Trey Gowdy silences press in 3 minutes regarding Benghazi

Wow! It took Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) just three minutes to indict the liberal media for its failure to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi that claimed four American lives including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

But the chair of the House Special Committee on Benghazi  does a whole lot more than that.
In a recently surfaced video of Gowdy speaking to a roomful of media members, he manages to use Barack Obama’s own words as proof of the president’s complete failure to do anything in the wake of the attacks, and Gowdy asks a series of still-unanswered questions–all glaring examples of media inaction–about the night of the attacks and the aftermath.

Gowdy clearly shows two other things as well. First, he shows why he never lost a case as prosecutor and second, why anyone involved with the Benghazi cover up had better be concerned.

Check this YouTube video out to see Gowdy’s epic takedown:



Conservative Tribune

Benghazi conspiracy? Hell yes!

May 12, 2014

By Victor Volsky

 

 The Ben Rhodes e-mail has demolished the Obama administration's defense that the White House had nothing to do with the infamous talking points ascribing the Benghazi tragedy to a spontaneous protest over an American-made anti-Muslim video.  Even some of the White House correspondents accustomed to carrying water for the Obama administration clashed with White House spokesman Jay Carney, who shamelessly tried to sell them this bill of goods.  Nobody likes being played for a sucker.

Now it is crystal-clear that the administration, right from the start, was intimately involved in a deceptive scheme aimed at deflecting the blame for the death of four Americans killed in the terrorist assault in Benghazi.  But rather than clarify the situation, the Rhodes e-mail has only deepened the mystery.

What is the reason for the frantic, concerted effort to cover up the truth about Benghazi?  Considering that it’s the cover-up rather than the deed itself that does all the damage, wouldn’t it have been safer to acknowledge the fact of a terrorist attack and disclose all relevant information, putting an end to the controversy?  And yet the White House and its allies are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the American people from knowing what happened on that fateful day.  Why?

As reported by Kenneth Timmerman, top military brass at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany watched live video feed from a Predator drone over Benghazi, which clearly showed no protests.  The CIA station chief in Tripoli, in his report to Langley, not just indicated, but emphasized that there were no protests.  Former AFRICOM’s Deputy Intelligence Chief Brigadier General (Ret.) Robert Lovell testified under oath to the same effect, and so did even Mike Morell, the smarmy ex-CIA deputy director.

Former CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson has uncovered an e-mail sent by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones describing her conversation with Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45 am on Sept. 12, 2012.  Atkisson reported, “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

The classic cover-up question – “What did they know, and when did they know it?” – does not apply in this case.  We know that the White House and the State Department were fully informed about the events in Benghazi practically from the get-go.

Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department resolutely turn down the many pleas for enhancing security at the Benghazi compound with which Ambassador Stevens bombarded his superiors, warning about the growing extremist threat?

Why didn’t the administration prepare for likely terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?  Didn’t they know the Islamists’ propensity to time their attacks to mark important anniversaries, above all that of their “glorious victory over the Great Satan”?  The Bush administration knew it and always prepared for such attacks, but Obama’s White House ignored the danger.  Why?

Why was nothing done to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi?  The Pentagon insists that there were no resources available to mount a rescue expedition.  But many military experts insist it’s not true: much could have been done to relieve the pressure on the Special Mission Compound and the Annex.

Furthermore, according to Kenneth Timmerman (ibid.), orders were issued, then recalled, to deploy a 50-man Special Forces unit from Croatia that could have reached Benghazi within hours.  Who ordered that unit to stand down, and why?

What accounts for the stonewalling on the part of the administration?  Why has it strenuously refused to comply with the House subpoenas for its Benghazi-related internal communications?  Why have none of the Benghazi survivors been allowed to testify to Congress about their first-hand experiences? And why has the FBI refused to divulge the records of its interrogations?  Is the White House afraid of what those records might tell?

President Obama solemnly promised to track down and bring to justice the perpetrators who harmed Americans in Benghazi.  A year and a half later, he has yet to start fulfilling his promise.  It’s not that the perps are in hiding. They live openly in Benghazi, their addresses are well-known, and reporters have no problem getting in touch with them.  It’s only the FBI that just can’t find them.  Again, is the White House leery of what might transpire if the terrorists are allowed to talk?

Finally, the infamous video.  Why, early on September 11, did the U.S. Embassy in Cairo suddenly, without provocation, apologize to the Muslim world for an obscure American-made video critical of Prophet Mohammed, as if inviting the faithful to give vent to their indignation?  And four hours later, the Arab street obliged.  Why did the White House and its allies continue to spread the video canard, knowing full well that it was a lie?

Why did President Obama, in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly on September 25, two weeks after Benghazi, invoke the video seven (!) times?  Why, on September 14, did Hillary Clinton, at the coffin of Tyrone Woods, solemnly promise the grieving father to punish the man who she said was responsible for his son’s death – the author of the video?  Such monstrous cynicism is beneath even the lowly standards of that woman.

There is a plausible scenario that to my mind answers all these questions:

The 2012 presidential election is around the corner.  Polls predict a nail-biter.  Obama can’t run on his economic successes, for the economy is in sorry shape.  He certainly can’t run on his health care policy, as ObamaCare is more unpopular than ever.  The president’s advisers come to the conclusion that foreign and anti-terrorist policy is his ace in the hole.

They devise a catchy slogan: “Osama bin Laden is dead; al-Qaeda is on the run.”  President Obama and his minions mercilessly mock Mitt Romney as a hopelessly naive tyro who can’t hold a candle to the president, with his vast knowledge and experience.  Thus, it is vital to maintain the fiction of Obama’s victory in the fight against the terrorist threat.  Anything that would explode this myth could be disastrous to the president’s re-election chances.

The U.S. intelligence obtains advance knowledge that Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, is planning a major military-style attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.  What’s to be done?  To send reinforcements to secure the facility would inevitably cast doubt on Obama’s boasts and, more damaging, attract attention to the U.S. operations in Libya’s second largest city.

What are the Americans doing there, and why hadn’t they left, like the Brits and others, in the face of numerous terrorist threats and provocations?  There is every reason to suspect that the “diplomatic” facility was in fact a CIA center supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, including many al-Qaeda loyalists.  Without congressional approval, such a clandestine operation would be illegal (although Obama would certainly lose no sleep over such an all too familiar transgression).

But the terrible optics of Washington arming America’s mortal enemies would certainly be a major headache to the Victor over al-Qaeda.  Furthermore, news that Benghazi was a hotbed of terrorist activity would call into question the merits of Obama’s little victorious war to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime, destabilizing Libya in the process.

Clearly, the Benghazi terrorist attack had to be kept under wraps, no matter what, lest Obama’s campaign be blown out of the water.  Thus, a decision was made to do nothing so as not to attract attention to Benghazi – a decision inimical to the national interests, but logical from the political point of view.  Hence the White House’s refusal to mount a military rescue operation and its cold-hearted willingness to sacrifice Americans in Benghazi.

As a matter of fact, aside from the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi, there were another three dozen U.S. personnel who were abandoned by the Obama administration.  It was only thanks to CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, the ex-Navy SEALs who ignored orders and led to safety the besieged Americans, that those people avoided the fate to which they had been consigned by their commander-in-chief.  But we have every right to speak of twoscore actual and would-be victims rather than just four dead heroes.

Finally, the infamous video.  Considering the apology offered to the world of Islam by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo ahead of any disturbance and the speed with which the administration scapegoated the video, it is hard not to suspect that it was a trump card prepared in advance and held by the administration up its sleeve to be thrown on the table as soon as the need arose.

To summarize: the White House came to the conclusion that disclosure of the truth about Benghazi would be a monumental PR disaster for Obama and a grave threat to his re-election hopes.  Consequently, it resolved to minimize and gloss over the tragedy at any cost.  And if a handful of Americans had to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s political ambition, tough. What are the lives of a handful of little people compared to the lofty goal of saving the Obama presidency?

So was there a White House conspiracy?  You bet there was.

American Thinker

Benghazi Hearings Committee Announcement Showcases Democrat Schizophrenia

May 11, 2014

By Marilyn Assenheim

It didn’t take long for the Democrat ruling class, infesting Washington’s power corridors, to become habituated to saying something and having it accepted as truth without question.  When anything happens to disrupt their sojourn amongst the unicorns of their fancy, however, Democrats have a tendency to resort to doubling down on dogmatic mythology to score points, relying on volume and repetition instead of sense.

For years, despite the best/worst efforts of the Democrat party to subvert the cause and meaning behind the Benghazi attack, the people have remained outraged and have refused to be shielded from a Democrat political agenda that has yet to be laid bare.  When e-mails, previously redacted and withheld from Congress, were unearthed by Judicial Watch’s successful lawsuit against The White House, John Boehner reversed his previous stance on launching investigative hearings on Benghazi.  It appeared that not only had there been a deliberately fabricated tale, instructing Obama's minions on what to say and how to say it, but the e-mail specifically stated that the tale was designed to serve the president’s agenda – to make him look good and deny that Benghazi had anything to do with faulty presidential policies.

The White House immediately began to try to defuse the bomb they’d launched.  Jay Carney denied that he’d ever lied then denied that the e-mails, written in plain English, really were about Benghazi at all.  But it was too late.

The story had exploded, and the demand for House hearings could no longer be dodged, even by Boehner.  An undisguised antagonist of the conservative base, Boehner nevertheless appointed Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, a hard-line conservative, to chair the committee.  Gowdy’s appointment as chairman made matters worse for Democrats.  Cue Democrat panic.

Depending on who is being quoted, Democrat strategy for containing the fallout is all over the map. 

  Responses in the last couple of days range from muddled vehemence to sanctimonious pity to attempts to convince America that the committee is nothing but a political gambit.  FOX News quoted Nancy Pelosi. 

 Her comments appeared to display equal parts projection and Dissociative Identity Disorder: “What we've asked for is as much bipartisanship as possible,” but also, “[t]he fact is this is a stunt. This is a political stunt; that's what this is. We've been there, done this, over and over again.”

Then there is CNN’s report, citing Steny Hoyer, number-two Democrat in the House.  Hoyer seems to share the afflictions.  He called for meaningful bipartisanship: “If they [Republicans] want to have a substantive effort, it ought to be an equally balanced committee so this is not an exercise in partisanship.”  He urged a Democrat boycott in the next breath: “Hoyer said he would urge all fellow Democrats to vote against the bill creating the [committee].”  Just to be certain that he’d covered all of the bases, Hoyer’s parting shot attempted to sell the idea that a House investigation proves that Republicans believe that Darrell Issa is incompetent: “Either they [the House] think Mr. Issa is a competent chairman and is pursuing a competent investigation or they don't[.]”  Darrell Issa, who doesn’t think he is incompetent, supports the House hearing and is a huge advocate for Trey Gowdy serving as chair.

The back-benchers contribute to the Democrat spin cycle.  Charles Rangel, D-NY, shares his own Sybil-wannabe moment.  CNSnews.com provided a platform:

• Ennui: "I don't think people, Americans, Democratic or Republicans, are going to lose sleep over Benghazi.
• Pity: “I think it's tragic that the Republican Party would destroy itself in 2016 by not having one issue that the American people believe should be a priority…”
• Deflection: Issa's Oversight Committee “has had all of these hours and days and weeks and months investigating this, that now you're saying you have no confidence in him, so you have to bring in a new member to head up a new committee to find the answers?”

Democrats resurrect bipartisanship only when they are at a disadvantage.  Remember when they lost the House in 2010?  After losing over 60 seats, Democrats insisted that their meager numbers be seated among the Republicans, who vastly outnumbered them, during the State of the Union speech.  That had never been done before.  It had nothing to do with “bipartisanship”; they didn’t want to look bad in front of a television audience.  Strangely enough, the issue of bipartisanship didn’t trouble Democrats when they literally locked Republicans out of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meetings in 2009.

 Even The Daily Beast, a longtime supporter of POTUS, came out against the disgraceful behavior of Democrat subterfuge from the top down.  A column, written by Ron Christie, despite negative comments about the president, cannot be attributable to racism.  Mr. Christie, too, is black.

I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t…I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun…I’ll tell you what’s BS, Mr. Tomasky: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night in service to their country…We need a Special Select Committee on Benghazi to…ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. We need truth, not bullsh*t, from the president and his administration, but so far, that’s all they’ve been shoveling.

One can only hope that Democrats, in their misguided arrogance, will elect to boycott the House Benghazi hearings.  Unlike ObamaCare, IRS and NSA misdealing, and a rogue Justice Department, this is an issue with persistent “legs.”  Americans remain infuriated at the ham-handed, derisive, and insultingly incompetent arguments Democrats have thrown against the wall, hoping that something – anything – will stick.

If Democrats in the House take their ball and go home, it will provide final evidence to anyone watching that they are craven hypocrites rather than persecuted victims of Republican injustice.

American Thinker

Exclusive - Benghazi Victims' Families Demand Boehner Haul CIA Official Before Select Committee

by Matthew Boyle  
5 Mar 2014

 A coalition of military community leaders, conservative movement leaders, and the Benghazi victims’ families are demanding that Speaker John Boehner take “immediate” action against a former acting CIA Director accused of misleading Congress on the Benghazi scandal. Citing recent reporting from Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, investigative work from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and the findings of a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, they wrote to Boehner on Wednesday morning that, “We now know that there is compelling evidence that former Acting Central Intelligence Director Michael Morell has made false and misleading statements to Congress.”

Writing about the Senate report, Herridge published a series of articles over the course of February that detailed how Morell allegedly misled lawmakers. Morell told Congress that the now-infamous misleading talking points that claimed a protest resulting from a YouTube video led to the attack—not Islamic terrorism—had been shared with the White House ahead of Susan Rice using them, but were not asking for White House input. Emails later released by the Obama administration “showed otherwise,” Herridge wrote in one such report.

“This issue demands your immediate personal attention,” the signers of the letter, including Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith’s mother Pat Smith and uncle Michael Ingmire, and security officer Tyrone Woods’ father Charles Woods, wrote to Boehner.

Woods and Smith, along with security officer Glen Doherty and America’s ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. This Wednesday letter to Boehner represents the second such letter Smith’s family members and Woods’ family members have signed on to with conservative and military leaders in recent months. In early January, they called on Boehner to install a select committee. A bill to establish a select committee introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has been cosponsored by more than 75 percent of the House GOP conference.

Although Boehner has not established a select committee, top House officials have signaled they are focusing on the investigation since the letter was sent, the authors write.

“We were pleased to see that our letter of January 6, 2014 may have persuaded you and your various committee chairs investigating the Benghazi attacks to make some limited efforts to promote information gathered through the uncoordinated work of the House,” they wrote. “But the establishment of the Internet website, ‘The House Republican Investigation of Benghazi’ only highlights the inadequacies of House efforts to date. Most Americans, in addition to a large majority of your party’s caucus, demand a full and complete investigation of this terror attack. Mr. Morell’s statements and conduct appear to have materially contributed to confusing and misleading the Congress and the American people. Susan Rice’s latest rounds of lies about Benghazi on the February 23, 2014 edition of Meet the Press illustrate the contempt that this Administration has for your committees’ investigation to date.”

Boehner has resisted efforts to install a select committee to investigate Benghazi. Instead, he says the five House committees currently investigating—Oversight, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services—are doing enough.

In response to that first early January letter, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said that the concerns that the ongoing House investigations are ineffective are unfounded.
“House Republicans are committed to finding the truth about what happened in Benghazi and why the White House failed to level with the American people,” Steel said then.

But the families are now renewing their call to Boehner to create a select committee “now,” one that is “fully resourced with staff and subpoena powers – to conduct a thorough, coordinated investigation.”

One of that committee’s actions, once Boehner installs it if he does, they say, should be to compel Morell to testify before it. “Mr. Morell must be compelled to appear before Congress and explain his statements and conduct,” they wrote. “Even if he invokes his right not to testify under the Fifth Amendment, then the Congress must pursue, through a Select Committee, the many unanswered questions and apparent Obama administration cover-up of the terror attacks that cost the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and Security Officers Glen Doherty and Ty Woods.”

They added in their letter that there are many “other Benghazi-related questions that remain unanswered,” as well and called on Boehner to “act now” because “the public trust is now before” him in the face of “gravely disturbing evidence of possible criminality and abuse of public office.”

In addition to the victims' family members, other letter signers include retired Navy Admiral James Lyons, retired Navy Admiral Jerome Johnson, retired Army General Frederick Kroesen, retired Air Force Lt. General Tom McInerney, retired Army Lt. General Jerry Boykin, former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, Special Operations Speaks’ Col. Dick Brauer, Veterans for a Strong America’s Joel Arends, Secure America Now’s Allen Roth, Ginni Thomas of Liberty Consulting, David Horowitz of the Freedom Center, and a whole host of other leaders from the conservative movement and military community.

Big Government

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials told Obama it was an ‘attack,’ not video or protest

By Pamela Geller

January 14, 2014

 So it is even worse than we thought, and what we thought it was impeachable. And Hillary was culpable as well. She must be stopped in 2016.

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials – headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show

Did the NY Times know that this story was about to break? Is that why they peddled that piece of fiction claiming that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the jihadi attack on our people and our consulate?  It was a stunning and unrecoverable blow to a compromised and dying institution.

Not one week after the September 11th attacks on our consulate, Obama stood before the world at the UN and said,“the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” Obama said this knowing that the murder of our people and the attack on our consulate was in the cause of Muhammad. It. is. devastating.

The day after the attacks, Obama schooled us on mandatory adherence to the sharia:

Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Off topic but related, the Obama administration targeted the reporter of this story. The Justice Department monitored and spied on James Rosen. The Washington Post reported the level of  intensity: the Justice Department labeled Rosen a “co-conspirator”.

Imagine naming a reporter for doing his job. But Muslim Brotherhood groups named actual co-conspirators in the biggest terrorist funding trial in American history (like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA et al) remain at large, just like the Benghazi slaughterers.

“The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest,” James Rosen, Fox News, January 13, 2014

 Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.
 
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair.

Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives – is that  the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the
Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

Atlas Shrugs

Exclusive--Benghazi Victims' Families, Conservative Leaders to Boehner: Install Select Committee Now

by Matthew Boyle

 

 Three family members of the victims of the Benghazi terrorist attack and scores of conservative and military leaders are kicking off 2014 by demanding that House Speaker John Boehner install a select committee, Breitbart News has learned exclusively. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.

In the letter to Boehner, which was delivered on early Monday afternoon and provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, and uncle, Michael Ingmire, along with Tyrone Woods’ father, Charles Woods, joined the call for a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. Other notable signers include former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), conservative leader Ginni Thomas of Liberty Consulting, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, Freedom Center president David Horowitz, and scores of other military and conservative movement leaders.

“We write to express our grave concern over the failure of your House of Representatives to extract the truth from the Obama administration concerning the attack on our diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi, Libya; and, the brutal deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Ty Woods and Glen Doherty,” the coalition wrote to Boehner.

Specifically, a House select committee on Benghazi would be similar to the Watergate select committee formed in the U.S. Senate during the scandal that took down President Richard Nixon. It would be a focused committee with members from both the Democrat and Republican parties and staffed with the proper resources to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter. Thus far, Boehner has had five separate House committees investigating the matter that have not succeeded. He has also publicly opposed the creation of a select committee, saying he does not think it is necessary.

There is currently a bill in the House of Representatives, H. Res 36 from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), that would create such a committee. It has, including Wolf, 179 cosponsors according to the Library of Congress, well more than the majority of the House GOP majority--which is 232 Republican members strong. Yet, despite the overwhelming support from the House GOP conference, Boehner continues to refuse to allow a vote on the installation of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal and continues to block efforts to bring the bill forward.

Now that this new coalition is stepping forward, Boehner may end up facing enough pressure to force him to create the committee.

The letter's signers are demanding Boehner install a select committee to investigate what happened. They argue that Boehner’s unwillingness to create an official investigative body has benefitted President Barack Obama’s administration, as it has taken advantage of the lack of focus in House investigations.

“To date, five (5) different committees of the House have conducted separate hearings, uncovering information in a piecemeal fashion lacking professional investigators,” the coalition wrote to Boehner. “The five committees’ efforts are disjointed and uncoordinated. The Obama administration has benefited from that dysfunctional process to hide the truth."

"Hardly any Obama administration witnesses have testified – publicly or privately," they continued. "You have resisted repeated calls for the creation of a select investigative committee with subpoena authority. It appears that you are satisfied to allow that state of investigative incoherence and ambiguity to continue. The last public hearing by any of the five committees was held in September – four (4) months ago."

"The families of the dead who fought valiantly to protect the mission and their families, the survivors, and the American people deserve better from you and your Members of Congress," the letter explained. "They deserve the absolute truth from their government. Your failure to get the truth and hold public officials accountable increases the possibility of other repeat attacks and additional failures to defend Americans abroad.”

The coalition argues that Boehner’s idling through the investigative process has led to things like a recent New York Times story which claimed that al Qaeda terrorists were not involved in the attack but that the attack was sparked by the YouTube video.

“On Sunday, December 29, 2013, the New York Times published a story concerning the Benghazi attacks that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared before various committees,” they wrote. “Besides the obvious New York Times editorial and political objectives of inoculating Hillary Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign from further criticism of her failures as Secretary of State, the story contradicts objective truth and established facts in a way that confuses the public."

"Your inaction and failure to lead on the Benghazi investigation directly contributes to the repetition of lies; a lack of accountability from responsible government officials; and the political advancement of persons who seek to continue to ‘fundamentally transform’ the Constitution and our country," they accused. "The New York Times recent publication proves the Benghazi story is not ‘going away.’”

The group further argues that while Ahmed Abu Khattala, “a ringleader of the attack,” has “granted long interviews to reporters in Benghazi cafes,” the Obama administration’s federal law enforcement agencies have “done nothing.” Because of Boehner’s lack of willingness to aggressively investigate the terrorist attack, the coalition argues that no one has been held accountable. “Nearly 16 months after the terrorist attack, the American public has no accountability and no plan of action from House leadership,” they wrote. “The public is subjected to undisputed disinformation from a White House who calls the terror attack a ‘phony scandal.’"

"While the White House repeats false and misleading information, you continue to ignore claims, documented by Rep. Frank Wolf, of intelligence officers being intimidated with multiple, punitive polygraph examinations and harassing non-disclosure agreement demands," they claimed. "If Benghazi is ‘phony’ why are intelligence officers being threatened not to speak and subjected to polygraph exams? Why do you stand by passively?”

The coalition also questioned whether Boehner is holding up the investigation because he may be culpable for knowing certain pieces of information about the scandal. As Speaker of the House, Boehner is a member of what is called the “Super 8” in Congress. Other members include House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV); Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY); House Intelligence Committee Chairman and ranking member Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), respectively; and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and ranking member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Because of their seniority in Congress, the “Super 8” gets briefed on intelligence matters in a much more intensive manner than other members.

The coalition questions whether Boehner has “guilty knowledge” on Benghazi because of that, and wonders whether a complete investigation into Benghazi would jeopardize Boehner’s political future as Speaker of the House.

“Some analysts believe your inaction and passivity towards getting to the truth concerning Benghazi is because you were briefed on the intelligence and special operations activities in Libya as a member of the

‘Super 8,’” they wrote. “You may possess ‘guilty knowledge.’ We recall how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi developed a form of ‘amnesia’ concerning a documented briefing she received on so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – later termed ‘torture’ for political purposes."

"Are you in the same position as your predecessor?" they asked. "Are you dodging a legitimate, thorough, coordinated investigation of Benghazi because it will damage your political position as Speaker?”

The coalition noted because no select committee with subpoena power has been installed, some members of the House GOP conference have taken to submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to attempt to get information about Benghazi out of the administration. “You should be embarrassed that members of Congress, and your own party, are forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Obama administration agencies to get basic information about the Benghazi issue,” the coalition wrote to Boehner.

“What a sad and pathetic statement about the operations of House standing committees looking into this tragedy that FOIA has become the last resort of even Republican Members seeking the truth!" the letter stated. "Are you concerned that the scattershot and untimely efforts of the various committees may actually be doing more harm than good at documenting facts? These are all examples of Republican leadership failures. How are you accountable?”

The coalition continued by criticizing the efforts of Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and one of Boehner’s right-hand men: “Rep. Mike Rogers and the Intelligence Committee seem to act as defense counsel for the Obama administration,” the coalition wrote. “A recent Intelligence Committee weekly update note stated as fact that no arms shipments were being run from Libya, and that no intelligence officers were being coerced not to speak. There is substantial evidence to the contrary on both counts."

"Why does Rep. Rogers parrot the discredited falsehoods of the so-called ‘Accountability Review Board’ (ARB)?" they accused. "Conflicting accounts, testimony and evidence need to be investigated – not dismissed or ignored. Don’t those contradictions and questions compel you, on behalf of the American people, to take any action to resolve the matter and get to the truth?”

The group asked Boehner why there “was thundering silence” from his office when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent him a letter on Nov. 6 outlining outstanding unanswered questions about the scandal. “You have an opportunity to show strong leadership and resolve a national disgrace perpetrated by specific public officials,” they wrote. “You are failing.”

“Your reluctance to lead and resistance to create a Select Committee on Benghazi must end,” they wrote.

“More than 75% of all House Republicans – with the conspicuous absence of those in leadership or committee chairmen – have cosponsored Rep. Wolf’s Select Committee bill. Few bills in this Congress demonstrate such overwhelming support from Republicans."

"Additionally, the bill enjoys the support of national security advocacy groups, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, among many others," they noted. "We urge you to bring the bill to the floor for a vote immediately to start effective oversight on this critical national security matter immediately. We have waited long enough. Your approach is not working.”

Specifically, the coalition demands that the select committee must complete its investigation before the end of the 113th Congress, which concludes at the end of 2014.

“Mr. Speaker, we call upon you to act now and create a Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate all aspects of the United States involvement in Libya, to include, but not be limited to the attacks of September 11, 2012,” they wrote. “It must now also include the protracted cover-up the American people, the families of the fallen and those with loved ones serving overseas have endured."

"The new committee must have subpoena power, capable staff and Members from both parties who are committed to finding the truth, not playing politics," the letter continued. "The Committee must be staffed with new, professional, qualified and experienced investigators. It must have resources to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation and issue an exhaustive report before this Congress adjourns.”

The full list of coalition letter signers includes: Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN Ret., former Vice Chief of Naval Operations; Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF, (Ret); Lt. Gen. Richard D. Lawrence, USA (Ret); LTG William G. Boykin, USA (Ret); Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, USA Ret, Chairman, Stand Up America; Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers, USA (Ret), Ranger; Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret); Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret); Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative; LTC Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) former Congressman, FL; Capt Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62, USN (Ret), Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC; Debra Burlingame, Co-founder, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America; Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness; Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Special Operation Speaks; Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch; Allen Roth, Secure America Now; Joel A. Arends, Veterans for a Strong America; Ginni Thomas, President, Liberty Consulting; Catherine Engelbrecht, President, True the Vote; Anita MonCrief, Black Voters Alliance; David Wallace, Restore America's Mission; Dr. James Pollock, Maj., USAF (Ret), OIF VETx2, SOCOM, Wounded Warrior Congressional Advocate; John J. Molloy, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition; James C. Harding, Col USAF (Ret) National Spokesman for Veteran Defenders of America; Diane M. Sendlenski, Veteran US Air Force, Special Operations Speaks Coordinator; John G. B. Howland, Publisher, USNA-At-Large; Katherine Cornell Gorka, Executive Director, The Westminster Institute; Paul Caprio, Executive Director, Family Pac Federal; William L. Walton, Chairman, Rappahannock Ventures LLC; Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs, American Family Association; David Horowitz, President, Freedom Center; Peter Thomas, Chairman, The Conservative Caucus; Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. Bill McDaniel, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. John A. Moriarty, USN, (Ret); Rear Adm. Robert B. McClinton, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret); Brig. Gen. Michael Neil, USMCR (Ret); Brig. Gen. Francis Hughes, USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. John Zierdt, Jr., USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. Michael T. Byrnes, USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret); Captain Kenneth Rauch, USN (Ret); Captain Peter A. Hewett, JAGC, U.S. Navy (Ret); Captain James Knight, USN (Ret); Captain Roger W. Barnett, USN (Ret); Captain Gregory Streeter, USN (Ret) USNA ’58; Col. G. Huntington Banister, USA (Ret), and former Acting Director, Selective Service System, 1994; Col. S. Badiner, USMC (Ret); Col. Gregory G. Raths, USMC (Ret); Col. Joseph V. Potter, USAF (Ret); Col. Rob Maness, USAF (Ret), U.S. Senate Candidate 2014, R-Louisiana; Dan Bongino, 2012 Republican Nominee for US Senate, MD; Lt. Col. Ken Benway, USA (Ret); Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret); CDR Randolph J. Horhutz, USNA '61, SC, USN (Ret); Everett Woolum, CMSGT, USAF (Ret); Gregory J. Rose, USNA ’73; Thomas Corboy, USNA, ’61; Anthony R. Papandrea, USNA ’61; Raymond H. Clary, Jr., USNA ’65; John W. Slagle, U.S. Navy Aviation veteran (Ret) Special Agent U.S.B.P. Anti-Smuggling Unit; Sarah Folger White, Former Presidential Commissioner; Dick and Patricia Schermerhorn, Appleton, WI; Lee Boyland, Author, former military officer, entrepreneur, nuclear engineer; Susan Creed Percy, Advocate for Military Families; Dave Hollenbeck, retired CA Highway Patrol; Paul F. Wirtz, Military family, OH resident; John Lillywhite, U.S. Citizen; Gene Andrews, U.S. Citizen; Mrs. Nancy Olbert, Supervisor Criminal Advocates, Daytona, FL State Attorney Office; Dr. Frank Ingels, Military Defense Consultant, MSIC/TETRA Office; Robert M. Trent, Senior Special Agent, USINS and former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran; and Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Christians for a Sustainable Economy; OH resident.

Big Government

Benghazi: “O! What a Fall was There”

By Jim ONeill

 O! what a fall was there, my countrymen,
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish’d over us. 
—William Shakespeare “Julius Caesar,” Act III, Scene II

My, my, my, oh what a tangled web we weave…. First we were treated to outright fables and fairytales about a “spontaneous demonstration” supposedly caused by a laughably awful film that few had ever heard of, and even fewer seen.

Then we had Hillary Clinton’s Sherlockian deduction that the Benghazi murders were the result of some guys out for a stroll who decided on the spur of the moment to, what the heck, “kill some Americans.” Admittedly not a dazzling hypothesis, but hey, what difference does it make?

We were also treated to Press Secretary Jay Carney’s “Not that old thing again” gambit, in which the killing of Ambassador Sevens and three other Americans last fall was treated as if it had happened back when the Black Plague was ravaging Europe.

Permit me to back up a bit. Shortly after the attacks in Benghazi, Obama put the fear of God into the terrorists—“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.” Yes, well…still waiting.

No sooner had Obama thrown down the gauntlet then US investigators promptly sat on their hands. Bringing the guilty parties to swift justice was not helped any by the fact that US investigators did not arrive on the crime scene until almost a month after the murders were committed. I’m not one to cast stones, but it seems to me that the FBI might want to work on improving their response time. Just saying.

The FBI’s investigation of the attacks in Benghazi makes the “Keystone Kops” look like the Mossad, but the main issue of importance is that the terrorists (or homicidal film critics, if you insist) remain at large.

Despite some helpful pointers from Hillary Clinton on what direction the investigation should take (it was either “a protest,” or “guys out for a walk”), US investigators remain stymied in their efforts to track down the bad guys. Perhaps I can help—patriotic duty and all that.

According to Walid Shoebat and Cynthia Farahat, both of whom speak Egyptian Arabic, a participant in the Benghazi attacks is heard to shout out on a video made at the time “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us!” (”Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba`atna!”) Congress and US investigators take note: that is what is known in professional parlance as “a clue.”

“Dr. Morsi,” of course, refers to disposed Egyptian President and Muslim Brotherhood “mover and shaker” Mohamed Morsi. Due to early, if somewhat erratic, support for Morsi, and the heavy-handed ineptitude of the US State Department, Congress, and the Obama regime, the US has managed to p‚Äîs off darn near every Egyptian on the planet, whether inside or outside of their country. A “clean sweep” if nothing else, I suppose.

In any event, permit me to fast forward ahead to recent events, and briefly discuss some comments made late last month by former Intelligence officer (SSI) and Egyptian television personality, Ahmed Moussa. Mr. Moussa claimed that Ambassador Stevens was killed by a man named Mohsen Al-Azazi, who was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Moussa gave Azazi’s current location in Egypt, and offered that he was in the company of two members of the Muslim Brotherhood, “[People] whom you and your [US] administration support and aid. Your administration aids terrorism.” (Psst!—consider this to be another “clue”—nod, nod, wink, wink). Cynthia Farahat observes:

If true, this is sensational news, for it directly ties the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] to anti-American terrorism and repudiates the Obama administration policy of trying to work with the MB.

For those of us interested in the real reasons why Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were hung out to die, why the survivors of the attack are still muzzled, and why General Carter Ham and Admiral Charles M. Gaouette were so peremptorily sacked following the attacks—the trickle of truth and connecting the dots is adding up to an ugly picture indeed.

Canada Free Press

September 11, 2012: A day that will live in infamy

August 17, 2013
By James Lewis

 
September 11 of 2012, just eleven months ago, was the eleventh anniversary of the Declaration of Holy War signaled by three simultaneous attacks on America by nineteen Saudi Arabian suiciders, killing 3,000 innocent people in Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in the air over Pennsylvania.

That Declaration of War came from the brutal desert theocracy of Saudi Arabia, run by its Wahhabi priesthood.  Wahhabism follows ancient Muslim war theology against all non-Muslims and against Muslims heretics like the Iranians.  Wahhabism runs a worldwide oil-funded missionary campaign, and mosques built by Arabian oil billionaires are often staffed by Wahhabi imams, who preach holy war against the rest of humanity.

"Islam" means surrender or else.

Since 2001, the Saudis and other brutal tribal cultures have continued to finance, agitate, indoctrinate, infiltrate, plot, threaten, manipulate, propagandize, commit mass murder, and sabotage their First-World benefactors.  The dead silence of the Western political and media elites about the Global Jihad means that billions of oil dollars have bought a lot of Democrats and Crony Media.

Across the Gulf, the other war branch of Islam keeps waging its own brand of murder and tyranny.  Sunnis and Shiites are at war with each other in Syria, but they also attack the First World at every opportunity -- politically, psychologically and by acts of terror.

Eleven months ago, on September 11 of 2012,  international news headlines showed two photos of simultaneous al-Qaeda terror attacks on American sovereign assets.  Benghazi was the most famous assault, killing our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.  But al-Qaeda always commits mass murders twice on the same day.  That is its signature.

A second jihadist attack was therefore headlined on the same day.  It was on our Cairo Embassy, where Qaedists briefly flew their black flag over a burned-out part of the Embassy, long enough for their tame news photographers to send their message around the world.

Every Muslim in the world instantly understood the meaning of that double-terror attack, the war signature of al-Qaeda.  But ordinary people in the West were blinded and deceived by our treacherous mass media, controlled by vast amounts of oil money.

The al-Qaeda message on September 11, 2012 was instantly understood in the White House, where Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama, and John Brennan are intimately familiar with the war theology of Islam.  They constantly find ways to enable it.

The flood of lies about Benghazi was engineered by our media and Democrat Party Machine, to cover up al-Qaeda's obvious message to the world.  Hillary Clinton and her husband were of course complicit in that massive cover-up.  Oil money may be buying the Hillary run for president of the United States. 

Today our media-political class is still trying to make you forget September 11, 2012.

If the media had told you the truth, Obama would have lost the election.

Whether you like Mitt Romney or not, the world would be much, much safer today if Obama had been defeated.

That is why September 11, 2012 is a day that will live in infamy.

It was a huge triumph of our deadly enemies against an administration and a political class that lives by denying the very existence of our deadly enemies.

We now know that Obama won re-election by organized fraud and abuse of his constitutional authority over the IRS, the FBI, and the national security apparatus.  The Corporate Media colluded in Obama's anti-constitutional actions, revealing the extent of their knowledge only after the election.

We know that Obama is a scofflaw, laughing when he gets away with screwing the American people and our Constitution.  Today he is clowning it up for the hopelessly corrupt media on the golf course in Martha's Vineyard, and like everything else in this administration, there are no accidental signals.  This is the fundamental nature of our One Party Machine today.

This column has previously described Obama's malignant narcissism and oppositional defiant disorder.  His day-to-day behavior continues to add to a mountain of evidence.  Every government and intelligence agency in the world knows all about Obama, and so does the Democratic Party Machine.

Still, the American people are kept in the dark.  We are a laughingstock around the world, and frankly, we will deserve the contempt of the world until we learn to face reality.

Here is a partial breakdown of 9/11/12 malfeasance.

1. Within minutes of the attack in Benghazi, President Obama, directly or indirectly, ordered the U.S. military not to protect Ambassador Stevens and the 30 or so CIA personnel who were under assault. 

This week, USAF Colonel (ret.) Phil Handley publicly explained the nature of that betrayal.

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.

Among America's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex‐SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction‐of‐duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover‐up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

Please note that everyone in the world who knows the U.S. military understands these facts very well.  The "secret" of Obama's betrayal is therefore only a secret to the "LoFo voters" in America.

2. In Cairo, where we had just helped Islamic radical Mohammed Morsi rise to power, an al-Qaeda mob overran parts of the U.S. Embassy.  In a state dominated by police, military, and internal espionage, such mob attacks do not occur accidentally.  Morsi was put into power by Barack H. Obama, who told Morsi's pro-American predecessor, President Hosni Mubarak, to resign after thirty years of protecting the peace in the Middle East.

In the five years since Obama became president, both branches of the Muslim war theology have made major conquests.  Syria is now torn between the jihadists of Iran and the jihadists of the Arabian desert.  Whichever group wins, the civilized world will be the losers.

United States Embassies are legally American territory, and every diplomat knows the meaning of a mob attack on an embassy.  It means that by failing to provide police protection in obedience to international law, the host government is declaring a legal casus belli, a cause for war.

Notice that this is exactly what the first jihadist regime in the world did to Jimmy Carter in 1979 by kidnapping our diplomats in Tehran.  That international slap in the face ended up defeating  Jimmy Carter in the election of 1980, and bringing Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

It was Reagan who vigorously defended America and brought the Evil Empire to a well-deserved end.

Eleven months ago, the Obama administration and our Democrat National Machine plotted to cover up the two 9/11/12 attacks, to avoid a repetition of the Carter debacle and the rise of a conservative Republican administration.

That is why our deeply corrupted IRS targeted the Reaganesque Tea Party, and tried to destroy the most charismatic and well-qualified conservative on the national scene today, Governor Sarah Palin.

Our political class fears the rise of another Ronald Reagan.

Obama and the Democrat Machine acted brutally and illegally to prevent another Reaganite presidency.  They are still doing it every day.

3. Long before 9/11 of last year, the Obama administration was deeply penetrated by Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators, who have been widely exposed in the web-based media.

As Col. Allen West (ret.) just wrote,

... yes, we do have Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups and individuals infiltrated into this current Obama administration. This is serious.

Beginning in the 1970s, radical Muslims bought political power in the Black Nationalist movement.  Barack Hussein Obama has told the world in two autobiographies that he modeled his own life after Malcolm X, the Black Nationalist.  Today, the radical left in the black community claims to stand for all Americans of African descent.  That is of course another Big Lie.  The radical left constantly attempts to threaten and intimidate those who disagree with it, including courageous black people tired of seeing toxic demagogues destroying unnumbered lives in our inner cities.

The radical left-Muslim jihadist alliance began in the 1970s.  The evidence for that alliance is all over the international media today, including the Egyptian and Arabic media, which are expressing shock to see the extent to which America has been corrupted by its internal enemies.  The anti-Morsi coup in Egypt was conducted by nationalist and modernist political groups that did not want to be tyrannized by the medieval Muslim Brotherhood.  Jihadists  are our enemies -- they tell us so every day -- and modernist Egyptians cannot understand why Barack H. Obama is constantly supporting those who want to destroy us.

4. We have just learned that Benghazi culminated in jihadist terror groups stealing 400 ground-to-air missiles, which may threaten our civilian aircraft for years to come.

The damage in Benghazi was not just to American lives, reputation, national pride, international standing, and prestige.  It was material damage, threatening our national security in a clear and present way.  The 400 sophisticated ground-to-air missiles now controlled by jihadists are bound to be used against us.  In the last few weeks, massive coordinated jailbreaks took place in Yemen, Iraq, and Egypt, liberating thousands of terrorist killers who are now on the loose.

The United States has just forced Israel to release more than 100 convicted terrorist killers, who may soon join the others -- in Syria, where al-Qaeda rebels are making military gains against the relatively rational regime of Bashar Assad.  Or in Afghanistan, where the Obama regime is negotiating with the barbaric Taliban to surrender that country to their tender mercies.  Safe-haven countries for Muslim terrorists now include Iran, the Sudan, Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

Bin Laden had to run from country to country to finally find safe haven with...the Taliban.  That allowed al-Qaeda to plot the terror attacks on America on the first 9/11.

We will hear from them before this administration is finished.

5. Obama has been actively and knowingly complicit in empowering jihadist forces from the beginning of this administration. He has made no secret of his real sympathies.  Will choose the Muslim side.  No slander of the Prophet of Islam.

Imagine FDR responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by lying about Imperial Japan.

That is what Obama and the Democrat Machine have done to us.

In Europe, the identical class of radical leftists are running their economy into the ground.  The European left has also smuggled in hundreds of thousands of easily radicalized Muslims from Pakistan, Africa, and Arabia.  Europe is committing suicide in front of our eyes.  If the left-jihadist political alliance is allowed to stay in power, it will destroy our country also.

We have real enemies, foreign and domestic.  About 100 million Americans know exactly who they are.  Our job as citizens is to guide our nation to safety against the malignant and corrupt network of enemies.

We must do so by peaceful persuasion if we can.

The alternative does not bear thinking about.

American Thinker