Blog Archives

BLOCKBUSTER: Meet The Man Who Murdered American Ambassador Chris Stevens…

by  on August 19, 2013 with 16 Comments in News


His name is Mohsen Al-Azazi, an operative within the Muslim Brotherhood, and according to  former top intelligence official with the Egyptian government, is part of an operation that continues to receive aid from the Obama administration.



The murky motivations of the Benghazi Massacre have been prevalent on various alternative media blogs since  the tragedy first occurred.  This latest report though is from Fox News, which it would seem, has been watching (and learning) from some of those initial alternative media reports.

The primary source for the name Mohsen Al-Azazi comes directly from public statements by Ahmed Moussa, a former high ranking intelligence official with the Egyptian government, and a man who quite accurately predicted the coming downfall of the Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood regime.

From the Fox News report:

In the course of this statement, Moussa announced three facts:

1. Ambassador Chris Stevens’ assassin in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is named Mohsen Al-Azazi.

2. Azizi associates with Mohammed El-Beltagy, the general secretary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and with Safwat Hegazy, a leading MB cleric.

3. The police found Azizi’s passport in the house of leading MB strategist Khairat El-Shater, presumbably when Shater was arrested on July 5.

If true, this is sensational news, for it directly ties the MB to anti-American terrorism and repudiates the Obama administration policy of trying to work with the MB. It also further confirms that the MB is a terrorist organization.

It might explain why the Obama administration is mediating in talks with Egypt’s interim government for a “reconciliation process” that would permit a safe exist for Morsi and other MB leaders outside Egypt without a trial that likely would disclose more embarrassing details about Benghazi.

But is the news that Moussa announced true? Several indications point to its veracity.

First, Moussa is a well-regarded source who often interviews intelligence agents and high-ranking military personnel on his show and is renowned for breaking intelligence-related news.

In March, for example, he broke the news that Egyptian intelligence stopped sending Mohammed Morsi written briefings and limited its reports to verbal communication, a reflection of its fear that his affiliation to an international Islamist organization (with over seventy branches worldwide) would compromise the information. As well as revealing some of the details of the meeting that took place on 30 July between Morsi and Catherine Ashton, British Labour politician and diplomat.

Second, as I reported in March, in a video shot during the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Egyptian jihadists approaching the U.S.installations said in Egyptian colloquial Arabic, “Don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

Moussa further went on to say, still addressing Patterson on this TV show:

Ask the Muslim Brotherhood to hand Azizi to U.S. authorities. — And of course they will not, as he is there to wage terrorist attacks against Egyptian citizens, as he hides there in the protection in Rabia, among killers with massive amounts of weapons … Why doesn’t the MB, which you often praise, hand him to you?

That question has yet to be answered by either Amb. Patterson, President Obama or the U.S. government.   LINK


So, according to Ahmed Moussa, the United States has a known terrorist being both protected and supported by the Obama government desperate to keep its links to the Muslim Brotherhood hidden away from public knowledge, including, but not limited to, the Brotherhood’s direct involvement in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Those paying attention also know that the Obama government has hidden away the survivors of the Benghazi, with various reports indicating considerable intimidation, relocation, and refusal to share specific names of survivors with members of Congress.

We know the Obama White House repeated over and over again an outright lie as to why the attacks in Benghazi occurred.  We know the administration was quick to support the Morsi-Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, and is now equally unwilling to support Morsi’s departure.

We know that the nation of Turkey is under the rule of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (The New York Times declared Turkey the “model” for Muslim Brotherhood success in the Middle East) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.  Erdogan in turn has been very supportive of the Obama administration.  Please read this quote from an earlier report on this very blog in May of 2013:


“…Which bring us then to the events in Syria.  Make no mistake, Syria is no friend of the United States.  That said, Barack Obama and his Turkish cohorts are once again pushing to replace a dictator with a Sharia ruler.  Libya is now over-run with Islamic radicals.  So too is Egypt and Tunisia.  The power and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is growing at an alarming pace – a growth in power that extends directly to the Obama White House:

“A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.”  LINK  “


Now remember reader, who did Chris Stevens meet with only an hour before the terrorist attack that killed him in Benghazi?  It was with a representative of the Turkish government.  An hour after that representative walked out thefront door of the Benghazi consulate, it was under an attack led by Mohsen Al-Azazi, the very man it is now said receives support and protection from the Obama government…

In Case You Missed It – The Story Of Valerie Jarrett And Her Muslim Brotherhood






The Benghazi cover-up scandal is still brewing. We haven’t seen the worst of it and it looks like we’re about to get the next dose of truth. Via PJ Media.

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The following portion of the report is especially intriguing.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft. has been saying, for weeks now, there was something happening with the movement of arms through the Benghazi facility. We already believe this is a key part of the Benghazi scandal that has yet to be explained. It will be interesting to see how this round of whistleblowers plays out

Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Tell Me Benghazi Was About Running Missiles to Syrian Rebels


Geraldo Rivera said Friday that his sources tell him the U.S. was involved in a secret mission in Libya to arm the Syrian rebels, which was the reason for the initial secrecy about the attack in Benghazi.

Rivera said on “Fox & Friends” that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may have been briefed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus “to suggest that there was a secret mission going on there, that we can’t go there, we can’t talk about it.”

“I believe, and my sources tell me, they were there to round up those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria,” Rivera said. “It was like Iran-Contra, I think it merits gigantic investigation, it will all become clear.”

ABC News reported Thursday that the Republican National Committee actually created a Benghazi attack ad, but shelved it after objections from the Romney campaign.

Glenn Beck in October was one of the first to raise the theory that the U.S. could have been running weapons to Syrian rebels, which he said would be “Fast and Furious times 1,000.”




In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place.

Politico reports:

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

The administration routinely exerts pressure on reporters it feels are not kind enough in their coverage. Reporters like Cheryl Attkisson of CBS News have felt the hand of their bosses for “wading dangerously close to advocacy” with regard to Benghazi. No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again.

UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it:

UPDATE II: Jake Tapper of CNN reports that the regularly scheduled press briefing has been delayed even further:

UPDATE III: Politico now reports that the meeting has been characterized as “deep background.” The meeting itself is considered “off-the-record.” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.” So expect a fair number of “White House sources” to appear in reportage for the next few days.

UPDATE IV: Jay Carney began his on-the-record press briefing by announcing that 14 news organizations were invited to the off-the-record briefing, but that it was not a substitute for the on-the-record briefing.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Watch Video:

Rand Paul alleges CIA smuggled weapons through Benghazi — RT USA

Published time: May 10, 2013 18:27
U.S. Sen. Rand Pau (AFP Photo / Alex Wong)

U.S. Sen. Rand Pau (AFP Photo / Alex Wong)

On Wednesday a Congressional committee heard testimonies from witnesses of the September 11, 2012 attack, but eight months after the fact many questions still remain unanswered.  Sen. Paul weighed in on the event as well this week, but in doing so challenged the administration of US President Barack Obama and particularly Hillary Clinton, the former Department of State secretary at the helm of the agency at the time of the attack and another rumored candidate in the 2016 election.

In an interview aired on CNN Thursday evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility that last year’s attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event — including unfounded admissions from America’s United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack — could actually be a cover-up, the senator said.

I never have quite understood the cover-up — if it was intentional or incompetence,” he told host Erin Burnett. “But something went on. I mean, they had talking points that they were trying to make it out to be a movie when everybody seemed to be on the ground telling them it had nothing to do a movie. I don’t know if this was for political reasons.”

In the wake of the attack, then-UN ambassador Susan Rice said the storming of the consulate resulted after an anti-Islamic video produced in the US ended up on YouTube. The government has since admitted her statement was false, but conflicting reports among Washington’s elite has led in part to Paul’s questioning of the incident.

I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said.

Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?” Paul asked. “I’m not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I’m a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn’t testify and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this.”

This is not the first time either that Senator Paul raised questions about possible arms supplies under the CIA umbrella. During her testimony in the Senate, Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the spy agency was sending weapons from Benghazi into other countries. Clinton replied that he would have to ask CIA officials about it.

On Friday morning, Paul scolded the former State Department secretary in a Washington Times op-ed and said Clinton “should never hold high office again.”

My office is currently seeking out the witnesses and survivors of Benghazi to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. To date, the Obama administration has refused to let them testify. Too many questions remain unanswered. Now, there are too many new questions,” Paul wrote. “The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. The new evidence we have today  – and that continues to mount  – suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.”

Paul said during a Thursday radio interview that he’s “considering” a run for president in 2016. A Quinnipiac University poll published earlier the week found that Clinton would dominate the Democratic race, winning perhaps 65 percent of the party’s vote if she decides to run.


Published: May 8, 2013

One single “Smoking gun” revelation has yet to surface from today’s lengthy Benghazi hearing.  However, what has emerged is a more intricate picture of what happened on the ground during the terrorist attack and immediately thereafter.

  • The Deputy Chief of Mission, Greg Hicks, testified that the diplomatic team from Tripoli demonstrated great heroism as they prepared to help rescue their counterparts at the Benghazi annex.
  • The deputy, who took over for Ambassador Stevens after he’d been killed by the terrorists, testified that the Tripoli Office Manager, Amber Pickens was a true hero. Ms. Pickens, he testified, smashed hard drives and destroyed other vital communication equipment in case the mob tried to overrun both U.S. diplomatic posts.  He said she encouraged her fellow staff and loaded magazines for personnel in case they needed to take up arms to defend themselves and their colleges.
  • Mr. Hicks argued that a military intervention could have been possible if the Administration had fully authorized military assets for combat action. He testified that his Libyan military contact told him when the attack began that U.S. military aircraft could be mobilized to strike Benghazi within two or three hours.  He said that those fighters or gunships would have flown out of the American air force installation in Italy – Aviano Air Base.
  • His testimony is in contradiction with earlier testimony by the Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Depsey, who said that no American assets could have been mobilized in time to be of any help in Libya.
  • Mr. Hicks’ implied question for the general was what constitutes a timely response considering that no one knew exactly how long the fighting in Benghazi would continue.
  • Mr. Hicks also testified that American military personnel on the ground in Tripoli at the embassy were forbidden to engage in any rescue attempt in Benghazi and the military commanders were furious about having to stay behind.
  • Mr. Thompson, a former marine, and the State Department Counterterrorism expert who was in Libya that day, also testified that military ground and airborne assets whose primary job it is to immediately respond to these kinds of emergencies was also ordered to “Stand-down.”
  • The unit Mr. Thompson was speaking of is called F.E.S.T.  – Foreign Emergency Support Team. This team has aircraft and troops dedicated to being on standby in the anticipation of needing to respond quickly to an emergency situation at any American holding overseas.
  • Mr. Thompson testified that his superiors told him that the situation was “Too dangerous” for this unit to deploy into Benghazi and that when he requested that the unit be mobilized into combat action, he was told that it was “Not the right time” for F.E.ST. to engage insurgents.
  • When asked why his superiors decided not to allow F.E.S.T. to deploy to Benghazi in order to bring resolution to the conflict, he responded, “I don’t know.”

The Benghazi truth is coming to the light

The truth comes out a little at a time concerning Benghazi. According to Fox News.

The U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators. 

The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground. 

Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight — after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex.”
This runs contrary to the story about the You-tube video and the idea there was a great deal of confusion surrounding event. Hicks, seems pretty clear of what he had seen had during the event.

“Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau, has also claimed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making that night. He, too, is set to testify Wednesday.”

I’m pretty sure that Hilary Clinton will be screaming from wherever she is watching “What difference does it make!” The difference is, there are four Americans dead and, we want the truth about how it all happened.



 5783 16

 3 5809 1



Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their dishonest ilk have a lot of explaining to do. For example… why is a diplomat saying special forces preparing to go in and rescue Christopher Stevens and his team were told to stand down?

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

This is not what the Obama administration wants us to believe. In fact, the Obama administration has insisted there was nothing they could do. They insist no support could be deployed that would have made it in time. The competent arm of government, namely the special forces on the ground, believed otherwise.

And they were told to stand down.

Benghazi Whistleblowers Were Threatened By Obama Administration

Benghazi Whistleblowers Were Threatened By Obama Administration

America has been demanding answers in the Benghazi coverup and it seems we may be getting closer to the truth as Benghazi whistleblowers are coming forward and talking to Congress. It has now been reported that at least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have retained attorneys, as Rep. Darrell Issa suggested they do, as they prepare to provide sensitive information to Congress regarding the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Reports are coming forth that some of these witness are being threatened by Barack Obama’s administration officials.
“Some witnesses may be required to retain personal counsel to represent them before the committee and in the event the agency subsequently retaliates against them for cooperating with the committee’s investigation,” Issa wrote to the CIA and other government officials on Wednesday of last week.
“Additional witnesses may be compelled by subpoena to give testimony to the committee and can be reasonably expected to retain personal counsel at that time,” he added.“Some witnesses may be required to retain personal counsel to represent them before the committee and in the event the agency subsequently retaliates against them for cooperating with the committee’s investigation,” Issa wrote to the CIA and other government officials on Wednesday of last week.
“[I]t is important that the agency makes clear to its employees that they are free to furnish information to Congress in accordance with their statutory rights,” Issa wrote.
“Additionally, retaliation against a witness who communicates with the committee can be considered obstruction of a congressional investigation and is punishable by fine and imprisonment,” he added. It seems that the Obama administration is not taking Issa’s statements under advisement.
Fox News reports Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now repres was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
“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.”
Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.
“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”
While federal law provides explicit protections for federal government employees who are identified as “whistleblowers,” the Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers more than any other administration, including an executive order that could be used against whistleblowers.
Obama’s Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Todd B. Jones, was called out last year after his video, which was considered a threat, was viewed by BATFE employees, in the midst of the other Obama scandal, Operation Fast and Furious.
Congressman Issa wrote to State Secretary John Kerry on Friday complaining that the State Department hasn’t made the provisions for attorneys to receive security clearances that they need to review the classified documents and other evidence.
“It is unavoidable that Department employees identifying themselves as witnesses in the Committee’s investigation will apply for a security clearance to allow their personal attorneys to handle sensitive or classified material,” Issa wrote. “The Department’s unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress.”
On Friday, Issa also wrote on his blog:  This much is clear, the White House and State Department officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments that led to the death of four brave Americans.
The American people deserve to have the full truth about what happened both before and after the attacks in Benghazi.  I will convene an Oversight Committee hearing next month to examine new facts about what happened and significant problems with the Administration’s own review of security failures.
While President Obama and his administration may be inclined to give free passes to senior officials who failed to meet their responsibilities in protecting our citizens abroad, my Committee will work to expose what they did and hold them accountable to you, the American people, to ensure that it does not happen again.
Secretary Kerry though doesn’t seem too concerned about Benghazi. In fact, he wants to move on to “more important things.” “I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking about Benghazi,” he told Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) on April 17.
Meanwhile Kerry’s spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters, “I’m not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or — or anything to that regard. I’m not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another.”  While Ventrell pointed to the FBI’s work and the State Department’s investigation and said it was a “very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and (which was) transparent and shared,” apparently he doesn’t get that both of those departments fall under the Executive Branch, so honestly it’s kind of like investigating yourself. Ventrell claims that “Congress has its own prerogatives” and that “there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”
Right, Barack Obama and his administration would never do anything for political means and ends, would they?

USA General, John Allen, Resigns From Military : Cites Health Issues (Yea Sure)

John Allen resigns from military ahead of Nato nomination


Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Allen

Raf SanchezBy , Washington 7:00PM GMT 19 Feb 2013

It was not immediately clear who would be selected to replace Gen Allen Photo: AP

By Raf Sanchez, Washington 7:00PM GMT 19 Feb 2013

General John Allen had been nominated by the White House to take over the alliance’s most senior military role but yesterday submitted his resignation in order to “address health issues within his family”.

The former head of international forces in Afghanistan found his scheduled promotion derailed late last year when it emerged he had exchanged hundreds of emails with a married Florida socialite.

The correspondence between Gen Allen, 59, and Jill Kelley, 37, came to light as authorities tried to untangle a complex web of communications related to Mr Petraeus’s affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Mrs Broadwell allegedly sent Mrs Kelley a barrage of anonymous and threatening emails, warning her to stay away from Gen Allen and Mr Petraeus while the two men while both were posted at a military command in Tampa, Florida.

As investigators looked into Mrs Kelley’s emails they stumbled across thousands of pages of correspondence with Gen Allen, who is also married, and raised concerns with the Pentagon.

While Mr Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA last year, Gen Allen was cleared of wrongdoing by a defence department investigation and authorities concluded no affair had taken place.

However, his brush with the scandal led to his nomination being temporarily put on hold by the Obama administration and the existence of the cache of emails cast a cloud over his nomination.

“Some of the messages are not the sort of things you would print in a family newspaper,” one US official told The Washington Post.

Today, President Barack Obama said he had met with Gen Allen and “accepted his request to retire from the military so that he can address health issues within his family”.

The Marines Corps officer led coalition forces in Afghanistan from February 2011 until earlier this month, when he handed over command to General Joseph Dunford, a fellow Marine.

During Gen Allen’s tenure as head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), he was responsible for the implementing the “surge” of 33,000 US soldiers tasked with reversing Taliban gains.

“John Allen is one of America’s finest military leaders, a true patriot, and a man I have come to respect greatly,” Mr Obama said in a statement. “I wish him and his family the very best as they begin this new chapter, and we will carry forward the extraordinary work that General Allen led in Afghanistan.”

The role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) traditionally goes to a senior American officer, who must be confirmed by the US Senate. The position, which doubles as head of the US’s European command, is currently held by Admiral James Stavridis.

It was not immediately clear who would be selected to replace Gen Allen, although the post is likely to go to a four- or three-star general.

General Dwight Eisenhower was the first officer to take up the SACEUR post ahead of the invasion of Normandy during World War II.

Panetta can’t explain why Obama never called back during 8 Hours of Benghazi attack [VIDEO]


Under questioning from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why President Barack Obama spoke with him only once on Sept. 11, 2012 during the Benghazi terrorist attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours.

Here’s the exchange between Graham, Gen. Martin Dempsey and Sec. Panetta at a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Thursday:

SEN. GRAHAM: Your testimony, as I understand it, Secretary Panetta, that you talked to the president of the United States one time.
SEC. PANETTA: I talked to him on Sept. 11 with regards to the fact that we were aware this attack was taking place.
SEN. GRAHAM: One time.
SEN. GRAHAM: What time did you tell him that?
SEC. PANETTA: I think that was approximately about 5 o’clock?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, about 5 o’clock.
SEC. PANETTA: About 5 o’clock.
SEN. GRAHAM: General Dempsey, did you ever talk to the president of the United States at all?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I was with the secretary when — at that same time.
SEN. GRAHAM: Did you talk to the president?
SEN. GRAHAM: You talked to him how many times.
GEN. DEMPSEY: The same — one time.
SEN. GRAHAM: How long did the conversation last?
GEN. DEMPSEY: We were there in the office for probably 30 minutes.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you talked to him for 30 minutes, one time, and you never talked to him again, either one of you.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Until afterwards.
SEN. GRAHAM: Until after the attack was over.
GEN. DEMPSEY: That’s right.
SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you.
Were there any AC-130 gunships within a thousand miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: No, sir.
SEN. GRAHAM: Were there any AC-130 gunships within 2,000 miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I have to go back and look at a map and figure out the distance.

Later in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he thought it was “typical” for a commander in chief to make no follow-up phone calls.

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.
SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president of the United States to make one phone call, do what you can and never call you back again and ask you, how’s it going, by the way, showing your frustration we don’t have any assets in there to help these people for over seven hours?
SEC. PANETTA: The president is well-informed about what is going on. Make no mistake about it.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that is interesting to hear

Watch Video Here:


Source: WND

During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running.

The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.

Yet Clinton’s answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media.
The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”


That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post.

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.

In September, WND also broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.

According to the 39-page report released last month by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.

“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”

The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”

During the Libyan revolution against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi acknowledged in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Media cover up?

From the beginning, U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading.

The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”

A consulate typically refers to the building that houses a consul, who is the official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.

Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.

On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

However, according to the State Department investigation, the building was a “U.S. Special Mission” set up without the knowledge of the Libyan government.

Withholding, misleading

Two days before the November presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview in which Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims about the attack.

In the released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden on the day of the attack, he had declared it an act of terror.

Reuters was also implicated by WND for possibly false reporting.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters quoted a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building.

Immediately following the attack, President Obama and other White House officials claimed anti-American sentiment fueled by the obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube sparked civilian protests outside the U.S. mission that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.

However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, officials said.

On the day of his death, US ambassador to Libya warned that he was in danger

John Stevens testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination to be ambassador to Libya on March 20, 2012.(AFP Photo / Mandel Ngan)

John Stevens testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination to be ambassador to Libya on March 20, 2012.(AFP Photo / Mandel Ngan)

Hours before US Ambassador Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack in Libya, he sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a cable warning that local militias were threatening to take away security officers guarding the US diplomats.

The cable, which Stevens submitted on the morning of Sept. 11, 2012, relayed the warning that Libyan militia “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing.” Militia leaders had previously expressed anger at US support of a certain candidate for Libyan prime minister and consequentially planned to extract their security.

Stevens’ cable reached Clinton hours before terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi and killed the ambassador and three other Americans. The cable was publicly released Friday by the chairman of the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, and includes 160 pages of documents outlining the violence surrounding Benghazi.

The cable also refers to a Sept. 2 meeting in which the commander of Benghazi’s Security Council expressed deep concern about police and security forces being too weak to protect the country from terrorists.

One paragraph refers to the “expanding Islamist influence in Derna” and a “troubling increase in violence and Islamist influence”.

The ambassador included a report from a meeting that took place on Sept. 9, during which the “security vacuum” was discussed with the Libyan militia leaders. Stevens noted that Islamic extremists were exploiting this vacuum.
“What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity but rather targeted and discriminate attacks,” Stevens wrote in a memo.

“Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable,” he added.

The documents outlined a number of security issues in Libya, including a section that described the threats to foreigners. This cable will likely play a major role in this week’s congressional hearings in which Clinton will be forced to explain why security wasn’t increased amid reports of safety concerns by the US ambassador himself.

After the Sept. 11 attack, the Department of State claimed they had adequate resources to prevent the endangerment of Americans in Libya and denied having received warnings about possible attacks beforehand.

The cable provides evidence that Clinton had plenty of information about the dangers in Libya and should have provided additional security.

“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” concluded the official State Department review board report on the Benghazi tragedy.

The 160 pages of documents will force Clinton to do a lot of explaining when the hearings kick off on Wednesday.


Retired Admiral Makes Stunning Accusation w.r.t Benghazi-Gate

My comments: There are few things about Benghazi incident that I would like to remind. There was no consulate in Benghazi. The nearest one is in Tripoli, so the protests regarding Anti-Islam video were always a fiction. This the mainstream has already reported. What we have in Benghazi is a CIA mission outpost.

Then the White House did not provide security despite the attack went on for seven hours as Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty fought the terrorists. The Benghazi mission personnel fought without any assistance other than help from embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.

US had very credible military resources within striking distance. At military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, there was a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned.

Now to the Story:

Source: beforeitsnews

Retired Admiral Makes Stunning Accusation. Benghazi-Gate Is The Treasonous And Impeachable Criminal Enterprise That Can Bring Barack Obama Down.

It’s even worse that we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election?

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “[T]he attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… [that] would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Regime intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that the Obama Regime had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Make no mistake; Benghazi-Gate is the criminal enterprise that will bring the Obama Regime down, but that won’t happen if Congress helps Barack Obama sweep this criminal conspiracy under the rug. We must demand answers… we must demand action… and we mustn’t stop until Congress uncovers the truth and removes the Usurper-in-Chief from office.



Make No Mistake: Lyons Is Only Scratching The Surface.
Some will say that Admiral Lyons’ accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that’s EXACTLY why Congress MUST investigate Benghazi-gate.

MOREOVER, we firmly believe the problem with Admiral Lyons’ assertion is that he is ONLY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE… the full and complete truth is much, much worse.

Benghazi-gate is NOT about a bogus YouTube video series of lies. It’s NOT about Obama Regime foreign policy ineptitude. We are dealing with something much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… and the following questions, posed in an article in The New American, go to the heart of the matter.

• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?

• Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who… had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?

• What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which as the report states, was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?

• Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?

• Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?

• Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?

It’s clear. Benghazi-Gate is only a small piece of a much larger criminal enterprise… an attempt to conceal what The New American calls; “the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists [and] self-styled al Qaeda terrorists.”

And treason is an impeachable offense. Congress has the power and constitutional authority to get to the bottom of this mess… and we’re going to see to it that they do their constitutional duty.



The Election Is Over And Congress Has Run Out Of Excuses For Delays.
Prior to the election Barack Obama continually told us that “Osama bin-Laden is dead and GM is alive,” but the sad truth is that Osama bin-Laden’s organization is alive and well and the Obama Regime may be giving aid and comfort to this terrorist network.

And prior to the election, Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera pontificated that Republicans shouldn’t “politicize” Benghazi-gate.

Swaggering onto the set of Fox and Friends Rivera bloviated: “I think we have to stop this politicizing” and Rivera issued the following veiled warning to Republicans: “Do we want to try and influence the election with a tragedy that happened in North Africa?”

Ironic, isn’t it? Barack Obama played politics with the lives of Americans and Obama drones, like Rivera, in the media covered Obama’s rear and threatened to accuse anyone and everyone who mentioned it of “playing politics.”

And weak-willed Republicans apparently took Rivera’s threat to heart as Rivera also said that Republican Senators John Barrasso, James Inhofe and Bob Corker, who all sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “all agree that the supercharged atmosphere around the story – prudence dictates that these hearings be postponed until” after the election.

Well, the election has come and gone. Congress has no excuse. The American people needed the truth BEFORE the election… NOW… we’re demanding it.

Americans are dead. Are more lives in jeopardy? Did Barack Obama lie to cover up foreign policy ineptitude or did he lie to cover up something much worse? Is our own government actually conspiring with America’s enemies?

The American people deserve to have those questions answered and moreover the American people deserve justice.


My Comments: Here is another interesting article from Washington Times coverage on story by Admiral Lyons circulating Alternative Media

Also an interesting Article from Forbes