Benghazi: 17 stories compilation

Islamic radicals kill 4 American diplomats in Libya

September 12, 2012 6:58 PM MST

Yesterday Americans peacefully remembered 9/11 with prayers and ceremonies. However, halfway around the world the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and U.S. Consulate in Libya were targeted by hundreds of Islamic radicals that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador for Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, a Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and two other U.S. embassy staffers.

Gruesome photos of Ambassador Steven’s lifeless body being dragged through the streets in Benghazi lit up the Internet, and caused seven other Middle Eastern embassies to heighten security.

The attack yesterday in Libya highlights terrorists continued hatred toward America and the fact the murders occurred on 9/11 demonstrates U.S. policy may not be working as planned. Last year Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama, declared war on the Libyan dictator and after a bloody eight-month engagement, the rebels, with the help of U.S. air and ground forces, captured and then murdered their brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The New York Times reports, “The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi (Libya) were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.”

The mass protests in Cairo also stemmed from a Jewish Israeli-American filmmaker, Sam Bacile (a pseudonym), who produced a movie entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently the movie depicted a derogatory view of the prophet Muhammad, something Muslim extremists find offensive.

Regardless of the rational used by Islamic extremists the breeching of the U.S. Consulate in Cairo and Libya underscores the lingering hatred for America. It’s worth pointing out that America has spent trillions of dollars in perpetual Middle East Wars, billions in foreign aid and supported unsavory rebels to topple ruthless dictators.

The politically correct statement released by the Cairo embassy did nothing to curtail or pacify the terrorists who later brutally attacked the Libyan embassy and killed four American citizens.

“Obama’s first reaction was to apologize,” said Lt. Col. Army (ret) Ralph Peters. “The Egyptian government knew it was happening. Egypt is getting billions of U.S. aid and they refused to protect the U.S. embassy.”

It was the U.S. embassy apology statement controversy and subsequent murders that dominated news outlet coverage. Ironically, the State Department’s announcement contended the clear acts of terrorism were predicated on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech.

While many pundits concluded that these attacks were an act of war, Peters disagreed and said they were a war-like act. “We are supposed to defend our Constitution not elevate political correctness. Our military takes an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution.”

Currently the elite Marine group, Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, (FAST) which responds to these types of terror-related emergencies, was on route to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Libya.

President Obama’s response

This morning President Obama began backtracking of the politically correct statement his Cairo staff released yesterday. In a Rose Garden press conference, the President insisted those responsible would be held accountable.

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward,” the President concluded.

A Muslim response

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy responded quickly to the attacks on U.S. embassies.

“The actions of the mob in Libya and the clear interventions of the former regime are nothing short of pure evil and in no way representative of the teachings and practices of the faith of Islam,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.” We must not blink in the face of this irrational reaction to the mere words of a little known filmmaker.”

Dr. Jasser said that the U.S. embassy in Egypt’s first politically correct apology statement regarding the Islamic extremist attacks was counterproductive and only justified their cause by condemning the free speech of a Jewish moviemaker. This type of terrorist tactic is nothing new. In fact, just like the mistaken Koran burning in Afghanistan, this method is a reliable propaganda tool used by Middle East terrorists.

“We need a bold strategy in this region to foster the liberty minded Muslims in these countries to work against these elements of hate and anti-Americanism. We need to help the people of these countries to go through a reformation and step into modernity and away from these irrational actions,” Jasser finished.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, as American’s wake up on this September 12, the country remains at war. The 11-year battle isn’t about freedom or democracy, but radical Muslim ideology.

It’s up to Islamic protestors to determine the heart and souls of their respective countries. America may choose to play a quiet role behind the scenes, but ultimately the citizens of Middle Eastern nations must take the lead, define their governance doctrines and rebuild their nations.

With the Arab Spring quickly turning into the Arab Winter, does America’s expensive foreign policy justify the end results?

Meltdown in Middle East and Obama’s foreign policy

September 18, 2012 2:31 PM MST

President Obama’s coveted Middle East foreign policy is unraveling faster than a badly knitted sweater. After a week of bashing presidential GOP contender, Mitt Romney, the U.S. media is slowly refocusing their attention to the real story—America was warned about possible 9/11 attacks in Libya that left four diplomats dead.

The White House is asking Americans to believe that the chaos in Egypt and Libya stemmed from slapstick, poorly made, 14-minute YouTube video trailer mocking the Prophet Mohammed. The so-called spontaneous attacks that sparked anti-American protests weren’t anti-American or anti-U.S. policy at all, claimed Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary. He also said the video was a misguided attempt by an individual to provoke hate in the Muslim world.

“We need to understand this is a fairly volatile situation and it’s not in response to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. A film. We have judged to be reprehensible that in no way that has any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive,” a White House statement read.

However for that statement to be plausible, American’s would have to believe that run of the mill protesters carry rocket propelled grenade launchers, can launch mortar attacks in seconds and keep military-grade arsenal handy, just in case an anti-American protest arises.

Susan Rice, UN Ambassador for the U.S., confirmed President Obama’s position on the Sunday talk shows that the Libyan violence coincided with the Cairo anti-American protests.

However, intel on the ground points to a well-planned four-hour attack. An unnamed militant group launched a well-coordinated assault on the Benghazi consulate as well as a nearby safe house in retaliation for Abu Yahya al-Libi, a known terrorist, who was killed in a drone strike ordered by President Obama.

Confirmation comes from Libyan Interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Libyan assault was preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.

This puts emphasis on President Obama’s controversial “kill list” and “drone strike” policies that provokes radical Islamists in the Muslim world.

Another report from CNN stated that the security conditions in Benghazi were quickly deteriorating. A senior official from the February 17th Brigade said they warned U.S. diplomats about impending violence three days before the U.S. consulate came under fire. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” the Libyan official said. The British government heeded Libya’s warning and closed their consulate after UK Ambassador, Dominic Asquith and his bodyguard escaped serious injury when rebels ambushed their convoy.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Christopher Stevens disregarded the warning and traveled to Benghazi consulate.

British news agencies have been reporting for months that American drone strikes and kill lists do not sit well with Europe and the Middle East.

Instead of admitting the drone strikes may be part of the problem, the U.S. government continues to undermine the First Amendment by blaming the YouTube video. The administration even tried to have the so-called anti-Muslim video removed, but YouTube rightly says the video meets YouTube standards.

Once the target of a fatwa himself, Salman Rushdie, told the Telegraph, a British newspaper that free speech must be protected from “religious extremist of all stripes” and condemned those who did not stand up to free speech.

Adding to the failed Obama story line is a statement that Breitbart media uncovered when candidate Obama was campaigning in 2007; “Well, I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view.”

It’s also true that Obama thought the Muslim world would flock to him simply because he spent time in Indonesia, as a child. Nevertheless, the “hope and change” prognosticator still hasn’t convinced Islamic radicals to put down their weapons and hate.

Obama’s soft approach on diplomacy certainly didn’t save Christopher Stevens, US ambassador, Sean Smith, information officer, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, in Libya. In fact, the opposite is true. A Pew Research Center poll out today shows the president losing ground with the Middle East. In 2009, Jordan had a 74 percent unfavorable view of America—today it’s 86 percent; in 2009, Pakistan had a 68 percent unfavorable view of America – today it’s 80 percent and finally in 2009, Egypt’s unfavorable view of America was 70 percent — today it’s 79 percent.

So much for the 2009 Obama Cairo speech promising to change the tides after a decade of war. The lofty speech only verified the president’s naiveté when it comes to peace within Muslim nations … “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Sadly, those poignant words failed to take hold in Cairo and the 2012 Obama rhetoric is just that, words, without leadership.

For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

U.S. warned of violent Middle East protests- DHS report reveals

September 19, 2012 2:16 PM MST

An intelligence report just released confirms the violent Cairo and Libyan protests that claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats were planned. Intelligence officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the anti-American protests was directly related Egyptian officials seeking the release of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The Egyptian terrorist is currently serving a life sentence in a North Carolina prison. Speculation surrounded a recent White House visit by new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a former member of America’s terrorist organization list. During his spring campaign Morsi said, “The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration. That is the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto.”

However, President Barack Obama invited the newly elected president to Washington DC in order to discuss continued financial aid and reaffirming America’s long-standing alliance with Egypt.

The usual hubbub about the terrorist turned president’s motives lit up the Internet. The blogosphere predicted the new Egyptian administration would renege on the 1979 Camp David Accords- Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. So far, the new government has protected America’s favorite Middle East country, Israel.

Conversely, the anti-American uprising last week changed everything. The world watched radical Islamists overrun the U.S. embassy in Cairo, deceptively over a 14-minute amateur video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad. Nearly a week later, U.S. officials admitted that two days before the “spontaneous” uprisings, a protest would commence.

According to documents from DHS, the “call to action” was posted two days before the violent Egyptian protests. The radical Islamists said they would burn the U.S. embassy to the ground with everyone in it if the Blind Sheikh was not released.

Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, broke the story just minutes ago. She revealed that DHS received a communiqué on 9/9/12 stated in part; “The time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh…Let your slogan be: No to the American embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh — even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”

The latest intelligence report certainly throws a wrench in the White House’s contention that the deadly protests that spread throughout the Middle East and northern Africa were neither spontaneous nor caused by an anti-Muhammad YouTube video.

Earlier today, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at the daily press briefing that there have been no “recent” talks about releasing the Blind Sheikh to Egyptian authorities.

But, former Department of Justice prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who led the U.S. case against the Blind Sheikh, told The Blaze that a report was circulating in DC political circles seeking the release of the imprisoned sheikh. McCarthy also said, “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”

McCarthy, a radical Islamist expert, explained that Egypt’s new president has called for the release of the Blind Sheikh. “I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release but not to announce it or have it become public until after the (U.S.) election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he said.

It hasn’t been a secret that the Egyptian government has repeatedly asked the U.S. to release the Blind Sheikh for humanitarian and health reasons.

Nevertheless, this could spell trouble for the Obama administration as the mainstream media spun the president’s anti-Muslim video theory, clearly a falsehood now.

Critics insist that the handling of this crisis is consistent with the White House pattern of leading through appeasement.

“Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control,” McCarthy finished.

© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

20,000 shoulder to air missiles missing in Libya

 October 10, 2012 1:16 PM MST

It’s just been revealed that 10-20,000 shoulder-to-air missiles capable of bringing down a civilian airplane are missing in Libya and most likely in the hands of al-Qaeda or their affiliates.

Anti-Libya War critic Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) blasted those testifying about the four murdered Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens and two SEALs, at the Congressional hearings a short time ago.

The 9/11/12 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate prompted widespread concerns for American interests in the region and outrage from several congressional members. Kucinich called the Obama administration’s war in Libya unconstitutional and questioned Congress’ ability to curtail the illegal war efforts in multiple countries.

Kucinich also asked Eric Nordstrom, the former Libyan Security Officer for the State Department if al-Qaeda has strengthened in the region as a result of the U.S. war and drone attacks. He replied, “yes.”

Was Romney right about Russia? The Benghazi connection …

November 3, 2012 2:44 PM MST

As the presidential election nears its conclusion, the current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, is finally facing media scrutiny surrounding his handling of the 9/11 attack in Libya that took the life of U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three others.

As the layers of spin are pulled back, information reveals that the U.S. may have been trafficking weapons under Ambassador Steven’s watch and Russia didn’t like it.

It is indisputable that the U.S. government was aware the Benghazi mission was under attack based on real-time drone surveillance video feeds from Libya to the Department of Defense, the U.S. State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and the White House Situation Room. What is also now known is that the mission was under surveillance before the Benghazi attack by the very Libyan security forces charged with protecting the U.S. consulate and numerous requests for additional security went unanswered by U.S. officials.

It’s also been reported that Ambassador Stevens had been meeting with multiple terrorist representatives in Benghazi. According to a Washington Times story, “The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group… 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.

Just one hour before the fateful attack that cost Steven’s his life, Obama administration officials say Stevens met with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. This acknowledgement opens the door to arms trafficking. Prior to the Benghazi attack Stevens was warned about a ship sent from Libya and docked in Turkey loaded with arms intended for the anti-Assad rebels that may actually be destined for al-Qaeda fighters in the region. Apparently, after the meeting between Stevens and Ali Sait Akin did not result in an agreement to end the U.S. lead anti-Assad arms shipments, the Turk abruptly left the meeting and the U.S. Benghazi consulate was attacked an hour later.

In an interview with this reporter in San Diego, retired CIA/NSA Director Michael Hayden (General, USAF ret) said the Libya incident “was predictable.”

So why leave Benghazi open? Hayden said, “I can’t explain that.” However, he concedes the most plausible explanation for the Benghazi incident centers on the CIA’s efforts to move weapons from Libya through Turkey and to the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad.

“I think the story is that this (moving arms) was going to go to the Sunnis that opposed Assad. And Assad is Russia’s friend,” Hayden said.

“I don’t know the specifics of attack, but the question I asked is what was the plan? What did you have on the shelf because this could not have been so unexpected given the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi? What was the concept for defending people? It’s kind of alone, small and isolated in (Benghazi),” Hayden explained. “I’m more concerned about the thinking that went on before the attack began and tend to be less critical of what happened seven hours after the attack.”

Another curious piece to this puzzle is Russia. Did they have a part to play inside Benghazi and was presidential contender, Mitt Romney right that Russia remains a threat to the U.S.?

The Russian response, under former KGB Cold War foe Valdimir Putin, who was visibly incensed last fall when a jubilant crowd of rebels murdered his ally, Muammar Qaddafi, has described the event as “repulsive and disgusting.”

Shortly after the death of U.S. ambassador in Libya, numerous Russian commentators used social media to describe their position on the destabilization in Libya.

“The democratized residents of Libya thanked the staff of the American Embassy for its support,” one Tweet read. “This is what you call exporting democracy, it seems. America gives Libya a revolution, and Libyans, in return, kill the ambassador.”

Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria,” a New York Times story read in September.

It is no secret that Putin disagreed with the West’s view of Syrian ruler Assad. When Putin was Prime Minister, he delivered a scathing criticism of the Libya bombing by NATO and left the impression that under his leadership it would have never happened.

It’s also worth pointing out that Russia and China have consistently opposed any military intervention in Syria. Russia and its allies have repeatedly warned the West that efforts to aid Syrian rebels would only bring more bloodshed to an already embattled region. Also, the Russians have been demanding a cessation of U.S. aid to the Syrian rebels fighting President Assad, again noting that any military aid would destabilizes the entire region, and could have serious economic consequences for Russia.

Even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cautioned the West against arming the Syrian rebels. However, the Arab Times news agency said, “Western officials say that Russia’s vetoes have abetted the Syrian violence by encouraging Assad to pursue an offensive with his Russian-supplied armed forces to crush the popular revolt. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are believed to have funded arms shipments.”

Case in point, in late August Russia said there was increasing evidence that Syrian rebels were procuring large numbers of Western-made weapons. They even suggested that America and other EU countries were spurring the violence in Syria.

So was Benghazi a message delivered by the Russians to end U.S. gun-running by executing Ambassador Stevens, the kingpin between the armed groups, the Libya stockpiles, and the shipments to Turkey?

Did this American meddling in Syria unhinge Russia’s patience? And is it possible that Russians or their surrogates assisted al-Qaeda in the Benghazi consulate attack?

“Moving (weapons) from Libya to Turkey to Syria or to Lebanon to Syria is completely plausible. I don’t know about the Russian part, but the trafficking piece is a yes,” Hayden concluded.

Read yesterday’s story in the Washington Guardian:

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/benghazi-predictable

Barack you’re no Ronald Reagan and Benghazi is proof

November 5, 2012 5:18 PM MST

When Americans were attacked by Libyan terrorists at a German Discotheque in 1986 President Reagan responded with F-14’s; when Al Qaeda terrorists attacked America in 2001 President Bush responded with B-1’s; when Americans were attacked by Libyan terrorists in Benghazi President Obama responded with tweets from his campaign fundraiser stop in Las Vegas.

It’s been eight weeks since the 9/11 terrorists attack in Benghazi, Libya and Americans are still trying to decipher the Obama administration’s “fog of spin.”

While there was no shortage of second-guessing in the White House Situation Room, military leaders in charge of quick response teams a half-a-world away sprang into action upon receipt of the consulate’s 911 call and readied the troops for a real-world rescue.

“As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began,” the Military Times reported.

It’s also been reported that on the fateful day in Libya, CIA/SEALs had a laser target trained on the enemy firing mortar rounds at the compound. The Pentagon has listed numerous explanations as to why the trained SEALs would use the lasers. However, they conveniently omitted the key component—the expectation that U.S. help was seconds away. The “fog of spin” from the Obama administration, no matter how creative, cannot conceal the truth. If fighters were dispatched to assist Ambassador Chris Stevens and other consulate personnel, a former Naval pilot says, “The paper trail would be a mile long. Not only do the pilots have to file logbook reports, but the ground crew, the crew arming the jets with appropriate weapons and the Italian air controllers would have exhaustive records.”

The President told a KUSA Denver reporter that the minute he found out about the Benghazi attack he directed all available diplomatic and military resources to secure American consular personnel.

Unfortunately for the CIA/SEALs fighting off the Ansar al-Shariah terrorists, the jets would never arrive. The fact, CIA/SEALs were painting their lasers on the enemy targets shortly after midnight, five hours before their eventual deaths, indicates they were expecting air support. And why would they be waiting for air support? Because the trained SEALs knew the oplans (operations plans) and military protocol for this exact operation once they requested the assistance.

According to Fox News, “The Annex team also had Ground Laser Designators, or GLD. This kind of laser equipment emits code and signal when there is overhead air support, unmanned aerial surveillance, drones or Spectre gunships.”

Keeping this in mind, the SEALs fighting on the ground must have been told the cavalry was on its way or why else would they train the lasers on the targets? And if employing force was the decision of the highest-ranking officer in the region charged with deploying the response team, why did the “cavalry” never arrive?

According to The Stars and Stripes, “The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment. The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.”

Currently, Rear Adm. Gaouette is headed to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., for a temporary reassignment. “The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed,” the Navy concluded. Even more curious is the fact the area commander, General Carter Hams (Commander-in-Chief, Africa Command [CINC Africom]) decided to retire in mid-sentence while authorizing support to the beleaguered Benghazi defenders (link to Washington Times story).

Interesting.

Staying true to form, Obama’s defenders, The New York Times, spun this ridiculous statement. “As officials in the White House and Pentagon scrambled to respond to the torrent of reports pouring out from Libya — with Mr. Stevens missing and officials worried that he might have been taken hostage — they took the extraordinary step of sending elite Delta Force commandos, with their own helicopters and ground vehicles, from their base at Fort Bragg, N.C., to Sicily. Those troops also arrived too late.”

“The fact of the matter is these forces were not in place until after the attacks were over,” a Pentagon spokesman, George Little, said on Friday, referring to a range of special operations soldiers and other personnel. “We did respond. The secretary ordered forces to move. They simply were not able to arrive in time.”

A frustrated Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), said he was not getting anything from those who know what happened in Benghazi. “I have written to commanders in the field, 3-, 4-star admirals and generals, and the response I got out of the Department of Defense is that ‘we will not be able to answer your simple yes and no questions,’ that I’m sure they already know the answers to. We will not be able to answer them on your timeline and we do not know when we’ll be able to respond. This is the first time I’ve seen where the military has been basically silenced, when they could not answer a direct yes and no questions from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.”

Check back for more details, as the story remains fluid.

Benghazi revealed – Stevens WAS the target – Terror Tuesday was the cause

February 14, 2013 1:32 PM MST

The overlooked and “palpable” motive for the killing of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty is the President’s Targeted Kill List (TKL). The evidence for the “quid pro quo” killing of Ambassador Stevens by al-Qaeda is compelling. Details released in Congressional reports and testimony on Capitol Hill hearings suggest Ambassador Stevens was lured to Benghazi by the Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, who wanted to meet Stevens on 9-11 in out-of-the-way Benghazi instead of the more-secure U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, where the Ambassador conducted the bulk of his diplomatic business.

For obvious reasons, 9-11 is a significant anniversary for al-Qaeda, but sources from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) also report a weapons buyback at the “special mission compound (aka SMC)” in Benghazi was scheduled that same day. Coincidence? Perhaps, but Ambassador Stevens final trip to eastern Libya marked his first visit to Benghazi in nearly a year.

The Protagonists

A graduate of UC Berkeley, Chris Stevens was a career diplomat who served almost exclusively as a political officer in the Middle East while at the State Department. During the civil war in Libya he secretly slipped into Benghazi aboard a merchant ship, the Al Entisar, in 2011 to establish liaison with al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood fighters to aid in their fight against Qaddafi. Then diplomat Stevens (aka CIA) worked directly with Abdel Hakim Belhadj’s Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) during the Libyan revolution. Ironically or not, on September 6th, 2012 Turkey objected to the cargo of a merchant ship, the same Al Entisar, which was transporting 400 tons of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey for reported transfer to Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head and former leader of LIFG was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

Al-Qaeda in Libya had been working with the US CIA to overthrow Qaddafi. In fact, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, a former CIA detainee, who had been shopped around the world through the U.S. rendition program landed in Libya where Qaddafi gladly cooperated with the U.S. CIA in holding him and according to some sources torturing him. However, he was freed in 2010 by Saif Qaddafi (the dictator’s son) and resumed leadership of the LIFG resistance movement, ostensibly putting his personal vendetta on hold to use American money and weapons to achieve the takeover of Libya. With Qaddafi deposed, Abdel Hakim Belhadj assumed control of the Libya interim government.

There can be little doubt Abdel Hakim Belhadj knew about Ambassador Stevens’ CIA connections.

The motive

A fateful drone strike in June would change everything inside Libya and put the Ambassador in an unwelcome spotlight.

“Local (Pakistani) tribesmen and American officials said that a C.I.A.-controlled drone fired on a compound early Monday morning (June 4, 2012). Word spread quickly among local tribesmen that Mr. (Abu Yahya al) Libi had been killed or wounded, and American intelligence officials using powerful satellite and other surveillance equipment listened and watched carefully for a sign of his fate.”

As fate would have it, this event would become the precursor for Libyan al-Qaeda retribution against American CIA.

Intelligence on the ground in Benghazi points to a well-planned eight-hour attack on the SMC and Annex. The well-coordinated assaults on the Benghazi SMC as well as a nearby safe house (the CIA Annex) are believed to be in retaliation for a drone strike ordered by President Obama that killed Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda’s Number 2.

Later, confirmation comes from Libyan Interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Libyan assault was preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 (not spontaneous demonstrations against an anti-Islamic film as the President and Ambassador Rice concocted to escape a political firestorm from an angry electorate).

“As the founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, he (Abdel Hakim Belhadj) is the superior of Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al-Sharia, and Wisam bin Hamid, head of Libya Shield, both of whom clearly participated in the attack.”

It’s further reported on Nov. 17, 2012, by Saudi-based publication Arab News by Ali Bluwi, that the attack on the Benghazi mission was carried out in revenge for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of Al-Qaeda. The article also reports that the U.S. Ambassador “prevented Abdel Hakim Belhadj from assuming the portfolio of defense (minister) or interior (minister) in Libya.”

Abdel Hakim Belhadj also stated on Radio Darnah that the murder of U.S. Ambassador Stevens was retaliation for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike.

(Targeted Kill List) TKL

President Obama’s enduring legacy will be the Targeted Kill Lists and Terror Tuesdays, one appointment where he feels comfortable wielding American power.

In disposing of more than 700 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence guarantying individuals basic natural human rights subject to the Rule of Law and due process in a court of law, the President relies on a 16-page DOJ White Paper.

The President also meets with his counterterrorism team regarding “Terror Tuesdays” to review the bio’s of potential candidates for killing by drone or other means.

The New York Times reports the President, “When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was ‘an easy one.'” Shortly after taking the victory lap for killing al-Awlaki, the President issued orders for the CIA to kill the al-Qaeda cleric’s 16-year-old American son in Yemen, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit on behalf of the boy’s U.S. family.

American dissidents like Anwar al-Awlaki can now be placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials close to the White House.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The Obama administration has taken, through some murky authority, the right to determine who will be placed on the TKL and who will be killed, whether Americans or foreigners, without being brought before a judge, or entitled to any due process rights of presenting evidence, refuting testimony, or explaining any mitigating circumstances.

Considering the number of erroneous entries into the no fly list it should be especially frightening to Americans that the Executive Branch of our government has assumed such rights and authority without a whimper from Congress or the Courts. We have come a long way from the Magna Carta.

How many more Ambassador Stevens retaliation killings will Americans face throughout the world because of the rogue actions of the President?

Benghazi – Next Stop – a Special Prosecutor

February 20, 2013 4:51 PM MST

An explicit 48-page UN document specifically states that weapons cannot be transferred to members of terror groups like al-Qaeda, yet numerous reports find the United States was violating a binding UN arms embargo by trafficking weapons to Syrian rebels. This reporter and major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider and cable news networks all confirm U.S. arms trafficking was taking place in the jihad rich region of eastern Libya.

Keeping those facts in mind, did President Obama issue a Presidential Finding to authorize a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert operation to purchase Gaddafi’s large weapons arsenal that went missing after his assassination and then move those weapons to Syrian rebels? In April 2012 Russia alleged America was secretly arming rebels with anti-aircraft missiles in violation of international law and was responsible for destabilizing the Middle East region.

Despite the Finding issue, Obama insisted during the 2012 presidential debates and to this day that the United States is only providing humanitarian aid to Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda jihadists. Last week Fox News spoke with the number two leader in the Syrian opposition, Col. Malik al-Kurdi, who acknowledged that al-Qaeda is fighting side-by-side with rebels to overthrow Dictator Bashar al-Assad.

However, in a break with the President’s public posture, President Obama’s senior national security staff including, Secretary of Defense, Panetta, Secretary of State, Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and top-spook General David Petraeus, all admitted favoring the arming of Syrian rebels.

So, “what difference does it make?” With a Presidential Finding, the U.S. is in violation of the UN arms embargo it supported and signed, and, without a Finding, the CIA was conducting a rogue operation in Benghazi and Syria.

