Benghazi 4 – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

Americans Don’t Leave Americans to Die

The anniversary of two Islamic terrorist attacks is coming up on September 11. The first in 2001 on the World Trade Center and the second in 2012 at Benghazi. Justin Smith is writing about the egregious cover-up about Benghazi.

Why didn’t the Obama Administration make no effort at a rescue during the thirteen-hour fire fight with Muslim terrorists? Was Obama Administration afraid that secret arms dealing was going on between Muslim terrorists in Libya and Muslim terrorists in Syria? Was there an even more sinister clandestine operation going on that Obama didn’t want the public to know about during an election year? What was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in all the lies surrounding Benghazi?

These are questions that all branches of the Obama Administration have NOT been forthcoming in giving out data and eye-witness accounts. It is this kind of cover-up that brought down the Nixon Administration. The Dems have become so sleazy that they will protect their power prospects at any cost to truth and integrity.

Here are some story lines that are supportive of Justin Smith’s assertions below:

Benghazigate Articles Demonstrating Obama Foreign Policy Incompetence Pt 2 – SlantRight 2-0; 11/2/12

Shocking new report: Obama administration denied 3 calls for help in Benghazi – GlenBeck.com; 10/26/12 3:29 PM EDT

BOMBSHELL: New email shows Pentagon tried to send help in Benghazi, BUT… AllenBWest.com; 12/8/15 7:55pm

Hillary’s Benghazi Stand-Down Order Exposed; FrontPageMag.com; 1/13/16

It’s Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin; Stone Cold Truth; 6/18/16

State Dept. finally turns over Huma Abedin/Susan Rice Benghazi files; Conservative Base; 4/10/16

JRH 9/4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Americans Don’t Leave Americans to Die

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/3/2016 1:45 PM

Never has America witnessed a more shameful event than on September 11th, 2012, when the Obama administration refused to go immediately to the assistance of the U.S. Consulate and the CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, as besieged Americans fought a full pitch battle against a well-planned terrorist attack by Ansar al-Sharia and the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman. Beyond a shadow of doubt, several U.S. military resources were available, despite all administration claims to the contrary, and could have arrived in time to have prevented the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, if not Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens. However, according to numerous well respected sources of unquestionable integrity, various military units received a “stand down” order.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had direct authority over the Libyan facilities. So what happened?

Twice after the initial “critic”/Critical Incident Flash, the White House received requests for military assistance during the attack. Twice they denied those requests, before Obama finally ordered Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton to “do everything possible” to save the remaining Americans at the CIA Annex. And then Obama nonchalantly went to bed, as he was more focused on his next day presidential campaign event.

Information released by the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi shows that at 11:45 PM Washington time (5:54 Benghazi time), more than five hours after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued his order to deploy (military) elements, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough sent an email to the high level representatives of the Executive Branch. McDonough’s primary concern seemed to be the removal of Pastor Jones’ video, of the Prophet Mohammed burning in effigy, rather than ensuring U.S. military forces were moving to rescue the American survivors, who were still fighting for their lives at this time.

Just days after the attacks, (Retired Army) Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told FoxNews that the U.S. planned the invasion of Grenada in 1983 in six hours. He added, “We could have had a strike team on the ground in Benghazi in thirty minutes or less to protect, assist and extract our personnel under attack.”

Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ State Department deputy, told the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were preparing to board a C-130 from Tripoli to Benghazi, when Gibson received a phone call. He was told not to board the flight. Hicks also testified that the State Department never requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.

One CIA contractor, Kris “Tanto” Paranto, who was in the thick of the battle all during that night (’13 Hours’), has since revealed that two AC 130-H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” on 9/11/2012. One was a 45-minute flight away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, and its 25mm rapid-fire Gatling guns, 40mm precision Bofors gun and 105mm canon would have made short work of the terrorists, scattering them to the wind.

Paranto also knew members of the European Command Commander’s In-Extremis Force (EUCOM/ C-110), which was about 3 hours away on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, and he called them after he and his security team fought their way back to the Annex with the surviving U.S. personnel. The EUCOM loaded up and prepared to leave, when they were stopped around midnight.

Pentagon Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash offered the U.S. military’s assistance to the State Department soon after receiving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear and unambiguous orders to go rescue our people. At 7:09 PM Washington time (1:09 AM Benghazi time) Bash informed Hillary Clinton’s office of numerous military assets that were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi. And yet, by the time of the final lethal battle at the CIA Annex, after nearly 8 hours of battle, no assets ordered deployed by Secretary Panetta had even left the ground.

Two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons stood by at the ready for three hours, changing their uniforms four times due to “diplomatic sensitivities” expressed by Clinton and her staff. Armed predator drones stayed inactive. Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean stayed aboard ship, and the 173rd Airborne Infantry at Aviano Airbase in Italy never made the two-hour flight by C-130.

The only military “asset” to reach Benghazi during the attacks was Team Tripoli, military personnel based at the Tripoli Annex, whose presence was unknown to Clinton, Panetta and the Joint Staff. They deployed themselves that night, improvising, persevering and overcoming the odds, because fellow Americans needed them, and they saved American lives.

Why didn’t Hillary Clinton request the deployment of U.S. military resources? One AFRICOM commander said, “The State Department was concerned that an overt U.S. military presence in Libya could topple the government.”

More importantly, who was the leak at the State Dept. that gave the terrorists ten-days prior notice of Ambassador Stevens’ arrival in Libya? — a trip that was supposed to be a secret. What role did Clinton advisor Huma Abedin play in this? — Abedin, who has long advocated for Sharia law and has deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, and the radical Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi through her parents, Syed and Saleha Abedin.

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty both died in the final hours of the attacks. Charles Woods spoke to the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi this June (WND), stating: “My son and the rest would still be alive if there were any attempt made at a rescue … I want to know who was responsible for my son’s death.”

Mr. Woods and the family members of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty may soon have more definitive answers. The FBI has just recently recovered 30 Benghazi related emails that Hillary Clinton deleted.

Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) stated: “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans.

Americans don’t leave Americans to die, but this administration and Hillary Clinton did. Obama and Clinton both were derelict in their duties, but Clinton’s black heart and overt malfeasance, with her focus on her Libyan agenda and her personal schemes, left four Americans dead and ten wounded. Thirty-five were waiting in fear, desperate for help. But help never came from Washington, D.C., because Clinton gave the stand down order, which halted the Tactical Operations Center Team Leader’s standard operating procedures at Tripoli’s U.S. Embassy and the deployment of U.S. military assets for a rescue mission. The Pentagon could not act without a specific request for assistance from Clinton’s State Department. All America saw these “Progressives” and their government fail to rescue our people, when most of us would have moved Heaven and Earth to do so.

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

You Decide – Smoking Gun or No Smoking Gun

John R. Houk

© December 12, 2015

Much of the Conservative oriented media were using words like “smoking gun” in Judicial Watch’s discovery of an email from Jeremy Bash to the State Department informing them that Benghazi was under attack and the Defense Department is prepared act immediately. The email was sent a mere hours after the attack began. The attack began about 9:40 PM on September 11, 2015 with the last defenders dying in mortar fire shortly after 5:15 AM on September 12, 2015.

Considering the U.S. military had assets in Tripoli, in Rota Spain and Croatia. And since the Bash email demonstrates that this was NOT a spontaneous Muslim riot inspired by a badly acted anti-Mohammed movie trailer called the “Innocence of Muslims.” The Muslim terrorist attack was well organized AND the higher-ups in the Obama Administration KNEW it was an organized Muslim terrorist attack. The Jeremy Bash email is at least yet another chink in the chain showing we the American voters that Obama, his Cabinet and his staff are a bunch of liars.

As to the Bash email “smoking gun,” the Dem Party liars of the House Benghazi Committee have launched their spin counter-attack against the “smoking gun” accusation. Evidently the minority Dem Committee members released an unredacted version of the Bash email. The Dems think this shows there is no “smoking gun.” Here is a screen capture of Dem member Bash email:

Unredacted Bash Email

Below is the Judicial Watch redacted version:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John Lt Gen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

One glaring explanation the Dems fail to reveal that Judicial Watch does is the identity of “S”:

“apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”

The unredacted version includes the recommended forces to send and where they are located:

“… a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain.”

The other portion unredacted reveals names that follows “Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us”:

“Burns/Nides/Sherman to Miller/Winnefeld would by my recommended course.”

I am currently unfamiliar with what those people do that was special enough to be redacted. If someone has a revealing source on these people, let me know in the comment section.

Frankly I do not see anything in the unredacted portion that indicates the Dem Party spin propaganda that there is no “smoking gun.”

Consider what Bash told the State Department under then Sec. Hillary Clinton saying, “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

What? He wrote “spinning as we speak”. The official line is that Naval were too far away to provide relief. BUT what about Air Fighter Assets check out this map:

Map: Aviano Air Force Base to Sigonella Naval Air Station to Benghazi

No check out this remarkably plausible scenario that still makes this a “smoking gun” and that there are probably groups of people involved in a lying cover-up:

The Obvious Solution – Pit-Stop Sigonella

Now that we have an understanding of the tactical constraints facing the DOD, there is a (hopefully) obvious solution that more alert readers probably picked up on.

o Hour 0-1. While the F-16s at Aviano are not on strip alert, given the genuine emergency it’s reasonable to expect that within an hour of the order being given a sober pilot or two could have been located, an aircraft fuelled and in the air with a minimal default loadout. In this scenario the aircraft may have had only ammunition for its 20mm cannon and pilot would be given a simple briefing on the way to the plane: Get to NAS Sigonella.

o Hour 1-2. Given that the distance from AFB Aviano to NAS Sigonella is only 610 miles, the pilot would be able to quickly attain altitude and cruise at above the standard cruising speed of 577 mph. The F-16 would be on the ground at NAS Sigonella within an hour of its departure from AFB Aviano. During this one hour flight two important things would happen:

1. Via radio the pilot receives a more detailed briefing. The plan – a quick refuelling at NAS Sigonella and an immediate departure for Benghazi to fly a close air support (CAS) mission.

2. NAS Sigonella is informed of the incoming F-16 and told to prepare for immediate refuelling of the aircraft upon its arrival.

o Hour 2-2.5. The F-16 arrives at NAS Sigonella and is immediately refuelled. While it’s possible to refuel an F-16 without even stopping the engines (hot-pit refuelling), it’s also possible that NAS Sigonella didn’t have a refuelling team available that was trained for this. Thus, let’s assume that the refuelling process takes a full 30 minutes before the F-16 is again airborne and enroute to Benghazi.

o Hour 2.5-3.5. Given it is only 468 miles from NAS Sigonella to Benghazi the F-16 is on station and providing close air support within 3.5 hours from the initial order.

And, of course, subsequent F-16s could follow the same route at intervals to ensure that continuous air coverage was provided from that time on.

What Difference Would This Have Made?

According to the people on the ground and knowledgable about such matters, the appearance of U.S. warplanes would have been a total game-changer (see their testimony in Appendix A). Basically, the consensus is that a single low altitude pass by an F-16 at full afterburner would have put the fear of God into the attackers – these men had all seen U.S. airpower in action during the Libyan campaign and would have tucked-tail and run as soon as air support showed up.

So, By What Time Could the F-16s Have Arrived in Benghazi?

Going back to our timeline of the attack (which started at 21:42), we can see that by 21:59 DOD had already redirected a surveillance drone to Benghazi. This quick response is important because is shows us how efficiently orders could get relayed through the DOD chain of command. By 23:00 it was clear to DOD that the attack involved U.S. casualties and was ongoing. In my mind, there is no reason not to have scrambled the F-16s at this point. After all, the worst case would be that the situation resolved and the F-16s would turn around and go home. There was simply no reason not to deploy the F-16s and, conversely, every reason to do so.

… READ ENTIRETY (Benghazi – The Mystery of the Missing Air Support; By Greg; Passion for Liberty; 6/16/13)

The key to remember about the Democratic Party – they lie to stay in power.

See Also:

How will Media and American Left Spin Recent Email Exposé? – SlantRight 2.0; 12/9/15

Facts and questions about what happened in Benghazi – Fox News; 1/22/13

Another Benghazi Smoking Gun – Judicial Watch; 12/11/15

JRH 12/12/15

Please Support NCCR

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

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Tom Fitton email

Sent: 12/11/2015 5:55 PM

Email sent by; Judicial Watch

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

• Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.
____________________

You Decide – Smoking Gun or No Smoking Gun

John R. Houk

© December 12, 2015

____________________

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

WWW.JUDICIALWATCH.ORG
425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024

Contribute to Judicial Watch

How will Media and American Left Spin Recent Email Exposé?

John R. Houk

© December 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s email trail is finally painting a picture about how Obama and his Administration mishandled and screwed up whatever the still unconfirmed real agenda Ambassador Chris Stevens was sent to accomplish that ended in his death and three other deaths of others trying the final rescue of Stevens.

The most recent email reveals that the U.S. Military was indeed rushing to rescue the Benghazi Four – Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – but were held up by a GO signal from the State Department. Can you guess was in charge of the State Department on September 11, 2012?

Leftists have been hollering that previous testimony and reports indicated that a rescue was not possible in any time frame. Many Conservatives and Republicans bought into the veracity of said testimony and reports. This Hillary email shows that someone is lying. I’m hoping that some of the Generals that testified in agreement with the Administration were lied to and they just regurgitated what they heard and read.

What I want to know is where did the lies begin and how many people on any level of government and the Military knew it was a lie that the Benghazi Four could not have been saved.

Further, I am not satisfied with the Administration line on exactly what Ambassador Stevens was dispatched to accomplish with the CIA. Was there an illegal arms deal being negotiated between Libyan players who held Gaddafi’s armaments and the Syrian rebels of whom many were basically Islamofascist terrorists?

Who are the liars? What was the agenda in Libya?

WGN VIDEO: Emails: Obama Administration Alerted within Hours about Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=freebeacon_hom_non_non_dynamic&videoId=23856161

JRH 12/9/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Disclosed: Email Shows Pentagon Offered ‘Forces that Could Move to Benghazi’ Immediately

By Adam Kredo

December 8, 2015 3:41 pm

Washington Free Beacon

Newly released emails show that a senior Defense Department official offered the State Department “forces that could move to Benghazi” immediately during the deadly 2012 attack there on the American consulate.

Jeremy Bash, the former Pentagon chief of staff, offered to provide forces at 7:19 p.m. on the evening of the attack, “only hours after they had begun,” according to Judicial Watch, which disclosed the email on Tuesday.

“We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak,” Bash wrote.

Portions of the email remain redacted by the Obama administration.

“The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of ‘deliberative process’ information,” according to Judicial Watch.

The newly disclosed email contradicts testimony to Congress by Obama administration officials who cited the inability to immediately provide forces in response to the attack.

“Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013,” writes Judicial Watch.

“Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that ‘time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response,’” the group wrote in a press release.

Update 4:19 P.M.: Matt Wolking, press secretary for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that lawmakers have been aware of this piece of correspondence but did not release it publicly.

“The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months,” Wolking told the Free Beacon.

“While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response,” Wolking said. “This email chain helped inform the Committee’s interview of Sullivan in September and will help inform the Committee’s upcoming interviews with Thomas Nides and others.”

+++

Benghazi email: DOD rescuers were ready to move but ignored by Clinton State Dept.

By Jim Kouri CPP

December 9, 2015

Accuracy in Media

‘Hillary, why did you wipe your server clean? Did you delay so you could get rid of evidence? If you did, it’s called obstruction and tampering, and, by the way, I don’t know what took the FBI so long to try to get it. But Hillary, if that server has been scrubbed so clean, that even FBI experts cannot reconstruct your emails, that tells me you did everything you possibly could to prevent anyone from knowing what you were doing while you were our secretary of state. My verdict, based on the evidence, is guilty.’ – Former judge and prosecutor Jeanine Pirro

According to a group representing former special forces soldiers and sailors, Judicial Watch released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information, according to Special Operations Speaks.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC. The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John Lt Gen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues: I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]. After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and raise questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014, seeking:

Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

“The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Much is owed the men who sacrificed their all at Benghazi. This is especially the case concerning uncovering the truth in getting to the answers to the critical questions of the families of “THE BENGHAZI FOUR”. It is our absolute intent to leave no stone unturned as we seek to uncover the TRUTH concerning the cover-ups and lies surrounding the national tragedy of Benghazi that occurred on Sept 11, 2012, or any other pertinent matter that affects U.S. national security and the well-being of our great nation.”

This column was originally published at Conservative Base.

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

_________________________

How will Media and American Left Spin Recent Email Exposé?

John R. Houk

© December 9, 2015

________________________

Disclosed: Email Shows Pentagon Offered ‘Forces that Could Move to Benghazi’ Immediately

Washington Free Beacon

___________________

Benghazi email: DOD rescuers were ready to move but ignored by Clinton State Dept.

Jim Kouri CPP
FSM Contributing Editor Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). Kouri’s website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Clinton’s Infamous Legacy

If you listened to Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last week you may have come away thinking that a calm Hillary, the Committee Dem Party members and the Left oriented Press put to bed that Hillary had done anything wrong. The reality is if you look at Hillary’s assertions and obfuscations then compare them to what the public has gained access as the truth, YOU then know the former Secretary of State and Dem Party POTUS candidate lied through her teeth about Benghazi.

Justin Smith lays it out for you!

JRH 10/25/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Clinton’s Infamous Legacy

In the Wake of Benghazi

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 10/24/2015 1:45 PM

“Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar.” – Michael Ingmire, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith’s uncle (October 22nd 2015)

The Benghazi Committee hearing on October 22, 2015 spotlighted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s continued predilection to prevaricate and obfuscate and obstruct the truth on anything, especially regarding the attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi. Between Clinton’s lies and Obama’s facilitation of the cover-up and top Democrats’ willingness to place their imprimatur on gross negligence, incompetence and treason, Americans are still far away from receiving the full, unadulterated truth on this horrible and despicable episode of the Obama/Clinton Middle East Doctrine; however, from all the available evidence, Hillary Clinton is damned and unfit for any public office, much less the Office of the President.

Three years after the attacks on our U.S. Consulate and hundreds of FOIA requests later, Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has only just now (Oct 20th) received approximately 1400 pages of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ emails. These emails verify, among other things, Clinton knew for a fact and within minutes that a terror attack was unfolding, not a “spontaneous protest.” Also bearing witness against Clinton, over 600 emails from Ambassador Stevens requesting added security were ignored and supposedly never reached Clinton’s desk, according to Clinton’s own highly questionable testimony.

A good bit of acrimony arose during the hearing over the pertinence of Clinton’s email communications with Sydney Blumenthal, a longtime friend, employee and paid consultant for the Clinton Foundation, to which Rep. Trey Gowdy answered: “It’s relevant because our Ambassador [Stevens] was asked to read and respond to Sydney Blumenthal’s drivel. And yet, there was not a single response to Ambassador Stevens regarding his multiple requests for added security.”

However, when Huma Abedin emailed Clinton that the Libyan people were in dire need of food, milk, gasoline and diesel fuel, Clinton answered her within four minutes.

In incredibly ill-advised fashion, Clinton followed Blumenthal’s advice on Libya, even though he knew nothing about Libya. She did so for financial gain that Blumenthal suggested would arrive, if she helped retired Lt General Grange, the Osprey Group, a CIA agent and other partners gain entry into the Libyan economy; and, she did so in order to take credit for Blumenthal’s determination that the fall of Gaddafi would serve as a model for removing Middle Eastern dictators, blind to the bulwark that these Baathist dictators, like Sadam Hussein and Bashar Assad, provided secularists, Christians and other religious minorities against the islamofascists.

Even though Blumenthal had been refused a position at the State Department by Obama’s aides, his direct line to Hillary Clinton gave him an inordinate amount of influence that circumvented proper procedures for assessing “intelligence”, and this bled into President Obama’s policy decisions. Not only did Clinton strongly recommend military action in Libya to Obama, she also promoted regime change at NATO and played a key role in holding the entire coalition of Western nations together, according to one close advisor.

Significantly, it is apparent from emails sent to Clinton and three members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on March 18, 2011 at 7:27 EST, that Saif Gaddafi, Muammar’s son, sought a face-to-face meeting or a Skype/teleconference in order to arrive at a peaceful solution. Clinton instructed Lt. Gen. Charles Jacoby, who was directing plans for the coalition and NATO, not to take any calls from Saif; the following day U.S. airstrikes began on Libya.

On March 11, 2011, the ‘Washington Post’ ran an op-ed by Clinton’s “old friend”, retired General Wesley Clark that warned against the Libyan intervention. Four days later, the ‘Ottawa Citizen‘ published [link] the Canadian report submitted to NATO that stated Gaddafi’s removal would create a long-term civil war, but Clinton ignored all warnings.

In the days that followed, Muammar Gaddafi was killed, and rather than a new democratic Libyan state led by “moderates”, a new Islamic hell-hole emerged. AFRICOM issued 4500 pages of intelligence between January 2012 and Sept 11, 2012 that described the increase in terrorist activity. A Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012 indicated that weapons from Libya’s military stockpile – rifles, RPGs, 125mm and 155mm howitzer ammo – were moving from the port of Benghazi to Banias and Borj Islam, Syria and into the hands of Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI, the main forces behind the insurgency in Syria [Judicial Watch is a corroborating source of documentation].

In the District Court of Arizona on May 5th 2015, experienced CIA officer David Manners offered this sworn statement: “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.” [Fox Business by Catherine Herridge]

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. illegally armed the islamofascists of Libya and Syria (Fox News [Link and Link]), as shown in federal court documents from May 5th 2015, by awarding contracts approaching $300 million to defense contractors, like Marc Turi, in March 2011, for the purpose of arming the Libyan Transitional National Council and the Libyan rebels, who were not formally recognized at the time. This same action makes both Clinton and Pres. Obama culpable in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, since these same weapons were used by these same Libyan “rebels”/ islamofascists approximately eighteen months later: Both Clinton and Obama should be behind bars for treason.

Clinton stated this past Thursday – Oct. 22nd – that “there was no credible, actionable threat described to our compound and our diplomatic group”, which is inaccurate and simply false. On June 10th 2011, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, emailed information of a “credible threat … against the hotel that our [diplomatic] team is using.” Chris Stevens had also requested more security for this same hotel two months before the Sullivan communique.

Seven previous Congressional investigations have failed to interview a single person who was actually on the ground at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 — no Diplomatic Security Command Center personnel and no CIA agents or paid operatives. So, America has witnessed seven incomplete investigations, hindered by the Obama administration’s slow response to FOIA requests, which Chairman Gowdy hopes to rectify and complete through an additional twenty witnesses’ testimony.

“Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty served this country with honor. It is important to learn how these four men died … We owe them and ourselves the truth about Benghazi and Libya … There is no statute of limitations on the truth.” – Rep. Trey Gowdy

Questions linger, such as, what was happening in Libya that required a diplomatic presence despite the escalating violence?

Why were our military contractors and our diplomatic team left to defend themselves for approximately nine hours, when the 173rd Airborne Infantry was in Italy, only two hours away by C-130?

Obama and Hillary Clinton created the situation that has turned Libya and Syria into mass graves, claiming four of America’s finest early on. With characters devoid of honor and integrity, these two have left America with a memory of a despicable and treacherous act of terrorism, yet to see any retribution extracted. They leave a legacy of infamy and failure in the wake of Benghazi: A day of reckoning is certainly on its way for both, and Clinton’s reckoning should include prison, not the U.S. Presidency.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Do Americans Vote for Benghazi Liars?

John R. Houk

© May 24, 2015

In case you haven’t been keeping up with the news here’s real Benghazigate info on the dishonesty of the current Dem Party frontrunner for its POTUS nomination – Hillary Clinton – and the dishonesty of the Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama (Actually Benghazi is just one of many cover-ups by these two).

Americans voted Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 brainwashed by the Left oriented American media that his Marxist and Black Liberation Movement influences were either irrelevant or racist lies. Obama was the Liar. In 2012 Obama and his cadres fabricated a story Benghazi lie and American voters bought the lie again. NOW co-liar conspirator Hillary Clinton is denying Benghazi wrongs, her cadres are lying for her AGAIN and the Left oriented media is AGAIN soft pedaling Hillary lies.

Will a majority of Americans AGAIN put a liar in Office just to say they voted for a woman?

The first news report below is by veteran news journalist Sharyl Attkisson and the second news report is by a person who simply goes by “shawn”.

JRH 5/23/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Newly Released Emails Cast Doubt on Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Claims

By Sharyl Attkisson

May 22, 2015

The Daily Signal

Newly reported emails indicate Hillary Clinton was personally made aware of security dangers in the months leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya. That’s according to the House Benghazi Committee, which has obtained 300 long-sought emails from the State Department among tens of thousands under subpoena.

The Benghazi Committee says there are a number of emails in which State Department personnel specifically passed along security issues to Clinton in 2011 and 2012 before the attacks. An August 2012 email to then-Secretary of State Clinton from one of her top aides, Jake Sullivan, referred to “some warning signs” regarding the deteriorating security situation.

Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

Clinton has long denied being in the loop about mounting dangers in Benghazi and her agency’s rejection of security requests from U.S. personnel, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attacks. Though Clinton was sent multiple cables about security prior to the assaults, she explained that she got far too many to read.

“They are all addressed to me,” Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. “They do not all come to me. They are reported through the bureaucracy.”

The newly reported emails differ from the cables in that they were sent directly to Clinton’s personal email server and, in some cases, were from one of her top aides.

Another question raised by the newly provided emails is whether there was any improper handling of sensitive government information on her personal server. Experts say personal servers lack the strictest level of security and risk being compromised by U.S. enemies.

Last March, Clinton told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

But today, it was reported that a portion of at least one email provided to Congress is considered so sensitive that the FBI has since classified it to prohibit its public release.

Today, Clinton responded by saying, “I’m aware the FBI has asked that a portion of one email be held back … but that doesn’t change the fact that all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately.”

26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report

Clinton also told reporters today, “I’m glad the emails are starting to come out. … I’ve asked to be done for a long time. … I want people to be able to see all of them … it is the fact that we have released all of them that have any government relationship whatsoever.”

Gowdy says he is not confident the committee will get all relevant material, because Clinton has acknowledged deleting 30,000 emails that she said were personal in nature.

“To assume a self-selected public record is complete, when no one with a duty or responsibility to the public had the ability to take part in the selection, requires a leap in logic no impartial reviewer should be required to make and strains credibility,” said Gowdy in a statement today.

Gowdy added that there are “inexplicable gaps” in the secretary’s emails during key times of her involvement in Libya policy including:

· June 10-Aug. 8, 2011—Time period where Clinton was heavily involved in Libya policy.

· Sept. 14-Oct. 21, 2011—Dates of Clinton’s trip to Libya, when the now-famous picture of Clinton on her blackberry was taken

· Oct. 21, 2011-Jan. 5, 2012—Time period when the State Department was extending the Benghazi mission for another year

· April 27- July 4, 2012—Time period of increased security during which an IED was thrown at the compound blasting a hole through the wall and during which the British ambassador was attacked

Four Americans, including Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith, were killed in the Benghazi attacks.

+++

Benghazi: The Truth Trickles Out

By shawn

05/22/2015

Total Conservative

Allegations that the Obama administration lied to the American people about the Benghazi terrorist attack have been in the air for the last three years, but new information shows that these allegations have a lot more bite to them than Obama and Hillary Clinton would like the public to believe.

Two days after terrorists besieged the U.S. embassy in Libya, Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal sent her a memo that repudiated the idea that the attack was the result of a video critical of Islam. According to the memo, there was ample evidence that the attack had been planned by an Al Qaeda affiliate that was merely using the protests as a coverup.

“We should get this around ASAP,” Clinton reportedly told a close adviser after reading the memo. But there was apparently a change of heart, because U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows a few days later, still spreading the story that the Benghazi attack was an outgrowth of the protests.

Later, of course, the State Department and the president were forced to acknowledge that there had been no protests in Benghazi on the day of the attack. Officials and analysts continue to debate how much of a role – if any – the video played in the attack, but it is known to a certainty that it was not the whole catalyst. There is, in fact, much more evidence that the attack was planned as a retaliation for a drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist in Pakistan.

The American people deserve to know why the Obama administration tried to silence the truth about this attack. Were they trying to deflect blame? Avoid allegations of incompetence? Or was it something more sinister? Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and perhaps even Barack Obama himself need to answer for these discrepancies, and Congress should accept nothing less than their full cooperation with the investigation. The more we dig beneath the surface on this tragedy, the more it stinks.

It is most unfortunate that the word Benghazi has come to be associated with a right-wing witch hunt in the eyes of the public. Democrats have been successful in denying any culpability, insisting that this is nothing more than political gamesmanship. With the full compliance of the mainstream media, they have brainwashed the voters into believing a lie. And that lie deserves to be exposed.

We’re used to a certain amount of shadiness when it comes to Washington politics, but when American military men and women are dead, we must not stop until we get to the bottom of this coverup. This is about much more than emails, private servers, and multiple devices. This is about secrecy and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government. And until we know why it happened, no one should think for a moment about voting for Hillary Clinton.

___________________________

Do Americans Vote for Benghazi Liars?

John R. Houk

© May 24, 2015

___________________________

Newly Released Emails Cast Doubt on Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Claims

Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She is the author of “Stonewalled.” Send an email to Sharyl.

About The Daily Signal

The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.

VIDEO: What Is The Daily Signal?

We know you’re busy. And we’re quite certain you care deeply about the future of our country.

We care, too. We care about your communities, your families, and how Washington’s decisions are going to impact you.

More and … READ THE REST

__________________________

Benghazi: The Truth Trickles Out

About Total Conservative

A boy gets to go backstage at the circus. Amidst all the wonders, it is the circus’s elephant that surprises him the most. Out there, under the big top, the elephant had appeared mighty and glorious. To see him now, tied to a weak railroad stake in the ground by nothing more than a frayed length of rope, the boy is confused.

“Why does he stay?” the boy asks the handler.

“He doesn’t know his own strength,” the handler replies. “He’s been tied to that spike since he was just a little fella. He learned a long time ago…that’s just the way it is. He don’t try to escape now.”

Our government is like that railroad spike. We’ve grown so accustomed to the great might of the federal government that we hardly question it anymore. Some of us may not even understand that we are being held captive at all.

At its outset, the role of the government was to protect its people. Protect them from foreign and domestic harm, protect their (inalienable) rights from being encroached upon, and protect their ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The current federal government goes well beyond those basic tenets. The U.S. government in the 21st century is a provider. It provides …

…

Total Conservative is geared towards those elephants who understand that they have outgrown their restraints. That the circus never had the right to put them in those restraints to begin with. It is geared towards those people who want to see the federal government protect its citizen’s rights without encroaching on them in an oppressive and systematic way. It is geared towards people who understand that the very best thing you can say about government is that it’s a necessary evil.

Today’s liberal government goes well beyond … READ ENTIRETY

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

Today I received a Breitbart News email which is really a promo from Judicial Watch.

“Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.” (From Donation Page of Judicial Watch)

Thus Judicial Watch is an NGO government and judiciary watchdog organization. JW managed to get a Judge to force the release of documents in which Congress originally subpoenaed but the government failed to deliver. Although Leftists are playing ostriches with their heads in the sand or are just downright deceptive are still claiming there is nothing up their sleeves and are spinning the JW smoking gun data collected.

I call this a promo email because the hook is to read is the offer of JW’s Benghazi Cover Up Report for free. After you click the link in the email it takes you to a page in which you provide your name, address, email and zip code followed by a link to get the report. The report is a 20 odd pages of a pdf file and you are actually sent to the link: The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent; Intro by Tom Fitton – 1/22/13; and an April 29, 2014 update pertaining to the FOIA documents the government was forced to give up by a Judge. So some of you may have read the 2013 portion of the pdf file.

Of course the promo part is the collecting of addresses and email undoubted for marketing and donor purposes in the future. I like JW so I don’t have a problem with that. I can always hit the delete button or file snail mail in the trash.

BUT you really should familiarize yourself with those report. I don’t know about you but I am getting weary of listening, reading and watching Leftists whine about two years of Congressional investigations and zero discoveries of crimes being discovered. The JW report CLEARLY demonstrates the entire Obama Administration is hell bent on covering up probable crimes by not being transparent in releasing documents and the obvious production of government officials lying to Congressional Committees. I am certain the Benghazigate revelations are a mere tip of the iceberg. Since obstruction is now being documented in Benghazi investigations you can count on the probability the other Obama labeled phony scandals have nefarious activities behind them.

So you can click the Judicial Watch link that is a promo to build their donor list (which is a worthy cause) or I provided the pdf link above. In the mean time I took the liberty to provide an incomplete excerpt of the pdf file of portions I find to be obscene obstructions by the Obama Administration. SO REALLY READ THE WHOLE REPORT.

JRH 6/25/14

Please Support NCCR

________________________________

Introduction by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

Judicial Watch promotes transparency, integrity and accountability in government, politics and the law. We carry out or mission through investigations, research, litigation and public education. From time to time we produce Special Reports on important public policy matters to illuminate the operations of government in a way that informs the public and holds our trusted public servants accountable.

We have prepared this Special Report with the analysis, insights and expertise of Mr. Raymond Fournier, a recently retired Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent with more than thirty years of extraordinary experience managing all aspects of security, to include being a Regional Security Officer in United States Embassies in such countries as: Honduras, Sierra Leone, Belgium, and Lebanon — as well as other sensitive overseas postings to include Afghanistan and Israel. Specifically, Mr. Fournier possesses expertise in: assessing and managing risk; developing and executing security budgets and plans; organizing dignitary protection details; as well as technical, procedural security development and implementation to augment physical security. Mr. Fournier’s assistance has been invaluable.

Judicial Watch has opened its own investigation of the Benghazi attack. Our staff of investigators and researchers includes former intelligence officers, analysts, military officers, attorneys, and journalists. Judicial Watch has more than ten (10) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pending with various Executive departments and agencies seeking all manner of records relating to the attack. We have filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to comply with the FOIA law and release the records we seek. In the interim, we pursue additional avenues of investigation in an effort to provide the American people with complete, accurate, factual information concerning a deadly attack costing the lives of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three additional brave Americans.

Thomas Fitton

President

Washington, DC

January 22, 2013

_________________

Background

At 9:40 p.m. on the evening of September 11, 20l2, a group of approximately l50 heavily armed Islamist militia members attacked the United States’ diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The ensuing 8-hour assault on the Special Mission Compound (SMC, and hereafter: “Compound”) and the nearby CIA annex claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Stevens, who had previously served as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council, was the first Ambassador killed in the line of duty since the l979 shooting of Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of the attack, President Obama and senior administration officials were quick to identify Muslim outrage over an obscure Internet video mocking Mohammed as the motivation for the attack1. In a September l2th statement about the incident, the President remarked, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”2

At a September l4, 20l2 event honoring the four victims, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”3

Those in Libya did not share this theory. During a September l5th television interview, Libyan President Mohamed al-Magarief observed that, “It’s clear from the timing on September 11th and from the detailed planning of the attacks that behind it there were experienced masterminds. It was not a spontaneous act in protest of a movie. This has been prepared for a long time on this specific day…If you take into account the weapons used, like RPGs and other heavy weapons, it proves that it was preplanned. It’s a dirty act of revenge, and it has nothing to do with religion.”4

Nevertheless, top administration officials continued to claim that the attack was spontaneous and the result of the video. During a September l6th television interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice infamously assessed the situation as follows:

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.”5

…

Eventually, the administration was forced to acknowledge what many observers knew from the beginning — that the attack in Benghazi was neither spontaneous nor the result of an Internet video. On September 28th, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that their revised assessment had determined it to be, “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” and that, “some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.”8

___________________________

ARB Report/Summary of Findings

As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of l986, the State Department convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB, and hereafter “Board”) to investigate the attack on October l, 20l2.9 Secretary Clinton chose former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair the board. Pickering is also a member of the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)10, a left-wing advocacy group that opposes the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran and that, in the estimation of national security expert Kenneth Timmerman, “has been lobbying Congress to win support for an agenda that mirrors the goals of the Tehran regime.”11 In 2009, former FBI counterterrorism agent Kenneth Piernick reported that the group, “may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.”12

In her 2009 paper Rise of the Iran Lobby, published by the Center for Security Policy, former CIA officer Clare Lopez wrote that, “Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. …

The other members of the Board were former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, former United Nations Undersecretary for Management Catherine Bertini, former State Department Interim Director of Overseas Building Operations Richard Shinnick, and former Deputy CIA Director Hugh Turner. Despite State Department regulations requiring that Board members, “must possess expertise that will contribute to the work of the Board, e.g., knowledge, experience or training in areas such as foreign affairs, law, security, embassy construction, intelligence, and other areas appropriate to the Board’s work,”14 no security professionals were selected to the board convened to investigate the Benghazi attack.

…

Notably, the report contradicts the earlier claims by administration officials that the attacks resulted from a protest that escalated into violence. The Board, “concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

…

… Shortly after its release, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrel Issa told reporters that he was, “deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits important information the public has a right to know. This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem.”16

…

Despite the self-evident fact that the security resources dedicated to the Compound in Benghazi were insufficient, State Department officials continued to defend their staffing decisions in the aftermath of the attack. Under questioning by Rep. Darrell Issa during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing investigating the attack, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb asserted, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11.”21 According to published reports, the Regional Security Officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, told Congressional investigators that Lamb, “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi ‘artificially low.’”22

_______________________________

Fallout

The day after the release of the Board’s report, numerous media outlets reported that four State Department officials responsible for the management and security of the Compound in Benghazi had resigned. Three were identified as Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell.23 In the weeks that followed, however, it became unclear whether the officials had really resigned or even faced any significant disciplinary measures. On December 26th, the New York Post reported that, “The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not ‘resigned’ from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.”24

…

________________________

Additional questions Raised

…

… It is also known that the Ambassador met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on the evening of the attack. The purpose of that meeting has not been disclosed. In October, Fox News reported that Stevens, “was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”31

Some experts believe that the Ambassador’s work in Benghazi may have been related to Administration efforts to transfer arms to Syrian opposition groups. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney wrote, “One of the places in Libya most awash with weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.”32 Former CIA Officer Clare Lopez has characterized U.S. activities in Benghazi as “gun running” and reported that Administration officials were, “working with the very same al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.”33

Further substantiating the theory that the Obama administration was involved in arms transfers to Syrian groups is a Times of London report published on September 14, 2012, “Syrian Rebels Squabble Over Weapons as Biggest Shipload Arrives from Libya.”34 According to the report: “Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.” The connection to Benghazi was established by The Times through an examination of the ship’s port authority papers, “The Times was shown the Libyan ship, The Intisaar or The Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.”

…

… (AFRICOM) deployed two unmanned aerial vehicles to survey the events in Benghazi — one to the Compound and the other to the airport during the evacuation of American personnel. However, the report gives no description of the images captured by the UAVs. In addition, the involvement of AFRICOM in the response raises the important question of why lethal air support or other military assets were not deployed in response to the attack.

…

______________________

Conclusion

…

__________________

Latest Update: Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

APRIL 29, 2014

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

…

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli

…

The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

…

In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

…

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

…

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

…

________________________

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

_______________________

The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent

Judicial Watch, Inc. ● 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 ● Washington, DC 20024

About Judicial Watch

Tel: (202) 646-5172

FAX: (202) 646-5199

Email: info@JudicialWatch.org

www.JudicialWatch.org

BENGHAZI REVEAL PART ONE

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?

I am a great (or infamous depending on one’s outlook) cross poster of blogs or online news sources. One of my favorite people to cross post is the blogger Danny Jeffrey (older but still active – Freedom Rings 1776 and Fix Bayonets). In fact I have enjoyed Danny’s perspective so much that I noticed I was cross posting a lot of his articles. So I have slowed down on doing this.

I am on the email list of Fix Bayonets and a post crossed my eyes that Danny was sharing his outlook on Benghazigate. You may or may not agree with Danny’s perspective but he is very hard to refute except perhaps conclusions based on opinion more than facts. In the blogging world facts are like math – they don’t lie. However unlike math facts can be massaged to slant toward one’s perspective. Too much massaging may lead to the danger of turning facts into mirages; i.e. something you want to see but really is not there.

Whatever your take on Benghazigate Danny Jeffrey is one of the best sources to build an information base. Enjoy the read.

JRH 3/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

BENGHAZI REVEAL PART ONE

By Danny Jeffrey

March 10, 2014 8:42 AM

Fix Bayonets

Last year I wrote an essay about how little people really know about what is going on, due not to a lack of interest, but to the junk sites that from which they tend to get their information. I am about to prove it.

Benghazi is probably the most mentioned city in the world and has been for nearly the last two years. Everyone talks about, reads about it, posts about it and few know anything other than the fact that four men died there and it was due to Obama allowing them to die, for reasons of his own. Beyond those basics there is only confusion and conjecture. Still, in an effort to waken those who are trying to waken others I shall show you what real research can do and then hope you reconsider using some of the sources I provided in ‘Wake Up America‘.

In March of 2011 ‘Rebels’ were involved in an attempted overthrow of Qaddafi. I emphasized ‘Rebels’ because most were not rebels as such. The vast majority of these people were paid militias, and a great many of them were Al Qaeda. The powers that be behind the Obama regime thought it best if we helped to topple a dictator and hand his nation over to Islamic radicals. The simple fact of the matter is that Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were opposed to our becoming involved in a war in Libya, citing no national interest. Credit our intervention to three women who overruled the JCS; Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice.

At any rate we became involved, with John ‘Traitor’ McCain leading the cheering section and CIA spook Christopher Stevens helping to arm the forces of Al Qaeda. Stevens arrived in Benghazi in the middle of the night aboard a Greek freighter. He spent the night in a hotel and moved the next day due to a car bomb going off in the parking lot.

I love using links from Obama’s loyal media for when they concede something you know you have a live one on the line.

ABC tells us…

Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was literally on the rebels’ side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi’s troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi’s tanks and troops.

At the risk of sounding disloyal I must ask; by what right and in whose interest did we do this? After Ronald Reagan had a bomb dropped in Qaddafi’s front yard that little warlord learned some manners and actually joined us in the war on terror after 911. Not wanting another crater in his yard he had been helping to expose and eliminate Al Qaeda. Then we turned on him, aiding Al Qaeda in his overthrow and murder.

Paraphrasing Julius Caesar Hillary Clinton showed her true worth in this 12 second video as she said laughing “We Came. We Saw. He Died.” Qaddafi did not simply die. He was tortured and murdered. Raped with sharpened sticks at the hands of savages we empowered until he bled to death. And her victory chant tells me everything that I need to know about the woman that is being groomed for the Oval Office.

Christopher Stevens was rewarded for his efforts by being appointed Ambassador to Libya and he returned there in May of 2012 assuming his new role.

The following is a brief from the U.S. Department of State entitled ‘Securing Our Embassies Overseas’. It details the planning that goes into the safeguarding of our embassies abroad, its Ambassadors, support teams, and families. If this plan had been followed. Four Americans, now dead, would be alive today. The Obama regime intentionally disregarded all protocol and with malice aforethought allowed these men to be killed.

Excerpt:

Following the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and Nairobi (Kenya) in 1998, security countermeasures for our U.S. missions overseas took on greater importance, and this continues today.

Recall this excerpt as I later present a timeline of events as they transpired, for the State Department was far more aware of the danger than was the Ambassador as they removed his safeguards.

Another link from the State Department, this one describing the two types of mobile defense teams available to protect our ambassadors. One is referred to as a Security Support Team and their duties are described as:

A Security Support Team’s job is to augment and enhance security at U.S. Embassies and Consulates that are faced with civil unrest, hostile hosts or any other threat. Recent deployments included Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Jamaica and Cote d’ Ivoire.

And the Tactical Support Team:

Tactical Support Teams deliver counter-assault capability in high-threat protective details both overseas and in the United States. Missions have included deployments to Niger, Zaire, Mauritania, Mali, Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen, Pakistan, Tunisia and Jamaica.

One would tend to believe that with such support teams available an Ambassador should feel safe, but the fact of the matter is that the Security Support Team was removed and the Tactical Support Team was ordered to “Stand Down!”

Such executive behavior rings not of leadership but of premeditation.

There are a set of standards applied to any foreign mission site. Among them are three meter high walls topped with barbed wire. The building must be set back from those walls by a minimum of one hundred feet. That building must also be equipped with bullet proof glass, tactical doors, and a fire proof safe room. The site in Benghazi had none of the above and could only be operated under the terms of a special waiver from the State Department.

Again, calling upon one of Obama’s lapdog’s…

From CNN…

Excerpt:

By leaving the Consulate open for business with a waiver, it essentially meant that no barriers were required, no safe room was needed, and multiple layers of security weren’t necessary.

The State Dept’s waiver was mentioned in the Ambassador’s diary which was recovered by CNN on site as the FBI was weeks getting there.

Then we have this video on the topic from CNN as well. Note that such a waiver on such a facility had to be signed off not only by the State Dept, and Libya, but the Ambassador as well. Why was the Ambassador willing to agree to an unprotected mission in the very pits of hell? More on that topic later.

Recall the basic Security Support Team tasked with protecting the Ambassador. Calling yet again on the Obama loyal:

This from ABC…

U.S. Security Official In Libya Tells Congressional Investigators About ‘Inappropriately Low’ Security At Benghazi Post

I shall use no excerpt from this link as you should read all of it. It is by Jake Tapper, who pulls no punches.

U.S. Security personnel for the Ambassador were limited to three men and they were not allowed to carry weapons as we did not want to offend the ‘sensitivities’ of the Libyans. Their armed support was recruited from the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, but they were nowhere to be found on the night of September 11, 2012. F17MB has a Facebook page.

This from Newsmax…

US Hired Al Qaeda Linked Group To Defend Benghazi Mission

Excerpt:

Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

This is a one time (sic) cover from their FB page:

In Part Two the plot thickens. [Blog Editor: Part Two was completed today at 10:04 AM]

Suggested Reading…

Can You Handle The Truth

Sharing…

I have been frequently asked if it is alright to share my essays. By all means please do. The icons on the lower left allow you to email an essay, post it on a blog you follow, post to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, or Google Plus.

_____________________________

AN INTRODUCTION TO ‘FIX BAYONETS’

For the sake of long term readers, I must briefly explain my need for a new website:

I have an insurmountable problem with my previous blog that has to do with the ‘feed’. Everything about it works just fine with the exception of it not being able to send Emails to my followers whenever I post a new essay. I have learned what caused the cumulative problem but am still unable to repair it, and so today I turn a new page. Armed with a new knowledge of how to avoid future problems, I am relegating Freedom Rings 1776 to a background archive, totally accessible but no longer serving my needs.

There is also a second reason for what I have begun. My first website was named with a sense of optimism, while this one is from a sense of desperation, for we are most assuredly losing in the political arena. Since Obama was first chosen by the Progressive overlords, we have been subjected to betrayal, deceit, a loss of liberty, and … READ THE REST

BENGHAZI: THE TERRORIST ATTACK OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

Discover The Networks has an excellent summary of Benghazigate to the point which leaves little doubt that the neglect requires at the least some blame of top Obama officials and at worst the impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama.

This is a bit lengthier than I thought for a blog post. Due to the length I am going to divide DTN’s original into two separate posts [at SlantRight 2.0]. I suggest you either bookmark my two part delivery or DTN’s original. This is valuable information for voters to stay informed to cast their next vote.

JRH 1/22/14

SlantRight 2.0: PART ONE

SlantRight 2.0:PART TWO

Please Support NCCR

CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013 – “What difference does it make?”

Yesterday I cross posted the James Rosen article summarizing what Obama was actually aware of pertaining to the Benghazigate Scandal. To summarize what knowledge Obama had about the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Steven with one word – LIAR. Obama lied AND the President told his Administration surrogates to lie (such as Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney).

Undoubtedly the Mainstream Media will twist some propaganda to make lite of one these so-called Obama phony scandals so below is another perspective based on an interview with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) conducted by WND’s Garth Kant that focuses on the next Dem Party darling in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

JRH 1/16/14

Please Support NCCR

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

CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’

‘I heard her with my own ears’

By GARTH KANT

January 14, 2014

WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.

Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.

He said she also lied to Congress.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”

“Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”

And, what contradicted her?

“The facts.”

King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.

During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

WND asked King if he had an answer for her.

“The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”

WND VIDEO: Part 1 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”

He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.

“We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”

Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.

During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.

Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.

Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”

Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”

And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.

That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.

Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.

“My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.

“We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”

He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.

“And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.

The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

WND VIDEO: Part 2 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”

He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”

But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.

“[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”

That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”

The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.

“If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.

And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.

He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”

Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.

“Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.

WMD VIDEO: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Benghazi Lies

When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.

He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”

“She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

________________________________

Benghazi – The Signs of Al Qaeda

The latest Benghazi Cover-up idiocy has been in the Conservative News Media and Conservative Blogs (Example: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE) ever since the NY Times has evidently fallen prey (three-days later NY Times sticks to propaganda) to the Obama-Hillary propaganda machine. America’s Leftists/Liberals are running with NYT historical revisionism as an exoneration of Obama-Hillary abandoning Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to their deaths when there was ample time to beef up security and there is evidence a timely rescue could have occurred. Dawn Perlmutter writes an article today further exposing the NYT as a propaganda tool by adding some information about the Islamic terrorist organization Ansar al Shariah’s connection to al Qaeda that the NYT says does not exist. Believing the NYT is placing yourself on the idiotic end of gullibility scale. Read Perlmutter’s analysis of an al Qaeda connection to Ansar al Shariah the murderers of the Benghazi Four.

JRH 1/2/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Benghazi – The Signs of Al Qaeda

By Dawn Perlmutter

January 2, 2014

Middle East Forum

Also posted at FrontPageMagazine.com

The latest version of the Benghazi cover up is being argued with semantics of whether the jihadist group that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was part of the “core” al Qaeda network. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said,

“…at this point, we have no indications that core al-Qaida, which I think is what most people are referring to when they talk about, quote, al-Qaida, directed or planned what happened in Benghazi. …..So it is not the U.S. Government’s assessment or position that Ansar al-Sharia is an affiliate of core al-Qaida. We don’t recognize them as an affiliate of core al-Qaida… These folks don’t carry ID cards. They don’t come out and wear a t-shirt that says, ‘I belong to al-Qaida,’ right?”

I beg to differ. In addition to the tremendous amount of evidence and statements by members of the House Intelligence Committee claiming that intelligence indicates al Qaeda was involved and that Ansar al Shariah is widely believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda, there are simpler, more obvious indicators. Ms. Harf is correct, they don’t carry ID cards or wear T-shirts that say “I belong to al Qaeda,” but they do throw hand signs and leave graffiti behind in the same manner as gangbangers that just marked their territory after murdering their rival.

The quintessential image that is used in almost every news report about the Benghazi attacks depicts one of the assailants in a white T-shirt with an assault rifle posing with his index finger pointing up in front of the burning consulate. The man is seen in several photos making this gesture using both his left and right hands. This does not signify that he is number one. This gesture is one of the most prevalent Salafi jihadist hand signs. There are images of every al Qaeda leader, including Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and others, with their index fingers pointing skywards. Ayman al Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, is often seen in images making the hand sign. His former top lieutenant Mohammed al Jamal, of the Jamal Network, is believed to have had fighters in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound and they would be familiar with this gesture. In October, the State Department designated the Jamal Network as a terrorist group tied to al Qaeda.

The hand gesture also appears on jihadist forums, protest posters, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and in almost every form of al Qaeda propaganda. It is also a favorite gesture among Chechen jihadists, members of the Caucasus Emirate, those most likely responsible for the recent suicide bombings that killed at least 31 people in the city of Volgograd, Russia. Their leader, Doku Umarov, has also been photographed making the jihadi hand sign. For Salafi jihadists groups, the hand gesture of the index finger pointing up represents one God and their willingness to die for Islam, thus attaining martyrdom and entrance into paradise. This Islamist hand sign is also commonly used by radical Imams around the globe while they are recruiting young men to join the global jihad and murder soldiers in their own countries. Although this hand gesture is one of the most recognizable signs of al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist groups, the Obama administration either overlooked, or worse, were unaware of the identifier when they portrayed the attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam film.

If there is any doubt that Ansar al Sharia Libya is affiliated with al Qaeda, the hand with the index finger pointing up is the central image of their logo. It also happens to be the primary image in the center of al Qaeda’s logo and al Qaeda-affiliated group logos, such as Jaish al Muhajireen awl Ansar in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, Palestinian Taliban and others. Similar to street gangs, symbols and gestures demonstrate affiliation with their larger organizations, such as Folk Nation or People Nation. Like the Bloods or the Crips, Ansar al Sharia should be viewed as one street gang in the al Qaeda Nation. Distinctions between “core” al Qaeda are irrelevant as these Mujahideen gang bangers share the same goals and the same enemies.

If the gesture was not enough, the Jihadist gangbangers also decided to leave their mark in graffiti. Two different spray-painted Arabic-language graffiti messages that read “Allahu Akbar” were scrawled on the buildings of the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya during the 2012 terror attack. Spray painting “Allahu Akbar” is becoming very popular among young jihadists who are vandalizing churches and war monuments with their battle cry in graffiti. Of course, the State Department could claim that the graffiti was just a benign expression of faith, except for the four dead Americans and the burned-out U.S. consulate building.

In combination with the quintessential photo of the assailant using the al Qaeda jihadist hand gesture, the messaging was clear that it was not an anti-Islam film protest. Of course, you have to suspend political correctness to be able to interpret the signs that are literally on the wall. Gang identifiers are visual or verbal ways that gang members identify their affiliation. Law enforcement is trained on gang identifiers so that they can recognize violent incidents as being affiliated with particular street gangs or Security Threat Groups. Unfortunately, training on Islamist identifiers is currently prohibited under the Obama administration, which is why obvious signs continue to go unrecognized.

______________________________

Dawn Perlmutter Director and founder of Symbol & Ritual Intelligence and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum is considered one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in the areas of symbols, unfamiliar customs, ritualistic crimes and religious violence.

MEFORUM Permission:

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. (http://www.meforum.org/3709/benghazi-al-qaeda)

About MEFORUM

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

Mission

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.

U.S. interests in the Middle East include fighting radical Islam; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; developing strategies to deal with Iraq and contain Iran; and monitoring the advance of Islamism in Turkey.

Domestically, the Forum combats lawful Islamism; protects the freedom of public speech of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and … READ THE REST

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: