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.
A new report out of Australia indicates that radical Muslim extremists aren’t motivated by the cause of jihad. Rather, they are driven to terrorism by Islamophobia and a high unemployment rate. The report raises one inescapable question: Just what the hell are they putting in the water down under?
A new report paints a devastating picture of Muslim unemployment in Australia and links workplace discrimination to terrorist attacks such as the Bali bombings.
The report says that reducing the deep-seated hostility toward Muslims by a minority of Australians was hard to achieve in an atmosphere created by an open-ended war on terror.
The Newcastle University report was completed last year and quietly released on the Immigration Department’s website.
Using Census data, it found that the jobless rate for Muslim men was more than double the national average and that only 57 per cent of Muslim males aged 15 and older had jobs compared with 68 per cent of all working-age men.
Suburbs with high Muslim concentrations such as Broadmeadows and Dallas had jobless rates of more than 15 per cent in 2006, said the report.
“In total, 58 per cent of Muslims earned less than $400 per week compared to 41 per cent of the Australian population,” it said.
The seven-person research team, led by Prof Terry Lovat, said that Muslims faced workplace barriers including poor English proficiency, difficulty having overseas qualifications recognised and cultural and religious issues.
Apparently, a higher-than-average unemployment rate can lead to a bombing that kills over 200 people. I’m sorry, but the unemployment rate here in the States is double for the African-American community, and nearly double for the Hispanic community. It is also quite high for women. And yet none of these groups – African-Americans, Hispanics, or women – have taken to strapping 1,000 kg. bombs into the backseat of their minivan in an attempt to blow up buildings and people.
Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden put out an audio tape shortly after the Bali bombings which stated that the attack was a direct retaliation for support of the United States’ war on terror, and not due to the frustration in finding a good 9-5 job with quality health insurance, and a decent coffee club.
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.
Gingrich: Networks May Have E-mails Showing White House Explicitly Telling Counterterrorism Teams to Stand Down in Benghazi
Last night with Greta Van Susteren, Newt Gingrich made the shocking claim that news networks have access to e-mails which explicitly show the White House itself ordering counterterrorism groups to stand down and do nothing while four Americans were being killed by terrorists.
Will they be released by the media? And will any network other than Fox start covering the story more intensely? This is after all, the biggest coverup in modern Presidential history.
Via the Daily Caller:
On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.
“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,”
Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”
Here’s the video…
A federal terrorism sting has led to the arrest of a Bangladeshi national for a bomb threat targeting the National Reserve in Lower Manhattan.
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis , 21, was arrested this morning in downtown Manhattan after he allegedly attempted to detonate what he believed to be a 1,000-pound bomb at the New York Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street in lower Manhattan’s financial district.
The suspect was arraigned in federal court in Downtown Brooklyn and remanded without bail.
Agents set up a sting and he was caught and taken into custody according to officials.
Nafis attempted to detonate a van that he thought was laced with the explosives, from a hotel across the street from the World Trade Center site. Nafis also claimed to have overseas connections to Al-Qaeda and had recorded a martyrdom video.
“This individual came here for the purpose of doing a terrorist act,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters. “He was motivated by Al Qaeda, so we see this threat as being with us for a long time.”
No word on whether or not the administration will argue Kelly’s claims of a motivation by saying the suspect was angry about an anti-Islam video.
Fortunately, when the President does get around to calling this a terrorist plot two weeks from now, Candy Crowley will be there to hold his hand.
In related news, the President is dropping the phrase ‘Al Qaeda is on the run’ from his campaign speeches.
Via Fox News:
President Obama may be recalibrating his campaign rhetoric on Al Qaeda, in the aftermath of the Libya terror attack.
Before that attack and as recently as a week ago, Obama had taken to saying Al Qaeda is on the road to defeat. During a Miami stop on Oct. 11, he said: “And today, Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.”
But at the debate Tuesday and on the campaign trail Wednesday, the Al Qaeda reference appeared to have been walked back.
The worst moment of last night’s debate involved moderator Candy Crowley interjecting her own fact-checking into an argument in which she was ultimately proven wrong. She back-tracked post-debate. But what’s worse is that several weeks ago, Crowley was arguing with the Obama administration about the same topic, by using the same exact argument that she fact-checked Romney on last night.
Why then, did she argue against her own knowledge and facts?
Clearly to throw the President a lifeline.
Here’s the exchange via the Washington Times:
The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.
Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”
Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”
“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”
The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.
After the debate, Ms. Crowley walked back her inappropriate comments.
Via the Washington Free Beacon:
After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.
What a weak defense for blatant bias.
What’s even more interesting is that Crowley sounded exactly like Romney a couple of weeks ago in debating the issue with Obama adviser David Axelrod.
On CNN’s “State of the Union” on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama’s chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror” on the day after.
“First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape,” Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.
This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday’s debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue — and took Obama’s side.
During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama’s assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama’s side — to an ovation from the town hall audience — and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.
On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words “acts of terror” but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Here’s the video…
Late last night we received word that Hillary Clinton – not President Obama – was accepting full responsibility for the security lapses that led to the successful assassination of four Americans in Benghazi.
Falling on the sword for the administration during a tough re-election bid, Clinton today told a CNN reporter “I take responsibility” for security ahead of the attacks.
Notice consistent use of the phrase ‘the buck stops with her’.
This is clearly an attempt to deflect criticism being aimed at the White House ahead of the second Presidential debate scheduled for tomorrow night.
Now, U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte have responded to the ‘laudable gesture’, pointing out the unlikelihood that the President was unaware of the rising security risks in Libya.
“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.
“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
State Department: You Know All Those Times We Said the Benghazi Attack Was a Protest About a Video? Yea, We Never Said That
They insult our intelligence on a daily basis...
The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.”
Tomorrow, top security chief Eric Nordstrom is set to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee that diplomats in Benghazi needed more security – and didn’t get it.
Via the Daily Beast:
The former top U.S. diplomatic security official in Libya will tell Congress Wednesday that the State Department reduced security personnel for Libya over his objections.
Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from September 2011 to June 2012, is slated to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where he will discuss publicly for the first time a 51-page report he prepared this summer on security incidents in Libya since June 2011.
“The incidents paint a clear picture that the environment in Libya was fragile at best and could degrade quickly,” Nordstrom wrote in an Oct. 1 letter to the committee. “Certainly not an environment where post should be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial timetable.”
We’re learning that this is why the White House spent so much effort concealing the true reasons behind the attack in Benghazi, because they are complicit in it’s success in killing Americans. There were 13 different security incidents, and multiple requests for added security. Yet the Obama administration simply went whistling through the graveyard.
This cover up is on a similar scale to Watergate, with the exception that nobody died in Watergate.
And yet we watch the media cover items like Obama’s Big Bird ad. What has become of this country?
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.