An outspoken critic of the Benghazi affair is Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, US Army (ret) told this reporter there was sufficient evidence to support a covert action program supplying weapons to the Syrian resistance movement. “I think it merits some serious investigation… let me be clear, a covert action is legal as long as they go through the proper process and the process starts with a Finding from the President. It then requires a briefing to at least eight members of Congress to tell them we are taking this covert action to further U.S. policy. I’m personally opposed to supplying the rebel forces in Syria because were equipping the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.”

General Boykin further clarified the covert CIA operation would explain the State Department’s weapon buyback program. “If that’s what they were doing rather than buying new weapons on the open market we (U.S. government would) try to get some of those back and we have the perfect place (from which) to move them which is Benghazi. Why else would there have been a CIA annex there, what was it for?”

Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons concurs with General Boykin and says this international incident screams out for a special prosecutor.

“The only way were going to get the truth is if one of the House committees has the courage to order a special prosecutor and call these people in and put them under oath because we haven’t been able to even interview the people (the survivors of the Benghazi attack) that were freed from there,” Admiral Lyons said in a telephone interview. “We know Ambassador Stevens was a facilitator between the militias between Benghazi and Syria who are both al-Qaeda affiliated. In any case this makes Iran-Contra look like child’s play. You know that this operation had to come from the highest levels. There’s no question it came from the White House and we are not going to get the truth until we get a special prosecutor.”

Washington innuendo also suggests the President made a Finding for the covert operation or at least was aware of it because of his sudden distancing himself from the events during and following the Benghazi attack. The President claims he did not participate in the real-time tracking of the attack, nor did he inquire at anytime in the hours or days following the attack as to the status of the Americans under siege and ultimately murdered.

CIA Director Petraeus was also conspicuously absent after the attack for a reason. The former disgraced general wrote the modern-day counterinsurgency field manual (COIN) for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Additionally, Petraeus’ COIN tactics led him to leadership of the CIA. The circumstantial evidence suggests Petraeus assured President Obama that nothing would go wrong in Libya to affect the 2012 re-election. However, when the covert arms trafficking op went sideways, the President must have been furious and fired Petraeus, but he would keep him around until the election concluded. The General’s (open secret with reporters) extramarital affair was a mere alibi for his firing and to preserve Obama’s plausible denial defense.

As for the misleading advocacy of Ambassador Rice, the change of the CIA briefing notes, the refusal to make the Benghazi survivors available to Congress, the 23 of days it took for the FBI to open its investigation, the lack of DoD back-up, the trickle of conflicting and confusing information and blame for an anti-Mohammad YouTube video all but ensured the waters would be muddied for anyone seeking the truth about the murders of U.S. diplomats.

The tragic loss of four Americans that September night in 2012 was not just a result of the risk diplomats run in a dangerous world, it was the result of a retaliatory strike against Ambassador Stevens and botched CIA operation. In either event, whether authorized by the President or not, the American people are entitled to the truth and those at fault to be held accountable. That is only possible, as Admiral Lyons demands, through the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate.

Ms. Clinton’s famous remarks during her January 2013 testimony to Congress, “What difference does it make?” only further highlights the need for a special prosecutor.

It does make a difference … Hillary? Benghazi revisited politics as usual

April 24, 2013 12:56 AM MST

The latest GOP Benghazi Report certainly has the earmarks of a political hit job. The report highlights contradictions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as other senior officials, but it fails to make the case for assessing blame and winds-up looking like the opening salvo of the 2016 political campaign against Ms. Clinton.

The 46-page anti-Hillary propaganda report reveals little new information. The Report hangs its conclusions on an April 2012 cable from security officials in Libya addressed to Ms. Clinton, which discusses potential security issues. While the cable seems to contradict her testimony, it hardly sheds light on the Benghazi attack.

“An April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned,” according to the report. However, during her January 2013 testimony Ms. Clinton claimed, “They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them,” and famously replied, “What difference does it make.”

“The report also concluded that White House and high-ranking officials at the State Department changed CIA talking points following the attacks, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others (Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods), in order to shield the State Department from ‘criticism for inadequate security levels’ on the ground in Benghazi,” the Washington Examiner reported.

The Report’s highlights fail to mention the former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s plentiful weapons that went missing following the fall of the Libyan leadership. In fact, the significance of these weapons is lost on the report’s authors, and they fail to acknowledge the MANPADs (Man Portable Anti-Air Defense) as well as military-grade weapons that are now in the hands of al-Qaeda or affiliates and have been found on battlefields from Syrian to North and Central Africa covered in the blood of thousands.

Instead, the Report focuses on the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice. Ms. Rice infamously went on five Sunday news talk shows and told America the attack was the spontaneous result of a YouTube video that berated the Prophet Muhammad. The YouTube video theory was debunked by unnamed sources hours after the terrorist attack. The Report presented evidence to suggest the talking points were intentionally altered to mislead the American “public” [i.e., voters]

The GOP Report concluded, “The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.”

During the latest round of Benghazi hearings, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded to questions about why the military didn’t react immediately, claiming, “we never got a call.” Surely this is a question worth investigating, but in this report the military is given a free pass.

However, there are a few targets the GOP failed to mention that are worth exploring.

First, if President Obama ordered the US military to render all available aid, where is the memorandum to that effect and the copy of the Flash that went to all ships and stations (link to Denver TV reporter asking the President about the order). The report states that, “The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.” Who is right?

Second, if the President ordered the US military to render all aid why did the two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf not respond? The distance from the Gulf to Benghazi is almost the same as from Rota, Spain. They would have required over-flight rights from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but did they ask for them?

Third, whose bright idea was it to separate the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) from its air transport? This aspect is simply inexcusable, especially with 9-11 approaching, multiple threats in the region, and the major combat units moved to the Persian Gulf, the FAST team was the only real rapid deployment force available to area commanders.

Fourth, there is no mention of the judgment of the EUCOM, CENTCOM, AFRICOM commanders who shifted the 6th Fleet carrier battle group and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group with the 24 Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf in response to Iranian saber-rattling which severely limited military options in the Mediterranean. Was this move reminiscent of Admiral William “Bull” Halsey at the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, when he chased the Japanese carriers and left U.S. amphibious forces protected by destroyers against a much larger Japanese force? Regardless, the Iranian bait emptied the Med of American carrier forces on 9-11.

Fifth, the Department of Defense (DoD) moved a remotely piloted vehicle (drone) over Benghazi within 20 minutes of the initial attack, if the same sense of urgency had been applied to other assets, would two former Navy SEALs still be alive?

Sixth, DoD knew of the security issues in Benghazi because it had been providing the Security Support Team (SST) in Benghazi. The claim that DoD did not get a call is absurd. The duty officer in the Tactical Operations Center “immediately” notified State they were under attack. Somebody had to notify DoD because a drone was moved into position. Once alerted, a DoD contingency plan should have gone into immediate effect. This also begs the question as to what time did the President direct the “render all aid” order?

Finally, and most importantly, the investigation identifies State Department Under Secretary, Patrick Kennedy, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Charlene Lamb, as the individuals that refused to strengthen security at the diplomatic mission despite repeated calls for help. Both exchanged dismissive emails with State Department staff in Benghazi who pleaded for more security assistance and their sharp exchanges included political overtones as justification, not funding or necessity.

“Despite the denial of Ambassador Stevens’ request, Embassy Tripoli officials persisted in their requests for additional security. In July 2012, for example, RSO Eric Nordstrom alerted DS officials in Washington that he intended to submit a formal cable request for an extension of the SST and MSD teams. DS personnel in Washington alerted Mr. Nordstrom that Ms. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, was “reluctant to ask for an SST extension, apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets to protect our Mission.” Moreover, in response to Mr. Nordstrom’s intent to request an MSD extension, Ms. Lamb responded, “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD team to stay!”

According to the Report, there were 200 security incidents from June 2011 to July 2012 made by then- Regional Security Officer (RSO) for Libya Eric Nordstrom. He said 50 of those security breeches took place in Benghazi. Further, testimony from Nordstrom before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, October 12, 2012 revealed this sound bite; “I said, Jim you know what [is] most frustrating about this assignment? It’s not the hardship, it’s not the gunfire, and it’s not the threats. It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me … For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Even Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed the military’s efforts to support diplomats in Libya, recommended that the State Department shutter its operations. “It was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.”

The report also criticizes the FBI’s handling of the Benghazi terror aftermath and investigation. The fact they failed to arrive promptly meant witnesses went unquestioned and evidence went missing. Under the circumstances, an independent review board must be appointed if family members of the fallen and Americans really want an honest accounting of the events that surround the 9/11/12 Benghazi terrorist attack.

As for now the Report opines, America remains operationally in a reactionary mode, and little has been done to prevent another Benghazi-like catastrophe.

Cracks Appear in Benghazi Wall of Shame

April 30, 2013 1:00 AM MST

Special Operator in Benghazi blows the whistle on Obama’s Libya failure

Benghazi roared back into the headlines with the allegations by a Special Operations Warrior, who witnessed that fateful night of 9/11. The whistleblower, appearing in disguise for fear of retaliation, made an appearance on Special Report with Bret Baier, where he contradicted the Obama administration’s account of Benghazi and leveled serious allegations that the military had assets in the region that were never deployed.

The Special Operator (SO) disputed Admiral Mike Mullen’s statement that “there simply was not enough time” to deploy assets to Benghazi to save at least two SEALs lives. The Fox News source implied that other SOs knew intimate details that would derail high-level commanders. More specifically, the whistle blower said, “there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Department security staff available in Tripoli (Libya) that were not dispatched, even though they were trained as a quick response force.”

After 13 investigative stories written by this reporter, the truth finally bubbling to the surface could become a torrent as additional sources have expressed an eagerness to talk.

While the SecDef Leon Panetta, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and his predecessor Admiral Mike Mullen defended the President’s outrageous assertion that no U.S. military forces were situated to render aid despite the U.S. Comptroller reporting the government has spent $7 trillion on defense during 2001-2012, suggests it must be the Keystone Cops running the Pentagon (not the pipeline).

President Obama rejected a War Powers Act accounting from Congress and told Americans that his administration would not put boots on the ground in Libya (he did) and claimed the U.S. would only provide humanitarian aid to Syria (while he violated the UN sanction against military aid by trafficking weapons from Libya to Syria).

A question that perplexes military personnel is the Cavalry never arrived in Benghazi despite President Obama’s claim that he ordered DoD to render all available aid. Looking back to other crises like Somalia (aka Black Hawk Down) the U.S. lost 18 soldiers trying to recover two bodies; Lt. General William Boykin said … the same is true for the pilot that went “Down Behind Enemy Lines,” where a Marine platoon and aircraft searched for days to recover Air Force pilot Scott O’Grady; and more recently Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who was the “Sole Survivor” of his team operating in Afghanistan (his team came under fire by the Taliban. Luttrell was the only survivor and his rescue cost 16 Special Forces personnel, including 8 SEALs, their lives.) The military’s “never leave a soldier behind” code stood tall until September 11, 2012’s Benghazi terror attack that claimed four lives, Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, DoS Information Officer Sean Smith as well as two former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

The SEALs didn’t have to die

If before going to bed, President Obama did order the U.S. military to render all available aid to Benghazi, where is the memorandum to that effect and the copy of the Flash that went to all ships and stations (link to Denver TV reporter asking the President about the order) and the responses from the defense establishment supporting the statement that not one unit could get a plane, ship, or unit on the move. The report states that, “The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.”

While there was no shortage of second-guessing in the White House Situation Room, military leaders in charge of quick response teams a half-a-world away were able to get a Delta team from Ft Bragg to Sigonella about 24 hours after receipt of the consulate’s 911 call.

“As the events were unfolding, the Pentagon began to move special operations forces from Europe to Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. U.S. aircraft routinely fly in and out of Sigonella and there are also fighter jets based in Aviano, Italy. But while the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began,” the Military Times reported.

It’s also been reported that on the fateful day in Libya, CIA/SEALs had a laser target designator trained on the enemy firing mortar rounds at the compound. The Pentagon has listed numerous explanations as to why the trained SEALs would use the lasers. However, they conveniently omitted the key component—the expectation that U.S. help was seconds away. The “fog of spin” from the Obama administration, no matter how creative, cannot conceal the truth. If fighter aircraft were dispatched to assist Ambassador Chris Stevens and other consulate personnel, a former Naval pilot says, “The paper trail would be a mile long. Not only do the pilots have to file logbook reports, but the ground crew, the crew arming the jets with appropriate weapons and the Italian air controllers would have exhaustive records.”

Unfortunately for the CIA/SEALs fighting off the Ansar al-Shariah terrorists, the jets would never arrive. The fact, CIA/SEALs were painting their lasers on the enemy targets shortly after midnight, five hours before their eventual deaths, indicates they were expecting air support. And why would they be waiting for air support? Because the trained SEALs knew the oplans (operations plans) and military protocol for this exact operation once they requested the assistance.

Speculation is nothing new inside the beltway, but several questions surround Ambassador Chris Stevens real/past employer. If he were working as a CIA agent he would be in violation of international diplomatic protocols by running an arms trafficking program under diplomatic cover (CIA Director David Petaeus was sacked after the election). Furthermore, former Tripoli Military Council head, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, claims Amb. Stevens was killed in retaliation for the drone killing by the CIA of Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda’s Number 2.

Judge Napolitano offered this scenario to the Washington Times. “Now we can connect some dots. If Stevens was a CIA agent, he was in violation of international law by acting as the U.S. ambassador. And if he and his colleagues were intelligence officials, they are not typically protected by Marines, because they ought to have been able to take care of themselves.”

The Benghazi disaster takes a political angle, one that could have derailed President Obama’s reelection. Normally international gun trafficking is a crime, but sadly, Benghazi, Libya was just another U.S. sanctioned-weapons buyback program operated by State and run by the CIA. Under the plan, the U.S. pays jihadists large sums of money to turn in their stolen arsenals and then ships them to the new battle area (i.e., Syria). It appears that Ambassador Stevens acted as a point man to move those newly-repurchased weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels, many of whom are affiliated with al-Qaeda.

This made for Hollywood movie script includes all the action, violence and drama required for today’s bloodthirsty audience—except it is real. The State Department provided the Benghazi mission with the diplomatic cover, or the comprehensive alibi required for the Central Intelligence Agency to operate covertly in the jihadi-rich North African region.

Only the transparent Obama Administration has all of the facts, but it seems loath to provide the answers the American people and the families of those killed deserve.

All these details and more are covered in the most in-depth story “Did the CIA and State Department run illegal arms trafficking in Benghazi?” that was written December 10, 2012.

Senate Benghazi report lays blame on the State Dept & CIA

January 23, 2014 12:31 PM MST

A bipartisan Senate report on the 9-11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was released last week. Committee Chairwoman, California Senator Diane Feinstein concluded that the intelligence community provided ample strategic warning of impending attacks, and in the committee eyes the Benghazi terrorist attack was preventable.

The report also disclosed Obama administration officials knew within 15 minutes that the American temporary mission facility was a terror attack and not the result of a protest gone awry. However the report fails to point the finger at any specific government employees or recommend any terminations.

To watch the San Diego 6 News segment click here.

Additionally, the report highlighted a couple of facts not previously available to the general public. On two separate occasions Ambassador Chris Stevens was offered additional security from the head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, and twice Ambassador Stevens turned him down (found on page 20 of the report).

Why? As this reporter noted in prior reports, “Stevens was the target and Was the State Dept. and CIA trafficking weapons in Benghazi?, both illustrate that the ambassador may have been participating in extracurricular covert activities that General Ham may not have been privy to since the Senate report on Benghazi also highlighted the fact the General did not know the CIA had an Annex in Benghazi. (Found on page 12 of the GOP response or 77 in the PDF).

The fundamental question remaining, that no one has either asked nor answered is why? Why did the U.S. stay behind in the Jihad-rich isolated eastern-Libyan city? Why did Ambassador Stevens travel to Benghazi on 9-11, knowing it’s a well-known date for terrorists and the ambassador was privy to all the Libya security cables?

The 85-page bipartisan Senate report highlights 14 findings followed with 14 recommendations. What’s wrong with it? “The weakness of the Senate report is this: it blames buildings, the State Department; it blames the CIA; it blames the military, these bureaucracies. In the end, nobody, no individual, no human has been held accountable on either side of the attack. Remember how the President solemnly said, ‘make no mistake, those who did this will be held accountable?’ Nobody has been arrested. In fact, on the contrary, 15 people in Libya, who cooperated with us, are now dead. They’ve been held accountable,” Charles Krauthammer told Fox News.

While the report leaves a number of questions about the terrorist attack unanswered, it does acknowledge that lax security, military un-readiness and refusal to take the 20 plus attacks seriously in the months leading to the 9-11 anniversary, all played a role in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Omitted from the Senate report was a story from CNN that pointed out a few days before 9-11-12 al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the June death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan and number two of al-Qaeda, who was killed by a drone strike ordered by current CIA Director John Brennan and approved by President Obama.

Also left out of the report is the weapon buy back program in Libya. State Department Assistant Secretary for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro confirmed that there was an operation to retrieve MANPADs (Portable shoulder fire missiles) that went missing after Libyan dictator Gadaffi fell from power. Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer of DIA also confirms Benghazi was key to that program.

Finally, little has been said about the meeting that took Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi on 9-11. The meeting at the temporary mission facility with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin ended around 9pm (Story here). Stevens would be dead in less than an hour.

In conclusion, there is ample evidence the U.S. was purchasing/trafficking weapons through the port city of Benghazi for transshipment to Turkey and then smuggled into the hands of al-Qaeda rebels in Syria. The weapons moved in spite of the U.S. President’s word that the U.S. was only providing humanitarian aid and a U.S. signed UN agreement specifically stating that no weapons were to aid the Syrian rebels.

The end of this lurid little foreign policy still awaits a conclusion. This week the world is meeting to discuss Syria’s fate.

Benghazi Intrigue – CIA Arms Trafficking – Influence Peddling – Corruption

April 28, 2014 1:04 PM MST

Last week Pulitzer-Prize winning writer Seymour Hersh, who earned his accolade uncovering the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, broke explosive new details on the 9-11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi that claimed the life of the US Ambassador and three other Americans.

In his story: “The red line and the rat line,” Hersh says the Obama administration reached a special agreement with the Turkish government that allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to skirt a presidential finding to move illicit weapons from Benghazi. He said by classifying the “special” partnership as a “liaison operation” the Obama regime essentially bought and sent weapons to al-Qaeda in Syria.

Watch Kimberly’s San Diego 6 News TV segment here

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/sd6-in-the-morning/more-guests/250066421.html

Watch Kimberly’s OANN TV segment hereandhere

According to the terms of the secret agreement, Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar funded the action while the CIA liaised with Britain’s MI-6 Intelligence Service. Hersh contends the “liaison operation” allowed the U.S. intelligence agency to avoid a 1970 law requiring a Presidential “finding” that would require approval from senior Congressional leaders and their respective intelligence committees. A former intelligence official familiar with the report explained the “liaison exception” permits the CIA to operate without notifying Congress. Former Army Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Anthony Shaffer, author of Operation Dark Heart and DIA agent confirms that intelligence agencies use this loophole all the time.

The classified Benghazi annex report also said the CIA was responsible for collecting illicit weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenals and transporting them into Syria. The report further stated that front companies, employing retired U.S. soldiers procured and shipped the heavy weapons to Syria via Turkey.

However, the CIA has long disputed this charge and this week they again dismissed any claims of weapon trafficking in Benghazi:

“No US officials in Benghazi were involved in transferring Libyan arms to the rebels in Syria—or to any other conflict zone—before or after the Benghazi attacks,” a senior US intelligence official told this reporter for San Diego 6 News. The paradox with this assertion is DCI John Brennan’s letter to the House Intelligence Committee where he acknowledges CIA “staff and contractors” participated in activities related to the Benghazi attack. (Brennan’s letter to the Committee).

The denial is big news. Good thing the CIA wasn’t operating a couple of annexes in Benghazi. Oops, Army General and Commander of AFRICOM Carter Ham spilt the beans in the Senate’s Benghazi report that he didn’t know about the CIA annexes. However, he did know US Ambassador Chris Stevens wanted more security and offered Stevens a DoD security detail–twice. The ambassador turned the general down hoping Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would provide (DSS) security—she refused several times. Even after the Brits and Red Cross fled the terrorist plagued region of eastern Libya, Stevens traveled to Benghazi on 9-11 to meet with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin.

Also a closer look at the statement from senior CIA officials reveals a semantics quandary. It was well known fact that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey were all on record for supporting Syrian rebels with heavy weaponry. However, to his credit, President Obama repeatedly stated the US would only provide humanitarian assistance and not heavy weapons to Syria’s rebels, and according to the CIA the president issued no presidential finding to authorize such actions. This suggests that the Benghazi weapon trafficking was either a rouge operation for which heads should roll or a cleverly planned plausible deniability scenario requiring congressional oversight.

Hersh added, “A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities and retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping.”

The confidential annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. “The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,” a former intelligence official said who has read the annex report. He went on to explain it had no real political role. If that’s true why did the US stay when Brits, other nations and the Red Cross left Benghazi after multiple threats and actual attacks?

Hersh also implies that the operation was being run by former Army General and disgraced CIA director David Petraeus. However, a spokesperson for Petraeus also denied the operation ever took place. Shortly after the Benghazi fiasco, he resigned when news broke that he was having an affair with his biographer.

Other reports support Hersh’s claim

According to a June 2012 New York Times story, “A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said. “C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,” said one Arab intelligence official that was briefed regularly by American counterparts.

Supporting the Hersh account on Benghazi is Gen. Mohammed Farid el-Tohamy, the director of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. Earlier this year former Defense Intelligence Agency agent LTC Shaffer (U.S. Army) travelled to Egypt and met with el-Tohamy who said there had been no change with his relationship with his US counterparts at the CIA. In fact, he told The Washington Post, “Cooperation between friendly services is in a completely different channel than the political channel,” el-Tohamy said. “I’m in constant contact with [Director] John Brennan at the CIA and the local station chief, more than with any other service worldwide.” Shaffer also said the Egyptians knew all about the weapon trafficking program in Benghazi. “It was an open secret.”

Department of Defense in the dark

The Senate Report on Benghazi released earlier this year revealed a bombshell of its own. The commander of AFICOM, Army General Carter Ham had no idea the State Department along with the CIA was operating an annex in the besieged region of Libya. Many military veterans say this may be the reason for the lack of a military response to 9-11-12 terrorist attacks.

The report concludes on page 28 that: “With respect to the role of DoD and AFRICOM in emergency evacuations and rescue operations in Benghazi, the Committee received conflicting information on the extent of the awareness within DoD of the Benghazi Annex. According to U.S. AFRICOM, neither the command nor its Commander were aware of an annex in Benghazi, Libya. However, it is the Committee’s understanding that other DoD personnel were aware of the Benghazi Annex.”

At page 77 General Ham, confirmed he, “was not even aware there was a CIA annex in Benghazi at the time of the attacks.”

That statement drew the curiosity of the Senators. “We are puzzled as to how the military leadership expected to effectively respond and rescue Americans in the event of an emergency when it did not even know of the existence of one of the U.S. facilities.”

General Carter Ham also was cited in the Senate report that on two separate occasions Ambassador Chris Stevens rejected DoD security.

Beacon Global Strategies LLC

In an attempt to keep the Benghazi fiasco “in-house,” Washington’s spin-masters set to work by moving from government to think-tank through the revolving door that transcends party lines by creating Beacon Global Strategies.

The bipartisan lineup at Beacon Global Strategies includes; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s advisor, spokesman and long time protector Philippe Reines; Andrew Shapiro former assistant secretary of state under Ms. Clinton and director of the Benghazi weapons buyback program; Jeremy Bash former chief of staff for CIA director and Department of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; Republican Michael Allen staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers. And the latest addition is former CIA acting director, Mike Morell, who testified that he changed the much talked about White House talking points on the cause of the Benghazi attacks. Morell caught a lot of flak when he tried to blame the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the FBI leadership went ballistic.

The who’s who of insider knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attacks have also made no bones about moving past the Benghazi debacle that cost four American lives and captured negative headlines for the Obama administration.

According to multiple news reports, all the Beacon Global men say they plan to return to government service once a new administration is elected in 2016.

Another Benghazi wrinkle sheds some light on the GOP and the motives of two major players. First is Chairman of the powerful House Intel Committee Mike Rogers. A few weeks ago he abruptly announced he was not running for reelection because he wanted to be a radio talking head. Mixed reports suggest Rogers decided to relinquish his powerful position inside the Beltway to protect his wife who has come under scrutiny for her questionable dealings in consulate security.

Former Clinton advisor turned hardcore Republican Dick Morris says, “Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is charged with investigating the adequacy of security at the Benghazi compound prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack. His wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers was the president and the CEO of the company that was contracted by the State Department to provide that security. (Nothing incestuous here – remember the allegations against Sen. Feinstein’s husband and his real estate firm’s cozy relations with the US Postal Service to the tune of tens of millions.)

Mrs. Rogers, until recently, served as president and CEO of Aegis LLC, the contractor to the United States Department of State for intelligence-based and physical security services. Aegis, a British private military company with overseas offices in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kenya, Nepal and the U.S., won a $10 billion, 5-year contract with the State Department to provide security for U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.”
Many Benghazi hawks call foul and claim this is a giant conflict of interest. However, this could explain why House Speaker John Boehner continues to resist a special prosecutor to investigate the Benghazi melee outside Congressional confines where subpoena powers could actually be applied to learn the truth. Don’t think other GOPers want the answers? A letter has been sent to House Speaker Boehner with 190 signatures demanding the establishment of a “house select committee.”

Another outside group with former insiders demand answers

In its new Interim Report, Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB) released a report that took months to compile. The interviews were conducted with knowledgeable sources that knew what was happening in Libya. The CCB uncovers illicit weapons were in fact going to al-Qaeda. “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya,” one of the key findings in the report states. The report also includes a summary of the 85 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by Accuracy in Media (AIM) and the CCB.

Some of the highlights include former CIA agent Clare Lopez who blames “the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants. Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea.” The weapons in question were intended to aid the Qaddafi opposition, many of whom had direct ties to al-Qaeda and al-Nursa.

Lopez continued to elaborate and said “The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.”

That explains how the terrorists got some of the illicit arsenal, but more chilling is a statement made by a 27-year CIA veteran Wayne Simmons. The evening of September 11, 2012 Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department information officer Sean Smith retired for the evening after a meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Shortly after they came under attack and agents and contractors from the nearby CIA annex tried heroically to save them, but the terrorists prevailed and chased the rescuers away. The fight then moved to the CIA annex where the two SEALs, Glen Dougherty and Ty Woods were hit with mortar fire on the roof of the annex.

“They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren’t. I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, ‘What difference does it make?’ – should be an alarm bell for all Americans,” Simmons said. “It haunts me. I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.”

It’s been reported that on the night of the terror attack, General Ham was in charge of the C-110, a 40-man Special Ops force maintained for rapid response to emergencies. Unfortunately it was never deployed and for those stuck in Benghazi the troops would not arrive in time.
Thanks America –Is Libya better off with Qaddafi gone?

Three years after President Obama declared war against Libya, the northern African nation is mired in chaos and death with no clear path to democracy on the horizon.

“Libya’s former PM left the country last week after Parliament voted him out of office. A North Korean-flagged oil tanker, the Morning Glory, illegally took a cargo of crude from rebels in the east of the country and safely left the port, ignoring a government minister’s threat that the vessel would be ‘turned into a pile of metal’ if the cargo ship sailed away,” was a sampling of headlines last month. “Militias based in Misrata in northwestern Libya, known for their violence and independence, have launched an offensive against the eastern rebels which could be regarded as the beginning of a civil war between western and eastern Libya. Without a central government with any real power, Libya is breaking into pieces.”

So much for American democracy… Read more about “Obama’s Regime Change Train” here.

Libya’s ambassador to Bahrain, Fawzi Abdel Aal, also described the dire state of affairs Libya. “After Jordan’s ambassador to Libya Fawaz al-Aytan and another Tunisian diplomat were kidnapped in Tripoli, nobody can deny that al-Qaeda has penetrated Libya. Al-Qaeda is responsible for the current crisis in the country.”

Salma al-Houni, 41, a doctor, told Magharebia, “I pray to God to strengthen the police and army and protect them from bombings and assassinations; they have had enough of terrorism.”

Conclusion

Here’s How Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) summed up the Benghazi terrorist attacks on a Feb. 6, 2014 1170 KFAQ radio interview. “President Obama lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi during an interview that aired before the Super Bowl with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly… I will say this till my dying day, I know people don’t realize it now, that’s (this) is going to go down in history as the greatest cover-up. And I’m talking about the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate and the rest of them.”

 

Benghazi talking points don’t kill- governments do!

May 1, 2014 1:58 PM MST

Let’s make one thing clear, the White House Benghazi talking points memo did not kill four Americans in Benghazi – weapons trafficking did.

With all due respect to the mainstream media and cable news outlets for their coverage of the White House talking points memo on Benghazi – the talking points memo did not kill four Americans – an anti-Muslim video did not kill four Americans. Illicit weapons trafficking to U.S. enemies killed four Americans.

The point remains how many more people will die because the US trafficked weapons through Benghazi, Libya? We know some of those weapons ended up on the Syrian battlefield and at least 150,000 are dead and millions more are now refugees. What about Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan or even Libya? We don’t even know how many died in those countries at the hands of illegal weapons or White House sanctioned drone strikes. Why would the President say the U.S. was only providing humanitarian aid to Syria and other war torn nations?

Why would President Obama allow his top advisers, Hillary Clinton (DoS), Leon Panetta (SecDef DoD), General Petraeus (CIA director) and General Dempsey (Joint Chief) to all go on the record and openly admit they were in favor of arming Syrian rebels, many of whom are associated with al-Qaeda and al-Nursa, and then vehemently deny U.S. liaised arms trafficking? Perhaps the President and his top cabinet members collectively forgot about the Syrian sanctions the U.S. wrote and persuaded other countries to follow, promising NOT to arm rebels/terrorists – under the guise of human rights? Regarding the infamous “talking points,” the sad truth is the White House did exactly what many White Houses have done when running for reelection– it spun the facts for political not national security purposes. And that’s all the White House talking points memo on Benghazi did–spin the facts in their favor to win reelection.

Where’s the outrage from the American people and government? There are four dead Americans and no one, foreign or domestic, has been held to account for the murders. For crying out loud we are still arming bad guys around the world directly and through our proxies states, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al.

Kudos to Judicial Watch for raising private sector money to file a lawsuit against the federal government to get the talking points emails. The un-redacted emails highlight the cleverly sinister exchanges between the State Department and the White House – transparency at its finest – but surely not by design. So far we haven’t seen any emails from the White House or the Department of Defense, stay tuned that could be the next court date for Judicial Watch.

But in the end the White House talking points prove nothing about the four dead Americans – just Washington spin. That should not be the focus, the focus must be on the facts, focus on what the CIA and State Department were doing in one of the most well-known terrorist hangouts in the world, because words did not kill four Americans. The simple truth remains either the White House sanctioned the weapons program or someone went “rogue” – either scenario is punishable with jail time. And finally it’s a really sad day in America when accountability for the deaths of four brave Americans’ are lost in the political distractions of a White House a talking points memo.

In closing, 190 members of Congress have demanded answers and asked House Speaker John Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the 9-11-12 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Americans are entitled to answers from their government. What the heck are the political hacks waiting for?

Congress finally forms a Benghazi select committee

May 6, 2014 9:28 PM MST

House Speaker John Boehner has finally decided to establish a “select committee” to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens, two former SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith, a State Department employee from San Diego.

Watch Kimberly’s latest San Diego 6 News TV Segment: http://www.sandiego6.com/news/sd6-in-the-morning/Benghazi-Select-Committee-257858491.html

After intensifying pressure surrounding a batch of White House emails that were obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA & judge’s order—not the five Congressional committees, American’s should finally get a full accounting of the events leading to and after the 9-11 Benghazi terrorist attack.

At a House hearing last week Congressman Jason Chaffetz asked AFRICOM Army Brig. Gen. Lovell about the administration’s initial reaction to the Benghazi attack. “Did they ever tell you to go save those people in Benghazi?”

“Not to my knowledge sir,” Lovell replied.

Chaffetz shot back; “We didn’t run to the sounds of guns?”

That question provoked an emotional response from the Brig. General; “Four individuals died sir, obviously we did not respond in time to get them.”

It was that exchange, along with a redacted White House email that prompted the GOP to form a “select committee.” The new committee will have broad powers to question everyone involved with the Benghazi terrorist attack, including then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and disgraced CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus.

Yesterday House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced the selection of Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to head the committee. Gowdy is a relative newbie to DC politics – he’s serving his second term, something conservatives are hailing as a victory over “politics as usual” when it comes to finding the truth. The congressman is also a former US Attorney for South Carolina whose prosecutorial skills should yield the truth.

“The jury that I’m interested in are reasonable minded, fair minded people,” Gowdy said. He also hoped detractors would “let the process have a chance to work.”

“There are certain things in our culture that have to transcend politics,” Gowdy explained. “The murder of four fellow Americans and an attack on a facility that is emblematic of our country, should transcend politics and I know our fellow citizens can handle the truth but only if they get access to it.”

Benghazi connections to ISIS … No surprise there

August 14, 2014 4:16 PM MST

A New York Times story published this week said the inaction following the Benghazi attack weighed heavily on the President’s mind when considering whether to strike the ruthless terror group (ISIS) that has rebranded itself as the Islamic State (IS) in keeping with Osama bin Laden’s call for a “Caliphate.” The terrorists have been pillaging their way through Syria, moving to Iraq, and taking major cities as well as important resources like Mosul Dam. The Mosul Dam is significant because it poses twin problems for Iraqis. One, it is rated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the most dangerous dam in the world that is capable of flooding and killing 1.5 million people. And two, IS can use the valuable water resources as leverage to exact terror, generate revenue, or both.

Watch Kimberly’s OANN TV segment here.

While few could dispute the President’s apprehension during and after Benghazi, the Times characterization of the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack similar to IS’ assault on Iraq is a bit of an historical rewrite.

First, there is no doubt that terrorists were involved in the terror attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. But it was a retaliation attack against the U.S. for “its” role in a 2012 drone strike that killed al-Qaeda’s number two and the highest-ranking Libyan, Abu Yahya al Libi.

“Local (Pakistani) tribesmen and American officials said that a CIA-controlled drone fired on a compound early Monday morning (June 4, 2012). Word spread quickly among local tribesmen that Mr. (Abu Yahya al) Libi had been killed or wounded, and American intelligence officials using powerful satellite and other surveillance equipment listened and watched carefully for a sign of his fate.” (From a story written by this reporter Feb. 14, 2013) A fateful drone strike in June would change everything inside Libya and put the Ambassador in a target crosshair.

As fate would have it, this event would become the precursor for Libyan al-Qaeda retaliation against the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Intelligence on the ground in Benghazi points to a well-planned eight-hour attack on the Special Mission (SMC) and CIA Annex. The well-coordinated assaults on the Benghazi SMC as well as a nearby safe house (the CIA Annex) are believed to be in retaliation for a drone strike ordered by President Obama that killed Abu Yahya al-Libi.

The overlooked and “palpable” motive for the killing of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty is the President’s Targeted Kill List (TKL). The evidence for the “quid pro quo” killing of Ambassador Stevens by al-Qaeda is compelling. Details released in Congressional reports and testimony on Capitol Hill hearings suggest Ambassador Stevens was lured to Benghazi by the Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, who wanted to meet Stevens on 9-11 in out-of-the-way Benghazi instead of the more-secure U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, where the Ambassador conducted the bulk of his diplomatic business.

Second, the myth that CIA (liaised) weapons trafficking and training of rebel fighters must be dispelled. Al-Qaeda never complained about “selling” their weapons to the U.S. intelligence community in Libya because the same weapons were being transported for use on the Syria battlefields.

(Taken from a story written by this reporter December 10, 2012) Combine Obama’s weapon buyback program in Libya with the delivery to Turkey and Syria of those same weapons to known Al Qaeda units and there’s a recipe for catastrophe.

Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms the State Department had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi.

The State Department was specifically looking to acquire the 20,000 MANPADS (they are commonly known as man-portable air shoulder-fire missiles) that went missing once Qaddafi was killed.

State Department Assistant Secretary, for Political-Military affairs, Andrew Shapiro said, they did not know how many MANPADs remained missing, but admitted it was a significant number. “Many militia groups remain reluctant to relinquish them,” Shapiro said. He did say that the U.S. has recovered about 5,000 MANPADs earlier this year.

(This is further highlighted in another story written on April 28, 2014) In his story: “The red line and the rat line,” Hersh says the Obama administration reached a special agreement with the Turkish government that allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to skirt a presidential finding to move illicit weapons from Benghazi. He said by classifying the “special” partnership as a “liaison operation” the Obama regime essentially bought and sent weapons to al-Qaeda in Syria.

Third: The training of Syrian rebels was highlighted in an article in the New York Times. According to a June 2012 story, “A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said. “C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,” said an Arab intelligence official that was briefed regularly by American counterparts.

Supporting the Hersh account on Benghazi is Gen. Mohammed Farid el-Tohamy, the director of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. Earlier this year former Defense Intelligence Agency agent LTC Shaffer (U.S. Army) travelled to Egypt and met with el-Tohamy who said there had been no change with his relationship with his U.S. counterparts at the CIA. In fact, he told The Washington Post, “Cooperation between friendly services is in a completely different channel than the political channel,” el-Tohamy said. “I’m in constant contact with [Director] John Brennan at the CIA and the local station chief, more than with any other service worldwide.” Shaffer also said the Egyptians knew all about the weapon trafficking program in Benghazi. “It was an open secret.”

Fourth: (Taken from a story written by this reporter June 24, 2014) A senior intelligence official disclosed to this reporter that the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) includes terrorists, and based on prior reports, the jihadi group has been equipped and financed by the U.S., Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and the Emirate of Qatar purportedly for war against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

However, something went wrong with the President’s plan over the last few weeks as ISIS launched its sustained attack against Iraq from rebel-controlled bases in Syria and government supported bases in Turkey.

To confound matters even more, both KSA and Qatar warned the U.S. against any intervention against ISIS, which has allowed ISIS to move freely across the great expanses of desert on the Damascus – Baghdad Highway to attack and return to Syria with the spoils of war – U.S. made Humvees and tanks. Over the weekend House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers complained that inaction by Obama to deny ISIS the unfettered use of the Damascus – Baghdad Highway to launch attacks against Iraq and to return to its bases in Syria is a ratification of U.S. support for the Sunni dominated terrorists seeking to remove Shiite President Assad of Syria and Shiite President Maliki of Iraq. Is it just coincidence that ISIS is also heavily supported by KSA and Qatar?

The action by ISIS appears to be an escalation of the Sunni-Shiite battle for dominance of the Islamic world and seems headed towards a broader war to include Jordan, Turkey, Kurdistan (semi-autonomous region of Iraq), Iran and eventually Israel.

And fifth: The terror group now known as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States of America. This provides the justification for President Obama to launch air strikes to provide national security for Americans, which happens to be the most important duty as the Commander in Chief.

(Taken from a story written by this reporter June 29, 2014) The U.S. “war on terror” doctrine, under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, perfectly illustrates America’s schizophrenic foreign policy. Increasingly, military battlefields once confined to traditional nations now take root in tribal regions sympathetic to Islamic terror ideals without conventional borders.

A perfect example is the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a former Iraq al-Qaeda leader who once told his capturers (US military in Iraq) “he would see them in New York City.” How al-Baghdadi was going to attack NYC remains unreported. Nevertheless, the obscure terrorist group rose to power by swiftly and decisively toppling a U.S. trained Iraqi military.

Enter Syria. Not only has recently reelected President Bashar al-Assad had to fight a brutal civil war, but also his once-secular country is a magnet for thousands of foreign terrorists vying for a caliphate. In the midst of civil war, the Assad regime repeatedly targeted ISIS and this week successfully launched air strikes against ISIS near the Iraq/Syria border town of al-Qaim.

The Iraqi government was grateful. “There was no coordination involved, but we welcome this action. We welcome any Syrian strike against ISIS because this group targets both Iraq and Syria … But we didn’t make any request from Syria. They carry out their strikes and we carry out ours. The final winners are our two countries,” President Maliki told the BBC. It must also be noted that both governments are within the political sphere-of-influence of Iran.

Meanwhile, Joshua Earnest, White House spokesman confirmed the Syrian action and said the White House had “no reason to dispute” the successful airstrike.

And finally six: Destroying this terror group would have been as easy as the turkey shoot in Persian Gulf War 1, when U.S. planes effectively halted any enemy convoy movement. During the precision planned war, the U.S. destroyed 1,500 vehicles and countless Saddam Hussein soldiers on the Highway of Death, the Baghdad to Kuwait Highway, which became a graveyard when the U.S. used its airpower to stop the invasion and effectively neuter Iraq’s dictator.

So, the characterization of a similarity between Benghazi and Islamic State is unsupported, but the reticence of the President to act decisively is consistent. However, as previously reported (Prepping for Iran War) the complicated relationships between the parties may be the reason for the President’s conduct. On the one hand he is working with Iran to support the Kurds and Yazidis against IS, but on the other hand, he is working with Saudi, Qatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, and probably Israel in a solid front against Iranian nuclear ambitions. Perhaps George Washington’s warning against entangling alliances may have been prophetic …and those are the facts.

Libya descends into chaos three years after US strikes

September 9, 2014 3:16 PM MST

Two years ago four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Since then the North African country has slipped into chaos with no working government prompting the U.S. government to evacuate its remaining embassy.

Watch Kimberly’s San Diego 6 News TV segment here

Renewed violence by terrorist organizations has unleashed anarchy, destroyed many government buildings, including the capital’s airport. Multiple reports also claim that 11 commercial planes have disappeared sparking new fears of another 9/11 -style attack.

State Department spokesperson Mary Harf said, “the ongoing violence resulting from clashes between Libyan militias in the immediate vicinity of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and we have temporarily relocated all of our personnel out of Libya.” (New video shows militants diving and swimming at the U.S. compound)

Now a new report from the United Nations says the turmoil has forced more than 250, 000 Libyans from their homes in the country’s two biggest cities, Tripoli and Benghazi. It also says the militias have abducted members of rival groups as well as civilians, engaged in torture, and brutally killed thousands more.

President Obama order airstrikes in Libya in March 2011 amid regional uprisings or “The Arab Spring.” He deployed U.S. military resources to facilitate regime change and depose long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Failed state?

The conflicts in both Libyan cities have led to a deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation. In Tripoli, there have been power outages lasting 18 hours a day, and shortages of water, petrol, cooking gas, as well as other essential items like milk, bread and meat.

The lack of fuel delivery has critically affected other essential services. “Banking facilities are still limited and common criminality has risen markedly. A Crisis Committee was formed under the Prime Minister’s Office in order to address the humanitarian situation, but due to the divisive political situation, parallel bodies were formed in some areas, under local councils or at the initiative of civil society,” according to a United Nation’s report.

Other key takeaways from the 14-page report UN Support Mission in Libya include: “Indiscriminate shelling and attacks on civilian objects, inaccurate casualty figures, prohibiting medical care, mass detentions, abductions, torture, assassinations, inadequate treatment of 250 thousand refugees, attacks on the press, and a failing court system.”

Liar, liar pants on fire- Benghazi truth confirmed

May 26, 2015 11:36 AM MST

About thekdreport

Investigative journalist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: