Morality isn’t a strong point of this administration, as we have come to learn over the last couple of months concerning the massacre in Benghazi.
Last night on Hannity the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, spoke about the moral bankruptcy of the White House in their response to the attacks, and the subsequent lies and cover up.
Here is a brief excerpt (transcript and video below):
“For seven hours the cowards in the White House were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that – even though they had a moral duty to send support, they chose not to.”
HANNITY: moments ago i spoke with the father of this american hero tyrone woods to get reaction to these developments. an incredible interview. here is what he had to say.
HANNITY: we have learned so much in the aftermath of this attack. and you know we learned that the ambassador first requested security. it was denied. we learned that while they were under attack that they requested security and none was forthcoming and we learnd that they were watching this in the state department, charleen lamb said they were watching in in real time so everybody knew what was going on.
CHARLES WOODS: right, exactly. when i went back to washington, d.c. when the bodies were flown in i knew that something was fishy. it just — it was just obvious that something was wrong with this picture and in my mind i questioned, you know, this was obviously a long drawn out battle. why there was no immediate air support sent in that would have saved the lives of not just the other 30 people but also the life of my son who truly was an american hero? now, it has come out that pleas for help were made not just by the other individuals but by my son and these pleas were turned down by the white house. now, as you know i’m a retired attorney and i know that these actions legally do not constitute murder but in my mind the people in the white house all of them who have authority to send in reenforcements to prevent what they knew was going to be the death of my son are guilty of murdering my son. there is new information that came out this morning that my son on a couple of different occasions requested permission to go to the aide of those 30 people being attacked and on at least two of the first occasion he was told stay where you are are at, let them die, don’t go and it does not surprise me that my son disobeyed orders in order to save american lives. that is the type of american hero he was.
HANNITY: so after he was told to stand down as i understand t there were numerous other are pleas for help and your son actually as i understand it rescued many people and got them out of the consulate. is that true?
WOODS: you know, one of the real touching e-mails i got was — i won’t mention a name but i received an e-mail from someone who said your son’s sacrifice saved my life and he saved more than one life and that is the type of man he was. that is the type of leadership the military needs.
HANNITY: so if he would have obeyed that order to stand down rather than help the ambassador’s team that person is telling you they wouldn’t be alive today.
WOODS: that is correct.
HANNITY: and then —
WOODS: and a many other people as well.
HANNITY: your son first got involved, was told to stand down after they heard shots at a approximately 9:40 p.m. now, as i understand it, it wasn’t until about 4:00 a.m. the next day that your son after he had rescued other people was still fighting in this attack and it was then that he took on mortar fire?
WOODS: that is my understanding. for seven hours the cowards in the white house were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that even though they had a moral duty to send support they chose not to. this is not the way the seals operate. the seals are an honorable unit and ty was honorable by disoh boying the powers in the white house that told him not to rescue those lives.
HANNITY: your son was told to stand down. a navy seal, risks h his military career and his life for 7 full hours and rescues all these people. multiple requests throughout the entire period go, it is be hing watched in real time and nobody sends any help. i can’t fathom this. and then we are told the president goes out there for two weeks and couldn’t admit this is a tort attack. why do you think he tried to blame it on the video or denied it was a terror attack?
WOODS: unfortunately, sean, we have a generation of liars who have no moral background. hopefully my son’s sacrifice and his moral courage and his moral strength will encourage our next generation to be completely different. that we will change our direction. that we will raise up a new generation of true american here are rows such as my son — heros such as my son who have moral courage and who are are not liars like too many people in authority are nowadays.
HANNITY: i know you met the president and you met hillary clinton. when they had this service.
WOODS: that is, correct. at andrew’s air force base when the bodies were flown in.
HANNITY: you said the president couldn’t look you in the eye and it was like shaking hands with a dead fish.
WOODS: that’s exactly right.
HANNITY: and so you felt he couldn’t look you in the eye and that basically he felt no empathy and you said the same thing pretty much about hillary clinton?
WOODS: right. what happened was he came through there kind of after everyone else had been in the room circulating and he came over and shook my hand, you know, i wanted to do more than just shake his hand so i kind of put my arm around his shoulder to have just a little bit of physical warmth, not a major hug but just a small one and he kind of — it wasn’t in a powerful voice it was more of just a whiney little voice i’m sorry. i could tell my his voice he wasn’t even sorry. it would be like a little kid that is told by the teacher to go apologize to johnny out on the play ground and when looked at me his face was pointed towards me but he couldn’t look me in the eye. he was shooing over my shoulder and like i say, i thought he political — literally like shaking hands with a dead fish. i did not believe him at all as far as his being sore arery and now we understand why. was he one of those cowards that was in the white house watching my son being murdered on tv and refusing to do anything? that is a question that he will probably not have the courage to answer publicly but i would like to personally know that answer and one of these days the whole i’m sure that we will have that answer.
HANNITY: it is the hardest thing to lose a child and learning about the heroics of your son are beyond inspiring. he put everything on the line, you know, if we want to use a biblical quote no greater love hath a man than to day down his life for someone else. your son lay down his life for others.
WOODS: thank you very much, sean. i appreciate the work you are doing.
HANNITY: i appreciate your time. thank you for being with us
Earlier today, we reported on news that Americans killed in Benghazi on 9/11 had radioed for help multiple times, and were denied those requests each time.
Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the Americans slain in the premeditated attack, spoke to Megyn Kelly earlier today, assailing the Obama administration for feeding he and his family a pack of lies, and for being “murderers of (his) son”.
Video can be seen below. Transcript follows.
CHARLIE WOODS: thank you, i appreciate the introduction, and i do want to reiterate and really emphasize again that this is not about politics. if it were about politics, it would dishonor my son. this is about honesty and integrity and justice.
KELLY: you learn more about his final moments, how he was denied three times, and how he ignored the orders to stand down and he rushed to the scene to try to do his best and he did it down to the last.
WOODS: my son was an american hero. and he had the moral strength to do what was right. even if that would professionally cost him his job. even if it would cost him his life. he was a hero who was willing to do whatever was necessary. to respond to the cries for help. if, in fact, those people from the white house were courageous and have the strength, within minutes of the first attack, — he was not denied permission. i don’t know much about weapons, but it’s coming out right now. they actually had laser targets focused on the mortars and they refused to pull the trigger. to me, i’m an attorney. but to me, that is not right. those people made the decision and who knew about this and lied about it — they are murderers of my son. that is a very strong statement. but for their benefit, we need to stand up and they need to change the direction of their lives. i say, you know who you are. i hope years from now, you change the direction of your life.
KELLY: charlie, do you feel like you are getting straight answers? from the administration on this?
WOODS: this is all a pack of lies. that is one thing is the father whose son who has been killed, i do not appreciate lies.i’m a loving person. i love my son and i want to honor him. facts are coming out right now. the reason i am even speaking up, whatever the facts came out that in real-time, the white house, minutes after the first bullet was fired, they watch my son and they denied his request for help. my son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. he risked his life and i wish that leadership in the white house had the same moral porridge that my son displayed with his wife.
KELLY: as we look at the beautiful pictures that you gave us of your son when he was younger, we remember his legacy. he is an american hero, charlie. i will give you the last word.
WOODS: you know, i appreciate that. and i sent you those pictures of him in high school. and i wanted you to show those for one reason. and that is so that people can be inspired and know that he was just a normal kid. we were an imperfect memory, but a normal family. i hope that his legacy goes on. and that we would raise a generation of american heroes. and that they would be inspired by his pictures and his life. those are strong morally and strong in every other aspect. we do not need another generation of liars who lack the moral strength.
KELLY: charlie, all the best you and your family.
WOODS: i really appreciate that. i really wish the best to those people that love my son to be murdered. i mean i very sincerely. i want the best for them. they need to stand up, and they need to change the direction. thank you.
KELLY: thank you. all the best, sir. i know i speak for a lot of you when i say that your son is missed, and we honor his memory today.
CBS reporter Lara Logan stepped out of the role of journalist, and into the role of American citizen screaming about her government’s lies regarding the enemy her country faces – the Taliban.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan then goes on to rip what she calls “Taliban apologists” in Washington who have tried to falsely portray the enemy as ‘kinder’ and ‘gentler’.
“It’s such nonsense,” she added.
Logan believes the false narrative is an attempt by the administration to get America out of the longest war, but that it only provides a false sense that the perils of the enemy are in the past.
It’s a rather frightening account from somebody in the know.
Logan concludes, “Our enemies are writing the story, and there’s no happy ending for us.”
Report: Despite Multiple Pleas From Officials, Obama Administration Pulled 34 Security Personnel From Libya Prior to Attack
An ex-U.S. security team leader tells CBS News that he and other officials made it clear to the Obama administration that they “needed more, not less” security staff on the ground in Libya prior to the attacks that would kill Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.
Despite those pleas, and the dozen or so documented security threats facing the consulate in Benghazi prior to September 11th, the administration pulled 34 security members from the site over the preceding six month period.
Via CBS News:
The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.
Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”
He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.
“They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.”
Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.
It would appear the State Department has been caught trying to cover up more information in regards to the attack in Benghazi, Libya. Attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Essentially, they deleted an internet memo which stated that prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that they had received no credible threats. We now know this was not the case.
Via Gateway Pundit:
Yesterday there were reports that the Obama Administration found out that Al-Qaeda was behind the Benghazi consulate attacks within 24 hours of the assault that killed four Americans.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.
We now know this not to be true. The administration had received credible threats prior to the attacks.
This CBN report explains:
CBN News Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck called Benghazi an al Qaeda “hot spot” and agrees that there was threat there well before the film’s release.
“For the Obama administration to continue to argue that these attacks were just spontaneous flies in the face of reality,” Stakelbeck said.
“One day before the attacks, Ayman al-Zawahri — who’s al Qaeda’s global leader — specifically called for al Qaeda attacks in Libya,” he explained. “One day later we see those attacks.”
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 know that there is evidence that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans, and for other embassies coming under fire.
The only question now is, was it intentional?
Think I’m throwing stones?
Read this, and you won’t look at the current administration the same again…
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.
There are reports tonight that a radical left-wing organization is responsible for helping to free a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay named Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Bin Qumu has been cited by multiple sources at Fox News as at least being involved with, and possibly playing the lead role in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Those attacks resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats.
Michelle Malkin has revealed that the Center for Constitutional Rights represented Qumu and helped lead the charge in freeing him back in 2007.
Longtime readers know that I’ve extensively covered the troublesome conflict of interest at the Department of Justice involving Attorney General Eric Holder and his former law firm, Covington and Burling, which has represented a score of Gitmo detainees. See my archive of posts on the matter here. Many readers have asked whether the firm represented Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the former Gitmo detainee released in 2007 — and now named as the possible lead plotter in the bloody attacks on our consulate personnel, staff, and private security contractors in Benghazi.
The left-wing organization that helped spring Qumu was the Center for Constitutional Rights. Last April, the group issued an indignant press release painting Qumu as a harmless victim and blasting those concerned about his unrepentant jihadi ways. After a trove of Gitmo documents found their way to Wikileaks and were published by the New York Times, CCR rose to Qumu’s defense and parroted jihadi propaganda that the aggrieved Qumu was actually a friend of the U.S.
President Emeritus of the CCR, Michael Ratner, has long advocated for closing Guantanamo Bay’s doors, and for the right of Gitmo detainees within. In a 2009 article for the Huffington Post, Ratner sings the praises of his organization’s efforts, calling the release of two thirds of Gitmo detainees an “amazing success”.
While feeling that terrorists caught on the battlefield were privy to the same rights as ordinary Americans, Ratner also repeatedly advocated for the prosecution of senior-level Bush administration officials, calling the detention of those terrorists, like bin Qumu, unlawful. His op-ed for CNN made a case for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for torture under the War Crimes Act.
In other words, terrorists captured on the battlefield were being held illegally, but the Bush administration officials who were gathering intelligence from those terrorists should be tried for war crimes.
In 2008, Ratner signed an endorsement for Barack Obama in his presidential bid, based on a belief that Obama would best represent the rights of Gitmo detainees. He and 79 other lawyers said in a joint statement, that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration’s detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to “restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.”
Ratner, on the same day as endorsing Obama in word, also endorsed through donation, sending $2,300 to the Obama campaign.
According to reports from the British newspaper the Independent, the Obama administration was warned of potential attacks on U.S. embassies on the anniversary of 9/11 – and did nothing to stop them.
This, combined with the allegations that our Marines in Cairo were handcuffed on orders that they could not use ‘live ammunition’, makes the President’s failures in handling this situation even more dumbfounding.
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.
The White House is denying allegations that they had warning of a planned attack on the embassies (h/t Hot Air).
The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.
A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”…
Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, emailed: “This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
Of course, they’re parsing words by specifically denying that their was intelligence on the attack in Benghazi. The Independent’s report simply states that their was credible evidence of an attack on ‘American missions’. Henceforth, security should have been heightened in all American interests abroad. But it wasn’t.
Further, their are actual indications that diplomats in Libya knew that something was afoot. As we reported Wednesday, one of the diplomats killed in the attack, Sean Smith, had expressed concerns for his safety through an online gaming forum.
But there was also a statement from Smith that seemed to hint that something was being planned against the Libyan embassy.
“We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
Those actions prompted Smith to wonder about future conversations with his fellow gamers:
“Assuming we don’t die tonight.”
Those same police forces according to the Independent all scattered when the attacks began:
According to security sources the consulate had been given a “health check” in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”
Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya’s Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. “There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”
There seems to be little doubt that the guards assigned to protect the embassy were involved in this coordinated attack. When the signal was given, they abandoned our men and women inside that embassy, leaving them to die.
The President has a lot of explaining to do – just as soon as he can tear himself away from those seemingly more important campaign fundraisers.