Betrayal in Benghazi – Colonel Phil Handley, Ret.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013 21:48

0

(Before It's News)

Phil “Hands” Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.) 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. It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog” press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming. The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention “that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference” mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based. Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.” At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down”. By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various “Command and Control Agencies” and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM. So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really “was not available” what about this: When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets. By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use. The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team. Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick. Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away. As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act” screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America’s interests first. The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins” and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug” on Superman’s cape. Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone, and he didn’t understand the tactical situation? YGBSM! Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the Untied States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

 

FOR THOSE OF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THE TIME TO READ THIS, YOU NEED TO DO ONE THING FOR ME! FORWARD THIS OUT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!WE CAN NEVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN AND WHOEVER GAVE THE “STAND DOWN” ORDER NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED!!!!

The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash

By Bob Russell on Feb 09, 2013 in A Broken System, Bob Russel, exposing Obama, Opinion, Politics

I have heard testimony, all that I can stand to listen to anyway, on the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012 and find it more and more disgusting as each day of “testimony” comes and goes.  No one on these “investigative panels” really wants the citizens to know what happened or why it happened.  If they did they wouldn’t be asking Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest of the regime “explainers” being “called before Congress”.
I did a search of the Benghazi attack and the first eleven entries I found involved Panetta and what he had to say about the situation.  Now, I realize I am not a lofty Senator or Congressman but I would do things a bit differently.  Clinton and Panetta would be the last ones I would call to testify.   My “panel of experts” would entail a totally different group of people.  The two brave Navy Seals who died trying to help can’t talk so I would do the next best thing.  The first people I would call to testify would be those who were dismissed from their posts for refusing to “stand down” during the attack.
I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3).  Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a rescue mission to Benghazi.  According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea.  The usual action is to replace them when they return to port.   Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by  “a video offensive to Islam”.   I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.
The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent.  General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack.   After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.
The song and dance we get from the regime is that there wasn’t time and that we didn’t have enough information to put armed forces into the situation.  While I am certainly not as expert as Clinton and Panetta I do have a bit of knowledge about these kinds of situations.  I was a member of the U S Army Special Forces from 1968 to 1971 so I do have the background to know how these kinds of problems are resolved.  The two commanders replaced were doing what any decent commander would do, send help if possible.
The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous.  There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed.  The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help.  One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound.  I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available.
I served long before laser designators were available but I know a little something about protective air strikes.  Calling in air strikes in my day was a bit more precarious.  The forward air controller, flying a propeller airplane, would come in low and slow (at low altitude and minimum speed) to find us.  We would pop a smoke grenade to show him our position.  He would then direct the “fast movers”, the jet strike aircraft, where to “lay their eggs”.  The FAC would give our position and an attack azimuth parallel to our position, the safest for the ground troops, for him to make his bomb or gun run.
I can’t imagine popping a smoke grenade without any assets on station.  We would never do that and neither would Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.  These men were too highly trained to throw their lives away without any hope of air assets being available.  For Panetta and Clinton to sit there and spout the excuses they spout is inexcusable, and in my mind, criminal actions.
The next people I would call in to testify would be those stationed at the embassy in Benghazi at the time of the attack.  It is reported that thirty-two people were at the embassy when the attack took place.  Where are they and why haven’t they been called to testify before Congress?  I contend, and it is my firm belief, that neither political party wants to find the real answers to the questions that need answering.  If the truth is known not only would Obama and his henchmen be found to be negligent but the chances are real high that members of Congress would also be found negligent.  How many, and who, in Congress knew about the weapons being supplied to the Al Qaeda led “protestors”?  The story being bandied about is that Ambassador Stevens was there trying to find sophisticated weapons, such as shoulder fired missiles, that had been given to the opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.
I doubt We the People will ever know the truth about Benghazi or the actions that led to the massacre that occurred there. Politicians are more interested in taking guns away from law abiding citizens in America than they are in finding out why four American citizens were slaughtered in Benghazi.  I actually believe they know what happened and why, and therefore find it very easy to cover their butts and careers by whitewashing this as they do all other criminal actions of government.
The corruption in our federal government is so ingrained and so massive that if We the People were to ever find the truth it would lead to an uprising that would topple the tyrants running our nation.  The dog and pony shows go on and nothing ever gets resolved.  Just as in the Fast & Furious “investigation” no answers are ever given.  The story eventually dies out and goes quietly into the night, never to be resolved, and those responsible for murders of countless innocents sliver back under their rocks without ever having to answer for their crimes.  Congress can put Roger Clemmons in prison for lying about using performance enhancing drugs in sports but can’t find out anything about crimes committed by other politicians.  Ain’t politics wonderful????
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 8, 2013

Panetta: President Never Called Me Night Ambassador Was Slain

Thursday, 07 Feb 2013 03:57 PM

By Todd Beamon

Share:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told senators on Thursday that President Barack Obama was absent the night U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya on last Sept. 11.

Under questioning by Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said that he had met with Obama at a pre-scheduled meeting at 5 p.m.,

The meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, Panetta testified. He testified that he and Obama spent about 20 minutes discussing the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.

But, otherwise, Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi, “up to us” — meaning Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Standard reports.

When Ayotte asked whether Obama had called to check on the status of events in Benghazi, Panetta said, “no, but we got information that the ambassador, his life had been lost, it went to the White House.”

The outgoing Defense Secretary said that he did not communicate with anyone at the White House on the night of Sept. 11.

“There was no follow-up from the White House?” Ayotte asked.

“No,” Panetta responded. Obama had never called to check in, he testified.

When Ayotte asked whether the president had checked on what resources were available and how fast could they have been sent to the consulate, Panetta said, “The biggest problem that night was that nobody knew what was going on there.”


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

MEDIA “BALDFACE” LIES ABOUT PATRAEUS TESTIMONY TO DEFEND OBAMA’S BENGHAZI FAILURE

by Penbrook One

THE 1^stAMENDMENT WAS MURDERED IN BENGHAZI TOO - Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.  Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

Now, AP Columnists Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler have published an insidious and deceptive story claiming that the reason Obama and members of his administration were justified in lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack was because he was attempting to implement a covert response against the terrorists and did not want to, in their words, “tip them off” to his retaliatory plans.

 

By Dan Crosby

of the Daily Pen
 

NEW YORK, NY- The re-election of Barack Obama and defense of his illegitimate executive power has become more important than protecting the lives of innocent Americans, according the liberal mainstream media. Defending Obama’s lies in order to see him achieve his liberal aspirations was more important than protecting American security and providing the truth about the September 11 murder of four innocent Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of terrorist enemies in Benghazi, Libya.
 

Despite former CIA director David Petraeus' testimony in closed hearings Friday that he has always believed the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism and that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration, Obama’s media defenders are toiling to provide excuses for Obama’s failures to respond as well as his outright lies that the attack was the result of a YouTube video. 
 

Intelligence reports also show that Patraeus’ agency actually named specific terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, as those responsible for the attack in its initial reports sent to the Obama administration during and immediately following the attack. 

It has since been discovered, however, that the content of those reports were altered by unnamed personnel in the Obama administration in order to omit references to specific terrorist groups and implications that the attack was anything other than a spontaneous protest over the YouTube video, which at least five high ranking members of the Obama Administration explicitly blamed for the attack, including Barack Obama, himself.
 

Investigators believe the Obama administration removed references to terrorist groups prior to the election in order to convey a positive public narrative about Obama’s success against Al-Qaeda after exaggerating his own role in the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.     
 

However, the ultra-liberal media has once again been caught altering facts and telling blatant lies in its coverage of the content of testimony given to congress by Patraeus.  In an article published on November 16, Associated Press columnists, Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler wrote the following:
 

“Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.”
 

The latter half of this paragraph is a lie.  An originally published story before Dozier’s and Pickler’s shows that General Patraeus made no such statement about what he believed were the reasons for why the Obama administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack or why the official CIA reports released just hours after the attack were altered.  Dozier and Pickler simply made that part up.  They continued:

“The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

Again, Dozier and Pickler invent facts to suit the pro-Obama narrative.  The actual released story originally published from reliable media sources appeared as follows: 

"WASHINGTON -- Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers during private hearings Friday that he believed all along that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a terrorist strike, even though that wasn't how the Obama administration initially described it publicly.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees as questions continue to persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.

Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency took out the reference.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."

Notice, at no point in the original version of the AP story does it mention anything about the Obama administration changing CIA intelligence reports in order to avoid “tipping off” the terrorists.  Patraeus made no such statement about the reasons for changing the reports because there is no way for him to know why the original CIA reports on the attack were altered by anyone in the administration. 

Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.

That’s right, a member of one of the largest and long standing media organizations in America blamed politicians for his failure to do his job.  According to Tapper, the government now rules over the “free press” in America.  No more truth will be spoken against our government’s lust for power.  The pursuit of truth is officially dead among the American press.      

Essentially, Tapper admitted that the 1^stAmendment is dead.  He believes that journalists in his organization, as well as all of the press, are willing to allow the government to dictate which stories are newsworthy to the media based on political ideology.  He admitted that political interests and selfish dominion of power by politicians are being permitted to rule over the media and that he and his colleagues were helpless to provide any information or facts about the Benghazi tragedy in any viable manner, whatsoever.   

 

Shockingly, Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

He actually admitted that the despicable letches in our press were less willing to provide critical information about what our government was doing about terrorist attacks against Americans than help a radical regime and bowing liberal consensus achieve an electoral orgasm.
 

Let’s hope Tapper and his delusional band are proud of their accomplishment.  Obama’s re-election cost the lives of four innocent Americans and blood of countless others.   Good job. 

   
 

In their pathetic defense of the Obama Administration, Dozier and Pickler claim that the Obama administration was justified in lying about the identity of those responsible for the Benghazi attack because it did not want those same terrorists to know that the Obama Administration knew it was them.  Therefore, says Dozier and Pickler, the Obama administration chose to tell the world a lie claiming the attack and Obama’s failed response, which resulted in the murder of four innocent Americans, was the result a protest by offended Muslims over an obscure YouTube video.
 

 

However, in their placatory misinformation, Dozier and Pickler fail to explain two events not covered by Patraeaus’ testimony, which proves that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the Benghazi attack in order to protect Obama’s retention of executive power leading up to the 2012 election. 

 

By their false account, the lies told by the Obama administration about Benghazi were so justified and intellectually elaborate that the calculated deception actually required the unwarranted arrest and terrorization of an innocent American, based on trumped up charges.
 

In defending Obama’s lies, Dozier and Pickler fail to describe the reasons why, upon blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Obama administration then also felt it was necessary to go sin-sniffing and actually imprison the alleged film maker, Mark Basseley Youssef.  Apparently, according to these two liars, this extension of the Obama deception was so sophisticated that it was a required part of “not tipping off “ the terrorists that the administration was on to them.
 

 

If Dozier and Pickler had done their job as journalist instead of allowing their deranged ideological lusts to control their perspective, they would have discovered that US District Judge Christina Snyder dropped half the minor charges against Youssef before finding him guilty on even lesser charges of violating his parole and using an alias!  That’s right…when all was said and done, after all the destruction Youssef allegedly caused with his “offensive and disgusting” video in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans, he was convicted of the “capital offense” of using an alias! 
 

Youssef was not arrested for parole violations.  The fact is, these leftist liars didn’t even consider that the Obama administration sought to arrest Youssef, using the video as an excuse, in order to uphold Obama’s lies to the American people, not implement a covert response to the terrorists. 
   

Steven Seiden, Youssef’s lawyer said after trial, “All sides accepted that none of the charges had anything to do with the anti-Muslim content of the film.”
 

Seidens account seems to suggest that his client was arrested as part of scheme by the Obama administration to hide the fact that a terrorist group was responsible for the Benghazi attack.   
 

Had they done their job correctly, Dozier and Pickler would have also discovered there has been no explanation to the public about any specific violations by Youssef or which terms of his alleged probation he actually violated, or what the terms of his original probation actually were.  As far as the public knows, Youssef could have been arrested for jaywalking, a charge which federal authorities were able to then trump into a probation violation at the behest of Obama lap dog Attorney General, Eric Holder. 
 

