Bombshell: Did the White House Cover Up Ambassador’s Murder Because They Were Warned of Attacks Months in Advance?
We know the Obama administration has been actively engaged in a cover-up as to why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack on September 11th, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats. How else to explain the weeks-long campaign to convince people that the attacks were not terrorism.
Now we’re finding out more details as to why they may have engaged in such a wide-ranging cover-up.
Via the Telegraph (emphasis mine):
Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.
But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.
It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.
Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.
If indeed, Washington was warned about an “increasingly hostile and anti-American” environment in Benghazi on September 4th, it makes this State Department memo (since scrubbed from their website) on September 6th even more curious:
Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–
On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.
At the time that this was revealed, their had been reports that the U.S. knew of potential threats a single day ahead of the actual attacks on September 11th. But this latest report from the Telegraph demonstrates that the White House knew al-Qaeda was operating in the area in June, had specific reports of increasing hostility on the 4th, and then reported that there were no credible threats on the 6th.
That is criminal.
To have lowered security expectations despite their knowledge of threats is criminal.
This is a cover up of the highest order. The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected. The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.
And now, they are aware that there is evidence something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans. There was blood on their hands, and instead of admitting mistakes they’ve been trying to scrub the crime scene clean ever since.
Hey, Ohio. It may be time to check the drinking water for contaminants. You know, the kind that feasts on the frontal lobe of Obama supporters.
The stupid is strong in this one.
I’m not sure what part of the video is better:
1) The interviewer says, “where does he (Romney) say he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class?” And the Obamabot responds with his big ‘Gotcha’, “where does it say he’s not?” His face lights up with complete and total satisfaction at the comeback.
2) The interviewer asks, “what if he cut taxes for everybody, would that be good for you?” Obamabot – “No.” Okay, so we’ve now established that Romney is bad because he’s going to raise taxes, but even if he cuts taxes, he’s still bad.
3) And of course the stunning response to the death of Ambassador Stevens – “He probably had it coming.”
Bombshell: Administration Knew Attacks That Killed Ambassador Stevens Were the Work of Terrorists Within 24 Hours
Even yesterday, the President himself was lying to the world in front of the United Nations, refusing to call the attacks in Libya ‘terrorist’ in nature, and instead spending several minutes talking about a video that nobody in their right mind believes caused the violence.
Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.” The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission. Today, however, Eli Lake reports for the Daily Beast that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack had not been a spontaneous event, but a well-planned terrorist attack:Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately. That leaves the national media in a quandry. Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation … at least not during the Barack Obama presidency. Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “f*** off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.
This is huge, huge news, and is a clear demonstration that the Obama administration will jump first to protect the terrorists and radical Islam, well before they will act to protect the lives of innocent Americans.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can say it:
“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling yesterday with President Barack Obama.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can say it:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it was a “terrorist attack” that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three others, and she says the U.S. will not rest until those responsible are brought to justice. Clinton told reporters Friday at the State Department that, quote, “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And she said the U.S. would track down, quote, the “terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
National Counterterrorism Center (CTC) Director Matthew Olson can say it:
During testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen acknowledged that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. When asked by Senator Joe Lieberman about the deaths of four Americans, he said, “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our Embassy.”
But nowhere in his speech to the United Nations today will you see the President of the United States refer to the attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as terrorism.
Why would we? The President is still clinging to the desperate notion that a video that nobody has seen is what sparked the ‘spontaneous’ attack that just so happened to occur on September 11th, in which protesters just so happened to be carrying rocket propelled grenades launchers.
An excerpt from today’s speech:
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
The biggest problem with blaming radical Muslim rage on a video, aside from the common sense evidence that indicates it played no role in the attacks, is that Ambassador Stevens himself saw other reasons to be concerned about his safety.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently explained, using Ambassador Stevens’ journal that, “Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”
The President went on:
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
Apparently however, the answer wasn’t enshrined in our laws just a couple of weeks ago, when the President’s administration was calling for YouTube to pull the controversial video.
The irony here is that perhaps the President’s unwillingness to stand up against terrorist attacks, and to stand for freedom of speech, may be what leads a person to say awful things about him.