Who is online?
In total there are 22 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 22 Guests


[ View the whole list ]

Most users ever online was 111 on Thu 12 Dec 2013, 2:28 am
Latest topics
» Meditation Chip Brogden
Yesterday at 11:36 pm by Admin

» +Dev+ Michael D. Inman
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 11:22 pm by Admin

» Daily Disciples
Yesterday at 11:11 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 11:10 pm by Admin

»  HONEST REPORTING Defending Israel from Media Bias plz read REGULAR UPDATES
Yesterday at 10:31 pm by Admin

» If Hillary Goes Down So Will Obama
Yesterday at 8:15 pm by Admin

» Police Seize Nuclear Substance in Turkish Capital, Detain Four
Yesterday at 3:08 pm by Admin

» The UN is trying to bury the truth but Jerusalem refuses to be silent
Yesterday at 2:53 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 2:38 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 12:31 am by Admin

Sun 18 Mar 2018, 11:20 pm by Admin

Sun 18 Mar 2018, 12:54 am by Admin

» George Soros
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 11:33 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:40 pm by Admin

» Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:36 pm by Admin

» NUGGET Today's Devotional
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:34 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:13 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 9:11 pm by Admin

» US blames Russia for attacks on power grid
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 8:37 pm by Admin



Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down


Post  Admin on Fri 27 Jan 2017, 9:00 pm

Bowe Abdullah Bergdahl To Be Charged with Desertion, Declared Himself a “Warrior for Islam”
By Pamela Geller - on January 27, 2015
Photo of smiling Bowe Abdullah Bergdahl posing with Taliban official. Bowe Bergdahl declared himself a “warrior for Islam” and declared jihad while in captivity.

When Obama announced the trade of an AWOL soldier who deserted to join the jihad for five senior Taliban leaders, I called for a emergency hearings. The President is unfit. The Obama administration traded a jihad-joining deserter for the Taliban Five, five members of senior Taliban leadership, without the consent of Congress (or any patriotic American).

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a “mujahid,” or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News

It was treason. The trade, considered the most treacherous in US history, led to an investigation into Berghdal’s desertion. The results of that report were not made public for months. Obama’s media and men have staged a silent coup. Jihad in the White House.

bergdhal obama
“Bergdahl to be charged with desertion, ex-military intel officer says”

January 27, 2015, FoxNews.com

The Army has decided to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners, with desertion, according to a former military intelligence officer.

Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who now works at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night that he’s learned of the military’s decision from two sources.

“The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl … will be charged with desertion,” he said.

Asked for comment on the claim, Army officials denied that any decision had been made. Spokesman Paul Boyce told Fox News on Tuesday that there is “no change” and that it is an “ongoing review at this time.”

Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, did not comment when reached by Fox News.

But Shaffer said Bergdahl’s attorney has been given a “charge sheet” outlining the section of the military justice code Bergdahl allegedly violated.

“As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer said there’s a “huge battle” going on inside the Obama administration, as some try to “suppress” this development. “This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” he said.

Shaffer said the Army “wants to do the right thing” but the White House “wants this to go away.”

He said: “The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Bergdahl was held for five years before his release was secured in 2014.

But while the president joined with Bergdahl’s parents in the Rose Garden at the time in celebrating his return home, the prisoner swap swiftly became a matter of severe controversy. Fellow soldiers accused Bergdahl of deserting his post on a base in Afghanistan in 2009. And the trade itself, of his freedom for five Guantanamo prisoners, drew criticism in Congress from lawmakers who said it sent a troubling signal.

On Monday, former diplomat Richard Grenell claimed the administration has “sent the message” that the U.S. will negotiate on such matters. He cited an alleged offer, made around the same time as Bergdahl’s release, by the Qatari government to trade two Americans held in Qatar for an Al Qaeda agent held in a U.S. federal prison. The Obama administration denies there was any deal. Those prisoners were ultimately released over the past two months

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Thu 29 Dec 2016, 12:03 am

Sharyl Attkisson: White House Hiding Photos of Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack
In an interview on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Tuesday morning, former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed that photos taken by the White House photographer taken the night of the Benghazi attacks have never been turned over.

When asked about questions she wanted to see answered by the Benghazi special committee, she said that she had a new list of questions which she intends on publishing. However, she says that the confliction regarding what Obama did that night still remains and the photos might just give the story… that is unless, as usual, the Obama White House is photoshopping them.

"One of the things my producer and I did early on to try to get clues, because you know they told us so little initially, we requested White House photos taken that night," she explained. "Because if you know how the White House works, a photographer is omnipresent. He would have been there taking photographs in the Situation Room. He would have been taking photographs of the president that night. So we asked for the photos, which in my view, are public information. They are paid for with tax dollars, and they release them when they want them released and they are positive."

Attkisson said that she had requested the photos. However, though she was told by the White House photo office that she would receive the photos by the end of the day, she was then referred to Josh Earnest, who was deputy press secretary at the time, who refused to respond to both her and her producers' phone calls and emails.

"The Photo Office indicated initially– this was probably in October or November of 2012– that we could have the photos at the end of the day, and that never materialized," Attkisson recalled. "They suddenly started referring us a White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, who is now press secretary. And they said that Josh would have to approve it, and Josh would never return a call or e-mail."

"We tried to maintain communication with him or try to make communication with him over a long period of time, and he wouldn't even answer," she said. "We would go back to the White House press, photographer's office and say, 'You have given us an impossible task. You have told us to talk to someone who will not talk to us. You need to give us another route to follow to try and get these photos.' And they would say no, you have to talk to Josh Earnest."

"So that just went down a dead-end road. I think that is entirely unacceptable, Attkisson added. "The press officers work for the public. They are publicly paid to be responsive to the press and the public. Those White House photos belong to the public, in my view, to the extent that they wouldn't reveal any national secrets. To this day, they remain secret."

"I would just be interested in seeing whatever they show," she concluded.

Attkisson, whose computer had been compromised during her reporting of the Obama scandals and who was targeted by the Obama administration, left CBS claiming that she received pressure because her reporting was overly critical of the Obama administration.

One thing is for sure, the White House has been lying about what took place the night of the Benghazi attacks. Here are just a couple of examples:

The White House didn't fully respond to the emails they were sent from people on the ground in Benghazi claiming they were under attack, but rather pushed the story that the attacks were a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video. Transcripts later revealed that defense officials told Obama it was an attack and the CIA confirmed that there was no protest. We later discovered was produced by a Muslim, not a Coptic Christian, who worked for the Obama DOJ. Additionally, the company that created the Obamacare website was also involved in the creation of the video.
The White House sent a letter to Congress on a Thursday claiming that Barack Obama didn't make a single phone call on the night of the Benghazi attacks. Yet, the following Tuesday, the White House changed its story to claim that Obama made one phone call to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Obama and his administration have been lying to the American people ever since they took office and we've documented that. However, just like my Dad used to tell me, "When you tell a lie, you have to always cover it up with another lie… and then another and another and another, until eventually you don't' even know what the truth is."

I think Barack Hussein Obama has been engaged in so many lies, that he is has become a mentally ill, sociopathic liar and wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and punched him in the face. Perhaps it's time to invoke the 25th Amendment to deal with this guy since Congress can't seem to find the intestinal fortitude to impeach him.

As for the photos, I'm guessing they won't be forthcoming, but even if they are, they will more than likely be as fake as the birth certificate on the White House website.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Thu 03 Nov 2016, 4:30 pm

BOMBSHELL: Email shows Pentagon tried to send help in Benghazi, BUT…
By Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor7:55pm  December 8, 2015
Getty Images
The ugly truth about Benghazi continues to trickle out. Like this critical email that shows the Pentagon urgently offering help to the unfolding attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And although it came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty.

As Judicial Watch notes, the email ‘leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come.” 

In other words, the Pentagon was offering military assets that potentially could have saved the lives of American citizens — if only the State Department had signed off.

Advertisement - story continues below

JUST IN: AG Loretta Lynch just got SUED over...
What Obama's SecDef just announced is downright ASININE...
ONE WORD sums up what's truly at stake next week, folks...
Of course, we all remember who was leading the State Department at that time. Everyone’s favorite leading Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton.

Via The Right Scoop:

An email recently obtained by Judicial Watch shows that the Pentagon was demanding Hillary allow them to send help to Benghazi during the 2012 attack. This would completely contradict the claim from Hillary and Leon Panetta that no forces were available and within reach to provide help to the compound that was under siege.
From Fox News:
As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”
Ironically, Hillary Clinton and her minions were concerned with spinning the story instead of gearing up the military forces.

Here’s the email:

benghazi emails
benghazi emails 1
The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.

Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.

“This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,” Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.

Parts of the email from Bash were redacted before release, including details on what military forces were available.
So there it is. Panetta and Hillary LIED to the American public over and over, and the media never pressed them enough to demand answers.

The clincher? This information has been available since a month after the attack. But as Judicial Watch notes:

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex.  The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.”

Meanwhile, the White House today declared leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump disqualified to be president in light of his call for a temporary halt on Muslims entering the United States — at least, “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This, in the name of protecting American citizens from a very real terror threat — enemies who have revealed themselves and openly declared the refugee crisis a war tactic.

Now, you tell me who’s actually disqualified to be president?

[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Tue 01 Nov 2016, 3:51 pm

John Podesta's Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ's Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails
Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner's notebook,
 among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton's personal server, moments ago the US Justice Department announced it is also joining the probe, and as AP reported moments ago, vowed to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in the Clinton case.
 The Associated Press ? @AP
BREAKING: Justice Dept. says it'll dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in Clinton case.
8:16 PM - 31 Oct 2016
  1,184 1,184 Retweets   1,225 1,225 likes
In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it \u201Cwill continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,\u201D assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers

 Just the Facts @JTF_News
#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.#8days
8:36 PM - 31 Oct 2016
  119 119 Retweets   81 81 likes
So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.
Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?
Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?
It was Peter Kadzik.
In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.
For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:
The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.
The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.  The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.
Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta\u2019s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik\u2019s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.
As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state\u2019s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign\u2019s \u201Ccozy relationship\u201D with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta\u2019s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik\u2019s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.
\u201CThe political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don\u2019t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,\u201D says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.
\u201CIt\u2019s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,\u201D he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.
Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.
It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.
Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a \u201Cfantastic lawyer\u201D who \u201Ckept me out of jail.\u201D
Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.
Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.
Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. \u201CHe did lie to me,\u201D Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.
Podesta had been promoted to Clinton\u2019s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.
Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that \u201CKadzik was recruited into Marc Rich\u2019s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.\u201D
The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich\u2019s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich\u2019s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton\u2019s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.
Kadzik's current role
In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.
But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.
In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained \u201Cthat special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.\u201D
DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch\u2019s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama\u2019s political appointees \u2014 a list which includes Kadzik \u2014 \u201Care being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.\u201D
It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis\u2019 questions.
Kadzik\u2019s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.
Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI\u2019s files of the Clinton email investigation.
Finally, it is also worth noting that Kadzik's wife, Amy Weiss, currently at Weiss Public Affairs worked on the 1992 Clinton/Gore Campaign as a Press Secretary, and Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee, and a White House Deputy Assistant to the President/Deputy Press Secretary to President Bill Clinton.
* * *
And now it seems that Kadzik will be in charge of the DOJ's "probe" into Huma Abedin's emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find "anything" of note.

