Search This Blog

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Why Obama Prevented Help to Benghazi? Questions and Answers and Presidential Lies!

These articles by non-MSM journalists are posted after the Fox News clip.   Consider what facts they compile and both the questions and answers that go with them.   

Once an American President lied about things done by some election wonks without his knowledge, decided to cover it all up and got caught.   He had to resign his Presidency.   Richard Nixon.  No one died.  Then another President had a sexual fling with an intern.  He got impeached.  Bill Clinton.   No one died.   Liberal Loonbats said that GW Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but in fact the UN, the other Republicans AND the Democrats ALL said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and probably shipped most of them out of the country before we took down Qaddafi.    No one lied.   All of this put together is NOTHING compared to a President and his Administration who are lying like Pinocchio on steroids about Benghazi.    Read and decide for yourself.   Because four men died while Administration officials watched via drones and denied them any aid - then tried to get by with some lame story about a YouTube video and a nonexistent demonstration by Islamic rioters.   Why?   Well, read and then decide...   

1)   Is there a deeper plot to Benghazi?
Written on Saturday, October 27, 2012 by

from the article

Maybe I’ve watched too many Perry Mason episodes, or movies like “Charade” (a very entertaining mystery with many twists and turns that are hard to anticipate), or maybe it’s because of my engineering problem-solving background, where you take a bunch of data and then try to come up with a solution that would be in harmony with the data, but let’s take a look at some of the Benghazi data that might reveal something.

(1)   Why was the Benghazi ambassador meeting with a Turkish diplomat?
(2)   Why was such a meeting taking place in Libya?
(3)   Why weren’t troops sent from Sicily (just 45 minutes away) when the first calls immediately came for help and yet all 4 Americans weren’t dead until 7 hours later?
(4)   Why was there a drone in the area?

Okay, so now let’s put forth a story that could explain these 4 points of data.

The U.S. was running arms to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. They had to coordinate it in an obscure place like Benghazi to keep it secret. The reason they wanted to keep it secret is because the administration didn’t want another “Fast and Furious” on their hands … especially before a debate on foreign policy and an election. And here is the ugliest, most sinister and evil part of the explanation (which would give a reason for #s 3 and 4), they let the 4 Americans die because dead men tell no tales.

I know this story may seem far-fetched and the last part is hard to say, but let’s hear your story that explains the 4 peculiarities listed here and includes all 4 of them.

Dennis Marcellino is the author of The Plague Of Liberalism (

November 2, 2012

2)Benghazi: Cui Bono?

Bill Schanefelt

In attempting to understand the attackers in Benghazi, one might, as the Romans taught us to do in such situations, seek to answer a simple question: Cui Bono---"as a benefit to whom?"

They attacked a "...half-baked operation...not a consulate....a 'facility' with an ambiguous purpose....", and that "ambiguous purpose' seems to have been an operation that could be dubbed "Fast and Furious in The Maghreb."

Overtly, the "consulate" and associated Annex were gathering up the widely-distributed elements of the arsenal looted during the "...war in a place where we had no major interests, against a regime that posed no danger to us, and with a policy that neither defined our objectives nor gave any thought to what would happen if we 'succeeded.'"

Covertly, 'F&FITM" seems to have been transferring at least some of these arms to "...Syrian Islamist forces aligned with al-Qaeda, (using a) Turkish (connection)...."

If that, in fact, was the case, then how could an attack on it, causing its destruction, benefit the Islamist forces aligned with al-Qaeda who populate Benghazi and who were, purportedly, behind the attack?

Think about it: The "consulate" was supposed to have been attacked by the same Sunni Islamists in Benghazi who were delivering weapons to the "F&FITM" operation, run out of that "consulate,' that was, in turn, delivering these weapons to the Sunni allies of the Benghazi Islamists who were trying to bring down Shiite-connected Alawite regime in Syria.

If that sounds oxymoronic, well, it is of a piece with every other bit of "information" coming out regarding the entire fiasco.

We know that the embassy in Tripoli  "...advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that an Islamic terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack...."

However, Team Obama has not "officially" rejected its still-obtaining "official" position that it was, as described by the inimitable Mark Steyn, a " review that just got a little out of hand...."

In a post cited above, our increasingly-invaluable source, the DiploMad, suggests that the attack might have been a false-flag one:

If we were "walking" guns to the Syrian rebels, might the attack not have been instigated by the Syrian regime or its Iranian allies?

AT contributor Reza Kahlili also made an Iranian connection on a recent interview on John Batchelor's show (beginning at about 19:00).

Or it could have been a false-flag operation by remnants of the Gadhafi regime, for Kahlili earlier made the connection between that regime and the Mullahs of Tehran.

It is extremely unlikely that we will ever know more than a fraction of any aspect of this disgraceful episode, but, to every bit of information that appears, pose the question: Cui bono?

And, figuratively, pose that question both to the teller and the tale.

November 2, 2012

3)Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi

By Karin McQuillan
The burning question is why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi.  The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction. 

To the president's surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver.  On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Obama's answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing.  The most damaging part of Obama's evasive answer is this:
... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.
This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar.  The president says here that immediately, "the minute I found out what was happening," he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do "whatever we need to."

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done.  We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room.  Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down.  He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too "risky" to send in reinforcements or air cover.  It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done.  The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily.  All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi.  And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn't happen.  No one believes that; the president is lying.  He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to "secure our personnel" and "do whatever we need to do."

We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate.  The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi.  A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:
No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help
Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.
On October 18, General Ham resigned. 

Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do "whatever we need to."

Panetta admitted we did nothing.  He says the military had the readiness and capability to help.  He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding "to any contingency."
We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region.  We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed.  He says the top leadership of our military didn't want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm's way.  It was too risky.  Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama's supposed directives to do "whatever we need to" to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack. 
"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.
Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support. 

Panetta's statement that we didn't have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible.  We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail.  We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest.  When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations? 
Max Boot writes in Commentary:
Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.
We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if  President Obama had given orders to do so.  There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead.  The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests.  They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended.  This is what Navy SEALs do.  We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy.  According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available.  Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.

If there weren't a manned drone and a gunship sent out -- it was now six hours into the battle -- that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary.  If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances. 
Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. "Stationed at Sigonella," he notes, "were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft - a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy."
President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."  It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.

Why would our president not come to the defense of our consulate under attack?  This is an attack on American soil.  This was a 9/11 attack by an al-Qaeda branch in Libya.  Therein lies the answer.

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy.  This was Obama's 9/11, not Bush's.  He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil.  He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video.  He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal. 

The other answer is directly political.  It would be damaging for Obama's already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring.  Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama's foreign policy all too evident.  An American military response would have undercut one of Obama's main campaign slogans: "GM is alive and Osama is dead."

Treating Benghazi as a spontaneous mob attack inflamed by an offensive, Islamophobic video was a flimsy story, but the liberal media was quite willing to accept it without question.  Our politically corrupt media not only went along with that nonsense, but so crucified Romney for daring to comment on what happened that Romney shut up.  The story of the offensive video played to Obama's progressive base, which believes that there is no war on terror -- just bad behavior by bigoted Americans that causes Muslims to attack us.

Obama's ideology blinded him to the need to defend American lives under al-Qaeda attack on 9/11/12.  He put his ideology and his politics ahead of Americans lives.  He let four brave men serving our country fight without help and die. 

This decision will doom Obama's chances of re-election if widely known.  That is why our politically corrupt media is censoring this news as hard as it can.  They do not want the majority of Americans to know.  But they cannot keep the lid on.  It is too big, and too awful.  The only question is one of time before Election Day.

Read more:


Obama Watched Attack on Benghazi and Did Nothing to Help Them

It seems that every day there is new information that is coming to light in the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  In the latest news update, sources are saying that President Barack Obama watched much of the attack on a live broadcast as it was taking place and just sat there doing nothing to help the Americans.

When you hear the latest information on how Obama failed to act to save the Americans, it could be seen to lend a little more credibility to the conspiracy theory that the attack was actually a pre-arranged kidnapping attempt set up by Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were supposed to kidnap Ambassador Stevens so that Obama could exchange him for the Blind Sheik just before the election to make Obama look like a hero and allow the Muslim Brotherhood to get their Blind Sheik back.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, Retired Army, has told several news media that his sources that he trusts informed him that Obama was in the White House during the time of the attacks and that he watched it unfold in real time.  Shaffer told Fox News:
“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down.” 
“According to my sources, yes, [President Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”
Other than placing drones overhead to watch the massacre of four Americans, the President did not issue any orders to send in anyone to help protect them.  According to new information contained in the video below, there is evidence that the attack was prolonged and that some of those killed had managed to stay alive for the first six hours of the ordeal.  Six hours was plenty of time for Obama to have sent a strike team to Benghazi to help defend the Ambassador and others, but he did nothing but watch.

Col. David Hunt, who serves as a military analyst for Fox News said that this was the fourth embassy to be attacked in a twenty-four hour period and that everyone in Washington was closely watching what was happening.  He also said that had Obama given an order that U.S. warplanes could have reached the compound within twenty minutes and that a Delta Force strike team could have been at the sight within two hours.

Considering that some survived for six hours before being killed forces the question of why Obama did not try to save them.  His impotence to act reminded me of another spineless Democrat some 33 years ago.  When 52 Americans were taken hostage in in Tehran, Iran and held for 444 days, then President Jimmy Carter did nothing to free them.

I have a close friend who was in special forces at the time.  For over a year, he and his squad of commandos sat on a ship off the coast of Iran waiting for orders to rescue the hostages.  He told me that they knew where the hostages were kept every day and they could easily have gone in and freed them without loss of American lives, but Carter never gave the order.  He also told me that everyone there knew the helicopter rescue mission Carter did launch was certain to fail and that it was done (and those on the helicopters were sacrificed) just to help silence the mounting criticism Carter was getting from all of America.  My friend said that every single military personnel involved with the Tehran hostage situation had no respect for Carter and called him a coward.

In the case of Obama and Benghazi, was he a coward afraid to attack his so-called Muslim friends who were killing fellow Americans?  Why didn’t he do something to help them?  Help could have arrived in time to save the four Americans, but Obama sat there and watched them die.  Was it because the attack was supposed to be a kidnapping that went wrong when the former Navy SEALS fought back?  Then he has the gall to tell the families of the victims that he’s sorry for their loss, an apology that the father of one and mother of another both say was empty and meaningless.

To sit by and do nothing to help our countries representatives in a dangerous situation, to me is not only cowardice but could be considered an accessory to the fact which in turn would make him a traitor to the United States.  But since he has qualified as a traitor on other occasions and nothing’s ever been done, he’ll probably walk away from this unscathed and unpunished.

If I had one wish right now, I think I would wish I was the U.S. Attorney General.  Then I would use the full power of the Justice Department to bring a mile long list of charges against a man who isn’t even legally eligible to hold the office.  If I was unable to secure a death penalty for his high crime of treason on multiple accounts, I would definitely make sure that he was locked away in one of the darkest and nastiest prisons in the country and never let him see the light of day.  Yep, that’s what I would wish for.


Was Ambassador Stevens Funneling Weapons to Terrorists in Syria?

Trying to connect the dots on the Benghazi attack is a dizzying endeavor. So many names and places and most of all unanswered questions. The more we find out about the details and connections, the more we see how demented our foreign policy is and why the Obama administration lies about everything.

Based on the latest information, Ambassador Stevens was being used to broker an arms deal with al-Qaida linked militant groups who comprise the Free Syrian Army. The FSA is being used by our CIA to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Claire Lopez is a 20-year veteran of the CIA. This is her assessment:

“The facility in Benghazi was never officially a consulate. The consular functions were handled at the embassy in Tripoli. So, Benghazi was set up primarily to be the hub for U. S. support for the rebels. Afterwards, it seemed to continue its function to be the point of support for the weapons that were looted from Gadhafi’s stockpile. The particular ones we’re worried about are the bigger ones, the RPGs and shoulder-fired missiles that can bring down aircraft. They’re gathering those up, buying them back, and collecting them. Then, and this is what it seems like, those weapons were going through the pipeline, coordinated by Stevens, most likely through Turkey, to the Free Syrian Army. After all, there’s a presidential finding for its support. Connecting all the dots, it looks like there was an active pipeline of weapons from Libya, through Turkey, and then to the Free Syrian Army.”

The White House claims that they were not arming Syrian rebel forces. That was a lie. Our CIA has been arming the Free Syrian Army, which is comprised of Al-Qaida like militant forces, and the Benghazi building where Stevens died was being used to funnel weapons to these radical Muslims.
We know that on the day Benghazi was attacked, Stevens had met with the Turkish Ambassador, but we don’t know what they talked about. We also know that Stevens worked with Belhadj, who was the leader of the Tripoli Military Council, and Belhadj had been working with the FSA in southern Turkey to provide them with weapons.

The London based Times reported just 3 days after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi that a Libyan ship, whose captain was from Benghazi, docked in Turkey, and the ship was carrying about 400 tons of weapons, mostly surface-to-air missiles (SA-7’s) and rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s). The weapons were being transported to the FSA by CIA operatives.

This is the same kind of policy that created “Fast and Furious.” If we armed certain Mexican drug cartels in undercover sting operations, we could find out more about other drug cartels that we wanted to take down mostly for political reasons. The problem is, good people end up dying, and when that happens, the administration has to lie in order to cover up their bungled operations.

It’s also reminiscent of when our CIA funded and armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the late 70’s and 80’s for the purpose of fighting off another one of our enemies, the Soviets. Osama bin Laden was our ally then. This led to the creation of Al-Qaida in 1988. Then, bin Laden and Al-Qaida became our enemy and attacked us. Now, we’re arming them again to bring down Assad in Syria. And four Americans are dead, and the Obama administration doesn’t care.

The “anti-Muslim” YouTube video and the fact that numerous calls for security went unanswered, in my opinion, have both served as distractions, and both are missing the point. The Obama administration has been lying to cover up the fact that their foreign policy is to arm and finance terrorists when it’s geo-politically expedient to do so. When people die as a result, they can’t let Americans know the truth about how they support terrorists in order to accomplish their end game, and frankly, it’s been going on for decades. And what is their “end game?” Another unanswered question to which we may never find the answer.


Obama admin's 'loose lips' under investigation

Grand jury to review use of classified information for political gain

Members of a “citizens’ grand jury” will meet next week in Ocala, Fla., to look at allegations that the “loose lips” of the Obama administration led to the deaths of dozens of members of the U.S. military and the imprisonment of a Pakistan physician who helped locate Osama bin Laden – all to “bolster” the “political agendas” of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

A proposed indictment prepared by attorney Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor, alleges actions by the current White House – such as Biden’s decision to reveal the identity of the military team whose members ultimately eliminated bin Laden – violated the best interests and security of the nation.

It quotes Kurt Tidd, vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, who said in a sworn Freedom of Information Act statement denying access to military information, “Although it is known that [Department of Defense] conducts military and intelligence operations in foreign nations, publicly disclosing a particular military or intelligence activity could cause the foreign government to respond in ways that would damage U.S. national interests.”

Klayman pointed out to WND that by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury is not a branch of the judicial, executive or legislative branches of government, but an entity to itself.

“Loose lips” is part of the World War II advisory to Americans that “loose lips sink ships,” a warning against releasing any information that could be used against the U.S. by its enemies under any circumstances.
According to the 1990s ruling in U.S. v. Williams, the Supreme Court determined the federal courts lack the authority to require a prosecutor to present specific information to a grand jury.

The opinion rejected the argument that the concept of “checks and balances” allows a court to “exercise supervisory power over grand jury proceedings.” Therefore, Klayman told WND, it is the ideal vehicle to bypass all of the political attachments of the judiciary and cut to the chase in evaluating a president’s actions.

“Justice Antonin Scalia held … that the grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. Unlike [a] court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not,” he wrote.

In the same commentary, Klayman explained, the Founders of the country established the grand jury as an alternative to “violent revolution.”

It is a process by which “Americans themselves can enforce the law. This is our only recourse to hold the president and his accomplices truly accountable for their actions.”

On a website set up in support of the citizens’ grand jury, he writes, “With government corruption and treasonous acts running rampant, particularly with regard to President Obama and his administration, many have asked what ordinary American citizens can do to legally mete out justice. … There is only one strong legal mechanism that can be invoked. That is the so-called ‘citizens grand jury.’”

Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and later, FreedomWatch, has throughout his career identified and prosecuted government corruption, taking on powerful politicians on both sides of the aisle, up to and including Bill Clinton.

Klayman said there will be evidence, expert witnesses and other information provided under the authority of the 5th Amendment. Obama and Biden will have to appear, he added, or be evaluated while absent.

“Ocala in 2012 will become the Philadelphia of 1776,” he said.

The proposed indictment, which would be final only after review by the citizens grand jury, includes allegations that were spurred by the U.S. military raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden.

While the Navy SEALS were successful, their identities were revealed only when Biden “was at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel and he said, ‘Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees. Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday… Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As vice president of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs. It just was extraordinary.’”

Weeks later, insurgents in Afghanistan shot down a U.S. military helicopter, killing 30 Americans, “most of them belonging to the same elite Navy SEALS unit that killed Osama bin Laden,” the proposed indictment alleges.

Also, “As a direct result of this leak, Shakil Alfridi, a Pakistani doctor who aided the Central Intelligence Agency in tracking down Osama bin Laden, was arrested and sentenced to 33 years in jail when the Pakistani authorities discovered Afridi’s involvement with the CIA after an internal government probe.
“These leaks on national security coming from the White House undermine the men and women who put risks on their lives for us. This is not helpful. I suppose it could have served some short-term political gain, could have … told some nice story,” said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., now the GOP nominee for vice president.

But let’s ask this question: If you’re a doctor in Pakistan and the American government asks you to help in the future and you see that, what do you think you’re going to do? How are we going to get people to help us in the war on terror if this is how we treat our allies in the war on terror?”

The White House decision to grant Hollywood access to the raid details – for the purpose of movie that apparently will portray Obama and the hero – also was raised as an issue.

Days after the raid, Hollywood was invited into the White House so that they could receive a briefing on exactly how the raid took place,” said Fred Rustman, a retired CIA officer, “What kind of sources we had. What kind of methods we used. All for the purpose of making a Hollywood movie.”

On another subject, there are allegations that Obama “ordered the release of classified intelligence assessments and documents that detail Israel’s most sensitive military zones. Released were staging grounds (air base) and logistics in Azerbaijan where Israel Defense could easily strike Iran. Israel, a United States ally, had a secret relationship with Azerbaijan or at least, it had. Azerbaijan had granted Israel access to airbases in its territory along Iran’s northern border for potential use in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, a report published Wednesday in Foreign Policy magazine quoted senior U.S. officials as saying. ‘The Israelis have bought an airfield,’ an official said, ‘and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.’ … The Foreign Policy report by journalist Mark Perry, said the Obama administration believes the Jerusalem-Baku relationship is raising the risk of an Israeli strike on Iran. Senior U.S. officials have said that Israel’s military expansion into Azerbaijan is complicating U.S. efforts to defuse Israeli-Iranian tensions. ‘We’re watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it,’ one official said,” according to Klayman’s presentation.

Other questions have been raised on Obama’s orders regarding cyberwar, Obama’s secret kill list, and other issues.

“Information leaked was done so intentionally and wantonly without regard to, or concern for, the national security of the United States and whose only purpose was to bolster and promote Defendant Obama’s and Defendant Biden’s political agendas,” Klayman’s presentation explains.

Expected to be offered as evidence, too, are the testimonies of a number of people who have spoken out on the issue. See their statements:  (To be continued tomorrow....including several YouTube videos)

1 comment:

radar said...

The President and CBS News have conspired to lie to the American people and attempted to cover up the Administration's treacherous refusal to give help to outgunned Americans in Benghazi. This is a thousand times worse than Watergate!!!