VIDEO: Classified Cable Identified 10 Islamist/Al Qaeda Groups in Benghazi in August – Clinton and Obama Denied Pleas for Help!

An August 16th cable requested additional security and reported there were ten Islamist militias and Al Qaeda groups in Benghazi and they could not sustain an organized attack.  This information reportedly went directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Ambassador Stevens.  Stevens also informed Clinton that he feared an attack on the consulate would be next.

Fox News also reports: “It was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more  security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four  Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by  Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.”

 

 

As Catherine Herridge said, “This may be the smoking gun.”  I fervently hope it is enough evidence to fire and prosecute those in charge!

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

By Gary Aldrich via The Washington Times

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions –

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years  served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as  senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton  White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for  George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious  and professional.

The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush  White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of  Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot  recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or  suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to  protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We  performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary  Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not  take national security seriously. National and White House security were not  priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the  executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their  respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when  another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building  with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could  not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for  reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could  achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it  impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly  assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they  knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this  from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering  the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House  security office. Mr. Livingtone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not  a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that  this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies  as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret  Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven  innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they  were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions.  She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her  friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into  security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security  issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by  the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important  function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s  unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no  statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter,  either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had  come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that  all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House,  Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books  explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton  White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who  died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a  seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security  program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job.  Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton,  supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to  work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s  worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national  security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps  logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of  scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were  lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton  White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist  attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in  Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist  sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those  completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet  secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest  clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the  president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a  potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s  choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the  FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed  acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now  there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other  lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State  Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs  the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment  as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In  recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe  that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State  Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

Read the rest here.

Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

PJ Media:

By Roger L Simon

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell [2] noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends [3] at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times [4],

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein [5] states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez [6] article at RadicalIslam.org,

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field.

Many questions remain to be answered — some of which are listed here [7]. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.

Los Angeles-based Roger L. Simon is the author of ten novels, including the prize-winning Moses Wine detective series, and six screenplays, including Enemies: A Love Story for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. He served as president of the West Coast branch of PEN and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America. Mr. Simon was on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the Yale School of Drama. In February 2009, he published his first non-fiction book – Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown. Mr. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of PJ Media.

Bombshell: Claim Says Obama WATCHED Benghazi Attack Happen

Via The Blaze

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

 

 

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.

Read the rest at The Blaze

State Department Denies Security to Libya but Authorizes Chevy Volts in Austria

Remember when Joe Biden told Paul Ryan that Congress denied funding for additional security in Libya?  Even though State Dept. Bureaucrat, Charlene Lamb, told Congressman Dana Rohrabacher that budget had nothing to do with security decisions in Benghazi?

 

 

Now we find out that the State Department’s budgetary priorities lies with green energy cars in Vienna, Austria rather than security for Americans in the Middle East.  According to Rep. Mike Kelly via the Washington Times:

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.

Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, two at the U.S. diplomatic compound and scene of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks.

This first attack on the Benghazi compound occurred on April 6, 2012, when two Libyans threw a crude improvised explosive device over the compound wall. Two months later, another IED exploded at the compound, wounding one person and leaving a hole in the perimeter wall large enough for 40 people to run through.

The second attack was linked to the “Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman,” a jihadist, pro-al Qaeda group named after the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The same group was responsible for subsequent attacks on the British ambassador to Libya and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both of which took place in Benghazi just months before the September attack.

While these steady and increasingly violent attacks on western interests mounted, the U.S. State Department repeatedly rejected requests for additional protection measures for our security teams in Libya.

According to Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer of the U.S. Mission to Libya from September 2011 to July 2012, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Ironically, as the State Department withdrew security resources, it increased hazard pay for its employees based in Libya by 5 percent.

Mr. Nordstrom’s concerns regarding the escalating violence and inadequate security provisions, especially at the Benghazi compound, were shared by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, commander of the 16-member Security Support Team (SST) in Libya from February to August 2012. Lt. Col. Wood, who left Libya shortly before Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, believed that the SST presence needed to be extended, an idea Mr. Nordstrom said was shot down by the State Department in early July.

When Lt. Col. Wood and Mr. Nordstrom surveyed the Benghazi compound’s physical security in March 2012, they said the security provisions were “inappropriately low,” with just one DSS agent available to supervise the 24-hour security. In addition to the DSS agent, the compound was protected by four armed members of the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade and unarmed Libyan contractors employed by the British-based Blue Mountain Group.

According to an employment contract recovered at the Benghazi compound by the Washington Post shortly after the September attacks, those unarmed Libyan contractors were making roughly $4 dollars an hour.

If that was indeed the case, the State Department, using the funds provided to the U.S. embassy in Austria for an electric vehicle charger, could have provided Ambassador Stevens with three additional guards, 24 hours a day, for 365 days, with some money left over.

This is not to argue that having more guards, extending the SST presence, or authorizing the continued use of the DC-3 plane would have prevented Ambassador Stevens’ death, which marked the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since the 1970s. It does, however, raise a question about the State Department’s spending priorities.

Should the money directed toward other State Department initiatives, such as the “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe,” have gone toward efforts to secure highly vulnerable State Department personnel in areas like Libya?

In terms of securing the U.S. mission in Libya, it’s hard to argue that the money wasn’t there.

What seemed to be lacking was the common sense to know where to spend it.

Europe’s green energy sweep should have been Libya’s security sweep. Instead, the very real threats to the U.S. mission in Libya were swept under the rug.

 Another diversion tactic by the Obama administration:  Blame the other guy for your collosal failures.  However, we are awake Mr. President and shame on you!!!  How many more innocent brave Americans will die under your watch?!?

FBI still refused access to Benghazi – Why? Instead of answering questions, Obama admin creating them…

It has been more than two weeks since the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the FBI is still unable to access the US Consulate. Why? There was inadequate or no security to protect Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. Why? The White House lied about the murders being an act of terrorism. Why?  And why is the FBI being denied access to the crime scene?  Instead of answering questions, the Obama administration is creating them.

The Obama administration has continually lied to us.  They have either outright lied or withheld information on the Ft. Hood shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center shooting, the shameless security leaks, Fast and Furious,  and now the Benghazi massacre.  Nixon was forced to resign for lying to us – so should Obama!  If he won’t resign (which we know the narcissist would never do), he needs to be fired – before he destroys us all.

In a CNN interview Former Bush advisor Fran Townsend tells us:

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,’” Townsend said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in custody was denied.

 

And this from Hot Air:

Former CIA analyst Bob Baer also thinks the Libyans are being uncooperative, and says he can’t remember a case where the FBI’s been barred from the scene of an attack since Iran 1979. Why the Libyan government would refuse to let the feds in to look around, I have no idea, but it’s highly suspicious given that they’re potentially risking U.S. foreign aid by refusing the request. The alternative explanation, that they want to let the feds in but simply can’t reliably secure the area with so many militias running around, is actually worse because it underscores just how perilous the situation was for Chris Stevens and the consulate without a serious American security detail. That’s what ABC says is happening: Benghazi’s just too dangerous for a U.S. government agency to be picking through the rubble, even though CNN and other media have found ways to gain access to the site. And yet, apparently, Stevens’s superiors decided he’d be better off with less security, not more. Huh.

The coverup continues – worse than Watergate?  You decide – in November!  Your security, and that of your family and country depend on it.

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

As President Obama and VP Joe Biden continue to tout the success of killing Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda continues to demonstrate they are still strong and still hell-bent on killing us!  “Sources say intelligence agencies knew within a day that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attacks in Benghazi, Libya—they even knew where one of the attackers lived.”

 

Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying.

“There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address.”

The following is from Eli Lake via The Daily Beast:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. “We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”

A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”