Lawmakers said Sunday they want to know who had a hand in creating the Obama administration’s now-discredited “talking points” about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and why a final draft omitted the CIA’s early conclusion that terrorists were involved.

The answers could explain why President Barack Obama and his top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the attack for roughly two weeks afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that spontaneously turned violent, and why they played down any potential link to al-Qaeda despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Read more here.

Obama Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Before Deploying Rice

According to the Washington Guardian, it wasn’t just CIA Director David Petraeus who knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were terrorism linked with al Qaeda. It was the White House. And they knew it well in advance of Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearances on national television to lie to the American public about a “spontaneous” demonstration based on a YouTube video spurring the assault.

The Guardian reports:

U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday ….

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice the following weekend, officials confirmed Friday.

Read more here.

Rumsfeld on Benghazi’s Knowns and Unknowns

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Breitbart News about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and the apparent cover-up that has followed as the administration struggled to spin the story.

Breitbart News: When you hear the word “Benghazi,” with all we know now, what comes to mind?

Rumsfeld: Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the loss of life: the four Americans, including the Ambassador, who were murdered, who were killed in a terrorist attack. They were killed in a terrorist attack that has been misrepresented by the most senior officials in our government. From the President to the Secretary of State to the Ambassador to the United Nations to the President’s spokesman, there has been a pattern of characterizing the attack as a spontaneous outbreak because of a “hateful video.”

It is heartbreaking that there were obvious warnings before this happened. There were warnings that the security was inadequate, and there were requests for better security that were not fulfilled. Our government knew it was September 11th, and the anniversary of the September 11th attacks of 2001, yet the warnings, apparently, were ignored.

And when the President characterizes the things that happened there as “bumps in the road,” it seems to me that doesn’t reflect a full understanding of his responsibilities.

Breitbart News: You speak of “responsibilities,” which leads me to ask about the President’s responsibilities regarding the distress call sent when Ambassador Stevens was in trouble. Is there any possible way that the President failed to receive or to see that distress call?

Rumsfeld: First, I guess you never want to say never. But the information flow into the Situation Room in the White House is massive. Basically, anything of significance that is known and forwarded to the State Department, the CIA, or the Department of Defense ends up available in the Situation Room in reasonably rapid manner. They have excellent communications capabilities.

Does it go directly to the Oval Office? No. It goes into the Situation Room where the Chief of Staff of the White House and the National Security Advisor end up being alerted to anything of significance. And certainly the risk of life for an Ambassador is something that would qualify as significant.

Therefore, we know that the Chief of Staff of the White House and the National Security Advisor were made aware of the threat that existed, of the danger that existed: of the immediate threat to Americans. Because that information, I have every confidence, ended up in the Situation Room very rapidly.

Read more here.

Obama on Hurricane: ‘We Leave Nobody Behind’

Today, during a non-campaign campaign stop at the Red Cross, President Obama told the nation something his administration obviously didn’t believe during the seven-hour attack on our consulate in Benghazi (and a nearby annex) on the night of September 11, 2012: That when an “American is in need… we leave nobody behind”:

This is a tough time for a lot of people; millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard, but America’s tougher. And we’re tougher because we pull together, we leave nobody behind, we make sure we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of stand together to make sure we’re providing the help that’s necessary

Read more here.

Benghazigate: What Are They Covering-Up?

Four Americans are dead and the American people are being lied to as to how and why they got that way.

Either the President is lying – and needs to be impeached, or he’s NOT lying—and needs to be impeached—because he DIDN’T know what was happening!

Repeat: Four Americans are DEAD. And as much as it pains me to say it—it doesn’t look as if our government made a genuine effort to save them.

I have watched, listened, and read as much as we have been allowed to know—plus—information gleaned by non-mainstream media sources, and I have concluded there is a major cover-up at the top levels of the US government over the incident in Benghazi.

Now, let me be clear: I am not an investigative reporter. That is not what I do. I am a commentator—an opinion writer … nothing more. I have deliberately “hung back” on any in-depth comments on the Benghazi affair simply because there always seemed to me to be more THERE there. In other words, it was obvious, at least to me, that we were only getting drips and drabs of what really happened and, I felt (and still do) that we have been told nothing of WHY it happened. But, dear reader, even Helen Keller could see there is a major cover-up surrounding the incident in Benghazi!

That CIA “safe-house” has troubled me from the very beginning of this horrible story. What was the CIA doing there? There was no embassy in Benghazi. In fact, the building attacked was not even a consulate. If anything, it was a “mission.” Had it been an embassy, I’d not question a CIA presence. They are practically a part of the furniture in any US Embassy. But, as I said, this was NOT an embassy.

Remember too, the last person our ambassador met with the evening of the attack was a Turkish diplomat. What was a Turkish diplomat doing in Benghazi, Libya, meeting with Ambassador Stevens at an unprotected site. Why not meet in the embassy in Tripoli?

Read more here.

Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Klein explained that everyone knew what was happening in Benghazi from the CIA to the National Security Agency and that there’s intelligence cables that have not been released.

Wilkow asked, “If everybody knew this including the White House, who would have given the order to go in and save the ambassador?”

Klein, “The President…he should have given the order to use the rapid reaction force…”

Wilkow, “Not Petraeus?”

Klein, “Well it has to come from the president.”

Wilkow also asked Klein about Valerie Jarrett who’s the Senior Advisor to Obama and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and her role in this cover-up.

Klein said, “We don’t know but we can only assume that every action that the president takes, and he said so, he is on the record saying “I don’t take any actions without passing it by Valerie Jarrett”… so we have to assume that Valerie Jarrett whose also by the way, hooked into the Chicago campaign line…she has a direct line to David Axlerod, was a part of this whole cover-up in the White House.”

Read more here.

Former Top Defense Official: If Obama Gave Order to Protect Benghazi Heroes There’d Be Paper Trail

Obama Fiddled While Benghazi Burned–
Earlier today Barack Obama told Denver’s WUSA TV this in regard to the Benghazi 9-11 terror attack,

“I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”

Tonight however, Bing West, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, told Greta Van Susteren,

“If that actually happened the way President Obama said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, “Can we see the order?” because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.

Obama just got caught. He lied about his securing our personnel in Benghazi. And now the world will know about it.
There was no order to protect our men on the ground.

See the video here.

‘Treason’ and Possible ‘Prison’

Glenn Beck took to his radio show Wednesday morning for a fiery denouncement of the administration’s handling of the crisis in Libya.

“This president is lying to you about Benghazi in such [a] spectacular fashion that I believe people will go to prison. This is impeachable. The president might go to prison for this one,” he said. “What’s happening in Benghazi is so far beyond lying, it is ​staggering.”

While politicians are known for twisting words into half truths, Beck added that has never seen an administration persist in such a boldfaced lie when American lives are at stake, or seen a media so content to let it slide.

He continued, going over the newly-released documents that prove the administration was alerted to what was really happening in Libya before spinning a story about a YouTube video:

Now we have [the] beginning of the truth on Benghazi. Five days into the Benghazi scandal, when no one was saying anything, I presented a theory…I told you that [Ambassador Stevens] was involved in running guns, and he was running guns to al-Qaeda in Libya, and he was running guns through Turkey into Syria. And whether it was a deal that went bad, I don’t know, but that’s what happened. And the White House knew…And while everyone else was arguing about whether it was a videotape or not, we were furthering the story.

Today we have evidence that is staggering. We now have a memo posted [at] TheBlaze…to the White House two hours after the attacks began. Last night on the TV show I laid it out again…exactly what happened, when. At 1:00, or 12:54 in the afternoon on September 11, the White House was warned that somebody was watching the Benghazi safe house– and so you know, do not let any member of the press get away with calling this an embassy safe house. It is not. It was a CIA safe house. Now why, in the most dangerous place in one of the most dangerous parts of the world, on Sept. 11…why would he be at a CIA safe house? …We now know he was having dinner with the general counsel of Turkey.

Iran secret-deal report upsets ayatollah, Obama

The revelation on WND of the secret meetings between the Obama administration and Iran has caused confusion and anger for those who were taking part – and has derailed the previously agreed-to plans of an announcement for a breakthrough on the nuclear-weapons crisis prior to the U.S. elections.

In Monday night’s presidential debate, President Obama again denied reports in “newspapers” but later contradicted himself and admitted to the possibility of bilateral meetings with Iran.

In the heat of the moment and in response to Gov. Mitt Romney’s criticism of his handling of Iran’s nuclear program, the president said, “I’m pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end their nuclear program.”

Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department expert on proliferation and now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, stated that, “I have been hearing for some time that they had been having private discussions, and now it is starting to become public.”

The British newspaper the Guardian reported the same on Tuesday.

Also on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama is open to having bilateral talks with Iran about its nuclear program, but the United States has not scheduled any negotiations.

As reported on Oct. 4 and again on Oct. 18, a three-person delegation representing the Obama administration secretly met with their Iranian counterparts about Oct. 1 in Doha, Qatar.

The source who provided details of that meeting and who remains anonymous for security reasons because he is highly placed in Iran’s regime, added that after the WND revelation of the secret meeting, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was incensed.

Read more here.

White House Told Two Hours After Benghazi Attack Began That Radical Islamic Group Claimed Responsibility

White House and State Department officials were informed just two hours after the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11 began that a radical Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility, according to official emails obtained by Reuters.

The emails, reportedly put out by the State Department, specifically mention that the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack almost immediately and called for additional terrorist acts.

The correspondence provides a glimpse into how U.S. diplomats described the fiery assault, as it was happening, to officials in Washington, D.C.

The terrorist attack claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy SEALs and a State Department official. It took the Obama administration nearly two weeks to completely rule out an anti-Muslim video as the cause of the attack.

Numerous Obama administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and even Obama himself, went on TV at different times and told millions of American citizens that the attacks were due to a spontaneous protest sparked by the video. Now it has been uncovered that the administration knew within hours that a terrorist group had proudly admitted they attacked the U.S. compound.

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: