A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Other Ways
Got News? Get the Newsletter.
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
- The likely origin of the “Diversity Inventory” given out at a #WCPSS school
- 2018-19 school scores show slight increases, state testing mostly stagnant or falling
- Exclusive: Letter instructs #WCPSS teachers how not to violate student privacy with ‘Diversity’ lessons
- #WCPSS Updates: Parents fuming over invasive social justice pushes
- “Circle Time” at Apex Middle School has students and parents upset
- Pamlico Public Schools teacher charged with sex act with a student, indecent liberties
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Category Archives: CIA
Six months later, the American people still are no closer to learning the truth of what happened in Benghazi. The cover-up continues.The entire cast of characters has been in for hearings and given testimony – everyone except the survivors, which have been shuffled around and kept hidden by this administration who has apparently interviewed the survivors all on their own. Convenient.
DNI didn’t know anything about the changed talking points either. Clapper and Morrell were a tag team of useless information and shrugs. Controversy still hovers over Clapper, who seems to change his mind a lot on if he was involved or not. Clapper tried to chuck his pal Petraeus under the bus, but it didn’t work. If push comes to shove, now with Clinton out of the picture, if a head is going to roll it will likely be Clapper’s.
The CIA said they weren’t responsible. They didn’t change any talking points. Petraeus’ testimony said it was assessed as a terrorist attack from the start; no idea who changed the talking points or who wanted to implement a YouTube video protest as an excuse.
The FBI said they didn’t change the talking points. They didn’t know anything despite having sent a unit to the crime scene in Benghazi. It’s clear they can’t even keep track of suspects either.
The Pentagon – also not responsible, even though their timelines shows it took 19 hours to respond.
The State Department says they weren’t responsible and Hillary Clinton says she didn’t speak to anyone else that night as the attacks went on. She shook her little fist and yelled in her testimony, “what difference does it make?!” when asked about the video excuse. Theatrics and non-answers followed. When finished her campaign debts were paid off by the DNC and she retired. Job done, pay off received.
The President himself said he wasn’t responsible either. Actually, he sent Leon Panetta out to tell everyone that he wasn’t responsible and had nothing to do with the attacks that night. He was in bed or something, resting up to hit Vegas the next day.
No one was talking responsibility for anything. The only entity who has not testified is the White House itself. The only thing the White House wants to say is:
White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said only one minor change was made by the Oval Office.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Rhodes told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment. The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility,” Rhodes also said. (Fox News)
And we’re full circle with the talking points hot potato. Of course, remember, this administration would rather be dodging talking points than answering why the Commander in Chief was absent as four Americans were murdered by terrorists. Paging Rand Paul!
Flash Forward to this week:
The stonewalling on Benghazi had reached a melting point. So, after multiple members of the Senate threatened to hold up the Brennan nomination unless they received the documents on Benghazi they have requested for months, the White House sent some paperwork over. Continue reading
Last night, Senator Rand Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan. It’s not the nomination he was trying to block, that much had to be clear to most people. The Senate is Democrat controlled and cloture is likely inevitable although it will be harder with a 60 vote threshold. Instead of blocking, Paul was attempting to open something. That something is awareness that our government, to date, has yet to openly state for the record they oppose the use of drones against our own citizens on our own soil.
What’s more, this President, a man who has received a Nobel Peace Prize, also refuses to renounce the assassination of US Citizens on their own soil by drone. The President has trotted out mouthpieces to run interference, but it is his own inaction that speak volumes.
Perplexing that Rand Paul has to go through this to ask a Nobel Peace Prize winner whether or not he agrees with killing U.S. citizens.
— David Angell (@djangell) March 6, 2013
Perplexing indeed. What adds to this insanity is the lack of support shown to Senator Paul on the floor last night. Whatever you think of Senator Paul, his politics or filibustering, this was a moment in history and the majority of the Senate missed it.
This was a moment where an elected official stood up and for nearly 13 hours assailed the notion that our own government thinks it has the right to kill its own citizens. It was a chance to enter this disturbing argument into the history books. This question needed addressing and not on the talking head cable news circuit where it would likely be mocked, buried or edited. It needed to be more permanent. Senator Paul recognized this and acted. Think long and hard about that. Continue reading
I recently reported Panetta’s incredible statement that the President was not around during the night of the Benghazi attack. Now, it’s confirmed. The night four Americans were murdered at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, President Obama was not involved. No calls were made by him nor did any instructions come from him as an over 8 hour engagement raged at our consulate. Was he just too busy getting some shut-eye so he could jet off to Vegas the next day?
Utter dereliction of duty:
President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
“We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” Mr. McCain said.
(Source: Washington Times)
More deck chair shuffling.
So now we are to believe that the Commander-in-Chief was briefed and then just went missing while Americans fought for their lives abroad? Remember, this past Fall this administration made the claim that the President not participating in the ongoing Benghazi investigation. This disinterest and lack of participation easily can be viewed as the first step in protecting the President from future fallout. That begs the question: Is this recent declaration a move to further insulate the President from coming revelations by removing him from the equation completely? It would certainly seem so. If this was a Republican President who just admitted this, we’d already be gearing up for impeachment.
Gross negligence or willfully dismissing the events – to borrow from Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make?” No matter how you try to put this one in context, the President was AWOL from his primary job: defending Americans and their interests.
We are pretty sure at this point that Ambassador Stevens was involved in the running of guns and weapons to Syria; some with the assistance of the Turkey. This scenario is a likely tie in with the White House now standing firm that the President had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 in Benghazi.
More from NiceDeb: Senator Graham: “Benghazi Was About Breakdown of Security, Failure of Leadership, and a Prez Who Was Virtually Disengaged” (Video)
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) held a press conference, today, to make a statement in response to Obama’s letter acknowledging he did not call anyone in Libya on September 11, 2012 during the 8 hours the U.S. mission was under attack. He didn’t pick up the phone to call any government officials in Libya until Sept. 12, after everyone was dead.
If it were not for the three of us and other colleagues, you would still believe – the American people would still believe that this was a spontaneous event caused by a hateful video, Graham told reporters. “That’s what was being told by Susan Rice five days after the attack, that’s what was being said by the POTUS for weeks. The reason we know that’s not true, is because we dug, and we pushed, and we prodded. And now we know, that during the entire attack, POTUS never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office into the mix, and there’s no stronger voice in the world than the President of the United States.”
Video via NiceDeb:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hYA9MJ2MpUc]
“The record needs to be clear”, Graham continued, “this was not about a hateful video, it was about a breakdown of national security, it was about an ambassador who was begging the State Dept. to send reinforcements for months, this was about a deteriorating security situation, this is about a attack you could see coming, this is about a complete failure of leadership Sec of Defense never talked to the Sec of State, and a President who as far as we know was virtually disengaged.”
He concluded, “America needs to learn what happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes.”
Yes, we do need to know what happened — with the White House confirming this President,in essence, blew off his job, the time to request an independent counsel has come.
Still more from Politico:
President Barack Obama did not speak with Libyan leaders as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under way last September, the White House acknowleged Thursday in a letter to lawmakers.
White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did reach out to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf at Obama’s request on the same day the attack began, but Obama didn’t personally call the Libyan leader until the following night.
“Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the president on the evening of September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory. At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation,” Ruemmler wrote. “The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12.”
The big story here is that our President was absent as an act of war was committed but the other big story here is that, according to this letter, Hillary Clinton was the only one on record having communicated with Libyan officials. Now that she’s gone, the narrative is being steered her way. Convenient.
Flashback to Obama on Responsibility:
Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: “When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.” (Source: FOX)
The buck stops here…or in my bed or Vegas. Whatever.
In an interview that aired today, President Obama said that “if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job” regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, “then they’ll be held responsible.” (Source: ABC)
Well, funny he should say that since HE was the one not doing his job.
Small wonder we have no photos from the situation room that night. According to the White House, he wasn’t even there. This confirmation of his absence makes his junkyard dog act at the press conference where he defended Susan Rice all the more insulting. The President stood in the room and defended a woman he sent out to lie to the American people, but the lie about the YouTube video wasn’t the only lie. She was out there distracting from the fact he was nowhere to be found during the attack.
Flashback: Obama the next day… (Transcript here.)[youtube=http://youtu.be/rKC_dzl3ksA]
…and then he jetted off to Vegas.
More from LL1885 on Benghazi here and here. Continue reading
A random act of journalism from CNN. Hat tip to Bare Naked Islam for this clip:[youtube=http://youtu.be/QYiXRNBcF6s]
“One thing is clear…there IS a Libya connection.”
The report goes right out and states up front: terror camps are all over Libya with direct ties to Al Qaeda. So much for Al Qaeda being dead, Mr. President. You haven’t dismantled anything, you’re “smart diplomacy” has actually revived terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.
“Libya is a lesson in what the international community can achieve and is a recipe for the future.”
Yeah, a lesson in how to get the weapons you need to carry out your plots, courtesy of this administration. All you’ll get is harsh condemnations from Panetta, and possibly a drone strike or ten, while this administration sends more weapons, financial “aid” and other goodies to arm more terrorists rebels in the region. Threats mean little when it was that easy to take out a U.S. consulate and kill 4 Americans in Libya. Drone strikes aren’t deterring, they’re ticking off these groups. Benghazi was clear proof of that. Al Qaeda isn’t backing down, they are energized.
Hillary Clinton is set to testify this week, assuming she doesn’t wipe out again. I’m sure her testimony will be less than enlightening and full of more buck passing.
“I was not personally aware of any request,” Obama said Friday, adding that there is an “infrastructure” in place to “manage requests.” – Source: Fox News
Hillary Clinton seems incapable of throwing Obama under his own bus. Perhaps I am underestimating her — after all, she is married to the Teflon President. Maybe she’ll actually give some useful information. Some questions Clinton should be asked, which may be redundant with other hearings to date, but are valid since no one has sufficiently answered them:
Where are the survivors? Why has the committee not been given access to them?
Why, after multiple requests, did you not reinforce the Benghazi consulate? We know Clinton requested it and Obama denied it. Hillary and Bill put together a legal team, so clearly some big piece in this picture is Hillary’s to play show and tell with.
Why was no additional support sent when the fighting broke out? Panetta’s statements on it are full of so much crap one could fertilize half of this country’s farms with it. Panetta claimed unclear early Info slowed Benghazi response. Panetta then said they ‘could not put forces at risk’. Panetta went further and stated that they had ‘no real time intel’. Yet, within the very hour hostilities began, a CIA team from Tripoli headed to Benghazi and those back in the White House Situation Room were watching events unravel live via drone. Sources say even the President was in attendance.
Why the lie about a YouTube Video being to blame? Who decided that was the official cover story? The average citizen watching this unfold could tell you this was not about a stupid YouTube trailer — especially not one that only had a hundred or so hits on the day protests broke out. The President, thirteen days later, continued to push this lie but not just on the American people — he did it in front of the U.N. in a globally televised speech. Let us not forget useful stooge, Susan Rice, in this lying either. Haven’t heard a peep about her since she sent her sob letter to the President. Come to think of it, Obama’s debate defender, Candy Crowley, has been silent as well.
Just a reminder of the lies and the liars headed into this week’s testimony:[youtube=http://youtu.be/uFf0dUH3OtU]
Read more from LL1885 on Benghazi here and here. Continue reading
Was what happened in Benghazi some kind of turf war for weaponry in a Middle East version of Fast and Furious after all? If so, that would explain a lot of the lying if the Obama administration were supplying weapons to one group over another under the radar; busting some of their own narratives.
PJ Tatler, emphasis mine:
Libya Blowback: US Missiles intercepted in Egypt bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza
A stunning story out of Egypt on Friday (HT: Jonathan Schanzer at FDD) after a raid in northern Sinai uncovered a cache of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza. The discovery was made in Be’r al-Hefn near Arish in an area known as a transit point for materials headed for the smuggling tunnels running from Sinai into Gaza.
The most remarkable part of the story is that the missiles were American-made, arriving from Libya according to multiple reports.
The report does not say who or what group is associated with transporting the weaponry from Libya through Egypt to the point where they were discovered; one would guess from the destination it would have to be HAMAS. So, how and from whom is HAMAS getting weapons from Libya?
This is not the first time in recent memory arms originating in Libya have been intercepted in Egypt before reaching Gaza. Flashback to November 2012 when 3 Palestinians were arrested: Gaza bound weapons intercepted in Egypt. That was a very pricey shipment. The Times Of Israel noted it was worth $3.3 Million:
According to the report, the shipment included 185 crates full of arms and ammunition, including bullets, anti-tank and anti-aircraft munitions, rocket-propelled grenades, landmines and explosives. The estimated value of the shipment was 20 million Egyptian pounds ($3.3 million).
$3.3 million is not chump change. Neither is $192 million and $400 million. Anyone thinking the bulk of this money was really going to help the Palestinian people is kidding themselves.
It’s entirely plausible that these weapons being bought are being redirected from arms meant for Syria. The Oversight committee should be asking Hillary Clinton about the various arms being shipped in and out of the region – specifically Libya. They should also be asking about the intended recipients of said weapons and how involved Ambassador Stevens was in brokering deals with the intended the recipients of these arms in the region. How much of Ambassador Stevens’ role in returning to the region was to try and recover weapons the US sold the Gaddafi regime? Or another idea, maybe he was trying to buy back items already in country for transfer to various rebel groups in Libya and in Syria.
The reality — We probably will never know the answers to these questions.
Obama Quietly Removes HAMAS Terrorist Muhammad Salah From Terrorist List; May Get $1.4 Million in HAMAS/Qaeda Funds
President Obama Authorizes Covert Help for Libyan Rebels
REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels
Obama asks Saudis to send weapons to Libyan rebels
BenghaziGate: Obama Admin Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons Continue reading
For months we’ve heard nothing but lies about lies from this administration since four Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. One of the big questions that has plagued those following the story is why this administration chose to lie for weeks on end about the cause of the attack being an obscure YouTube video. We might finally be seeing a reason for that lie. From the NY Times, committing a random act of journalism:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.
The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.
The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.
The over the top, schoolyard like outrage feigned by this President over the criticism of Susan Rice now looks even more pathetic, as does this administration’s childish games of playing hot potato with who altered the now famous talking points.
This is looking like a Middle East version of Fast and Furious – or perhaps a terrorist version of a cartel turf war – if you read the Times piece to the end. There are several paragraphs dedicated to one Marc Turi, an arms merchant.
In March 2011, just as the Libyan civil war was intensifying, Mr. Turi realized that Libya could be a lucrative new market, and applied to the State Department for a license to provide weapons to the rebels there, according to e-mails and other documents he has provided. (American citizens are required to obtain United States approval for any international arms sales.)
He also e-mailed J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel alliance. The diplomat said he would “share” Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington, according to e-mails provided by Mr. Turi. Mr. Stevens, who became the United States ambassador to Libya, was one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11.
Mr. Turi’s application for a license was rejected in late March 2011. Undeterred, he applied again, this time stating only that he planned to ship arms worth more than $200 million to Qatar. In May 2011, his application was approved. Mr. Turi, in an interview, said that his intent was to get weapons to Qatar and that what “the U.S. government and Qatar allowed from there was between them.”
Two months later, though, his home near Phoenix was raided by agents from the Department of Homeland Security. Administration officials say he remains under investigation in connection with his arms dealings. The Justice Department would not comment.
Mr. Turi said he believed that United States officials had shut down his proposed arms pipeline because he was getting in the way of the Obama administration’s dealings with Qatar. The Qataris, he complained, imposed no controls on who got the weapons. “They just handed them out like candy,” he said.
Wherein this administration was possibly attempting to curtail US gun ownership via the orchestrated and botched gun running done during Fast and Furious, the Obama administration seemed to want to arm Arabs to the teeth.
It is noteworthy that the NY Times has already tried to insert itself into the administration’s narrative that this was about a YouTube video. (read: NY Times Inserts Itself Into Benghazi-gate)
The bigger questions surrounding the attack in Benghazi still remained unanswered. Hillary Clinton has yet to testify. At hearings last month, Clinton was unavailable. Mrs. Clinton made sweeping statements of responsibility then took off for Australia with Leon Panetta on “official business”. You’d think she’d know better after what she and Obama made sure Nakoula was jailed for making that video those pesky probation violations. (Related: Benghazi-Gate: Falling On Her Sword Edition – UPDATES also, LL1885’s Nakoula posts here.)
Why was only one small CIA team dispatched to Benghazi when the attack began? Panetta would have us believe the Benghazi consulate didn’t request any assistance. Anywhere from 50 to 100 armed terrorists were assaulting our consulate with heavy arms and mortar, yet Panetta said no one called for help. Pardon me, but bullshit, Sir. What a sad and insulting attempt to distract from the reports there were indeed calls for help and attempts to aid the consulate were met with ‘stand down’ orders. (Related: Inside Benghazi: “No practical training”)
Why is there no evidence suggesting this President was involved in any of the decision-making the night of the attack? He’s been less than modest to date with his drone conquests and football spiking over Bin Laden’s death. (Related: Where’s the #Benghazi Situation Room Photo Op?)
Why was security for this consulate and Ambassador Stevens scaled back when all evidence for over 6 months leading up to the attack on 9/11 pointed to the need for more security? Who denied him additional protection? Stevens himself wrote several cables requesting more security; he knew he was an assassination target. There was a violent history in the region and an attempt on the British Ambassador’s life. It’s pretty clear that this administration seems capable of defending only one Ambassador – their useful idiot, Susan Rice. (Related: Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi)
LL1885’s Benghazi Related Posts:
#Benghazi: Obama’s Lack of Concern On Rice’s Lies (Updated)
#Benghazi: That Lie Was A Lie, But Shut Up Already.
#Benghazi: Another Lie Is Told (Updated)
#Benghazi: The Altered CIA Talking Points
#Benghazi: Lies, Lies and More Damned Lies
#Benghazi: Petraeus reported to testify despite resignation
#Benghazi, Petraeus: Who Knew and When
#Benghazi: Leaks, Resignations and More Questions
NPR’s Patronizing #Benghazi Report
Benghazi-Gate: Debate Lies
Media Desperate To Alter WH Benghazi Statement Timeline
Benghazi Twist – Video a patsy?
Benghazi-Gate: Get Under The Bus Edition
Biden Bungled Benghazi (Updated)
Benghazi Hearing Turns Into Blamefest; Rep. Cummings Forgets Amb. Stevens Name
Petraeus Testimony: Obama knew; talking points altered. Continue reading
Weekly Standard has this article with video. Emphasis added is mine:
In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fORePNOHqQo]
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Mr. Carney, last week, the President barked like a junkyard dog in defense of Susan Rice. The President stood at the podium and told us HE sent Rice out there.[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqrsky39GYA]
Are you now telling us the President wants us to just blow off her lies? This after his own dramatic performance at his first press conference and the ridiculous trotting around by the Democratic women in the House crying racism and sexism?
It doesn’t have any bearing on the investigation? At what point do you people in the White House start to choke on your lies? This President knows exactly what happened there, he has since the beginning of the attack. Rice was instructed to lie by someone. Obama sent her out there. You do the math. Continue reading