According to Randy Kreider of ABC News, "Officials stressed during court proceedings that the movie's contents and impact had no bearing on Youssef's case.  After a prosecutor said 'he's not here because of the content of the movie,' the judge agreed.”
 

Then why was Youssef arrested?  What evidence did authorities have to file charges before the arrest and what were those charges?

 

TERRORISTS:  WE DID IT, BUT DON’T TELL OBAMA

But, the biggest lie Dozier and Pickler tell is that the terrorists were on the run and hiding from a heroic Obama superhero after the attack, yet they refuse to acknowledge that same superhero's failure to prevent attacks in the month before despite having mountains of warnings, intel reports and requests for additional security. 

According to Dozier and Pickler, no action or lie by the Obama administration thus far is punishable because, in their absurd view, the terrorists might have become wise to the fact that they were found out by the very same government and intelligence personnel they had attacked?

The problem with this excuse is that the terrorists, themselves, admitted to the attack by posting a confession on a worldwide social media site, Facebook, within 24 hours. 

 

Maybe Dozier and Pickler thought that since the terrorists didn’t “friend” Obama, they might be able to hide their murderous deeds amidst a billion teenagers and fraternity pledges.  Or, maybe Dozier and Pickler believed Secretary of State Clinton when she weaseled off that something posted on the internet is not proof of anything.
 

Or, maybe these idiots thought the terrorists posted on Facebook, “We did it…but don’t tell Obama.” 
 

In lying to protect Obama, Dozier and Pickler failed to realize the preeminent fact that the terrorists were never worried about being discovered because they publicly admitted to the attack immediately.  Therefore, there is no reason for the  Obama administration to think its response should be hidden from a terrorist group that already publicly admitted to the world that it was responsible for murdering Ambassador Stevens and three U.S. diplomat personnel.

In the end, the fact is that Obama, in his corrupt leftist ideology, wanted to be re-elected without the American people having the chance to find out the truth about his failure to prevent the deaths of four Americans at the hands of the very same terrorists he claims to have defeated long ago.

Now, he can sleep in the White House every night knowing he had the ability to save Americans and he intentionally allowed them to die because of his lust for power.

We don't know about the terrorists...but Americans are on to him.

MEDIA PUPPETS LIE TO PROTECT OBAMA'S DIABOLICAL SCHEME TO ARM AL QAEDA IN SYRIA!

by Penbrook One

FAILURE OF ALLEGIANCE - Attempting to aid and abet the fraudulent Obama Administration’s cover-up of the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, leftist media websites and networks are publishing dishonest stories in an effort to provide cover for Obama’s failure to transparently respond to the crisis and, most likely, protect him from consequences of an outright cover-up of a diabolical scheme to arm an Al Qaeda-led rebellion in Syria.   

 

Commentary by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - As reported by the Washington Times, the liberal press overwhelmingly bought into the Obama administration's version that a YouTube video was to blame for what the regime said was a “spontaneous attack by offended rioters” at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, according to a study published Friday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which tracks news reports.

Officials from the Administration blamed the video for two weeks even though evidence now shows they knew the attack was a coordinated plot by terrorists the entire time.  Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and Obama, himself, lied to the American people for weeks in order cover up the truth about the reasons for the tragic events in Benghazi.   

But, the media is refusing to ask why they would do that.  Why would Obama and his State Department blame a random video after evidence had been received by them for weeks that terrorists were planning an attack? 

The media refuses to even consider the probability that Ambassador Stevens may have discovered information which exposed a scheme by the Obama administration to provide arms to an Al Qaeda-led rebellion against Syria's Assad regime, which has killed more than 30,000 civilians in that nation.

Assume the primary directive of Islam is to take over the world and establish a global caliphate.  Would it not therefore engage this endeavor in places where vacuums of power exist...or are created.  Are we not suspicious enough about Obama's allegiances after four years of unanswered questions about his past, his identity, his very eligibility to hold the office?    

The media won't ask themselves, once that information was exposed, terrorist elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya were informed that Stevens and his staff may attempt to prevent the covert operation as well as the fact that Stevens would possess politically fatal information against Obama. That being that a sitting president, despite his lack of eligibility to hold the office, was actively engaged in scheme to arm America's enemies.

Or, even worse...what if Stevens found out that Obama had made a deal with Al Qaeda to provide them with arms to help them assume power in both Libya and Syria if Al Qaeda would allow Obama to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden?  We still have never seen evidence of that mission.  We've only heard testimony from those who are lying to us right now.      

Under such circumstances, such an evil scheme would therefore have to neutralize an individual with that kind of apocalyptic information, wouldn't it?        

Reuters, as well as every liberal media network, has attempted to lie for Obama this week by making it seem like the two parties, the CIA in Benghazi and Obama's National Security Team in Washington D.C., were in agreement about the course of action and that when CIA security officer and former Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods defied orders to remain at the annex, his independent choice was somehow the result of Obama’s order to go help Ambassador Stevens.

This, of course, is just another of many endless lies from Obama's fraudulently installed horde of overbenders.    

"CMPA analysts show that press accounts framed the attack as a spontaneous protest in line with the Obama administration's initial version of events at a rate four times more often than they called it a terrorist assault, which was what skeptics identified it as in the days right after Sept. 11.

Initial coverage also focused more on debates over free speech versus hate speech because of the controversy surrounding the video, rather than on security decisions at the Benghazi mission complex, the study found. The Obama administration's initial explanation for the attack was that it was a mob protest against a video that mocked Islam's prophet Mohammed. A mob in Cairo did attack the American Embassy that same night in protest of the video.

The study graded news stories based on their use of words and phrases that touched on themes such as free speech, security problems and terrorism.

"The Benghazi attack was depicted in terms related to a spontaneous protest emphasized by the Obama administration over four times as often as a planned attack (emphasized by Republicans — 17% vs. 4% of the coverage, respectively," the CMPA concluded."

In Reuters’ most recent Benghazi story titled, “CIA Officials in Libya made key decisions during Benghazi attacks” the international news agency intentionally omits critical key facts which would otherwise confirm suspicions that the Obama administration is lying to the American people about its role in the crisis. 

For example, in his opening stanza, “CIA officials on the ground in Libya dispatched security forces to the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi within 25 minutes and made other key decisions about how to respond to the waves of attacks,” Reuters columnist, Mark Hosenball fails to attach his benign 25 minute time reference to any event during the attack.  He writes a lonely, “within 25 minutes”.

It isn’t until his 14^th paragraph that he identifies the chronological origins from whence the 25 minute claim was begotten saying, “…About 25 minutes after the initial report came into the CIA base, a team of about six agency security officers left their base for the public diplomatic mission compound.”

Hosenball conveniently omits the fact that the six security agency security officers left their base..in defiance of orders to not help Ambassador Stevens and his staff.  By intentionally leaving out the fact that Tyrone Woods and his small team went to help Stevens against orders, Hosenball and Reuters are attempting to make their readers believe that Woods' team left the CIA annex base as result of obeying orders to do so.  They did not.  They left the base in defiance of orders from Obama’s command to leave the situation alone.

We know Woods and the security team refused to stand by among cries for help and watch State Department staff get slaughtered by terrorists.  However, conspicuously, the liberal media has also failed to ask the Obama administration why the threat against the mission staff was so impending on September 11th.       

Hosenball’s second paragraph is no better.  He writes another benign account of actions from what he claims officials conveyed without attaching those actions to any name, authority, course of events or sequence of orders.  He writes:

“Officials in Washington monitored events through message traffic and a hovering U.S. military drone but did not interfere with or reject requests for help from officials in the line of fire, the official said.”

Did not Interfere? They should have interfered!  They should have interfered with the attempts by terrorists to murder Americans!  It’s infuriating to fathom what Hosenball is thinking by using the word “interfere” in this context.  Is it not the primary directive of the Commander-in-Chief to interfere with attempts to murder Americans?  If not, what good is he?

Apparently, Hosenball is therefore admitting that Obama administration officials remained silent and indifferent, not interfering or rejecting, as they watched drone footage of Americans being murdered.

It isn’t until Hosenball’s third paragraph where he actually begins to veer into bias by omission.   He writes:

“The information emerged as officials made available on Thursday a timeline chronicling the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other American officials died. The material appears to refute claims by critics that officials in Washington delayed sending help to the besieged personnel.”

Evidvence shows that Officials in Washington and CIA personnel in Benghazi were at odds the night of the attack.  Based on the apparent backlash from military command against the Obama regime, it appears the contention over the events during that night were outright hostile.  One commander was allegedly fired and two others were demoted in the field after they attempted to violate orders to stand down.   

Woods and his team, including Glen Doherty, were explicitly told by Obama’s national security team not to help Stevens.  Why else would the Obama Administration attempt to mislead the American people? 

Obama's plan began to fail the moment Woods and Doherty ignored orders and went anyway.

Their deaths should be investigated with prejudice.  

Therefore, it now appears the liberal pro-Obama media is attempting to lie to give credit for Woods’ and Doherty’s decision to defy orders and go help fellow Americans under attack, not to Woods and Doherty, but to Obama.  Sick and disgusting.

Hosenball finally attributes a quote to a real person.  He writes:

"Following the initial broadcast of the Fox News report, Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, denied that CIA had ever turned down requests for help from U.S. personnel in Benghazi."

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate," Youngblood said. 

Again, Hosenball is giving an account of another admission by an Obama official which shows that at no time, in any form, did anyone from the Obama White House ever tell anyone in the CIA or the State Department to help Ambassador Stevens.  If such an order had been given, it would have a written chain of custody. 

Hosenball already said in the first part of the story that Obama officials did not interfere. 

If they didn’t interfere, how did they give the order to help Stevens?

Hosenball’s story says nothing about a YouTube video.   

 

OBAMA STILL STRUNG ON ELECTION FIX HOPING TO EVADE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS LIES

by Penbrook One

USURPER EN PRESENTIA - Barack Obama still believes the consequences for his administration’s lies are going to be easier to face if he ignores the outrage of the American people until after they cast their votes.  In the exact same way he believed the outrage over his lies about his lack of constitutional eligibility to even hold the office of president were going to be easier to ignore after the American people voted in 2008, he now believes he can evade the outrage over his lies about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.  Only this time, his lies have injured a dangerous assembly of U.S. military command and clandestine personnel with the ability to manifest politically destructive evidence of cover-up and deception.

 

Commentary by Penbrook Johannson

Editor of The Daily Pen

  

NEW YORK, NY - Like an addict hopelessly hooked on the poison that’s killing him, Obama thinks if he can just win another election fix, his lies will become irrelevant.

 

Someone needs to help Barack Obama before it’s too late.  They need to conduct a group intervention.  They need to sit him down and, after they remind him of the consequences of presiding over the most corrupt administration in American history, ask him if he really…really wants to reside in the White House for another four years.

After they remind him that he is not a legitimate office holder due to his lack of constitutional eligibility, they now need to make him aware of the damage his lies about the terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya have caused to the morale of our military and the American people. 

Finally they need to ask him if he truly believes the honorable members of our military service actually would respect after the lies and failures about his identity, his ideology and, now, his foreign allegiance to enemies abroad.   

There is some very bad news waiting for Obama on November 7, regardless if he is fraudulently ensconced to the White House again.  The pursuit of truth about his identity will continue, and his diminished credibility with the American military over the Benghazi scandal will continue to erode his image. 

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, issued a devastating response to Barack Obama’s ongoing failure to respond directly to charges that his administration is hiding information about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission facility in Benghazi which resulted in the murder of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens. 

When asked if congressional investigations should be conducted along with the investigation currently engaged by the Obama Adminstraton, Bolton said, “The only information we have is the result of an investigation of the Obama administration…by the Obama administration.  Investigations by both branches are appropriate.  In the case of the Obama administration, it’s not only that their internal investigations have produced accounts, so far, that are only favorable to them, but that the selective leaking of information has politicized the CIA and the Pentagon a few days before our election.”

It is now clear that Obama’s blatant lack of response to vehement questions about the Benghazi fiasco is an attempt to prevent the American people from discovering the truth before the election next week.  Obama is ignoring the American people’s growing outrage over Benghazi because he knows the answers to their questions will utterly destroy his political credibility and devastate his chances at re-election. 

Again, Obama is demonstrating his propensity for lies and cowardice when called upon to stand for the difficult decision of upholding honor and truth. 

Either way, however, Obama’s credibility and legitimacy have been deeply damaged, not only in the perception of the American people but, most importantly, in the hearts and minds of those who serve in our military, which the office of president must command with utmost credibility and legitimacy if America is to be effectively defended and protected. 

The failure in Benghazi has revealed that Obama is simply no long a legitimate leader able to exercise credible leadership over our military servicemen and servicewomen.   

“What this shows is an administration in disarray while emphasizing the importance of Congress getting to the bottom of this,” Bolton said.

  

A recent report by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge revealed a top secret communication sent in August, 2012, a full month before the attack, from Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. Chief of Mission (COM) personnel in Benghazi directly to Hillary Clinton at the State Department which issued a clear warning that U.S. facilities in Libya were at extreme risk of a terrorist attack and that Al Qaeda sponsored groups were a clear and present threat to the complex and State Department personnel. 

The revelations presented by Fox are an unequivocal indictment against the Obama administration and clearly demonstrate that the White House and State Department were warned that if security measures were not increased at the Benghazi mission, it could not be defended in a coordinated attack.  We now know the Obama administration did nothing to increase security in the weeks leading up to the September 11^th attack, despite the warning from COM officials.

This fact, therefore, suggests executive leadership in the administration, including Obama himself, was fully aware of the threat but chose not to act in the interest of securing U.S. personnel because, for reasons yet to be disclosed, there was a greater political benefit in allowing the embassy to remain vulnerable.

Based on this, it becomes necessary to question whether the Obama administration had reason to believe that the possibility of U.S. Ambassador Stevens being killed was more favorable to an alternative of protecting him and his staff, and what was that reason?  

    

Commenting on the revelations by Fox, Bolton commented saying, “I’ve had chance to read that cable and it is the smoking gun in this investigation.  The idea that the CIA station in Benghazi offered to bring the consulate personnel into their compound a month before the September 11 attack shows just how worried everybody in Benghazi was about such an attack, which, as we know, is what happened a few weeks later.”

“This is a devastating rebuttal to any notion that there was an out of control demonstration  because of this ridiculous Mohammed video and it undercuts the Obama administration’s credibility in a profound way,” continued Bolton.

According to the Washington Times, retired Naval Rear Admiral James A Lyons told correspondents, “It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from overhead drone.  The cries for help and support went unanswered.  The terrorists could have been wiped out by an immediate counter attack but there appears to have been a lack of courage to make that happen.”

   

Said Bolton, “The passivity of this administration, before, after and during the attack deserves an investigation and that we need to address the broader systemic failure in which appears the Obama administration is believing its own press releases about the war on terror is over, denial of multiple requests for security before the attack on 9-11.”  

This is the result of a mixture of incompetence, politics and ideology, which is a toxic brew.  There is no doubt we had a debacle on 9-11 a tragedy of four Americans dead.  It is important for Americans to understand that this threat still exists today.  There has been no retaliation for that attack.”

Bolton concluded, “Every diplomatic facility in the Middle East is at risk until we do something.”  

And, so is the sovereignty of the Office of the Presidency. 

AMBASSADOR STEVENS ‘ALLOWED TO DIE’ TO PROTECT OBAMA’S FRAUDULENT POLICIES

by Penbrook One

TREASONOUS INACTION:  Eyewitnesses in Benghazi, Libya during the attack on the US mission now say that CIA operatives twice sought permission from commanders to help Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff, and twice were ordered to 'stand down', while a later request to regional U.S. bases for military backup was also denied.

by Dan Crosby
of The DAILY PEN 

NEW YORK, NY – As U.S. Ambassador Stevens was being murdered by Islamic terrorists during the September 11 attack on the Benghazi, Libya mission headquarters, CIA operators on duty at the mission annex less than a mile from Stevens’ location, were ordered twice to "stand down" when they attempted to help the ambassador's team after they heard shots fired at approximately 9:40 p.m., according to a report from Fox News.

The report also says at least two urgent requests from the CIA operatives for military intervention, one in the early moments of the attack on the U.S. mission, and another in subsequent attack on the annex hours later, were denied by Obama Administration officials.

Even after at least two highly trained Navy Seal operatives experienced in combat assessment and tactical operations tried to tell the command center that military intervention was required, the Obama Administration still refused claiming there was not enough information about the attack to warrant a tactical response.

However, critics among the Intelligence community and military Special Operations command say claims by the Obama administration that information was not available are a lie.  They insist an on-site assessment from tactically trained Navy Seals actively engaged on the ground during the attack is more than enough intelligence information, by itself, to conduct an QRF (Quick Reaction Force) evacuation operation “site unseen”.

"...an on-site assessment from tactically trained Navy Seals actively engaged on the ground during the attack is more than enough intelligence information, by itself, to conduct a QRF evacuation operation...'site unseen'."

Defending the Obama Administration’s failed response to the attack, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta joined Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saying, “…there was not enough information on the ground to safely send help.” 

However, Panetta’s testimony is contradicted by the recent disclosure of State Department emails which show that Obama, himself, as well as his staff were aware of the circumstances and extent of the attack from the moment it began.

Fox also reports that live video feeds from two separate drones in the skies over the attack were also being viewed by Obama administration officials in real time, which means they had more than enough information to assess the threat and provide help.

Also, former special operations commanders say that within moments of the beginning of the attack, a digital station-to-station “Flash Traffic” notification was sent to the U.S. operations headquarters in Tripoli, Italy telling officials there that the Ambassador was in peril.

Within the intelligence and security services forces deployed in the region, Ambassador Steven’s security detail is treated the same as those for a Chief of Staff or four-star general.  This means a “Flash Traffic” message must be immediately relayed in code form to the White House situation room explicitly stating the Ambassador is in peril and the message must be confirmed as received by the desk watch officer charged with conveying the message under standing orders to physically carry the notification directly to the White House situation room.

Africom Ops Center, the U.S. main communications network in the region, would have also been monitoring the attack in real time from Germany.  Three networks of communications are simultaneously connected through headquarters in North Africa, southern Europe and tactical placements in the Mediterranean region.  All forces remain on “strip ready” standby which means operatives are able to board aircraft and take off in minutes to engage any evacuation operation for U.S. diplomats in the region.  The nearest Evac Force was just 45 minutes from the Libyan Consulate, well within their capability to have saved Ambassador Stevens and his staff at any time during the seven hour assault.

The events as reported by Fox unfolded as follows:

“Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was manning the CIA annex with a small team about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When Woods and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to ‘stand down.’”

The report says Woods and at least two other CIA agents ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire.  The report suggests Woods and his team heroically violated orders and, in attempting to rescue Stevens and his staff, may have exposed something more sinister.  Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection.

“Obviously, these brave men had a good reason for defying orders and engage the attackers in defense of Ambassador Stevens,” says former special operations commander, Lt. Col. Douglas Radcliff.

"They must have known that they would have no back up if they engaged the fight against orders.  But,they did it anyway and paid with their lives."  

"Obviously, these brave men had a good reason for defying orders and engage the attackers in defense of Ambassador Stevens..."

There is much speculation about the motives for such derelict inaction by the Obama administration’s command.  Many theorize the Obama administration may have been using Ambassador Stevens to broker a covert arms deal through Turkey to arm Syrian rebels to help overthrow the Assad regime in Damascus.  Some believe the attack was a retaliatory strike for the allegation by the Obama Administration that it killed Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.

The Fox report continues, “The quick reaction by Woods’ team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.”

“At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.”

The Fox report continued, “A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the Consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the Ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.”