Info Overload on Benghazi

H/T FreeRepublic.com

Obama is solely responsible for this.

Hillary claimed “No Knowledge” of gun running
and told Rand Paul he needed to ask the CIA.


Let's look at some of the facts.

Obama Arranged Benghazi Trip That Resulted In Murder Of US AMB Chris Stevens

Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up states:
" During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.

Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011. "
[This article is well worth your time.]

Obama the arms broker to al-Qaeda states [this article is also well worth your time] :
" Now we learn that Ambassador Chris Stevens’s mission in Benghazi on that fatal day was to organize the shipment of arms to the rebel militias in Syria.

And that means: the shipment of arms, by order of the President of the United States, to al-Qaeda,
the terrorist organization which the President himself constantly declares to be the enemy of his country.


No wonder President Obama, Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the rest of the stoats and weasels have been lying their heads off and trying to put the blame for the whole hideous and tragic episode – for what amounts to an act of war – on somebody’s little video. Scraping the bottom of the excuses-barrel.


The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have now taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East.

Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. "

SOURCES: SLAIN U.S. AMBASSADOR RECRUITED JIHADISTS
Egyptian officials say Stevens worked with Saudis against Assad

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit? states:
" Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed …

… On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.

… the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was "unusual."

According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. …

The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS. …

… It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."

' The point is that both of these weapons systems are extremely accurate and very simple to use,' Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt explained. He said the passage of weapons from Libya to Syria would escalate the conflict. ' With a short amount of instruction, you've got somebody capable of taking down any, any aircraft. Anywhere in the world. ' … "



Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria by New York Times

Why Libya Cover-Up: Obama Was Arming Al Qaeda & Islamists

Libya's missing weapons being smuggled into Gaza
Israeli intelligence is increasingly concerned about the quantity of Libyan arms flowing into Gaza.

Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no

How U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked to Jihadist Rebels in Syria (And It Involves Weapons) [Article has many links.]

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton encouraged Hillary to resign in the wake of the Benghazi scandal

Explain this: Ambassador Chris Stevens killed due to lack of security – Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett gets Secret Service

Libyan Officials Claim US Was Warned 3 DAYS BEFORE Deadly Benghazi Consulate Attack

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments from CNN states:
" Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

'The situation is frightening, it scares us,' Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area. "


Guard at consulate in Libya says attack was coordinated

Egypt intelligence warns of attacks on Israel, US embassies

Blame Obama for Chris Stevens' murder

Backed by Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim Brotherhood gets ready to overthrow U.S.-ally King of Jordan

Obama Bypasses Congress, Gives $1.5 Billion to Muslim Brotherhood

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record
History of incompetence and dangerous decisions

Obama not subject to charges of treason?

Benghazi: Symbol of Obama's Leadership

Obama Admits He Is A Muslim

So, let us remember.

Muslims are well know for lying about their faith.
MUSLIMS are allowed to LIE and deceive NON MUSLIMS, if it benefits or protects ISLAM.
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Posted by Atheist

For a better understanding of the issue, read HISTORY of Mohammed ( spelled variously; Mahomet, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc. ). then watch William Federer explain it, from Jan. 25, 2012 at CC Chino Hills, CA. It's a MUST WATCH for everyone,Christians, Athiests and even Muslims!

As retired military myself, I've seen the damage of "keeping secrets" about bad leaders.
Obama is EVIL, pure and simple.
Please watch Glenn Beck with Trevor Loudon & his book "Barack Obama and the Enemies Within".

Then watch the 29 minute 13 seconds video Trevor Loudon- An Urgent (and chilling) Message for America.

Obama may be feigning "incompetence," thinking he's too sly, being a "wolf in sheep's clothing" since his mentoring was from Fabian Fascism..

Remember:" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked : who can know it? "

The "Establishment Republicans" will probably NOT want to IMPEACH the TREASONIST Barack Hussein Obama II.
But it's better for the country that Obama suffer the penalty, the strongest penalty for his actions, and his inactions.
Let's look at the Presidential Oaths of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now who among us really believes Obama did any of that ?
To Obama, that was "Just words. Just speeches! "
Damn him ! Damn him to hell !

I'll finish this with asking you to read

‘Obama and the Threat to Israel’: See the ‘Absolutely Uncertain’ Video That’s Gotten 650K Hits in Three Days .

Watch the 18 minute 56 second documentary video "Absolutely Uncertain" at "theBLAZE.com" or on YouTube.com, narrated by Irina, the 23-year-old “Jewish New Yorker” and a former Obama supporter .

One other suggestion, read DID OBAMA WANT STEVENS DEAD?
The language is a little abrasive, but spot on.

You're Either On the Bus, or Under the Bus

Tossing Susan Rice Under the Bus 

by Paul R. Hollrah

Trying to make some sense of the Susan Rice fiasco is like trying to make some sense of how the most incompetent and the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history managed to get himself reelected.  It probably can’t be done.  But, just for the sake of argument, it might be interesting to engage in a bit of conjecture about how Susan Rice got picked to go under the bus.   

First some background.  On Sunday morning, September 16, five days after an Islamic terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all five Sunday morning network talk shows.  Rushing from one broadcast studio to the next, Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press… and all within a time span of just two hours.  

The tale that Rice told at each stop was typical of what she stated on ABC’s This Week, where she said, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather – to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

So the question arises… and persists… why was the U.N. Ambassador chosen to deliver such a whopper to the American people when, in fact, she had no connection to and no responsibility for the consulate in Benghazi? 

The most logical pecking order of people who should have been called upon to answer for what happened at Benghazi is, in order: Barack Obama, President and Commander in Chief; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Michael Morrell, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor; and General David Petraeus, former Director of Central Intelligence.

As the principal architect and political beneficiary of the Benghazi fable, Barack Obama was not about to go on record as the bearer of what everyone would soon know was a false narrative.  But because he had hopes of explaining away the Benghazi terror attack in a way that would not damage his “al-Qaeda-is-on-its-heels” narrative two months before the November election, he had to have a patsy to carry his tale to the American people who was not only credible, but also expendable.  The one person who fit that description was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  And who is the only person who could make that decision, and who is the only person who could tell her exactly what to do and what to say?  Ambassador Rice is not in Hillary Clinton’s chain of command, so the order could have come from only one person: that would be Barack Obama.

He couldn’t expect Hillary to play that role.  As soon as the Benghazi story made the headlines, Hillary packed her polyester suits, grabbed her attaché case and her “body woman,” and got the hell out of town.  In a brief statement issued from Lima, Peru on Monday, October 15, where she was presumably conducting nuclear disarmament talks with the Peruvians, Clinton said, “I take responsibility.  I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Then, after stopping off in Washington just long enough to pick up a few changes of “undies,” she was off again on an extended tour of Hawaii, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia, returning on November 8, two days after the November election, when her testimony could not damage Obama’s reelection chances.

Compelling diplomatic business?  No.  Compelling political business?  Yes.  If Hillary had been in Washington and available to the Congress, she would have had some very difficult questions put to her.  And since it was Bill Clinton who was most responsible for exciting the Democratic base and getting Obama reelected, the last thing Obama wanted was to see Hillary sitting before a congressional committee.  The only thing to do was to get her out of town.

But what of Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense?  In terms of an attack on a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, Panetta’s only connection would have been in relation to a military rescue operation or a military response to al-Qaeda.  But since it appeared as if he had disobeyed Obama’s order to “secure our people” in Benghazi, Panetta was keeping a decidedly low profile.  Obama didn’t want Panetta having to answer questions about why he and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey had disobeyed his order.  Or, worse yet, having Panetta reveal that Obama had not given such an order… Obama’s public pronouncements to the contrary. 

General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?  In his previous incarnation he served as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Clapper's role in the Benghazi scandal shouldn't surprise anyone.  It certainly didn't surprise author Bob McCarty, who’s upcoming book, The Clapper Memo, will expose some of the DNI’s earlier exploits as USDI which are now “coming home to roost” in the form of so-called “Green-on-Blue” attacks in Afghanistan.

If there is a chief suspect in the effort to find who it was that rewrote the CIA talking points of September 12, which identified Ansar al Sharia as the al-Qaeda subsidiary responsible for the Benghazi attack, the finger would most logically point to General Clapper.  And since Obama must have known that his Director of National Intelligence was not a man to be trusted with the responsibility for carrying out an assignment of such strategic political importance… and get it right five times within two hours… he knew that General Clapper was not his man. 

Michael Morrell, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence?  This is the same Michael Morrell who in testimony before a congressional committee on Thursday, November 15, attempted to shield Susan Rice from criticism.  He told the committee that Rice had been provided with an unclassified version of the deadly attack in Benghazi that was incorrect. 

He failed to explain to the committee how or why, if the CIA knew on September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, that the attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist group, they allowed the U.N. Ambassador to appear on five Sunday morning TV interviews four days later, carrying a totally false narrative.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon?  When the White House leaked classified information detailing the Navy SEAL methodology that brought Osama bin Laden to justice in Abbottabad; identifying the Pakistani doctor who assisted U.S. intelligence personnel in locating bin Laden; and providing details of the US-Israeli cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, it didn’t take then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates long to figure out who was responsible for the leaks.

As Jake Tapper of ABC News has reported, “… Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the (bin Laden) raid.

“ ‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend...’

“ ‘What was that?’ Donilon asked.

“ ‘Shut the f_ _ k up,’ the defense secretary said.”

Donilon’s credibility was so damaged by that episode that Obama didn’t dare send him before the five Sunday morning talk shows carrying a false version of the Benghazi attack.

And finally, General David Petraeus.  In the days following the Benghazi attack, Obama knew two very important things about his Director of Central Intelligence.  First, in spite of numerous denials to the contrary, Obama had to have known that Petraeus was under investigation by the FBI in connection with the Paula Broadwell affair.  In other words, he knew that his Director of Central Intelligence was in a potentially compromising position.  And finally, he knew that he could count on a man of Petraeus’s caliber to go only so far in parroting a false narrative in which politics trumped all other considerations.

Obama’s only choice was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, another incompetent hanger-on who had ambitions to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Her ambition would dictate that she do what she was told without asking too many questions.  And with an ethically neutral mainstream media as watchdogs, there was a very good chance that they could pull it off.

Sorry, Obama.  Your luck just ran out.  There’s room for only so many “expendables” under that bus of yours and now you’ll have to pay the price.  Most importantly, if we’re lucky, and if we can find just a few members of Congress with the backbone to do what’s right, it appears all but certain that we’ll find an impeachable offense or two in all of this... just something to make your second inauguration a most memorable one.

The Clinton-Obama Debate

from a very smart man, Paul Hollrah:

Before the Clinton-Obama California debate went on the air last week I jotted down five names and phrases on a ruled pad. I wrote: Usama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic jihad, and Muslim extremists... intending to count how many times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. The Democrat candidates and their CNN questioners did not disappoint me. Not a single one of those names and phrases were used, either by questioners or by candidates, in the entire two hours. Is it possible that, during World War II, Clement Atlee or FDR could have gotten away with failing to mention Adolph Hitler or Emperor Hirohito during the course of a two hour debate?

Not likely.

I suppose this is just one more indicator of how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

Wearing Blinders

by Paul R. Hollrah

The Clinton-Obama debate from California promised to produce a lot of interesting “fireworks,” but it didn’t. With Wolf Blitzer moderating, it turned out to be just another CNN “softball game,” proving nothing more than that CNN actually does stand for “Clinton News Network.”

As usual, what the CNN questioners didn’t ask, and what Clinton and Obama didn’t say, was far more important than what they said. For those who are new to the political trenches and who are just beginning to understand liberals and Democrats, this is the most important thing to know about them. Liberals and Democrats will jump through hoops, turn themselves inside out, trying NOT to address the really important issues or actually tell the truth about anything if the truth will not help their cause.

For example, just minutes before the California debate, I jotted down five names and phrases with the intention of counting the number of times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. I wrote down: 1) Usama bin Laden, 2) al-Qaeda, 3) Islamic fundamentalism, 4) Islamic jihad, and 5) Muslim extremists.

Inasmuch as Islamic fundamentalists are sworn to either convert or slaughter every non-Muslim man, woman, and child on Earth, and since it is left to the United States to play the major role in preventing the total destruction of western civilization, one would think that Islamic jihad and the War on Terror would merit at least a mention in a debate between the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination… but it didn’t. There was not a single mention of any of those five topics.

Instead of addressing the most deadly enemy ever faced by the civilized world, Clinton and Obama chose to ignore the threat and, instead, tossed bone after bone to the surrender monkeys of the radical left who now own their party. Ironically, less than twelve hours after Clinton and Obama walked off the stage at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, two mentally retarded Muslim women walked into the Ghazil animal bazaar and the New Baghdad bird market in eastern Baghdad. And when they had reached the most crowded section of the markets their radical Islamic handlers pressed the buttons on their remote devices and exploded the bombs strapped to the women’s bodies.

Ninety-nine innocent people… men, women, and children… were killed, and more than 115 were injured. A great many of those killed at the bird market were children who like to gather around the pigeon stalls to watch the birds.

These are the brothers of the suicide bombers who hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people. These are the people that Democrats try very hard to ignore because they simply do not have the will or the courage to confront them. It is as if they were wearing blinders, their eyes focused on everything but the ugly realities of our day and time.

Instead, they compete to see who can be first to surrender to the Islamic fascists… to see who can be the fastest in getting American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan where they are working very hard at ridding the world of religious fanatics… the kind of religious fanatics who would strap bombs to the bellies of mentally retarded women and send them to blow up crowds of children whose greatest crime is that they appreciate the beauty of birds.

These are the people that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their friends in the radical anti-war movement prefer to coddle. These are the people that Barack Obama thinks he can “sweet talk” into behaving themselves. As the New York Post said in a January 31 editorial endorsing Obama over Clinton, “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naïve – blithely unaware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

“Meanwhile, Obama’s all-things-to-all-people approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. ‘Change!’ for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.”

(Remember, these are the things the Post said about the man they endorsed. We don’t have the space here to repeat what they said about Hillary Clinton, the candidate they oppose.)

Yes, it is the radical leftists of the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and Code Pink, who tell Democrats what to think and say, who will decide who gets to represent their party and who does not. But they represent only a small percentage of the voting population. And when the American people finally focus their attention on either Clinton or Obama in the fall election, and they are finally confronted with the stark reality that one of these two people could actually be charged with the responsibility for protecting all of us, they will finally take off their blinders and make the right decision.