THREAT MATRIX 2012 #1

Posted earlier:

Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:45:17 PM · 62 of 62
MestaMachine to combat_boots

You have to start at the start. First you need a ‘reason’. The film maker is/was an fbi snitch. They fully intended to blame Israel for inciting muslim riots, hence the very first thing we heard was that the film maker was a billionaire Israeli Jew. We WEREN’T supposed to find him. SOMEONE passed that vid to the ‘cleric’ in Egypt. The cover was set. and had things gone as planned, Israel would have been blamed not only for the riots, but for Stevens’ death.
Stevens would be gone. The state department and the administration would have an excuse to further isolate Israel and back islamics.
al qaeda would have its pound of flesh. Weapons would get to the syrians. Everybody happy.
When that didn’t work, Plan B, film maker became a vengeful Coptic Christian from Egypt.

Q. Why did this unravel the way it did?
A. Because they did not figure on Walid Shoebat knowing who this guy was.

There was no Plan C. And people cared enough to dig and dig. Now they have no way out. Looks like the ax is going to fall on Christine Lamb, but I don’t think that will work either because NOW we know Petraeus is involved up to his eyeballs

AND don’t forget, these are the same players involved in Fast and Furious...arming our enemies to the south

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2944458/posts

Ex-CIA chief slams Biden – “Benghazi Gate”
StandupAmerica ^ | 10/13 | harnden

Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:37:22 PM by RummyChick

Two former intelligence chiefs today blasted Vice President Joe Biden for making the U.S. intelligence community a scapegoat for ‘the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration’.

Michael Hayden, former CIA director, and Michael Chertoff, who served as Homeland Security chief, hit out after Biden stunned many in the intelligence community by insisting that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi did not ask for additional security before it was attacked on September 11 - directly contradicting what security officials and diplomats have testified under oath.

The tough joint statement was issued via the Romney campaign. In it they added: ‘Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs

original article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216830/Ex-CIA-chief-slams-Biden-throwing-U-S-spies-bus-debate-blaming-lives-line-Benghazi-debacle.html

2 posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:38:27 PM by RummyChick

Yeah you guys do it right. there is no question. Great job! Thanks again for doing this.

What I worry about in Syria is who is securing the posionous gas that was flown in and trucked in from Iraq years ago.?

THIS IS A MUST READ DOCUMENT!
Thank you, AliVeritas

Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:40:21 AM · 3,916 of 3,920
AliVeritas to FARS; MestaMachine

http://www.kronosadvisory.com/CTTSO_Al_Qaeda_in_Libya_Final_Obtained260912.pdf
*************************************************
I have saved this so it doesn’t ‘disappear’.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2944493/posts?

Just Who DID answer the 3:00AM Call?
WRKO Radio ^ | 10/12/2012 | Howie Carr/Col. David Hunt

Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:49:46 PM by Eric

“Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt checked in with us again after the revelation that there were multiple listening posts which heard the cries for help from the US Embassy in Libya and none of them did anything. The State Department says they still do not know what really happened in Libya.”
(*******************************************************
From the thread:

Sets up a telling timeline, IMHO.

.

According to Col. Hunt (Fox News contributor and Howie Carr regular) as soon as the alert button in the U.S. Libyan Consulate (U.S. sovereign territory) was pushed signaling that it was being attacked a dozen or more monitoring units through-out the world (European, African, Nato, U.S. States Dept. in DC area, etc.) were alerted and instant monitoring began (including the audio and video being sent [real time] from the Consulate’s security cameras and the on air voice transmission of Ambassador Steven’s aide. With-in MINUTES protocol dictates that The President be alerted, the Sec. of Defense, the Sec. of State, the heads of the CIA, FBI, etc. be alerted ... the monitoring took place for the entire six hours that the attack lasted.

The 09/11/12 terrorist attack [on U.S. sovereign ground], assassination and murders began at 9:30 PM Libyan time = 3:30 AM Eastern U.S. time. Apparently, when that “3 AM Phone Call” came-in ... President 0bama turned-over and went back to sleep as did Sec. of State Clinton.
1 posted on Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:49:55 PM by Eric

.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-11

5:00 pm
The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense
Oval Office
Closed Press

.

From ptbor’s links:

Later in the afternoon, the President and the Vice President will meet with Secretary of Defense Panetta in the Oval Office. This meeting is closed to the press

.

12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, at the White House.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-09-12/world/33776446_1_benghazi-revolt-against-libyan-leader-president-barack-obama

Obama was informed about the developments in Libya by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as the president began a weekly meeting Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. The White House said Obama was kept apprised throughout the evening and then again Wednesday morning.

//

http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/gainesville-pastor-terry-jones-promoted-film-that-sparked-unrest-in-libya/1251112

The U.S. embassy in Egypt had tried to pre-empt the attack, issuing a statement hours earlier that condemned “the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Embassy officials also called Nader Bakkar, a spokesman for the conservative Islamist Nour party, in which they apologized for the film and Jones’ call, but Bakkar said he was unwilling to call off the protest, and embassy employees were sent home early.

(cont.)

68 posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:19:04 AM by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

DRONE:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/video-from-benghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeuss-first-year-at-the-cia/2012/06/01/gJQAjWmq7U_story.html

David Petraeus’s first year at the CIA

EXCERPT

Petraeus was well-known as a commander for fastening on “big ideas.” He has just floated to employees a new strategic plan that focuses on ways for the agency to exploit new technology more effectively.

The measure of any CIA director is operations, and Petraeus’s instincts here have reflected his military background. In Yemen, Petraeus improved coordination with the military on drone attacks and other operations. The CIA and the military (not always good partners) have shared intelligence, personnel and even hardware.

Petraeus is also said to have pushed hard in Libya, rushing case officers there to work with the opposition. Making this surge work fell to John Bennett, the head of the operations directorate. A blunt, tough officer who had planned to leave with Panetta, Bennett is said to have complained that he occasionally felt he was in a “hostile work environment.” But Bennett was able to pull officers from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

FLASHBACK:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/23/john-bennett-cia-appointment-is-a-mistake/
John Bennett CIA appointment (Director of the National Clandestine Services) is a mistake
****************************************************

Good links om thread.
.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/23/john-bennett-cia-appointment-is-a-mistake/

John Bennett CIA appointment is a mistake

It is evident from the continued Islamist activities throughout the North West Frontier Provinces and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan that Bennett actually failed in his duties as Chief of Station in Pakistan.

His inabilities to understand, identify, and formulate strategic plans of covert and clandestine activities destroying our adversaries networks throughout the region have led to an increase in loss of coalition lives in recent years. He played a devastating political game. It is evident that the current Obama administration selected Bennett to serve as a puppet in this prominent position considering he failed in Pakistan.

If the Obama administration truly wanted to defeat the world crisis of Islamist extremism, they should have selected an individual who does not seek an interest in making friends in the world’s elite, someone who truly understands Islamists and other ideologies from adversaries throughout the rest of the world, and an individual with a proven track record in such capacities.

The Obama administration made a grave mistake in the selection of John Bennett. Instead, they should have looked at others to serve in such a capacity. One person that comes to mind is Gary Bernsten.

Mr. Bernsten could have and most likely would have been an excellent candidate. He is the author of the book Jawbreaker. He ate, slept, lived, and continuously served in multiple capacities throughout the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. He is astute in his fundamental knowledge of Islamic extremism and he has a solid reputation instilling fear amongst our nation’s adversaries.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2944578/posts

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/261839-timeline-of-libya-attack-reveals-administration-contradictions-

Timeline of Libya attack reveals administration contradictions
The Hill ^ | 10/14/12 | Julian Pecquet

Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:36:48 AM by markomalley

The timeline of events leading up to last month’s deadly attack in Benghazi and the administration’s shifting explanations have become a major problem for Democrats less than a month before Election Day.

Already under criticism for linking the assault on the U.S. consulate to an anti-Islam video, the administration raised even more eyebrows Thursday when Vice President Biden said he didn’t know about the U.S. mission’s request for more security. Biden’s statement directly contradicts sworn testimony from State Department officials given just the day before.

The following is a detailed timeline of events leading to the Sept. 11 attack and what the Obama administration has said since then.

• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.

• February: The U.S. embassy requests — and is granted — a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.

• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.

• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.

• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans.” Another Facebook posting a month later highlights Stevens’ daily runs in Tripoli in an apparent threat.

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.

• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.

• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.

• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”

• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

• Sept. 14: Carney says the administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack.

• Sept. 16: Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, does the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and says the video is the “proximate cause” of the assault in Benghazi. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice tells ABC. That same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists on CBS that “it was planned, definitely.”

• Sept. 19: National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the assault was a “terrorist attack” but goes on to call it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest.

• Sept. 20: CBS reports that witnesses in Benghazi say there was no protest prior to the armed assault against the consulate. Magarief tells NBC the same thing on Sept. 26. Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” Carney declares it “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter brief members of Congress. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls it “the most useless worthless briefing I have attended in a long time.”

• Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.

• Sept. 25: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”

• Sept. 27: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”

• Sept. 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video. In a statement, spokeswoman Shawn Turner says that initially “there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

• Oct. 1: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Clinton stands by Rice after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) calls for her resignation.

• Oct. 3: FBI investigators finally arrive at the crime scene in Benghazi, which has been unsecured for weeks.

• Oct. 6: In a letter to Senate Republicans demanding an explanation for the shifting rhetoric, Rice lays the blame on the intelligence community, says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials.”

• Oct. 9: Senior State Department officials for the first time acknowledge that there was never any protest in Benghazi during a background call with reporters. They say linking the attack to the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.

• Oct. 10: Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify at a House oversight committee hearing on security lapses in Libya. They say their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington, testimony confirmed by cables made public by chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

• Oct. 11: During the vice presidential debate, Biden says, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there.” He also denies responsibility for the administration’s shifting explanation: “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”

• Oct. 12: After Republicans pounce, the White House says Biden was speaking for himself and the president because such decisions are made by the State Department.

Questions on Benghazi ("Where is CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus?")
Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2012 | Jennifer Rubin

Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:59:27 AM by maggief

Where is CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus? He seems to be the missing man in the unfolding Benghazi debacle. It is his agency, among others, which is being fingered by the White House for getting the Libya attack wrong. However, we know that within a very short time after the murder of our ambassador (an extraordinary occurrence) and others, our intelligence community did have the story straight: This was an organized al-Qaeda attack. Is he to preside over a witchhunt? Or is he, who to date has been one of the most respected national security officials, going to be instrumental in shining light on the Libya fiasco and thereby truly serving the national interest and the memory of those killed?

That’s one of the many pending questions bubbling over in the Libya scandal. But we finally be getting some answers. On Friday Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold hearings on the Benghazi debacle. Those hearings can’t come a moment too soon. The questions are multiplying:

The Rest of the Story

Ambassdor Stevens' Itinerary

Click to Enlarge

While Libya and Syria are on the front burners right now, let us never forget the abject betrayal of our troops still serving in Afghanistan and the utter waste of our treasure in Iraq which is reverting to chaos as we speak. This article belongs here because it is beginning to look as though obama is committing US troops to fight in the Middle East and North Africa on the pretext of protecting Jordan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2944686/posts

Obama’s War: US Soldiers Are Told They Are Fighting For The Afghan People, Not For The US
http://noisyroom.net ^ | 10.14.12 | AJ

Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:24:55 PM by Whenifhow

An American hero, Colonel Harry Tunnell IV, Commander of the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, documented the truth about the war in Afghanistan.

What Obama is really doing in Afghanistan is treasonous.

Dated August 20, 2010, a letter was written to John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, signed by Colonel Harry Tunnell IV. In the letter, four significant factors about military operations in Afghanistan were revealed.

1. When US soldiers arrive in Afghanistan, they are told that they are fighting for the Afghan people:

“Soldiers join the military today to protect the United States, yet they are told once in Afghanistan that we are fighting for the Afghan people – this is a rather mercenary outlook and ignores the fact that the United States was attacked September 11, 2001.”

2. Contrary to the lies Joe Biden told the American people during the VP debate on October 11th, Afghan Security Forces are not able to be properly trained:

“The idea that Afghan forces can lead operations such as Marjah, as was touted in the media when the operation began, is pure fancy.”

“As part of our formula for success we place a remarkable amount of emphasis on the Afghan Security Forces without understanding the men who make up that force. It is very unlikely that we will be able to provide Afghans with a level of education and training to make them an independent and reliable force that can deny Afghanistan as a safe haven to terrorists…. The Soviet Union’s attempt to create a professional independent military collapsed as soon as the Soviets withdrew (from Afghanistan), which is what contributed to the ascendency of the Taliban. This should provide an obviously cautionary tale.”

“An overview of a few cultural behaviors of Pashtu men might help one make an informed assessment about the efficacy of plans requiring independent performance from Afghan Security Forces – to determine if the objective is consistent with the reality. This cultural information is well known, there are numerous anecdotal reports, and there is a growing body of research from Human Terrain Teams and others.”

“… Afghan security forces… lack of technical skills… Out of a class of ten at our recent academy to train a Fire and Rescue Service for Spin Boldak District, only two of the trainees had ever driven a vehicle – and that is giving credit to the trainee who had driven a tractor once or twice in his life. Even simple tasks… present challenges.”

“Attempts to integrate women into the security forces… Afghan males are among the greatest misogynists in the world. The Burqa is not a Taliban invention; it is a Pashtu cultural norm.”

“Health and hygiene will not be maintained at an acceptable level… Afghan military units – particularly small outposts – are bastions of filth.”

“Aberrant sexual behavior is acceptable. Considering the misogynistic culture… There is an acceptance of pedophilia that is wide spread and boys are sometimes kidnapped. Leaders have been known to sexually assault male subordinates…”

“NCOs… are largely illiterate.”

“…the population does not like how the Taliban deliver but the incontrovertible fact is that the Taliban are Pashtu and their cultural norms are the same as any other Pashtu male… In fact, religiously inspired Pashtu movements are a traditional part of life in southern Afghanistan. The British… had a nickname for them: “Mad Mullah Movements”. The most frequently ignored fact is that the average farmer in southern Afghanistan will appreciate far more what Mullah Omar is proposing than what we are…”

3. US military resources are misappropriated, leaving our US soldiers ill-equipped and vulnerable to greater risk of death and injury.

“Formations that are assigned maneuver tasks without the requisite training or equipment will suffer increased and unnecessary casualties.”

“There are two important things to note: (1) this mission, to secure Kandahar City and its environs, was exactly how American forces were arrayed before being dispatched in the ill-conceived freedom of movement mission and (2) all of the maneuver was done by United States Army units – an extravagant use of tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars to placate British units and commanders.”

“In addition to marginalizing American leaders, British forces take advantage of American resources such as Full Motion Video from Unmanned Aerial Systems, Route Clearance Packages, and other capability that should go to American soldiers. We had instances when these tools were denied to American troops in contact because they were not released from British control (even though they were observing no enemy activity). A more direct example of disregard for Americans is the manner in which Task Force Helmand addressed the catastrophic IED strike on an American engineer vehicle supporting their operations. The vehicle was attacked with an IED and one US Soldier was killed. The killed and wounded were evacuated, but the remaining Soldiers were left for several days on the disabled vehicle before recovery…. American engineers were eventually forced, at great risk, to get the equipment themselves – having another Route Clearance Package battle damaged in the process. Another instance… when conducting a joint resupply patrol with the British and was abandoned half way through the patrol. The British took the American Route Clearance Package and simply left. The engineer task force sent two Route Clearance Packages to recover this BSB patrol – it took two because the first one was blown up.”

“The denial of American resources to American soldiers that is commonplace is heart-breaking. The United States and Romania allow military personnel to travel on aircraft that do not have armor or defense capability, but several other partner nations do now. The result is that foreign military members are frequently prioritized at a higher level to fly on United States military aircraft which takes seats from Americans who are left to fly civilian contracted air. We expose our own service members to greater danger for the convenience of our partners and the American taxpayer, who has provided this capability for the protection of Americans, is deceived.”

4. Rules of engagement were changed under Obama’s command, thus ensuring greater risk of death and injury to our soldiers.

“Our potential for greater coalition casualties does not have to be inevitable, but due to our flawed approach to operations we wind up enabling our enemy. The population-centric approach which places the population as the center of gravity is applied to the point of absurdity. The enemy is entrenching himself among the civilian population as we cede to him territory and lines of communication. Our poor military approach, inadequate tactics, and haphazard operational art are compounded by NATO partnership in general and British leadership specifically. A gross lack of concern for subordinates manifests in guidance that “zero” civilian casualties are acceptable and coalition soldiers may have to be killed rather than defend themselves against a potential threat and risk being wrong and possibly resulting in injury or death of civilians – a verbal order from MajGen Carter.”

“Population-centric approaches to war have resulted in senior officers that are almost pacifistic in their approach to war; while they may have a public persona that seems offensively spirited, that is not the reality when they are issuing guidance to subordinates.”

“It is clear that US Army units are employed in ways that are grossly inconsistent with sound military tactics.”

“Related to the emphasis on the population, and ignoring an improved capability against the enemy, is the contempt for technology… We are far behind where we should be and this has contributed to increased American deaths and non-combatant casualties while our enemy retains freedom of movement and maneuver locally, regionally, and internationally.”

These truths in Colonel Tunnell’s letter are corroborated by the dramatic increase in US soldier fatalities, injuries and suicide under the Obama regime. As recorded by ICasualties, here are the number of fatalities and wounded to date:

US Soldiers – Fatalities are now up 410% under Obama. (an average of 401 US soldiers per year under Obama versus 79 per year under Bush).

US Soldiers – Wounded are up nearly 1200% under Obama. (an average of 4,010 US soldiers per year under Obama versus 330 per year under Bush).

In addition, US soldier suicide rates have increased to levels never seen before. This began when Obama took over as Commander-In-Chief in 2009. Here is a June 2012 article. Here is a January 2010 article which describes the 2009 suicide rate as follows:

“…the toll of military suicides last year was the worst since records began to be kept in 1980.”

Recall that on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama told the American people that Afghanistan was the war we needed to be fighting. The media promoted this and the majority of Americans unfortunately believed it, along with all the other lies, and elected this man into the Presidency.

On September 21, 2009, eight months after Obama took office, John McHugh was sworn in as the Secretary of the Army. Let us be clear that John McHugh was Obama’s pick.

Less than a year later, in August 2010, John McHugh received Colonel Tunnell’s sobering letter and has done absolutely nothing to address the reality of the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan and the unspeakable risk to our beloved soldiers.

How can we be sure John McHugh has done nothing to slow the slaughter of our soldiers? The skyrocketing rate of US soldier fatalities, injuries and suicide has not subsided; it has remained consistently high throughout Obama’s Presidency.

Who gives John McHugh his marching orders? As the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh carries out the orders of the Commander-In-Chief of the United States – Barack Hussein Obama.

Despite recent reports that US soldiers are being killed by the Afghan’s Security Forces they are ordered to train, Obama and McHugh have done nothing. They render our soldiers virtually defenseless among terrorist predators that may be right next to them.

Weakening our military strength is deliberate and occurring on several fronts.

We’ve shown evidence of what Obama is doing to our troops in Afghanistan, how he has put them at great risk and how he cedes US military control to the coalition.

Obama and Reid pushed for the START Treaty to cede control of US nuclear defenses to Russia.

Obama and Panetta are moving forward to radically slash the US Defense budget.

Obama has embraced our enemies – the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood – and has brought them to unimaginable heights of power in the Middle East (e.g. Egypt), plus he has brought them into our White House and into the highest levels of our government.

Obama transferred US wealth and weapons to the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (and their organizations – the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) who want to destroy the US, Israel and the rest of Western Civilization.

Obama waged an illegal war in Libya and his recent actions have cost more American lives. Obama refused to protect them leading up to 9/11 (this year) and he and his administration persistently lied to the American people every step of the way. The cover-up they have been manufacturing is breathtaking – and criminal.

Obama assaults Tricare coverage, making it far more expensive for our soldiers and their families.

Obama and Holder fight to push for the lawless blocking of our soldiers’ right to vote.

Even if Obama loses in November, he will remain at the helm for another three months. That timeframe may prove to be the most dangerous for our soldiers and our country.

Telling US soldiers that they are fighting for the Afghan people is treasonous and Obama, by his actions as Commander-In-Chief, has created the conditions for the unnecessary slaughter of so many of our soldiers. This is not a mistake or incompetence; this is deliberate.

Those who want our troops to come home now are on the right side of history. As long as Obama is President, our soldiers remain in danger. Colonel Tunnell’s letter, coupled with rate of death, injury and suicide under the Obama regime eliminates any doubt about the danger.

Trevor Loudon, political activist from New Zealand and author of the book “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” provides factual information, connections and insight into Obama’s deliberate plan to weaken our military beyond repair. This video is a must see…

Trevor Loudon @ OceanCountyCitzen4Freedom.com.wmv

Colonel Tunnell’s letter ends with the following:

“The willingness to combat an enemy cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. Leaders are willing to conduct operations at the tactical and operational levels of war to decisively defeat the enemy or they are not. Soldiers join the military today to protect the United States, yet they are told once in Afghanistan that we are fighting for the Afghan people – this is a rather mercenary outlook and ignores the fact that the United States was attacked September 11, 2001. If we have an Army led by people unwilling to defeat a disorganized illiterate adversary such as we face today, even after a despicable surprise attack on our nation, there is little hope that we can defeat a modern sophisticated enemy that we may face in the future.”
****************************************************

G-d bless our Troops and G-d DAMN their betrayers.

*

Not sure whether this was posted earlier.

Clinton waives terror restrictions, gives Pakistan $2 BILLION more US taxpayer dollars

October 12, 2012

via Pakistan freed of anti-terrorism obligations; U.S. billions flow instead – KansasCity.com.

The Obama administration has refused for the first time to declare that Pakistan is making progress toward ending alleged military support for Islamic militant groups or preventing al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists from staging attacks in Afghanistan.

Even so, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has quietly informed Congress that she’s waived the legal restrictions that would have blocked some $2 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan. Disbursing the funds, she said in an official notice, is “important to the national security interests of the United States.”

Clinton’s decision illustrates how far the administration apparently has determined that it must go, after a near-breakdown in relations, to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the uphill U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan collapsing into all-out civil war when American-led international combat forces complete a withdraw by the end of 2014.

Some experts, however, warned that the move might backfire. The waivers could encourage a belief among Pakistani commanders that their cooperation is so crucial that Washington will continue overlooking the Pakistani military’s refusal to end what U.S. officials charge is its support for Afghan insurgent groups or to shutter militant sanctuaries, they said.

“The army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and...”

Money we don’t have to give other crooks for something they won’t do. I am sick to death of paying blackmail money to these enemy governments when threats and action should be what they get. Shock and awe their butts until they cry for mercy. And don’t let them out from under just because they SAY uncle. Make them PROVE it.
If we MUST spend money, rather spend it on bringing them to their damn knees than allowing them to bleed us like leeches. Capture their nukes and render them useless. Destroy their facilities so we don’t have to worry about them again for a million years. Maybe by then they will have learrned something about civilization.

We will know when the State Department changes their pro-Pakistan policies when the USA/Mexican border stops allowing Pakistan nationals to invade the USA.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945199/posts

New Threats to Free Speech
gatestoneinstitute.org/ ^ | 15OCT12 | Nonie Darwish

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 4:18:28 PM by bayouranger

The problem with Islam is that Muslims riot and burn and kill those who repeat what is already in their scriptures.

The truth regarding that low-budget video, however, is that all the stories in it were taken from the Islamic books on Mohammed’s life, “Sirat Rasul Allah” [”The Life of the Messenger of Allah”], the earliest biography of Muhammad, as well as from quotes in the “Hadiths,” acts or sayings ascribed to Muhammad. The stories were not the invention of the producer of the film; they were tasteless and unholy, but they are all found in Muslim scriptures. The problem with Islam is that Muslims riot and burn and kill those who repeat what already exists in their scriptures.

When the life and acts of Mohammed were written and documented by Muslims, it was a source of pride for them; but in the 21st century it has become a source of shame, and now they cannot go back and remove what they already have written about the actions of Mohammed, so all they can do is riot burn and kill anyone who speaks about it. Their prophet has done a lot of unholy acts, but speaking about Islam and Mohammed’s actions in an analytical way has become a crime. United Nations Resolution 1618, “The Istanbul Process,” sponsored last December in a three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington D.C. by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attempts to make it an international crime to discuss “religion” — code for Islam. This proposal to criminalize free speech was repeated in September at the UN by the Ambassador from Pakistan, its sponsor; and repeated again by Egypt’s new President, Mohamed Morsi.

The scary part now is that the U.S. president seems to agree.

It was difficult to listen to the President of the United States recent statement at the United Nations, that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The president of the United States was declaring to the world that critics of Mohammed are wrong; that they do not have a rightful cause; that they must not be heard, respected, taken seriously, and that they will have no future in America.

For thirty years, I grew up hearing similar threats from Islamic sheikhs across the Middle East. They told us, “You insult the prophet Mohammed, you die” — as the Islamic law of Sharia requires. There are still Sharia books bought and sold in America; they clearly say: “The penalty for insulting the prophet is death, even if one repents.” What constitutes “insulting the prophet” could be anything minor, such as saying that Mohammed married a nine-year-old — a fact — but if the remark is stated in way that might be perceived as critical, it is considered an “insult.”

Sharia law also condemns to death – or, as Obama states, “must have no future” — those who leave Islam, or even simply state they have left Islam — and why. Islam considers stating why a person leaves Islam also to be an “insult,” as well as subversion of the Islamic State; it, too, constitutes a capital crime.

Even though Obama’s threat was subtle — he did not use the word “death,” but instead, “no future,” — the statement sounds just as threatening, especially to former Muslims, who daily receive death threats from members of the Religion of Peace. After Obama’s UN speech, this author, and several other former Muslims, concluded that we do not feel safe under this administration. And now we are being told by the President of the United States to be silent about the religion we were born in and escaped from.

A former-Muslim friend, who said he wishes to stay anonymous, went so far as to say that he was afraid the Obama administration could leak information about us, such our addresses. He said sees who members of the administration listen to, and can only conclude that the President is ill-disposed, if not hostile, to outspoken former Muslims in America. Leaks and other hostile behavior by the Obama administration have hurt many: there have been leaks about Israel; leaks about the Navy SEALS, and even devastating leaks about the Pakistani doctor who is now in jail for helping the U.S. find Osama Bin Laden.

Political power to the Obama administration has become more important than the safety of the American people, as the recent terrorist attack in Libya has proven true.

It was also alarming to see the producer of the video, “Innocence of Muslims,” being dragged away in the middle of the night by American police — conveniently, after Muslim riots — for a so-called “parole violation.” The shameless administration probably wanted a photo-op of the producer in handcuffs to show and tell Muslim world, “I am tough on those who insult Mohammed.”

Now Obama has announced to the world that our constitution comes second to speaking the truth about a prophet. Obama is catering to a culture desperate for respect and legitimacy from the rest of the world; a culture that kills its own children, men and women in order to protect the shady reputation of its prophet.

The U.S. President should have learned the hard way from the events in Benghazi. Incidentally, the word Benghazi in Arabic means “Sons of Invaders.” The President should have learned that the Muslim world will never love him just because his father was a Muslim; even if he were to declare that he himself is a Muslim, it will not matter to the Islamists because what they want is world domination, and anyone or any Muslim leader, who stands in the way of the Ummah, will be taken out, and “have not future.” Sadat, Mubarak, the Shah of Iran and Gaddafi were all Muslims and we all know how they were treated and how many Muslim leaders were dragged in the streets of Islamic capitals by the savages if they deviated from Sharia law and were perceived by the Islamists in their countries as “Not Muslim Enough.”

For four years, the Obama policy was not on the side of America, where it should be: he spoke softly to enemies of America while holding a stick to the American people and America’s allies – not only Israel, but also Poland and the Czech Republic, whose defense shield he cancelled. He has been experimenting with America’s adversaries such as Russia, with whom, as we all now know thanks to an open microphone, he hopes to have “more flexibility” after the election. He has been pleasing and appeasing the Muslim world while gambling with the safety and security of America. He seems to believe that his unique background will make Muslims love him and perhaps love America, but the Muslim world did not love either. He told us that only he understood what the Muslim world needed: simple respect. But Obama’s actions told the Libyans that he trusted the lives of the US embassy staff to the Libyan people, and he refused to provide serious security in an al-Qaeda-infested area of Libya, the country he helped liberate. The terrorists in Benghazi, however, lived up to their name, and effectively told Obama, “Thanks, but no thanks. We would rather be the jihadists we are meant to be.”

Obama’s legacy will be empowering radical Islam, both in the Middle East and inside America, at the expense of American power and freedom of speech. Future generations will suffer to get back what America has lost under Obama. He never even achieved the love and harmony he had hoped for from the Arab street: it is just chanting, “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”

Nonie Darwish is President, FormerMuslimsUnited.org, and author of The Devil We Don’t Know.

From last time I read...the quality of information/links/history/education from #816-#834 is MUST READ RIVETING! Thanks to all.

BUMP-TO-THE-TOP!

State Dept: Morsi ordered Egyptian embassy in DC to take legal action against US citizens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933084/posts

Misunderstanding Plagues the US Embassy Protest o
ver anti-Muhammad Film: A First Hand Account
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933368/posts

U.S. embassy in Cairo apologizes for unspecified film

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2929611/posts

Proof Positive - In My Opinion (who created Innocence of Muslims)(Obama)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2934205/posts?page=121

CNN: Protests against film a ‘diversion. Attack was planned’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2929956/posts

#USembassy: Important questions we have to answer (Egyptians asking the hard questions)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2932402/posts

Are Radical Imams Going to Redefine Freedom of Speech?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933784/posts

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure (Flashback - Resolution 16/18)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2931182/posts

Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2930209/posts

UN chief: Free speech must be protected, unless it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2933710/posts

Cairo Embassy Statement in Tune with Obama U.N. Resolution

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932862/posts

Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2924684/posts

There may be no anti-Islamic movie at all (dubbing...):

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

I started to save threads on free speech but time caught up with me. I think the most embarrassing was when the Cairo Embassy tweeted an apology.

