Tagged: Benghazi
Obama and Hillary Knew About Benghazi Attack Months In Advance; And Did Nothing
Posted by: Kevin Lake
Posted date: November 04, 2013
Last week, on a special episode of 60 Minutes, CBS revealed that the Obama administration knew for months in advance that the attacks on Benghazi of last year were eminent, yet they still chose to do nothing.
Following is the transcript between CBS’s Lara Logan and U.S. Army Green Beret Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood. Wood was one of the top American security officials in Libya. He was based in Tripoli and he met with U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens every day. Ambassador Stephens and three other Americans were murdered in the attack. The conversation picks up after Wood tells Logan that the terrorists posted online that they were going to attack the Red Cross, then the British, and then the Americans at Benghazi.
Andy Wood: We had one option: “Leave Benghazi or you will be killed.”
Lara Logan: And you watched as they–
Andy Wood: As they did each one of those.
Lara Logan: –attacked the Red Cross and the British mission. And the only ones left–
Andy Wood: Were us. They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time till they captured the third one.
Lara Logan: And Washington was aware of that?
Andy Wood: They knew we monitored it. We included that in our reports to both State Department and DOD. I made it known in a country team meeting, “You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It’s gonna happen. You need to change your security profile. Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Ch– or change locations within the city. Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted. They are– they are– they are watching you. The attack cycle is such that they’re in the final planning stages.”
Lara Logan: Wait a minute, you said, “They’re in the final planning stages of an attack on the American mission in Benghazi”?
Andy Wood: It was apparent to me that that was the case. Reading, reading all these other, ah, attacks that were occurring, I could see what they were staging up to, it was, it was obvious.
We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
So there you have it. Proof, straight from the mouth of a man in charge of security. Obama and Hillary Clinton knew the attack was imminent, yet they still chose to do nothing.
Related articles
- CBS SIXTY MINUTES BENGHAZI RELEASED SCRIPT – click to read (gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com)
- CBS: Obama administration knew all along that Benghazi was terror attack (hotair.com)
- 60 Minutes: Benghazi Revelations of Betrayal, No Mention of Hillary, Obama (breitbart.com)
- Benghazi Was Planned, Sophisticated Attack (realclearpolitics.com)
Nicolle Wallace Defends Hillary On ‘What Difference Does It Make?’
November 01, 2013
Two weeks ago, even after the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, Nicolle Wallace wasn’t sure she opposed the big-government monstrosity. Today, when Joe Scarborough alluded to Clinton’s infamous “what difference does it make?” line about Benghazi, there was Wallace riding to Hillary’s defense: “I don’t think she meant it that way.” View the video after the jump.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/nicolle-wallace-defends-hillary-what-difference-does-it-make
The issue had arisen in the context of the revelation in Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s soon-to-be-released book about the 2012 presidential election that the Obama campaign had considered replacing Joe Biden with Hillary as the veep candidate. Biden’s spot was saved by the fact that research revealed that Hillary wouldn’t help the ticket much. When Mika Brzezinski wondered why, Scarborough suggested as an explanation Hillary’s mishandling of Benghazi, citing her infamous “what difference does it make?” [which he slightly mis-remembered as “what does it matter?]
That’s when Wallace weighed in to help Hillary off the hook.
For good measure, Wallace gleefully joined in a shot Scarborough took at Sarah Palin. When Scarborough suggested that vice-presidential candidates can hurt a campaign, Wallace, who famously warred with Sarah Palin while acting as her putative advisor during the 2008 campaign, broke into the big grin shown in the screencap, adding: “I edited myself on that, but thank you, there’s that.”
Think what a better show Morning Joe would be if Wallace were replaced by a real conservative. My nominee: Mark Levin. Yours?
Note: although Scarborough cited Benghazi as a real electoral vulnerability for Clinton, he actually agreed with Wallace’s claim that “what difference does it make?” was not what she meant.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Fortunately for Vice-President Biden, research suggested the move wasn’t going to help the president’s chances. I wonder why?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hillary Clinton’s approval rating is down to 46% right now, I saw. Hillary Clinton — BRZEZINSKI: This is so interesting.
SCARBOROUGH: I have great admiration for her.
BRZEZINSKI: I do, too. I think she’s going to run.
SCARBOROUGH: I think Benghazi, though, is a serious– it’s a lot more difficult for her to get around that than the mainstream media want to admit. They think it’s some crazy right-wing conspiracy, no it’s not. And I’ll tell you, that moment she said what does it matter, I’m telling you —
BRZEZINSKI: About the Pakistan? What was it?
SCARBOROUGH: No, no: Benghazi.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, it was Benghazi, yeah.
NICOLLE WALLACE: I don’t think she meant it that way.
SCARBOROUGH: She didn’t, but it’s one of those lines she will regret.
WALLACE: The other thing is, it doesn’t make a difference. I think that at the end of the day, swapping out your Vice-President looks more desperate than the benefit you may gain from having a different person on the ticket.
SCARBOROUGH [laughingly gesturing to Wallace]: Vice-presidential candidates can hurt, right? — WALLACE [laughing]: I edited myself but thank you. There’s that.
BRZEZINSKI: That’s a good point.
Related articles
Obama’s Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years
29th October 2013
Defense: What the president calls “my military” is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.
We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.
Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.
Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.
Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.
From Breitbart.com’s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”
Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.” Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102913-677116-197-military-officers-purged-by-obama.htm#ixzz2jOLfkt3o Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Related articles
- Obama aims ‘wrecking operation’ at military (wnd.com)
- Top generals: Obama is ‘purging the military’ (mobile.wnd.com)
- Obama aims ‘wrecking operation’ at military (mobile.wnd.com)
Truth Wins: The Benghazi Cover-Up is Beginning to Collapse
Though still treading lightly, Democrats appear to be backing away from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over their handling of the Benghazi terror attack and their past comments. This has taken many people by surprise because, up to this point, the Democrats as a group have largely supported the Obama administration’s explanation of Benghazi and blamed the Republicans for trying to create a scandal where there is none.
Several prominent Democrats have appeared on Sunday morning news shows, including Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press, to discuss the various facts that have come to light as a result of an ongoing investigation into the Benghazi embassy attack.
The list of Democrats backing away from Obama is growing and includes Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who is on the Government Oversight Committee, and Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), who is the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee. This is still just the beginning. Watch the interviews below:
Stephen Lynch (D-MA) admits that the Benghazi Talking Points were simply false:
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), also conceded that the reports were edited in order to reflect something that wasn’t true, though he claims this was during a “volatile” time. Don’t expect these Democrats to be the last.
The media is turning on Obama and Hillary as well, though not fully, yet. Remember, almost any level of criticism is a step in the right direction, considering the media has been acting as the “fourth branch” of government for the last four years.
The Democratic concerns emanate from the fact that the CIA talking points explaining the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi embassy attack were changed by the Obama Administration to eliminate mention of Islamic terrorism. This raises the question of whether the changes were meant to cover up catastrophic decisions by the State Department concerning embassy support and security. I think we know the answer: yes.
Click here to see the 6 biggest scandals from Hillary’s involvement with Benghazi so far.
The level of incompetence, sheer evil, and negligence on Hillary’s part is simply breath taking. The fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president is an example of the philosophical sickness that’s eating away at America’s moral fabric.
Related articles
- Matthews: Why Weren’t Reinforcements Sent in Benghazi? (freebeacon.com)
- 60 Minutes On Benghazi: “Yes, They Were Left To Die and You Were Lied To” (askmarion.wordpress.com)
- Senator Threatens Obstruction In Pursuit Of Benghazi Facts (globalclarity.wordpress.com)
Senator Threatens Obstruction In Pursuit Of Benghazi Facts
October 28, 2013
Conservatives certainly have ample ammunition to use against South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, given his penchant to lurch leftward on issues such as border security. The veteran Republican, however, recently expressed a sentiment that resounds with patriots across the nation.
In an ongoing campaign to learn what really happened Sept. 11, 2012, during the Libyan attack that left four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stephens — dead, Graham suggested he would block any upcoming federal government nominations until the administration releases details.
Though the State Department claims it never instructed survivors of the attack not to testify before Congress, many, including Graham, contend otherwise.
“Where are the #Benghazi survivors?” he asked via Twitter Monday, indicating that he is “going to block every appointment” that reaches his chamber “until they are made available to Congress.”
Despite several hearings regarding the attack, Graham indicated plenty of unanswered questions yet remain.
In a Fox New interview Monday, he said the “State Department is blaming the CIA, the CIA is blaming the State Department. Where was the Department of Defense?”
As he and a number of other legislators continue to petition for more information, Graham said he favors the formation of a joint select committee which would result in a combined investigation into the incident.
Considering the fact multiple reviews shortly after the attack indicated the consulate in Benghazi was unprepared for such a strike, he is not alone in his quest for resolution. Of all the scandals and accusations that have surrounded the Obama administration since 2009, the response to Benghazi is seen by many as the most outrageous.
The continued evasiveness of those directly involved just adds more fuel to the fire; and Graham wants to find out the truth. With a number of appointees scheduled to receive confirmation from the Senate in the near future, his promise to stymie those nominations could be effective.
Related articles
- Graham says he’ll block all nominations until Benghazi survivors testify (washingtontimes.com)
- Lindsey Graham: I’m blocking Senate appointments until Benghazi survivors testify (rawstory.com)
- Lindsey Graham: I Will Block Every Appointment in the Senate Until We Hear From Benghazi Survivors (gopthedailydose.com)
9 Generals Fired, 2 Military Leaders Suspended
Posted by Sonya Sandage
October 23, 2013
Nine commanding Generals have been fired, and two other leaders are on suspension, in a historic military shake up.
In our story from last week, we covered the historic occurrence of two top-ranking nuclear chief’s fired.
Today The Blaze is reporting from their sources for the reasons why the changes are happening.
The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not tow the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis,” a senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution.
“Even as a retired general, it’s still possible for the administration to make life miserable for us. If we’re working with the government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us,” he said.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”
“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
Brigadier General Bryan Roberts
Brig Gen Bryan Wampler & CS Maj Don B Jordan
General Carter F. Ham
Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette
Major General Ralph Baker
Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant
Major General C.M.M. Gurganus
Lt. General David H. Huntoon, Jr
Related articles
- Pentagon Official: Obama Is Purging Military Commanders (patdollard.com)
- Are Top Military Commanders Being Purged? (antzinpantz.wordpress.com)
- Obama Purging Military Commanders (fggam.org)
Global Clarity 