Amy Weiss, Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Fri 28 Oct 2016, 7:44 pm

CIA denied help during Benghazi attack

EXPLOSIVE ALLEGATIONS! CIA Operators were told to “Stand Down” during attack in Benghazi as 3 urgent requests for military back-up were denied
CIA denied help during Benghazi attack 

FOX NEWS has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. 
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Sun 23 Oct 2016, 9:02 pm

[ltr] Do you recall the President referring to the Benghazi incident as "a bump in the road?" [/ltr]
[ltr]Today I heard an ex-Navy Seal being interviewed on Fox News regarding a book he has written about how to handle crisis situations in our lives.[/ltr]

[ltr]At the end of the interview he asked if he could make a comment on Benghazi and, of course, the anchor said "yes."[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]He then thanked Fox News for keeping the Benghazi story in the news, since other news organizations are not.[/ltr]
[ltr]He said the Seals who died deserve to be remembered by this poem.[/ltr]
[ltr]The poem was written by an anonymous Marine Corps officer:[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]We're the battling boys of Benghazi, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]No fame, no glory, no paparazzi. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Just a fiery death in a blazing hell, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Defending our country we loved so well. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]It wasn't our job, but we answered the call, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Led them to safety and stood at the gate. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Just the two of us and foes by the score,[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]But we stood fast to bar the door. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]So we fought and we fought and we fought until we died. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]We gave our all for our Uncle Sam, [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]But Barack and Hillary didn't give a damn. [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]Just two dead Seals who carried the load [/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]No thanks to us ... we were just "Bumps in the Road."[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]So, will this reach every American with a computer? Or do we act like the press and give a pass to the people who literally sat there in the White House and watched the Seals' execution on live streaming video and did absolutely nothing?[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]"What difference does it make?"[/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr]And she wants to be the next President![/ltr]
[ltr] [/ltr]
[ltr] ***************[/ltr]
[ltr]IN GOD WE TRUST[/ltr]
[ltr]*************** [/ltr]

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Sun 23 Oct 2016, 6:42 pm

Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libyan jihadists despite ban
ByPAMELA GELLER on October 22, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department initially approved a weapons shipment to jihadists seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The US government aligned with jihadists. It was no secret — I was writing  and warning about the al Qaeda fighters the Obama administration was supporting back  in Libya back in March 2011.
When those jihadists began slaughtering Americans, Hillary and Obama gave a stand down order and began to construct the big lie — first one video, then another.

“…… it was a very, very military type of operation they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” Young explained. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.” …. more here.

Two months before the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, then-Ambassador Chris Stevens requested 13 security personnel to help him safely travel around Libya, according to a cable reviewed by Fox News — but he was turned down.

In the July 9, 2012 cable, Stevens reported that, “Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers.” The cable said 13 security personnel would be the “minimum” needed for “transportation security and incident response capability.”

But a congressional source said Patrick Kennedy, a deputy to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, turned down the request.

The cable sent under Stevens’ electronic signature shows that he was advocating for additional security and warning that the set-up did not meet State Department standards, as conditions deteriorated in the run-up to the attack that killed Stevens and three other Americans.

Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate, is set to testify Thursday before the congressional Benghazi committee at a hearing where the State Department’s security measures in Libya are likely to be a focal point. (FOX News)

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 10.58.50 AM


In the year leading up to the 2012 attack, records show, there were 234 security incidents in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi — including a June assassination attempt on the British ambassador in which a rocket-propelled grenade struck his vehicle. The team narrowly escaped.


“Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban,”

By John Solomon and Jeffrey Scott Shapiro – The Washington Times, October 20, 2015

Memos recovered from Benghazi compound divulge covert effort

The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government.

At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.

The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.

Dolarian Capital, part of a small network of U.S. arms merchants that has worked with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then inexplicably revoked before the armaments were sent.

“Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya. The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter,” one of its attorneys said in a statement issued to The Washington Times. “As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, the existence of the documents and the temporary approval of at least one U.S. arms shipment provides the most direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department was aware of efforts to get weapons into the hands of rebels seeking to oust Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton is set to testify Thursday during a highly anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been ambiguous about the exact role the United States played in arming the rebels who overthrew Gadhafi, even as arms merchants and former CIA officials have stated publicly that a covert program facilitated such weapons transfers through a network of friendly weapons brokers and third-party countries.

The issue is sensitive because a U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Libya was in place at the time, although the State Department had the authority to deem a specific shipment in the United States interest and permit its transference, officials said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment Tuesday, as did the CIA public affairs office.

To date, the public evidence of U.S. involvement in weapons trafficking to Libya has been episodic.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.


Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.

But to date, no evidence has emerged publicly that the State Department had direct knowledge or involvement in reviewing potential shipments.

The Benghazi documents, however, show that U.S. diplomats in the consulate were monitoring a series of potential exports in spring and summer 2011 to third-party countries and that one or more were likely to land in Libya.

For instance, a June 28, 2011, email chain contained in a file titled “arms deal” documents an exchange among State Department employees about eight export licensing application numbers, indicating one or more of the shipments involved Libya’s Transitional National Council.

