Petraeus to ‘Amend’ His Testimony – Knew It Was Terrorism ‘Almost Immediately’

November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am (Ansar Al Sharia, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Congress, Cover Up, David Petraeus, Navy SEALs, Obama Administration, Scandal, Susan Rice, Terrorism, Testimony, White House)

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”.

Via Breitbart (h/t Memeorandum):

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:

Of course Petraeus knew the attacks were terror related almost immediately.  The entire White House knew it as well.  On October 24th, we reported on e-mails sent to officials at the White House and the State Department, advising the administration within a couple of hours that the attacks were carried out by an Islamic militant group, Ansar Al Sharia, the same group Petraeus plans to note in his testimony.
Reuters reported:

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.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Benghazi: Is the President Running Out the Clock Until Election Day?

November 1, 2012 at 9:02 pm (2012 Election, Benghazi, Cover Up, Darrell Issa, Drip, Jake Tapper, Jason Chaffetz, President Obama, Run Out the Clock, September 11th, State Department, Task Force, Terrorism)

Sorry, Mr. President, but your time is just about up.

ABC’s Jake Tapper wrote a post today in which he mentions that critics think the President is simply trying to run out the clock on Benghazi.

Via Political Punch:

As he left his Marine One helicopter Wednesday evening and walked to the residence of the White House, President Obama did not respond to a question shouted out by ABC News’s Mary Bruce about when he would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up about what exactly what went wrong in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.

The president smiled and continued walking.

Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day.

Unfortunately, the strategy of running out the clock may not be working.

More stunning details about the attack are coming forward.  A Daily Beast report by Eli Lake indicates that two separate U.S. officials claimed the State Department never made a request made for military backup that night.

Additionally, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are investigating whether the Government of Libya, the one ushered into power with the aide of the U.S., may have been involved in the plot that eventually killed four Americans.

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressing for answers after documents first disclosed by Foreign Policy indicate the possible involvement of Government of Libya personnel in what was clearly a preplanned assault.  According to the letter sent by the two Congressional oversight leaders:
These documents paint a disturbing picture indicating that elements of the Libyan government might have been complicit in the September 11, 2012 attack on the compound and the murder of four Americans.  It also reiterates the fact that the U.S. government may have had evidence indicating that the attack was not a spontaneous event but rather a preplanned terrorist attack that included prior surveillance of the compound as a target.
Given the location where they were found, these documents appear to be genuine and support a growing body of evidence indicating that the Obama Administration has tried to withhold pertinent facts about the 9/11 anniversary attack from Congress and the American people.
The documents are fully consistent with the Committee’s understanding of events that took place before and during the attack on the compound and include new details not previously released to the public.  The letters ask the State Department whether the information included in the letters discussed above was memorialized in any cables, telegrams or e-mails prior to the attack or in any post-attack review. 
Click here for a copy of the Issa/Chaffetz letter to Secretary Clinton that includes the new documents obtained by Foreign Policy.  

Worse yet, CBS is reporting that a key task force on counter-terrorism was not convened by the Obama administration.

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Flashback to September 10th…

On September 10, 2012, The Associated Press Reported That “President Barack Obama Has Been Briefed By His Top National Security Aides On The Government’s Preparedness Ahead For The 11th Anniversary Of The Sept. 11 Attacks.” 

“President Barack Obama has been briefed by his top national security aides on the government’s preparedness ahead of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House said Monday the president and his advisers discussed specific measures the administration was taking to prevent 9/11-related attacks. They also discussed steps that were being taken to protect Americans abroad and U.S. forces serving in combat zones.”

Please check out this timeline of events in Benghazi and Washington running side-by-side, as provided by Doug Ross.

The one part that stands out to me is –

9/11/2012 22:00 Hillary Clinton blames internet video for violence.

Six hours later…

9/12/2012 4:00 Doherty and Woods killed on roof of annex.

They had time to concoct the video fairy tale, but didn’t have time to take military action to possibly aide the two Navy SEALs who died 6 hours later.  Unreal.

