New Emails Reveal That The White House Knew Far More About Benghazi Than They Admit

   Bookmark and Share  Within at least two and a half hours  of the attack that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that Ansar al-Shariat, an Al Qaeda linked group of militants were taking credit for the attack.

No more than 2 and half hours after the attack, an email  identifying the group claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack was sent to  several locations, including The White House Situation Room, where President Obama was being made aware of the details as the tragedy unfolded.

According to Reuters news agency, the emails specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility for the attacks. In addition to these emails being dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center the White House Situation Room, they also went to offices in the Pentagon, within the intelligence community, and the FBI,.  All on the afternoon of September 11.

Below you will find copies of the actual missives. The names of the individual recipients of the emails are redacted.

The first email, contains the  subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,”.  It was sent at 4:05 PM, approximately 25 minutes after the attack began.  It describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

Click on the image for a larger version

The second email was sent at 4:54 PM and it states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared.  It further states that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Click on the image for a larger version

The third email, was sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time and had the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

Click on the image for a larger version

These documents were released from government sources who are reportedly not connected to any U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity.  So as is the case with most everything we have been learning about the events leading up to and following the attacks in Benghazi, the facts contained in these documents were not released by the White House.  Nevertheless, these facts do contradict just about everything the White House has been saying about what they knew and when they knew it.  And it especially points to attempts by the White House to cover-up the fact that this was terrorist attack, a description which both the Obama White House and Obama reelection team refused to admit to out of fear that it would be get in the way of the President’s reelection chances.

These emails now cast more doubt on the Administration then ever before.  They reveal that the White House knew that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack even though they spent more than two weeks claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that was placed online back in July.  This now makes it hard for anyone not to be suspicious of what else the White House and the President knew.  So far, both the President and Vice President claimed to have not known of two months worth of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens about al Qaeda gaining strength in Eastern Libya and of his requests for additional security.  If true there is scandal in just the fact that this information never made its way to the Commander-in-Chief.  If it is not true, and he did know of those developments, than our Commander-In-Chief is absolutely incompetent and directly responsibly for allowing the events that killed Ambassador Stevens and three others to have gotten as far as they did.  But no matter how you look at it, right now there is either one scandal or two.  Are we left with a scandal dealing with an intolerable level of incompetence that killed our Americans in Benghazi, or are we left with one scandal regarding incompetence and another scandal regarding an attempt to cover-up the first scandal?

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton Is Key To Unlocking Libya Scandal

If you listen to the talking heads, the prevailing wisdom regarding the Libya attack is that the Obama administration is showing itself to be incompetent. If true, of course, that could hurt Obama’s re-election chances. As a result, opponents of the administration are far too eager to try to exploit this opening. Unfortunately, these boob-tube babblers — there’s a reason television is called that — are wrong. Ditto for all the writers that present this idea.

Granted, at face value the events that have unfolded since the attack demonstrate inconsistency. That much is obvious. But that’s the point. It is too obvious. No politician — none — achieves the pinnacle of power without the appropriate support apparatus in place. We are not talking about local politics or someone that sits on a city council, we’re talking the halls of national power. It is like professional athletes. The myth is they are the fastest, the most nimble and the most skilled. A select few clearly are at the top of their game. But all? Hardly. Most are there because they have survived. They have avoided injury, drugs, scandal or any other trappings that might bring down an athlete. The population pyramid from grade school through high school through college to the professional level is ever shrinking with a thinning of the herd at each step. It is the same for politicians.

A successful politician at the elite level can wiggle out of almost any scandal. They surround themselves with loyal and proven advisers, analysts and even fall-guys that ensure they are insulated as much as possible. Mistakes may occur now and then but that’s all they are — mistakes. Genuine ineptitude is fatal. At the political apex, incompetency just doesn’t come into play. This is why they are at the top. They have survived to get there.

Knowing this, are you sure you want to chalk up what you are seeing regarding the consulate attack as incompetence?

It is clear the scandal is being intentionally manipulated by the Obama administration. Do not forget Obama and Hillary Clinton are from the school of Alinsky. Miss-information and contradictions are their tools because chaos is their friend. They embrace it. The conflicting interviews and contradictory statements during the last month have been carefully managed and methodically unrolled. While you sit back and smile thinking you’ve got it figured out, they’re huddling and drawing up the next play. This is what they do.

Look, we’re not playing a kiddie game of checkers here. This is chess and the prize may just be the White House.

