THREAT MATRIX 2012 #1

“It’s looking like obama is actually going to try and pull off a hit. Suddenly, this guy is in all the news out of literally nowhere.....Don’t like the smell of this one bit..”

Agree. obama needs to do something to get the heat off the Benghazi subject (just as soon as get some results back from the focus groups).

In keeping with my birds/stone theory, another reason for this particular man may be to take attention away from the February 17th Brigade, MB, and even Al Qaeda, if they can. They need to distance Benghazi attack from the radicals/terrorists the Adm has been most closely aligned with.

Working theory is that this was not, or was *just* not Ansar Al-Sharia.

“On diplomatic paper the moderate February 17 Martyrs Brigade and the extremist Ansar Al-Sharia had nothing in common. In reality, the differences between the two militias were mostly cosmetic and the ***Martyrs Brigade had been contacted ahead of time by an Al Qaeda politician and asked to stand down*** while the attack took place.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946561/posts
***************************************

Khattalah

WSJ thread on this:
Militant Suspected in Attack in Libya Remains At Large (Ahmed Abu Khattalah)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946340/posts

Another thread just posted today:
Libyan authorities name Islamic group leader in Benghazi embassy attack
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946626/posts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From your post #807:

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat is an Arab newspaper published in London, and it’s found a Libyan guard who survived that night, named ‘Ali. (Translation by MEMRI.org; formatting in original.)

... Ali was part of a Special Protection Unit, which comprises members of the February 17 Brigade, a Libyan militia comprising radical Islamists which was established following the Libyan revolution.

Back in March 2012, the U.S. Consulate had hired members of the Special Protection Unit to guard its compound.

‘Ali and others in his team describe ... the embassy’s poor cooperation when, following the June 2012 attack on the embassy, (when a bomb exploded outside the Benghazi consulate) they requested upgrades to their weapons and improvement of the security tools at their disposal.

‘Ali said that during the attack, after the embassy was stormed by some 50 men, ... his team’s calls for backup, in Arabic and English, went unanswered by both the Americans inside the embassy and by the February 17 Brigade headquarters less than two miles away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Reported today:

US Relied on Firm Using Unarmed Guards for Diplomatic Security in Libya (Used flashlights, batons)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946666/posts

Security practices at the diplomatic compound, where Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns, have come under U.S. government scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Federal contract data shows that the Benghazi security contract, worth up to $783,284, was listed as a “miscellaneous” award, not as part of the large master State Department contract that covers protection for overseas embassies. ....

The State Department contract for “local guard” services in Benghazi took effect in March 2012. Several of Blue Mountain’s Libyan employees told Reuters that they had no prior security training or experience...

The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2946895/posts

Col David Hunt transcript: Real-Time Proof of Benghazi Negligence and Cover-up
Howie Carr interview with Col David Hunt ^ | October 12, 2012 | Col David Hunt

Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:22:56 PM by thouworm

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.
**************************************************

This is great. Must see thread,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947341/posts

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
Fox News ^ | 10-19-2012 | James Rosen

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 2:56:57 PM by sheikdetailfeather

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947369/posts

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/19/the_obama_libya_cover_up_explained

The Obama Libya Cover-Up Explained (Long Article)
Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 3:39:49 PM by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: If you were here yesterday, you recall that the last hour of the program I kept promising, kept intending to spend some time on the latest developments of Benghazi and Libya. And I’m glad I didn’t because all hell has broken loose overnight about this. We now know, McClatchy news has come out with the story that practically explains everything. Let me summarize it for you. McClatchy news says that the regime’s concoction of the video story to explain the attack in Benghazi was a purposeful cover created by the regime to cover up the disaster that our operation involving the removing of Moammar Khadafy proved to be.

Getting rid of Khadafy basically turned the Benghazi area into an Al-Qaeda stronghold. That was the truth of the matter, and that’s what the regime doesn’t want anybody to know, or didn’t. So they concocted the story that the video was responsible for the death of the ambassador and the three other Americans in the attack in Benghazi, because the regime had tried to tell this great story, “Look what we did. We cleaned up Libya. We got rid of an evil guy, and we’ve made Libya part of the Arab Spring, a great outbreak of democracy. Look, aren’t we wonderful.” When instead what happened was we kicked him out of there and then left ourselves, and we left ourselves nobody to control what was happening in the aftermath, and Al-Qaeda has established a beachhead in Benghazi.

Obama’s running around saying that there is no more Al-Qaeda, until yesterday when he pulled it out of his speeches. He was saying there was no more Al-Qaeda. I’ll tell you, what we have learned overnight and this morning, Romney is so set up for the foreign policy debate on Monday night, and there’s much more detail to this. You know, brevity is the soul of wit. Everything that I am going to say down the road here on the program today basically will be to explain how McClatchy learned this. It involves the CIA. The CIA knew within 24 hours that it was a militant attack, that there was no video, there was no spontaneous demonstration. The State Department knew immediately. The White House knew. It was Jay Carney who started the lie.

It was Jay Carney under orders, I’m sure, from Obama and whoever else, which started the ball rolling on the video, and then Susan Rice gets involved. And again, all of that was to cover up an absolute disaster. Taking Khadafy out, it’s arguable whether that was a good thing to do, but we did it, and in the process Obama’s raising the flag, (Obama impression) “Look at me, look at me. I mean, I can pull the trigger as good as anybody, get bin Laden, take care of Libya.” And what happened was, in fact, the ringleader of the Benghazi attack is now doing media appearances in the Middle East. He’ going on The Oprah shows of that region bragging about what he did. He’s not hiding behind a mask or anything. The ringleader of the attack is doing media appearances, is doing television shows.

Let’s go quickly to John Bolton. A couple of audio sound bites here. Numbers ten and 11. He was on American Newsroom with Martha MacCallum this morning on Fox. And I love Bolton. You know, Bolton, former UN ambassador for us during Bush, tough-as-nails guy. He’s very, very much into ideology and he is of the belief that the reason everything’s falling apart in the Middle East is because of Obama’s ideology, because of his liberalism, or Marxism or socialism, whatever you want to call it. His view that America is to blame, his view that it’s always America’s fault, and that’s what enabled him to so easily swerve into blaming an American-made video, when he knew that’s what it was not, by the way.

Everybody knew it was not the video. They were lying on purpose to prevent the dots from being connected that Obama’s action created an Al-Qaeda beachhead in Benghazi.

And, by the way, Benghazi, the government, the head of Libya is in Tripoli, and we learn here Tripoli has no control, the government has no control over what’s going on in Benghazi. Benghazi’s a rogue, renegade place, and it’s now Al-Qaeda’s. I mean, it is utterly devastating.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is John Bolton. So he was again with Martha MacCallum today on Fox and talking about the way the regime handled the aftermath of the attack. (interruption) No, I don’t... (interruption) I’m not in the... (interruption) I’m being asked a question here. If people would leave me alone, you know, I could probably get this show done in an hour. But since everybody wants to know what I think, they ask me even when I’m in the middle of a monologue.

I don’t think Obama’s “optimal” comment is that big a deal, but there is a point to be made about it. He has no trouble whatsoever excoriating an American citizen over a video. He’ll describe that person in the most despicable terms. But when it comes to the death of the ambassador, “Well, yeah, the death of four Americans, it’s not optimal.” He does have a different set of values.

I don’t think that thing as a stand alone is that big a deal. You might disagree. We’ll talk about it. Anyway, back to John Bolton. MacCallum said to him, “It seems to me to some extent if you were in the [regime], you felt uncomfortable about the way it was handled initially, one thing that you could do you is sort of make it very clear to the American people that the investigation is ongoing.

“Potentially hear from John Brennan, for example, other people who are very high up in this operation who are supposed to be watching over counterterrorism activities around the world. That would give people some reassurance about what’s happening to avenge the deaths of these four American citizens.” She’s basically asking, “Why didn’t they just say, ‘We don’t know what happened yet; we’re looking into it,’ instead of blaming the video?”

Well, you know the answer now, but I want you to hear what Bolton said.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947401/posts

Action Memo For Senator Undersecretary Kenedy -M, Future of Operations in Benghazi (Doc Dump, pdf)
Oversight.gov ^ | 12/27/2011 | U.S. State Dept.

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 4:50:23 PM by Nachum

Image at link.

Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi
Hot Air ^ | 5:21 pm on October 19, 2012 | Allahpundit

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 5:50:46 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Not just on the day he died, mind you. Multiple times before, too. I’m near the point now where I want to abandon the whole “pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest” line of inquiry just because it’s steering us away from the more important topic of State’s negligence on his security. Besides, we already know, more or less, why Carney and Rice pushed the “spontaneous protest” theory. Ask Saxby Chambliss:

“Talking points distributed by the administration [in the immediate aftermath] are nearly identical to intelligence assessments within hours of the attack, except in one important way: the intelligence judgment that the attackers had ties to al-Qa’ida was excluded from the public points,” [Saxby] Chambliss said in a statement on Friday.

“The administration omitted the known links to al-Qa’ida at almost every opportunity … Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine,” Chambliss said.

The guy who got Bin Laden and knocked out Qaddafi didn’t need a storyline in the middle of a campaign about AQ affiliates killing the American ambassador in the heart of the “new Libya.” That’s straightforward, and that’s almost certainly why the “spontaneous protest” theory got traction initially. (“Al Qaeda is on the run” used to be part of Obama’s standard stump speech, in fact. That line has been quietly dropped lately.) What’s not straightforward is why State refused to boost Stevens’s security despite countless warnings about the danger, some from the man himself. It’s inexplicable. It’s not a budget issue, either: Charlene Lamb testified to that before the House. She also testified that State had “the correct number of assets in Benghazi,” which literally no one but her seems to believe is true. So, once again: Why didn’t Stevens have more security? What were they waiting for before making a decision to either send him a more professional force or end the American presence in Benghazi? Was that politicized too, i.e. State didn’t want abandon the consulate over security fears because that would have made for some bad headlines about conditions inside the “new Libya”?

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”…

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

… “Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote [on June 25], adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

Libyan guards at the consulate also thought security was too thin to meet the challenge from local mujahedeen, but were reportedly told by the Americans they spoke to that everything was cool and that no one would dare approach the consulate — even though, as noted above, even the Red Cross wasn’t spared from attack. (That may have been part of a jihadi strategy to push all western outfits out of the city.) I’d sure like to know which Americans said that; based on his increasingly dire reports to the State Department, it doesn’t sound like Stevens was one of them.

I’ll leave you with this. Funny how Susan Rice is capable of detecting a terrorist attack right away in some cases. Is she sure that Beirut bombing this morning wasn’t a reaction to the Mohammed movie?

****************************************************

@AmbassadorRice

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist bombing in #Beirut & extend our condolences to the victims' loved ones. #Lebanon

19 Oct 12

Posted earlier today, FWIW:

The Obama Libya Cover-Up Explained (Long Article)
Friday, October 19, 2012 4:28:05 PM · 19 of 31
MestaMachine to Cicero
“And, ironically, our ambassador to Libya, who was murdered, was at the forefront of assisting those terrorists during the revolt backed by Obama’s illegal war against a sovereign ally.”

That is why Stevens is dead. Seems that he was becoming too mouthy. Once he started receiving death threats and as his fears were increasing, his cables became more frequent and more frantic. He lost their confidence in his willingness to keep his mouth shut and bang.

Watch for more from Lt. Col. Andy Wood who has already stated he would put his entire career in jeopardy to get the truth out and take the consequences for outing classified information...including prison if necessary.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2947158/posts?page=1

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
Business Insider ^ | Oct 19, 2012 | Michael Kelly

Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 9:37:14 AM by KeyLargo

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria

Michael Kelley | 46 minutes ago

US Weapons Are Going To Hard-Line Jihadists Fighting To Topple The Syrian Regime

The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there’s certainly more to be known.

Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is “the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda.”

That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a “Front to Liberate Syria” to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

********************************************************************

Read thread for great info.

Glenn was right, Libya edition: stunning new report
www.glennbeck.com ^ | Friday, Oct 19, 2012 | GLENN BECK

Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:28:27 AM by Yosemitest

Glenn was right, Libya edition: stunning new report
Friday, Oct 19, 2012

Just a few days after the Benghazi attacks Glenn called out the administration’s phony youtube theory and posited one of his own.

That theory was that Chris Stevens was overseeing the efforts by the administration to arm the rebels fighting Ghaddafi.

Glenn goes over the Business Insider report showing there is ‘growing evidence’ that suggests Amb. Stevens was at least aware of heavy weapons being moved to rebel forces.

“The president is out on the stump speech right now saying that he’s really decimated Al‑Qaeda, but if you go back to when we went into Libya, again the New York Times was reporting that we may be arming the wrong people.

We may actually be arming Al‑Qaeda.
Do you remember that happening during the Arab Spring?” Glenn said.

“They said we were arming Al‑Qaeda. The White House denied it. My speculation was right after the September 11th attacks that not only was this an attack by rebels, this wasn’t due to a video, this was due to the fact that Christopher Stevens was the gun‑runner. He was the guy brokering the deals with Al‑Qaeda‑related affiliates. That was my speculation.

” Now what has the Business Insider found? Their report is below:

The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

But there’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.”

The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey —a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out heavy weapons from Libya.

In any case, the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

“You follow this?
The guy we worked with is the guy doing these deals. Our ally Turkey is ‑‑ knows all about it. Our ally, the prime minister, who’s the best friend of Barack Obama?

Who’s the one he was the first one to call?

He didn’t call, not Tony Blair, he didn’t call Gordan Brown.

He didn’t call anybody.

The first guy he called was Turkey’s leader. He’s the closest to Turkey’s leader,” Glenn said.

“Turkey is taking the arms from Libya and shipping them into Syria.

Reuters also reports that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi located 1.2 miles from the consulate. It was used as a base, among other things, for collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from the Libyan government, including surface‑to‑air missiles.

And that its security features were more advanced than those at the rented villa where Stevens died. We also know that a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could the two CIA groups be connected as a start‑and‑end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition?

The answer is yes.

We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey.

CNN reports that FSA members are cutting their own deals to get weapons from well‑armed extremists.”

“So it raises questions on who the CIA is arming. We also know that U.S. weapons are now ending up in the hands of hardline Islamists in Syria.

It turns out that many of the jihadists are the same ones, the same people that Stevens helped arm to topple Muammar Gaddafi.”

“Now here we go. Who was he having dinner with? On September 11th.

September 11th he was having a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, the guy who’s involved in the gun‑runnings.

He’s having dinner and he leaves from dinner 40 minutes early.

The consulate is surrounded and he dies.

Eerie coincidence?

I think not.

This is the truth of what happened in Benghazi.”

****************************************************

Like I said. The man knew too much and he was getting scared. Looks like he had damn good reason.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947603/posts

Incommunicado: House Armed Services chairman blocked from getting answers from senior military...
Washington Free Beacon ^ | 10/19/12 | Bill Gertz

Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 7:02:55 AM by markomalley

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is demanding answers from four senior United States military officers about whether there was advance warning of terrorist threats and the need for greater security prior to last month’s terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

However, an aide to the chairman, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, (R., Calif.), said the office of secretary of defense Leon Panetta blocked the senior officers from providing the answers last night.

“The chairman is disappointed that the administration won’t respond to this basic request for information,” the aide said.

“It is nearly unprecedented that the office of the secretary of defense would prohibit a member of the uniformed military from answering direct questions posed by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.”

Pentagon spokesman George Little told the Free Beacon: “We received the letters last night and are working expeditiously to provide a response.”

The chairman’s letters are dated Thursday. They were sent to Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, which is responsible for military activities in Africa; Adm. William H. McRaven, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command; Vice Adm. Kurt W. Tidd, director for operations at the Pentagon’s Joint Staff; and Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

McKeon asked the officers to provide answers to questions about security threats by the close of business Friday.

The questions reveal that there may be information within the military revealing warnings about terrorist threats and the need to increase security that were ignored by the State Department or other civilians within the Obama administration.

McKeon asked each of the four officers in separate letters whether prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi anyone under their command had notified the State Department or other agencies about growing dangers in Libya.

“Given the steadily deteriorating threat environment in Libya prior to Sept. 11, 2012, did you or anyone in your command advise, formally or informally, that the Department of State or any other agency take action to increase security for U.S. personnel in Libya?” McKeon asked.

He also wants to know if there were any requests to increase security in Libya for U.S. personnel.

Also, the letters to the four officers asked whether any military officers under their command had recommended “deployment of additional U.S. military forces to Libya due to the threat environment.”

Other questions focused on determining if the officers were aware that officers under their command recommended increasing security in Libya prior to the deadly attack on the consulate that killed Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“To your knowledge, has the Department of State or any other federal agency requested additional U.S. military forces to augment security for U.S. personnel in Libya?” McKeon asked.

Since the attack took place five weeks ago, McKeon said he wanted answers by the close of business Friday.

The committee aide said the chairman also had asked for a briefing on events leading up to the attack, and so far the Pentagon has failed to provide the briefing.

McKeon, according to the aide, does not believe any failures related to the deadly terrorist attack can be traced to the U.S. military, which has a limited presence in the region, including special operations engaged in counterterrorism operations.

“He believes it is important whether or not the State Department and the administration were using all the information available at the time” on the terrorist threat and the dangers to U.S. diplomats and intelligence personnel.

McKeon sent the letter as a supplement to an earlier letter to President Obama sent by McKeon and seven other House Committee chairmen, which sought details on the intelligence leading up the attack, security for personnel, and the role played by former Guantanamo detainees in the attack.

The House leaders said in that Sept. 25 letter that administration statements attributing the attack to protests spawned by an anti-Muslim film disturbed them. They emphasized that the consulate murders were “a terrorist attack.”

“Decades after al Qaeda attacked our embassies in East Africa, which catalyzed a series of events that led to the attacks of 9/11, it appears they executed a highly coordinated and well-planned attack against us again,” the Sept. 25 letter states.

“Clearly the threat from al Qaeda and affiliated groups has metastasized; yet we do not appear to be learning from the past.”

The House leaders said it appears the administration has reverted to a past policy of treating terrorism as a criminal matter “rather than also prioritizing the gathering of intelligence to prevent future attacks.”

http://freebeacon.com/incommunicado/

October 29, 2004

Notes from the Pentagon

ElBaradei’s revenge

Defense officials tell us the disclosure this week of the 380 tons of missing high explosives from Iraq was the work of International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei, who is said to be opposed to the United States.

Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said they believe Mr. ElBaradei, an Egyptian, sought to influence the outcome of the presidential election when his agency called on the new Iraqi government to account for the stored high explosives at Al-Qaqaa.

“There’s no question that most people here think the whole [Iraqi explosives] thing was cooked up,” one official said.

The IAEA wrote a letter to Iraqi Science and Technology Minister Rashan Mandan Omar, who then had his chief monitor, Mohammad Abbas, write back. It was Mr. Abbas who claimed that the explosives were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, a claim defense officials dispute.

The Bush administration has been frustrated that Mr. ElBaradei has been slow to deal with the growing crisis over Iran’s nuclear program and the refusal of Tehran to halt uranium enrichment in violation of IAEA rules.

Mr. ElBaradei also has not been tough on North Korea, for its rogue nuclear program.

An IAEA spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The speed with which the campaign of Sen. John Kerry exploited the issue also has raised suspicions in the Pentagon that U.S. intelligence agencies helped the Kerry campaign with the story, at least until it began to fall apart shortly after the report appeared in the New York Times on Monday.
.http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring102904.html

Iran’s Nuclear Program: What Is Known and Unknown

The Heritage Foundation ^ | March 26, 2010

...Moreover, on December 14, 2009, The Times of London reported that Western intelligence agencies had uncovered Iranian documents indicating that Iranian scientists had tested a neutron initiator, the component that triggers a nuclear weapon. A neutron initiator has no peaceful application. This discovery directly contradicts the U.S. intelligence community’s position that Iran halted nuclear weapons-related work in 2003.[3] On December 18, Iran announced that it was testing more advanced centrifuges, which could enrich uranium faster.

Since 2002, the IAEA has bent over backwards to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, in large part due to the politicized leadership of IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, who was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and often acted as an apologist for Iran. In November 2009, ElBaradei was replaced by Yukiya Amano of Japan.

Under Director General Amano’s leadership, the IAEA appears to be taking a more objective look at the Iranian nuclear program. On February 18, it issued a confidential report that warned for the first time of evidence that Tehran is working on a nuclear warhead for its missiles.[4] This warning contradicts the controversial 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which concluded that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003.[5]...
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2484396/posts

Egypt Protests: Will the Real Mohammed ElBaradei Please Stand Up?
By Anne Bayefsky
Published February 01, 2011
FoxNews.com

In the name of democratic reform, Mohammed ElBaradei is doing his best to appear as the annointed one to succeed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, should the government fall. In reality, ElBaradei has more in common with Iranian demagogue Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than anything remotely resembling democracy. He is the former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where his primary legacy was running interference for Iran and ensuring that Iran is now on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Year-after-year for a decade, ElBaradei used his position at the IAEA to stall for time on behalf of Iran. In September 2005 ElBaradei helped push the issue off the Security Council table and bragged: “I am encouraged that the issue has not been referred to the Security Council, precisely to give time for diplomacy and negotiation.” Typical of his foot-dragging was his February 2006 report: “Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion ... is a time consuming process.”

In January 2007, in the midst of growing calls for sanctions against Iran, ElBaradei suggested a “time-out.” In September 2007, with stiffer sanctions on the horizon, ElBaradei again called for a “time-out.” In January 2008 the IAEA reported: “ElBaradei has repeatedly noted that ... the IAEA has not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
As soon as ElBaradei was finally replaced as IAEA head early last year, his successor Yukiya Amano attempted to distance himself from the obvious cover-up. He issued a report in which the IAEA, for the first time, said things like - on the basis of “extensive” and “credible” information the IAEA now has “concerns about the possible existence in Iran of ... current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” and “concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.’’

If El Baradei were ever to become President of Egypt, not only would he have helped Iran acquire nuclear weapons, he would undoubtedly turn around and lead the charge for an Egyptian nuclear weapon. Nobel Prize notwithstanding, his calling card is to cast nuclear proliferation as some kind of equal rights game between developed and developing countries.

Here is the frightening interview he gave to the Financial Times on February 19, 2007 that indicates the kind of Iranian look-alike which is in the making: “Iran sees enrichment... as a strategic goal because they feel that this will bring them power, prestige and influence...[A] lot of that is true. A nuclear capability is a nuclear deterrent in many ways...When you see here in the UK the programme for modernising Trident, which basically gets the UK far into the 21st century with a nuclear deterrent, it is difficult then for us to turn around and tell everybody else that nuclear deterrents are really no good for you...”

Reports out of Egypt directly connecting ElBaradei’s political ambitions with Tehran surfaced last September via a political rival, Abdul Mabboud. A story translated from Egyptian Newspaper Al Youm Al Sabeh last September said: “in a communication to the Attorney General of Egypt, Dr. Yasser Najib Abdel Mabboud, has accused Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei...of receiving funds exceeding $7 million (US) from Iran’s leadership as support for ‘political reform in Egypt’.” The story claimed that “the check in the amount of $ 7 million is said to be meant to cover the financial costs of the election campaign and the activities of the Front for Change.”

The shoe sure seems to fit. ElBaradei told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Sunday that: “The Muslim Brotherhood ...has nothing to do with extremism...[T]hey have a lot of credibility...And I have been reaching out to them.” Actually, ElBaradei’s comrade-in-arms is a viciously antisemitic and anti-Western organization that would send Egyptian women back to the stone ages and rupture peace agreements with Israel as a warm-up act.

If the Obama administration throws Mubarek overboard in the immediate future with nothing but an ElBaradei-Muslim Brotherhood front man in the wings, Egyptians will be farther away from democracy than they ever were and the rest of the world will be a far more dangerous place.

The shoe sure seems to fit. ElBaradei told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Sunday that: “The Muslim Brotherhood ...has nothing to do with extremism...[T]hey have a lot of credibility...And I have been reaching out to them.” Actually, ElBaradei’s comrade-in-arms is a viciously antisemitic and anti-Western organization that would send Egyptian women back to the stone ages and rupture peace agreements with Israel as a warm-up act.

If the Obama administration throws Mubarek overboard in the immediate future with nothing but an ElBaradei-Muslim Brotherhood front man in the wings, Egyptians will be farther away from democracy than they ever were and the rest of the world will be a far more dangerous place.

Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust....
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/egypt-protests-real-mohammed-elbaradei-stand/#ixzz29n6VeYrZ

Thomas L. Friedman: Getting to Know You ... (January 15, 2012)

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel-Prize winning diplomat who helped galvanize the demands for democracy here, said on Saturday that he was dropping his presidential bid in protest over the military’s continued hold on power nearly a year after the ouster of the strongman Hosni Mubarak.

He helped found an umbrella group, the National Association for Change, which became a rallying point for many of the young activists who later helped lead the uprising against Mr. Mubarak.

Mr. ElBaradei appears to have been one of the few who publicly anticipated the revolt that forced out Mr. Mubarak. In a widely circulated online video he released weeks before the revolts broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt, Mr. ElBaradei bluntly told the Mubarak government that it faced its “last chance,” predicting “there will be violence.”

“A day of reckoning will come,” he said. “And I am asking the Egyptian people to keep a record of every case of torture and oppression and the violation of personal liberty.”

In an interview in December 2010, about a month before the uprising began, he repeatedly invoked his visits to the Tehran Hilton on the eve of the Iranian revolution in 1979. “Things were boiling underground, and that is what I see here in Egypt,” he said. “I would not be surprised if you saw violence in a couple of weeks, or in a month or two.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/middleeast/mohamed-elbaradei-pulls-out-of-egypts-presidential-race.html?_r=0

ElBaradei is a front man for the Muslim Brotherhood, he’s also a board member of the International Crisis Group where Thomas Pickering (Hillary’s pick to head-up their Libya Attack Investigation) is Chair (along with Louise Arbor ICC (she was the prosecutor of the Serbs). Soros is also a board member - he had a part in setting up the ICG but his friends and frontmen Mollach Mark Brown (UN, oil for food - International Rescue...), and Mort Abramowitz - Century Institute, Carnegie Peace International...put their names to it)

ElBaradei knew a little too much on what was going to happen in Libya, Cairo etc., he’s either a prophet or in it up to his neck. These committees are made up of the usual suspects. Track back to the Balkans. I had stuff on each of them but computer trouble erased the file had trouble with my computer but will do another search time permitting.

ICG Board Members:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx
ICG Advisors:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/%7E/link.aspx?_id=AFAAD992BC154C93B71B1E76D6151F3F&_z=z
International Rescue Committee (IRC):
http://www.rescue.org/board-and-overseers

Bottomline:The Balkans, Sierra Leone, Philippines, Afghanstan, Georgia - Orange Revolution, Turkmenistan... , along with this whole Arab Spring deal is about Pipelines (water/minerals/land). Interesting that the cities that have been taken over by the Jihad Salafists are port cities. The UN is the umbrella - the US gets used for her money and military. Thomas Pickering (Hillary’s old friend) is a board member of TMK OIl and Pipelines - Moscow. Some government aka elected officials and otherwise, are in on the deals while others refuse...the people that refuse are being systematically removed. Their Human Rights Watch (Soros) does the reporting which is picked up by the MSM which makes their boss’ happy because some of them are in on it. Yes, it sounds crazy but being rich isn’t where it’s at with these people, it’s the power, and the game of making more money. Their supposed concern for refugees, the poor etc., is also a front to gain followers - the Jihad Salafists do the same thing.

The Mexican Mormon War (Drug Cartels vs. Mormons Full Length)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc

The cartels of Juarez, Mexico, are at war with a group of Mormons, some of whom are related to Mitt Romney. We went there to document the conflict, meet Romney’s Mormon family, and find out more about how US policy is impacting the war on drugs.

“Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.”

Where did Gaddafi get his advanced surface-to-air missiles?
BRYAN PRESTON
March 31, 2011

So where did they come from? No one (outside the regime) is sure, but

They’re Russian-made SA-24s Grinch missiles. Very portable, used for knocking out aircraft. Aviation Week first noticed them in recent footage of Libyan government army operations. And they’re nasty.

The SA-24 is more accurate, longer-flying, and more lethal than than earlier models of surface-to-air missiles. It also has a dual-band infrared seeker and is more difficult to jam than older systems.

The missiles “reportedly have counter-countermeasures that may be difficult for planes with just flares to counter,” Matthew Schroeder, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Arms Sales Monitoring Project, tells Danger Room. ”Overall it’s just a much more capable system.”

Russia has sold Venezuela a shoulder-fired version of the SA-24, which is a bit different from the truck-mounted model found by Aviation Week. In classified cables released by WikiLeaks, American diplomats expressed alarm at Russia’s deal with Venezuela, writing that the missile, “considered one of the most lethal portable air defense systems ever made,” was at risk of falling into other hands.

Faced with evidence that Russia’s sales of ammunition to Venezuela had ended up in the hands of Colombian terrorists, Russian diplomats tried to reassure their American counterparts that they had their arms sales under control.

I don’t find reassurances from a KGB police government, about Hugo Chavez, particularly reassuring. Venezuela reportedly bought 1,800 SA-24s from Russia in 2009. At $60k to $80K a pop, Gaddafi can afford to buy an awful lot of them.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/31/where-did-gaddafi-get-his-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles/

“Russia’s sales of ammunition to Venezuela had ended up in the hands of Colombian terrorists” - there seems to be a pattern - not only locally (fast and furious) but internationally!

McCain: I never told Qaddafi I would help him get weapons
Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, August 29, 2011 -
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/29/mccain_i_never_told_qaddafi_i_would_help_him_get_weapons

McCain was with Stephens in Libya praising the arming of the “revolutionaries”. I’m not surprised that McCain and his cronies gave Michelle Bachmann a hard time for calling out the Muslim Brotherhood within the WH. They’re working with them.

It looks like Human Rights Watch (Soros) is attempting to save their butts (Abdel Hakim Belhadj and Sami al-Saadi): http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/7231/delivered-into-enemy-hands_us-led-abuse-and-rendit

Most likely to cover for why so many terrorists were released in the first place (George Bush’s fault).

You went there yourself? Wow. Under what circumstances? I am very curious.
Thank you for the post, Brown Deer. I appreciate it.

Thank you for the great info. Please keep them coming.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947785/posts

They DID know: Now White House admits they knew ‘within 24 hours’ that Al Qaeda was ...(Benghazi)
Daily Mail ^ | 12:34 EST, 27 September 2012 | UPDATED: 03:58 EST, 28 September 2012 | By Beth Stebner and Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 3:05:01 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Full Title:

They DID know: Now White House admits they knew ‘within 24 hours’ that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attacks despite confusing public statements
U.S. Government privately labelled attack on U.S. Consulate a terrorist act almost immediately and knew CIA was chasing specific suspect

White House claimed for a week that assault was staged by crazed protestors reacting to anti-Islam film
Finally admitted act was a ‘terrorist’ strike last week

Hillary Clinton yesterday said she believed the attack linked to al Qaeda
Libyan president Mohamed Magarief said that attacks were ‘pre-planned’
FBI being denied access to crime scene in Benghazi

U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with fellow Americans Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty
The Obama administration has confirmed that it knew within 24 hours that U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens had been killed in a pre-planned terrorist attack and not by crazed protestors enraged by an anti-Islam film.

The White House claimed for a week that the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was ‘spontaneous’ and sparked by the controversial movie, before finally admitting that the 9/11 anniversary attack was orchestrated by terrorists.

But senior U.S. officials have now confessed the government privately labelled the attack a terrorist act almost immediately after it happened, and even knew that the perpetrators had links to al Qaeda.

Two unnamed officials told Fox News that the administration internally flagged the strike ‘terrorism’ from day one, setting off the proper protocols and mobilising resources.

The government had also been informed by September 12 that U.S. intelligence agencies were hunting on specific suspect - militant Ansar al-Shariah and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, who were likely responsible for the deadly attack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2947821/posts

W.H. Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story
Weekly Standard ^ | 12:22 PM, Oct 20, 2012 | STEPHEN F. HAYES

Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:16:48 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach

The Obama administration appears to be mounting yet another version of its campaign to push back on claims that it misled on the intelligence related to the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12. But the new offensive by the administration, which contradicts many of its earlier claims and simply disregards intelligence that complicates its case, is raising fresh questions in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill about the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.

The administration’s new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack.

You went there yourself?

lol, no - just copied the blurb from the video.