The actions of the administration – or inactions – at the very least exacerbated the success at which the terrorists carried out their attacks.  The subsequent cover up was downright criminal.

And while the White House would like to run out the clock until the election, the slow drip-drip-drip of information coming out of Benghazi, provided by the few real journalists remaining in media, may cause them to bleed out.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Uh Oh … Guess Who Really Shot First and Aimed Later? (Hint – It Wasn’t Mitt Romney)

September 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm (2012 Election, Ambassador Stevens, Cover Up, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, Libya, Mitt Romney, President Obama)

Remember way back on September 12th when the President accused Mitt Romney of having “a tendency to shoot first and aim later”?  That criticism was in response to a Romney campaign statement in which the Republican candidate criticized the administration for ‘not condemn(ing) attacks on our diplomatic missions’.  The thinking was that Romney had inappropriately injected politics into a national tragedy.

Turns out he was actually just injecting a bit of reality into a national tragedy.

Since that time, we have learned that the White House knew the attacks were not spontaneous protests, that they were indeed acts of terrorism, and they had been carried out by Al Qaeda affiliates.

Fox News reports:

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began “taking up residence” at the Benghazi compound — describing the security lapses as a “total failure.”

The claim comes more than two weeks after Stevens and three other Americans were killed in what is now being described officially as a terror attack possibly tied to Al Qaeda.

The source told Fox News that there was no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 — a “total failure” because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.

A total failure that led to four murders.

Now, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is trying to take the fall for the White House…

The office of the United States’ top intelligence official appeared to take the blame Friday for the Obama administration’s changing narrative on the U.S. Consulate attack in Libya, saying administration officials who initially claimed the attack was spontaneous did so based on intelligence officials’ guidance. 

The statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, was put out late Friday — at the close of a tumultuous week for the Obama administration over the Libya attack. 

The problem here is that even if National Intelligence was incorrect in their initial sentiments, they realized their error within 24 hours, something which the White House was also knew about.

Turner, though, sought to explain that officials who discussed the attack as spontaneous did so based on intelligence community assessments.

“In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” he said. “We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

However, sources have told Fox News that intelligence officials knew within 24 hours the attack that left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead was terrorism, and that they suspected it was tied to Al Qaeda.

It’s unclear, then, why the intelligence community told Executive Branch officials it was spontaneous.

To believe this version of events is to believe that the Director of National Intelligence knew within 24 hours that the United States had just suffered a terrorist attack with casualties on the anniversary of 9/11, and he still lied to his own superiors by telling them it was spontaneous.  Absurd!  If that were even vaguely true, then the President would have no choice but to ask for Clapper’s immediate resignation.

And again, the Obama administration continued lying to the American people for several days after the fact, culminating with the President’s speech to the U.N. two weeks later, in which he still gave credence to the idea that a protest of an anti-Muslim video is what caused the attacks.

The media should be apologizing to Mitt Romney for the heat he took after condemning the administration’s response to the attacks.  President Obama should apologize for saying Romney shoots first and aims later.

18 days after the attack the President is still shooting and has yet to aim.

Will the cover up continue until election day, or will the President be forced to admit the scandal?

And will the American people fire this man in November?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Even Democrats Are Demanding Answers From the President

September 28, 2012 at 10:44 am (9/11, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Cover Up, Ed Morrisey, George Bush, John Kerry, Libya, President Obama, Scandal, Senate Democrats, Terrorist Attack, Thomas Nides)

They’re normally just so obedient.

But the Obama administration’s lies are obvious, and the cover up is becoming more scandalous on a daily basis.

Via the Washington Examiner:

Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration’s handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an “accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.

The letter marks the first time congressional Democrats have so directly expressed their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to inquiries about the attacks, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and raised questions about U.S. security throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.

A Kerry aide confirmed that the committee intended to enlist the support of Republicans and Democrats and said the letter would likely be sent Friday. Another aide told The Examiner that the panel’s 10 Democrats and nine Republicans plan to sign it.

In other words, recognition of obvious bulls*** has now gone bipartisan.

Gabriel Malor in the Daily News writes:

It has been 15 days since the attack in Libya. And where are we? President Obama, who first confidently (but incorrectly) declared that the attack grew spontaneously out of a protest over a YouTube video, has finally admitted that it was an act of terrorism directed against Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. There was no protest before the attack, we now know.

We now know this because of journalists in Libya. We know this because of Libya’s own officials. But we know hardly anything from our own government about what happened in Libya because most of what we were told by the White House was a lie.

The President boldly vowed that the perpetrators — he declined to call them terrorists at the time — would be brought to justice. To that end, he called in the FBI. More than a week later, the FBI flew a team to Tripoli, but that is as far as they got. They have not traveled to Benghazi. They have not examined the scene. They have not collected evidence. They have not interviewed the people the Libyans have arrested. It has been fifteen days since the attack.

Why is this not a scandal yet?

The answer is that the President’s name is no longer George Bush. Had this obvious cover up occurred under W, it would be an epic media played scandal.  But today, the media provides cover for a President coming under attack from even his closest political friends, such as Kerry.

That said, it’s actually worse than simply not providing answers that the American people deserve.  It’s the active lying prior to, and since, the ensuing attacks.

As we reported earlier, the administration did indeed have advance warning of imminent attacks on 9/11. 

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.


As Ed Morrisey writes, the administration “got caught flat-footed on the anniversary of 9/11 in the one part of the world where an American diplomatic mission would be most vulnerable — and they’ve been trying to deny it ever since.”

The American people deserve the truth.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Admin Deletes State Department Memo After Benghazi Attack

September 28, 2012 at 9:00 am (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Chris Stevens, Cover Up, Libya, Obama Administration, President Obama)

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…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Two Weeks After Benghazi Attacks, No FBI on Scene

September 24, 2012 at 9:16 am (Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Cover Up, Crime Scene, FBI, Libya, State Department, Terrorism)

While the State Department continues to dodge questions about the terrorist attacks in Libya, a new report indicates that the FBI hasn’t even been dispatched to the scene.

Remarkable ineptitude.

According to CBS:

“What we know is that the State Department won’t answer any questions about that attack. What happened there they say is off limits because it’s an intelligence matter, according to the FBI. The FBI isn’t even in Benghazi yet. They haven’t secured that site, which is how journalists can wander through.”

The statement regarding journalists being able to wander around the scene is referring to an incident we previously covered, in which CNN was able to obtain Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal, and then pretend they didn’t have it.
You don’t have to be an investigator to realize that evidence is compromised when a crime scene is not secured.  
You have a State Department that refuses to answer questions on the terrorist attack, and worse, are unwilling to investigate the scene of the crime.
What are they hiding?

Permalink Leave a Comment

New York Democrats Have Joined Arms in the War on Women

September 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm (Cover Up, Ed Cox, Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, Payoffs, Sexual Harassment, Sheldon Silver, Vito Lopez, War on Women)

Today, New York GOP Chairman Ed Cox released the following statement regarding the silence by New York Democrats in Charlotte:

“It is deeply disappointing that New York Democrats in Charlotte, like U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, have remained utterly silent about the attempted sexual assault cover-ups perpetrated by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Indeed, Mr. Silver is serving as the head of the New York delegation at the Democratic National Convention, without a peep from Ms. Gillibrand or her fellow delegates. That is an embarrassment to our state.

“While Ms. Gillibrand has continued to promulgate the term ‘War on Women,’ it appears the only ‘War on Women’ in Albany is against female Assembly staff members.

“Mr. Silver has established a clear pattern of covering up sexual crimes committed against female staff members by his political colleagues. He must not be allowed to remain Speaker. I urge New York Democrats –especially those like Ms. Gillibrand, who purport to stand up for women, to join me in calling on Mr. Silver to step aside as Speaker.

“Continued silence from the Democratic delegation in Charlotte is unacceptable.”

Permalink Leave a Comment