Both Obama and Clinton want the White House. Obama wants it immediately while Clinton has an eye on the 2016 race. Both individuals know the details behind the Libya attack and both of them know who is ultimately responsible. Both can be politically damaged. That being said, the truth is chasing both of them is folly because getting one of them will be tough enough. But manipulate events correctly and one of them can be left holding the bag.

Now Obama is handling Libya with two strategies. The first is delay, delay, delay — leave all questions, details and accountability regarding Libya up in the air until after the election. That’s why there are different people saying different things. That’s why it took the FBI so long to get to Libya. That’s why the standard line is the details are “still under investigation”.

The second strategy is to position himself outside the crisis bubble while his political machine drops Libya on the doorstep of the State Department and Hillary. This is the point of the catch phrase “best available intelligence” put forth by administration mouth-pieces. It was also Biden’s objective when fielding Libya questions during the debate — claim Obama didn’t know anything and try to get the cameras and microphones focused on the intelligence community.

But Hillary Clinton is no fool. She see these dynamics playing out and understands that Obama may play pin the tail on the State Department. But because Hillary has time, much more than Obama, she has more options. She can support the stall tactics. She can also help deflect accountability away from Obama to a mutually agreed upon scape-goat. And if necessary, she can throw Obama to the wolves. And that is how the Republicans should attack this issue.

To hell with trying to catch Obama with his hand in the cookie jar. He will never admit any accountability. Never. And it is much too close to the election to risk waiting for damaging evidence to surface. Remember, Obama is actively working against that. No, Obama is not the proper target. It is Clinton that should be worked over — thoroughly.

The Republican strategy should be to apply so much pressure on Clinton that she sings like an opera star. She knows what occurred, and if it was ultimately Obama’s responsibility she loses nothing if she throws him under the bus. It may even help her reputation for 2016. If it is actually Clinton that has blood on her hands, then dumping the mess on the Obama administration is solid strategy — this being politics, after all.

The Clinton-Obama family feud is well known. Don’t think because Bill gave a keynote speech in support of Obama at the convention that the bad feelings have faded. Indeed, there was an article published Friday afternoon by author Edward Klein, that says it has not. Even more, Klein says Obama shunned assistance from Bill Clinton regarding Libya and that this slap in the face further enraged the former president. There is no love here and there is little or no respect either.

Hillary wants the White House. Bill wants her to have a legitimate shot at it. So regardless of the degree of responsibility she actually possesses, Bill Clinton will manufacture some way for Hillary to wiggle out of the Libya mess. That’s why they call him Slick Willie. So Republicans should be smart. They should build this into their strategy. They should attack Hillary to hurt her 2016 dreams which will force Bill to come running in to save her. At that point, the Clinton’s will do what the Clinton’s need to do.

If it unfolds correctly the Republicans get information about Libya splashed all over the media. Hillary Clinton walks away uninjured with her White House dream still possible and Obama gets thrown out with the trash.

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

The Desperate Democrat Attempt to Blame GOP Budget Cuts for the Attack in Benghazi

  Bookmark and Share   As President Obama enters the last three weeks of his reelection effort, he finds himself facing a tide that is turning against him.  Between his disastrous debate performance, a still stagnant economy, and continued unbearably high unemployment, polls seem to indicate that President Obama is finally being held accountable for his record.  But another recent event that the President has been trying his best to avoid accountability for is proving particularly hard for him to evade.  It is the tragic terrorist backed assassinations of four Americans within the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Since the murder of Chris Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya, and the three members of his security detail, the Obama Administration has taken a tragic event and turned it into a scandal by trying to deny and hide the facts leading up to the attack and the facts surrounding the distortions and misleading statements from the Administration after the attacks.   But on Wednesday, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings in  to the matter, Democrats used the opportunity to help President Obama’s reelection effort.  Instead of seeking a legitimate line of questioning that would have helped to explain exactly what was behind the Administration’s continued misleading statements about the events in Benghazi,  Democrats on the committee did their best to ensure that President Obama was not held accountable for either the  apparent vulnerability of our representatives to the violent acts that took place, or the lack of honesty about the attacks in the days and weeks following it.

Leading this liberal reelection strategy for the President during the hearing was Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.  The two of them used their opening statements to claim that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to Republican cuts in the budget… specifically cuts in the levels of funding to embassies and consulates.  it’s a charge that was first made back on October 2, by Nancy “We Don’t Know What’s in The Bill” Pelosi.

On the surface, the argument sounds like a plausible factor in the success of the attack on our Libyan consulate.  However; when one understands the facts ignored within the claim,  they become privy to just how ludicrous the charge is and they also get an insightful look at exactly how hypocritical, deceitful and disingenuous Democrats and their argument are.