“DRL recommends BA L181-11 T6-F RWA — need decision from higher level on TNC,” reads one of the notations in the email.

DRL stands for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and TNC is the interchangeable acronym for the Transitional National Council, the NATO-supported Libyan rebel government.

The email also references the office of defense trade controls licensing, the State directorate in charge of registering arms exports.

The Dolarian Capital papers, dated May 18, 2011, include an end-user certificate that outlines a long list of heavy former Eastern-bloc weaponry and artillery to be shipped from the California-based arms dealer first to Kuwait, and then to Libya.

chris stevens

“This is to certify the following items are to be delivered by Dolarian Capital, Inc. [of] Fresno, California, United States and secured by M/s Specter Consultancy Services G.T.C. [of] Kuwait City, Kuwait to the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya. The Ministry of Interior has agreed the items are for the exclusive disposition of the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya and will not be re-exported or transferred to any third countries,” the certificate reads.

Just one month earlier, Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

Dolarian Capital and other U.S. arms merchants — all legally registered with the State Department — have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

It applied for several State Department licenses to ship weapons to Libya, but only one got approved and then only temporarily before being revoked. The one export listed in the certificate was among the smaller shipments the company proposed for Libya, according to people familiar with the applications. In each instance, State and other U.S. agencies were directly aware the end destinations for the weapons were in Libya.

Dolarian Capital also is listed in court records as the source of weapons for another U.S. arms dealer, Marc Turi, who sought permission to ship weapons to Libya during the same time frame. Mr. Turi since has been charged criminally with making false statements in his application for those shipments, and has publicly asserted that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and other U.S. officials sanctioned his involvement.

Read the rest here…….http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/hillary-clinton-state-department-approved-us-weapo/
Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban
Memos recovered from Benghazi compound divulge covert effort

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Sun 16 Oct 2016, 2:47 pm

Posted by Martin Walsh | Sep 5, 2016 | National Security
Hillary Allowed Amb. Stevens’ Exact Location To Be Revealed
Hillary Clinton has been destroyed with email hacks and document leaks for nearly two months now, and she will be waking up this morning to another one. In an email released Monday regarding Hillary’s Benghazi investigation, there was one specific message that detailed the exact location of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Because this email was sent through the unsecured server, it is highly probable that terrorists intercepted the message.

There were five relevant emails in the cache of Clinton emails that placed Amb. Stevens in harms way:

March 23, 2011: In this email, Clinton’s then-chief of staff Jacob Sullivan wrote to Clinton about the NATO mission in Libya. Sullivan also wrote that someone named Bill was “trying to make sure Chris Stevens gets into E. Libya.”
March 27, 2011: This is an email between two State Department officials that was then forwarded to Clinton. Regarding his location and travel plans, the email said, “The current game plan is for Mr. Stevens to move no later than Wednesday from Malta to Benghazi. He will stage off shore initially for a one day visit during which he will have meetings with TNC interlocutors and get a sense of the situation on the ground. The goal of this one day trip is for him to lay the groundwork for a stay of up to 30 days.”
April 8, 2011: An email among State Department employees that was later forwarded to Clinton said, “Security situation in Benghazi remains quiet. Chris Stevens & team are in the hotel, moving only for meetings as required.”
April 10, 2011: Another email among State Department employees later forwarded to Clinton marked said, “The situation in Ajdabiyah has worsened to the point where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi. The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout.
April 24, 2011: A final email among State Department employees later forwarded to Clinton: “Stevens will be meeting with MFA in one hour and will make a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination. He still feels comfortable in the hotel. They are looking into the idea of moving into a villa, but that is some way off.”
Hillary Called Him Chris Smith, She Didn't Even Know His Name
Hillary Called Him Chris Smith, She Didn’t Even Know His Name
Read the email closely. It begins at the bottom with Hillary (H) writing in the subject line “Chris Smith.” Yes, Chris Smith was one of the Americans that was also killed, but it shows that the wrong name remained in the email chain. No one corrected it. And no one can argue that they were focused on “the situation,” because if they truly were, they would never have revealed his location 5 separate times in unsecured emails. Clinton claims to have been deeply affected by the death of an American Ambassador, yet she can’t even remember what his name is? Hillary allowed Benghazi to happen, she placed everyone at risk with her incompetence, and she is to blame for why he cannot go home to his family.

The emails above are from a chain of emails that reveal Ambassador Stevens‘ location was readily available to anyone who could hack into Hillary Clinton’s unsecured private email server. Which, according to the FBI, was not very hard to do. It is very possible that these emails were intercepted, but Hillary failed these Americans several times. She failed them when she declined to adequately supply and arm them when they requested it for months, she never answered their requests for help that night for 13 hours, and she still to this day lies about how she left our Americans exposed to an attack. She didn’t care then, and she never will. But we do. Here’s an awesome tribute video to Amb. Chris Stevens:

It is possible that we will never know whether terrorists intercepted the emails on Hillary’s non-secure personal server, especially given how many programs Clinton has used to wipe her server clean, but we do see a pattern here and the American people are not believing the lies she continues to spew. To make things worse, we know she doesn’t care. The mere fact that she is willing to put her own electoral chances above the lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, should tell you all you need to know about her.

And remember this: the Democrats rigged the election FOR her, it isn’t like they got stuck with her. She was their choice, they championed her as their nominee. So that speaks to many Democrats and reveals how corrupt and dishonest the entire party is. It’s time for America to stand up and say no. The time has come for us all to unite, and put an end to the Clinton Cartel before it is too late. Please like and share on Facebook if you agree that Hillary Clinton deserves to go to jail for her private email server, what she has done to this country, and for leaving Americans to die that night in Benghazi. Scroll down to comment below!

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Thu 30 Jun 2016, 5:58 pm

Just a Minor Detail: AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Refused to Let It Fire
PJ Media

If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not an American:

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.

The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz

It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.

An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.

There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic


Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed 29 Jun 2016, 9:02 pm

House Benghazi Report Details Military, Intelligence Failures
Report says U.S. did not attempt to deploy assets, troops during Benghazi attack
BY: Alana Goodman  
June 28, 2016 5:00 am

The U.S. military never attempted to deploy any assets or troops to Benghazi during the 13-hour attack on the American consulate in 2012, according to a supplemental report released by the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Tuesday morning.
Although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said he ordered three support teams to deploy to Benghazi about two hours into the attack, the committee said it found no evidence that these forces were mobilized until hours after the attack ended. Military assets, such as fighter planes and armed drones never left the ground, according to the report.
“We are now convinced, contrary to the administration’s public claim that the military did not have time to get to Benghazi, that the administration never launched men or machines to help directly in the fight,” wrote Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) in the analysis. “That is very different from what we have been told to date. And the evidence is compelling.”
The congressmen issued their assessment as a supplement to the long-awaited report by the Benghazi Committee. According to the analysis, the Obama administration was fixated on how to frame the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack to the public, and spent little time trying to coordinate a military response while the attack was ongoing.
The attack took place less than two months before the 2012 presidential election. There were early indications the assault was planned—such as targeted mortar fire—but Obama administration officials initially linked it to spontaneous anti-American protests that had occurred the same day in Cairo.
Four Americans died in the 13-hour battle: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
In the hours and days that followed the assault, Secretary Hillary Clinton, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, and other administration officials publicly suggested that the attack spontaneously spun out of a protest over an anti-Islam video.
Officials later blamed this erroneous assessment on conflicting intelligence and confusion during the attack. But diplomatic security agents who spoke to the committee said there were no signs or reports of protests on the ground and it was clear early on that they were facing a coordinated terrorist assault.
The House Benghazi Committee, led by Chairman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), has interviewed nearly 100 witnesses and reviewed over 75,000 pages of documents as part of its investigation into the attack.
The committee’s report relied on testimony that diplomatic security agents at the compound gave to the committee. One of the agents said there was “Zip, nothing, nada” to indicate that there were protests in Benghazi leading up to the attack. Another agent who said there was no sign of protesters was also providing dispatches to Washington “every 15 to 30 minutes throughout the night—giving the State Department virtually a front row seat to the attack.”
Other security officials said there were signs of growing threats in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. Nine months earlier, one diplomatic security officer testified that he told a State Department security desk officer shortly after arriving in Benghazi that his trip there “was a suicide mission; that there was a very good chance that everybody here was going to die; that there was absolutely no ability here to prevent an attack whatever.”
The desk officer in Washington reportedly responded that “everybody back here in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares and nobody is going to care until somebody does die.”
But according to committee testimony from security officers, there was pressure from Washington for the outpost to remain open in Benghazi and for Ambassador Chris Stevens to bring the State Department a “deliverable”—a permanent consulate in Benghazi.
The report also referred to an internal State Department talking points memo, which was circulated by a public relations officer on September 17, 2012. The document said officials “have not yet seen any signs that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was other than premeditated or coordinated.” But in the draft obtained by the Benghazi committee, there were strike marks through words “premeditated or coordinated” and they were replaced by the word “spontaneous.”
According to Reps. Pompeo and Jordan, the document suggests that the State Department changed its public comments to reflect UN Ambassador Rice’s televised claim that the attack was “spontaneous.”
“No one asked about it could explain the change,” wrote the congressmen. “The change—from the truth to a known false statement—is troubling.”
Democrats on the Benghazi Committee, who have been critical of the investigation, released their own report blasting Gowdy on Monday.
They accused the committee chairman of “trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps.”
A spokesperson for Gowdy responded by accusing Democrats of failing to participate in the committee’s investigation and obstructing it in order to defend Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“As Chairman Gowdy has said, this is not about one person,” said spokesman Matt Wolking. “This investigation is about the four brave Americans we lost in Libya: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. That is how the Majority has conducted its thorough investigation, and we look forward to revealing the new information we have uncovered to the families and the American people.”
This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Benghazi. Bookmark the permalink.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Tue 28 Jun 2016, 11:09 pm


Final Benghazi Report: White House, Clinton LIED, Our Boys DIED, PR was Priority, Obsession with Marine Uniforms
ByPAMELA GELLER on June 28, 2016
LIBYA 9 Comments
“WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]

The Benghazi Committee has released their final report.

The public statements made by Obama and Hillary Obama on the Benghazi attacks are strikingly at odds with what private communications reveal. It is devastating.This should be Hillary’s Waterloo. But we are living under the spiked boot of a left-wing apparatus with near total control of the elite media. There will be an eerie silence on this in the vast enemedia echo chamber.

The Obama administration knowingly provided the American people a false story about the Benghazi attack, its causes and its consequences. (Steven Hayes)

As the Benghazi attack unfolded, the two-hour White House meeting focused on public relations.

State Department officials on an emergency conference call during the Benghazi attack brought up concerns about whether Marines that might have been deployed should wear uniforms — something officials previously said could hurt diplomacy in the region, according to House Benghazi investigators….. (here)

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times.

Benghazi is a dark hour for America and darker still as no price has been been paid. There has been no justice, no repercussions for the ghouls – the murderers of our people- not just in Libya but in the Beltway.

Not only did she stand by as the attacks unfolded for hours,  she created conditions for the attack.



With the deteriorating situation on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi, hundreds of requests for additional security for the Americans in Libya went unanswered or denied. No precautionary measures were taken, even as the September 11, 2001 anniversary was approaching.

Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States. Even though there had been multiple previous attacks against the diplomatic missions of other countries, and the U.S.’s own outpost in Benghazi, those requests were ignored leading up to the events of September 11th.

It was lunacy on a grand scale. (The Hill)

This should end Hillary.

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sending a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mentiot out multiple updates about the situation, inclun of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]
Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]
Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”

Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.

Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a series of recommendations.

The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.

Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/final-benghazi-report-to-show-white-house-clinton-pushed-false-story-they-lied-our-boys-died-pr-was-priority.html/#sthash.S9tyaOqx.dpuf

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Fri 03 Jun 2016, 9:53 pm


Extract from this article: “What none of these media is reporting is that the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam. There is no question but POTUS knows this.”

OMG you guys! Disgraced former torturer Allen West, super-patriot and Muslim-Hunter extraordinaire, has been tipped off to some earth-shattering proof of Muslim perfidy and scary creeping — or galloping! — sharia law! After spending the weekend calling Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl a “deserter” and hinting that there’s something “nefarious” about his release from the Taliban, and about Bergdahl’s father, Bob Bergdahl (who apparently doesn’t hate Muslims enough at all), West has revealed a “bombshell”: Bob Bergdahl spoke Arabic at the White House! Not only that, but he pretty much made the White House a holy Muslim shrine by doing that, according to a very smart person who emailed Allen West.

West says that he got an email from Clare Lopez, a “former CIA operations officer” who knows all sorts of stuff about Islam and the Middle East, and who is a personal friend of one Allen West. Lopez completely blows the lid off a huge cover-up, he says!

She emailed me this morning a very poignant analysis that only someone knowing language and Islam could ascertain. She wrote:

“What none of these media is reporting is that the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam. There is no question but POTUS knows this.”

Folks, there is a lot to this whole episode — like Benghazi — that we may never know. And this is not conspiracy theory, it is truth based upon Arabic and Islamic dogma and tradition.

Is America going to continue to let Barack Hussein Obama invite parents of rescued POWs to the White House and claim it for Islam? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is genuine honest-to-god disloyalty to America. Or maybe — and we’re going to go out on a limb here — it’s a routine phrase in Muslim Prayer that doesn’t actually have any magical power whatsoever, except perhaps the power to freak out wingnuts.

Get ready for a lot more of this idiocy, folks; somehow, the fact that Bowe Bergdahl’s dad is sympathetic to Muslims has also been Very Big with the Stupidest Man on the Internet. Here’s how terrifying Bob Bergdahl is: He said a phrase in Arabic, and then OBAMA HUGGED HIM! That just doesn’t wash off, you know.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And while you’re at it, maybe you should buy some more guns.

[Allen West / Gateway Pundit]

Read more at http://wonkette.com/550518/allen-west-pretty-sure-bowe-bergdahls-dad-made-the-white-house-a-mosque#lwFxHLy1dKlbju9H.99

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Sun 29 May 2016, 9:35 pm

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance.

Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.

The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”

(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)

The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:

Weapons from the former Libya military

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed 20 Apr 2016, 11:26 pm


Mother of Benghazi Victim: Hillary ‘Ought to Be Wearing Stripes,’ ‘My Son Is Dead Because of Her’
by IAN HANCHETT18 Apr 20163,008
Patricia Smith, whose son, Sean, was killed in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya said that Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “ought to be wearing stripes” and “My son is dead because of her” on Monday’s “Varney & Co.” on the Fox Business Network.

Smith said, “My feeling is that she went on TV afterwards, telling everybody that I was the liar, that there’s someone here that is lying, and it wasn’t her, and that I was liar. I want her to apologize to me for calling me a liar on TV, because this is clearly not true. And I want to know why my son was left to die breathing in diesel smoke, which is the most horrible way to die, and she didn’t do anything to stop it. She could have.”

Smith added that Hillary “ought to be in — she ought to be wearing stripes. I want to see this woman in stripes, because she lied, and the different things that she did say, were very, totally wrong. My son is dead because of her. I would like to talk to her, even though I know I would be the bad one in that.”

Smith also stated that she hadn’t been contacted by anyone to do media appearances “other than local radio stations and Fox stations, and I’ve talked to them.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Read More Stories About:
Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, Sean Smith, Patricia Smith

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 12:42 am

Who\u2019s to blame for Benghazi? A layman\u2019s guide
By Max Fisher November 6, 2012 
An empty shell casing in the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi. (Gianluigi  Guercia/AFP/Getty Images)
The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, raised questions about the stability of post-Gaddafi Libya, and ultimately became a major political controversy in the weeks ahead of Tuesday's U.S. presidential election. The political debate around Benghazi has often turned on an implicit (and sometimes quite explicit) question: Who messed up? That question hasn't been easy to follow, both because of the slow trickle of information about the incident and because so much of the domestic conversation has been colored by its political implications.

This is an attempt to objectively consider the various individuals and groups connected to the Benghazi incident, what's been publicly reported about their roles so far, and what that information suggests about their potential responsibility.

Because the picture of what actually happened before, during and after the attack is so incomplete and hazy, these appraisals are necessarily speculative and should be taken with a grain of salt. Rather than a definitive determination of fault, they should be considered estimations based on the publicly available information \u2013 a picture that could change dramatically as new information comes out. Still, taken together, they show both how widely dispersed the blame could be and how relatively minor, individual mistakes may have added up to something larger.

State Department: A mid-level denial to boost security

A mid-level official at the State Department had denied requests for a handful of additional security officers at the Benghazi consulate, despite a marked uptick in violence and the shortcomings of Libyan security forces. Warning signs, including a June bombing outside the consulate, did not appear to lead the department to beef up security. The largest request was for 12 additional men; there were five at the time of the attack. The State Department necessarily relies on its host government for security, and maybe in this case the CIA as well, although ultimate responsibility for State Department security would seem to rest with the agency itself. There's no evidence that the security requests went higher than the mid-level official.
Central Intelligence Agency: 'Emergency security' couldn't save ambassador 

The consulate in Benghazi had a secret arrangement with nearby CIA forces that were to provide "emergency security." The Wall Street Journal said in reporting the arrangement: "The CIA\u2019s secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility." A seven-person CIA security force responded within 50 minutes of the initial attack but, in the chaos of the battle, did not retrieve the ambassador. A number of observers have raised the obvious question of why the CIA did not see this attack coming, given its apparent scale. It's worth noting that Libya is awash in small arms and militias, which would seem to make monitoring them unusually difficult.

Pentagon: Quick-reaction force wasn't ready 

A New York Times report on the Pentagon's Africa command found that "forces in the region had not been adequately reconfigured" to respond to the attack. The Africa command AFRICOM, formed in 2007 and responsible for all U.S. military in Africa, is still developing its quick-reaction force and had to "borrow" one based in Europe. "Critics say there has been a gap in the command\u2019s quick-reaction capability, which the force would have helped fill," according to the Times. Still, the force would have been based in Sicily, so it's doubtful the troops would have been able to arrive in time to defend against the initial assault.

Ambassador Chris Stevens: Stayed in town despite seeing risk 

As Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell put it, "Nobody wants to say it, but Amb. Chris Stevens was a big boy and he made his own decision to go to Benghazi despite the risks. If he thought it was too dangerous, he should not have gone." And he had a reputation for jogging Libya's streets despite security threats. Still, Stevens clearly sought greater security in Benghazi from local and national Libyan officials. It's not clear whether or not he made similar appeals to U.S. officials, but he seemed to take the security situation seriously.

February 17 Brigade: Hired to defend consulate, unreachable during the attack 

This Libyan militia, the most powerful security force in post-Gaddafi Benghazi, was officially designated to guard the consulate, fulfilling the Libyan state's responsibility. Stevens had made appeals to local and national Libyan officials complaining that their Libyan security was insufficient, reflecting concerns that February 17 wasn't up to the task. On the night of the attack, the CIA urgently tried and failed to raise the militiamen. That's a big deal, suggesting a degree of irresponsibility and/or incompetence. (There's no indication of malicious intent.) Still, given that this is a citizen militia fulfilling a role usually played by a country's military or domestic security services, how did its disappointing performance take U.S. agencies by quite such surprise?

Libyan government: Struggling to provide basic security

The Vienna Convention requires host countries to assume responsibility for foreign diplomatic buildings. Libya, it seems, was just not up to the task. Michael Birnbaum found officials and agencies "on autopilot as the new lawmakers plot alliances and betrayals over endless cups of coffee in Tripoli." Stevens had protested to senior officials that Benghazi's security was insufficient, although given that the consulate was relying on a citizen militia, it's not clear what Tripoli could have done. After four decades of dictatorship and the recent civil war, the central state just does not yet have a hold on basic security functions. Still, as with February 17, one question is whether or not the U.S. agencies should have been able to foresee these shortcomings.

Congressional Republicans: A 10 percent security budget cut

Some critics, including Vice President Biden, have noted that the GOP-led House of Representatives reduced appropriations for embassy security, which ultimately came to about 90 percent of what the administration requested, a drop of $270 million. Still, assuming that the cuts were proportional, it's hard to see this being decisive. Returning the funding to the full amount would have increased the number of dollars by only 10 percent; boosting the Benghazi security by 10 percent (from five guards to five and a half?) seems unlikely to have turned the tide.

President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus

The details of bureaucratic infighting over consulate security might seem enormously significant now that they have undergone such public scrutiny, but it's very difficult to imagine those disputes reaching top U.S. leaders beforehand. The U.S. has 200-plus embassies and consulates abroad; their security requests are not cabinet-level decisions. Barring some extraordinary revelation, the strongest case for top-level responsibility is that these people oversee the people who oversee the people who made the decisions about security in Benghazi. That's not nothing, but it's not exactly the next Iran-Contra affair, either.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Thu 03 Mar 2016, 9:23 pm

MARCH 2, 2016
One of Hillary’s emails that was released on Monday pertaining to the Benghazi investigation that was part of her private email server contained a detailed location of murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens, which raised the possibility that terrorists could have intercepted the message.

Breitbart revealed that the email from April 10th, 2011, the State Department employee, Timmy Davis, forwarded an email to the server by Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin.

Davis’ email read:

“The situation in Ajdabiyah has worsened to the point where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi”

“The envoy’s delegation is currently doing a phased checkout (paying the hotel bills, moving some comms to the boat, etc). He will monitor the situation to see if it deteriorates further, but no decision has been made on departure. He will wait 2-3 more hours, then revisit the decision on departure.”


This is the last one of a chain of emails that contained Ambassador Stevens’ location and was almost readily available to anyone that could reach access to Clintons’ unsecured private email server.

Another email from March, 2011 stated:

“The current game plan is for Mr. Stevens to move no later than Wednesday from Malta to Benghazi. He will stage offshore initially for a one day visit during which he will have meetings with TNC (Transitional National Council) interlocutors and get a sense of the situation on the ground. The goal of this one day trip is for him to lay the groundwork for a stay of up to 30 days.”

Then, on April 8, another email reported that the “security situation in Benghazi remains quiet. Chris Stevens & team are in the hotel, moving only for meetings as required.”

On April 22, another email detailing Stevens’ travel plans: “I want to let you know about a temporary rotation in Benghazi. TNC Envoy Chris Stevens has been on the road since March 13, when he began his outreach mission, and has been in Benghazi since April 5.”

There was another email that had detailed information on Stevens’ plans, from April 22nd:

“I want to let you know about a temporary rotation in Benghazi. TNC Envoy Chris Stevens has been on the road since March 13, when he began his outreach mission, and has been in Benghazi since April 5.”

And then, on April 24, there was an email which told the exact time Ambassador Stevens would be having a meeting:

“Stevens will be meeting with MFA in one hour and will make a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination. He still feels comfortable in the hotel. They are looking into the idea of moving into a villa, but that is some way off.”

Things will probably never be clear and we may never know whether terrorists could see the contents of Hillary’s non-secure server, especially given the amount of work she put in to keep them buried.

To make things worse, Hillary Clinton doesn’t care. She’s willing to put her own electoral chances above the lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.

Remembering Chris Stevens

And, in the end, the Democrats choice is this woman, imagine that! Okay America, it’s time to stand up and say no!

Share the story if you agree!

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Wed 20 May 2015, 5:41 pm

It’s Now Clear The Stunning Negligence That Led Up To Chris Stevens’ Death In Benghazi
Two smoking guns hit the news streams this week: The U.S. indeed had a gun-running program pipelining Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels through a port in Benghazi; and at least some “intelligence” on action in Libya passed through not one, but at least two of Hillary Clinton’s “homebrew” email addresses.

It’s Clinton’s reliance on her civilian email servers for seemingly classified communications (indeed, all Department of State communications), coupled with the real nature of the mission in Benghazi, that lay bare the negligence leading up to the attack that took the lives of four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens and two former Navy SEALs.

In the November following the attack, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. mission in Benghazi was “at it’s heart, a CIA operation.” It turns out the CIA Annex that had its cover blown during the attack was more than likely the central hub of an international gun running operation.
A source told Fox News two weeks after the attack that Stevens was in Benghazi meeting a Turkish diplomat to “negotiate a weapons transfer, in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of violent extremists.” One hour after Stevens showed him the door, local Libyan guards “abandoned their posts” and the assault began.

We know that Moammar Gadhafi’s stockpile of SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles concerned Western intelligence agencies, so much so that they quickly set up programs to locate and supposedly destroy these weapons in Libya. We also know that these weapons had, since Gadhafi’s fall, appeared in Mali in the hands of members of al-Qaida in the Islamic Meghreb through somewhat shady weapons deals.

So the alleged purpose of the CIA Annex was to rob extremist Peter of his heavy weapons and deliver the weapons to Syrian rebel Paul, putting the agency in direct competition with the same militia that attacked the consulate.

Perhaps coincidentally, some of the concern about the SA-7 market came through in emails to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal. We already know how easily hackers scooped his information.

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Admin on Mon 18 May 2015, 9:44 pm

Obama Admin knew Benghazi Attack Planned in Advance to Coincide With 9/11 Anniversary 

Obama used the attack on Benghazi to attack the First Amendment. Obama knew a 9/11 attack was in the works. Obama left our people there to die.
US intel knew about weapons going from Benghazi to Syria.

May 18, 2015 – 3:13 – Documents also reveal Defense Intelligence Agency predicted rise of ISIS.

Breaking news from Fox on Benghazi: CIA knew an attack against the USA Consulate was in the works ten-days before it happened. Nothing whatsoever to do with a “video” or any other red herring concocted by Obama and Hillary. Extra: Evidence builds that US intel knew about weapons going from Benghazi to Syria. (thanks to Dan F)
FOX News
Fox News has obtained documents which reveal what U.S. intelligence agencies knew about the Benghazi attack and weapons traveling from Libya to Syria back in 2012.

Catherine Herridge reported this morning on “America’s Newsroom” that a Defense Intelligence Agency memo from Sept. 16, 2012, concluded that the Benghazi terror attack was planned at least 10 days in advance to coincide with 9/11 and was in retaliation for a drone strike that killed an al Qaeda strategist. The memo was copied to the National Security Council, the State Department and the CIA.

“The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the [U.S.] killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings,” the memo said.
Judicial Watch obtained the memos by suing in federal court.

The Obama administration says it was a coincidence that [the Benghazi attack] occurred on 9/11. In fact, their intelligence said it wasn’t a coincidence, and in fact, specifically the attack occurred because it was 9/11,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Another 2012 DIA memo predicts the rise of ISIS and the establishment of a caliphate 17 months before President Barack Obama called ISIS “jay-vee.”
A third DIA memo, dated Oct. 5, 2012, leaves no doubt that U.S. intelligence agencies knew that weapons were moving from Libya to Syria before the attack that killed four Americans.
Former CIA Director Mike Morell recently dodged questions about these weapons in an interview with Bret Baier.
Baier asked him: Were CIA officers tracking the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria?
“Can’t talk about it,” Morell said.
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/obama-admin-knew-benghazi-attack-planned-in-advance-to-coincide-with-911-anniversary.html/#sthash.ecmiiKyE.dpuf

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down


Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum