CNN is reporting that a well-placed source has indicated that CIA Chief David Petraeus will ‘amend’ his previous testimony, telling Congress that he knew the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was terrorism, and that he knew this “almost immediately”.
Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
By ultimately, they mean several weeks later. This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply relaying mis-information that a video had sparked the attack.
They knew. They knew, and they lied.
Which is precisely why GOP lawmakers have a hard time considering Susan Rice competent when she subsequently went on a whirlwind media tour five days later claiming that the attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video.
Petraeus, in addition to his ‘amended’ testimony, also informed CNN’s source that “he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.”
Politico is also reporting on these statements from Sen. Saxby Chambliss:
Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Friday stopped short of charging that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was a lie but said it was crafted to provide White House political talking points.
“Susan Rice was sent to give a White House message,” said Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It was not an intelligence community message, and there’s a very clear distinction in that.”
“I do think that there were some politics involved in the message that the White House wanted to send,” he added.
Upon hearing President Obama’s touchy defense of Rice a couple of days ago, Charles Karuthammer had this to say:
You called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know?
The question is rhetorical. We know that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA Director were informed that this was a terror attack almost immediately. The White House then gave Rice her talking points for the American public five days later which denied terrorism was a factor by shifting blame to a video.
Rice had one job and one job only – to lie to you, to lie to me, and to lie to the families of those that were killed that night. All because an election was right around the corner.
This is disgraceful.
Classified Cable Shows State Department Was Warned That Benghazi Consulate Could Not Withstand Coordinated Attack
No wonder Fox News crushes in ratings. They actually do the job of journalists.
A new secret cable has been revealed that shows Hillary Clinton’s State Department was warned less than a month in advance of the Benghazi terror attack, that security personnel at the consulate had deep concerns that they could not withstand a coordinated enemy attack.
Notice that they did not say that they couldn’t withstand a spontaneous protest over a video. But rather, they could not withstand a coordinated terror attack. Something in which four Americans fell victim to less than a month later.
Via Fox News:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
The report then summarizes the implication in having this secret cable perfectly:
“It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.”
Biggest cover up in White House history?
Democrats for some reason seem to think that the singular act of killing Osama bin Laden equates to a successful foreign policy.
Problem is, the President’s other foreign policy tactics – disarming our Marines, creating a policy of ‘courageous restraint’, negotiating with the Taliban by releasing their commanders in exchange for a “promise” of peace talks, and failing to provide adequate security to our consulate buildings – demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of world events.
There is real concern over the President’s weak foreign policy.
On CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards joined Stephanie Cutter and Team Obama in dismissing real concerns over Libya.
Watch as she first admonishes that we must “take the politics out of this,” then drops this bomb:
“…what voters care about, they may not care about Benghazi, but they care about Bin Laden.”
The Obama administration’s story on the attacks that killed four Americans unravels even further.
Watch the report:
“Details that we have never heard before about what went down. And this is significantly different than what we were told at the time.”
“At the time as you recall we were told it was a protest that went bad and became an attack. Now we are told there was no protest going on outside that embassy.”
“A very complex attack. Without precedent in U.S. diplomatic history.”
Refresher from ABC News, three days after the attack:
The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”
“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”
Obama, September 20th:
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
An amazing new video from our friends at the Heritage Foundation.
New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.
Bombshell Report: Obama Administration Pulled Special Forces Teams From Libya One Month Before Attack
ABC News reports on an e-mail from the State Department that shows them rejecting a security team request at the US embassy in Libya.
ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties.
Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support.
No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.
And now, another bombshell report shows that the security team that left in August was a 16 member special forces operation charged with the task of specifically protecting US personnel in Libya.
Via Gateway Pundit:
Bombshell: The Obama State Department withdrew a 16 member special forces team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks on 9-11. Lt. Col. Andy Wood was the leader of the 16 member special forces team whose job it was to protect US personnel in Libya. His team’s mission ended in August a month before the deadly Al-Qaeda attack on 9-11. A six member mobile security team was also withdrawn around the same time. This was despite the fact that there were over a dozen attacks in the country this year. Lt. Col. Wood was subpoenaed to appear at a House committee hearing this coming week. Wood told CBS News it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew security when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11.
Watch the video below…
The incompetence of the Obama administration in handling this attack grows ever more apparent.
Via the Washington Post:
More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.
Although the gates to the compound were locked several days after the attacks, looters and curiosity-seekers were free to roam in the initial chaotic aftermath, and many documents may already have disappeared.
No government-provided security forces are guarding the compound, and Libyan investigators have visited just once, according to a member of the family who owns the compound and who allowed the journalists to enter Wednesday.
Of course nobody is in a hurry to secure the crime scene and investigate the attack, Hillary has already said she’d like to hold off on finding answers until after the election.
On Monday, leaders from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (Darrell Idea and Jason Chaffetz) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking why requests for protection were denied to the consulate in Libya despite repeated attacks against U.S. personnel.
The letter outlined 13 specific security threats over a six-month timeframe prior to the deadly attack on September 11th, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.
The committee also indicated that they would be holding a hearing on the security lapses next week.
Clinton’s response was to urge the committee not to be so hasty in trying to find answers as to what killed our fellow Americans.
Clinton said that the State Department’s Accountability Review Board will begin work this week and the letter revealed the names of all five board members. In addition to former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, who will lead the board, the other members will be former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen (ret.), Catherine Bertini, Hugh Turner, and Richard Shinnick.
Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
Indeed, what is the rush here gentleman? We have to hold off this scandal at least until, say … November 6th.
But trust us, there’s nothing to hide.
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.”