Cummings and his fellow liberal liars are referring specifically to the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the State Departments embassy and consulate security programs.  It is a figure that is  $567.5 million less than what the Obama administration’s requested.  And while it is true that Republicans proposed the bill that contained these cuts, it is also true that while a total of 147 Republicans supported the bill, 149 Democrats also cast their final vote for the bill and the cuts contained in it.  And Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat member of the House Oversight Committee who is blaming the cuts for the murder of 4 representatives in Benghazi, was one of them.

This raises several major issues.

1.- Were The Cuts Responsible For the Successful Terrorist Attack in Benghazi?

No.

When asked in Wednesday’s hearing if the refusal to provide more security was caused by budget cuts to embassy security, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs replied “No, sir”.   So according to Lamb, a lack of available financial resources was not behind the lack of proper security in Benghazi.

2.- What Was Responsible For the Lack of Proper Security in Benghazi?

According to Eric Nordstrom, the man responsible for security in Libya, told member of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that the Obama Administration decided to “hope everything would” change for the better rather than provide additional security.

He added;

So when I requested resources, when I requested assets, instead of supporting those assets, I was criticized,”

Nordstrum further stated;

“There was no plan. And it was hoped that everything would get better.”

3.- Why Are Democrats Lying?

Democrats know that the President screwed up here.  But admitting that would be too detrimental to not only the President’s reelection chances, but to the rest of  their ticket in several states where Democrats have tight House and Senate contests that their candidates can’t afford a lack of long presidential coattails in.  So in a desperate attempt to change the negative Benghazi narrative that is adding to the President’s recent downward spiral, they are searching for any excuse that could buy them time between now and Election day.

Given the facts cited above though, while it is clear that budget cuts were not responsible for the lack of security provided at our Libyan consulate,  it is quite clear that the Obama Administration was ignoring the threat to our consulate and the staff operating in it.  There is even evidence that a decision was made within the Administration to deny the construction of a bob wired fence around the consulate because Obama officials did not like the fact that such a measure would look like there was a a problem that required additional security in Benghazi.

All of this is further evidence of a President and Administration that was negligent in the Benghazi terrorist attack and the President, the State Department, and congressional Democrats all know this to be the case.  That is why they have been trying to cover every aspect of this tragedy up since it occurred on 9/11/12.

It all started with their denial to admit that it was an attack by terrorists.  Why? Becuase the Administration did not want to use the word terrorist, especially in relation to the date… 9/11.  The relationship of the word and date makes it hard for the Administration to explain why on the anniversary of the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation, our embassies and consulates did not experience the type of heightened security that they usually do on that?   The need for additional security on that date is something which should not require any increased intelligence from the C.I.A. or F.B.I.  It merely requires average intelligence, something which the Obama Administration obviously lacks.

But it gets worse.

Fearful that they would not be able to defend their decision not to increase security on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 or to follow up on requests for additional security at the consulate during the rest of the year, in their attempt to avoid admitting that the attack was the work of terrorists, the Obama regime tried to claim the assassinations in Benghazi were attributed to a violent protest that was prompted by a video that offended Muslims.  The problem is that both initial assertions were wrong and the Administration knew they were wrong. This means those initial statement that came out after the attack were lies.  Mounting evidence has demonstrated that the Administration knew there was no protest prior to the attack, knew that terrorists were behind the attack, and they knew that the Benghazi consulate was at high risk of a terrorist attack. But the continued attempts by the Administration to mislead us ever since the attack first took place have now snowballed and are quickly turning a disastrous national security policy decision into  a humiliating and possibly criminal coverup scandal.  As a result, the Administration is now not only beginning to be held  accountable for the negligence of their policies that led to the deaths of our Libyan staff, their continued lies are implicating them more and more each day in the apparent attempt to coverup their negligence.

The recent outrageous and hypocritical attempts by Cummings and others on the left to blame the Benghazi attacks on Republicans sponsored budget cuts is just another example of how desperate Democrats are to ignore the facts and rid themselves and their President of the need to be held responsible for their actions that led to the deaths of our Ambassador and his three man security team, and the attempted coverup of the facts after the attack.

Making matters worse is a media that has now become complicit in this recent lie.

Outlets like the always unreliable Huffington Compost have gone out of their way to feature posts which continue to advance the narrative that Republican budget cuts were responsible for the deaths in Benghazi.  If such reporting was intended to be a sincere presentation of facts, how come they refuse to report “all” the facts?  All the facts that demonstrate how utterly false the charge is and all the facts that demonstrate even if the charge was true, Democrats, including those who made the charge, supported the budget cuts in numbers greater than Republicans.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: