What Really Happened in Benghazi?

By AC-130_Spectre_Gunship_ On October 28, 2012  · Leave a Comment  [Edit]
Below are links to three recent stories/articles related to the rapidly unfolding Benghazi story.  Please read and share with others.The first is from Fox News, published Friday, October 26th.  This story provides an excellent synopsis of what happened on the ground in Benghazi the night of September 11th, 2012. From the story,
  • Once the firing started around 9:40p.m., repeated requests for help were not only denied but operatives on the ground were ordered twice to “stand down”.
  • CIA operative and former Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, along with at least two others ignored the orders to stand down and made their way to the U.S. Consulate from their location at a CIA annex about a mile away.
  • They were unable to locate Ambassador Christopher Stevens, but were able to evacuate those remaining at the consulate. They also retrieved the body of Sean Smith who was killed when the attack on the consulate began.
  • The CIA evacuation team returned to the CIA annex around midnight. They again requested backup as the annex itself began taking fire.
  • Note the observation in the Fox story that a security officer at the annex “had a laser on the target” of the aggressors who were firing mortars at the CIA compound.  Such laser targeting is intended to assist in the direction of fire from air support assets. This individual allegedly made repeated requests for fire support that were denied.
  • Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by mortar fire at approximately 4a.m. As the Fox report details, there was more than enough time for air support to have arrived in time to save their lives.

Here is a link to the story from Fox entitled: “CIA Operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say“.

The Fox story refers to the call for a Spectre gunship (i.e. Lockheed AC130H) as potential fire support. If you are unfamiliar with the Spectre, watch this brief video:

The next article, also from October 26th,  is from Doug Hagmann of the Canada Free Press.  It completely re-frames the whole Benghazi story by beginning with the observation that first, there is no true U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

  • The area around Benghazi is (instead) one of the largest CIA operation centers in the middle east.
  • Since the ouster of Qaddafi, allegedly, 40 million tons of weapons have been funneled from Libya into Syria.
  • Qaddafi is reputed to have possessed both chemical weapons and surface to air missiles.
  • The article attempts to explain what Leon Panetta meant when he said, “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…”

Hagmann postulates that the reason the U.S. forces didn’t respond was due to concern about exposure of what was really occurring on the ground and a risk of widening the conflict. He notes,

Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

He then adds:

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner.

Buckle your safety belt before reading this article. If the writer is even half correct, what a disaster. Here is the link: “The Hidden Truth about Benghazi“.

The third story emerged on Thursday of last week. Whether you like Glenn Beck or not, you don’t want to miss the videos below.  Charles Woods is the father of former Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, who was one of the Americans killed in Benghazi. Charles spoke on the phone with Glenn and told him the story of his encounter with the President, Vice President, and Secretary Clinton the day his son’s remains were returned stateside.

Woods’ details some highly dishonorable behavior on the parts of the President and Vice President; but also how Hillary Clinton told him directly that the government was going to prosecute the creator of the YouTube video being blamed as the cause of the Benghazi attack.

Since Mr. Woods’ meeting with with the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State, many serious questions have been raised about the official story regarding the attacks.  Mr. Woods felt honor bound to come forward and request the facts. After discussing these events with Beck, Woods read the following statement:

I want to honor my son Ty Woods who responded to the cries for help and voluntarily sacrificed his life to protect the lives of other Americans. In the last few days, it has become public knowledge that within minutes of the first bullet being fired, the White House knew that these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied. Apparently, C130′s were ready to respond immediately. In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours of fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with integrity and honor. My son was a true American hero. We need more heroes today. My son showed moral courage. This is an opportunity for the person or persons who made the decision to sacrifice my son’s life to stand up.

Watch the videos below (Parts 1 and 2)  of Charles Woods speaking with Glenn on Thursday of last week.

You can be assured that the mainstream media isn’t going to push the reporting of these stories.  Please do your part in spreading the word.

Use the share buttons below to Facebook and Twitter this post to as many people as you can.  Emailing the link to this post, or to any of the individual links referenced above, would also be very helpful.

Cross-posted from http://www.clermontteaparty.org/what-really-happened-in-benghazi.html

Advertisements

Mr. President, Tell Us the Truth

We were all waiting for it.  The question about Libya.  We’d been following the story as it had evolved over the past month.  Did Obama know it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, and attribute it to an out-of-control protest over a YouTube video?  Or, did he really think it was indeed a reaction to a video, long after the world – including the Libyan government – recognized it as a terrorist attack?  Was he complicit in a cover-up because the killing of bin Laden was supposed to be the death of al Qaeda, and a terrorist attack would be a political disaster weeks before the presidential election?   Or, is his administration so incompetent that as commander in chief he didn’t know that one of our foreign diplomatic posts (in a Middle Eastern hot-bed) was the site of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of the horrific 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  Either way, it could not be good for the President. 

The question finally came in the last third of the debate:

QUESTION: “We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

The question probably took this form because Joe Biden had denied any knowledge of the request for extra security last week in the vice presidential debate and because earlier this week Hillary Clinton formally accepted responsibility for what happened in Benghazi on September 11. 

Obama began his response by talking about diplomats in general, his concern for “these folks” and their families, his instructions (upon hearing of the attacks) to beef up security, and how we would “make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.”   He concluded by criticizing Romney for issuing a press release too soon after the attack, and by congratulating himself for going after al Qaeda and bin Laden.  Obama did not answer the question.  Consistent with his typical M.O., he dodged, he redirected, and he launched an offense.  But the genie was out of the bottle.  The door was open to talk about this whole Libya debacle.

Romney expressed his sympathy for the families, then cut to the heart of the matter:

ROMNEY: “There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration, or actually whether it was a terrorist attack.  And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?”

He went on to express his distress over the real and symbolic significance of the President’s leaving for political fundraising events the day after the assassination of our ambassador (the first in over 30 years) and three other Americans, when he needed to be sorting out the details of this international situation.  Romney said that Obama’s reaction to this event has called into question his policies in the Middle East – policies that began with an apology tour and are based on “leading from behind.”

At this point Candy Crowley posed a follow-up question to Obama regarding the secretary of state’s accepting responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.

Obama praised Secretary Clinton, noting that she works for him, so, as President, he is responsible.  He went on (underlines mine):

OBAMA: “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.”

Hmm.  Righteous indignation.  It’s often been said that the best defense is a good offense.  Diversion.

It was at this point that Romney tried to establish for the record exactly what Obama had said and was saying.  Did he identify the assault on the American team as a terrorist attack from the beginning as he just said, and then spend the next two weeks attributing it all to a video?  Obama’s partner in the debate, Candy Crowley, jumped in to defend the President with the transcript of the September 12 Rose Garden statement.  (And isn’t it curious that Obama said, “Get the transcript” and Candy has it in hand?)

Let’s look at that statement.  It’s just over 5 min – in video form on the White House website, with the text shown on the screen as Obama is speaking.  (Click on White House website above, or here to read text and see embedded video.)

Obama begins by announcing the deaths of the four Americans, condemning the attack, and pledging to bring the killers to justice.  He follows by referencing America’s religious freedom (presumedly because of the linking to the anti-Muslim video):

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.”  

Obama goes on to describe Ambassador Stevens’s career in Libya. Then he speaks about the day before – the anniversary of 9/11 – when he mourned with the families of the victims, went to Arlington Cemetery to visit the graves of troops who died in Iraq and Afganistan, and spoke with wounded warriors at Walter Reed Hospital.  He acknowledges the ultimate sacrifice made by civilians and the military.  It is in this context that the reference to “acts of terror” is made: 

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

As you listen to the statement, it seems clear that “acts of terror” refers to the original 9/11 attack on America and the resulting deaths from the war that followed.  

He continues:

“Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.” 

Was Obama saying that, in addition, these four Americans were the victims of an act of terror?  It’s possible to interpret it that way.  As details unfold, it’s not unlikely that he knew what had happened and was deliberately creating some ambiguity.  In light of what followed in the subsequent two weeks, to contend in the debate that he acknowledged it from the beginning as a “terrorist attack” (Romney’s words) is deceptive.

Following that Rose Garden statement, Obama and Clinton appeared in an ad on Arab TV (at a cost of  about $70,000 to the tax payers) denouncing the YouTube video and proclaiming the American value of religious tolerance.

The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. went on 5 Sunday talk shows blaming the video for the tragedy.

Jay Carney attributed the attack to the video.

And Obama, two weeks after the attack, denounced the video in his UN address, but did not acknowledge the assault on the consulate as a terrorist act. 

Now, in the second presidential debate, Obama claims that he identified the attack as an “act of terror” from the day after the attack.  When the matter is pressed further will he argue that “act of terror” is not the same as “terrorist attack”?

Are we going to resort to semantics?  Play word games to evade the truth?  Most of us remember the infamous words of Bill Clinton when he lied to the grand jury in the Monica Lewinski scandal: “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”  No, it does not depend on the nuances of words or ambiguity that you may rely on to cover lies.  The truth has its basis in facts and reality.  So, Mr. President, are you lying to us now, or were you lying to us then?

This ad released by American Crossroads sums it up:

Link to video of the 2nd presidential debate

Link to transcript of 2nd presidential debate
 

Rob Portman – “The Real Mitt Romney Did Show Up”

The Clermont Republican Victory Center was the site of an impromptu visit by Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman this afternoon.  He spent some time greeting the volunteers, including folks from Utah, Tennessee, and Texas; then he shared some thoughts with the group, and joined in with the phone-calling effort.

Dr. Brad Wenstrup, candidate for Congress in Ohio’s second district, spoke to the group first, noting that there has been a great cry for leadership in the country.

On the heels of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech in Virginia earlier today, Dr. Wenstrup said, “We need strong leadership that shows who we are when it comes to national defense.  Our troops deserve to know who our enemies are and who our friends are – and so does our CIA.  It’s been very sad what we’ve seen of late.”  But Wenstrup is optimistic, “I think we have enough people in America that know we want to be exceptional.  We want to be the leaders in the world,  and we can do it with people like Mitt Romney and Rob Portman.”

Senator Portman expressed his confidence in Wenstrup, recognizing his leadership skills that will help us solve the healthcare problems and – as an Iraqi War vet – will help us meet the challenges of keeping the military strong in a tough budgetary environment.

As Mitt Romney’s debate coach, Portman was pleased with last week’s debate.  But the Democrats are claiming that the real Mitt Romney didn’t show up.  Portman’s response to that nonsense:

“Here’s the fact: the fact is, the real Mitt Romney did show up.  The Mitt Romney that the Democrats were expecting was the one that they believed from all their ads.  So they’ve been running these ads in Ohio, and I think it’s outrageous.  They are absolutely distortions of Mitt Romney’s proposals, Mitt Romney’s records, of Mitt Romney’s character.  If we tried to get away with that, the mainstream media would go nuts.  It just isn’t true.”

He went on to explain that the Democrats supposedly had a study that says that the Romney tax proposal will somehow raise taxes on the middle class.  “It’s a total sham,” Portman explains. ” All the assumptions they make are inaccurate.”  His office did their own study, along with 7 other studies that all say the Democrats’ claims are wrong.  Yet the media continues to say this – as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

“It is absolutely false to say that Mitt Romney was somehow a different person.  He laid out his tax plan back in the Republican primary.  It’s all in writing.  People criticized him for having a 58-point plan.  It was too specific.  Now it’s not specific enough.”

Mitt Romney – successful as governor, successful in the private sector, the guy who turned around the Olympics, the guy who gets it – knows that America is in trouble.  Portman believes in Mitt Romney, “He’s a high character guy, and he’s in this for the right reasons.  He’s doing this because he believes our country is headed down the wrong path.”

Portman says that we need to keep getting the word out.  We have now made over 3 million voter contacts – something that has never been done before in the history of Ohio politics.  We’ve already made 5 times more phone calls and 15 times more door-to-door contacts than in all of 2008.  There’s a lot going on out there…a lot of effort.  He mentioned the Tea Party in particular, and referenced “somebody from the African American community who is working with some pastors.”  That somebody is Alan McIntyre of the Frederick Douglass Republicans.  (See The Real October Surprise of 2012.)

Portman thinks that the pollsters are going to be a little surprised.

“I think they’re gonna find that Americans do get it…We do have the right candidate, at the right time, at a time when our country badly needs a change in direction.  Let’s be sure that we do everything that we can – in our power – to make sure that happens.”

The Victory Center is located at 813 Eastgate South Drive in Union Township, across from Burger King.  It is open Mon – Sat 9am-9pm, & Sun 12noon-6pm.  This Thursday, October 11, there will be a Debate-Viewing Party starting at 7pm.