Benghazi

Let’s recap….

9/11/12 – On the anniversary of the 9/11/01 al-Qaeda attack against the US, the US Consulate and an Annex compound in Benghazi, Libya is attacked over a nearly 8 hour timeframe starting at about 9:40pm local time. In the Consulate, the US Ambassador to Libya and a State Department employee are murdered by the attackers. Several Americans escape from that compound and under rifle and RPG fire from attackers, flee to the Annex compound. Not too long afterwards nearly 200 heavily armed terrorists attack the Annex compound under supporting mortar fire. Two Security officers man a machine gun on the roof of the Annex to defend the compound and call for airstrikes / assistance – even lasing the attacking mortar positions for precision munitions. They are killed after running out of ammunition and after covering the escape of others from the Annex compound whom fled to the Benghazi airport and the protection of a State Department rescue team held in position at that airport.

- No one ordered any rescue, relief, or support military missions to assist those in either of the compounds…. Yet these forces were within reach of the area and ready for orders.

- The State Department had live / real-time video and audio from both compounds during the attack.  An unarmed Predator drone circled overhead as well as communication with US personnel in both the Consulate and Annex compounds.

- Units / people in Libya, Italy, Germany, at sea in the Med, and in Washington DC knew of these contacts.

- The President was made aware of the attack – then went to bed prior to heading out from Washington DC to a Las Vegas campaign fundraiser.

- The Administration – White House and State Department – initially defined the attack as a public / popular demonstration against the US sparked by an obscure video hosted in June on You Tube that was ‘insulting’ to Islam – a demonstration that turned bad and resulted in the storming of the Consulate / Annex and the four deaths. This coincided with other demonstrations and violence against US Embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Pakistan.

- Secretary of State made several high profile speeches / briefs for the press condemning the obscure video and its creator as the cause for the demonstrations and violence – asking for an end to the violence since the US government neither condoned or produced the video.

- The President and the Secretary of State participated in public service messages on Pakistani TV blaming the violence on the video and its creator and saying the US government had nothing to do with it.

- According to the father of one of the murdered security officers, the Secretary of State told him at the service marking the return of the murdered Americans to the US, that the US government would ensure that the creator of the video was going to be prosecuted for his role in igniting the violence (ie creating the video).

- The US Ambassador to the United Nations appears on all 6 major Sunday morning news programs to assert that that violence in Benghazi was a spontaneous popular demonstration against the US motivated by the obscure video that unfortunately turned violent. Denies all links to terrorism or the 9.11 anniversary.

- The President calls for a full investigation into the attack and the government’s response / handling of the attack.

- The President, appearing on ‘The View’ on Sept. 25th, continues to push the case that this was a demonstration motivated by an anti-Islam video on You Tube that unexpectedly turned bad – and that the investigation needs to continue to know details.

- State Department spokesperson stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.

- The White House stops answering questions – citing the on-going investigation.

- Mid-level State Department employees testify before Congress that the State Department knew during the attack that it was linked to terrorists. They also acknowledge that the murdered security officers had requested military assistance which was not authorized or provided. [Later we learned that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods apparently killed 40-60 of the attackers as they made their last stand trying to defend the Annex compound as the attack took place over 2-3 hours.  They even had a laser target designator scoped in on the terrorists' mortars ready for a requested air strike to assist their defense of the Annex compound.]

- Memos and materials from the murdered US Ambassador to Libya, including materials recovered a week (plus) from the wreckage of the Consulate compound, show that the Ambassador had major concerns about a) security for the US facilities and people in Benghazi, b) requested additional security protection, c) noted that Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, including an al-Qaeda affiliate are expanding their power and control over Benghazi, d) that the new Libyan government had lost effectiveness and control of the city, e) that the security for the US facilities was provided by a small British firm that depended entirely on unvetted local personnel, f) that the local security not only fled just prior to the attack, that members of the local security were busy in the days prior to the attack obtaining intelligence on the people and buildings in the US compounds, and g) and a dedicated security team for Tripoli and Benghazi were ordered out of the country by DC one month prior to the attack.

- In the wake of this information, and the State Department testimony, the ‘official’ description of the attack turned to be that it was a terrorist attack – but all references to being done by the local al-Qaeda surrogate continued to be scrubbed.

- The President and his campaign team began to press the terror attack meme – including the claim that the President called the attack a terror attack as early as his statement on the attack made on September 12th from the WH Rose Garden. This became a major issue in the 2nd Presidential debate – when the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley substantiated the President’s claim during the debate – and disavowed the claim during a post-debate statement.

- Attention started to focus on why the message from 9/11/12 to 9/26/12 focused only on the meme of a demonstration accidentally turned violent – in particular the statements of the President and Susan Rice.

- The White House tosses the CIA under the bus – blaming the 2 weeks of incorrect messaging on the terror attack on incomplete and inconclusive intelligence from the CIA – despite the real-time communications / proof of the contrary from the State Department.

- CIA Director David Petraeus chafes at the CIA being blamed for the Administration’s effort to spin the 9/11 attack – and instructs his aides to provide a CIA developed timeline of what they knew and when. [As this is happening, the DoJ and FBI are investigating the CIA Director over his extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. The relationship started in fall 2011 and didn’t end until sometime late summer 2012 or fall 2012. The investigation began in May 2012. According to the AG, FBI Director, and WH – the President was never told that his Director of the CIA was being investigated over the affair or misuse of classified information.]

- October 26, the CIA releases their timeline saying that they determined this was a terror attack from the start based on the evidence – including that evidence from the State Department. CBS News releases copies of the CIA briefing from the first week after the attack, used by Susan Rice for her comments to the press and American people, that does not reference terrorism or al-Qaeda.

- In the wake of the release of the CIA timeline, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, begins to express doubts about CIA Director David Pretraeus.

- On November 2nd, Clapper is briefed that the FBI has an active investigation underway into David Petraeus. [He claims he did not advise the President that the FBI is investigating the Director of the CIA.]

- CIA Director Petraeus is asked to testify before Congress on what he and the CIA knew and when. Pressure increases on Petraeus from the DNI to support the Administration’s story.

- When Petraeus refuses to play ball – the DNI tells the Director that the WH has lost faith / trust in him and that he needs to resign. Petraeus resigns, stating the affair as the reason, and it is accepted by President Obama on November 9th.

- During a Nov. 14 Presidential Press Conference, the President notes that a) US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice only spoke on the basis of the intelligence on what she was briefed – that the CIA didn’t see the attack as related to terrorists or al-Qaeda until much later, b) that Susan Rice made the appearances on the 6 Sunday news programs at the behest of the White House, and c) Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, the intelligence, or the determination of what happened. This raises questions as to why, if she had nothing to do with Benghazi, the US Ambassador to the UN was sent out as the Administration’s official spokesperson on the attack, and why was she told that there was no evidence of terrorist / al-Qaeda involvement when the State Department knew this as the attack took place.

- Former Director David Petraeus agrees to testify before Congress behind closed doors on Nov 16. On the 15th, the Wall Street Journal publishes a long story about the last days of Petraeus as the Director of the CIA and the confrontations between the Director, his aides, and the National Intelligence / National Security arm of the White House and their allies inside the CIA.

- During closed door testimony before Congress, Petraeus says that the he and the CIA determined almost as the attack was still on-going that the attack was a terror attack being conducted by an al-Qaeda surrogate timed for the Sept 11 anniversary. He also testified that the assessment / brief from the CIA sent to the WH / National Security Office stated this – and that someone unknown outside of the CIA altered the brief to remove all references to terrorism and al-Qaeda / AQ surrogates – as the brief cited by Susan Rice and the WH was not the brief sent by the CIA.

Beyond these facts – which continue to raise numerous questions about the WH / Administration, we also need to consider the following:

The Obama standard campaign stump made the following claims:

a) The Arab Spring was secular and pro-democracy – deposing dictators in numerous countries.

b) The US / NATO assistance for the Libyan revolution was based on humanitarian grounds and to support and protect the Libyan Arab Spring uprising that ultimately overthrew the Libyan dictator Qaddafi.

c) Democracy is expanding the Middle East because Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt held elections to form new governments.

d) The expansion / control of these new governments by Islamic fundamentalist / radical organizations is not a threat to the interests of the United States in the region.

e) Administration policies and actions against al-Qaeda, ranging from increased drone attacks to friendly outreach to Arab governments to killing the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, have reduced the reach, scope, and terror activities of not only al-Qaeda, but other Islamic fundamentalist jihadist groups. This is not only making the US safer, but the region / world safer.

In the midst of the President’s reelection campaign – a successful terrorist attack which murdered an US Ambassador (the first in 31 years) conducted in an increasingly jihadist / radical Islamic Benghazi by an affiliate of al-Qaeda – discredits the Obama campaign stump.

The knowledge that the Administration reduced security for the compounds - in the face of contrary evidence including numerous requests by the late US Ambassador to Libya would discredit the Obama campaign stump.

The knowledge that the Administration refused to dispatch military / security teams to rescue or assist Americans under terrorist attack in Benghazi would discredit the Obama campaign stump.

Blaming the attack on a demonstration unexpectedly turned violent would reduce the culpability of the Obama Administration in the failure to anticipate the attack, prevent the attack, or order rescue / support forces to the area [citing risk of ‘innocent civilian casualties’].

During the first Obama term – the FBI has scrubbed virtually all references to al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and other jihadist organizations from their training manuals – replacing references to Islamic jihadists with ‘violent extremists’ as part of their institutional policy to not focus attention on ‘jihad’.

The only reason they Administration admitted it was a terror attack was because they could no longer hide the evidence / testimony of Executive Branch workers which stated that the attack was not a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure anti-Islam video from three months earlier.

The reason the CIA information was ‘spun’ was to provide cover for the US Ambassador to the UN who was asked by the WH to become the ‘official’ WH spokesperson on the attack – and whom the President later told the American people ‘had nothing to do with Benghazi’ including the messaging. Questions still remain as to why the SecState, or some Dep. SecState, or National Security / DNI official did not make that ‘dog and pony show’ as the ‘official’ Administration spokesperson.

When pressed for additional information or to answer contradictions – the President has offered that he cannot say more because of the ‘ongoing investigation’.

And questions raised about Susan Rice’s selection / participation in the Administration’s messaging are now being called by Democrat members of Congress as ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ attempts to defame a senior African-American woman in the Obama Administration.

Does any of this raise any questions or concerns with you?

Obama and Afghanistan

One of the main platforms of candidate Barack Obama linked specifically with the hard left base of today's Democrat Party - ending the War on Terror.  The primary focus was on the military operations inside of Iraq - to stabilize that country after the removal of the odious Saddam Hussein as its dictator. 

After gaining control of Congress in the 2006 midterms, and through the end of President Bush's term, IIRC, Congress held some 42 or 44 votes to stop funding the US forces in Iraq and begin their withdrawal back home.  The pace of these efforts only increased as President Bush decided the proper response to the increasing violence in Iraq was not surrender, but a surge of forces combined with counter-insurgency tactics and taking the fight to the enemy.  The left was nearly apoplectic in their opposition to the surge.  To their chagrin, the surge worked.  Iraq stabilized significantly, and a treaty was developed that laid the ground work for smooth transition from US forces to Iraqi forces...with both sides knowing that if conditions changed, negotiations could take place to maintain some active US forces to assist the Iraqi's stay stabilized.

Throughout this, candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan as being the 'good war' - the 'legitimate' war because of the Taliban's direct assistance to al-Qaeda which facilitated their 9/11 attack on the United States.  He even rattled the sabre when it came to the double game that Pakistan was playing - one portion of the government working and cooperating with the US, the other working and cooperating with the Taliban.  During this, he threatened to take the war to Pakistan.

Once in the White House, President Obama was faced with some real dilemmas.  From the information he now saw, he had a better handle on the challenges in the region and the reality of the threats - but also had these jaded by his embracement of the hard left ideology.  He's not addressed aspects of the dichotomy of his positions - anti-war / the need for a surge in Afghanistan; the pledge to close Gitmo / the need to keep Gitmo; Bush as the 'warmonger' / Obama's expansion of the drone wars and strikes.  Since his principles seem to stand against what he knows he needs to do to gain re-election / protect the US and our interests - he's resorted to making his decisions based, in my opinion, on politics. 

Political expediency, political cover, and what he can trade-off seem to be the main factors of his decision process.

The Bush era treaty with Iraq permits the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 - pleasing his base going into re-election year.  Why renegotiate to stay longer and take a political hit?  The original date in the treaty was the end of 2011, so if Iraq explodes, it's Bush's fault for going in, not winning it, and for negotiating the treaty that had a premature withdrawal date.

Even though he promised to close Gitmo in one year, it's more important to keep it functioning to provide protection - and for the most part, his base is giving him a break on this.

As Afghanistan looked like it was failing, the military asked for a surge like Iraq.  His base protested this as they did the Iraqi surge.  So, the President gave them a limited surge - in size and time frame - while his base and the Democrat Congress looked the other way. 

Unable to reach out and understand Pakistan, the President, like Kennedy did with Special Forces, became enthralled with drones - and expanded significantly the use of drones and drone attacks on terrorist targets in Pakistan.  Once again, his left base gave him a pass - knowing that in the long run, Obama would do there what he did in Iraq - and what the US did to Vietnam in 1975 (also under the desires of a liberal Democrat Congress).

Thus, Afghanistan and Pakistan stumbled along.  When given the chance to target Osama Bin Laden in a Pakistani city - he took it.  His gamble - that this would not be another Desert One, but provide him with the political key to be able to say, 'I got Bin Laden'.

Obama and Israel

Earlier this week, during an exclusive campaign fundraiser (one of 60 so far this campaign season), President Obama sought to provide assurances to the Jewish donors present of his commitment to the nation of Israel - 'No ally is more important than Israel'.

To quote the good citizens of Rock Ridge in Mel Brooks' 'Blazing Saddles' - "Bullshit!"

As reported on PJ Media, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave a major address on US policy in the region to the Brookings Institute the very same week that Obama was lying to to Jewish donors at the Upper East Side fundraiser.  As Barry Rubin of PJ Media notes, the Panetta address provides us with a clear picture of the Administration's view of the region - particularly when not pandering for campaign funds.

Despite the satisfactory state of relations on a purely military level, the Obama Administration is not a friend of Israel, even to the extent that it was arguably so in the first two years of this presidency.


It is now an enemy; it is on the other side. Again, the issue is not mainly bilateral relations but the administration’s help and encouragement to those forces that are Israel’s biggest enemies, that want to rekindle war, and that are 100 percent against a two-state solution. And I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority, I mean the Islamists.


And the Obama Administration is also a strategic enemy of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan. It is also a strategic enemy to the democratic opposition forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt.


Having analyzed and studied the Middle East for almost four decades I say none of this lightly. And these conclusions arise simply from watching what the administration says and does.


In his speech, Panetta has bashed Israel based on a ridiculously false premise. Here it is:

“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”

Basically, the policy of this Administration is that Israel must, in the view of the Administration, not only talk peace with Hamas and Hezbollah, but that IT must be the one to make concessions to these terrorist organizations if 'peace' is to be realized. 

What the Administration is basically saying is, since Hamas and Hezbollah will only recognize peace exists upon the ashes of Israel, then the ashes of Israel is fully acceptable to the Obama Administration.  They see Israel as the impediment towards achieving peace - not the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah by insisting that the utter destruction of Israel being the only acceptable solution to the challenges of the region.

To the President, and within his official policy of his Administration the issue isn't Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and radical Islamist takeover of many of the region's countries.  It's not about Iran and Syria arming Hezbollah, permitting Hezbollah to occupy Southern Lebanon and effectively establish a radical Islamist state within a state - while pointing 50,000 missiles at Israel.  It's not about the Fatah and Palestinian Authority actively working to make Sumaria and Judea 'juden rein'.  It's all about the existence of a Western democracy not only within this region, but defiantly standing against the Arabs in the region for over 60 years.

This was made even more evident by the words of the US Ambassador to Belgium - a former Obama fundraiser extraordinaire who was rewarded with the Ambassadorship by the President.  This horse's ass, Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel is to blame for the anti-semitism that is being actively harbored and practiced by people of the Muslim faith.

A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”


According to the account in the Israeli paper, “The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.”

In a proper world, this moron would have already been sacked for his statements.  Instead, he only articulated the official viewpoint of the Obama Administration...and demonstrated once again the President's real positions. 


Which is more reprehensible?  The Administration's position regarding Israel or the Jewish idiots at the fundraiser who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the President for his re-election?

The Arab Winter

Mark Steyn's column this week looks with a great deal of pessimism at the latest developments resulting from the 'Arab Spring' - the revolutions across a number of countries in the Middle East against the mainly secular dictatorships that existed there.  Most troubling to not only the US, but Western Civilization and the prospects of peace in the region, are the replacement of these dictatorships by Islamic fundamentalist governments.

In Egypt, which held it's first stage of Parliamentary elections earlier this week, the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more radical Salifi's won nearly 65% of the vote and are positioned to take firm control of the Egyptian government once (if?) the military regime that stepped in after the departure of Mubarak hands the reins over to an elected government.  Already, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi's are calling for the replacement of the current legal system with one that is based on Shari'a law.

Corruption and Islamism in Egypt is rampant today.. "Post Mubarak Egypt has become an uncontrolled kleptocracy, in which public officials steal whatever isn't tied down." Chaos exists - one that will be capitalized on by the Islamists who will 'bring order' to the situation.

One of the best bloggers / observers of this region, Michael J. Totten, maintains a blog on PJ Media.  Totten travels extensively in the Middle East region and his writings from Lebanon during 2005-2006 were exceptional.  (Totten is one of those bloggers who works harder, writes better, and informs more than so many of the so-called professional journalists.)  Totten notes in this recent blog entry 'Watch Out':

– “I’ve always scoffed at those who describe the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate. It’s not at all an objectively moderate organization, and certainly not by any Western standard. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans are moderates. These guys are authoritarian theocrats. If a Christian counterpart existed in the United States, they’d be called fascists.


They really are moderate compared with the Salafists, though. The Salafists are the Taliban-style totalitarians that produced Al Qaeda. “

We are making a huge mistake if we dismiss these changes in government, in Tunisia, in Libya, in Egypt, and in Yemen, to name the one's already underway, into Islamic fundamentalist based governments as one that is not a threat to the Western nations. Syria continues to be in turmoil as the tyrant Assad tries to hold on - and it's far more likely that the hard core Islamists will take power (with the support of Iran and Hezbollah) when Assad falls. Lebanon is another country that is under divided rule, but lacks the power to really dismiss and disengage itself from Hezbollah's influence. Hezbollah will do in Lebanon what it wants to do - and the Lebanese people / government is unable to stop it - and will have to share any price paid.

All of this moves to further isolate Israel. While it is a nation under siege today, the siege will tighten considerably between these government changes and renewed actions by the Islamic bloc in the United Nations.

Pressure will increase in the United States to abandon Israel - which would be fatal to both if that decision is ever made.

Far too many refuse to accept the threat that the radical Islamists, ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood (see writings of Sayid Qutb), the Salafis, to the Iranian Shiite theocrats, seek to re-establish a larger Caliphate in the name of Islam. This is a fundamental challenge to the neo-liberal Western Civilization that has been in combat with the Islamic caliphate and it's goals to expand via the sword since the 8th century.

Among those refusing to accept the actions of these groups as evidence of their intent to obtain their goals and agenda are the liberals / left of the West. Rather than look at the fundamental differences between the cultures - in particular the treatment of women - the focus remains locked into the fallacy of multiculturalism. Where is the outrage, when for example, nearly 3,000 women in Britain last year were the victim of so-called 'honor attacks' by their Muslim family members?

al-Qaeda Linked Group Fires Rockets into Israel

From Haaretz...

The Sheikh Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a militant group affiliated with Al-Qaida on Tuesday claimed responsibility for the four Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon at Israel overnight.

The small organization, whose members live mostly in hideouts in Palestinian refugee camps across southern Lebanon, has claimed responsibility for past rocket attack on Israel, as well.

The rockets caused minor damage to two buildings and no casualties.  Israeli Defense Forces responded with a brief artillery barrage.  The United Nations UNIFIL peacekeepers deployed additional forces along the Israel-Lebanon border and stepped up their patrols in an effort to prevent an escalation.

Rockets and missiles are regularly fired by Hamas in Gaza into Israeli towns in Southern Israel.  However, incidents of rockets being fired into Israel from Lebanon have been rare since the Second Lebanese War in the summer of 2006.  For over a month, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets and missiles into Israel after the terrorist organization attacked and captured several IDF soldiers patrolling the border.

The timing of this escalation is very interesting given the developments in Syria, Lebanon, and the pressure being placed on Iran by Western nations.  Is this really a small offshoot of al-Qaeda that is operating on it's own (where is it's source of weaponry?) or is this an effort being made by Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah to deflect attention and focus towards Israel?

Syria remains in near civil war as demonstrations against the Assad tyranny continue.  The Arab League's sanctions against Syria are quite severe as pressure builds for stronger action in response to the government's murder of nearly 4,000 civilians since the demonstrations began.

In Lebanon, as reported yesterday, Hezbollah's hand picked Prime Minister took a brave stand against both Hezbollah and Syria to threaten his resignation if the Lebanese Parliament did not continue to press for the completion of the UN investigation and prosecution of the murderers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri in 2005.  Information released from the UN investigation point to senior Hezbollah and Syrian officials being complicit in the assassination.

If a crisis can be provoked between Hezbollah and Israel - attention and pressure will be moved from Iran and Syria.  Emotions that are running against these governments will also be redirected towards Israel and anti-Israeli sentiments....the traditional deflection to focus on a 'common enemy'.