s also rather interesting that the cable makes no mention at all of the 14-minute YouTube video that the White House insisted for more than a week was the reason for the assault on the consulate. Instead, Stevens notified Washington of a rise in Islamist forces in the region, including morality brigades enforcing sharia law at the local university. Less than 24 hours later, Stevens would be murdered while the militias turned out to be ineffective at best in the coordinated terrorist attack on the consulate.
The House Oversight Committee hearing on the attack begins on Wednesday. Will the White House story change yet again between then and now?
Related article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/exclusive-libya-cable-detailed-threats.html
Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats
Oct 8, 2012 12:00 AM EDT In a dispatch sent the day he was killed, Ambassador Christopher Stevens described how the militias keeping the peace in Benghazi threatened to quit over a political feud. Eli Lake reports.
Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.
The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.
The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty.
The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack. Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17 militia, the cable says.
Jason Chaffetz, the Republican lawmaker who has led the House Oversight and Government Reform committee’s investigation into the 9/11 attack, says the State Department actually decreased U.S. diplomatic security personnel in the months leading up to the attack.
The cable, titled “Benghazi Weekly Report – September 11, 2012,” notes the dangerous environment in eastern Libya. It does not, however, make a specific plea to Washington for more personnel or more security upgrades, and concludes that much of the violence in the country consists of Libyans attacking other Libyans, as opposed to specific plots directed at the West. Indeed, it says that in a meeting with Stevens, members of the Benghazi Local Council said security in their city was improving.
At the same time, the cable makes no mention of the anti-Muslim YouTube video or planned protests at the consulate, two key pillars of the Obama administration’s initial narrative on the 9/11 attacks.
Chaffetz, who visited Tripoli on Saturday, told The Daily Beast he has obtained documents and conducted interviews with whistle blowers that show the U.S. mission Libya did request more security from Washington in the run-up to the attack, but was denied. “Regional security officers were denied requests for more personnel and security upgrades to the four buildings and the perimeter security of the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” he told The Daily Beast on Sunday. More details on that negotiation will likely come out on Wednesday, when Chaffetz will hold his committee’s first hearing on the Benghazi attack.
The cable in some ways is bittersweet. It provides a snapshot of U.S. activities in Libya’s second-largest city before the assault that killed Stevens and three other Americans. It acknowledged the rise of Islamist forces in the militias and in the nearby city of Dernaa, a hotbed of al Qaeda recruiting in the last decade. In that city, an outfit called the “Abu-Salim Brigade” was beginning to enforce a harsh version of Islamic law that prohibited any co-mingling of men and women at the local university. One correspondent with the late ambassador urged him to send someone to Dernaa to “see the truth for yourselves.”
But the cable also details how the U.S. mission in Libya was optimistic about Libya’s future. The cable described plans for something called “the American space” in Benghazi. The new facility would contain “a small library, computer lab, and open space for programming.” It said the new facility has already been used for a dialogue on foreign policy with young Libyans.
New details of Sept. 11 consulate attack in Libya
Sept. 10-11, 2012
Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya’s government to provide added security.
Around 8:30 p.m.
Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.
Around 9:40 p.m.
Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.
Grabbing weapons
One agent, armed with a sidearm and an M4 submachine gun, takes Stevens and computer specialist Sean Smith to a safe room inside one of the compound’s two main residences. It has a heavy metal grill and several locks, medical supplies and water, and windows that can be opened only from the inside. The other agents equip themselves with long guns, body armor, helmets and ammunition at other buildings. Two try to make it to the building with Stevens. They are met by armed men and are forced to retreat.
Attackers breach the compound
Attackers penetrate Stevens’ building and try to break the grill locks for the safe room, but cannot gain access. They dump jerry cans of diesel fuel in the building, light furniture on fire and set aflame part of the exterior of the building. Two of the remaining four agents are in the compound’s other residence. Attackers penetrate that building, but the agents barricade themselves in and the attackers can’t reach them. Attackers try to enter the tactical operations center, where the last two agents are located. They smash up the door but cannot enter the building.
Americans trapped
Meanwhile, Stevens’ building rapidly fills up with thick diesel smoke and burning fumes from the furniture. Inside, visibility is less than 3 feet. Unable to breathe, the Americans go to a bathroom and open a window, but still can’t get enough air. They decide to leave the building. The agent goes first, flopping out onto a patio enclosed by sandbags. He takes immediate fire, including probably rocket-propelled grenades. Stevens and Smith don’t come out of the building. The agent, suffering severely from smoke inhalation, goes in and out of the building several times to look for them. He then climbs a ladder to the roof of the building and collapses. He radios the other agents to alert them to the situation there.
The other four agents are able to reunite and take an armored vehicle to Stevens’ building. They reach the collapsed agent and try to set up a perimeter. They take turns going into the building, searching on hands and knees for the missing Americans. Smith is pulled out, dead. Stevens cannot be found.
More at link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2942550/posts
AP SOURCES: STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER LINKED LIBYA ATTACK TO ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO
The Blaze ^ | October 9, 2012 | Jason Howerton
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:04:45 PM by Snuph
The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ap-sources-state-department-never-linked-libya-attack-to-anti-muslim-video/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943767/posts
Benghazi Burns and Petraeus Goes to Princeton?
Diana West ^ | Oct. 12, 2012
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 10:12:29 AM by Milagros
OCT12
Written by: Diana West
Friday, October 12, 2012 12:52 AM
Two weeks ago, I wondered whether CIA Director Petraeus was politicizing the intelligence after a source told Fox News on September 27 that three days after the Benghazi assault, Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee that “Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was `shocking’ to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”
Knowing Petraeus’ sensitivities to the faux-stimulus of what he has called in Senate testimony “Arab anger,” such politicization, or, perhaps better, such Arabizing of the intelligence would likely come naturally to him. No stranger to politicking, Petraeus as CENTCOM commander engaged in what was described as an “unprecedented”political push in early 2010 on behalf of Islam’s Israel-centered demonology in order to enhance Americas’s military standing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This dovetailed neatly with his perhaps surprising take on Gitmo — close it, its “existence has been used by the enemy against us” — and his really shocking take on Hezbollah: “Hezbollah’s justifications for existence will become void,” Petraeus told the Al Hayat as reported in the Lebanese Daily Star, “if the Palestinian cause is resolved.” Given this Arabist sensibility (and don’t forget one of his thesis directors at Princeton was Stephen Waltof Walt & Mearsheimer), it’s no stretch to imagine the man taking up cry of Islamic video-rage as well.
Now, with so many of the adminstration’s bald lies about Benghazi being exposed,PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston is asking not whether Petraeus was politicizing the intell, but whether he is “among the sources of the Benghazi deception.”
In a post called “You Know Who Still Hasn’t Called Benghazi a Terrorist Attack?” Preston reprises some of Petraeus’ appeasement of Koran Rage back in Afghanistan. Preston also notes that several senators sent a letter on October 9 to Petraeus, DNI Clapper and White House CT advisor John Brennan asking for a specific timeline on the Benghazi intelligence They haven’t received an answer.
Which isn’t to say Petraeus hasn’t been busy of late. Two weeks ago (September 27), the Daily Princetonian published a story suggesting that the CIA director was interested in becoming president of Princeton — this after the current president anounced her retirement on the weekend of September 23. Petraeus’ response as reported by the college paper?
I think I’ve made my respect and admiration for the great faculty and student body of Princeton University very clear, and I will reiterate that now,” Petraeus said in the statement. “As it currently stands, however, I am living the dream here at CIA.”
You don’t need a CIA decoder ring to read that as he wants it. Further, with Benghazi’s Big Lies crashing around him, I would even interpret the strangely jarring phrase “living the dream here at the CIA” as: Get me out of here. But I wonder how Benghazi-gate will look on his resume? Diana West
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943780/posts
Benghazi’s Real Scandal? Uncle Sam Joined the Jihad
DianeWest.net ^ | 11OCT12 | Diane West
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 10:35:05 AM by bayouranger
Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?
The question has yet to come up in House hearings, but I think it holds the key to the Obama administration’s betrayal of the American people in “Benghazi-gate.” To an American with common sense not subverted by advanced degrees, the thought of putting Islamic “martyrs” in charge of American “infidels” in Benghazi – which, fun fact, literally means “city of holy warriors” – would trigger the inevitable “heck, no.” And that’s without even knowing what is significant about Feb. 17.
But I’m talking about Washington, D.C. Here, placing the lives of Americans in the hands of a thug-army linked to multiple atrocities and drawn from jihad-epicentral eastern Libya disturbs no collective brain wave. No matter that Benghazi and nearby Derna sent more men, per capita, to Iraq to kill Americans than anywhere else in the world. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, putting local boys in barracks inside the consulate compound was a great idea. Why not? President Obama’s ambassador, the late Christopher Stevens, was, as they say, “reaching out” across the jihad spectrum on official business.
Meanwhile, Ansar al Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law”), the al-Qaida-linked militia believed to have led the consulate assault in September, is a spinoff of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, but that didn’t scratch the lacquered political surface, either. And even as reports remind us of ties among February 17 Martyrs Brigade leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood and the web of jihad-poison spun by Qatar’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Libya’s Ali al-Salabi – the latter having been tapped by the Qatari dictatorship to distribute $2 billion to Libyan “rebels” – the focal point remains elsewhere.
Partly, that’s because the breathtaking lies the Obama administration has told us post-9/11/12 distract our attention from the disastrous policy previously in place. Plus, there remains a lingering confusion over good guys and bad guys. After all, Uncle Sam isn’t supposed to support bad guys. The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”
Whether, as the Daily Beast reported, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade may have been ordered by a pro-al-Qaida Libyan politician to “stand down” for the attack remains to be verified. Meanwhile, the State Department reminds us not to forget the service of two brigade members who were beaten and two who were shot defending the compound. “But there were some bad apples in there as well,” one intelligence source told the Daily Beast.
How could there not be? And here is where the significance of Feb. 17 comes in.
John Rosenthal, an independent journalist based in Europe, wrote early on that the Libyan rebellion wasn’t led only by al-Qaida commanders. This anti-Gadhafi movement was symbolically also an Islamic jihad on Western liberty itself. We know this because, as Rosenthal reported, the “Day of Rage” called for Feb. 17, 2011, to kick off the Libyan civil war was the fifth anniversary of another assault on the West, also in Benghazi.
Following Friday prayers on Feb. 17, 2006, thousands of Benghazians attacked the Italian Consulate to punish the temerity of an Italian minister, Roberto Calderoli, who several days earlier had publicly defended free speech in the West. The world was then experiencing another cycle of Islamic violence, this one orchestrated to punish a tiny Danish newspaper for publishing a sheet of Muhammad cartoons and, in turn, Denmark itself for refusing to punish the journalist-transgressors of Islamic law, which outlaws any critiques and all depictions of Muhammad.
Calderoli didn’t merely defend free speech. During his TV interview, he dramatically unbuttoned his shirt to reveal a T-shirt featuring a cartoon of Muhammad. Referring to Islamic rioters worldwide, he added: “When they recognize our rights, I’ll take off this shirt.” He was forced to resign from his post the next day, a sacrifice on the altar of Shariah (Islamic law) by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. It wasn’t enough.
“We feared for our lives,” the wife of the Italian consul later told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, describing the attack in which the consulate was set on fire. All personnel were safely evacuated. Libyan police used tear gas to try to disperse the rioters, later opening fire and killing 11 attackers.
These are the “martyrs” who serve as role models for the security team that was defending the U.S. Consulate. Symbolically, they figure into the wider war in Libya, which is often called the February 17 Revolution. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the Islamic war on free speech, the basis of our liberty, was an inspiration of “regime change” in Libya. And we supported it.
That’s the real scandal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2943788/posts?page=1
Biden Admits Obama is Arming Muslim Brotherhood to Take Over Syria
frontpagemag.com/the-point ^ | October 12, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 10:49:04 AM by expat1000
This is ridiculous and it should be an incredibly damning statement. It’s shocking to me that this has not been picked up.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let — let — let me — you don’t go through the U.N. We are in the process now and have been for months in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training, is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria.
What Biden said in his debate with Ryan is that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both Islamist countries, and Jordan which is a pawn, determine which Syrian rebels get “other aid”, presumably weapons, and the training to use them.
That Obama is arming and training, directly or indirectly, the Syrian rebels, would be an important revelation in and of itself. Biden’s dismissal of the UN, after years of Democratic whining about Bush’s unilateralism, should also excite comment, but most significantly Biden admits that our view of who should get them derives from the view of Turkey’s Islamist government and Saudi Arabia’s even more Islamist regime. Saudi Arabia is as bad as Pakistan and Turkey is being run by an Islamist party that is backing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria. Both consider Hamas a legitimate group, and yet Obama has decided to make his plan for regime change in Syria subservient to what the Saudi and Turkish lobbies tell him to do.
This is near confirmation that Obama is arming and training the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria.
In probably the worst choice of words imaginable, Biden talks of, “working hand in glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes and he will go, there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al-Qaida-sponsored government that follows on.”
This isn’t just backing rebel fighters, this is fairly open regime change. Al Qaeda can do quite a bit of damage, but they can’t take over Syria. Even a buffoon like Biden knows that. Syria isn’t Mali or Afghanistan. But the Muslim Brotherhood can take over Syria. And when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over a country, like the Taliban they provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups.
Biden said a lot of stupid things during the debate, but this may be the worst of them all. And the worst part is that it’s all true.
Content Section Video From Benghazi Consulate Shows Organized Attack
Oct 12, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Footage from the night of Sept. 11 might be the clearest evidence yet of a military-style assault on the consulate in Benghazi. Eli Lake reports.
Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.
The Obama administration has been studying the videos, taken from closed-circuit cameras throughout the Benghazi consulate’s four-building compound, for clues about who was responsible for the attack and how it played out. The two officials tell The Daily Beast that analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known jihadists.
The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.
The videos were filmed from multiple closed-circuit cameras throughout the compound, and are at times grainy and hard to decipher. There are also some gaps. There is no footage, for example, of Ambassador Chris Stevens going into the safe room where he eventually died from smoke inhalation. The footage at the gate of the compound is taken from an angle that filmed the attackers from the side, so the people in the crowd can mostly be seen in profile.
The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days.
In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening.
Analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known databases of jihadists.
At the same time, there was evidence that countered this assessment. An initial investigation by congressional Republicans alleged that the families of local Libyans serving for a contractor to provide security at the consulate were urged in the days before the attack to have the guards not show up to work on Sept. 11. U.S. intelligence officers also knew of four suspects within 24 hours of the attack that had links to Ansar al-Sharia, a local jihadist organization with some ties to al Qaeda’s regional affiliate for north Africa.
The video footage also supports the accounts of four diplomatic-security officers who were at the Benghazi compound and who initially responded to the attack. On Sept. 17, these officers told State Department investigators in formal briefings that there was no spontaneous protest the night of the attack, U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast. This information was what led the State Department to conclude there was no protest at the consulate on the day of the attacks, according to these officials.
Nonetheless, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to say until Sept. 20 that the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest over the Internet film
..TheBlaze TV
Beck Walks Through Libya Timeline and Describes ‘Massive Cover-Up…Bigger Than Watergate’
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:29am by Tiffany Gabbay
On Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck delved into a laundry list of evidence revealing that the White House and President Obama have been far from honest when it comes to the recent embassy attacks in Libya and in Cairo.
The latest in a string of damning information now indicates that the State Department even rejected embassy staff’s request for additional security prior to the attack and that security threats were present in Libya for months prior to September 11, when U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and another American civil servant were killed.
The coup de grace for the Obama administration, however, was in blaming a YouTube video for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi when they were in fact premeditated. Watch below as Beck goes point for point through a powerful timeline of events — both in the administration and across the Middle East — that remove any shred of doubt that, as Beck put it, a cover-up far exceeding the Watergate scandal is at play.
A chronology of crucial moments leading up to and in the aftermath of the attacks is provided below courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:
April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.
April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.
May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.
.
May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.
May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.
May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.
June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”
June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.
August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.
September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.
September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.
September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.
September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.
September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attackwas involved.
September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.
September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.
September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.
September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”
September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.
September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.
September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congressthe attack in Libya was “terrorism.”
September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.
September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”
September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”
September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.
September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”
September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.
October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.
Beck went on to ask why the embassy was denied their repeated requests for additional security and why Stevens was even still present in Benghazi when the British embassy and Red Cross were “smart enough to leave.“ He also wondered why the FBI were not deployed to the scene until last week and spent a mere ”three hours” on the ground there.
“Whose idea was it to make up the video excuse?” Beck asked. He added his theory that Stevens “was our broker tasked with arming the Libyan rebels” and that eventually, when he “needed to get the weapons back,“ the deal ”went bad.”
“This is a massive institutional cover-up bigger than Watergate,” he slammed. It may be just “massive incompetence but you have been lied to in a massive and coordinated fashion.”
Beck suggested that the reason Obama is so focused on “Big Bird” currently is to detract attention away from this scandal and that the president is pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood by condemning the “slander of Islam.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2943950/posts?page=2
Islamic militants help seize missile base in Syria
AP ^ | October 12, 2012 | BEN HUBBARD and ZEINA KARAM
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2012 3:23:12 PM by maggief
BEIRUT (AP) - Fighters from a shadowy militant group with suspected links to al-Qaida joined Syrian rebels in seizing a government missile defense base in northern Syria on Friday, according to activists and amateur video.
http://www.ktiv.com/story/19802104/syria-activists-say-rebels-seize-air-defense-base
Is it time for catch up?
Thanks, MM.
I appreciate the “catch up”.
I’ve had my hands full with my 95 year old father, who just got asked to leave his assisted living facility because of his dementia. He is here with us for a while. Trying to get him into the nearest VA facility......but it’s been a real hassle. Plus, they want me to sign over all his financial assets to keep him there. I refuse. Looks like I will be caring for him as long as I can. Plan to bring in some home health care to help.
Seems like things are really heating up all over the world. Wish we had a bona fide leader to steer us through the darkness.
Thanks again for the ping. Keep me on your list.
“Islamists are also playing a leading role in Syria’s civil war against its dictator, Bashir Assad, and they have seized control of Northern Mali.”
I saw a map somewhere depicting Iran w/ the countries surrounding it that’s been invaded/bombed/infiltrated by NATO or us. Quite amazing when one sees it on paper. When seen on paper it looks like a planned war and that powers that be are directing (and arming) terrorists on the where and whens...Iran is surrounded on all fronts.
Posted today...might be of interest:
Egypt’s ‘Accountability Friday’ turns up the heat on Brotherhood rule
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943998/posts
Benghazi’s Real Scandal? Uncle Sam Joined the Jihad
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943780/posts
Thanks Mesta. Some things to ponder over on both threads...would enjoy input. Now will try catch up on my reading on this terrific thread.
“by NATO or us” - should probably read NATO and/or us. I guess w/o us there’s no NATO really.
Wow. Bless you for doing right by your Dad. G-d will help you find a way.
Thank you for the input, bronxville. Sometimes I miss stuff.
You have more info here in less that ten posts than the dbm has uncovered in weeks,truly amazing.
Funny how much more you van see when it’s all together in one place rather than a drip here and a drip there ain’t it?
Remember when the Muslims tried to blow up the world trade center the first time and Clinton shifted all terrorism attention onto his political and social enemies and the second amendment with McVey as an excuse and totally ignored the jihadists who freely prepped for the 911 attack? Clinton got away with all that.
We are doing that again with Obama. He shifted the terrorist protection attention onto his political and social enemies and the first amendment after the Libyan attack. It was Coptic Christians, Rev. Jones, lack of Shira speech control laws, etc. that was to blame for this violence. Christians and the constitution are the REAL terrorists we gotta crack down on and not the jihadists who killed the ambassador. Hillary got caught this time.
But since we know they are doing this clever Marxist up-side-down game, I know they’ve put the country in dire danger by ignoring jihadists and their activities in the US. It is especially dire that they have left the borders wide open while spreading jihadist power and access to WDM in the Middle East.
In some cases Obama has pulled border patrol guards away from the border, too. He’s probably done that to assist his choosen drug Cartel in Mexico but the jihadists are in tight with the Mexican cartels.
The point is, they will let it rip once Romney is in office just as happened to Bush after Clinton allowed the jihadists to prepare unhindered for 911. So as soon as Romney gets in, he’s going to have to get around the pro jihadist element inside the Federal government (Petraus is one) to pursue any and all plots Obama has set up. He also needs to put the kabosh on the US government’s involvement in shipping drugs into the US for Obama’s cartel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.