When Prophet goes viral: ‘Freedom of speech has price’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933337/posts

Does ‘Innocence of Muslims’ meet the free-speech test? (LA Times)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933960/posts

Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: ‘Innocence of Muslims’ doesn’t meet free-speech test (LA Times)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932745/posts

Obama and Hillary Apologize for Free Speech on Pakistani TV (taxpayer-funded ads)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933963/posts

Video: DoJ Civil Rights Division chief can’t commit to protecting free speech
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932806/posts

Islamic Countries Seek Ban on Insults at The United Nations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2935820/posts?page=1

Agree with PGalt. Well done and thank you Mesta et al.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2945380/posts?

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice at center of storm over comments on attack in Benghazi
WaPo ^ | 10/15/12 | Anne Gearan and Colum Lynch,

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 11:02:37 PM by Nachum

By Monday, October 15, 6:38 PM

A month after the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a fateful series of television appearances by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is haunting the Obama administration in the face of allegations that it deliberately attempted to play down suspicions of terrorist involvement.

Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack in the Libyan city, and in each one she said the fatal assault appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ambassador-susan-rice/2012/10/15/c5a9fe04-16d9-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html
***************************************************

MUST READ THREAD

Once again, great links. Thank you very much. You have been a treasure trove and I appreciate it more than I can say.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945403/posts

State Dep’t suspected in April that Libyan guards at Benghazi consulate had tried to attack it
Hot Air ^ | 8:01 pm on October 15, 2012 | Allahpundit

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:09:04 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Time for your daily reminder that State didn’t merely stick Chris Stevens with “average” security despite him living and working in one of the jihadi-est places on earth. The security they provided him was actively, inexplicably, inexcusably bad. And before you read any further, let me remind you that the ominous chat-room message posted by Sean Smith the day he died about a Libyan guard taking photos of the compound still hasn’t been addressed by anyone in the government that I’ve seen. Did Stevens’s security break down to the point that his killers actually had someone on the inside?

More red flags from Reuters:

State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by Reuters…

The April attack illustrated concerns among some U.S. officials in Libya that hiring local residents for embassy guard duties could in itself raise security issues.

The emails identified one of the suspects in that incident as a former employee of Blue Mountain Group who had been fired four days earlier for vandalism, and said the other was still working for the company. Both were unarmed guards who performed routine security tasks, such as screening visitors.

Both suspects were ultimately released after being interrogated by the local “police,” a.k.a. the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which was partly responsible for providing security for the consulate and whose members were last seen hiding on the roof during the attack because they weren’t ready for it. No word on whether either of them was still working for Blue Mountain on 9/11, but that brings us to another unanswered question. Why did State hire Blue Mountain, an inexperienced firm, in the first place?

Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city.

“We have visited the consulate in Benghazi a number of times and have an excellent relationship with the Americans. Our assessment was the unarmed Libyan guards were extremely poor calibre,” said one security source. “The Libyan Ministry of Interior are generally not happy with Blue Mountain and had them on their close observation/target list.”

The New York Times last week reported that major security firms with a track record of guarding US premises elsewhere had made approaches to undertake work in Libya but were rebuffed.

“We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened,” a security firm official told the newspaper.

Blue Mountain had six employees on the scene, five Libyans and one British supervisor recruited from “the celebrity bodyguard circuit.” Security was sufficiently weak that BM’s local affiliate, Blue Mountain Libya, complained to its parent company this past summer that the resources they were being given weren’t enough. State was asked to intervene in the dispute between the two — but chose to do nothing. So it came to be that the U.S. ambassador ended up on 9/11 at a consulate that was vulnerable even according to its own security detail, and which State had had ample opportunity to fortify. Meanwhile, on the same day, the U.S. embassy in Barbados enjoyed protection from a detail of Marines. “Smart power,” 2012.

Just as O’s interest in an “easy” intervention in Libya made a difficult intervention in Syria more difficult, State’s decision to half-ass security for the Benghazi consulate has created a new, bigger security headache for the White House in Libya. Namely, how hard do they hit the local jihadis in reprisal? The Libyan government doesn’t want to approve an attack lest it be seen as a U.S. stooge at a moment when it’s trying to build legitimacy, and the U.S. doesn’t want to raise the profile of a group like Ansar al-Sharia by making it the Great Satan’s new enemy number one. There is a compromise solution, but of course it’s not ready yet. If only State had thought of this before letting a smile be Chris Steven’s umbrella against the mujahedeen.