2012 Benghazi attack
For concurrent protests and violent incidents around the world, see Reactions to 'Innocence of Muslims'.
The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured. The attack was strongly condemned by the governments of Libya, the United States, and many other countries throughout the world.
Many Libyans praised the late ambassador and staged public demonstrations against the militias that had formed during the Libyan civil war to oppose Colonel Gaddafi. The Libyan government also began attempts to disband many of the groups. The United States increased security worldwide at its various diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the attack.
Initially, there was speculation that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video, Innocence of Muslims, but the Accountability Review Board found that it was in fact a premeditated attack by Islamist militants. The Republican Party accused the Obama administration of over-emphasizing the role of the video, and took issue with the investigation and the response of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. READ MORE : HERE
May 17, 2013
Woodward: 'I Would Not Dismiss Benghazi,' Compares to WatergateWatch : HERE
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Bob Woodward said the corporate media should not allow the government to underplay and divert attention away from the Benghazi terror attack.
“If you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al-Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings,” Woodward said.
He then compared the situation to Watergate 40 years ago. “I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed.”
- Woodward and Bernstein: Could Nixon coverup work in a digital world?
- BOB WOODWARD: A ‘Very Senior’ White House Person Warned Me I’d ‘Regret’ What I’m Doing
- Woodward Reveals Pentagon “Secret Killing Program” in Iraq
- Bob Woodward on “60 Minutes”: Secret Weapon Comparable to Advent of Planes
- Secret killing program is key in Iraq, Woodward says
May 10, 2013
US Special forces blocked from protecting consulatePaul Joseph Watson
In comments that went largely unnoticed, Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R) directly blamed President Obama for ordering the stand down which facilitated the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.
8 Mei 2013
Rep. Ann Wagner states that the President of the United States is the one to give the command to stand down | HERE
Wagner was asked by talk show host Dana Loesch, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”
“The President of the United States,” responded Wagner.
The White House has been scrambling to avoid the question of who gave the stand down order ever since whistleblower Greg Hicks, who was number two to Ambassador Chris Stevens, testified that US special forces were ready to board a plane in Tripoli but were prevented from coming to the aid of those under assault inside the consulate.
Hicks revealed that after Stevens had been killed but while the attack was still ongoing, “The Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements,” including US Special Forces, but that a call came through from Special Operations Command Africa saying, “you can’t go now; you don’t have authority to go now.”
“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.” Hicks said.
In the hours after the stand down order was given, three more American diplomats were killed by terrorists who laid siege to the consulate.
The Obama administration denies that any kind of stand down order was given, a claim that rings hollow given the White House’s attempt to cover up the nature of what happened in the days after the attack, claiming instead that it was a “protest” sparked by a YouTube video.
It was also recently revealed that the State Department hired Al-Qaeda-linked militants to “defend” the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that was later attacked. State Department officials who blocked efforts to help Americans under assault later tried to hide Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the attack.
As we have exhaustively documented, the Obama administration’s support for Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Libya, which led to the toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, directly contributed to the attack on the consulate and the death of Ambassador Stevens. The very hospital that Stevens was taken to in the last moments of his life was run by the same terrorists who attacked the consulate and who had been empowered as a result of the White House’s military intervention in Libya.
Despite some predicting that the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the impeachment of Barack Obama, an almost identical situation is now unfolding in Syria as a result of the White House’s support for Al-Qaeda terrorists in the pursuit of regime change.
Despite the fact that militants in Syria have openly espoused their hatred for the United States - burning American flags in public while praising Osama Bin Laden and glorifying the 9/11 attacks - the Obama administration is preparing to send them heavy weaponry.
A growing body of evidence also suggests that the entire purpose of the consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens’ role there was to oversee clandestine arms shipments to Syrian rebels.
According to Democrats, today’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi are nothing but a partisan witch hunt.
According to Republicans, the Obama administration committed treason in it’s handling of Benghazi … and then tried to cover it up.
Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.
Specifically, the U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:
The Hindustan Times reported in 2011:
“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.
It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.
Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planesstopped him, and protected Benghazi.)
In 2011, Ambassador Stevens was appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition,” according to ABC News. Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj has direct connections to al-Qaeda.
CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. (Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.)
The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.
This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens …
The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi wasmainly being used for a secret CIA operation.
They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldiconfirms:
Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.
Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:
More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?
Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”
Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:
There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”
And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”
And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.
In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.
Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.
Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.
That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.
Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?
CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. (A self-described Pentagon whistleblower contacted us to confirm this theory.)
The Big Picture
Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.
For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends. For decades, the U.S. has backed the most radical, fundamentalist, violent Muslims.
The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria, Libya and Iran for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.
Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.
Liberals rightfully lambast Bush for getting us into the disastrous Iraq war.
But Obama has in fact launched wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan … and up to 35 African nations(and see this).
Obama – citing a Nixon administration official’s justification for invading Cambodia – has claimed his power extends into every country in the world … well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities.
Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drone assassinations, which are creating many more terrorists than they are killing. The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo says that Obama’s drone surge is as damaging to our country as Bush’s torture program. I think he’s actually underestimating damage from the program, as drones have become the number 1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda (especially since children are now being targeted for drone assassination … Oh, and torture is still happening on Obama’s watch; background).
And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See this, this, this, this and this.
In other words, both GOP and Dem politicians are supporting instability and war, based upon false pretenses and pro-war media coverage … just like Iraq.
Those are the deeper truths regarding Benghazi.
This article was posted: Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 6:22 am
May 8, 2013
Senator calls State Dept. failures a “dereliction of duty”Steve Watson
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has said that Hillary Clinton should never be allowed to hold another public office ever again following the failures and subsequent response surrounding the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
As hearings into the September 2012 attack begin in Washington DC today, video has emerged of the Kentucky Senator laying into Clinton and calling her failures “inexcusable” in a speech before the Missouri Republican Party.
“I think her dereliction of duty and her lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any office,” Paul said before a thunderous ovation.
“I don’t think she should read every cable. Maybe from Estonia and Bulgaria an assistant should read it. But from one of the five most dangerous countries in the world, there’s no excuse for her not reading the cables,” Paul added.
The Senator was following up on comments he addressed to Clinton during a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this year when he said that he would have fired her over Benghazi if he were president, because she failed to read communications requesting additional help and security in Libya.
At the hearing in January Clinton claimed that ”That cable did not come to my attention.”
Watch the video:
Rand Paul Speaking at the Spirit of Reagan Award Ceremony
3 Mei 2013
We had the Honor of hearing Rand Paul speak at our Spirit of Reagan event honoring former MRP Vice-Chair Susie Eckelkamp.- HERE
As this report goes live, Greg Hicks, the number two to murdered US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, is set to testify that US Special forces personnel were ordered to stand down as the attack on the US embassy in Libya was taking place on September 11, 2012.May 8, 2013
The scandal may de-rail the momentum that has been building around Hillary Clinton for a potential 2016 run.
In recent weeks Clinton has been cited as leading several polls of potential 2016 presidential candidates. She has even been tacitly endorsed by the elites at lavish gatherings.
That may all change today however.
“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.”
Fox News’ James Rosen has also reported that the second whistleblower, senior official Mark Thompson, will testify on Wednesday that Clinton tried to cut the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau out of the process during the attack. This has led to suggestions that a cover up was hatched to make it appear that the attack was a demonstration that had gotten out of hand, rather than a premeditated terrorist attack.
“Clinton’s team denies the claim, but even in so doing, reaffirms her central role in the response and talking points about the attacks. No bystander was she.” a leading Fox News report states today.
“I think it was political rather than security,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the Oversight subcommittee on National Security, told Fox News on Monday. “But what boggles my mind is four and a half months after the fact, Secretary Clinton still had the gall to come here and perpetuate [that] things that we know as common knowledge are simply not true.”
Democrats are attempting to argue that Republicans are politicizing the issue in order to bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers and stave off a potential presidential campaign. Some have even gone as far to accuse the lawyers representing the Whistleblowers as having a political agenda.
Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a senior Democrat on the Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels told The Hill that “They both worked with and for, in some capacity, Mitt Romney. There’s no law against that, but don’t tell me that I’m supposed to accept with a straight face that they’re just professional lawyers representing their clients…They are active Republicans who have partisan agendas, as they always have.”
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
- Clinton accused of faking illness to avoid Benghazi testimony
- Video: Rand Paul to Hillary: If I were president, ‘I would have relieved you of your post’
- Clinton to testify on Benghazi attack report: U.S. lawmaker
- Clinton appears before Congress over Benghazi attack
- Clinton Refuses to Testify on Benghazi, Cites Scheduling Conflict
Last November, we reported that the murder of ambassador Christopher Stevens wasn’t about a lame anti-Muslim video. It was connected to an arms shipment as part of the on-going “creative destruction” of the Middle East and North Africa.
CNBC: Benghazi is not about Libya! "It's An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria" | HERE
During an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, radio talk show host John Baxter said the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus had nothing to do with an extramarital affair with his biographer, reserve Army officer Paula Broadwell, but was related to U.S. policy in the Middle East, ongoing “color revolutions” in the region, and specifically the operation underway to arm al-Qaeda in Syria and overthrow the al-Assad regime.
“Benghazi is not about Libya, Benghazi is about the policy of the Obama administration to involve the United States without clarity to the American people, not only in Libya but throughout the whole of the Arab world now in turmoil,” Baxter told Kudlow. “Benghazi is about the NSC directing an operation that is perhaps shadowy, perhaps a presidential finding, perhaps doesn’t, that takes arms and men and puts them into Syria in the guise of the Free Syria Army.”
Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm al-Qaeda, what the corporate media calls the rebels. “More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?” Boykin said during an interview with CNS News.
Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin suspects US Was Running Guns To Syrian Rebels Via Benghazi| HERE
In 2011, Stevens was officially appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition,” according to ABC News. By March, 2011, it was firmly established that the so-called Libya opposition was interchangeable with al-Qaeda. Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj has direct connections to al-Qaeda.
The murder of Stevens, of course, did not slow down the flow of arms from Libya to al-Qaeda in Syria. “The United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad,” The Sunday Timesreported in early December, 2012.
“Mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles will be sent through friendly Middle Eastern countries already supplying the rebels, according to well-placed diplomatic sources. The Americans have bought some of the weapons from the stockpiles of Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan dictator killed last year. They include SA-7 missiles, which can be used to shoot down aircraft.”
In late April, an SA-7 missile under the control of al-Qaeda may have narrowly missed a Russian passenger plane.
- Former Special Forces Commander: Was U.S. Running Guns to Syrian Rebels Via Benghazi? CIA: No
- Al-Qaeda in Rebel Syria
- US Hired Al-Qaeda-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission
- Libya Imprisons American for Allegedly Proselytizing Christianity in Benghazi
- Petraeus Resignation is About Putting Arms and Men in Syria
May 7, 2013
Washington Post Now Declares Obama Benghazi Explanation An Outright LIE… (M.I. Related)
When the left-leaning Washington Post comes right out and declares something a lie – a Democratic presidential administration must be feeling the heat. Today WAPO Glen Kessler rips apart the false narrative provided by the Obama administration following the Benghazi Massacre, and repeatedly calls for an answer as to who was responsible for approving that narrative.EXCERPT:“Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism…” LINKRead more in News______________________(The Washington Post is actually, in their own Inside-the-Beltway version here, indicating the Obama administration allowed four Americans to die simply because of re-election politics. That is the kind of president sitting in OUR White House America. Barack Obama went to sleep after learning of the attacks on Benghazi. He didn’t care so long as his campaign would insulate him from any political damage. Well, he did win the battle for re-election, but he may not win the war that is now his second term… -UM)______________________Ed Morrisey writing for The Week, goes even further in his condemnation of the Obama White House regarding the Benghazi cover-up:“…Recall that the attack took place in the middle of the general election, just a couple of weeks after the party conventions. Obama and the Democrats had just argued that the administration’s foreign-policy successes, including the intervention in Libya, showed that America had a steady and seasoned commander-in-chief, and that voters should think twice before electing an untried Mitt Romney.On the ground in Benghazi, however, the truth was that the sudden vacuum of power had liberated not eastern Libya but the Islamist terrorist networks that had long operated there.” LINK_______________________I would ask readers to again note the cartoon at the top of this page. The reference to Watergate as a comparison point to the Benghazi Massacre and cover-up has increased substantially in recent days – becoming more and more prominent even within the Mainstream Media coverage.Do you recall this promise made just days after the 2012 Election?“Voters failed to do right thing.Up to us now. We intend to try another option.Watergate him. Not waterboard him. Watergate him.Don’t contact me again.”
Posted by Dean Garrison
Benghazi answers would seem to finally be on the way and it is about time. America is sick of the lies. The only people believing The White House spin machine for the last 7 1/2 months were the same people who also believe in The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and that Socialism is good for America.
As D.C. Clothesline Contributor, and Editor of Freedom Outpost, Tim Brown reported on April 18th, this administration is about nothing but lies:
“Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) suggested the Obama administration has lied to congressional investigators, to which Kerry responded, ‘Nobody has lied to anybody.’
This kind of attitude from Kerry in declaring he would ‘appoint someone tomorrow’ when the issue with Benghazi has been going on eight months is just ridiculous. He knew this was an issue that would have to be dealt with when he took the post and yet he procrastinates.
Second, oh yes the Obama administration most definitely lied to the American people. They lied for a week about a YouTube video and spontaneous reaction to it. They sent the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice out on five Sunday Shows to promote that lie, only later to admit to it. Then she continued to promote Benghazi lies after the 2012 election. They lied about making phones calls and not making phone calls. Obama lied about being AWOL too. Lies are abounding in this scandal, just like they are in the Fast and Furious scandal involving Obama’s Attorney General, the DOJ and the ATF.”
Fox News broke a huge story on Monday that at least four Benghazi whistleblowers have come forward to say they were intimidated by the Obama Administration. Fox News is reporting that these whistleblowers were not only from the State Department but the CIA as well:
5 May 2013, 9:34 AM PDT“At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.‘I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,’ Toensing said in an interview Monday. ‘And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.’”Source: HERE
SUNDAY SHOWS: DEMOCRATS BACK AWAY FROM OBAMA ON BENGHAZI, SYRIA
Democrats on Sunday morning's news shows appeared to back away from President Barack Obama on his administration's response to the Benghazi terror attack and his blurry "red line" on Syria's chemical weapons.On Fox News Sunday, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) admitted that the Obama administration's talking points on Benghazi, edited to remove references to extremism and blaming protests against an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the violence, were "false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound."
5 Mei 2013
Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch: Obama Admin Talking Points On Benghazi Were Absolutely FalseWATCH : HEREStephen Lynch admits that the Benghazi Talking Points were completely false (May 5, 2013)On CBS News' Face the Nation, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, also admitted that the administration's talking points were wrong, though putting the changes down to the fact that the intelligence changed over time in a "volatile situation."Meanwhile, on Syria, former Rep. Jane Harman, a prominent California Democraet, acknowledged on NBC News' Meet the Press that the Obama administration had been slow to respond: "I wish we had acted sooner."Republicans remain divided on the Syria issue, but on Benghazi the caucus anticipates a week of testimony that will prove deeply damaging to the Obama administration, as well as the media's attempts to protect him.
May 03, 2013
By John Rosenthal, Newsmax.comNewsmax: US Hired Al-Qaeda-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission 
May 4, 2013The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for months before the deadly attack.That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The U.S. State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on its investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”The report also stated that just a few days before Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the Martyrs Brigade informed State Department officials they would no longer provide security as members of the mission, including Stevens, traveled through the city.From June 2011 to July 2012, Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya at the time, documented over 200 security threats and violent incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occurred in Benghazi.Yet despite those threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department, for reasons that remain unclear.But perhaps the biggest question is why the State Department would hire a group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaida, and ask it to participate in the defense of its diplomatic mission.
Andrew JohnsonMay 4, 2013
MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts used a portion of Joe Biden’s speech at the dedication of a plaque recognizing the Americans lost in the Benghazi attack in order to make the case for gun control. Biden spoke about the risks State Department employees encounter overseas and the sacrifices families make: “No child should predecease their parents and noone should have to suffer the loss of their spouse, it’s not easy,” he said.Replaying those remarks, Roberts claimed Biden was mourning “children as the victims of gun violence” noted that the vice president is set to make a new push for gun control.
3 Mei 2013Biden’s unedited remarks are below.
-----------------------------------Biden at State DepartmentWATCH : HERE
Bret Baier also reported that “U.S. forces could have intervened in the terror attack in time.”
29 Apr 2013Benghazi Gate - New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya - Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin | HERE
Potential Whistle Blowers Are Being Threaten By Obama AdminUnbelievable Interview With Hidden Id Due To Fear RetroversionBenghazi Gate - New Information On Benghazi Attack In Libya - Explosive Info From Conseal IdMore Info See Video BelowBenghazi Gate State Dept Withholding Benghazi Documents - Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama's People? | HERE
In “New Benghazi Whistleblowers Talked To By House Investigators” published April 18th in The D.C. Clothesline, Tim Brown reported, “Multiple new Benghazi whistleblowers are now privately speaking to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigators regarding the attacks that took place in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.”
Tim’s article cited this quote from CBS:
“The nature of the communications with the whistleblowers and their identities are not being made public at this time. But in response, the Oversight Committee yesterday sent letters to the three federal agencies involved: the CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department.The letters make the case for the whistleblowers to be able to share sensitive or classified information with their own attorneys, and ask for each agency’s official description of the legal steps that process must follow. The letters also state that additional witnesses may be ‘compelled by subpoena to give testimony.’”With the happenings and build up of the last two weeks I think it is fair to be cautiously optimistic that we are about to see what Americans have been wanting for almost 8 months…THE TRUTH!
America deserves answers.We will not forget the Americans who died.We will not forgive any acts of treason which resulted in those deaths.